Latest Media - Geelong Independent Isn’t
We wonder how the Geelong Independent is allowed to keep using that name, since only half of it appears to be true!! Of course, that’s only an opinion, but when it comes to the issue of clothing optional beaches, the journalists involved don’t seem to have completed their training in investigative journalism. However, they seem plenty savvy enough to see some sensationalism when it presents itself.
This is a big post people, so stick with us, we think it’s worth it!!
Take this latest gem from Jane Emerick - she did OK with her piece last month “Nudists’ look out on beach” (Click here to read), even managing to include quotes from both sides of the fence!! We don’t see that too often with the Independent, so kudos to Jane for trying to keep her piece balanced. But it couldn’t last, and we’re now wondering how this latest article could get it all so wrong??? Did Jane fail to complete the basics, or did the article fall into an altered reality hole on its way through the editorial process?
Before we get into our analysis, it should be noted that:
- Representatives from this website were not approached for comment
- No other representatives from any other nudist association were approached for comment (to our knowledge, happy to be corrected)
- The webmaster of this site was one of the attendees at the workshop, so comments made here have been checked and approved by someone actually present at the meeting (the nudist community actually has a QA process, because we like facts - they are hard to refute!!)
- The article has not been edited or modified for the purposes of this analysis (just in case you were wondering)
So, on to the article…
“Police on patrol but nudist outcome ‘twisted’” (Click here to read or Click here for an archive copy)
Authorities have twisted a workshop vote against nudism at Point Impossible in a bid to save the beach’s clothing-optional status, according to participants.
Haw haw haw, that’s hilarious - right off the bat this statement makes it appear like the “authorities” (by which we assume the article means GORCC, the police, and State Government DSE) don’t have an unbiased view of this issue!! I guess the police do indeed have a bias - to keep the community safe!! On that basis, surely if this beach was such a dangerous place like Cr Humphrey makes out, the police would be the first to indicate it should be closed?? So how did they twist the vote again? The argument is logically inconsistent for all of the involved “authorities”.
Surf Coast Community and Ratepayers Association’s Lyn Smith and councillor Ron Humphrey said the shire’s public statement on the outcome of the workshop had omitted its vote in support of banning nudists.
Interestingly, the actual vote result wasn’t reported at all in the press release. That may have been deliberate, we’re not sure the reasoning. Just for the record though, the basis for the workshop was to firstly define the issues, then work through a process of identifying possible solutions to those issues. And it is safe to say that not one single issue identified and agreed by workshop participants was resolved by closing the beach to nudists.
That’s why the media release lists the high level concepts like signage, enforcement, community partnerships, and environmental management - these things DO go a long way towards solving the issues.
Sixteen representatives of nudists, the public, Surf Coast Shire, Great Ocean Road Coast Committee, police and State Government attended the workshop to address concerns about men meeting in dunes behind the beach for sex.
Phew, for a minute there we thought there was an issue on the legal clothing optional beach that we didn’t know about. Because everyone knows that the clothing optional beach starts at the foot of the dunes and stretches offshore for 100m or so. The area mentioned above is not actually the clothing optional beach, it’s the dunes behind the beach!! So how is banning nudists on the legal beach going to solve a problem not on the beach? Should we mention the problems in the car park while we’re at it? What about the problems in the Torquay back beach car park? How about the tunnels/cave dug in the dunes at White’s Beach?
After the workshop shire chief executive officer Peter Bollen put out a press release saying: “The majority did not want to advocate for the State Government to revoke the optional dress status without first trying to improve behaviour through the measures identified�.
This is correct, the MAJORITY did not want revocation of clothing optional status. We’re not going to go into exact numbers here, but phrases like “vast majority”, “almost all”, and “lions share” would all be suitable ways to describe the size of the majority in favour of keeping the beach CO and trying alternative measures first!!
But Mrs Smith said she could “not believe� the published findings of the workshop.
