The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A sneer could cost you democracy > Comments

A sneer could cost you democracy : Comments

By Judy Cannon, published 11/11/2005

Judy Cannon argues serious journalists are guardians of democracy and do not deserve to be denigrated.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I agree. But few people who report on matters topical deserve denigration.

Having said that public denigration of those with whom we disagree is one of those charactersitics of "our" society.

New Sedition laws may apply to a wider class of peoiple than just journalists; They will be troublesome for any one who dares open his or her mouth. We should take no comfort in JH's assurances that they've been on the statute books for decades with out being used.

I would suggest the ABC would be in quite a pickle if these laws were in place in the lead up to and during the major offensive of GW11 - Senator Alston would have had a feild day; and it is unlikely John Pilger or the likes of John Martinkus (SBS) would step foot on our shores ever again.

Laws are a bit like scientific capability - in science if it can be done it will be done regardless of the wisdom, morality or ethics of the application; the same can be said of laws.

Assurances from this government that these laws will be applied in only the extreme cases is as hollow as the never ever ever application of the GST - it is probably a non core assurance any way.

The new law can classify some forms of civil disobedience, criticism of the manarchy or its representative, criticism of parliament and or the government as seditious acts. Much of what is written here, under the revised defintions, could be regarded as seditious - I may yet be called upon again by the AFP and Mr Keelty

What we have seen since the rise of international terorrism is a series of disproportionate responses to marginal threats; despite its denials the government increased the likelihood of Australians involvment in terror by lurching into Iraq; since then it has had to reposition itself to cover its arse for a series of policy and intelligence errors.

It has discredited itself and condemned the community ( or parts of it at least ) to a period of fear and anxiety unwarranted and undeserved.
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 11 November 2005 9:58:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems very few people have actually bothered to read the text of the Bill. Most seem content to receive their information from others, who haven't read it either.

Most of the suggestions about the effects of the sedition laws are fanciful.

For the benefit of those who prefer to get the information from the horse's mouth, the bill is here

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Legis/Bills/Linked/03110504.pdf

Sylvia Else
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 11 November 2005 10:21:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for that well written article. I agree with many points, and would tip my hat to journalists in the main.
My issue in our recent times, is the titillating reporting of celebrity whilst the news is often not even mentioned, or if it is, 10 pages away. The public is not desirous of this rubbish news, we have just gone along with the flow only to realise that TV, Newspapers and Magazines are mainly full of tripe and nonsense. Our evening news barely mentions anything of importance, short blips of information, yet gives longer time on sport, celebrities and such.

The television news at present is only now mentioning the IR reforms, and Terrorism laws. The horse has already bolted, and, the public is only now being told the story.

