I’m interested in ASC members’ views on the use of world-class and breakthrough in media releases.
We try to avoid them.
I generally think that if the work is good it doesn’t need the puff. The journalists can add it in if they want.
Noel Turnbull made a similar comment in a piece on Crikey today.
So, for instance, the Victorian government can be obsessive about describing things — from our events program to buildings — as world-class, but the reality is that world-class things don’t need to be promoted. It is symptomatic of Britain’s decline that the world-class cringe sometimes surfaces there too, but one never hears New York or Paris talking about world-class — they just are. Niall
________
Niall Byrne
Science in Public 26 Railway Street South, Altona Vic 3018
ph +61 (3) 9398 1416 or 0417 131 977 niall@scienceinpublic.com.au
Full contact details at www.scienceinpublic.com.au
_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
I can recall speaking with Lord Robert Winston, on a recent visit to Perth. Here he spoke of his career in science, in particular, the IVF program at Hammersmith Hospital and the incredible level of funding his group received from the government. Partially, through a feeling of responsibility and obligation (since his level of funding exceeded that provided to the most prestigious education institutions in England) his group trained some of its personnel as ‘communicators’ that would speak to the public in a form of transparent education. He gave me the impression that he felt the need to pay back the people for the massive amount of money being thrown at his program. The result was that even MORE money was thrown at his program; the funding increased by another startling degree.
As communicators, we have been bound largely by the media in which we published our work. It may be time to rethink how we present our ideas. I’m sure many of us can recall times when the responses to our ideas have been nothing short of wonderful. For me, publishing a short article on pain relief in vertebrates in a small, but widely distributed laboratory newsletter was a major milestone in getting my message across – I believe it made more of an impact than my publications in higher end journals (I chose to do this despite pressures from my superiors at the time). Also, talks I have given to the public either through being a casual Education Officer at our state museum or being invited to speak at the University of the Third Age (U3A) here in WA, amassed such enthusiasm that it continually reminded me of why I love what I do; renewing my belief in scientific communication.
Yet…we still have a long way to go.
Phil
href=”mailto:list@asc.asn.au”>list@asc.asn.au
_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
Hi all, On a frivolous Friday arvo note, I think someone early on was wanting new superlatives to describe breakthroughs. Since I have a house full of teenagers, I offer some adjectival offerings that could describe new and great ‘breakthroughs’ – sick, fully sick, awesome, cooli-ose, unreal (with ‘bro’ tacked on), “fett” or “hardcore” (for great, fantastic), “derb gut” (crudely good) or “böse gut” (wickedly good).
Great conversation by the way… I’ve enjoyed all points of view.
Cheers, Cathy
Thanks Rob,
Excellent points.
Your mention of reporting news, reminds me of an article I once read that focused on the differing styles of journalism as presented by various newspapers in the USA. The particular news item was about a young child who was bitten by his pet snake (and please forgive my ageing memory for missing all the details). The more ‘reputable’ papers reported the story as a boy who was bitten on his face by his pet snake and whose injury was only in need of light treatment. Down the other end of the journalism scale, the identical story was reported as a boy who had virtually lost his eye and half his face following the savage attack of…….and so on.
This then leads us to ask:
Where is the truth actually reported?….or does truth not exist in the eyes of marketed media?
..and would this current imbalance influence the nature of how a story is written prior to submission?
Eg. were I to submit a story on a new species of lizard (yes, I’m a herpetologist) in ‘The world weekly news (aka “the world’s only reliable news”…and yes, an extreme example), it would only stand half a chance of being published if I were to entitle the piece, “I had sex with a frog from Mars!” (these papers often misrepresent reptiles as amphibians).
(Update: A quick browse on the WWNews website shows the headline “Megan Fox is a Man!”
Finally, to play devil’s advocate, given that science can at times be bland……do we need to dress it up in order to sell it? Surely, it all comes down to our audience.
Thoughts for discussion?
Regards
Phil
_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
Thanks Rob,
Excellent points.
Your mention of reporting news, reminds me of an article I once read that focused on the differing styles of journalism as presented by various newspapers in the USA. The particular news item was about a young child who was bitten by his pet snake (and please forgive my ageing memory for missing all the details). The more ‘reputable’ papers reported the story as a boy who was bitten on his face by his pet snake and whose injury was only in need of light treatment. Down the other end of the journalism scale, the identical story was reported as a boy who had virtually lost his eye and half his face following the savage attack of…….and so on.
This then leads us to ask:
Where is the truth actually reported?….or does truth not exist in the eyes of marketed media?
