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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

They spelt your name “Bernard Keen” on the front page pointer to this article.

Wanna do a piece on internet site quality next?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?