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.)

Thought Rupert Murdoch and John Howard, along with Georgie Dubya, were of the same mind anyway. Notice when making a point, they all say - I - rather than - us or we - anyhow, just like a Hitler or a Stalin.

If our public hasn't noticed, it shows what a craven lot we've all become.

Notice Tony Blair's been trying to escape. Fat chance, however, when both him and Bush swore an oath with David Rockefeller's Trilaterists a long time ago, watched over from a CFR heaven, once controlled by Cecil Rhodes, but now just a mixed up mob, down here mostly run by ex-Israeli ex-cons, including lover boy Paul Wolfowitz.

The Media a commercial organisation doing their job growing and producing profit for the shareholders?
The Media a source of accurate information that informs voters in a democracy so that they may act in a free and informed way?
The Media a source of indulgence and entertainment for members of a democracy ensuring a complacent easily managed electorate?
The Mouthpiece of those whose ego entitled them to think they have something worth saying?
The Mirror in which those who would rule can see themselves in glossy wonder?

Which?
Friel and Falk have just published their book analysing “The Record of a Paper” and find the New York Times to have taken news as the sayings of the establishment with little effort at checking or investigative reporting.

One of the sites attempting to analyse what the media is doing Media Lens has just published “Guardians of Power” which finds the liberal media a myth. Glasgow university in “Bad News from Israel” have found on analysis of the UK press that the Palestinians receive a bad indeed dishonest treatment buy the Media. One could go but I feel sure these and any more will be dismissed as the writings purporting to truth of the disaffected left wing. But you know our own, Australian, Alex Carey wrote widely on the media including ”Taking the Risk out of Democracy” reprinted 1997.
So it goes.
But lets take one more example the question of terrorists suicide bombers etc Robert Pape has analysed these and finds very differently form the spin of the media. So why should not J W Howard use the outlet providing the more comfortable ride less questioning more obsequious?
Why should we imagine ourselves of sufficient importance to be lied to, Iraq--- but I do go on. Left wing spin is as embracing and loud as any other. Is it not?

John Howard should be ashamed of himself.

His statements yesterday that we will have a national food shortage and food prices will go through the roof are truly disgusting and contemptible.

What he doesn't say of course is that he sat on his hands while this problem developed, despite warning after warning. Doing nothing, nothing.

All he sees is a political opportunity, a chance to scare the people. Somehow he thinks this will give him votes. I'd like to give him just a bit more than that.

This typical example of Howard's "leadership" should be noted by all Australians. He is a gutless man, not a leader. He should be rewarded with a bleak future which is what we will have if he stays.

as usual, different varieties of twaddle.

'the meeja' is a commercial organism and responds to to its clients. the clients are in general not interested in political discussion, just gossip. why should they be? they have no control over the political aspect of society and time spent thinking about it is time wasted.

that is why those people who in other societies are characterized as the intelligentsia are here known, tellingly, as the chatterati. a 'clayton's' democracy can only generate gossip, for all power and most information is sequestered in the politicians guild.

This world is full of dynamic events which affects us the people in different ways and extents. Us wanting information of whats happening around us and 'media' developed on this premise over time...

There is one basic premise;media must be neutral, investigative, extract what is known, told and hidden, ie the full story of relevant material particulars declared then give an attempt at analysis to which our analysis process agrees/disagrees...the second limb of this premise is if its printed by 'media-organization' then we reasonably assume it has the power of the above said and accept the information as the fact...a dangerous and manipulate-able psychological factor...

Any failure at the above skews the whole process, then if done with manipulative intent then the media becomes a tool of propaganda than fact...

I dont blame john howard for 'looking after his interests, local and general,'for he survives in an adversarial process...its the medias job to accept this factor and work in it to extract the full fact whatever the acts to hide,obstruct etc...it is fundamental ground for good working democracy and so media have a special protection given...a good reporter acts without fear to personal interests for delivering the full facts to the people(as hollywood sensationalizes...)