..and would this current imbalance influence the nature of how a story is written prior to submission?
Eg. were I to submit a story on a new species of lizard (yes, I’m a herpetologist) in ‘The world weekly news (aka “the world’s only reliable news”…and yes, an extreme example), it would only stand half a chance of being published if I were to entitle the piece, “I had sex with a frog from Mars!” (these papers often misrepresent reptiles as amphibians).
(Update: A quick browse on the WWNews website shows the headline “Megan Fox is a Man!”
Finally, to play devil’s advocate, given that science can at times be bland……do we need to dress it up in order to sell it? Surely, it all comes down to our audience.
Thoughts for discussion?
Regards
Phil
_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
This topic, which has run before, seems to polarise people into those who hate the use of such cliches, and those who think that, for some reason, editors will love them and be favourably disposed to the “release” that contains them. A bit of evidence-based exploration is probably due here.
I have gone on the record for a while as being an opponent of “cutting-edge,” “leading-edge,” and especially “breakthrough” nonsense in these media releases, and it is more than just the grumpy whining of an ageing pedant.
Julian and others, while disliking the terms, defend them on the basis that they encourage editors to include the story in their bulletins, and say that is how newsrooms work. Perhaps some do, and others did once, before the terms became cliched. There is certainly evidence to the contrary. I have worked in the newsrooms of several stations for years, and I know from my own experience that there are editors who view this stuff with (usually well deserved) scorn for the hyperbole it often is. As the science specialist I was often handed science stories to see if they should run. My own reaction to “breakthroughs” was immediately one of suspicion, and I was often right in that judgement. I ran other stories in which the writer had used careful writing explain why some reseach was significant and bothered to make clear why our audience(s) would find it so.
We also talked about this matter at a Board meeting of the AusSMC here. Garry Linnell, then the Editor of Bulletin and subsequently Nine Network, Telegraph etc, was openly scathing about such releases, saying that every second science release seemed to describe a “breakthrough” and that, when he received them, he binned them on the spot. He also said that “Someone should tell them not to do it.” Who should do that but the ASC?
When Susan Greenfield was our Thinker in Residence, I was on a panel with her and others to look at Science in the Media. Questions from the floor about “breakthroughs” led another editor on the panel to say he rejected them almost immediately, as (a) usually he couldn’t understand the science described and (b)he could usually sense that someone wanted to use his media outlet for PR or for increasing their chances of getting their next grant.
Not all editors are swayed by these hackneyed terms, and why would they be? I surveyed some media releases on Eurekalert a while back – 5000 plus, and half of them had “breakthrough” as their descriptor of the work done. “Cutting-Edge” and “Groundbreaking” scored absurdly highly as well.
I maintain that we should discourage this nonsense because:
1. it is sloppy. If the work is significant, explain why – tell the story; do as Jen does and explain why others should recognise it as valuable; 2. it debases the currency. If every minor discovery is a “breakthrough,” what do you have left for Marshall and Warren or Frazier when they come along? 3. if you get something really substantial and call it a breakthrough, how is it distinguishable for the puff-pieces that surround it describing minor work in the same terms? 4. it certainly doesn’t “work” with many editors, who view it with scorn and discard the releases; 5. cliches of any kind are irritating. The media are full of them, and they are often hyperbolic to a ludicrous degree, as when a “tragedy” describes someone missing a goal or some sporting “hero” pulling a hamstring; 6. we ought to be encouraging science communicators to communicate well. Communicating in cliches is not doing that.
They almost always diminish the power of a story and suggest a writer’s mind assembling verbal lego rather than writing well. The media are full of them. Any accident in a small town seems immediately to turn it into a “close-knit community,” and do you ever see anyone reported of dying from cancer who hasn’t died “after a long battle with cancer?” Sporting teams get :”bundled out” while gangsters are “gunned down.” Australia’s outback environment is invariably “harsh” when it is not “fragile” and, like me, you probably never want to hear again that South Australia is the “driest state in the driest continent.” etc etc. Even writers of letters to the editor seem oddly afflicted by the feeling that writing for the media almost requires cliches. Where else these days do you read “Methinks” or “It never ceases to amaze me…” but in letters to the Editor?
Rob
Just in relation to Carol’s point about measuring the impact of science communication. It is obviously a difficult ask, especially in terms of pinning down causes and effects. However, there seems to be a very strong correlation between the level of scientific literacy in Australia (measured by PISA as per below), and the standard of science communication.