“(The press release) didn’t cover the main thing, which was that the majority at the meeting followed the council view that the clothing-optional status should be removed,� she said.
Did the independent forget that small, but important, aspect of journalism called “verification”??? Because this statement is factually incorrect on two levels - firstly that it is a council view that the CO status should be revoked (it’s only the view of one councilor who managed to sneak through a motion when those who would have voted against it were absent!!).
Secondly, the majority at the meeting were NOT of the view that the CO status be removed. This is obviously a misquote, since we’re sure the members of the ratepayers association would be greatly concerned that their representative would make such distorted statements. We assume Lyn is displeased that the facts have been so obviously ignored (hey, it’s happened to us before). Feel free to contact us here Lyn, if you don’t believe you’ve been misquoted, since the results of every vote and discussion were so clear and unambiguous!!
“The agreed outcomes (in the statement) were not even agreed upon.
Since the agreed outcomes were prepared by the independent mediator, and the content of the media release was approved by all attendees prior to its release, it’s staggering that one of the attendees has only now decided the findings were not agreed upon!!
Does this mean the opponents of the CO beach think that signage, enforcement and community partnerships are NOT a good idea? The ratepayers association does not want the users of the beach to work with council and police to create a safer environment? Amazing…
“Some of the stuff in the press release wasn’t even discussed.�
As mentioned above, the media release was pre-approved by the attendees prior to release. It’s no good crying foul now, when there was plenty of opportunity to voice concerns during the media release approval stage.
Cr Humphrey called the meeting a “waste of ratepayers’ money�.
We may have had a bit of uncontrolled laughter arise from this one - does Cr Humphrey not view this entire debacle a waste of ratepayers money? Since he was the one that started this process, surely he knew he was potentially going to cost ratepayers a bundle simply by initiating the process? Or did he naively think the fight wouldn’t happen?
We’re scared to think what Cr Humphrey’s poorly worded, unresearched, rhetorical motion has cost everyone over the last 8 months in time, effort and actual dollars. The Geelong Advertiser poll said it all - 91% of people think CO beaches should be kept open.
“We never even went to the scene of the crime,� he said.
“If we went down to the beach we would have seen orgies.
“If it’s a crime scene then you examine the site. We shouldn’t have been making decisions without seeing the site.�
We don’t even know how to being analysing these statements, the concepts seem confused and emotive. For a start, it’s not a crime scene. Everyone acknowledged that inappropriate behaviour had occurred in the dunes behind many beaches - perhaps Cr Humphrey means White’s Beach when he is referring to the “crime scene”, since the police stated in the workshop that they had more problems with that beach than Pt Impossible.
“Orgies”? The day of the workshop was actually quite windy and not overly warm, so we predict we would have seen 2 dog walkers and maybe a runner or two. We also believe Cr Humphrey has never actually set foot on the beach itself, although a number of offers have been made to meet with him on the beach itself and discuss the issues - all of which were met with complete silence (as expected).
Cr Humphrey said the meeting had disregarded a letter from council to the Planning Minister in June asking for the Government to remove the beach’s clothing-optional status.
“Last year we asked for the removal of the clothing optional status because of the location of the beach, development and future development,� he said.
“The whole issue of potential growth wasn’t even addressed at the meeting.�
Actually it was one of the first issues discussed, specifically in relation to the use of Southside as well. Representatives of the nudist associations kept detailed notes of the discussion - it appears these notes are more detailed than Cr Humphrey’s. The growth discussion also caused some divergence onto the topic of off-leash dog walking restrictions, and the growth of the area around White’s Beach. The topic did not last long though - it was acknowledged that area growth was important, and could mean changes would be required for facilities (roads,toilets, lighting).
It should also be noted that Cr Humphrey uses a variety of justifications for closing the beach, and presents them in any convenient order he likes. We first became aware of the “urban growth” argument in Sept 06, approx 2 months after the original motion. So the Minister was not requested to revoke CO status based on growth at all.
