Well in true post-news, commercial network style, Channel 7 ramped up Australia's blood pressure last night with tales of a shopping centre security guard. Today Tonight's security guard action hero, 'Kevin', was a resplendent gentleman with an ASIO-like earpiece, hours of video footage and a sleek crew cut - who just so happens to think it's okay to talk to television cameras like he's a pro-wrestler raring up for a fight. Kevin means business.
Interestingly, TT's host used the term 'drug users' in the introduction for the piece and the journalist describes a person in the segment who is obviously substance-affected as being in an "altered state of mind". The language selection caught me by surprise and it seems as if someone has gotten into the ears of the show's producers. In the end, though, it appeared to be a contrived effort.
In his WWF style, Kevin opens by asserting that he is "protecting you (us) from the scum!" Arrrggghh!!!; the only thing left to do now Kev is tear off your shirt and snarl into the camera lens. Of course, drug users are not the only people occupying Kevin's time, as he goes about the unenviable task of monitoring and securing a suburban shopping centre. However, 'Desert Storm' it is not, and the ear-pieced Kevin appears to be taking himself a tad too seriously.
The viewer is first introduced to a verbal dispute between people known to each other that is derived from a misunderstanding. Of course the camera is dragged around the place, cinema verite style, establishing Kevin's workplace as a verifiable Hollywood action film. Australians sitting meekly in their lounge rooms should be freaking out at this point as the local shopping trip might require semi-automatic artillery the next time around. If this isn't enough, we are then introduced to our very first 'abandoned child' - dum dum (said in a descending tone like a piano soundtrack for impending doom). I couldn't help but laugh when the very Australian guardian returns, who looks like the children's grandfather, simply stating that "they didn't want to get out!" Fair enough, I say. I can recall many a time when I opted to stay in the car at the shopping centre to listen to more Sam Cooke on the cassette player.
It is at this point that we are shown the antics of the most dangerous of criminals; the kind that puts the 'under' in underworld; the 'scum' that Kev is protecting you from. That's right - 'THE SHOPLIFTER'. Ever since these devil children were shipped over to the prison colony that once defined this island-continent we call home, Australians have continued to deal with dastardly thieves. Only now, they are apparently stealing food to sell rather than eat. That is, every shoplifter is attempting to cart away thousands of dollars in meat goods. No, no, there are no longer people trying to cope with the FACT that they live below the poverty line. Anyway, one gentleman is caught and the camera footage shows that he is immediately grabbed around the throat with big Kev using his forearm to drag him across the floor when his actions cause the 'perpetrator' to fall to the ground. There appears to be no attempt at verbal engagement as Kevin immediately and literally, goes for the throat in a case of vitamin and seafood theft. No joke. It's difficult not to think that Kev is getting something more out of his job than just the hourly rate. Unwarranted violence then turns to pathos as a young lady removes a line of unpackaged sausages from beneath her tank top. TT asks us to shake our heads in disgust, but I can only think about how sad this person's life is.
And finally, the "junkies", as Kev calls them, enter the 'Thunderdome'. A couple are spotted using syringes (maybe? Not easy to tell with the blurring) in their vehicle in the parking lot whilst a man of Eastern Asian appearance is apprehended doing the same in a toilet cubicle. It is explained that drug users think the shopping centre is "a good spot for anything" and that they don't want "drug users in a shopping centre because there are so many children". Well apart from the drinking and smoking that has always taken place in shopping centre parking lots, the car and the public toilet can be a necessary setting for desperate people in acute withdrawal aiming to relieve incredibly painful symptoms. Of course, not always the case, but it does take place on countless occasions because people become desperate or simply have nowhere else to go. What the public needs to understand is that most people who inject drugs would prefer to use their drug away from places such as the local shopping centre. Public toilets are often disgusting and it is easy for mishaps to occur in the tight 'space' provided by cars. The preferred option is always a trusted home or secluded spot that can provide privacy, amenities like running water, shelter from unwanted 'guests' and a place to relax afterwards. People don't want to have to constantly look over their shoulder, accidentally spilling their drugs in the process, and intensely dislike immersing themselves in someone else's post-excrement odour. And yes, there are those who are just thoughtless, inconsiderate or impatient. As for drug users and children, TT may have been wise to seek out Bernie Geary's quote from several years ago as the Victorian Child Safety Commissioner: "...but I’ve seen people using in that pretty rapid way and then go into a period of contemplation and then become absolutely more than adequate parents and in some cases whilst using being very adequate parents. In fact I think some users that I’ve seen are certainly better parents than non users..." ('Four Corners': ABC: 2007)
