Well that seems to have said it all. No argument from me. Thank you very much Mr Beecher.

I guess good established journos will all become part-time free-to-user bloggers in pajamas just like the rest of us.

Concerning dumbing down, we could well ask who is getting dumbed down the media or the public? From an oldie walking his dog and talking in the street to people, one of the grizzles is that if wasn't for the need of a bit of sport and reading the death notices, they would cancel the West Australian, even though it is Perth's only public newspaper.

Further, many of the more radical are blaming the big media barons Murdoch and Packer for the problem, feeding the public just enough news to make them alert about the Iraq situation, the terrorist problem, etc, then filling the opinion page with essays from extreme right-wingers, and John Howard backers, like Gerard Henderson, especially just lately.

So it seems it is the media that is still calling the tune, and as our media is corporate-controlled and corporates will be a major part of the New World Order when it comes along, I guess at this late stage with the Howard autocracy facing little opposition, we can only pray and hope for something better, like rulers with a far better sense of philosophy and history.

If the reading public have lost faith in the media, who is to blame?
Everything that happens is sensationalised to the point of nausea.
The press act like a pack of wild dogs in pursuit of prey and every article appears to be written ,not as informing the public but as something to scream about.
Articles of film stars have the same importance as world events. And every night there is a litany of misery,misery and more misery on the news.
Then as television programmes one has the choice of murder, horror and as a change hospital serials with masses of gore.
We are all being brainwashed by this negativity, how do young minds stand up to it?

"And that would not only be a disaster for journalists, it would be a tragedy for Australian democracy"

So true. The health of a democracy depends on how informed the public is about issues that affect them. If cross-media ownership laws are going to be removed (or watered down), this will lead to too much power in the hands of too few. Most people know about bias in the media, but when everyone starts to sing from the same song sheet, making an 'informed' decision becomes all the more difficult.

not all bad what you think!
there are new leaf are coming in order to replace oddie.
if you are not aware of the situation please check it out
http://www.theepochtimes.com

I am heartily sick and tired of journos putting their spin on stories. It is obvious that many of our journos are in thrall to the ALP or the Lib-NP.

Can we get a message to our journos please. Don't tell us Howard is a liar or Beazley is hopeless. Give us the FACTS and let us make up our own minds. Some of us are capable of weighing up the worth of politicians without the guidance of journos. We aren't interested in the tosh appearing on the front page concerning some stellar couple who have announced their separation. Who cares how many women in the world get a text message from a spin bowler.

Give us real news; not the tosh that fills our newspapers these days.

The ad money will go to the media that people use. The problem with the old media is they became the story makers not the reporters. The death of the old media has only it's self to blame.

Looks like Mr Beecher is subtly knocking the media baron system (his old employers) under the guise of bemoaning change.

Hence "...the ...Murdoch model - is rapidly being replaced by the media conglomerate model, an edifice which is not based on the political power of an individual and his newspapers, but on the economic power of a technologically and geographically diverse public corporation."

Well a larger number of shareholders and corporate execs running a media empire is far preferable to the dictatorship of one man (always a man).

Eric then moans "the chieftains of today's media empires are much more interested in securing their place at the top of the pecking order of the international communications industry than they are in changing governments or wielding their personal power over politicians."

The fact that "the chieftains" are disinclined to change governments is terrific.

Nothing like democracy, by the people over media barons.

The changes are not "dumbing down" just different. The internet provides constant news feeds from a vast diversity of sources worldwide. It also allows ABC Online to provide constant written and pictorial updates without commercial slanting.

So we are no longer beholden to the stern men, attractive woman and singing duets of the evening news or daily papers.

This change is a good thing. Its not like the old days. But the media (and media commentators on the media) should go with the flow.

Sorry Plantagenet, but beg to differ,

When a few smaller editors can have a say by having more private ownerships it is far healthier than one gigantic ownership such as the Murdoch corporation who seems to be also tied in with Western global corporate big biz, with millions of rather naive worldwide shareholders adding strength, it is obviously far more dangerous for total global security than a few little feller papers, as was here in WA in the rip-roaring goldmining days. More historically romantic besides.

Regards, Bushbred.

Beecher is close to the money on this one and add to his list of problems the tendency of journalists - some - to transform themselves into celebrities and you end up with very predictable fare indeed - Mark Day, Neil Mitchell, Peirs Ackerman, Derryn Hinch and to a lesser extent the likes of Andrew Bolt and Phillip Adams - are all fairly predictable to the point of generating a bland back ground of opinion only.