The current news media on Television has almost stepped into the sensational and paparazzi mode of getting a story. The shock horror type of reporting on the arrests of 'suspected' terrorists is a point in kind. To see the wife of one of those arrested being followed to her children's school, to see her unable to leave her vehicle and the trying to enter her home with a microphone being pushed into her face was sickening and I felt for her. When did this sort of reporting become ok?
I do not blame journalists, I blame the Editors, and the newsroom bosses/Editors etc. As to the media circus of Celebrity and 'trash-elite',there are many of us out here, of all ages, who really want to be informed. We do not want reality TV style of shock and awe, we want good solid news reporting.
Most of my information comes from SBS/ABC and on-line news, as I feel, I am not being given the facts by current Australian news media. We should not only have these avenues for news open to us, we should expect and be given good solid journalism. Australia has always had very gutsy and highly intelligent journalists, and it is time we allow them to do their job.
Posted by tinkerbell1952, Friday, 11 November 2005 10:32:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do posters remember a time of "investigative journalists" who used to conduct interviews with the politicians of the day in nightly"current affairs" programs? I remember Richard Carlton, when working for the ABC giving PM Bob Hawke, an earfull of "hard questions" or Michael Schulberger on Ch9's A Current Affair asking the hard questions that ordinary people would like to know the answers to, where have they gone? There is only one real current affairs program that I know of, and that is the 7:30 Report with Kerry O'Brien on ABC TV. I also feel that the jurno's in all commercial media outlets, are being lent upon by their powerfull owners to take a course which is informing, but not in great detail, so it can be said that they have delivered the news, but not explained in enough detail for us to completely understand what it means to us personally. Newspapers are much more informative than TV News, except for the ABC, and SBS, We need jurno's to be allowed to ask, encouraged to ask the tough questions, and support them when they do, otherwise we will continue to recieve the current situation
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 11 November 2005 11:30:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A free media is essential to democracy. I'm just thankful that there are other sources where the truth can be found. We need reporting, not interpretation from people who give themselves fancy titles like journalist and columnist. Good old fashion reporters are wanted so that we can form our own opinions.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 11 November 2005 1:26:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems the writer does not have any regard for public opinion.
She says public opinion says journalists are regarded very lowly and that they are believed to be sensationalist, liars, political propagandists and pursuers of perve.
How can she argue with public opinion?
The public is always right . . . if they are not, the world would stop.
We also do not have a free media. The ABC is contolled by government via its finances.
The rest of the media is controlled by private enterprise and advertising.
If we had a free media all journalists would be volunteers.
Posted by GlenWriter, Friday, 11 November 2005 4:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rarely does one see an article that is so pompous and arrogant.

Please take note that I am my own guardian of my own freedoms and liberties – not some reporter or editor. The press is important, just like schools, doctors and plumbers. It is just another group of people that deserves neither more nor less respect than any other group, to be judged by its words and actions.

Kactuz
Posted by kactuz, Saturday, 12 November 2005 1:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Journalists have a dificult task at times, to be sure. A well known journalist gave a group of oldies a talk not only on the interesting side of being a journalist, but also suggested that the audience should fire away at will. As some of the oldies had degrees in radical areas like political philosophy etc, he was asked whether some of his reporting on international relations, had tried his conscience? All he said in answer, well, mate, sometime it's difficult, because I have to work for a living.

Now getting into the TV media we could wonder about George Negus now on SBS Dateline who does often give or supervise reports right on, or rather, off the edge.

The one in question concerns our WTO bi-lateral agreement with the USA which somehow involved the weakening of Australia's bio-custom laws which allowed a shipment of Brazilian carcase meat to be landed in NSW. The shock and horror can be imagined when livestock breeders found out that Brazil had been banned from selling meat overseas owing to being afflicted with foot and mouth disease.

But apparently one Brazilian province had agreed to innoculate their livestock, which according to the report it was thought accordingly that the province had got the okay to export.

But apparently not so, and near the end of the video it shows uninjected cattle roaming across a road from a banned foot and mouth province into the province in question.

Since that SBS report everyone involved has been made to shutup, journalists as well as angry farmers. It could be asked of Australian journalists, is there a government spin line, which they are not allowed to cross these days?

Moreover, if it is true that commentary about the banned Brazilian carcase has been officially quietened down, surely must show our government has been involved.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 12 November 2005 5:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Journalists bring us the facts for which they deserve high praise. However many of them also bring us opinion and spin. I suggest that it is the latter that people denigrate not the former.

I suppose it is hard to report the facts without interpreting them. However journalists so often think that their personal interpretation is the correct one. The counter balance needs to come through media diversity. I am hopeful that the internet is achieving greater diversity. However it is probably also likely to polarise.

I seriously disagree with the opinion/spin that I read in lots of articles. However I don't every recall feeling a personal animosity towards the entire profession.
Posted by Terje, Monday, 14 November 2005 8:05:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that serious journalism is laudable and should be protected. however, revelations such as that today, that a journalist threatened to publish the name of a chemical supplier, if they failed to provide them with an interview demonstrate the problems in the profession.

