I am keen to know if other people have noticed the lack of substantive reporting on state politics and whether they think it is an important issue?

Will, I do wish we could find another expression other than the term Mainstream Media. If recent events are anything to go by, they are increasingly disconnected from their target audiences and therefore less and less mainstream.

They seem to think that the opinions they peddle are being widely adopted, which seems to be increasingly part of their problem. We might have to start calling them CFM (Content Free Media), or BBB (Bull dust Baffles Brains) or BBS (Backwater Broadcasting Services) or SFMS (Sixth Form Media Services).

I disagree that the MSM is obsessed with any sort of coverage; the only thing they are obsessing about is themselves. When any journalist internalizes issues they immediately lose objectivity and the range of topics upon which they can comment, State issues might be such an example. Not much going for them really, except sticking their flash drives in their ears and wandering around singing la la la la.

Fascinating really because the industry for which journalists work is the “communications industry”. Which, if I remember rightly was always a two way street? Today it’s just output mode only, why would a journalist want to “listen”?

I can endorse the costs issue though. A UK friend of mine and his wife visited last year. Both covered Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. When asked why the journalistic processes of dissemination, fact checking, validating, source verification and news distribution had gone, they both said cost. He said he had visited his old Fleet Street offices only to find the staff levels had gone from about 150 down to ten and they were all spotty face rookies (his words not mine).

I suggested that technology and in particular the internet might have played a role in that he said *^%$*cks, the old wire services were light years ahead, equal in speed, better in context and relevance.

So there we have it, the problems with today’s media are costs and the internet, nothing to do with journalists. If you want “substantive reporting” on anything, write it yourself.

Its cost of course.

We are dealing with a commercial mass media that is structurally prone to paring costs (journalism) and increasing revenue (advertising). I daresay networked international and national news is far cheaper to broadcasters or newspapers as they do not need to maintain much of a state or local level-savvy pool (and let's not forget the prodigious output of public relation bureaus of govts and business that is provided free of charge and freely portrayed as all or the bulk of news items).

Also, at the audience level, the national and international level news may be more likely to be received in a passive viewing relationship. Whereas well-conducted state and local level journalism may well expose the citizen to issues that need resolving and which are of a tractable scale - the citizen might actually be stung into meaningful action. Is there any control mechanism other than cost? I'll pass that over to the CTs.

I think we hear quite a lot about state government on TV and in broadsheets ... if it’s about something scandalous. Or ironic. Or if some politician is in town to announce a new program. What’s missing is any substantive reporting of what government has actually done, or the particulars of what they plan to do. At best, newsreaders and reporters repeat what’s in the Media Release, often as not mangling it. Sometimes, they actually bung on a sentence or two from the other party. What’s missing is any substantive analysis. A long, long time ago ... reporters cultivated ‘sources’ to obtain, and verify, insider information that was useful to those of us with an interest in what’s going on (and aggravating to politicians). No longer. By the time TV news has covered sport, weather, car accidents, drug busts, the mandatory man-bites-dog filler, the latest celebrity faux pas, a feel-good piece about firemen pulling a kitten out of a drain, and Ban Ki Moon pronouncing something or other as ‘unacceptable’, there’s maybe five minutes left for a quick byte from Question Time in Canberra. Most broadsheets aim to generate outrage, because there’s not much else to sell the paper aside from the TV listing and the Form Guide. Journos for the most part don’t know if the Wivenhoe Dam operators contributed to flooding in QLD, or why the road upgrade promised three years ago to regional VIC hasn’t started yet, or whether or not the NSW is broke. Answering such questions would require research, investigation, and, when the responsible minister throws a tanty, intestinal fortitude. If the advertisers are happy with news that has the look and feel of YouTube, why take risks? There are exceptions for broadsheets: The Australian, sometimes the SMH, or The Age. None for TV, as far as I know; SBS and the ABC specialise in indoctrination, not news. Might be different in the Regions -- I recall getting much better news when I lived in Townsville a decade ago. No idea how to fix the problem, either. Any suggestions?

Channel Ten have decided this week to drop their local primetime news bulletin. See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/ten-network-shifts-6pm-with-george-negus-to-630pm-drops-local-news-bulletin/story-e6frg996-1226027284526