I've just finished viewing another piece on present day South Africa, sent to me by a resident and long time friend living there.

Essentially, 'snaps' from internal and external media sources, all dutifully reporting on the burgeoning levels of violence in that beautiful country.

As a keen student of RSA and Zimbabwe, I've quiety observed from afar, the changing events post 1994 with the predicted downfall of the last vestiges of apartheid. Sharing the same hopes of everyone for an enduring peace, and for all to live together harmoniously. And for that great nation to finally vanquish it's intractable problems of race and inequality, and to once more grow into that prosperous nation, nestled at the foot of that dark and composite continent of, Africa.

However, this is NOT about South Africa, nor the topic ? You see, what troubles me, is how much trust or conviction should I place in those media Networks, with respect to their autonomy and veracity, of what's being reported on those events that are allegedly occuring in the country now ?

There's no doubt, the media are immensly powerful, so powerful in fact, it's been said they can make or break governments ? And often there's been a story, or an article that lacks some or many of the facts. Even then, rather than overt public censure, it just 'slips through to the keeper'. It's rare also, to see the media ever brought to account. Even less so to be forced to make an apology.

When I was working, my Inspector was terrified of speaking to an 'on camera' journo' about a crime. But a week in the 'Box', was just a yawn to him ? On quite a few occasions we've utilised the media, as a medium to assist us in getting out an important message for us ! A real public service, on our behalf. Therefore, if they can't be totally trusted, why then do we seek to use 'em ? A little captious perhaps ?

If we can't TRUST the media, from what source do we get our information ?

o sung wu the corporate media and the ABC are compulsive liars.A good start for unbiased truth is http://www.globalresearch.ca/

What a difficult topic. I mean between the 6 o'clock cartoon network which can't even get the weather right and the 6.30 televending shows like A Current Advertisement. What news do we actually get that we can be critical of? And don't say the ABC. I've just finished airing out my keyboard after spraying my last drink on it from some fool here that believes in his media friends.

I don't know about South Africa, but does Australia actually have a legitimate news network?

"""
If we can't TRUST the media, from what source do we get our information ?
"""

Your own gut instincts I guess. Everyone has an agenda these days and it would seem the truth just isn't profitable anymore.

The Media - injurious or beneficial? Both !

Hi there ARJAY & RAWMUSTARD...

Many thanks for your link there ARJAY, I really appreciate it. And I tend to agree with your assertion apropos the ABC and the Commercial Media. Personally, I believe the ABC is merely an advertising extension of the Australian Labour Party. Those individuals in the Parliamentry Press Gallery amount to naught when it comes to impartiality.

Further, the National Press Club, in Canberra would be far better served as a waste recycling facility. As it's current role almost replicates that of waste recycling ? More as a consequence of it's august members who seem to be the purveyors of waste and other fetid detritus that can only emenate from such a source.

Notwithstanding they possess a responsibility to impart, 'The Truth'... report (not contrive) the factual news without imburing it, in any way, with their own opinions, prejudices and other sordid thoughts they believe the public should mandatorily consume.

As a former copper, I can affirm absolutely, there's not one amongst them, that I'd EVER trust with recording, and then reporting, the truth ! Sad really ?

Yes RAWMUSTARD...

My reference to South Africa was merely a vehicle to illustrate the disgusting treatment occasioned by the media, of those poor souls involved in the critical events of the last few days. The facts of which, should have been handled tactfully and sensitively, rather than just being thrown together by a 'fly in fly out' bunch of reporters from the BBC, CNN, and ors. as well as other internal African media groups.

It's truly amazing, these foreign media types, just arrive en masse, and leave without any thought for accuracy or the consequence of their 'copy'. A really sad state of affairs when you think of it ?

Many thanks for your contribution.

o sung wo, good thread.
I think it needs exploring.
But have for quite some time believed/known media is not trustworthy.
We may be to blame for that, we require more and more news.
Private ownership has always played out as private opinions are given more air than balanced truth.

O Sung,
You mentioned the events of the last few days in S.A, what specifically?
I follow a retired South African journalist on Twitter and she's practically a 24 hour news feed in her own right, even to the point of giving real time updates on breaking news from that country.
https://twitter.com/AdrianaStuijt
If you can provide details of the incident to which you refer we can compare it's treatment in various media.
In general the mainstream media will ignore or misrepresent any story coming out of South Africa which shows the ANC as incompetent or corrupt and they refuse to cover any of the euphemistically described "Farm murders".
I find that in general Twitter is the best source of news because you can cross check facts via multiple sources very quickly and gain a better picture of the story.

