The biased and unbalanced views of child protection by mainstream media
- Details
- Category: Child Protection
- Created: Monday, 21 August 2017 09:12
- Written by The Chairman
Can someone please explain why the Australian Newspapers to not appear to print a balanced view of child protection? All they ever print is how hard done by the caseworkers are (even when they allow a child to be harmed), yet only print how bad parents are. In fact, even the worst parents do most of the caring for the children, and caseworkers do nothing practical for the children. All they ever do is paperwork. So long as they get their paperwork done everything appears OK.
Why are parents time pressures and needs not printed ever, to ensure proper community supports for parents, but the papers are fixated on staffing levels and the daily routines of handsomely paid social workers?
Here is the SMH complaining about staffing level on behalf of social workers : Click here And here they are again complaining about the daily routine... They claim to be really busy but appear to have enough time to lobby and talk to the newspapers ... Click here. What a joke.
Even the first entry (8am to 9.30am) shows how slow they must be. It apparently takes an hour and a half to listen to 6 phone messages and pass a job to someone else. (They wrote three paragraphs of work on this hour and a half time slot to make it look like they were very busy. But in reality most of it refers to what they did on a different day. Usual deceptive reporting I think. If they are going to say what they did in an hour and a half why don't they just say that. All that the case worker reports doing is listening to a six phone messages and passing a job to someone else in the entire hour and a half. If they are so slow it is no wonder they need extra people... At $80,000 per year listening to those six messages cost the taxpayer almost $60 i.e. around $9.00 per phone call. Are phone sex agencies that expensive?)
Jeez - at that pace it is no wonder it took them 4 months to fabricate evidence in response to a request for assistance
