A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
Watching the slow death of traditional political TV, part 1
|
Is traditional political television dying? Have the likes of Insiders and the Laurie Oakes interview been left behind by new media and canny politicians? In a two part-series, Crikey invites readers, journalists and politicians to have their say. Let’s go back to the beginning. There never used to be old media or new media. There was just the media: print, radio and television, which were specially regulated by governments because they were so influential. The media business model, with a few variations here and there, was to aggregate mass audiences and offer them to advertisers. And the media sector had high barriers to entry — large fixed costs for infrastructure such as presses and transmission towers — and governments lifted them far higher via regulation. Traditional political journalism grew out of this model. It was about a trade-off — politicians got access to the mass audiences the media could aggregate and the media got access to the politicians. Journalists and editors got the role of interpreting — mediating — the communication between politicians and voters. Authoritative, independent and trusted political journalists were the guides for readers, viewers and listeners to what was happening in politics. And the close relationship of journalists and politicians naturally led to information networks and cooperation as well as conflict. The press gallery became as much the place that received stories from governments as investigated them. But even as political journalists promoted themselves as a key feature of democratic accountability, the whole model was undemocratic. It treated voters like sheep, herding them together at anointed times and feeding them carefully prepared information selected by journalists, editors and proprietors. And the mainstream media weren’t the unbiased and independent filters they pretended to be. They were owned by large, conservative corporations. The Fairfax family’s publications never editorialised for Labor. Rupert Murdoch started out as a crusading lefty but moved to the right as his empire grew. Or they were public broadcasters regularly accused of ideological bias. Before becoming a byword for left-wing radicalism, the ABC was considered the broadcasting equivalent of Fairfax: stuffy, conservative and anti-Labor like its old, white, middle-class audience. In reaction, small left-wing newspapers, some funded by the labour movement, others more radical in ideology, sought to balance the conservative bias of mainstream media. But by the early ’80s, such ideological vanity publications were on the way out as trade union membership began falling. Labor had even bought its own radio station in Sydney, 2KY. And traditional political journalism — particularly on television — used certain almost ritualistic formats. One was the interrogation by a senior journalist of a politician, a “grilling” in which an invariably middle-aged, white, male journalist tried to embarrass a politician (of usually the same demographic). Such p*ssing contests were, especially in the hands of egomaniacs such as Richard Carleton, as much about journalistic self-importance as about informing audiences — probably more so. Another ritual was based on the idea that watching a panel of journalists discuss their area of expertise would be innately informative and interesting. Politicians were the first ones to start breaking the model down. Some, such as John Howard, decided they didn’t get fair treatment from the press gallery. He preferred more direct and more easily controlled means of communication, such as talkback radio and media pets (usually in News Ltd), although he retained a noblesse oblige attitude towards traditional interviews. Kevin Rudd adroitly used FM radio and light entertainment programs to reach demographics such as young people who didn’t use traditional media anywhere near as much as their parents and who ignored traditional political journalism. And, at the hands of political advisers and spinners, there came to be no distinction between the content politicians were putting out — media appearances, Question Time sound bites (carefully addressed to the chamber camera for the evening news), press releases and replies to correspondence became variations of the same talking points. Interviews stopped being grillings and started being used as just another platform to convey the same message. This has been happening for decades — Jane Singleton terminated an interview with Bob Hawke in the 1980s because he persistently refused to answer her questions, but has grown considerably worse this decade (Singleton copped some confected outrage whipped up by Labor’s media people at the time and few journalists have ever dared to follow her lead). Penny Wong, whose response to most questions is to redirect (via the inevitable segue “can I say this?”) to her preferred topic, is only the most blatant offender in this regard. The other disruptive factor was that the internet arrived and began wrecking the whole media model. Suddenly people could start generating and distributing content as well as receiving it. The media became more of a dialogue than a monologue. Small media and even bloggers could compete with well-established media. Distinctions between “lean forward” and “lean back” audiences were no sooner identified than they