August 2006 #3 - Flugge and Joud - High Comedy or Just Farce?

Play Now -->

DATE : Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:10:00 EST
Entered in Database : 2006-08-17 20:39:41
length : 4500000
Link to the Show / Show Notes

'Lighten up a bit, will ya!" is a comment often flung my way. Some people have told me I'm way too dark and that I only ever focus on the negative. To a point, I agree but when I want some light entertainment I watch the news or read the mainstream papers. The level of satire, hilarity and send up I find there is far too good for me to compete with. What was it Kenny Rogers sang? 'You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em". Good advice. Two recent events may highlight how ridiculous and hilarious some of what passes for "journalism" really is. The first is the media treatment of the so called "AWB Affair" that broke in January and the other is the reporting on the trial of the 13 so called "terrorist" suspects in Melbourne. I want to pose a couple of questions. The first, what do Trevor Flugge and Aimen Joud have in common? Simple answer, they're just ordinary blokes. Second, what do they not have in common? Simple answer, Trev was paid by our government, Aimen worked for his dad. Third, what got them into trouble? Simple answer, Trev got caught with his snout in the trough while Aimen … well we still don't know but we do know he once posed, just like Flugge, with a gun. The mainstream media has a fascination with guns, death and cute kittens and puppies stuck in drains. When it comes to the first many will recall the pictures of Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant purported to show how thrilled they were to be holding weapons of death. David Hicks was, we are told, an "enemy combatant" who posed a threat to the United States, Britain and more importantly, Australia. He had a photo taken in which he is holding a bazooka. The photo was circulated around the globe as "evidence" that he, like Milat and Bryant, was not to be trusted. Then we have Jake Kovko who, it would seem, didn't follow standard military operating procedure when handling his weapon. It would also seem that his mates and many of his fellow soldiers didn't follow protocols either. He's dead, others may get that way as well. All these men, it would seem, had access to guns, were happy to pose for photo's with them and all have been or are still in trouble. Yet I can't help but notice that only one of the above has an air of "legitimacy" about them. Guns, it would seem, are not only weapons but powerful metaphors or artefacts which shape our interpretation and understanding of who is who is holding them, the context in which they are being held and the captions or commentary that surround them. When it was revealed in February that Trevor Flugge, former chairperson of AWB and Western Australian Blue Blood, had a penchant for guns and more importantly, it would seem, no training in firearm safety, the pictures spoke a thousand words. Accompanying the Flugge revelations were photo's of Michael Long, AWB's then Global Sales Chief. Flugge was appointed by Alexander Downer and Mark Vaile while, according to the Age newspaper, Long called himself "Agent Proton". The photos show Flugge and Long holding guns and "minding" sackfuls of cash. In the most notable photo of Flugge he is pointing the hand gun he is holding directly at the photographer. Flugge appears obese (measured by the current standards) while Long is bald and wearing wrap around shades. Both seem to be having a good time handling the weapons. The published photos of Aimen Joud, on the other hand, show a bearded young man holding an AK-47 and practicing good gun handling techniques. The rifle is not pointed at anyone. In photos published in the Herald Sun he is described as wearing "battle dress". Flugge's heritage stretches back into Western Australia's grain farming community and his rise through the ranks there to receive gongs including an Order of Australia medal. Aimen's heritage is "Lebanese" and his family have built up their business as honest working class people. Flugge, evidently, got a taste for the high life and liked what he got. Aimen, on the other hand, had valid fire arm permits. Flugge enjoyed his lifestyle at the expense of the Australian taxpayer to the tune of some $670,000, while Aimen funded his own holidays. Trevor Flugge is accused of a range of things that encompass falsifying records, misleading shareholders, misappropriation of funds and, one suspects, not providing enough receipts for the expenses he claimed. Aimen Joud, on the other hand, is accused of having "terrorist" material in his possession. Namely, some books, a video and some computer files. One of the books was supposedly titled, "Sniper Reckonings of the World" in which were, supposedly, instructions on how to carry out sniper and other attacks. Anyone with a Christian bible in their home has access to very similar material, albeit with spears, arrows and slingshots replacing guns. Trevor Flugge comes from "good" Aussie stock. I don't think I need to point out the attitude of many Australians towards Aimen's heritage. Two men, two different backgrounds, two different photos. One a 'respected' businessman, the other accused of "terrorism". Both just blokes doing what many blokes do. Posing for some 'Rambo' shots in order to show off their 'manhood'. However, one would expect an obese, middle aged "business executive" would have a little more sense that to be photographed with the evidence. The 17 year old Joud, on the other hand, would still be trying work out his masculinity and like many of us who have been around guns, is also trying to work out his relationship with them. Guns, contrary to common wisdom, are not neutral objects. There is a whole folklore and mythology that surrounds them. As phallic objects they represent male virility. As weapons they represent power. As media content they represent whatever the editors, owners or readers want them to. The comedy to be found in examining the photo's of Flugge and Aimen is that they both show exactly the same thing. Two guys playing with dangerous weapons. Nothing more, nothing less. What is tragic, perhaps, is that for one they mean public and political condemnation while for the other, half hearted attempts by the politicians who appointed him to distance themselves from him and bury the evidence behind political 'newspeak'. For one it means public humiliation. For the other, promotion to higher office and even though he did bring the nation into disrepute, costing our honest farmers millions, perhaps another OA. When it comes to knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em, it seems the mainstream media has a very well developed sense of comedic delivery. I ask you, what can be more amusing and dangerous than journalism that has no sense of irony or, apparently, ability to reflect on its own satirical presentations and utterances?

Play in your Iphone