Comments on: Dear John,

By: michael wholohan

michael wholohan — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:19:54 +0000

It might not be at it’s greatest, but THE GUARDIAN is still a very reasonable attempt at a news paper. Gov. complicity in torture & tonight (writing this from UK) a major story on NEWS OF THE world behaving very badly with hacking into 3000+ mobile phone accounts.-MP’s, cel;ebs all sorts. Over 1million pounds paid out in hush settlements. Yes quality Murdoch journalism hard at work.
I’ll bet it gets very soto voce treatment in THE AUSTRALIAN tomorrow…… as usual

By: Kevan Smith

Kevan Smith — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:32:05 +0000

As a long-time subeditor (ret.) Durutti should check his sources. The quote, “When I hear the word culture, I take off the safety on my Browning” comes from the pen of Nazi playwright Hanns Johst in his play Schalgeter. The play was performed for the benefit of Nazi yobbos, playing to theri anti-intellectual and anti-bourgeois proclivities. The line always got hoots and footstamping, apparently, like a bit of double-entendre in music hall.

It was subsequently quoted and alluded to by Nazis in speeches, and throw-away lines; so now the line is associated with two Nazi figures, Goering and youth leader Baldur von Schirach, the latter being filmed saying it in 1938 in a documentary by Frederic Rossif.

Martin Bormann is an unlikely utterer of this dated bit of opportunistic populism because of his penchant for secrecy and backroom-style reticence, especially in the 30s when the phrase had currency.

Goering is the figure most often associated with it, plus the mistranslation of “reaching for my revolver”, even though Goering was a bit of a culture vulture and a noted collector of booty art.

Getting back to Harto’s address, like Johst he was speaking to his own audience inside his own company primarily - the text of the address is pasted all over the intranet screens of the Morlock empire, so when one logs on, it is the first thing one sees, plus his not-so-attractive visage. It’s a bit like Uganda during Idi Amin’s tenure as generalissimo.

The address itself revealed more about Harto, and by extension Morlock himself. There is palpable fear of the net and what it has wrought among the upper echelons of News management. The Eloi apparently are refusing to go quietly any more.

It’s no the end of journalism. It’s the end of mogulism. Still, we shouldn’t stand in the way of progress.

By: James O'Neill

James O'Neill — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:16:22 +0000

There is a fundamental question to be asked and answered. Why have the readers deserted the traditional mainstream media (msm) in droves and turned instead to the internet to access information? Despite the ignorant rantings of Mr Hartigan it is because of the failings of the msm to fairly and accurately inform their readers of what is happening that readers are deserting the SMH, the Age, the Australian etc etc.
Think about the msm’s coverage of, for example, the first Gulf War, or the Iraq invasion, or the occupation of Afghanistan. Is it not the case that the msm were rarely more than cheerleaders for government propaganda?
Or think about the topics they refuse to cover: the JFK assassination; the use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq; the ongoing atrocities by Israel in the occupied territories; the truth about the 11 September (USA) and 7 July (UK) events; the murder of Dr David Kelly; etc etc. Look at the Project Censored website for their annual list of suppressed stories and ask yourself why is it that the msm refuse to publish these stories.
It is because the msm have abdicated their role of informing the public that people now turn to the internet which provides a variety of accessible viewpoints, and contrary to Hartigan’s claims, provides sources that can be checked for verification of their accuracy.
The bloggers are obviously not always correct. But they provide a variety of viewpoints that are manifestly lacking in our newspapers.
Hartigan seems to suggest that we should accept what his journalists say and discount alternative sources. Given their track record over the past 20+ years as Mr Kohler suggests, that is a leap of faith fewer and fewer people are prepared to make. The msm have only themselves to blame.

By: billie

billie — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:48:48 +0000

Spaniel, I always found USA Today and LA Times to be an absolute joke, but I couldn’t believe my eyes when I got hold of a Saturday edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail in June/July. It left The Age for dead.
I am aware of the claim that only intelligent people can understand The Times editorial, despite being amongst the top 1% in this state, I struggled - perhaps because I don’t have a classical education and wasn’t steeped in British culture. This was all well before Rupert descended on Fleet Street and bought up The Times.

