Why are so many films so bad, former Vietnam war correspondent John Pilger writes in the New Statesman (London). "This year's Oscar nominations are a parade of propaganda, stereotypes and downright dishonesty," he writes. The dominant theme is as old as Hollywood: America's divine right to invade other societies, steal their history and occupy our memory. Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker is in this tradition, Pilger says. "A favourite for multiple Oscars, her film is 'better than any documentary I've seen on the Iraq war. It's so real it's scary' (Paul Chambers, CNN). What nonsense. This film offers a vicarious thrill through yet another standard-issue psychopath, high on violence in somebody else's country where the deaths of a million people are consigned to cinematic oblivion."  By contrast Pilger draws attention to the fate of what he calls an admirable American war film, Redacted, as instructive. The film is based on the true story of the gang rape of an Iraqi teenager and the murder of her family by U.S. marines. "There is no heroism, no purgative. The murderers are murderers," Pilger writes. "The great irony about Redacted is that it was redacted." After a limited release in the U.S., the film all but vanished. Non-American (or non-Western) humanity is not deemed to have box-office appeal, dead or alive. "My Oscar for the worst of this year's nominees goes to Invictus, Clint Eastwood's unctuous insult to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa," Pilger writes. Eastwood gives barely a hint that many black South Africans were deeply embarrassed and hurt by Mandela's embrace of the hated springbok symbol of their suffering. As for the Boer racists, they have hearts of gold, because they 'didn't really know'. At first I thought Invictus could not be taken seriously, but then I looked around the cinema at young people and others for whom the horrors of apartheid have no reference, and I understood the damage such a slick travesty does to our memory and its moral lessons." The film most nominated for an Oscar and promoted by the critics is Up in the Air, which stars George Clooney as a man who travels the U.S. sacking people and collecting frequent-flyer points. "This is 'a movie for our times', says the director, Jason Reitman, who boasts about having cast real sacked people. 'We interviewed them about what it was like to lose their job in this economy', said he, 'then we'd fire them on-camera and ask them to respond the way they did when they lost their job . . . It was an incredible experience to watch these non-actors with 100 percent realism.'" "Wow," cries Pilger, "what a winner." - New Statesman

Clement Attlee, Britain’s leader in the era of postwar austerity, recalls John Kay in the Financial Times,  was once approached by a BBC reporter who adopted the deferential style then thought appropriate. “Prime minister, do you have anything to say to the nation?” the journalist asked. “No,” said Attlee, walking on. Attlee had never heard of a focus group, and it is not likely he would have thought consulting one helpful. He and his opposition were surprised at his win. Neither side paid attention to the opinion polls, few of which predicted his victory. The world has changed, Kay writes. Politicians blog and tweet. Welcome us to their kitchens and shed tears on television. The relationship between politicians and the public has changed also. But not for the better. Politicians as a group have never been held in such low esteem. The more attention they pay to public opinion, the less favourably that public regards them. Winston Churchill, Attlee’s predecessor, explained the paradox. When an advisor recommended that he keep his ear close to the ground, he responded that the public would find it hard to look up to leaders detected in that position. Kay says it is hard to imagine [19th century British prime minister] Gladstone or [U.S. president Abraham] Lincoln on YouTube. Such statesmen did not bare their complex personality to the electorate. But wouldn’t we like to have a prime minister who is just an ordinary bloke, with whom you can imagine sharing a drink? No! exclaims Kay: when complex challenges arise most people do not want an ordinary bloke. They want Gladstone, Lincoln or Attlee. The U.S. accountancy firm Arthur Andersen showed that getting too close to the client might win business in the short run, but can destroy the whole business in the long run: if audit is not rigorous and objective, what purpose does it serve? Winston Churchill became the most admired politician of the 20th century. Not because he gave the public what the public said it wanted – it is hard to imagine a less appealing political manifesto than his promise of blood, toil, sweat and tears: but because he gave the public what it really wanted, leadership in a time of crisis. Kay writes that there is a difference between repeatedly engaging in actions you believe will make you popular, and demonstrating the qualities of leadership that prompt people to vote for you. The modern obsession with media management elides that distinction. That is how advisors obsessed with public relations have, in the end, damaged the reputations they have tried to enhance. - Financial Times

It is time to put aside emotion and be guided by reason in the quest for better drug law, says New Zealand Drug Foundation director Ross Bell in The Dominion Post (Wellington). "The Government's initial response to the Law Commission's report on drug law reform is disappointing. Justice Minister Simon Power's declaration that there's not a single, solitary chance he will be relaxing drug laws is symptomatic of the misinformation around this divisive issue," he says. The Law Commission does not advocate legalising or decriminalisation of drugs. Rather, it calls for "a rebalancing of our drug laws so efforts to curb supply are also better supported by measures aimed at reducing demand and minimising harm". Bell says even a cursory glance at the statistics shows that clinging to the status quo, as the minister appears to want to do, is not tenable. "Despite the punitive approach of the last three decades, a 2008 survey showed nearly one in two adults aged 16-64 years had used cannabis. At the same time over 333,684 hours of police time and $116.2 million were devoted to cannabis drug enforcement." When police resources are under massive pressure, the existing approach to enforcing our drug laws is difficult to justify, he says. "With respect to the personal possession of small quantities of drugs, the commission advances several options, including a formal cautioning scheme and the greater use of court-based diversion to education and treatment. Many other like-minded countries have reformed their drug laws and, in the process, embraced a more health-based approach to drugs". Bell says that in Australia this has been accomplished within "an overarching prohibitionist framework". "John Howard, a social conservative prime minister well-known for his hardline views on drugs, implemented a diversion initiative as part of his 'get tough on drugs' campaign - the law remained tough on traffickers and offenders who failed to take up diversion."  Bell writes that the Australian diversion initiatives had seen numerous benefits including large reductions in criminal justice costs. Compared to a traditional criminal charge, cannabis cautioning produced a saving of 1.5 hours per officer at the point of arrest and seven hours in cases where an offender would have otherwise had to go to court. "Importantly," Bell writes, "Australian diversion programmes have also reduced offending and the likelihood of imprisonment from reoffending. Lastly, diversion programmes have increased the cost-effectiveness of responses. One programme offered savings equivalent to $2.98 for every $1 invested, attributed to reductions in the costs of police investigations, hospitalisations, criminal activity and prison costs." - The Dominion Post
 -What do you say? Add comments on our new comments section above each article