began to blur as digital broadcasting yielded more choice and control by viewers. The mainstream media struggled to cope as new media promised interactivity much greater than “Letters to the Editor” or a TV network switchboard and viewers decided that media consumption should fit into their lives, not the other way around. The internet had particular implications for political journalism. It enabled audiences to be almost as well-informed as your average, and increasingly time-poor, political journalist, particularly about complex policy issues. Twenty years ago, the lack of online access meant even political documents intended for public consumption such as press releases and White Papers weren’t easily available to the public. Now there are terabytes of information from politicians, business and NGOs just a few clicks away. So what do we need now from political broadcast journalism? We need formats that can evolve to match the rapid development of the communication techniques of our leading politicians. In this regard, Kevin Rudd has taken the John Howard model far beyond where his predecessor left it but many in the press gallery seemed to have barely worked out that it’s not the Keating years anymore. The traditional grilling is no longer an effective means of media accountability. We need journalists who, if they want to stick to traditional one-on-one interviews, are well-enough briefed to be able to match it with their subjects. And if journalists believe they provide accountability, let’s see it in action. Producers and interviewers need to be aggressive enough to tell politicians that if they refuse to answer questions the interview — the precious opportunity to pump out key messages — will be terminated. The Prime Minister and Penny Wong should be the first targets in that regard. And the mainstream media need to get over themselves and learn from new media that interactivity and audience engagement are more than just comments boxes at the end of articles — it should be part of the content process as well, especially in opinion and analysis. Part 2: what 7.30 Report, Insiders, Meet the Press and other programs get right and wrong — and what some of their audiences think. Read the subscriber-only story here (not a subscriber? just follow the prompts to take out a free trial and read the article in full) |
|
|
23 Comments
Bring back Jim Waley and the Sunday program!
Great article Bernard, our television is regularly the recipient of flying toys and newspapers when political journos waste their time, and ours, by letting politicians refuse to give any answer other than the message of the day (I’m sure we all remember Peter Garrett’s short jocular conversation…).
I would like to know your thoughts (may you already intend to address this tomorrow?) on how to break the cycle.
Political heavies are not going to grace the smaller, more independent journos with their presence, the mainstream folk don’t seem to be able to join up and do a collective Singleton on them and no-one in the main-stream is likely to risk being blackballed by going it alone.
So all that remains is the status quo and fewer people everyday bothering to tune in. Which all looks very gloomy, but surely there has to be some alternative?
I am not sure that big traditional media is losing as much ground as articles like this one, kind of imply.
I hope they are losing ground, but there seems to be still is a blind acceptance that “real” news comes from the newspapers and tv and radio - the “rest” is all opinion. Now that is nonesense of course. But I live in the south east metro of Melbourne where the Herald Sun reigns. My vision is probably skewed because of that rather depressing reality. I still meet people who don’t think the climate is in trouble, because they have read an Andrew Bolt article. I still know folk who think that Black Saturday was caused by the Greens party because of someone’s letter to the editor in the Sun. I talk to people who honestly believe that Pauline Hanson is still the answer for Australia. Ahh… the joys of slowly seeking to persuade and convince….
Anyway: a great article - looking forward to part 2.
People hate the US Cable network Fox news, because of Beck/Oreilley/Hannity ect ect. While I dont always agree with the accuracy of these shows, they are entertaining and they have huge ratings in the US. Not to mention they provide an alternative to the status Liberal quo.
Maybe the key to sparking interest in shows is not having such boring formats, making the discussions more emotive, not less. Mike Bowers talking pictures on Insight is an example of the most boring form of TV Journalism, one on one perspectives with no name cartoonists….who gives a crap.
When the program Q and A is intersting is when people are getting heated and not so guarded. The worst form of interview Journalism is Laurie Oaks type media. When Answers are scripted, when politicians have an oppertunity to be coy, guarded and unoriginal. You need to keep it fresh keep it informative but not scripted.
While Andrew Bolt is an example of a Boring conservative, and his points are largley ignored, he does highight issues, or attempts to, that dont recieve alot of attention. He may be a an annoying conservative but have him interviewing Julia Gillard when the questions have not been sent to her, and you will probably get TV gold.
As long as accuracy and truth are maintained, it would be entertaining.
