Miriam Germein writes: Chris Warren’s article “The ABC doesn’t need News Corp — News Corp needs the ABC” cuts through the tedium of an ABC cowering in the playground and Insiders marking the depths of descent into serious suck-up. How utterly nauseating to see a public broadcaster so willing to air the same old media ghouls with their repetitious and self-serving takes on matters of serious public interest.
Of key concern is the question of authority and responsibility. Where does it lie? And what process ensures that audience feedback is noted and given the respect it deserves?
Peter Monie writes: I ignore News Corp so why can’t the ABC?
Peter Lockwood writes: It’s time the ABC grew a spine, rejected News Corp’s views, and ignored it as irrelevant. These commentators exist only to abuse, hurt and humiliate. The sneering Rita Panahi, the disingenuous Paul Murray, the regular pile-ons during Outsiders all add to a divisive Australia. They call every progressive idea woke and a threat to Australia’s future. No debate of the issues, just fear, sneer and derision. The collective mental health of Australia is heading downhill with this quality of public “debate”.
Ross McGillivray writes: Might be worth noting that in WA The West Australian is pretty strongly pro-Voice. Out of tune with the rest of the media? Given that many people think WA will vote No, it might seem it’s also out of tune with its audience. It’s hard to find much good in the paper these days but credit where it’s due.
Michael Gormly writes: News Corp has declared open war on the ABC, enthusiastically supported by its far-right fans on social media and in letters to editors (published daily in its newspapers). Many of these critics proudly admit they don’t even watch the ABC so clearly their fury is entirely generated by News Corp propaganda.
As a lifelong fan of the ABC (I’m 70 now) I am distressed at its supine submission to this bullying, regularly sinking to a “false balance” by broadcasting without challenge the views of right-wing cookers. It’s easier, it seems, to simply move to the next scripted question. I recently had a complaint upheld over a straight-out climate-denialist lie told by a guest of Tom Switzer. A “note” was added to the online story.
If the ABC wants to lift its game it should identify “false balance” for the deception it is and reject it. It also needs guaranteed funding independent from the government of the day, as we see it barely recovering from a vicious spiral of News Corp-driven defunding resulting in a loss of quality. This is illustrated in the regular attacks on the ABC because it is “too Sydney-centric” after the loss of funding resulted in the closure of many of its regional bureaus.
The write thing
Don Matthews writes: Re “What makes a journalist? Let’s write professional accreditation into the job”: yes, I do want to know that you know your stuff and you try to tell the truth. Propaganda is not journalism. Someone tell News Corp.
Quentin Dignam writes: The Victorian Evidence Act would seem an obscure place to look for a definition of a journalist — not least because its quoted definition is circular (viz. “a journalist is a person engaged in the profession or occupation of journalism”). Unless, of course, the writers’ (and, let’s face it, Crikey’s) preoccupations — and Peter Greste’s lived experience — were so shaped on one side by legal constraints and threats to journalists (the recent examples are myriad), and on the other by the leakage of journalistic authority and status (due both to mainstream journalism’s own lapsed standards, post-truth scepticism, and the incursions of pesky and unaccountable amateurs).
If, as is evident, journalism now presents itself as an academic discipline (with schools, professors, etc), it might advance a more telling and comprehensive account of itself — historically and conceptually — including its role and rules within a modern, technologically sophisticated and somewhat democratic state. I’m heartened that Alexandra Wake and Johan Lidberg (as in other Crikey pieces) have invited their colleagues and us (consumers, readers, listeners, followers, etc) to that kind of examination of journalism. Whether they can persuade them to sit the other exam, I’d wonder.
Jean Lightbody writes: A free, impartial and fair media is important for the welfare and safety of Australians. This relies on the trustworthiness and ethical standards of journalists and the organisations that employ them. I would advocate for registration for journalists similar to that of accountancy, law and health professionals. This would mean that one could not hold oneself out to be a journalist unless one had undergone education and accreditation (that might include sitting and passing a journalism and publishing law and ethics test, as suggested) as specified by an Australian journalism regulatory board (or whatever it would be called).
