My mate has just gone past on his morning constitutional. He informs me that he has just had another shot at the media - with similar results. He wants to try a third time - three in a row should be pretty conclusive according to him.
He thinks it is a bit of a joke. Does the media need a bit of shaking up and then a sharp tap on the shoulder to settle it down - or perhaps a knife to level it off?

Recently a member of the police dept was charged with murdering his wife in Brisbane. It was reported on the television news in a most perfunctory manner midway through the bulletin. Newspapers didn't run much with it either.

How odd I thought. Normally any homicide grabs headlines. And when it concerns a member of the community that enjoys high levels of public trust and respect who would have thought it would go almost unnoticed.

When I was a member of a police dept in Australia I befriended a local newspaper journalist who would call-in looking for stories.

He went on to become a member of the media section of that police dept and we bumped into each other years later. It was then that I got a bit of insight into how the the media thing works.

His hearsay story is mine for that reason. But it does leave me wondering why so many of us believe what we read in the newspapers and hear/see on television.

My conclusion: Self-evidently biased and questionably corrupted.

The part Janet Albrechtson played in the recent leadership shenanigans was amazing. What is a single journalist doing deciding it's time for a leadership stoush? Shouldn't that have been up to the party?

I don't think the media has as much influence with the public as it likes to think, but it has far too much influence in politics if one journalist can cause that much trouble.

Occasionally the media do some good things like exposing corruption, etc. but the media has far too much influence and push their own personal or their bosses views. There are no reporters these days, as they all think they are commentators. Reporters should report facts, not opinions.

Sometimes though they come unstuck, like at the republic referenda. Almost 100% media backing for a republic and they had to eat crow.

Worth remembering that.

Mmmm...remember the Australian newspaper came out heavily in favour of a republic - and then went very, very quiet afterwards....republic was largely media driven apart from a few high fliers who believed they were in line for the presidency.
One of the interesting things is the (perhaps deliberate) lack of knowledge of even our most experienced journalists when it comes to constitutional issues. They will happily blame all state issues and problems on Canberra - even when they are not fiscal issues. Tell them it is something that only the states can deal with and they simply do not get the point.

Have you ever thought that you should start making a list of the things
that media gets wrong about subjects of which you are familiar.
I have been promising myself to do just that for some time, but
typically I guess I am too slack to do it.

If a number of people did this I suspect that significant errors would
be close to 50%. I think this must be why journalists are down there
with second hand car salesmen in the prestige stacks.