Journalists, check your facts before publishing!

This is a line that have been said so many times. But some people just never get the true meaning behind it.
In the May edition of Inside Sport, a jourstlist Peter McAllister has denialled his mistakes on the article published two months ago when a reader pointed out the errors.
unfortunately I could not get a hold of the march edition of the magazine. But according to some quotes the reader selected from the article "20 reasons to boycott Beijing", Mr McAllister really needs to get his facts straight.
The date Spring Festival was been questioned by Mr McAllister in his article. When Weh Yeoh pointed out the reason, Mr McAllister turned around and said, "is my unfamiliarity with the Chinese calendar a sin? At least I took the trouble to read up on what I was talking about".
I have to admit, I hav never seen anyone with an attitude like this. When you make a mistake, correct it. Why even bother to cover it up when it is so obvious that you are the wrong one?
Speaking on the journalistic term, when reporting a story about a country and its culture, it is a sin when the journalist is not familiar with the calendar the country uses. If someone writes about the Islamic main festival Eid Al-Fitr and questions its date, I believe that is the silliest mistake a journalist could make.
Other than that, Mr McAllister questioned the Chinese Government's policy on two children only for the Urghur families in North-west of China, saying the government is trying to breed out the nation. He ignored the fact that the Hans are only allowed one child per family but let the minority groups have special consideration.
When Mr McAllister was proven mistaken again, he pulled out the fact that Urghur people favour large family for up to eight children per couple. I would like to question him, if Australia has 1.3 billion people on its land and every couple still wants eight children in their family, would it be okay with him. The reason the Chinese Government restricted birth for its people is that the nation can no longer handle the capacity of such large number and still at growth. Mr McAllister ignored the fact again and accused the Chinese Government without investigation. Or perhaps Mr McAllister just wanted to make himself sound good and manipulated the truth.
There are more error and debate to that article. I can not point them all out or it will take too much space and time. In general, I just wish everybody remember to check their facts before you decide to publish your story.

By Nancy Huang

Paid maternity leave should be a given

As a young woman who is just about to embark on her career, and knows that at some point in the future I will be a mother, the proposal for tax payer funded maternity leave I heard this week has been a huge relief to me. Even at 22, the problem of how I will afford to have children and pay a mortgage does play on my mind.
It’s pretty clear that no one likes paying taxes or believes they should pay for someone else to have children, but think of the future.
Having two working parents these days is a must for most people. So having one person off on maternity leave is bound to be a struggle. A maternity wage means fewer struggles for new mothers and, strange as the idea is, the opportunity for you to raise your own children, as opposed to a stranger.
How easily people become narrow minded and concentrate solely on how this will affect them rather than the big picture. Everything costs more these days, housing prices, petrol, clothing, food, the list goes on. I can no longer afford housing in my home town, and I shudder to think what the price of real estate will be when I am looking to buy. In the past paid maternity leave was not a high priority because it was not a financial necessity as it is today.
Australia needs a larger working force to pay for the ever increasing retired population; therefore sensible benefits to encourage population growth can only be good for our country.
I want progress. For a developed country Australia has very poor parental benefits and support, Sweden has 18 months paid maternity leave, the UK 39 weeks and even many African countries have around 14 weeks. Our children are our future and it is all of our responsibilities to improve lives. Small mindedness and the argument ‘just because I didn’t benefit’ is not the way forward.
I am happy to pay a levy to fund paid maternity leave and help get our ‘lucky country’ out of the dark ages and into the real world of modern society where things such as paid maternity leave are a part of basic awards, regardless of whether or not I have children of my own.

Dr Nelson's stance on same sex legislation?

Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson just cannot seem to get anything right. Even when he is being positive, he is being negative. He is like the Mr Men book, Mr Muddle. The story goes that whenever Mr Muddle tries to do the right thing, he does the wrong thing. This was the perfect opportunity for Dr Nelson to agree that yes, the legislation was perhaps a bit too draconian and yes, same sex couples should be granted the same rights as heterosexual de facto couples. But, he could not help himself. He couldn’t just stop there.

Mr Muddle, I mean, Dr Nelson did raise a few valid points though. What of same sex marriage? What of adoption for same sex couples? What of IVF for same sex couples? What of the leadership of the Liberal Party? I thought I might just throw that one in there.

Ultimately, what is the big deal?

Why is it that same sex couples can drive, drink, vote, have a mortgage, enlist in the Armed Forces, pay taxes – let’s not forget about paying taxes, and yet, they can’t get married?

The Australian Marriage Equality website says that many same sex couples wish to marry for the same reasons as opposite sex couples do. They believe that getting married is an intensely personal choice and a basic human right – one that is granted without fear or favour to heterosexual couples.

It follows that by denying same sex couples the right to get married, they are being denied an intrinsic human right – the right to choose.

Joan Rivers (the comedian) said she thought gay couples should be allowed to get married, because then they could also get divorced, and be as miserable as the rest of us.