[english] minor fixes to script

diff --git a/english/oral.md b/english/oral.md
index 5b0deafa31744aba4bcc718ac939c6696c465d1a..006b8598047bc33f7a8d9e39ccfc95d79fc71c5e 100644 (file)
--- a/english/oral.md
+++ b/english/oral.md
@@ -72,18 +72,16 @@ Discuss context and recent developments
 
 ## Speech
 
 
 ## Speech
 

-As a young and aspiring Australian, I believe that I have the right to know what's going on in this country, through unbiased and transparent media reporting. Integrity of the media is absolutely fundamental to the implementation of a sound democracy free of corruption, and at the moment, we are dangerously close to the slippery slope of censorship and corrupt journalism. The recent raids on the ABC, which occured in June in response to a report titled "The Afghan Files", are a prime example of the impact that government control can have on this industry - it undermines the fundamental principles of investigative journalism, eventually leading to a blind and corrupt society. In another very recent case, which I will discuss later, a journalist's personal home was searched, because apparently she posed a risk to national security. In fact, she was just doing her job. 
+As a young and aspiring Australian, I believe that I have the right to know what's going on in this country, through unbiased and transparent media reporting. Integrity of the media is absolutely fundamental to the implementation of a sound democracy free of corruption, and at the moment, we are dangerously close to the slippery slope of censorship and corrupt journalism. The recent raids on the ABC, which occured in June in response to a report titled "The Afghan Files", are a prime example of the impact that government control can have on this industry - it undermines the fundamental principles of investigative journalism, eventually leading to a blind and corrupt society. Just this week, the director of the ABC has stood up against the government continued harassment from the government and requested that any action against individual journalists be ceased immediately. Sadly, there _still_ hasn't been any response from government representatives. In another very recent case, which I will discuss later, a journalist's personal home was searched, because apparently she posed a risk to national security. In fact, she was just doing her job.

 
 

-The concept of source confidentiality is one of the most most important ethical practices that a journalist learns in their training. Sources are at the heart of strong journalism and writing - without valid evidence for a claim, there is nothing to report on and no way to inform the people of what's happening in their country. According to ABC journalist Antony Funnell, sources are "the nuts and bolts of being a reporter" - there is nothing more crucial than getting information first-hand. In a Radio National program titled _The Media Report_, Funnell goes on to explain that interactions with sources are "anything but dramatic, very rarely earth-shattering". But it is these rare edge cases which provide a catalyst to an avalanche of knowledge which enables journalism to shine at its best. However, it is these rare encounters with a vital source which authorities are most interested in, and as shown in the recent ABC raids, this is what the government is most concerned about.
+The concept of source confidentiality is one of the most important ethical practices that a journalist learns in their training. Sources are at the heart of strong journalism and writing - without valid evidence for a claim, there is nothing to report on and no way to inform the people of what's happening in their country. According to ABC journalist Antony Funnell, sources are "the nuts and bolts of being a reporter" - there is nothing more crucial than getting information first-hand. In a Radio National program titled _The Media Report_, Funnell goes on to explain that interactions with sources are "anything but dramatic, very rarely earth-shattering". But it is these rare edge cases which provide a catalyst to an avalanche of knowledge which enables journalism to shine at its best. However, it is these rare encounters with a vital source which authorities are most interested in, and as shown in the recent ABC raids, this is what the government is most concerned about.

 
 

-Source confidentiality involves keeping the sources of a report confidential to protect the informants and journalists. To some, this may seem like a counter-intuitive principle - surely transparency and freedom of information are more important? But in fact, transparency is indirectly enhanced by journalists keeping their sources private. If an individual with some inside knowledge of corruption wants to see a change, taking personal action is rarely the right way to go about it. One extreme example of the effect of this control is in Ukraine, where a  decision made in April this year by the <!-- example - see Wikipedia corruption --> But in many cases, journalists act as a middleman for these individuals who are otherwise trapped. Obviously, exposing the source of the knowledge on corruption defeats the purpose of exposing it, since it puts the person in immediate danger. Thus, if the exposure of corruption required the individual to be named, it would never happen because people would be too scared to report it without fear of persecution. With source confidentiality, the media acts as a kind of objective, self-regulating analysis of society, representing all points of view equally and exposing events that would otherwise go unnoticed. And this is just the kind of perspective that society needs right now.
+Source confidentiality involves keeping the sources of a report confidential to protect the informants and journalists. To some, this may seem like a counter-intuitive principle - surely transparency and freedom of information are more important? But in fact, transparency is indirectly enhanced by journalists keeping their sources private. If an individual with some inside knowledge of corruption wants to see a change, taking personal action is rarely the right way to go about it. One extreme example of the effect of this control is in Ukraine, where in October last year, any type of news media, online or in print, had to be in the official state language of Ukrainian. Since many independent publications were exclusively in English, this posed a huge risk to the freedom of journalism in Ukraine. Fortuately, these laws were relaxed after the inauguration of their new president in May this year. But in many cases, journalists act as a middleman for these individuals who are otherwise trapped. Obviously, exposing the source of the knowledge on corruption defeats the purpose of exposing it, since it puts the person in immediate danger. Thus, if the exposure of corruption required the individual to be named, it would never happen because people would be too scared to report it without fear of persecution. With source confidentiality, the media acts as a kind of objective, self-regulating analysis of society, representing all points of view equally and exposing events that would otherwise go unnoticed. And this is just the kind of perspective that society needs right now.

