Well, well, hasn’t Jack hit a raw nerve. Contributions to the question of journos’ credibility, or the lack of it are rolling in. So far in the poll, 250 trust journos and 261 pollies. I’m so upset I’m asking colleagues to vote NOW.
To the poll, and CON VAITSAS complains that the question is unfair. “I won’t be voting, as both professions cannot be entirely trusted.” ANN BROWNLOW agrees. “I didn’t vote today because there needed to be another selection – I don’t trust either of them. That would have been my vote.”
OK, but the question is very general, and relative – it’s not asking whether you trust either, but who would you trust more, if you had to. I like the take from TYLER:”The question should be who do you trust? Politicians or media tycoons. What do journalists have to do with it???”
To a couple of compliments, just ’cause the poll results are making me shakey. From NIGEL, “I am well served by your work and I think I will be increasingly relying on your analysis as the ABC is hung out to dry. To me the spirit of the Nation Review is well represented in your writing and comment.” And from GREG ELLEVSEN: “I agree with some – not all – of Jack’s comments. But I feel immeasurably better about the situation knowing that you were prepared to give him a forum to express his views, and address them in a fairly frank fashion.”
Here’s the latest in the debate.
KAREL SOLOMON
Having come from South Africa I thought I knew the worst type of reporting, but alas I was wrong. When one looks at the amount of space One Nation got to that of the Democrats at the last election, one can only think that One Nation was bigger than the Democrats. Yet the election showed otherwise. (MARGO: I don’t think you’re right there. I think One Nation got more primary votes.)
I remember that when a certain leader of Labor’s Left was in charge of Health in NSW, we would have a daily mouthful of how bad the health system was and how bad he was for moving hospitals away from the inner city (where the journos live) to the west (where the need was greatest). When NSW got a new Minister of Health, all of a sudden the CRIPPLED system no longer merited a line (until this weekend). Or if you believed the media the Olympics were going to be one helluva mess … I could go on but I hope you get the point.
The media reports what it wants to, how it wants to and when it wants to. The truth, significance or importance of the story has nothing to do with it. The criteria is: “If it sells …….print it.” Most readers accept that … please don’t kid yourself that it is otherwise. One gets the media one deserves.
LUKE MASON
I was a little disturbed by the poll I saw on your site. And while I voted for journos, it was only with grave misgivings. I personally would have much preferred a third option – ‘as bad as each other’. Or quite possibly ‘lawyers’. The fact that journos are private citizens and not paid for by the public pocket pushed them slightly ahead. It seems that every second week another polly is caught in some benefits rort, and there is a big hoohah for about a week and a half. Then the furore dies down, and we have 3 weekdays to discuss:
a] reconciliation
b] republic
c] gst
d] some celebrity.
Then on the weekend we have sports results, fashion tips, and, stop press – a different politician is caught doing something else s/he shouldn’t be. And the cycle runs again. Sometimes I’d like to see the end of these investigations, without the public losing interest or the journo’s turning to new, fresher stories to garner sales.
Unfortunately, we have a pretty closed media system, and I only have the journos there to tell me if not who is the better candidate is, who I like least. I did a ‘political personality’ test on a website – there’s a few floating around due to the upcoming american elections – and apparently I’m a ‘moderate liberal [small L] populist’. [I should vote for Gore]. There doesn’t seem to be any similar tools out there for Australian politics. But then I also like to read, eat out, and look at porn on the internet, so I’m not really any politicians target demographic.
These are my opinions, not who I work for.
PETER GELLATLY
(1) Jack Robertson’s original letter (WEBDIARY November 3) was spot on, but misdirected.
(2) Con Vaitsas’ response was cogent – and I agree with him that Jack was perhaps over the top.
(3) David Davis and Justin Whelan also make solid arguments.
(4) Jack Robertson’s subsequent admonition to Margo re “…claim you are here for the benefit of the people…” needs constant restating.
Journalistic integrity/objectivity is a very big issue which requires a regular airing. However, while this forum is almost certainly the only one in the country prepared to indulge readers’ missives on the topic, it is also demonstrably the least (if at all) legitimate target.
So please, may we now let Margo get back to her raw experiment: that of providing us with in-depth coverage of public issues augmented by unvarnished personal opinion. She has bitten off quite enough trying to singlehandedly put the pollies under the microscope. Let’s not drown her with all the misdeeds of the private sector as well.