The statement said the meeting had agreed on a range of actions to address “behaviour� at Point Impossible.
The actions included supplying Torquay Police with four-wheel-drive vehicles to patrol the beach and erecting keep-out signs and fences along the dunes.
These actions are listed in the press release, as agreed by attendees at the workshop. For a full review of the press release, refer to previous posts on this site. The recommendations are such a positive for beach safety and management that not even the opponents of the CO beach can argue against their benefits.
The Independent revealed last week that Great Ocean Road Coast Committee had begun work on “dune rehabilitation� at Point Impossible, including fences and keep-out signs.
Fantastic!! The process has started…
The shire will put a summary of workshop outcomes on display for public comment until March 9.
A shire spokesperson said council would review feedback before reporting back to the Planning Minister on the public’s input.
Former Planning Minister Rob Hulls told council last year to run community consultation before he would consider the shire’s application for a ban on nudists at Point Impossible.
Apologies for the length of this post, but the Geelong Independent article is one of the worst we’ve had to respond to. We commented previously on our willingness to pursue journalists and newspapers who we believe are not upholding their ethical responsibilities in investigative reporting. Articles like this are not improving that view.
We urge everyone to respond to the Surf Coast Shire workshop request for comments before 9 March. Read the press release (Click here to open PDF) and write in using the contact information at the end. We’ve been doing the hard work for months, so it would be great if everyone who reads this could give us a few minutes to write a letter of support.
Saturday, February 17th 2007 at 7:22 pm
Jeff, have you had a chance to write to the journalist? (although I am scared to call her by that titile!!) or do you know of anyone who has?
She needs to know that her facts were wrong, very wrong. And the paper needs to know this as well. So So very bad for her career.
Saturday, February 17th 2007 at 9:05 pm
Tony,
Despite numerous attempts in the past, the “Independent” has never managed to print an accurate, balanced story regarding Pt Impossible.
Most of us now don’t bother returning their calls, because our statements are always either ignored or mis-reported.
Thank Goodness none of the local community takes this fish and chip wrapper seriously!
Rob
Monday, February 19th 2007 at 2:52 pm
I have just done a search on the Independent website trying to see some of the other coverage the paper has given this issue. I found some pieces where the views of the nutty councillor Ron Humphrey was given too much of a go but I also found a couple that contained quotes in favour of our cause. I struggled to see why the nudist community would so vigorously attack a local newspaper in an area where one of the CO beaches was under threat until I came across an article from a few weeks ago (click onto http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/34031 ). From what I can see, judging by the fact that the posting I am responding to says the fbanavic site moderator was present at the meeting, it looks like the site moderator may be the person referred to in the story you can read by clicking on to the above link. I can understand you might be angry, John, but I don’t think it helps our cause by getting stuck into the media. As a journalist myself I know the benefit of maintaining a good relationship with the media
Also, I might add that it was foolish of Free Beaches to put forward a representative at the meeting that may have had ulterior motives for keeping the beach CO.
Monday, February 19th 2007 at 11:54 pm
Greetings Nudiebags,
Thanks for your post, it’s good to have someone along from the media (the Independent?) to make a comment on the issue - the nudist community has always welcomed open and factual communication amongst all the interested parties, media included.
Unfortunately you seem to have deduced that the moderator of this site (me!) is the same person cited in the article you linked - John actually sat 2 seats across from me at the workshop, which means we are very much not the same person!! I was a representative of a different organisation, not FBA, although I am a supporter of the work of FBA nationally.
The point of this post was not to get stuck into the media, in fact the third paragraph makes reference to (and links) an article that we viewed as balanced (and kudos was given to Jane for doing so). The point of this post was that the we believed the article in question was clearly un-researched and presented as heavily biased, and did not do justice to either quality journalism nor the issue itself. This may not be the journalists fault (since Jane has done balanced pieces in the past), perhaps it happened during editing?
