It seems readers don’t want to stop talking about the failings of journos, so this is the last day for outpourings, OK? The pollies lead the journos in the most trustworthy poll 430 to 409. Not wanting to admit defeat, I adopt the interpretation of HENK VERHOEVEN of Sydney: “Journos versus pollies: surely, that somewhat bloated pollies score can be due only to the latter having voted for themselves.”
JESTER
This Jack Robertson (the man who began the debate, Webdiary November 3) speaks so much sense it is scary. I mean this guy is right on the money about everything.
Imagine a married journalist covering the Clinton sex scandal when that journo is himself having an affair. That is where Jack is heading. I mean, Stan Grant’s credibility was just crucial at the front of a tabloid TV current affairs show, and then he dumps his wife and three kids for a younger woman.
A politician can get floored for taking drugs, yet how many of the journos who cover the story use or have used drugs, and I don’t mean alcohol? Let he without sin throw the first stone.
You don’t put Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Love this debate. Keep up the good work – old Jacky boy is making you earn your keep….Go Girl!
MARGO: You’ll find that press gallery journalists don’t go near drugs and sex stories about pollies unless there’s a clear and indisputable contradiction between his or her public statements and private behaviour: when hypocrisy is the story, not consensual sexual adventures or drugs experimentation.
Because of this convention, the news breaks in these areas are by journos outside the gallery, for example the Cheryl Kernot affair with the school captain and the pictures of former Senator Bob Woods arguing with his wife in their backyard. To our head office bosses, we seem squeamish. To us, one very good reason for staying clear – and if we can’t, not judging harshly – is the glass house argument.
In January, I flew around Australia with the acting Prime Minister John Anderson. He told a public meeting that sexual propriety in marriage was vital because if your family couldn’t trust you, why should the people? I reported this diabolically dangerous statement, and if you read the media clips you’ll find that political journalists tagged his statement sheer folly, pointing out that he’d literally invited journalists to dig up dirt on colleagues and give him with the evidence, ie HE’D made private lives a matter of public importance. Talkback public opinion backed Ando all the way.
GREG ABBOTT, in London, puts the privacy line, but mistook the views of contributor CON VAITSAS (Ink v Inc , Webdiary Nov 6), for mine.
I normally enjoy reading your columns on the Internet from London, where I’m living, however I’m shocked and appalled at the following piece of writing:
“I also want the media to report on a politician’s morals. Yes, I want to know which pollie has been unfaithful, is watching porn videos, visiting brothels, and is homosexual, and not necessarily all at the same time.
“The reason we need to know is that politicians regularly inflict policies or statements about morals on the rest of the public expecting us to abide by them while they have been indulging in the supposed immoral behaviour.”
Sorry, back up there Margo. How can you loosely lumber “is homosexual” in with being unfaithful, watching porn videos and visiting brothels. Even though you may not be homophobic, for gay people reading your column the unnecessary association can be hurtful. Replace “is homosexual” with “is Asian” and you can see the extent of your (perhaps blissfully ignorant) bigotry.
You are tacitly legitimising people who argue homosexuality is immoral by making this association. A person can quite validly argue that going to a brothel (ie. a voluntary human action) is immoral without being prejudiced, but this is not the case if that person is arguing that being homosexual renders a person inherently less moral – that’s blatant bigotry.
I think I can see what you might have intended to say that those politicians who condemn brothels while frequenting them should be exposed, that those politicians who block attempts to allow gay people certain basic rights enjoyed by everyone else, and who themselves are gay, should also be exposed etc. In that context only, perhaps a politician’s private sexuality is relevant to the public.
If this is indeed what you were meaning to say perhaps you could have said it a little more clearly. Instead, you seem to suggest that all gay politicians should be “outed” (a hideous term) just because there are bigots out there who say bigoted things about the supposed immorality of being homosexual.
In summary, I’ve waffled on because I’m a bit fired up at your loose language. Sometimes the SMH displays basic bigotry by not taking some things for granted about people who are homosexual eg. it has news polls with questions like (and I’m paraphrasing) “do you agree with Michael Kirby (when he said that gay people are no different to anyone else)” and “do you think Fred Nile is right when he says that filthy homosexuals should be excluded from the opening ceremony)” etc etc.
Once again, despite the fact that there are still idiots out there who hold racist, sexist, homophobic views, you take certain things for granted and don’t run polls like “Do you think Aborigines should be able to get married?”, “Do you agree with Joe Bloggs when he says that women should never have been given the vote?” “Do you agree with John Howard for apologising to the Asian community over his late 1980s racism?”.
There’s still a long way to go. Why isn’t your newspaper picking up the issue of gay rights. In some ways, gay people are the most discriminated against of all now. The fact that you and I pay our taxes, live as law abiding citizens, but that you can get married and I can’t (assuming you’re heterosexual) is appalling. Its dark ages stuff. Its renders me a second class citizen and reinforces to me, to gay teenagers, to schoolyard bullies, to psychotic murderers, that a gay person’s sexuality is second class, unnatural and unfortunate.