In reality media has become a tool for power and manipulating us the people inlcludinng non-reporting eg the media never reported the brutality being effected by family/dv court+women on fatherschildren of Australia until your average fatherchild on the street was damaged and became common public knowledge...food for thought considering they still 'non-report' current practice allowing unacceptable risk of abuse of government power to continue, and same principle applies to other areas of public interest...

eg virginia massacre, talk about less relevant details, but not one attempt/effort to help us understand what would make a soul pull the trigger so many times while looking at other frightened unarmed souls...which is the key to us analysing this event and must include all sorts of facts including childhood experiences/maldevelopment as we expect it was abnormal for such an abnormal act...and the true facts given without fear or favour....

Sam

The Geneva conventions and international law are in part based on the idea that in some way this limit’s the nasty things another country may do to us and of course if we do not abide than expectation of retaliation is correct.

So also the Media. People should be interested for the same reason.
If there is a media providing information on Government actions and the background to such and people take the trouble to be informed then maybe the Government, in theory our joint creation to do our will, can be kept to actions which are our will.
Okay so a sizeable group, still a minority? For we deal in majorities, were against the Iraqi Wars. The Government as is their right in this case the PM having the power, decided otherwise. In doing so he said he accepted full responsibility meaning I assume at International law. An illegal war then presumably any killing becomes a murder and damage criminal damage. But it is argued though not tested that the war was legal based on self defence in one case and existing security council resolutions still being applicable. This despite agreement at the time that resolution 1441 was not a trigger for war, Negroponte the American rep. amongst others. This has a so far as I am aware been concealed by the media as in large part were the Downing street memos whose implication that the propaganda WMD’s was being fitted to the aim of war.

Naturally Australians do not need to care for presumably our being of the Coalition ensures American protection should we need it. I guess 655,000 excess deaths is fare payment. Sorry I forgot this figure is not accepted despite using a technique widely used including for the Congo whose deaths were accepted as realistic estimate. Still those were black fellows and we were not involved!

On the ABC John Howard comes across as a dispassionate, remote person while the Opposition is always warm, interested.
Howard is pragmatic, says the plain unvarnished facts and shuts up while the Opposition indulges in melodrama and finger pointing.
Why doesn't John Howard simply say the state governments have stuffed everything and he is not taking the blame!

Typical leftist clap trap to throw all the blame on to the Howard government. It is true that the Howard Government has used his power of both Houses to control much of the content in the media but this is highly due to journalists willing to scare people into handing over all freedoms of thought and speech.

It is the media after all that label people who disagree with them with labels such as 'white supremecists' solely for disagreeing with their agenda. Only today the Weekend Bulletin(Rockhampton) ran a deceitful story about so called flyers encouraging violence against non-whites. I have seen these flyers and nowhere do they label non-whites as sub-human, nor do they call for violence. Nowhere did they publish the flyers so peole could decide for themselves because the truth is opposite to the media lies.

Journalists must have ADHD for their concentration level on anything is extremely close and, their behavious is absurd as they roam from one lie to another making them compulsive liars.

Hate to tell you HobynH.John Howard does not control our water resources,mostly it is a state responsibility and most of them are Labor.

Hate to tell you Arjay, the federal govt is part of the UN Convention on Climate Change and has known about Global Warming for 10yrs.

Our PM is now saying we should pray for rain?

I would not single out one particular politician, nor one particular political party.

Each State has its own politics that controls media, and they happen to be held by Labor.

And each controlled media has its own Media Tycoon, who wants to be bigger than his rival tycoons.

It just ain't democracy - Neo-Economedia.

The Australian motto of a fair go in Politics appears to be flawed when major political parties are awarded $1.97 per vote.

The cost the Australian Tax payers is around the $60 000 000 dollar mark, paidout at the end of each election to those candidates who have received more than 4% + in the electoral votes.

Liberal and Labor normally pocket around $20 000 000 dollars each. With the outstanding amount going to other fringe parties such as the Greens.

It is disturbing to find that Corporate Media have already been given in advance a chunk of the presumed votes dividends for advertising the major parties.

