Journalism, once a noble profession, has been hijacked by semi-literate yahoos and political activists.

Agree with most of this, Murray.
Alan B.

"Generally, those among the mainstream media are hysterics".

Not my own words, but I certainly agree with them.

That damning examination of the CBC mirrors their ABC .

Just substitute an A for the first C and it's perfect !

Journalism nowadays is slanted heavily toward sensationalism, is personality-driven, mostly opinion-based and presented on TV as the equivalent of clickbait.

The more outrageous the claims, the more likely viewers will stay around until the next ad-break and the more emotional the response, the more likely they will buy something. "You have a big hole in your life about the same size as this flat-screen TV.." isn't just a myth and this is how shock-jocks in particular work.

Nowadays any clown with a camera can present "news" on YouTube to a global audience and many will believe it to be true. Even now the number of flat-earthers is increasing.

The real tragedy is that the rich and powerful have known for years that social media and the endless arguments and division it creates is what ultimately makes people vote against their best interests and can influence elections generally.

Agree with Rache's comment. Australia has mostly right wing nativist conservative libertarian media i.e. 9F, 7WM & NewsCorp, happy to accept state socialism direct or in kind.

Meanwhile legacy media players, LNP and think tanks constantly complain about and dog whistle the ABC on funding, climate science, stacking panel shows etc.; the ABC has become absolutely anodyne, overpopulated by ex. NewsCorp minders and hollowed out so that it can barely fulfil its charter in the bush e.g. now a preference for news trivia vs. substantive policy issues?

What bothers the US influenced libertarians is that most people trust not just the ABC, but tax funded public services too e.g. health and pensions, hence, the powers that be are restricted to kicking down on JobSeeker, NDIS etc..

Further, most of their crucial above median age vote is rusted onto legacy media of print, radio and FTA tv, but this will not last forever and younger more diverse, educated and open minded cohorts emerge as influential in Oz (aka 'the great replacement' which keeps the alt right, nativist conservatives and ageing lefties awake at night).

Finally, following libertarian economic principles, why do legacy get so much support from the Govt. and state to expand their reach and avoid constraints, on the taxpayers' dollar? Hypocritical?

*… ultimately makes people vote against their best interests and can influence elections generally.…*

Or not vote at all, such as yours truly. There is a theory that casting no vote is supportive of the incumbent, but I’ve yet to see proof of that.

The wise among us are familiar with the influence of money on politics, and pretty much the whole of life.

It was interesting to see Murdoch quasi right wing press turn on Trump and follow the Democrats song sheet in the end.

To believe in the existence of a right-wing press is fooling yourself, where is the evidence.
I gave up buying quasi right-wing newspapers years ago. They were very quick to sell out Donald Trump when it suited them.

Dan

To believe in the existence of a right-wing press is fooling yourself,
diver dan,
Sad but true !

Murray Hunter is on a pathway to truth.

Many people apporportion blame for the breakdown of the media to political bias, left or right.

Murray does not do this. instead he allocates cause over many factors.

Firstly, he implicates factors controlled by governments, whatever their claimed political slant. These factors include laws hindering investigative journalism, punishment of whistleblowers, tighter defamation laws, draconian official secrets prosecutions and persecutions of journalists.
As an aside, today, I would include draconian co-vid fascist laws and regulations.

Secondly he targets the Media organisations themselves, both traditional and on line Social Media companies.

Finally Thirdly he mentions the sausage manufacture like production of 'tertiary qualified' journalists, who, like many graduates today are fed woke rubbish and shallow lowbrow knowledge as great and necessary skill. Most graduates he maintains are not craftspeople of news but pseudo academics.

Finally, Murray points to corrupting outside pressure groups.

I agree with Murray's enunciation of all these self-evident dislocations.

But I think these are the symptoms of the real malaise.

Every one of the groups or people Murray highlights are populated by a single group.

They are all members of our university educated managerial elites.

These are our new 'rulers'.

In 1945 in his book 'The Managerial Revolution', the American commentator and classically trained intellectual, James Burnham, predicted the rise of such a 'class'. He maintained they would become a managerial elite and talk of themselves, and about subjects in which only they were interested, in a language only they understood.

He predicted working people and entrepreneurs (small Business) would become excluded.

That is the sickness which is the cause of the breakdown, not only of the media, which is the sympton, but of our entire western social cohesion.

For those who wish to read Burnham, his expression is intellectual and his vocabulary extraordinary. In my humble opinion, I found he was very demanding reading.

Thanks again Murray for raising an important issue. Kudos. CM.