MARGO: Having been outed recently in the Australian’s media section, on the grounds that my sexuality was somehow relevant to my professional life, I can only say I agree with you whole heartedly.
ANDREW FRAZER
I guess that both politicians and journos, collectively, have credibility problems. However expressing the problem in such simple terms (who do you trust more, politicians or journalists), masks the wide discrepancies that I as a voter and reader feel about individuals within these professions, which is why I never vote in such polls (except on election day).
It’s an unfortunate consequence that the actions of Reith et al drag down the reputations of all politicians, whether they deserve it or not. And there are politicians (and journalists) for whom I have a great deal of respect, in all of the major parties (though P Reith has never been one of them).
The point is that the good and the positive things that politicians do are never reported on. Instead the stuff ups, the rorts and controversies are given an overwhelming and disproportionate coverage. Of course the press has a responsibility to report on these matters, but too often it seems to me to simply dissolve into an endless recycling of easy stories, where nothing new is ever reported. This feeds a cynicism and negativity in the community about both politicians and journalists as the creators and bearers of bad news.
Criticism of the political system is a vital and important part of a democracy, and the media is more than willing to play this role. However perhaps sustaining faith in the democracy is also important, and while this is fundamentally the responsibility of politicians, surely the media also has a part to play here, and perhaps the odd positive word might encourage all those pollies who don’t abuse their privileges and do actually do a good job. It might even help journos, by breaking the accepted stereotype of what constitutes political reporting :).
Hope this hasn’t been too pompous.
ANDREW STEWART
As I read the debate thus far I am faced with the catch 22 (ie. to vote either way would leave me with the feeling of unfair betrayal of the other side) which thus far was only really raised by Jack in his original comments. This is fundamentally a result of the fact the vote is one of generalisation.
If the question was do you trust ALL politicians or do you trust ALL journalists, then I am sure the overwhelming answer would be negative. This raises two interesting aspects of the debate:
1. Unlike our choice when trowelling through journalistic offerings (we can change the channel or flip to the sport section), we voters are faced with the unenviable position of not, for the most part, being able to select (or cull for that matter) individuals pollies who are part of the preferred team.
I agree wholehearted with Jack when he expressed his disgust at John Howard for claiming “the mandate” for every individual policy stance or portfolio selection (Jack’s second piece, Webdiary Ink – Inc, November 6) when even though I believe in the superior abilities of the government in economic issues, the performance on social policy issues has been appalling.
I am sick of being labelled an apologist for the government’s social policy performance by my family members every time I try and defend an economic policy initiative. But unfortunately given the 2 party system we can’t have it both ways.
Let me put it this way. Would I trust John Howard and the Coalition to take the initiative with respect to reconciliation? No way, but neither would I trust Kim Beazley to maintain fiscal constraint with respect to the budget surplus and revised taxation structure. So for me, like all swinging voters, I am faced with the choice of backing the social misfits who are good with the calculator until I can’t stand the smell of their social policy or Labor,when their financial management is not in order.
I suppose that’s what stands we voters apart from media moguls. There will come a time when the electorate puts the bite on the government for social policy disarray, whereas you can rest assured the media moguls will vote with their wallet every time.
2. In many cases (certainly with television) the journalist controls the line of questioning, and therefore, it could be argued, the responses. Now Margo, I can hear you already, arguing that controlling the line of questioning is just a journalistic tool, and it is how it is used that requires the trust.
I agree, however in many cases this is where the greatest abuses of trust are made by journalists. Who can forget Bob Hawke and Dicky Carleton’s famous stoush? (Where Carleton – then at the ABC – asked Hawke, just after he’d staged a coup against Bill Hayden’s leadership in 1983, how it felt to have blood on his hands.) Realistically, would you trust 60 Minutes to cast an unbiased light on anyone?
Just as Jack challenged you to put your salary up for everyone to see (by the way where do I get a bit of this six and a half weeks leave from – that’s a perk if ever I’ve seen it) what I believe would be far more interesting is if we allowed the pollies a chance to interview a couple of journalists on their journalistic efforts (it would make great television too).
Just for starters maybe we could have Jeff Kennett interviewing someone from The Age on their coverage of his government, or anyone, just anyone (I’m thinking Peter Reith would be particularly good) interviewing Dicky Carleton about his journalistic (?) contribution to fine food and wine in East Timor ? Then they could re-cut the scenes (edit out all the bits they didn’t like) and have Reithy staring poignantly over a pair of Dicky’s Maggie Tabbera eye glasses a precisely the wrong moment !!