OSW all media that purport to inform us of “news” should have a legislated warning at the beginning of their “news” transmissions and publications along the lines of:

WE DO NOT GUARANTEE AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORTED EVENTS

People may learn to think for themselves, or not.

Hi there SONOFGLOIN...

A headline providing a warning of 'no guarantee of authenticity', a brilliant idea my friend ! Though I suspect that any media outlet doing such a thing, mightn't last for long. It seems that we all have 'controls' placed on us - in the corporate world, government, law and order, in fact all of us have 'controls' of one sort or another applied to us essentially on how we must co-exist.
Save for the media it would seem ?

Sure they have the Media Council of OZ, I think it's called, that's it really ? Other than a general oversight by the relevant Minister in Government charged with Communications or whatever ?

They're so jolly powerful. I guess that's why the current Govt. is thinking of establishing some further controls over 'Broadcasters' at least, often referred too as 'Shock Jocks'.

I'm not personally worried about all that. What annoys me significantly, is the absence of Truth in some accounts. There are those journalists who are quite prepared to besmirch the reputations of people based purely on some premise, even some speculative rumour they've heard around the traps ? If it sounds a good story, then lets run with it ? No matter if they're wrong, and in doing so, they 'trash' the good fame and character of some other poor bugger.

Because police pull-up next door and speak with your neighbour for an hour or so, and he accompanies them back to the police station, it means nothing. Yet on one such occasion, I and another detective had to allay the many wild rumours that abounded, as a consequence of our enquiries ?

In another similar situation, that almost busted up an already rocky marriage, again based purely on rumour and speculation. All of which was precipitated by a very nosey, annoying neighbour, calling into a talk-back radio programme, contemporaneously with our visit.

Whereby, a charge of 'creating a public mischief' unfortunately, wouldn't've held water. Again, the media didn't bother to establish the facts. Ah well...?

Here's a good example of lazy journos on a recent happening here in oz about birthday cakes.

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/02/06/australia-bans-kids-from-blowing-out-birthday-candles-on-cake-at-childcare-centers/

We all know here that it's not banned yet anyway.

Hi there RAWMUSTARD...

Thank you for the link. Yes you're right, one eye on their current story, and to hell with accuracy or 'the facts', and the other on the next newsworth event, hopefully with a little more 'bang for the buck' to it.

I've always held the view, if you're completely oblivious to a city or place that you've not previously been and you were unsure of exactly what you're walking into, and wanted to measure the prevailing 'temperature' of a place or situation, one could do far worse than listening to the local 'talk-back' radio station.

One tends to hear the common man or woman articulate (usually anonymously) exactly what's worrying them. Given the Presenter, can of course, arbitrarily, cut 'em off. Though generally speaking, much of what's said is unexpurgated and unsullied by anything the presenter may care to say.

In my opening remarks for this topic, I mentioned a friend who attempts to keep me abreast of events in RSA. Amongst other things she directed me to their top rating talk-back radio station - 702 Talk Radio, in Johannesburg. So, I've been listening to them for the past six or seven months on my little Internet Radio.

You'd be surprised, as was I, to hear of what issues concern the ordinary citizens, the 'Mums & Dads' in the big cities in the country.

Off Topic, I know - Road accidents, involving a fatality between, 01 December 2012 to 25 December 2012, a staggering figure of 1008 persons were killed on RSA roads just in that three week period ! As an ex copper, I was astonished ! That, and many other issues, leading up to Christmas, were discussed.

And now, early February, political corruption, crime, and more crime comes up ad infinitum, as does the declining economy, serious youth crime and unemployment. And some horrid, gang rapes and murder. Much of this, though reported in the media is (apparently) somewhat sanitised. Still all vigorously discussed, without the usual imput of spin, occasioned by the media and proposed by Jacob Zuma and his cohorts.

The problem with the idea that talk-back radio is where "one tends to hear the common man or woman articulate exactly what's worrying them" is based on the notion that they are reacting to the truth and not some manufactured narrative.

Talk-back radio is based on emotion - anger in particular - and has little basis in fact.

It's a place where people addicted to rage can be made to incite the same feelings in others.

When an "expert" is invited to be interviewed and the evidence goes against the general mood of the subject (ie factually proves them wrong), those factual arguments are dismissed and the caller typically denounced.

The biggest problem in mainstream media is censorship, in the form of "creative omission" where relevant facts are deliberately avoided in order to perpetuate a story or impression.

It's not what said, it's what is NOT said that makes the difference.

Ah WOBBLES, you've put up a good arguement against the benefits or otherwise, of taking regard to what's said on talk back radio. Interestingly too, many of those who do like to have some input, are repeat callers, most with some particular issue, as you say often couched in emotion, where the absence of fact is of little consequence to their tale. Yes, I'd have to agree with you with some callers, though not all.

