Australian Newsagency Blog

A blog on issues affecting Australia's newsagents, media and small business generally.

Now there goes a real celebrity

Mark Fletcher
February 12th, 2014 · 32 Comments

In this era of reality TV (it’s not real, in fact it is more fake than non-reality TV) and social media enabled instant celebrity, it’s worth pausing to reflect on the passing overnight of Shirley Temple Black, a real celebrity with real talent and who did real things outside her celebrity life. Reading about Shirley Temple Black would be, I suspect, more interesting to many than reading about a convicted drug smuggler just released in Bali or a Kardashian who is famous for nothing of substance.


Category: magazines

32 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jarryd Moore // Feb 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM

    I’m getting the sense you’re not a Schapelle Corby fan …


  • 2 Allan wickham // Feb 12, 2014 at 6:38 PM

    Is anybody Jarryd?


  • 3 Mark Fletcher // Feb 12, 2014 at 7:27 PM

    Schapelle and her family should not get any air time or ink spent on them whatsoever. Any media outlet giving her attention and paying her for access should be shunned.


  • 4 Jarryd Moore // Feb 12, 2014 at 11:24 PM

    While the narrative doesn’t particlarly interest me, I do find the majority of people’s reaction interesting given that she was subject to an unjust judicial system and sentence – even as a guilty person.

    Nonetheless it’s unlikely she’ll be able to profit from selling her story given our extensive proceeds of crime laws.


  • 5 shauns // Feb 13, 2014 at 7:52 AM

    Might be an unjust judicial system but she and everyone else that smuggles knows this before packing up the old boogy board bag .


  • 6 Jarryd Moore // Feb 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM

    No doubt they do shauns. However I don’t believe this means we should turn a blind eye to it. Injustice is injustice no matter where in the world it occurs.

    I’d hate to see the story of a poor judicial system overshadowed by Schapelle’s personal narrative. Unfortunately that’s already happening.


  • 7 Jack // Feb 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

    Not sure we are well placed to tell the Indonesians how to run their judicial system. Nor have we been asked for our input.

    People need to take personal responsibility for the choices they make.


  • 8 Allan Wickham // Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM

    Well said Jack, maybe our courts could learn a thing or two from the Indonesians. Some of the sentences handed down in this country are a bloody disgrace.


  • 9 James // Feb 13, 2014 at 1:13 PM

    Since you are an expert in such matters Jarryd, you might enlighten us all as to the “injustices” of the Indonesian judicial system.

    Like many topics about which you are expert such as media bias, Id suggest that these “certainties” you espouse are very much in the eye of the beholder.

    And on the evidence outlined above, it appears that many eyes behold something different to yours.


  • 10 Jarryd Moore // Feb 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM


    Any country with a good judicial record and highly regarded system is well placed to comment on the laws of other countries.

    The “personsl responsibility” line is a straw man argument. No one is saying that a person should not be responsible for their actions. What needs to be questioned is the system used to determine guilt and the subsequent punishment.


  • 11 Ronny // Feb 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM

    I love the way u all jump up and down screaming from the rafters for Corbys head but I didn’t notice any skirt twirling screams when Chopper Reed was reeling in the greenbacks.


  • 12 Steve // Feb 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM

    So you comment on behalf of Australia Jarryd. I’m sorry I thought you usually had to be elected to federal parliament before you presumed to speak for the rest of us.


  • 13 Jarryd Moore // Feb 13, 2014 at 4:29 PM


    There was media coverage of the lesser standards of Indonesian courts while the case went to trial. Forensic evidence in particular was almost non existent. It is my understanding that the case was largely based on possession and the testimony of the customs official.

    Aside from the trial there is the issue of sentencing. 20years is not really reflective of the nature of the crime in compassion to the sentences for other crimes. She also faced the possibility if the death penalty. The list of countries that have the death penalty as an option for drug trafficking is not exactly a congregation of what people would consider ‘best practice’ when it comes to standards of justice. The ability of the President to reduce people’s sentences is also of concern – it flys in the face of the idea of separation of powers.

    I don’t espouse to be an expert on the subject. There is extensive commentary and information on the subject available.


  • 14 Jarryd Moore // Feb 13, 2014 at 4:32 PM


    What are your talking about?


  • 15 Mark Fletcher // Feb 13, 2014 at 4:34 PM

    The moment you step foot in another country you are in the hands of their legal system and processes and all the risks and challenges associated with these. Anyone travelling is warned several times prior to and during international travel.

    The only issue for me now with the Schapelle Corby issue any attention she receives. I hope Australians shun any media stories and send a message to any media outlets paying for her story.


  • 16 James // Feb 13, 2014 at 4:38 PM

    The more you write Jarryd, the more obvious it is that you have no clue of what you are talking about. Im afraid your “understanding” of the actual case law as it applied to Ms Corby would probably fit on a postage stamp.

    Where does the United States sit in your “standards of justice” ??


  • 17 shauns // Feb 13, 2014 at 4:54 PM

    Ronny , Did uncle chop chop make money from his crimes doing interviews etc I wouldn’t have a clue I thought he made all his money from being an Artist .:)


  • 18 Jarryd Moore // Feb 13, 2014 at 5:17 PM


    I don’t disagree. People are at the mercy of another countries laws once they leave Australia. My point is that this doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a genuine story about those laws and, subsequently, how they applied in her case.

    Do I think she should be paid for her story – probably not. However there is an ethical dilemma to be considered when one takes into account the potential outcome of the same offence it if were committed and tried in Australia.