The nudist community has had its fair share of critics, stretching far back before the fight for this little stretch of sand. We’re happy to have open and reasonable discussions about the facts and realities, and our issue with the article was this it presented very little of either.
Quotes from 2 of the workshop attendees who both cited only one side of the argument does not seem to be balanced reporting. Mix that up with no verification of the statements made and it was felt that the article did not represent the reality of the situation. The “majority” thought CO status should be removed??? That would have been quickly refuted with an email to any of the other attendees (at least 4 of them could have been reached using the media email address on this site!!).
It’s unfortunate you saw this posting as an attack on the media, and specifically the Independent, as that was not the intention - contrary to what you might think, we do see a place for the media in representing issues like these to the wider community. But we are firm believers in the media maintaining issue independence, sticking to the facts, and verifying the content of articles before publication. And we don’t believe this article was a fair representation of both sides of the argument.
Feel free to post another comment, or drop us an email using the details on the contacts page. We really don’t mind what the papers report, as long as it is fair, balanced, and based on facts!! We don’t think that is too much to ask from the media.
Tuesday, February 20th 2007 at 9:40 am
Cheers webmaster,
Sorry for assuming you were someone else.
However, I think you missed my point. Going back through this website I have seen repeated attacks on the credibility of the Independent and the Advertiser and, while the points raised could well be valid, I am merely stating the fact that the best way to prevent reporting you see as biased is to foster a positive working relationship with the local media. That doesn’t include calling for the sacking of a journalist or publishing claims the paper is biased, unethical etc. etc.
I know you said the posting was not an attack but it clearly was and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Independent publishes another article negating your efforts to keep the beach open.
I would suggest you contact the Independent and ask for coverage about the initiative to clean up the beach. This would be an example of positive media relations – after all, obviously Councillor Humphreys’ proactive approach to getting media attention seems to work for him. Leave your crusade against biased reporting to Media Watch and focus on getting these papers on side and I’m sure you’ll see a marked difference
PS. I am not aligned with the Independent. I am aligned with the naturist movement and have worked as a freelance journalist in the past.
Tuesday, February 20th 2007 at 9:32 pm
Hi Nudiebags,
As webmaster I’m in the (un?)fortunate position of being on both sides of all discussions. When this site was created the intention was simply to be a distribution mechanism for all information relating to nudism in Victoria that we could get our hands on. Over time, as more people contributed content, it became a place to repost submissions we received (usually with very little editing, for good or bad).
When we were informed of the motion to revoke CO status at Pt Impossible, it gave us the push we needed to relaunch the site, open it up to all contributors, and act as a true center for information gathering and dissemination. In the vast majority of cases this means the posts on the site are a consolidation of the various views expressed on various forums and via emails we receive.
My point? I personally have only been contacted by a journalist once for comment (which I handed off to others who are happy to fill the role of media liaison). I was meant to meet a journalist actually on the beach only recently, but I got there too late and others had already spoken to her. So I’ve never actually been officially in contact with the media ever!! The views on this site are generally not of any one person (or me personally), but a mish mash of everyone’s contributions and thoughts. This does mean a wide variety of emotions will show through - some issues spark a bigger response than others.
I will discuss your point about contacting the Independent for Clean up Australia Day with the others, it is a good idea. We do appreciate your input - different views (good, bad, critical or otherwise) are good for greater understanding within and outside the nudist community. We’ll take your points onboard - as a minority community group sometimes everything seems like a battle!!
Thanks for contributing
PS Happy to continue the discussion off-line, email me at webmaster [at] fbanavic.org if you want to chat. And there was a specific reason I thought you were from the Independent, if you’re curious let me know!!
Wednesday, February 21st 2007 at 12:06 am
My comment is about the statement by Cr Humphreys that there were orgies on the beach. The Independant reporter was at the beach on Australia Day. I wonder whether he/she saw any orgies on the beach whilst there. I have been to many Clothes optional beaches and I have never seen any such activites on the beach EVER!