By: Victoria Collins

Victoria Collins — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:28:46 +0000

I believe it’s hard to make the case for singling out the newspaper business specifically, when, as others have exemplified with their comments here, that it is the mainstream media in general that has stumbled and fallen by the wayside with one silly business model after another trying to get eyes back on the page and screen that long ago went over to Facebook, Twitter and the ‘Net.
To the extent that we get our newsreaders, not as figures of substance, like Mary Kostaikidis, for example, but as eye-candy(the things they put poor Sandra Sully through and in, just makes me feel sad on her behalf).
No wonder savvy consumers are deserting all these forms of media in droves and seeking out sober, straight-up, and hopefully unbiased, commentary at places like HuffPo, Politico and Crikey. Especially, as the FakeGate affair proved, you just can’t trust ‘em to be ridgy didge in their reporting any more.
I also agree with Mr Squid:
‘…it is not an independent, objective alternative news service and the abc ought to be defunded to the extent of the capital and operating requirements of news and current affairs.

the 7pm television news where i live often seems to be scripted by pulp novelists rather than supposedly serious journalists.’ Where I am, they appear to be scripting the newsreaders with Schoolmarm overtones and encouraging them to adopt disapproving/approving tones of voice. I thought they were newsreaders, not influencers & directors of public opinion?

By: spaniel

spaniel — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:35:35 +0000

a fair criticism of news and fairfax no doubt. and of their local management. BUT as i look out across the globe, i am hardpressed to find a single example of newspaper managment that got it right. not the NYT or Boston Globe. Not the LATimes, or Chicago Sun Times. Or any of the UK broadsheets. i don’t know about the non-english world, but i suspect the issues are not any different.

so its all good and well for locals to bemoan the evils of hilmer and scott, but in the end of the day it looks like our dolts were just a bit worse than average.

in the end of the day, they were all buggy-whip makers. and there was nothing they could do.

By: Mr Squid

Mr Squid — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:03:42 +0000

durriticolumn is also spot on: the hilmer years were just extraordinary.

mark scott is something else.

i didn’t think management at the abc could get any worse, but scott is undoubtedly champion of champions.

the thing that genuinely alarms me in today’s debate and in posts elsewhere is the extent to which scott and large secions of the abc pander to the murdoch empire.

the scandalous madonna king arrangements are just one example.

in my view the situation at abc news and current affairs is now beyond redemption in that the unit now no longer even tries to pretend that it is not murdoch lite.

it is not an independent, objective alternative news service and the abc ought to be defunded to the extent of the capital and operating requirements of news and current affairs.

the 7pm television news where i live often seems to be scripted by pulp novelists rather than supposedly serious journalists.

By: Mr Squid

Mr Squid — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:22:41 +0000

to the point as always, mr kohler.

i suggest however that the colossal failure of corporate and editorial management had its origins in the late seventies and was a runaway train by the mid-eighties - and some of those editorial knuckleheads with the initials john hartigan are still around.

fairfax management was a basket case long before Wokka entered the fray, and it still is. there is only one national newspaper worth the name left - the financial review - and i don’t fancy its chances in the new fairfax.

By: Durutticolumn

Durutticolumn — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:21:43 +0000

AS an old Fairfax person I couldn’t agree more. The efforts of Fred Hilmer and his useful idiot Mark Scott finished off the company although John B Fairfax seems to think he is still in the game.
Fred was criminally negligent in running Fairfax into the ground. There was a senior management bloke at Fairfax who around the time Fred arrived wrote a paper ‘Imagine Fairfax without the classifieds”. It was scary but it showed the challenges ahead. That bloke’s reward was to be asked to leave the company.
All attempts to engage Mark Scott in the problems of merging internet and newspapers and deciding which bits go where were ignored. Instead he and Fred waged war on the journalists.
To paraphrase Martin Bormann whenever I hear newspaper men saying “all we have to do is break stories” I reach for my gun. Newspapers can’t break stories any more and they should stop thinking they can.
But they can interpret and value add to a story . Paul McGeough’s coverage of the intervention has been first class as has his stuff from the middle east.
Hartigan’s speech was aimed at his board and his hapless foot soldiers no-one else would swallow that guff.

By: acannon

acannon — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:16:33 +0000

I found Hartigan’s argument that the reader was the ‘most important person in the conversation’ a bit strange. My knowledge of what’s happening in my city, country, the world is dependent on journalism (or whatever is passing for it on any particular day). I would have thought juornalists should be bringing us the stories we NEED to hear, that we SHOULD hear, not the ones we think we WANT to hear. If I was in control of a newspaper, it might only publish stories about baby pandas and how good looking the cast of “Lost” is. And the sudoku puzzle. So clearly, I should not be put in charge of a newspaper.

If I DO want to escape, I will read a novel instead of the news.

Asking readers about our preferred delivery method does make sense though. I feel bad throwing out two thirds of The Age immediately every Saturday, but some bits I like to be able to read at the kitchen table or on the couch.

By: Heathdon McGregor

Heathdon McGregor — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:44:17 +0000

the fifth series of the wire puts the case that papers are run for prizes to put on the ceos shelf. I have noted elsewhere that the indian student violence story did not even have a comparison with attacks on other races anywhere. Why report the news when you can call people racist and splash the headline. If stories were well reported and researched then readers would put more value in them.

Why dont newspapers stop lodging stories on the web if they cant make money from it? Then anybody putting copyright material on the web would be liable, no?