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.