The key is the formats, not the interest levels, i believe the current formats are sooo boring and provide no entertainment to people who enjoy a-pac and have seen how serious people are in question time (lol).
Get some of the oldies who enjoy control (macklin ect) off the box, and you will see a much more excited viewing audience.
Examples are the town halls you see in the US lately.
I agree heavily with you Bernard that journalists should no longer accept politicians who refuse to answer questions. The public is smart enough to see through the P.R spin that politicians use, and if journalists choose not to press them for honest replies, it’s the journalist who will look stupid.
While I highly value the journalism principles of ‘old media’, it was an ‘undemocratic’ model - as you point out. Enough nostalgia already, because journalism isn’t dead.
For example, Q&A is a fantastic integration of new media (Twitter, ABC online, mobile, etc…) with intelligent presentation that checks the boxes for ‘interactivity and audience engagement’. The fact that my seventeen-year-old brother (who doesn’t read/watch/listen to the news) tunes into this program weekly and joins the debate on Twitter, shows that some small element of the media as the Fourth Estate exists. Thanks also to Tony Jones - what a man.
Interesting article. Bring on part 2.
BTW find me a Journalist that is willing to go after political leaders for breaking election promises. I.E K Rudd the economic conservative….lol.
Australian political tv journalists approach is an endless stream of gotcha attempts. Most tuned out long ago.
Local verions of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and yes even Glen Beck are a future. Really the only way to attack the spin cycle and laziness that produces gotcha tv.
I have watched a couple of times, that new Channel 10 news discussion show at 7.00 pm - the one with the young comic presenters. I think that will be a winner getting viewers in the younger age group. Time will tell if it is sound journalism or just more popularism.
Excellent article, Bernard. Truly apposite when you make the point of internet media and the changes it has wrought. Once, in the good/bad old days, if you wanted to make a point it was a question of sending a letter to The Age then sweating on it for a few days, only to find you had missed out. Time passed and it was by fax, finally it was on a non user- friendly email system. IMHO proper on-line newspapers have been leaving the old system for dead.
Ideally the politicians like Kevin Rudd, the nerve-deadening Penny Wong and the verbosity of Malcolm Turnbull should be available to be interviewed by journalists like you on the pages of internet newsmedia. Each politician being interviewed should be strapped to a device which is linked up to a ‘boring-meter’ and as soon as he/she heads into the waters of “If you understood the press release about the inconsequentially of adhering to Bill 657c and its meaningful…’ A light would go up as a warning. When they did it again they would be chopped off mid-sentence and the next one would be given the nod. That would smarten up the bastards.
Good for politics, good for the best journalists, marvellous for the voters.
I believe integrity is the key. Bullmore was a sharp movie about financially secure media stars interviewing rich politicians where self interest was the paradigm. So much for credible old media. If web 2.0 didn’t exist it would have to be invented.
Why do you think so many hacktivists pioneered open source and challenged microsoft hegemony with competing operating systems? They may not win against the mainstream corporations but they provide a truth by their juxtaposition.
Sooo … I don’t buy the cheap sledging of ‘boring formats’ regarding such strong intellects as Laurie Oakes or Mike Bowers. Indeed Talking Pictures was great this last 2 weeks on ‘Insight’ (sic, actually Insiders). An old saying probably applies - there is no such thing as boredom only boring people.
As for Q&A I see it as recycling of establishment figures on the ABC contact list, pure recycling. I don’t watch it. Don’t read the ABC blog thing either. It’s not primary source as far as I’m concerned. Might be wrong, I don’t know.
Fact is 70% of Australians don’t worry about a higher education so why expect them to follow cerebral policy debates? It’s not realistic. But the masses do know integrity even by instinct or intuition. They will even cop being criticised and insulted to their face if they believe it’s sincere and honest. They won’t like it but they’ll listen. And if the facts stack up the brave win through. There will be some bruises along the way but hey life is not a picnic.
But it comes down to integrity old or new. Good night and good luck.
Given the meeja training the pollies and BizFlacks receive/have inserted surgically, the old interview when an intelligent person sought answers from another (passably) intelligent person (at that point in history both white males, qed) is as relevant as buggy whips and bussles.
