Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

The ultimate victory of “trashy mag” media

Friday, May 21st, 2010

It is difficult to be scientific about such matters, but over the course of the last decade it certainly feels as though the intensity of the tabloid media has increased dramatically. We have progressed seamlessly from the “Golden Age of Television” to the “Pointless Bullshit Epoch”. Its a phenomenon that can undoubtedly be explained through reference to many, varied factors. The emergence of the Internet as the most powerful new medium for communication since TV has certainly had an influence. Okay, perhaps more than an influence. Today, we are all somewhere at the bottom of an information tsunami. Everyone is a producer of content now, thanks to MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and of course, blogs like this one. In this environment, media producers are under more pressure than ever before to generate product that has some sort of impact; that makes some discernable splash. Interesting doesn’t cut it more. One must be outrageous!

There is more competition than there ever has been before in human history for the consumer minute, the consumer second, and even smaller units of market time. Clicking quickly through websites online, one is exposed to fistfuls of advertising – a popup opens and closes in milliseconds, a banner scrolls across the screen in the corner of one’s eye. Perhaps you also have the television on while you are reading this, or the radio. In part because we overexpose ourselves to media through technology, and in part because media has become less substantive than it has been in the past, today’s media is arguably both denser and yet intellectually shallower than it has ever been.

Ironically, as technology slowly eats its way through the empire of the so-called “dead tree” publishing houses, the modus operandi of one of the the most ubiquitous, iconic, and ultimately lightweight product lines on offer has emerged as the operating model du jour for tomorrow’s media. Long derided, declining in circulation and relevance but always more intrinsically attractive than the opposition, the “trashy mag” has at long last taken over the asylum. The “trashy mag” may not be at newsagents for too much longer, but that’s okay, because the “trashy mag” is everywhere now. It’s telecast in technicolour on your nightly television news, you can hear it vividly every day on talkback radio, and it has permeated just about every once reputable source of popular information known to humankind. You want current affairs? Oh, sorry, you’ll have to make do with this week’s con man or miracle diet. What about… sport? Well, if we get through all the latest gossip on who is in rehab and who had a few too many drinks at the pub last Friday, then we might get on to the real business of discussing which boofhead put their foot in their mouth this week. Erm, great. Even politics, the cradle of human societal advancement, must today be observed and scrutinised only through the distorted, funhouse lens of the paparazzi. There’s no alternative.

Informed discussion about topics that matter is like- yawn, boring.

ELSEWHERE: David Marr.

All the world’s a tabloid magazine

Friday, March 12th, 2010

For the past week, one could be forgiven for thinking that the most pressing issue on the Australian socio-political agenda was not parental leave, the outcomes of the Henry tax review, or climate change. The Michael Clarke/Lara Bingle saga has been blown up by the local media out of all reasonable proportion. It seems that one can not pick up a supposedly serious newspaper, or tune into a supposedly serious news service at the moment without having the latest third-hand gossip about the story thrust in one’s face.

I don’t want to speculate on the status of the relationship between Clarke and Bingle, because, let’s face it, we’ve had enough vacuous speculation already. What is clear, however, is that the two should be given some privacy and some respect, and not treated like two pieces of meat for the milking by the media. So-called journalists are no doubt, even as I type, still parked outside the couple Bondi’s residence, hoping for a glimpse, an angry gesture, or a sign of some kind, like vultures swooping on a bleeding animal. Federal Minister for Sport Kate Ellis probably did not go far enough in her condemnation of the media’s handling of the saga, in my view, but in general I think her comments are on the money:

The minister said she found it ”really interesting” to have watched the public debate about the Test cricketer’s decision because “in any other job in the nation you want people out there when they’re focused, when they’re at their best and when they can deliver, and if they’re not going to be at that point, then it’s probably a responsible thing for them to say, ‘I need to sort myself out. I need to deal with my priority issues at the moment and then get back and give them my all.’ ”

Insisting there had been too much public focus on the relationship, Ms Ellis said she hoped ”we can see Michael Clarke happy, on the cricket field, representing Australia and doing very well, and … frankly, that I can read a little less about their love life.”