  • 19 Jarryd Moore // Feb 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM


    I never professed to have any more understanding that what I wrote.

    The United States is the exception on that list. It would not have applied in Corby’s case.

    You are again moving in personal attacks. Challenge the argument not the author.


  • 20 Steve // Feb 13, 2014 at 5:25 PM

    comment 18 starts as “Any country with a good judicial record and highly regarded system is well placed to comment on the laws of other countries”. I think “Any CITIZEN of a country with a good judicial record and highly regarded system is well placed to comment on the laws of other countries” would more appropriate. The fact is nobody in a position of power to speak on behalf of Australia is stupid enough to bag our closest and most important neighbor in public. Alexander Downers comments this week on how the Corby clans attacking the Indonesian justice system was 180 degrees wrong is spot on.


  • 21 Jarryd Moore // Feb 13, 2014 at 5:35 PM


    If other countries don’t speak out against poor judicial systems then who will? I’m certainly not suggesting that it would be appropriate or helpful to launch a war of words on Indonesia, however some more subtle indications of our position and advocacy through the appropriate international channels would not go astray.

    As a strategy for those already in legal strife it is clearly, as Alexander Downer points out, one of the worst possible strategies that can be employed.


  • 22 Steve // Feb 13, 2014 at 6:05 PM

    Diplomacy is best played out behind closed doors not in the media. You might have noticed western leaders like to say they had a”Robust debate” with the leaders of countries like China and Indonesia over human rights. What they’ll never tell you is what is discussed. Australia can’t be so arrogant as to be lecturing our closest neighbors and biggest trading partners from public podiums. Especially as I’d think you’d agree Jarryd, Australia is far from perfect itself.


  • 23 Jarryd Moore // Feb 13, 2014 at 6:13 PM

    Absolutely Steve – the media is rarely the place to conduct diplomacy. I suppose my concern would be that it doesn’t seem to even be on the agenda. Some pressure, from the media, on our federal government to raise the issue might do some good.

    Australia is definitely far from perfect. I’d be happy for some foreign countries to put some pressure on our government over some of their policies 😀 … others might not.


  • 24 James // Feb 13, 2014 at 9:18 PM

    Jarryd you need to improve your debating technique. You need to start prefacing you comments with “in my opinion” or “in my “view” or “I believe”.

    When you make remarks as statements of fact such as “she was subject to an unjust judicial system and sentence”, “the story of a poor judicial system”, “forensic evidence in particular was non existent”, “20 years is not reflective of the crime”, the idea that the president (an elected official) can reduce people’s sentences flys in the face of the idea of the separation of powers” you are indeed positioning yourself as an expert on international judicial systems, the Indonesian system specifically, and the Corby case in particular.

    My assertion is to challenge your ability to state those positions as facts. My position is that your specific knowledge of those subjects could be written on a postage stamp – again not a personal attack.

    Preface your comments with “in my opinion” or I heard third hand from some else who knows something of the subject matter, and we are sweet.


  • 25 Jarryd Moore // Feb 14, 2014 at 12:32 AM


    That logic could be applied to any statement made … when you say “you make remarks as statements of fact” and do not preface it with any of the phrases you mention you are doing the exact same thing.

    One does not need to preface a belief or opinion with a qualifying phrase to identify it as such. If we did then the majority of the sentences here would require it.

    You’re arguing against the semantics of my comments and not the content.


  • 26 shauns // Feb 14, 2014 at 7:00 AM

    Oh well looks like miss Corby isn’t going to be making a cent from interviews it is against her probation and who says their system is no good


  • 27 Jack // Feb 14, 2014 at 7:36 AM

    “Any country with a good judicial record and highly regarded system is well placed to comment on the laws of other countries.”

    Please let me know exactly how you are measuring which countries have good judicial records. I’d love to know.

    To date we are still waiting for you to produce any evidence that Indonesia’s judicial system is unjust. Try to keep in mind that your own sentiment is not evidence. I’ll wait while you do your google search.


  • 28 Angelo // Feb 14, 2014 at 7:36 AM

    Whilst I hate to contribute to threads that have morphed way off topic like this one I have to agree with James and others in that your contributions seem to come across with a sense of pontification.

    I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever however I think it’s important to make sure that our posts convey the fact that what we are expressing is our perspective and not the final word on a matter no matter how right we think we are.

    That’s my opinion anyway.


  • 29 Jarryd Moore // Feb 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM


    Here’s the first result from a Google search. There’s plenty more.


  • 30 Jarryd Moore // Feb 14, 2014 at 9:34 AM


    There is no need to preface opinions for them to be identified as such. Something is either an opinion or a fact based on whether it is subjective or objective. Stating “in my opinion” does not change anything.

    Even if one can not determine if a statement is opinion or fact, it does not change their ability to challenge it.


  • 31 Paul // Feb 14, 2014 at 10:43 AM

    The sooner we forget the whole lot of the Corbys and let them go back to their previous existence the better. They were and still are a family of grubs well known within the Police community. Corbys Mums T-shirt yesterday with the “dean men don’t see” writing on it was, I suspect, a thinly veiled reference to her ex husband.

    I thought the only paper that appeared to get its priorities right with a cover story today was The Australian with its covereage of the pothumous VC winner. These are the people that should be inspiring us and getting covereage, not the drug mule.


  • 32 Paul // Feb 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

    grrr…that should say posthumous.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Reload Image