As Jon Stewart has shown, anyone with half a brain can turn these simulacrams into gibberbots whose thinned gene pool offered no back-up in the way of independent thought - or in the case of Garrett, has had it removed - he IS after all a born again Xtian.
Decades ago, when community radio was exactly that, the pollies never returned more than twice for interview because their interrogators lacked, or refused to apply with a trowel, deference to their self perceived worth. Why wouldn’t the print & gov protected free-to-air broadcasters doff theiur caps and tug the forelock?
As Jeremy Paxman said, 20 yrs ago, “why is this lying bastard lying to me and why am I allwoing it to?”
No show without punch, in this case punch is ‘made in australia’ Quote “While Andrew Bolt is an example of a Boring conservative, and his points are largley ignored, he does highight issues, or attempts to, that dont recieve alot of attention”. Oh shucks I had never heard of Climate Change or Greenhouse either!!!!
Hehe, I suspect he devotes more space to that topic than any other, including his basic racist comments from week to week.
Bernard - in your opening paragraph you say “There never used to be old media or new media. There was just the media: print, radio and television, which were specially regulated by governments because they were so influential. The media business model, with a few variations here and there, was to aggregate mass audiences and offer them to advertisers. And the media sector had high barriers to entry — large fixed costs for infrastructure such as presses and transmission towers — and governments lifted them far higher via regulation.”
I’m not sure I agree with all that. Regulation of TV and Radio in particular was caused by the limitations of the electromagnetic spectrum they broadcast in. Governments must ration this - just like mobile phone spectrum - and that is the real barrier to entry for Radio and TV.
The story of the past decade or two is that technology has hugely increased the utilization of this spectrum so we can have many, many more channels. As you then point out, throw in the internet and the ability to deliver information is almost unlimited and the cost falls close to zero.
This opens up the media business to all comers - such as Crikey. And that means we should get lots of innovation, which we are.
Politicians will gravitate to the medium that gives them the most exposure and so far that’s still the old dinosaur media. But it’s the new media - like Crikey - that will drive innovation and political television will change with it. And your last paragraph is spot on - interactivity and audience engagement are key.
Anyway, a great article. Thanks.
Hey Bernard!
They spelt your name “Bernard Keen” on the front page pointer to this article.
Wanna do a piece on internet site quality next?
Great article!
The idea of ending interviews because politicians won’t answer questions is an interesting approach. The 7:30 report might not exist if we go down that path. It’s mind boggling how politicians blatantly and directly side step them. The lack of tact is quite amazing, yet openly accepted by most of Australia. I can’t blame the public, it’s politics, but something to make pollys more accountable would be good.
Perhaps, like new media with it’s ablity to have live feedback (or close enough too) TV interviews can have feedback as well. While interviews of politicians are being conducted, viewers can poll in on a forum run by the TV show about how they think it’s going. The interviewer could then pick responses at various points throughout the interview and put them forward to the interviewee
“Minister Wong - We have at least 30 posts now on our live forum from viewers expressing their frustration in you blatently not answering the question regarding why you didn’t push for a 20% reduction in carbon emissions to line up with the EU. They’ve also asked you don’t respond to this with - Can I say this” etc.
It’s one thing to rebute a journalist interviewing you, but another to start questioning the public.
Ah, who knows.
How many people using the internet actually research information like white papers or follow any politics at all? Most people are following what some celebrity is saying on twitter (replace the tw with sh) or how many friends they have on rubbish like Facebook.
Politics is boring and we should “sex it up”? While Q and A on the ABC is entertaining its nothing but Spicks and Specks with politicians. Just because panel “quiz” shows are taking over Australian TV doesn’t mean that politicians should get into the act.
If we have to dumb down politics to make it appeal to the wider audience then whats the point? Why not just turn politics in a reality TV talent competition? Master Politician Australia. The politician who wins gets to be PM. It might get better rating but is that what we want?
While the article does make some interesting points in the first half the second half is basically gloating at the mainstream media’s misfortunes and patting itself (crikey) on the back for being on the internet where People Power and Independent Thinking and other imaginary things are “revolutionising” political coverage in Australia.