Now if you, like me, would be horrified to give this power for manipulation and betrayal to people like Reithy and Jeff (elected officials who have faced and won popular vote and had their credibility questioned and tested over and over) why then should we not be similarly sceptical about how this power is exercised by journalists or media proprietors with agendas of their own?.
MARGO: Re the six week holidays, this is in compensation for the fact that journos get no public holidays. Re the pollie interviews journalist idea, I love it. I’ll see if any pollie would interview me, and write a piece for Inside Out, uncensored.
BRENDON
It’s always a pleasure to read your work, but on journalists or politicians? I’ve been watching both for twenty years and on every issue upon which I’ve had a detailed knowledge or seen from the inside, the journalists have got it wrong in major ways.
I don’t think many journalists really understand the issues, people, institutions or events they are reporting or commenting on. Most don’t write very well, which simply means they can’t think very well. They do horrible things to people who attract their attention, they are not accountable, they don’t have to be accurate, and they control the medium through which one might seek redress. They have a habit of abandoning their mistakes and moving on to the next issue.
With the political journalists, the fun in reading them is trying to work out which politician, apparatchik or bureaucrat they’ve been speaking to. Of course there are exceptions, but… At least with politicians you know where they stand, you can call them to account, you can go and see them and they can’t hide.
MARGO: You really know where politicians stand? In my experience, they NEVER tell you why the real reason they’re doing something. As for our lack of inside knowledge, that’s usually because the people who know won’t talk to us. Partly that’s because they don’t trust us, but more often, in my experience, because they’re too scared to talk because their masters would take revenge.
ODILLE ESMONDE-MORGAN, Downer, ACT
I do think Jack makes some good points. Those who live in glass houses etc. Some of his questions were a bit cheeky, and I applaud you for revealing your income. But it’s beside the point. So is whether or not we trust journalists more than politicians or vice versa.
Trust them to do what? Give us the unvarnished truth, with no opinions? Never happen. There is no way you can be completely objective when reporting a story. You always have biases, even if you don’t realise it. They come from your upbringing, education and life experiences. We ALL have them. (Just for the record, I have a BA in Journalism, but have only ever done some freelance feature work.)
What are we trusting politicians to do when we elect them. Hopefully, to represent the voters of their constituency fairly, and to be honest and straightforward. That’s what I expect, anyway. Can’t ask for the moon. Some individuals will always turn out easily corrupted, in any sphere.
So I think Jack’s a bit too ‘pie-in-the-sky’, although in a perfect world . . . Keep up the good debate, it’s very healthy.
ANDREW WRIGHT
It is difficult to decide who is more trustworthy between journalists and politicians, since neither group has covered themselves in glory during the Reith Telecard affair and the proximate Trish Crossin affair.
The Liberals dissembled from the outset about the whole Telecard affair while Labor were relentless in their pursuit, which would have been fair enough except for their feeble response to the Senator Crossin affair. They quickly closed ranks and little more has been heard about this apart from today’s article in The Sydney Morning Herald.
The journalists are guilty of the same thing as the Labor politicians: gross inconsistency. While I was happy to see Mr Reith pursued, I feel that Senator Crossin should similarly have been asked to account for her actions.
MARGO: The Trish Crossin affair is fascinating. Just the slightest ripple of fightback by the Libs, then nothing. I hear that the government car of a Coalition MP was written off in similar circumstances, which if true would explain the dead bat. I’ve put questions to our beloved Special minister of State, Senator Ellison, but have no answer so far. His first response was to say that the cars were leased from DASFLEET, once a government body, now private, and that therefore the issue was one for them. Pardon? So how does the government find out if MPs breach their entitlements regarding the car, for example allowing unauthorised people to drive it? Senator Ellison is getting back to me.
JULIAN
I have written to you before but assume that the message did not penetrate the SMH maze. Since you have made a lot of the running over the Reith affair can I ask a rhetorical question? What is the difference between Reith and his acknowledged rorts and a Prime Minister who hands a very expensive car parking space to his daughter in the Sydney CBD so she can park close to her work in a legal firm? The amounts are similar, the intent is similar but the outcome is wildly different. Are there so many politicians personally embarrassed over this (due to their own arrangements) that it is not raised, though very widely known? How about an article on hypocrisy to stir the possum? Always enjoy your work.
MARGO: My Herald colleague Mike Seccombe broke this story a year ago. In a recent column on the Reith Telecard, he opined that Howard’s “So what?” reaction to Reith wanting the taxpayer to pick up the tab for his son’s private calls was in accord with Howard’s “family values”, like allowing his daughter to park at taxpayers expense in the CBD. Howard replied in a letter to the editor that there was nothing improper in this, and that he’d given his daughter the park on security advice. Mike has an FOI in asking for the alleged security advice, details of any similar arrangements for Howard’s other children, and whether any previous Prime Minister had done the same thing.