 
 On the 4th of June, the Australian journalist Annika Smethurt had her personal home raided by the Australian Federal Police, in relation to a report she wrote revealing increasing power of government spy agencies in Australia. The subject of her report was concerning enough: it described proposed laws that would allow undercover access to secret bank records, email, and text messages, by the Australian Signals Directive. But the cowardly response of fear from the Federal Police is what's most astounding in this issue. After arriving unannounced, police spent the day sifting through all of Smethurt's belongings, an intimidating and frightening _seven hours_ in which her phone, computer, papers, and all her physical belongings were searched. The raid did not end in an arrest, but that's not the point - it is the principle of persecuting individual journalists for their contribution to society which is most troubling to me - it represents a lack of support for a transparent and honest system of governance.
 
 To understand this situation, it helps to put yourself in the shoes of the prime minister. Imagine, for a moment, that you are our beloved Scott Morrison, with some level of influence over almost every aspect of running the country. Of course, it would be ridiculous to try and govern a country by yourself, so you have to delegate the majority of matters to other specialists, whilst you act as the "face" of the leadership. Occasionally, your employees will make decisions that go against public opinion, whether they are necessary or not. And as the leader of the country, you don't want to dissatisfy your people by making a big deal of these unfavourable decisions. But what if some of these decisions are so broad that they affect _every_ Australian on some level? What if they are favourable for leaders, but not for civillians? This is the case where it becomes very appealing to hide these things from your people - after all, you don't want to bring them too much bad news. It's a natural response.
 
 
 On the 4th of June, the Australian journalist Annika Smethurt had her personal home raided by the Australian Federal Police, in relation to a report she wrote revealing increasing power of government spy agencies in Australia. The subject of her report was concerning enough: it described proposed laws that would allow undercover access to secret bank records, email, and text messages, by the Australian Signals Directive. But the cowardly response of fear from the Federal Police is what's most astounding in this issue. After arriving unannounced, police spent the day sifting through all of Smethurt's belongings, an intimidating and frightening _seven hours_ in which her phone, computer, papers, and all her physical belongings were searched. The raid did not end in an arrest, but that's not the point - it is the principle of persecuting individual journalists for their contribution to society which is most troubling to me - it represents a lack of support for a transparent and honest system of governance.
 
 To understand this situation, it helps to put yourself in the shoes of the prime minister. Imagine, for a moment, that you are our beloved Scott Morrison, with some level of influence over almost every aspect of running the country. Of course, it would be ridiculous to try and govern a country by yourself, so you have to delegate the majority of matters to other specialists, whilst you act as the "face" of the leadership. Occasionally, your employees will make decisions that go against public opinion, whether they are necessary or not. And as the leader of the country, you don't want to dissatisfy your people by making a big deal of these unfavourable decisions. But what if some of these decisions are so broad that they affect _every_ Australian on some level? What if they are favourable for leaders, but not for civillians? This is the case where it becomes very appealing to hide these things from your people - after all, you don't want to bring them too much bad news. It's a natural response.
 

-<!-- 4:00 -->
-

 But if some of these decisions affect everyone so broadly, how can it possibly be right to hide it from the public? Part of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covers this issue, stating that "every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes". This makes it crystal clear that the government should _not_ be hiding their surveillance plans from us, even if it is to strengthen national security. In fact, Australia has more strict national security laws than any other nation, according to experienced journalist Misha Ketchell. Further, Australia is the only liberal democracy which doesn't have a charter of human rights - so media independence is virtually impossible to enforce officially at the moment.
 
 And even more specific to this incident with Annika Smethurst's report, the Covenant says "The free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues and to inform public opinion without censorship or restraint." This paragraph goes deeper into the issue and describes exactly what the government is _not_ allowing in terms of communication: "a free press"... "to inform public opinion _withou_ censorship or restraint". I think it's quite clear at this point that the recent incident was definitely a violation of these rights, and I think that's a shameful action for the Federal Police and for the Australian Government.
 But if some of these decisions affect everyone so broadly, how can it possibly be right to hide it from the public? Part of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covers this issue, stating that "every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes". This makes it crystal clear that the government should _not_ be hiding their surveillance plans from us, even if it is to strengthen national security. In fact, Australia has more strict national security laws than any other nation, according to experienced journalist Misha Ketchell. Further, Australia is the only liberal democracy which doesn't have a charter of human rights - so media independence is virtually impossible to enforce officially at the moment.
 
 And even more specific to this incident with Annika Smethurst's report, the Covenant says "The free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues and to inform public opinion without censorship or restraint." This paragraph goes deeper into the issue and describes exactly what the government is _not_ allowing in terms of communication: "a free press"... "to inform public opinion _withou_ censorship or restraint". I think it's quite clear at this point that the recent incident was definitely a violation of these rights, and I think that's a shameful action for the Federal Police and for the Australian Government.