Then, in a very concerning turn, there is a sudden move back into 'abandoned children' territory. There is no prefacing whatsoever, as the journalist immediately returns to the issue without any explanation at all. I may have missed something but the effect, and clear intent, of this sudden shift is the close association that the viewer is almost forced to make with the "junkies" of the preceding scenes. No tangible connection is made as no children are identified as having been abandoned in the parking lot because their folks were banging up in the centre's toilets. Instead, the segment's 'running sheet' condemns by way of implication. What is frightening is that the only explanation for the subsequent section is that the producers could not adequately demonise drug users with the footage they had logged and thus needed to haphazardly create a tenuous connection between abandoned parking lot children and drug using parents. This is a slightly strange move, as they couldn't even find legitimacy in the first example, which clearly involved a guardian who had given up on trying to convince his little ones to leave the car, and then, in the second example, there is nothing to show that the children in question had even been abandoned at all (sure, one of the children is sweating, but what does this actually mean? And what is the connection to drug use?). Of course, if you mention kids and irresponsible parents in the same sentence then it doesn't matter how much evidence you have - people will always be aghast ("Nooo! They did what to their children?!")
And then the segment finishes with a sequence of violent episodes, presumably from Kevin's footage reel, that were more likely to have been caused by alcohol, if anything. The 'story' section of the segment, however, ends abruptly and unclear. I remember one of my old teachers telling us during singing rehearsals that an audience only remembers two things in a show - the beginning and the end. According to him, the middle is meaningless. In this instance, we started with big Kevin telling Australia "Make no mistake; I will catch you!"; and the two things that ended the story were 'drug users' and 'abandoned children'. So if my teacher is right, Today Tonight viewers will take away the following message from last night's episode:
'Drug users are abandoning children in cars at a Queensland shopping centre and the security guard Kevin will stop this "scum" from getting away with it.'
Thanks Kevin.
To view last night's program, click on this link and go to the 'Suburban Warzone' segment: http://au.video.yahoo.com/watch/8334260/22261003
Interestingly, TT's host used the term 'drug users' in the introduction for the piece and the journalist describes a person in the segment who is obviously substance-affected as being in an "altered state of mind". The language selection caught me by surprise and it seems as if someone has gotten into the ears of the show's producers. In the end, though, it appeared to be a contrived effort.
In his WWF style, Kevin opens by asserting that he is "protecting you (us) from the scum!" Arrrggghh!!!; the only thing left to do now Kev is tear off your shirt and snarl into the camera lens. Of course, drug users are not the only people occupying Kevin's time, as he goes about the unenviable task of monitoring and securing a suburban shopping centre. However, 'Desert Storm' it is not, and the ear-pieced Kevin appears to be taking himself a tad too seriously.
The viewer is first introduced to a verbal dispute between people known to each other that is derived from a misunderstanding. Of course the camera is dragged around the place, cinema verite style, establishing Kevin's workplace as a verifiable Hollywood action film. Australians sitting meekly in their lounge rooms should be freaking out at this point as the local shopping trip might require semi-automatic artillery the next time around. If this isn't enough, we are then introduced to our very first 'abandoned child' - dum dum (said in a descending tone like a piano soundtrack for impending doom). I couldn't help but laugh when the very Australian guardian returns, who looks like the children's grandfather, simply stating that "they didn't want to get out!" Fair enough, I say. I can recall many a time when I opted to stay in the car at the shopping centre to listen to more Sam Cooke on the cassette player.