It is then the media's job because of the large amount of future advertising contracts at stake, to push the political parties who has spent more advertising dollars with their business.

A communist agenda of mock and ridicule are part of the strategy to protect these lucrative contracts at the expense of anything remotely democratic.

There is NO media monopoly by polititians or by gambling and gaming interests in this country. ITS simply NOT TRUE.

And if you people keep saying it is true, we'll be WATCHING you.

You people DON't seriously think this is a democracy?

This post is like a W*nker's Club sitting in the dark and imagining someone is actually listening.

Instead of sitting at your computers and spouting waffle, why don't all of you get up off your big fat bums and do something!

Mainstream is where it's at, not here in the middle of another talkfest!

Talk is cheap - anyone can do it, even me!

Why don't all of you get up off your big fat bums and do something?

John Howard's 'Run-away Train' economy is headed for the terminus driven by twin Coonanised media monopoly diesel engines and some smart arse gets up and tells all the passengers in his carriage to ....
"get up off your big fat bums and do something mainstream"?

As an example, the recent NSW election was gerrymandered by carefully inserted southern European immigrants across every NSW electorate, all voting for their boy Morris and tipping every key seat. These people would tear out Australia's still beating heart desalinate it for a fast million and make it home in time for lunch in Milan, leaving NSW like a leaderless run-away train.

Clearly the only mainstream thing we can do is to vote and the vote has been rigged.

davsab,

John Howard can ask people to cry for rain all he likes as can Rudd for Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia gave control of water to the States.

If Howard had control of water, he would not need to drag State Premiers to attend meetings to discuss this. He would just do it. Yet, like running schools, health, roads, public transport etc, the States have the Consitutional responsibility but the States ignore it, letting them go to waste then point the finger at Howard.

As much as I don't like Howard, it is not his Constitutional responsiblity and should Rudd become Prime Minister at the next federal election, who are the States going to blame then?

For all the words are true.
Little has been suggested on how to change. I for one stopped buying newspapers twenty years ago. This because I was not being informed ie what was the bases of strike action. It was never satisfactorly explained but under the cover of, more pay and improved conditions etc.
Unions were constantly vilified, the vilification was/is rarely justified in the "news" even after learning perhaps vilification was justified, ie the wharfs.
The responsiblity for the "news" we get today is that of the reader or buyer of the paper. Circulations are in decline and it is of little wonder to me for it is disinformation that one reads if one is silly enough to buy them.
The internet became my news source, we now need people to publish their interests and names when posting. We then may be enabled to detect bias ie spin. This should be the criteria by which posters are allowed to post, it is so on some sites.
If newspapers want to regain circulation they need push for deregulation of media, refuse to publish govt. handouts including advertising. May they all go broke.
Nothing of this will happen of course.
Viva the internet.
fluf

Spider, you do have a point.

However, my point is that the federal government (through their involvement with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCCC) has for the last 10 years known about global warming. Each Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that comes out is more confident in its results and more dire in its predictions, because the science is getting better all the time.

If you think the last two reports caused a stir, watch the proverbial hit the fan when the next one comes out in 10 days time!

Anyway, the Murray-Darling basin covering four states is a very major food bowl for us, the water-resources problems have been predicted by experts for ages and coupled with Climate Change problems as above, the Federal Govt should have done something about it way back - they haven't. Much akin to taken action on national security issues, the govt (of whatever persuasion) can take control of the situation.

BTW, there is very compelling evidence from CSIRO and others (also see NASA's G.R.A.C.E. twin satellite research data) indeed linking the current drought to climate change i.e. not to the normal cyclical events of drought that we experience in OZ.

Being a bit provocative, I left a few posts last night on this site suggesting correspondents should get up off their big, fat bums and do something instead of sitting at their PCs pontificating.

To my great surprise there has been a negligible response. Some responders quoted my words, but then went on to pontificate anyway.

It would be nice to think that we as individuals can have some say in the silly, wacky world our pollies inhabit. The truth is that this isn't so!