This is no smoking gun, but it is an interesting correspondence, the fact that Australia ranks near the top of the world, in terms of the level of debate regarding science communication, the size of the profession, and the extent of science content in the (general and specialist) media.
During the same period that this has emerged, there has also been a growth in the level of scientific literacy. (OK, many will bemoan that there has also been a fall in particular disciplinary scientific skills, maths, chemistry etc). But the level of general scientific literacy is high, and getting higher, and the fact that Australia boasts a high level of science coverage (esp. ABC, magazines, etc) is probably a factor.
So, what is needed now is some more focused research on what are the causes of this rise in scientific literacy, and what is the role of the media, etc.
Data to support this …
Thomson, S., & De Bortoli, L. (2008). *Exploring Scientific Literacy: How Australia Measures Up – The PISA 2006 Survey of Students’ Scientific, reading and mathematical skills*. Victoria. (Download report http://www.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/scientific-literacy-in-pisa-2006
href=”mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au [asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au] href=”mailto:asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au href=”mailto:jenni@econnect.com.au”>jenni@econnect.com.au href=”mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.auasc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au> href=”mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au>] On Behalf Of Julian Cribb href=”mailto:longneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au”>longneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.aulongneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>; asc-list@lists.asc.asn.auasc-list@lists.asc.asn.au> href=”mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.auasc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au> href=”mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au>] On Behalf Of Derek Elmes href=”mailto:longneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au”>longneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au; href=”mailto:asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au href=”mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.auasc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au> href=”mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au>] On Behalf Of href=”mailto:longneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au”>longneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au href=”mailto:asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au href=”mailto:nancy.longnecker@uwa.edu.au”>nancy.longnecker@uwa.edu.au href=”mailto:niall@scienceinpublic.com.au”>niall@scienceinpublic.com.aulist@asc.asn.au href=”mailto:list@asc.asn.au”>list@asc.asn.au href=”mailto:list@asc.asn.au”>list@asc.asn.au href=”mailto:list@asc.asn.au”>list@asc.asn.au
You are a science journalist, Peter, not the average news desk staffer. You know how overused such expressions are. As I said, I don’t use ’em myself, if I can help it – but I understand why some people do and I don’t feel they should be condemned for it. They are only trying to get more science in the news stream.
Julian Cribb FTSE
Julian Cribb & Associates
ph +61 (0)2 6242 8770 or 0418 639 245
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/jca.html
http://www.scinews.com.au
href=”mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au [mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Peter Quiddington Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 11:37 AM href=”mailto:asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au
Julian, come on.. When I am editing and I see a science release that say ‘breakthrough” , I think..’Oh, yeah, sure’, try another one…
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Julian Cribb wrote:
A few media realities.
500+ media releases hit the newsdesk every day. They get about 0.3 second’s scrutiny and are then deleted. Who is going to read a note to the editor?
As mentioned, the news editors are not interested in science. They are interested in a strong news story. Any news story. If the science story doesn’t sell itself immediately, it gets deleted.
In many, many science stories the new discovery or advance is so subtle and incremental as not to be apparent to a non-scientist. How do you explain the detail of genetics or nanoparticles to someone in 0.3 of a second? Answer: you don’t. you use an eye-catching phrase like ‘breakthrough” which says “read me” to the editor.
As I say, I don’t like it, and try to find cunning ways around it. But that’s real life in a newsroom.
As to “branding” – that is absolute rubbish in science. Branding is for industries that produce products that are very like someone else’s products it is, by its very nature, unique. Scientific institutions do not need to brand because (a) it looks cheap, commercial and lacking in confidence (b) their unique identify is already established by reputation they gain for excellent science.
To gain a good reputation a science institution only has to communicate the real value of its work to society – not try to conjure up a synthetic image by paying a brandmeister big slabs of money that could otherwise be used for R&D, to redo their letterhead and business cards.
I have a whole section on this – and the waste it entails – in my latest book ‘Open Science’ (CSIRO Publishing 2010).
Julian Cribb FTSE Julian Cribb & Associates ph +61 (0)2 6242 8770 or 0418 639 245 http://www.sciencealert.com.au/jca.html http://www.scinews.com.au
Julian, come on.. When I am editing and I see a science release that say ‘breakthrough” , I think..’Oh, yeah, sure’, try another one…
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Julian Cribb wrote:
href=”mailto:longneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au”>longneck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au; href=”mailto:asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au”>asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au href=”mailto:scribewyse@aapt.net.au”>scribewyse@aapt.net.au href=”mailto:list@asc.asn.au”>list@asc.asn.au
Well, I agree and very much disagree with Julian, having spent my time grinding away at the daily coalface, I know that restricting the use of descriptors is silly. Also, these little pearls not only fall from the lips of old hacks like ourselves, but are often employed by scientists. And, why not?