It is at this point that we are shown the antics of the most dangerous of criminals; the kind that puts the 'under' in underworld; the 'scum' that Kev is protecting you from. That's right - 'THE SHOPLIFTER'. Ever since these devil children were shipped over to the prison colony that once defined this island-continent we call home, Australians have continued to deal with dastardly thieves. Only now, they are apparently stealing food to sell rather than eat. That is, every shoplifter is attempting to cart away thousands of dollars in meat goods. No, no, there are no longer people trying to cope with the FACT that they live below the poverty line. Anyway, one gentleman is caught and the camera footage shows that he is immediately grabbed around the throat with big Kev using his forearm to drag him across the floor when his actions cause the 'perpetrator' to fall to the ground. There appears to be no attempt at verbal engagement as Kevin immediately and literally, goes for the throat in a case of vitamin and seafood theft. No joke. It's difficult not to think that Kev is getting something more out of his job than just the hourly rate. Unwarranted violence then turns to pathos as a young lady removes a line of unpackaged sausages from beneath her tank top. TT asks us to shake our heads in disgust, but I can only think about how sad this person's life is.
And finally, the "junkies", as Kev calls them, enter the 'Thunderdome'. A couple are spotted using syringes (maybe? Not easy to tell with the blurring) in their vehicle in the parking lot whilst a man of Eastern Asian appearance is apprehended doing the same in a toilet cubicle. It is explained that drug users think the shopping centre is "a good spot for anything" and that they don't want "drug users in a shopping centre because there are so many children". Well apart from the drinking and smoking that has always taken place in shopping centre parking lots, the car and the public toilet can be a necessary setting for desperate people in acute withdrawal aiming to relieve incredibly painful symptoms. Of course, not always the case, but it does take place on countless occasions because people become desperate or simply have nowhere else to go. What the public needs to understand is that most people who inject drugs would prefer to use their drug away from places such as the local shopping centre. Public toilets are often disgusting and it is easy for mishaps to occur in the tight 'space' provided by cars. The preferred option is always a trusted home or secluded spot that can provide privacy, amenities like running water, shelter from unwanted 'guests' and a place to relax afterwards. People don't want to have to constantly look over their shoulder, accidentally spilling their drugs in the process, and intensely dislike immersing themselves in someone else's post-excrement odour. And yes, there are those who are just thoughtless, inconsiderate or impatient. As for drug users and children, TT may have been wise to seek out Bernie Geary's quote from several years ago as the Victorian Child Safety Commissioner: "...but I’ve seen people using in that pretty rapid way and then go into a period of contemplation and then become absolutely more than adequate parents and in some cases whilst using being very adequate parents. In fact I think some users that I’ve seen are certainly better parents than non users..." ('Four Corners': ABC: 2007)
Then, in a very concerning turn, there is a sudden move back into 'abandoned children' territory. There is no prefacing whatsoever, as the journalist immediately returns to the issue without any explanation at all. I may have missed something but the effect, and clear intent, of this sudden shift is the close association that the viewer is almost forced to make with the "junkies" of the preceding scenes. No tangible connection is made as no children are identified as having been abandoned in the parking lot because their folks were banging up in the centre's toilets. Instead, the segment's 'running sheet' condemns by way of implication. What is frightening is that the only explanation for the subsequent section is that the producers could not adequately demonise drug users with the footage they had logged and thus needed to haphazardly create a tenuous connection between abandoned parking lot children and drug using parents. This is a slightly strange move, as they couldn't even find legitimacy in the first example, which clearly involved a guardian who had given up on trying to convince his little ones to leave the car, and then, in the second example, there is nothing to show that the children in question had even been abandoned at all (sure, one of the children is sweating, but what does this actually mean? And what is the connection to drug use?). Of course, if you mention kids and irresponsible parents in the same sentence then it doesn't matter how much evidence you have - people will always be aghast ("Nooo! They did what to their children?!")
And then the segment finishes with a sequence of violent episodes, presumably from Kevin's footage reel, that were more likely to have been caused by alcohol, if anything. The 'story' section of the segment, however, ends abruptly and unclear. I remember one of my old teachers telling us during singing rehearsals that an audience only remembers two things in a show - the beginning and the end. According to him, the middle is meaningless. In this instance, we started with big Kevin telling Australia "Make no mistake; I will catch you!"; and the two things that ended the story were 'drug users' and 'abandoned children'. So if my teacher is right, Today Tonight viewers will take away the following message from last night's episode:
'Drug users are abandoning children in cars at a Queensland shopping centre and the security guard Kevin will stop this "scum" from getting away with it.'
Thanks Kevin.
To view last night's program, click on this link and go to the 'Suburban Warzone' segment: http://au.video.yahoo.com/watch/8334260/22261003
No comments:
Post a Comment