Many I've heard present a balanced view, or opinion, devoid of any apparent emotion, and often quite well argued. Just who then, does the responsibility for the accurate dissemination of fact belong ? Initially, the media ? Or is it up to us ? Is it not our collective responsibility to not blindly believe everything that's been reported in the media ? Yes of course it is. How many times have we heard it said '...you don't believe everything you read in the papers...' ?

Thank you for your imput WOBBLES.

o sung wu
The media is supposed to hold government to account but oft times the buzz of being part of the inside group or pack means reporting may be less than honest in some cases or resemble a mouthpiece for a particular group. Although this is subjective, generally if a journo writes something you agree with they are beneficial if not, they are injurious.

The ABC is copping a hiding at the moment by being declared as anti-Labor and then anti-LNP depending on which politician just got a grilling from Leigh Sales or Tony Jones et al.

The media is at it's worst when it becomes part of the problem of governance or when through profit motives is hellbent on selling papers with histrionic titles and falsehoods with little regard to fact checking and at it's best when it exposes some form of corruption or provides interesting perspecitve, history and commentary on a particular issue in a fair and balanced approach.

This is rare. But we are all guilty if we continue to encourage the worst offenders by buying their product.

HI there PELICAN...

'...When the media become part of the the problem...' ! Excellent observation there PELICAN.

As I see it, the primary function of Media, is that of reporting News. The operative word being 'reporting', or communicating, not interpretating, explaining, or constructing the News.

Most of you will recall when journalist were described as reporters, and 'report' was what they did. There were many current affairs programmes back then, where a presenter would put his own 'spin' on a particular news event, and it was simply just his or her own opinion, but it wasn't the news.

The days of Eric Baume, Bob Santamaria, Brian White, and ors. (their names have escaped me, I'm sorry) they often took a particular stance on some issue or other. And when it came down to political matters, they were (patently) of either the left or the right. Irrespective of their political proclivities it was after all, still just an opinion.

Today, there seems no longer any bounds with respect to maintaining some ethical constraints on Editors, to ensure those journalist's that come within their aegis, preserve accuracy in their news reporting. Moreover until the media take some responsibility to ensure there's a degree of fidelity, and the keeping of ethical standards, in determining impartiality and accuracy in their news reporting. There will be many consumers who'll simply dismiss their efforts, as yet another negative step for some pseudo image of improvement.

Thank you for your contribution PELICAN.

Dear o sung wu,

Barrister and Human Rights advocate Julian Burnside
wrote an interesting article last year entitled,
"Better Media is Good For Democracy."
In it he stated:

"It is a strange paradox that, while we live in a
torrent of information, there is such a limited range
of available views."

Burnside goes on to tell us that, "Media ownership in
Australia is notoriously narrow. Mainstream media offers
precious little diversity, and such diversity as there is
runs along predictable lines. The economics of print
and electronic media tend to drive opinion in the direction
of populism. This has unhappy results now that both
political parties have, it seems, abandoned their founding
principles and form policies by reference to media coverage
generally, and to news polls and focus groups in
particular."

He also points out that "just as mainstream traditional media
is full of voices (mostly strident) telling government what
to do, so the blogosphere and social media are full of voices -
more numerous and diverse, and often more strident - doing
the same. "

Those of us who are torn between the "desert of mainstream media
and the jungle of the internet need a place where rational but
diverse views can be found on matters of enduring importance."

Hear, hear. But where do we find this place?
Where do we find an outlet which is rational and principled,
without being biased to any social or political position?

I don't have the answers to those questions.
I try to do my research on issues that I consider important
through various websites, data-bases, newspapers, and
television programs (Q and A, The Insiders,)and other news
outlets. That's about all that I can do.

Good evening to you LEXI...

Many thanks for your most interesting Email, particularly that part which is attributed to Mr Burnside QC. A very very clever gentleman to say the least.

Additionally, I look forward very much to anything you may be able to find, in relation to the functions and responsibilities of the media in this country. However, as the night is quite late, and my tired ol' eyes are now giving up the ghost, I'll need to take my leave, and bid you all a goodnight.

Cheers...Sung Wu.

Dear oh sung wu,

I'm not sure I get the hate you and others heap on the ABC. We are damn lucky in this country to have such an institution and it should be valued and supported by all thinking Australians. I personally get up in arms about our political leaders having to 'visit' Murdoch in NY whenever they were in town, or putting up with Gina getting on the board of Fairfax or Channel 10. these should concern us far more yet nary a whisper. Murdoch has the newspaper business in Australia largely sewn up in so many States and often the only challenge to that dominance comes from 'OUR' ABC. Without it we would be so much poorer.