Tell me where does crikey rank in hits for Australian internet users on any given day?
Bernard,
The issue is reputation.
We will all follow for something that is of value to us (following a sports team, books by a specific author, paying for a specific band’s creative output, etc). Unfortunately, there are very few journalists (even opinion piece writers) that I consider worthy of paying attention to (invariably most have little or no knowledge upon what they are communicating about, or are biased). For example, how many specialist economist journalists are on “Insiders”, is there a specialist environmental reporter in any of the News Papers?
Its also about Web 2.0.
Its about interactivity, its about discussing the topic with the journo. Its about conversation. The ABC, BBC, CNN, etc give us the facts. Its the 4th estate which interpret it for us. We can’t change the facts, but we can get involved with the interpretation of the story. I’m of the belief that its the public-space interviewer (Jones, Shanahan, Keane, Crabb, etc) who is asking our questions on our behalf of the interviewee. Look at the popularity of the ABC’s QandA. Also, remember Matt Price - he interacted with those who commented on his blog postings.
Its about the delivery mechanism.
Why should a journo stick to print, or to radio, or to TV. Its that journo’s output that is of value and the medium should be varied (would I listen regularly to a podcast of your thoughts/columns, interspersed by ads - possibly. [take a look at twit dot tv]).
Reputation, interactivity & delivery. Australian media is generally lacking in these areas - that is why we are having this debate Bernard. It comes back to basic market theory. Its the value proposition. In the context of our current world, people will follow what they value.
Paul
I work in a uni and live in Canberra - so something tells me my views aren’t quite representative…
But this discussion is talking directly about things I’m experiencing. I’ve entirely given up on masthead news - aside from News Radio when I’m driving to work, Crikey with lunch and a short flick past SBS news in the evening - and I haven’t looked back. I get the vast bulk of my news these days from Twitter and a variety of blogs, and I rarely find myself missing things I’m likely to care about - and in fact much more likely to learn things I never knew. (Surely the essence of news?)
As Michael Nielsen has argued (only quoting because it’s such a worthwhile read - http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/is-scientific-publishing-about-to-be-disrupted/), while the NY Times might be able to cite the heft of a swathe of Pulitzer prizes, his RSS feed reader can trump that with bigger swathe of Nobels and Fields (and other) medals.
The same is true of political writing. Where event type news is excellently provided by twitter, deeper thinking and analysis is excellently provided by blogs and social network linkages, to a much better level than the dull one on ones you get on the 7:30 report. (Some) politicians are wise enough to know that the landscape has changed, and that they need to be part of the network rather than pegged to increasingly less influential old style ‘journalists as mediators’.
I think that what we’ll see is a continuing increase of fragmented political conversations, to which politicians can contribute - but in an engaged way, not as the ultimate source.
Hey Bernard!
They’re STILL spelling your name “Keen” on the front page pointer to this article!
You’d think if the internet was indeed a “dialogue” they’d have noticed my comments and fixed an embarrassing mistake eh?
Never mind Brendon (woops Bernard):-) time for a visit to the deed poll office. Mmm Brendon Keen does have a certain ring to it though. Sort of aristocratic almost.
Brendan Keen is too Irish to be aristocratic. Did you ever read Mungo MacCallum’s book How to be a Megalomaniac?
It’s about an uncle giving advice to a potential politician, his nephew. (I found it in a second hand bookshop) Malcolm Turnbull has followed the advice right down to the last dotted ‘I’, including the advice as to which Political Party to choose. Nothing to do with with idealism, it’s just working out where the best opportunities are and join that Party. Also he says idealism is fine at election time, but useless anywhere else.
He suggests a name change, if necessary. Terry Dobbin becomes Jack Wentworth Bentley. I admit to having a depraved sense of humour.
Look it up it’s irreverent, funny and sounds deadly true.
Oops I just realised my reference was meant to read Bulworth starring Warren Beatty which he once said of ‘Hollywood will never forgive a smart movie’. Probably right.
Hello Paul from Berwick - great to hear from you! More please.