All your laborious, intellectual responses are wasted here. Maybe you need to go and yell them out in Parliament House, Canberra.

How a senior lecturer in media and communications could come to the conclusion that John Howard muzzles the media is beyond me.
Most of the journalists of this country have been out to get him from day one….only a handful give him a fair go…no matter how well he does.
Of course he prefers to be interviewed by those who give him a fair go…he’s not stupid.
The piranhas of the press gallery, those with the big spreads in the SMH and Age, are lusting for his blood, have been writing him off for years…..have given him every pejorative label under the sun, called him by a long list of names intended to smear ( all proudly collated in one headline by one newspaper a few years ago, to show just how devilishly clever they thought they were)…… ridiculed him re his hearing amongst other things….forecast , with relish, his perceived imminent demise on numerous occasions…only to be shockingly disappointed….. given him credit for exactly nothing….so then he’s going to expect to get professional and balanced treatment from them?
And then there are Labor’s ABC and SBS, where my tax dollars go to fund a cosy retirement pasture for former Labor staffers , whose mission in life is to snow the Australian people into fulfilling their dream and my nightmare , in the form of a Labor federal government.
Of course Howard knows he's in enemy territory on the ABC.
We get a kick out of watching the angst of Tony Jones, Kerry O’Brien et al, as they try valiantly to ensnare him with their insolent gotcha ‘interviews’…every question a trap, and the trap dodged every time.

It’s not manipulation that the PM uses….it’s just good old Aussie straightforwardness, nous, and insistence on giving his answer to the question, instead of letting them tell the viewers what they believe he thinks….or trying to trap him into an answer they think they can use against him.....and, shock-horror...he wants to finish his answers!
They can’t handle this, because they’re in the business of manipulation and misinformation….they can’t handle ‘real’.

Spider - calling journalists compulsive liars is a bit much, and yeah, they appear to have ADHD - it comes from having a deadline either every day, or on radio, every hour. Plus, generally it's not like that's just one story - a radio journalist has to get 5 minutes, which is generally about five stories every hour.
A print journo does more than one story a day, and it has to be finished by the end of the day, so there's only so many lines of enquiry that can be followed up.

So yeah, they had ADHD - but perhaps instead of blaming them for it, you could assess the system they're operating under.

Mr Mack, we are all immensely grateful for your contributions here, all of which have been along the lines of this one:.

>>Being a bit provocative, I left a few posts last night on this site suggesting correspondents should get up off their big, fat bums and do something instead of sitting at their PCs pontificating<<

It is a long time since anyone has been quite that provocative Mr Mack, so you can probably understand why no-one has reacted; I expect they are all still in shock.

Still, I have no doubt that your brilliant apercu will soon have an effect, and we will begin to see contributions that, if failing to match your incisive and mordant standards, will possibly become closer to your ideal.

Having said that, we wait with bated breath for your first contribution to the debate - any debate, in fact - that doesn't simply scoff and sneer. I have no doubt that we have earned and thoroughly deserve your contempt. But it would be really good for us to understand what it is that we need to aspire to.

After all, it would be a shame if you just popped your head in to make fun of us mortals, then disappeared without letting us know what we are missing, wouldn't it?

Actually, now I think about it, it wouldn't.

Pericles,

You're being a bit pathetic buddy!

I'm not having a go at what contributors have to say. There are many clever comments here overall.

My objection is to the forum. The Howard Government and other pollies will never find you here. That's why I say jump off those butts and tell them what you think directly.

OK, I sent a message to a State Minister in Victoria over this weekend but I doubt he will read it. Some public servant will and may, or may not, bring what I said to the Minister's attention.

But at least that is better than contributing to this chat where my comments, clever or otherwise, will achieve zip.

What I am inviting you all to do is find the email addresses of the pollies and send your comments to them also.

I have made numerous contributions to this site - many of them negative, I'm afraid. But my point is to redirect worthwhile comments, wasted here, to the attention of our political representatives in Canberra or State Capitals.