There is precious little investigative journalism in this country - the symbiotic relationship between the press and the elites sees to that. With few exception most of what masquerades as investigative journalism is more prurient than revelatory.

Increasing pressure on papers to remain relevant in the face of a alternative platforms for information and classified advertisements results in the particalrly tiresome stuff dished up by the tabloids in particular -

shock horror stories and contentious opinion has out muscled genuine journalism; both the tabloid and the broad sheets are investing more money into capturing the liesure reading market hence the progessive degradation of the weekend papers - and this is especially true of the sunday papaetrs that once ( a decade ago or maybe more ) offered some genuine news. These days they are devoted to those with the disposable income to eat out buy fashion or aspire to the proerties of the month featured near the back.

While I dont think we're near the end of serious journalism we are approaching a definite nadir and one I expect we'll drag ourselves out of when things get bad enough.

I'm with Sage. We need straight reporting in print media and a cessation of the face pulling of newsreaders and current affairs hosts signalling their personal feelings.

We can come to our own conclusions on matters that they should be reporting, not analyising.

While certainly not a fan of the cult of the celebrity, others are and they are entitled to buy newspapers, magazines and watch TV which features such content.
It is also a sign of how comfortable people are with their lives - they (probably rightly) don't believe Australia or the rest of the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
Part of the problem with declining circulations of SMH and The Age is the sneering commentary of such publications, preaching to the people rather than engaging them. The constant attacks on conservative people, through the unabashed demonising of the Prime Minister, is picked up by people. They are not stupid. If The Age keeps telling everyone Howard is an evil - they are really saying Australians are evil (or dumb) for electing him.
If I had a choice between looking at a buxom celeb or being told througha thinly veiled attack I was an evil moron, guess what I'm going to purchase.
Media empires like Fox give the people what they want, even if it is not "serious journalism".
Sounds exactly like David Williamson's whinge about Aspirational Australia. Hold someone in contempt and they will likely return the favour.

t.u.s.

I'm losing hope.
Media proprietors are giving Aussies what the majority seem to want.
Entertainment using outrage, fear, indignation, gossip, idolatry, commercial sport, a bit of sexual titillation and ideas for material consumption. And controversial political opinion.
Even ABC radio and online news bulletins consist largely of small snippets of information about numerous trivial issues.
Just enough words about interesting issues to leave you frustrated by your unanswered questions which mostly will not be resolved by recourse to the internet.
TV news content seems driven by available pictures rather than its relevance.
International news often appears to be filtered through Washington or London first. Maybe it isn't, but that's the way it seems.
The ABC might eventually be our only comprehensive source of credible news and quality background information.
Digital radio could allow multiple Newsradio stations - one for detailed news, another for sport, another for policy analysis, another for health, science, religion etc. Instead of more TV channels showing entertainment duplicated elsewhere, those resources could be used to provide information about the world beyond the blinkered view of two or three English-speaking countries.
All available in transcripts & podcasts. Imagine ! Fat chance.
Tear-jerking Australian Story stories will get the dosh in preference.
That's what's fashionable.

Audiences in developed societies, such as Australia, are losing interest in local and regional world affairs.

The declining readership, under the age of 40, have little care about the allegiance of quality journalists. Many Australians regard most media traditional outfits as culturally irrelevant to their immediate daily-lives.

At the core is a drop in journalistic standards, is the over-production and engagement of popular approaches, which service a status audience, selecting narrowly, a security of mainstream views, that support commercial advertisers.

Simultaneously, this is alienating that part of the audience that craves quality journalism. It is also having a apathetic effect on the social fabric underlining the quality of wide social debates, in this country.

Findings show that most Australians don't fear the concentration of media ownership and nor do they appear to comprehend the power of media moguls as something that has any influence - beyond anyone's control, let alone their own.

The future of authentic journalism is under grave threat where it is being "replaced by entertainment at the heart of the media power edifice".

I don't know what you - all you posters here - are all on about. You're here, in On Line Opinion, discussing and posting at will. You are participating and creating the new media.

The old media, quaint as it was, is dying as Beecher wrote about. It's nothing to complain about. Now, you are the media. Never before in the history of mankind has the ordinary person had so much power over control over the media, and that's what the article was really about, although the writer seems not to admit it.

