Richard Barnes writes: Conflicts of interest are an ever-present danger in public life (“Forget slamming them, we should be encouraging MPs and the media to do their research by taking organised trips”). That is why the Israel lobby and its supporters were apoplectic with delight when they “discovered” that the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, had travelled to Australia courtesy of Palestinian support groups — except that the claims were false.
Reporters and parliamentarians may well benefit from trips to Israel and Palestine. If the benefit is professional, then their employer should fund the trip; if personal, they should pay for it themselves. There is absolutely no place for funding by the Israeli government, pro-Israel lobby groups, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority or pro-Palestine lobby groups. The reasons are too obvious to require elucidation. When Simon Tatz argues the opposite, I believe he is simply mistaken.
Of relevance to my opinion, I am medical practitioner, and have never accepted the largesse of any drug company or medical equipment supplier — not even a coffee or a sandwich.
Peter Best writes: Simon Tatz seems to imagine that a visit to Israel paid for by Israel gives politicians useful information about the Middle East rather than pure propaganda about the glories of the only democracy in the region and the threat to its existence from everyone who’s not Jewish. How many politicians talk to Palestinians in the West Bank, visit villages emptied of people, their farms inaccessible, olive groves chopped down? How much information do they get on the statistics of deaths and incarceration of even children who, provoked, frustrated, desperate, throw rocks at soldiers?
The internet is a far fairer, more useful and more economical source of information. Politicians should stick to that and give the schmoozing a miss.
Malcolm Spry writes: Simon Tatz provides an important contribution to this debate but any trip to the Middle East — if understanding all the issues is the purpose — must ensure journalists meet and talk to all parties. To accept an Israeli invitation to visit Israel and not go to the occupied West Bank would be an exercise in one-sidedness. As would be the opposite situation. But a paid trip will always be suspicious as you can be sure you will see or hear only what the host wants you to see or hear.
Roy Kramp writes: I feel as if Tatz is missing the core reason Daanyal Saeed and other journalists are writing about this, and that is the unfair representation of Palestinians with a neutral-to-pro-Israeli bent, Palestinian representation dismissed.
We humans collectively all should know travelling to the source is core to any evidence gathering, and attempts to fool otherwise that come with such organised trips. It’s normal practice and companies are doing it non-stop. That’s par for the course, and anyone willing to foot the bill for journalistic visitations should set off alarm bells regardless. And as noted, declared.
But he seems to have completely missed the whole reason why “you lot” (i.e. journalists), are upset in the first place. Our media aren’t playing fair and square, seemingly having a pro-Israel stance, with mounting evidence that supports the idea that these visits have had an effect on their attitudes, which of course they shouldn’t be expressing (except in opinion section).
Adam Ford writes: Bernard Keane’s excellent article “Australia’s media: Just another corporate interest, one that leaks journalism as a byproduct” lays out much of what is wrong with our corporate mediascape, but doesn’t go far enough in terms of conceptualising what can be done.
It is now abundantly clear that between them (and individually) Nine and News Corp have far too great a share of media voice in this country, such that they represent a virtual duopoly, and we are not getting the diversity of perspectives necessary for a healthy and robust national public sphere.
It’s pointless in this context for people such as former prime minister Kevin Rudd to single out News Corp as requiring a royal commission into its activities. Instead it’s clear to me that the changes made to cross-media ownership laws that allowed for these two bodies to purchase their duopoly in the first place need to be reinstated in a way that forces the break-up of both empires.
Particularly while we have the ABC hobbled with false balance and dancing to News Corp’s tune anyway, most people with left-of-centre perspectives — which is a whopping enough percentage of the population that this is a major civic issue — are simply not hearing their voices reflected anywhere within the mediascape, and you don’t need to dig too far into social media to divine that this is leading to massive levels of distrust in any form of authority, and leading people to distrust journalism reflexively. Little wonder people increasingly think they can just manufacture their own facts and opinions.
At times like this, thank goodness for Crikey — but it’s not a news publication and only has the resources to push out a handful of articles each weekday. More power to it, that’s a good thing, but it’s not an effective cure for these monopolists’ dominance and constraint of the national news agenda.
Jennifer Pearce writes: Re “The media’s Gaza letter reveals the fight for truth in Australia’s newsrooms”: the open letter is the journalistic version of the whistleblower and is just as valid.
Aisha Miles writes: The open letter gave me the tiniest glimmer of hope. As we all know, Australia’s media is heavily monopolised by Murdoch propaganda, but the coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict has been especially disappointing, even from news sites I usually trust. The myopia and double standards are maddening and the complete lack of historical context or current context given to viewers so clearly supports the Israel agenda. What is most astounding is the dehumanisation of Palestinians, and total disregard for their humanity, even when the death toll is so outrageous and the war crimes so apparent.
So many people are now using social media to hear from Palestinians on the ground and are getting a much clearer view of the situation. All I see when I switch on the television, or read a once-trusted news source, is distortion and omissions. The open letter shows there are journalists working for these traditional outlets who want to do better.
Barbara West writes: Is it alright for a journalist to sign an open letter? You’re damned right it is. We are hopefully still a democracy.
Ian Crawshaw writes: Isn’t this why most newspapers already have opinion columns, so commentators can give a point of view rather than the raw facts? Let’s not confuse journalism with virtue signalling. We’ve got more than enough social media for that already.