You claim that; “I believe the ABC is merely an advertising extension of the Australian Labour Party. Those individuals in the Parliamentry (sic) Press Gallery amount to naught when it comes to impartiality.”. I totally disagree and invite you to make your case with solid evidence.

As to the police being afraid of the media could you please tell me why there were so many camera crews present when the NSW detectives arrested Craig Thompson recently? Investigations in England have revealed how arm in arm the police and the media are and there is little I see here that would lead me to believe it is much different in this country.

I think we're long past the point where Fairfax, Newscorp, SBS and the commercial TV stations are considered "real media" by most normal Australians. The ABC is an exception, it's been a lot better over the last few years, it's programs and analysis are mostly objective (ie uncontroversial) and it's the only network to do any real investigative journalism.
SBS is unwatchable for the most part, it has occasional gems like "Prisoners Of War" but in our house we call it "The Hitler Channel", since it seems every night there's a show on where Silvio Rivier gets to do his demented Hitler impersonation throughout the narration.

Hello again o sung wu
Many years ago a school friend was lucky enough to get an internship at a local country newspaer after finishing Yr 12 (matriculation as it was known then). Her first jobs were pretty basic then after sometime moving into the more interesting stories such as police reporting, courts etc. She then moved to the big smoke and was disillusionsed after a few years with the lack of ethics in the industry. Stories that she wrote based on interviews and facts, ended up being edited and becoming far sordid than they really were. Naturally she became disillusioned and eventually left.

Opinion pieces are fine if they are advertised as such. But I agree with your view that reporters once reported facts rather than statements based on rumour and/or before due process had ascertained the 'facts'. Some of the best investigative works now come via books where authors (some ex jounos) can spend the time researching and interviewing sources, fact checking etc without the pressure of the 24 hour news cycle.

Hi there CSTEELE...

Many thanks for your interesting questions. Apropos your request that I furnish evidence attesting the bias shown by the Parliamentry Press Gallary, and to a lesser extent, the ABC.

My answer surely must be... 'res ipsa loquitur' - the thing speaks for itself !

On the occasions I've watched the ABC, or read an account by some notable political journalist. I'm amazed at how patently obvious it is, that some material, or a rebuttal, or some contrary opinion expressed from the Right, is altered in some way ?

Often accomplished by modifying or 'refashioning' a story, by having the facts reworked, or skewered, omitted, or even embellished upon. In order to obfuscate the true essence of such an account, from a figure from the Right.

Of course, no responsible journalist would deliberately seek to fabricate an account, notwithstanding whatever his political proclivities may be. However, as a human being his personal tendencies, and penchants for a particular side in politics are sometimes evident in whatever he chooses to write ?

A retired Police Commissioner of the Feds, a notable former high ranking & decorated soldier, was allegedly heard to say '...he'd rather face a Company of highly trained NVA, than face the media...' ?

When I was working, I was required, not only to give an update, or a public sitrep, on some crime or other, but also to appear on TV on more occasions than I care to remember ! I'll freely admit, it's probably the hardest, most daunting task that can confront police. A view shared by almost everyone I served with !

We're neither trained, nor skilled in dealing with the media (in ALL it's forms). And most large Enforcement Agencies around the world now give specific training to members who're likely to be called upon to give such interviews, as well as employing a dedicated Public Relations & Media Liaison, Department.

Thank you for your contribution CSTEELE.

Good afternoon to you PELICAN, and you too (again) CSTEELE...

Hi again CSTEELE...

I'm sorry, in answereing your questions, it would seem inter alia, I didn't quite make myself clear -

Police are not 'afraid' of the Media, far from it. Indeed, they (the coppers) often NEED them for many reasons. Actually, it's been 'interviewed by journalists' - on or off camera, that's the daunting feature of police/media relations. Being misquoted, being watched or listened too, both by the police command, or other bosses' and of course, the public at large.

You get back to the Station, you're called into the Inspector's Office..." what in hell's name did you say all that 'S...' for, you goose..." OR WORSE ! If your boss is upset, HIS boss is upset too, all the way to the top !

Discipline in the police force is like water and gravity ? 'Water' (like trouble), (flows 'down' hill - Gravity) right 'down' to my level...a humble detective sergeant, and his hapless squad ! You follow me CSTEELE ?

Hi there PELICAN...