Welcome to the new way brothers - it's going to be as good as you can make it, and the old media can't do a thing about it. They're history.

You are the new journalists.

Maximus

You obviously didn't read my post when roundly knocking your fellow posters.

Hence "This change is a good thing. Its not like the old days. But the media (and media commentators on the media) should go with the flow.

Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 12:42:49 AM"

Bushbred

Our perceptions are not incompatible. The media barons have run regional papers (that your concerned about) for years. The media companies that are coming in while offering multi media services (including internet) would also want market share of regional newspapers. If WA consumers want to buy the newspapers they'll give consumers what they want.

Any expectation that consumers can be disciplined into accepting "quality journalism" is like forcing people to watch quality progams on SBS and ABC when they'd rather watch Big Brother.

I think its all about giving the public what they want. Many people wanting quality have turned to the internet eg sites like OLO, as Maximus notes.

tus wrote:

"If The Age keeps telling everyone Howard is an evil - they are really saying Australians are evil (or dumb) for electing him.
If I had a choice between looking at a buxom celeb or being told througha thinly veiled attack I was an evil moron, guess what I'm going to purchase."

Yes well... as a Murdoch journo he would say that, wouldn't he? A major point of the article is to decry the decline of the honourable profession of journalism. All we seem to have now in print are sports reporters, entertainment tarts and fascist wannabes.

If he's worth a pinch of his salt, he'd also be aware that the Australian electorate has exactly the government that it deserves.

No wonder I had to explain to my 15 yo son the other day the perils of the imminent demise of collective bargaining - he certainly wasn't going to learn about it from the newspaper, TV or radio!

Mahatma Duck - Murdoch journo am I. Sorry to disappoint you mate, but I have never worked for News Ltd or any Murdoch company in my life, so I guess you are just making things up or assuming.
Well, that is very bad and something a good journo wouldn't do.
My paper is independent, one of the few left, actually.
However, you are right about the decline in the honourable profession of journalism and it is the preachy-types of The Age who are in part ruining it.
Journalists should deal with facts - not assuming someone works for Murdoch just because he doesn't like Fairfax papers.
Journalists are there to serve the interests of the public, not themselves.
Most Aussies can smell pretension a mile away and too many journos tell people what to think, rather than engage.
And if they disengage with the public, they will lose readership or audience.
Which is what is happening to a couple of broadsheets in Australia.

t.u.s.

In journalism, we find the ultimate weakness and achilles heal of 'capitalism'. Newspapers are commercial first and foremost, to sell advertising space, not to inform its readers.

To sell advertising, you must grab attention, hold it, and focus it on the content paid for by your advertizers. Similar to how OLO now displays Ads in the middle of the comments and articles.

The problem arises, when 'shareholder value' in the Media entity concerned becomes more important than social responsiblity, which I'm guessing is pretty much always. If its a slow news day....what do you do ? make it up ? spin it for maximum (but often deliberately false) impact ? Do you put a picture of a Bishop on the front page along with a sub story about a 'small child' and without saying anything specific... say VOLUMES..... ?

Socialist approaches to media are no better. Your hold on power depends on the populations willingness to accept your performance (unless its a dictatorship) so... the nationalized news is giving a plug for this or that government initiative... ad absurdum. Instead of increasing 'shareholder' value, they spin/twist/report with the goal of increasing "Government" value.

So where does this leave us ? Personal ethics of Journalists ? doubtful, they are subject to editorial veto. Managerial ethics ? hardly, they are out to bring in the bucks.

Perhaps our best answer is that competing approaches (left vs right) in control of various media outlets will at least give us both poles of the spectrum on the same stories, I guess its up to us to 'plumb the truth' from the big piccy.

A jounalist can have all the ethics and sense of social responsibility in the world, but at the end of the day if his work doesn't sell advertising space he will be ingraciously culled.

So where does this leave a 'Godbotherer' like me ? Well, somewhere in the middle I suppose. I see it all as a commentary on the human condition, for which I prescribe liberal doses of national repentance and living faith in Christ.

"dont hate the media, become the media"
jello biafra.

I find myself getting pretty cranky reading the paper these days. The Australian, our only national daily broadsheet, seems to run opinion and editorial designed to insult the reader's intelligence. I sometimes wonder if it isn't like that school of advertising that attracts attention by irritating or annoying people. Why do I put myself through it, I sometimes wonder. And the juxtaposition of those pieces with liberal sprinkles of tabloid titbit and cross-media promotion makes for a pretty unsatisfying reading experience. But, as has been pointed out, while I long for the day when some decent competition comes along (a sort of Mister Darcy media magnate), it's economically unviable. So we can turn to blogs and so on (though the screen makes my eyes hurt) but the resources are limited, the audiences fragmented, and journalism as a true vocation & as a democratic institution, is perhaps threatened. What is to be done?

So what does Eric think?
A few lines for
Credibility
Relevance
Trivialisation
Funding
Ownership
Commercialisation

75% of the article about
Technology

Concluding with

“Not only is entertainment more profitable than journalism, it is also far more universal….. The future of serious journalism is under threat in large part because it has been replaced by entertainment at the heart of the media power edifice”

And the point is?

The media has been in a constant state of change, since before Caxton.
Most of “the change” has been driven by technology. Hence, this majority of this article (on a line count basis) is about “technology”.

Anyone who cares for their profession questions from time to time that professions Credibility, Relevance, Trivialisation, Funding, Ownership, Commercialisation. We question and then get on with the important stuff – executing our honed and cherished skills for our clients / customers / readers to pass judgement on.

The future for “serious” journalism has been under threat since before James Gillray started illustrating and lampooning individuals.

Let us get this straight, a journalist, regardless of how “serious” they might perceive themselves (or how pompously), has no right of tenure or support from a fickle and free public. When faced with issues of credible, relevant, trivialised, funding, ownership or commercialisation it is the “quality” of the journalist, not the people who pay him, which will prevail – just like I do in my profession.

As for “And that would not only be a disaster for journalists, it would be a tragedy for Australian democracy. What are these dangerous trends.”

Na – journalists are just “part of the system”, they are not “the system”.

It is simple “Ego” which blinds the feeble from realising same and promotes the “pompous” to write about it .

As for “serious”.
When “serious” is simply a simile for “dull, pompous and boring”, I guess “serious” will always get the shaft.

Henery

“I'm losing hope.
Media proprietors are giving Aussies what the majority seem to want.”

Those uncivilised notions of democracy are everywhere!

TUS, as always you hit the target!

tus - apologies for casting aspersions on your journalistic integrity by suggesting that you work for a Murdoch newspaper. However, you inadvertently reinforce my point by admitting that your employer is one of the very few independent papers left in this country.

Personally, I only buy the local rag a couple of times a week and the Weekend Oz (yeah... I know) on Saturdays, preferring to read news and analysis online and to listen to ABC radio. One thing that's always annoyed me about newspapers (even broadsheets) is the huge amount of waste... every Sunday I chuck out great tomes of sports, lifestyle and finance crap that I haven't read. While this is useful in winter, it's a pain the rest of the time.

Having known a few journos (and journalism educators) in my time, I have to say that I haven't been particularly impressed by the standard of their work - although they tell me that a large part of the problem is that the editors they work for tend to be ignoramuses who were promoted more for toeing the corporate line than for reasons of journalistic integrity.

I wouldn't consider it an aspersion if I did work for Murdoch - they are all good papers. My point was it was assumption which was false.

Journalism, like any profession, has its good practitioners and its bad. whether we like it or not, it is commercial and is driven by what people want to read about.

I don't think it is a matter of quality or dumbing down, just the choice of stuff people want to read about.

Trust me, if Australia was going down the gurgler and there was real reason for protest against the government, the people would be vocal and expect so-called "hard" news.

But you can't force feed people champagne and caviar when all they want is a steak and a cold beer.

And worse, you shouldn't judge people because they eat that steak and come across as having moral superiority because you like to eat high cuisine.

As I said before, the common folk will smell pretension faster than they would two-day old caviar.

t.u.s

Mahatma refers to all the unwanted extras in the broadsheets but no one has commented on how little there is to read anything at all on any page.
In my paper, there will be an article squeezed into one corner while the rest of the page is devoted to ads.
Our one and only paper was a staid creature but trustworthy until a new editor decided on a clean sweep. Now we have bimbos on page three, many of the said ads and very little news. Our missish paper has turned into a scarlet 'woman' and has very little relevance to many.It is a pity, it was a good old thing.