To threaten to expose a person, for having provided information about suspected terrorists, if they do not provide an interview is beyond the pale. The company and persons beind this should be removed from whatever register is kept of journo's, and if such a register is not kept, it should be.

Please do not cry about denigration of a profession whose ethics are non-existant.
Posted by Aaron, Monday, 14 November 2005 5:37:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think certain "journalists" are bringing the real journalists into disrepute. Those who take issue with silly media such as the commercial evening current-affair and news shows support the fair dinkum journalists.
To my understanding, objective news journalists are taught not to use adjectives or at least use them sparingly - yet superlatives bombard viewers nightly - not to mention the underlying message which is that the flanny-shirt brigade are all too stupid to resolve issues in a sensible manner and need elites like politicians and the likes of Andrew Bolt to direct their lives. Most of the stories are not newsworthy and really very silly and an insult to real journalism.

I think newpaper editors skew the news. What is happening relevant to our citizenship no longer sets the agenda. It seems to me that apart from the urgent-type major stories, ongoing newsworthy stories dealing with issues such as native title, forestry campaigns, urban design, education, human issues receive little attention other than the occasional flurry when their is some sort of conflict.
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 17 November 2005 11:43:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also in the area of commentary. We seem to have a large number of commentators pushing the status quo, the politically incorrect and right-wing perspective, but bugger all offering commentary from the social-justice perspective or offering other alternative points of view.
Democracy in Australia is like the music industry scam. They (don't ask me who) choose ten songs and then you choose from that offering. If you think they are all pick-me shyit - well that is too bad. You make your own box and pencil in "Exploited" - won't compute. Editors give us a narrow perspective(Labour/Liberal and the establishment news) and expect people to make an informed choice in relation to our democracy.
It seems to me that journalists stay, or are forced,or co-opted inside the confines of accepted discourse. Ironically, the evidence of this is the current politically incorrectness craze. When Mundine spoke politically incorrectly about Sept 11, all of a sudden no one recognised the right to free speech and political incorrectness. For some reason the ideals of free speech only work from the top down. Exploit the flanny crowd - but f**k 'em off - if they do as you do.

In Australia there is no real investigative journalism outside the public-funded media. Australia's defamation laws prevent the kinds of stories that USA journalists produce. Generally speaking I would have to say that serious journalist are the gaurdians of some very narrow concepts of democracy. The others are gaurdians of the establishment ideals which includes the exploitation of silly journalists and their targets-and you all know it.
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 17 November 2005 11:44:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm, You have opened a can of worms Judy. I agree with you, some journalists help protect democracy, but which ones? The media is its own worst enemy because on the one hand it can give insights and information but on the other it destroys our freedoms. Take for example newspaper, magazine and television advertising. For decades greed has been the driver here. Thanks to the skills of photographers and journalists our populations have been ravaged by alcoholism and tobacco addiction - millions have died and are still suffering as a result of this tide of 'journalism'. Yes there have been expose articles on these issues but nothing like the propaganda dished out by the big multinational recreational drug companies.
Then there is the daily sensationalism of court reporting, damning people charged with various offenses before they have been tried. Commercial TV and the gutter press thrive on this. the concept of not guilty before proven is non-existant in our media which goes for the jugular especially if the defendant is sick - addicts, pedophiles, and violent epsisodes are all reported like a crime thriller with the defendant identified and followed around by a camera crew - lives smashed, people shamed, children forgotten in the rush to sensationalise. No wonder journalists are spat on by those being 'journalized'. And lastly but not leastly the manipulation of media by politics. Lick my arse says little John and they all do.
Barfenzie - angry as usual.
Posted by Barfenzie, Thursday, 17 November 2005 5:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sneekeepete, what do you mean, "I may yet be called upon again by the AFP and Mr Keelty"? When were you called upon the first time?
Posted by Pedant, Thursday, 17 November 2005 10:54:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy