A subscriber writes in response to Crikey’s Monday ratings item:

I am a bit surprised that the only reference to Media Watch is the last sentence in Glenn Dyer’s ratings item. Like another reader, I don’t get too excited by the ratings, but Crikey is usually all over Media Watch like a rash. Since last night was the first for the year, and had a new female (gasp) presenter, I am amazed.

Especially as I thought it one of the best MWs I’ve seen. Rather sobering and salutary to learn that so much credence is given to a person of rather little credibility. Although altogether in keeping with the tissue of lies fraying so inelegantly around the putrid remains of the case for going to war.

In an era of media super-saturation, the dangers of brainwashing due to exposure can hardly be overstated. What gets oxygen tends to flourish. Unfortunately, what doesn’t, doesn’t. More unfortunately, by the time you realise you are choking in coal dust, your canary is probably dead.

Cassandra

We may have failed to review the first episode of the new Media Watch, but fortunately that pillar of impartiality, Andrew Bolt, has written a quick review himself. And it’s good to see that despite getting done over by the Press Council for outrageous bias against the Greens, Bolt and Herald Sun are so concerned about putting Media Watch’s resources to good use. He writes:

The ABC felt that after having four Leftists host its high-profile Media Watch, it needed a change.

And bingo. Jackson’s first show had just two complaints – the first that three years ago an ABC correspondent quoted a nasty American in Afghanistan who’d given him tapes of al-Qaida members training.

“The footage was good,” Jackson conceded. But the American was bad. So . . . ?

But then Jackson got to the real scandal – the new boss of The Age had dared to tell cartoonist Michael Leunig that his latest rant against baby-killing John Howard and the Iraq war was too crude to run.

Is this so evil that an editor imposes standards on a sour and maniacally repetitive cartoonist?

So why is Media Watch spending your money to defend Leunig? Because he is a hero of the Left whose animation of a man peeing on his face was even shown at the National Museum.

Just ask yourself: is there a risk of Media Watch also protesting if my boss ever decides I, too, have written something unfit to print?

CRIKEY: That mind boggles! What on earth could Andrew Bolt – a devotee of the Murdoch ideology – write that Peter Blunden would not print? The most hilarious thing about Bolt’s commentary was that Media Watch quite bravely attacked ABC correspondent Eric Campbell. The Murdoch hacks usually attack Media Watch for never attacking the ABC. When Media Watch did attack the ABC, Bolt turns around and accuses it of being anti-American for attacking some crooked yankee spiv that Eric Campbell relied on for his story.

Finally, we’d like to think that if Bolt did ever have something Blunden wouldn’t run, he’d bring it to an independent media outlet like Crikey. After all, Crikey and Bolt are old mates as the editor even stayed with the lad in Hong Kong for five days during the 1997 handover. Where did it all go wrong?

Get more Crikey, for less

It’s more than a newsletter. It’s where readers expect more – fearless journalism from a truly independent perspective. We don’t pander to anyone’s party biases. We question everything, explore the uncomfortable and dig deeper.

Join us this week for 50% off a year of Crikey.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
50% off