The truth is that any really good quality research that makes a genuine advance is by definition a world-first, and descriptions such as ‘ground breaking’ and ‘cutting edge’ are not out of place. At the same time, I think the general notion that editors are by and large disinterest in science, only its impacts, is somewhat flawed, and increasingly outdated. This is not (altogether) my experience; most need to be shown how and why a piece of research is novel, counter-intuitive, odd, strange, or potentially revolutionary in its future impacts. They need to be shown that the research has uncovered some new essential truth, a new fact of reality, or a new avenue for the human imagination to grapple with in order to address the dilemmas facing humanity, etc etc…
The use of terms like ‘ground breaking’ and ‘world beating’ is no longer useful in this task. In the world of journalism, these terms lost their currency long ago through overuse, misuse and abuse.
We simply need a fresh crop of superlatives.
So, all suggestions welcome.
A few media realities.
500+ media releases hit the newsdesk every day. They get about 0.3 second’s scrutiny and are then deleted. Who is going to read a note to the editor?
As mentioned, the news editors are not interested in science. They are interested in a strong news story. Any news story. If the science story doesn’t sell itself immediately, it gets deleted.
In many, many science stories the new discovery or advance is so subtle and incremental as not to be apparent to a non-scientist. How do you explain the detail of genetics or nanoparticles to someone in 0.3 of a second? Answer: you don’t. you use an eye-catching phrase like ‘breakthrough” which says “read me” to the editor.
As I say, I don’t like it, and try to find cunning ways around it. But that’s real life in a newsroom.
As to “branding” – that is absolute rubbish in science. Branding is for industries that produce products that are very like someone else’s products it is, by its very nature, unique. Scientific institutions do not need to brand because (a) it looks cheap, commercial and lacking in confidence (b) their unique identify is already established by reputation they gain for excellent science.
To gain a good reputation a science institution only has to communicate the real value of its work to society – not try to conjure up a synthetic image by paying a brandmeister big slabs of money that could otherwise be used for R&D, to redo their letterhead and business cards.
I have a whole section on this – and the waste it entails – in my latest book ‘Open Science’ (CSIRO Publishing 2010).
Julian Cribb FTSE Julian Cribb & Associates ph +61 (0)2 6242 8770 or 0418 639 245 http://www.sciencealert.com.au/jca.html http://www.scinews.com.au
Just at a slight tangent (and I agree with Julian on the main line), I have been describing out botanic gardens as ‘one of the world’s great botanic gardens’ recently.
While this is hardly something you can prove or test particularly well (although Sydney did come 7th in a listing of really good botanic gardens run by a St Louis local paper during a botanical congress…) it helps to get the idea across that I’m talking about some more than just the back paddock behind the Opera House.
It’s short and easy to understand. While I try to keep the hyperbole in check it does help to grab the attention, in my case, of the journalist and the reader/listener.
Tim
___________________________________
Dr Tim Entwisle Executive Director Botanic Gardens Trust Mrs Macquaries Road Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
phone +61 2 9231 8112 fax +61 2 9251 4403 mobile 0419 600 449 email tim.entwisle@rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
New South Wales Government Botanist Adjunct Professor, The University of Sydney
Blog talkingplants.blogspot.com; Twitter ‘TimEntwisle’
Botanic Gardens Trust http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au; Passion for Plants http://www.abc.net.au (search ‘Entwisle’); Freshwater Algae http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au (search).
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
The Botanic Gardens Trust is part of Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW). This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW) or the Botanic Gardens Trust Sydney.
I’d like to back up Julian’s comments below (whilst still agreeing to some extent with the others).
Certainly journalists who participate in the media skills workshops we run for scientists around the country (and sometimes internationally) will often ask our participants if it’s a breakthrough, world first, Australian-first, or cutting edge. And this has not changed over the past 18 years of running these workshops. General rather than science journalists ask these questions.
However, if it is genuinely a world or Australian first – why not celebrate this?
I am not into hype or spin; it does have to be the truth. Scientists, in my experience, are very conservative about whether their research is “world-first” and so unless they are very sure this is true and happy for this term to be used, I won’t use it in our releases.
With all media publicity, I pitch a story to a specific media audience based on its RELEVANCE (the “so what?”) to them.
cheers
Jenni Metcalfe Director Econnect Communication PO Box 734 South Brisbane Q 4101 Australia http://www.econnect.com.au jenni@econnect.com.au phone: + 61 7 3846 7111, +0408 551 866 skype: jenni.metcalfe
An interesting debate, but one that seems to lack understanding of what really happens in the media.
The reason journalists use cliches like ‘breakthrough’ ‘world-first’ and ‘cutting edge’ etc is not so much for the benefit of the external audience, as for the information of the (non-scientific) editors who make up the news bench in a media organisation and who decide what runs and what doesn’t.
On any given day these editors scan and process several hundred potential stories from journalists, correspondents, contributors, wire services and media releases. From this several hundred they will select maybe 10-30 for the news bulletin or news pages of the paper. The remaining 80-90 per cent of stories are killed.
A science story has a number of problems from a news editor’s perspective. First, the media isn’t terribly interested in science per se, but more in its impact on society and on their local audience in particular. So the science story starts behind the eightball, in competition with a politics, economics, crime, scandal, business or sport story. It has to push its way up the newslist somehow.
Second, the science wasn’t done ‘today’ – a primary requirement of 24-hour news media – but over the last few years. It may possibly have been published today, but that is not a very strong news angle. Media likes its news to be ‘red hot’ if possible. So in a sense the science story is already ageing news and there is no particular argument to run it today as opposed to any other day. And the newslist is already full.
Third, if you are selling a story, say on a new genetic approach to cancer therapy, the editors are likely to say “Oh I’m sure I’ve seen something like this in the news before” and kill your story just to be safe, even though it may be fresh as a daisy newswise. They have not appreciated the distinction between the genes in your story and the genes in a hundred other stories like it. Frustrated science journalists often resort to terms like “world-first” to get their editors to understand that this IS a genuine news story – not old hat and headed for the spike.
Fourth, the media is almost invariably local in its focus, and a term like ‘world first’ or ‘cutting edge’ is a signal to its editors that local scientists have done something good. Local heroes always get more coverage than those from interstate or overseas – whether they are scientists or sportspeople.
A science story has to work very hard to get into the top ten percent of publishable/broadcastable news. Most experienced science journalists will admit that more than half their efforts usually end on the spike. That was certainly the case when I was at The Australian, and I know from my colleagues on other dailies they suffered the same fate.
So while it is all very well to bewail the use of clichés in journalism – and I do not like them and try constantly to avoid them personally – there needs to be an appreciation among science communicators about what a science story is really up against when it enters the news mill, and why a science journalist might resort to colourful language to give it more impetus with the editors who have the final say.
To insist on the elimination of such clichés will probably only result in fewer science stories being published, as a scientifically-illiterate editorial stratum will not understand they are in fact about genuine, world-first, breakthrough, cutting-edge science – and send them to the growing scrap-pile of unpublished news.
While I applaud the elimination of self-praise and hype from institutional media releases, I defend the right of both science journalists and communicators to use every verbal device they can to disseminate human knowledge more widely via the media, without being too heavily criticised by their peers for doing so.
If this doesn’t start an argument in ASC, nothing will…
Julian Cribb FTSE Julian Cribb & Associates ph +61 (0)2 6242 8770 or 0418 639 245 http://www.sciencealert.com.au/jca.html http://www.scinews.com.au
Niall, Nancy et al
I recall Rob Morrison commenting on a similar issue several years ago. When posting to this list an advertisement for a science communication position not long after, Rob’s comments prompted me to invite people interested in “communicating cutting edge breakthrough research” to go and work for a mining equipment organisation.
I suppose the question I’d add is do we know what audiences (as opposed to communication professionals) think of such words (whether these ones or ones in other areas of communication e.g. “hero” sports people)? Are there any studies about audience reaction to there use or over-use?
Cheers
Derek
Derek Elmes Scientific Services Division Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW)
Hello Niall,
Yes, I agree. ‘Cutting edge’ is another one to avoid.
Cheers, Nancy
Assoc Prof Nancy Longnecker
Coordinator, Science Communication Program Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences, M011 The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley, WA 6009
ph: 61 8 6488 3926 email: nancy.longnecker@uwa.edu.au skype: nancylongnecker
There is no point explaining everything in the universe if no one is listening to you. (UWA Sci Comm student, 2009)
CRICOS Provider No. 00126G
href=”mailto:niall@scienceinpublic.com.au”>niall@scienceinpublic.com.au
_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115