Wednesday, February 21st 2007 at 12:27 am
Nudiebags,
Just a comment about the article by Hanish in the Independent. For a start Hamish sent me a rather bullying e-mail on my private e-mail address containing the link to this Gay cruising site. What I found is this. Hamish must indeed be a member of the site himself to have gained access to the material on the site. Also it would seem to me that JB was on the site trying to stop the members of that internet group from organising sex at Pt Impossible using the site. Hamish sent the material from this site to Rose Hodges by mistake and apparently her children saw it. He sent a link to the site to my e-mail where my children had access to the link. I don’t think that Hamish can take the high moral ground in this when he has exposed children to potential pornography and corruption via the internet do you?
JB was representing the wishes of the FBA Committee at the meeting and the Committee I can assure you does not have any such agendas as suggested (I might say in a defamitory way) by Hamish in his article.
Moreover, I did have a lot of contact with the local media. I have previously spoken to the Age as well as media in other States and have a very good relationship with media in general throughout Australia and indeed the world. However I found that both the Independent and the Advertiser misquoted me constantly and the Advertiser even made up a ficticious story about a carnival at Pt Impossible just to sell newspapers. They harrassed me night and day about this and would not believe that the FBA did not plan any such event. I was even called by the BBC at midnight about it! What happened was nothing short of harrassment by the media! I now have no repect for either publication.
Thursday, February 22nd 2007 at 11:16 am
Here we go again. Hamish may well have exaggerated “JB”’s involvement in the site and he may well be a member of a gay cruising site. So too was this journalist in The Age (click onto http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gay-sex-forces-store-to-close-toilets/2006/10/30/1162056914367.html?from=rss ). Don’t forget that journalists often go outside their comfort zone looking for stories. Marsketa, or Anita, I would implore you to use a bit more media savvy than you have shown in the past. Take note of my previous posts, eat some humble pie and try to get along with people.
Thursday, February 22nd 2007 at 11:27 am
Oh, and if “JB” has been defamed he should sue.
Wednesday, November 12th 2008 at 11:43 am
TO MARSKETA a.k.a ANITA GRIGG:
It has taken me nearly two years to find this ridiculous post of yours and here is my response:
If I was still at the Independent I would supply a copy of the very diplomatic and mildly worded letter as proof to readers that it was in no way bullying. The email (forwarded to the email address that you regularly use to discuss your nudist activities - including poll fraud) simply stated that it appeared an FBA representative was active on a website used to arrange illegal sex acts at Point Impossible - the very beach he was publicly arguing was not conducive to such activity. You argued above that he was merely trying to stop the activity…well, why then did he include a photograph of himself as part of a profile that also included a description of his genitals and a list of what were apparently his favourite sex acts?
Yes, I did join the site in order to get to the bottom (pardon the pun) of how the gay cruising community was exploiting Point Impossible’s CO status for illegal public sex - a point that was well proven by the hundreds of posts referring to the area and the fact that its clothing optional status makes it “impossible to get caught” engaging in public buggery. As “Nudiebags” said, “journalists regularly go outside their comfort zone looking for stories”. And what a cracker of a story it was.
You claim I exposed your children to smut? Well, Anita Grigg, I’d suggest that your children should not have access to an email address that is used to a) brag about your illegal activities and b) used to incite immoral and deceiptful activities among the nudism movement. That’s right, Anita Grigg, I have done a little bit of internet research into yourself and have unearthed allegations that, like the people observed indecently and illegally having sex at Point Impossible, you are fond of illegal acts at beaches yourself. Not only that, you manipulate polls to support your cause and have been found to lie blatantly to fellow nudists.
I’d further point out that the material accidentally faxed to Cr Rose Hodge was in no way pornography, did not contain photographs and did not contain language that you wouldn’t find on television.
People might like to follow this link to find out more about the questionable antics of a strange woman: http://www.tropicsnude.com/FBA.html
Happy reading Anita Grigg.
Hamish