That's indeed a great shame. Your friend followed a career path only to be profoundly disappointed and thus disillusioned, and then needed to seek another career ? I'm not entirely sure, but isn't a Journalism Degree at Uni. pretty demanding ? Your standards of english, expression, in fact everything associated with skilled writing, needed to be very high, I would've thought ?

A professional skill far beyond my modest NSW Leaving Certificate results back in 1957. Ten or so years after I joined the job, they decided to require all new police cadets, to study and pass 'Pitmanscript' shorthand. Wouldn't have effected me, as I joined up, post the Army. But I'd think shorthand as hard to master ?
I used to watch them in Court, and they were very very quick and adept at their profession, as well as being well remunerated too. I thought, many journo's were capable of taking shorthand, perhaps I'm wrong ?

Thanks again PELICAN & CSTEELE, I appreciate both your contributions immensly.

Dear oh sung wu.

You addressed my query about your remarks regarding the ABC with “My answer surely must be... 'res ipsa loquitur' - the thing speaks for itself !”

I must respectfully respond that it does no such thing.

Would you have accepted that as an answer from a witness or somebody you were questioning?

I fully accept that bias is mostly in the eye of the beholder, but when one makes the type of sweeping generalisation that you have just done with out any equivocation then it is only right that you be called upon to provide some concrete evidence of which I await with interest.

Perhaps you may have addressed, in a round about manner my question; “could you please tell me why there were so many camera crews present when the NSW detectives arrested Craig Thompson recently?”, but if you have a more fulsome response I would appreciate it.

Cont...

Cont...

I'm not sure the title to your thread “The Media - injurious or beneficial?” was exactly reflecting the point you were wanting to make about the media but if I may I will take it literally and offer the following.

At my daughter's school there were a series of suicides that occurred in quick succession a couple of years back. There had been a set of protocols in place about the reporting of particularly youth suicides. These along with other measures had managed to drive down the number of young people successfully taking their own lives. The local paper had respected these measures until the fourth life was lost then ran with the story hard and loud even approaching students in the streets outside the school. The principal and others were horrified and protested strongly. The paper's response was that the story was too big to ignore.

This same paper had also devoted a hell of a lot of resources and column inches to an anti-bullying campaign particularly addressing school kids.

Therefore your question; 'The Media - injurious or beneficial?' probably rightly deserves Individual's answer of 'Both'.

Of course we need to respect the nature of the beast when dealing with our media but also recognise its absence would leave us far more vulnerable to excesses of power. Often the cosy relationship between the police and the government means the only real prospect of our society managing to prevent such excesses within the force is our media.

I have no problem with any institution wielding such strong power over our citizens liberty and often lives being scrutinised by the fourth estate even if they get it wrong sometimes. A free and un-intimidated press is a vital foundation of any democracy and as long as it provides the function of shining spotlight on those particular institutions I will forgive many of its failings.

Therefore, in my opinion, the Media is on the whole highly beneficial.

Hi (again) CSTEELE...

That's the trouble when one originates a Topic, you end up with fingers an inch long.

It would seem we're speaking at cross purposes here. It is my firm belief, the Parliament House Press Gallery, and elements of the ABC are biased. You asked for proof. Therefore, by the thrust or sense of your question implies they're not biased. Then it's incumbent upon you, by dint of your question, to prove they're not.

Further, do you believe in God ? You have two options from which to choose an answer. Yes you do. No you don't. Whatever the answer, you could be rightly challenged to furnish proof for your answer. The only other legitimate response, I don't know ?

Or, Some say the Ford Falcon is a great car ? Some say it isn't ?
However can either of these answers be substantiated ?

I'm a little surprised you presented a somewhat elementary analogy citing a person in custody providing a response similar to my original citation -...'the thing speaks for itself...' a little disingenuous perhaps CSTEELE ?

I've stated my belief herein, and that's my firm opinion.

Apropos the activities of police re Mr Thomson's arrest, what more do you want CSTEELE ?

Thank you for your contribution, I do appreciate , and any time.

Dear oh sung wu,

Lol.

I'm getting the distinct impression I may be interrupting 'Sunday Sherries'.

Will catch you another time.

Cheers

Good afternoon to you CSTEELE...

Notwithstanding any or all of your 'distinct impressions', lubricated or otherwise, by a delightful 'Sunday Sherry', I'm bound to say I'll always welcome your views, opinions even accusations anytime my friend ! The only time I might get a little 'precious' even protective if you like, is where some uncorroborated averment is made, apropos the ethical conduct of those still gainfully employed in my former occupation. A job that does not represent a fair, 'moving target'.

Please, don't be a stranger on anything 'I go on about', else what's the point of subscribing to our (Graham's) little forum anyway ?

Again, thank you for your contribution.