Bernard Keane raised some big questions for the Australian media yesterday, with his piece asserting we’re all looking at the symptoms rather than the disease. Readers largely agree, and go on to contend that publications should hold one another to account.
Meanwhile, what’s the etiquette on critiquing the ABC? Does it get a free pass because it’s under attack, or is that a reason to go even harder?
On the media’s misguided targets
Mike Waller writes: Thoughtful and incisive article, Bernard. In terms of root cause analysis/evidence, the most problematic issue for journalists and concerned citizens alike is the largely fact-free case for more money/increasingly draconian powers directed towards “keeping us safe”. And we have seen nothing yet.
AI-based facial recognition and communications surveillance technology in the hands of people like Dutton/Pezzulo present an existential threat to basic, hard won privacy and personal freedoms. We face a toxic mix of forces serving to undermine Australian democratic rights. Sadly, we can expect little better from the current Opposition who roll over at the first suggestion that they are soft on national security.
James Brown writes: Totally agree. However there are multiple possible solutions to the major problems you identify. It is very important that these be discussed and actually tested otherwise we stay stuck in rhetoric, pros and cons. The Fairwork Commission is to be congratulated for testing an alternate approach. Now we need real evaluation by independent and diverse groups. How many of these remain and how are they funded?
Dog’s Breakfast writes: “This is the most difficult moment in the history of the media in the West.” And in politics generally Bernard, and I would argue that the difficulties of the media are also a symptom of technological change, which anyone will happily accept, but also the end of history that Francis Fukuyama didn’t predict.
We are seeing the falling of the other Berlin Wall — the theoretical edifice of neoliberal philosophy and the role of standard Western governments in supporting it. Because it isn’t a physical wall, we are not seeing it clearly, but the edifice is just as real.
Watch it crumble, and hope there is something in place other than more Pauline Hanson One Nation opportunists to carry the can.
Klewso writes: The media is part of the malaise gripping our politics — playing favourites, trading objectivity for subjectivity and opinion for analysis. Ever larger lumps indulge and issue tickets-of-leave to certain parties when it comes to accountability; one set of standards is applied to one side of politics and not the other. This encourages bad behaviour because those “pet” politicians think they can not only get away with almost anything, but that they are entitled too (the media will cover for them). The “responsible” media should be holding their reprobate bretheren to more account.
On criticising the ABC
Wallywonga writes: Well Aunty is being bullied, and the resultant effect of sustained bullying is usually reduced esteem and confidence. Creativity doesn’t work too well in that environment, so inevitably all flaws and weaknesses come to the for.
Yes, there is naff middling stuff, always has been, but I really don’t believe all “cutting edge” content would save their bacon anyway. That’s not how media usually rates these days. So the Coalition and media bullies are probably winning, with their victim now a cowering shadow of its former self. Can it really be helpful if supposed friends and allies start publicly putting the boot in also?
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.