I reckon that blaming the politicians for the laziness and lack of investigative effort on part of the modern Press Gallery is a bit of a cop out.

Any political journalist who is prepared to let go of the role of sports commentator ("Rudd has taken a hit over this issue and will need to recover quickly and strike back") or beauty pageant judge ("the PM looks particularly fetching in this combined spin about interest rates and taking a hard line against Moslem clerics") and go and investigate some policy issues will quickly find a largely untapped ine of information to work with.

The country - and Canberra in particular - abounds with retired and currently serving public servants, academics, lobbyists, peak group, current and former political apparatchiks and etc. who know heaps of largely undisclosed and juicy information about about how governments are performing in critical areas such as the environment, the economy, Aboriginal affairs, health and social policy, immigration, etc. There is also a growing mountain of stuff posted online by governments which - if read through carefully and with understanding - can yield all sorts of interesting insights on where this country is going politically, economically, socially, environmentally, etc.

But this requires lots of hard work at a desk and on the phone, rather than endlessly gossiping with journalistic colleagues and their staffers. And there is always the risk of any policy-related story getting spiked in favour of the latest political scandal. So, not surprisingly, most Press Gallery journos find it safer to hunt for gossip as a pack than to attempt to plough the lonely furrow of genuine investigative reporting.

And why is this so? Ultimately, because we the public seem to prefer the gossip, the sports reporting and beauty contests to the meatier analysis. It's a pity.

What utter nonsense to suggest that the media is muzzled by John Howard. The media is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and he has the final say. Why else is Kevin Rudd meeting him on his Prime Minister in Waiting trip?
Regular correspondents in the Letters to the Editor pages of newspapers around the country will tell you that there are certain issues or views on certain issues which are "no-go" zones because of interference from Mr Murdoch, from the ALP and the union movement. The ALP has nothing to fear from the media but the Coalition has everything to fear. Free speech is fantasy rather than fact.

The article's not bad, though I think it needs to acknowledge a little more responsibility on behalf of the journalists.

Communicat - the influence of Mr Murdoch is vastly overestimated. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm saying it only crops up in the rarest of instances.
Plenty of people like to say that it reflects that journalists are afraid to speak out and just know to toe the line, but quite frankly, that's far too and it's not really accurate. The notoriety such a challenge would bring a journalist would ensure they could be hired by another organisation.
Believe it or not, Murdoch is not god.

Besides, this is an across the board issue and when you've got leftie fairfax titles such as the age pitted against right wing advocates such as the Sun and the Australian, it really makes this issue more about quality control.

News reporting by press release is all too common. But perhaps the journalists could counter this, with numerous insertions of:
...as to the question of ... the minister failed to respond.
When asked about ... the minister avoided answering this.
To the reservation put forward by ... the minister did not address this concern.
On the matter of ... the minister remains secretive/obtuse/vague/ignorant/unaware.

It is case of not putting words into their mouth, just highlighting their absence of words, and drawing a suitable inference, that they are secretive, opaque and not accountable. If effective this will encourage them to engage.

“How we follow the election will be determined instead by what we glean from the media.”

How else can people follow an election? If there is another method, I would like to know about it. The media cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything, and puts only its own points of view and opinions forward.

I heard someone connected with the media saying a few weeks ago that the media has decided that Labor should/will win.

Howard is the most “sort after and quoted politician in the country” only because the news hounds are always chasing him up to comment on every subject know to man, including cricket and other sports, actors and so on. The poor man must wish that he could, actually, control the media!

Is Howard really “very, very good at steering an interview in the directions he wants it to go", or is it the incompetence of the reporters that allows him to do this?

Perhaps Young, a senior lecturer in media studies, is not training them properly!

Note that it is Howard who is the villain. Nothing said about Rudd or anyone else in Australian politics. Just Howard.

No bias there, of course!

There is only one section of society that we should be more suspicious of than we are of politicians – the media and its would-be mind benders.

I have, on more than one occasion, been given unsolicited feedback by an Editor "excellent letter but we are not able to publish it". Since the subject matter is not libellous or likely to cause any sort of public disturbance and the letter itself has been short I can only assume from the subject matter that pro-Murdoch and ALP/Union forces are at work. Maybe I am wrong but why else would an "excellent" letter be denied publication? (I am assuming here that there was space but the Editors in question have been given guidelines.)