Frankly, I would like to hear a lot less about their love life. I suspect I’m not alone.

Professor Elizabeth Blackburn – Australian or American?

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

Its a case of much ado about nationality. According to Andrew Darby in The Age, joint Nobel Prize winner Professor Elizabeth Blackburn is unequivocally Australian. On the flip side of the coin, the Chinese state media have Blackburn down as a bonafide American, as does United Press International, although the latter admits Blackburn holds dual citizenship. Bernard Lane in the The Australian elects to start off on the right foot by noting that Blackburn is an Australian expatriate.

I don’t want to be a killjoy, but let’s celebrate all three of the Nobel winners (including Carol Greider and Jack Szostak) for medicine this year, regardless of nationality. Is there any reason why we can’t all tell it like it is – namely that Professor Blackburn’s recent residential history suggests that while she still might call Australia home, she calls the United States home first?

Stimulus watching

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

Even by its own arguably compromised standards of impartiality, The Australian has outdone itself with its Stimulus Watch series of articles. Scrolling down, one finds an interminable list of almost single-mindedly negative contributions, many provided by the usual suspects with a conservative bias, such as Imre Salusinszky, David Uren, Pia Akerman (daughter of Piers) and Christian Kerr. Even despite its reputation for going tough on Labor and the broader left, I find it amazing that a publication of the stature of this newspaper can get away with such a one-eyed hatchet-job on the Rudd Government’s response to the GFC. Where is the balance? Where is the measured reporting of successes and failures – or the consideration of alternate points of view? Non-existent. Cut adrift from its ties to power since the demise of the Howard Government, Australia’s only national rag is increasingly looking like a bloated, low-brow version of Quadrant.

The increasingly tedious onslaught continues in today’s edition of the paper, with a rambling column from Malcolm Colless which takes aim at the public sector jobs created by the government’s stimulus spending. Upon reading, it becomes obvious that the premise of the column is driven in large part by the author’s hatred of government bureaucracy, itself likely driven by the author’s hatred of having to pay tax, characteristic of both the average Liberal voter and, utterly coincidentally, the average contributor to The Australian. A few ragged news threads regarding developments on the national broadband network are thrown together with a weary attack on the Rees Government in New South Wales to provide a strange, dove-tailing anti-Labor rant that provides precious little insight into the real state of affairs.

I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that the only people who could possibly enjoy reading such a relentless stream of one-eyed diatribes are diehard conservative readers, already committed to voting either Liberal, National, or worse. Everyone else, from the traditional Labor or Green voter to the swinging voter, is likely to be turned off in a big way, and I don’t think that is good for either the conservative side of politics, journalistic standards, or indeed the health of democracy in this country.

If people stop respecting an outlet, its content degrades in value and reach, regardless of whether or not some of the content is actually quality journalism. I don’t see how it is possible for any person interested in reading balanced political journalism to respect The Australian anymore.

When just one piece of tacky wordplay just won’t do

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

ozwordplay.gif

Pictures, Pauline Hanson and the media

Monday, March 16th, 2009

Books have already been written about the curious relationship that Pauline Hanson enjoys with the media, but her latest foray into politics, a tilt at the Queensland seat of Beaudesert, looks set to provide ample fodder for future updated editions. The latest furore her candidacy has brought into the limelight concerns someone named John Johnson, some twenty year-old photos, and what seems to be a rather gung-ho approach to the business of newspaper editorial at the Sunday Telegraph. Unless you are blind, deaf and dumb or overseas you have probably heard about the story thirty-two and a half times already, but for mine the key contribution to the debate is this:

Sunday Telegraph editor Neil Breen said the newspaper was standing by the story and the pictures. The newspaper’s photograph experts had checked the images using computer software before they were published.

“You can see changes in the pixels … if they’ve been doctored, and they weren’t doctored,” he said.

He said the paper had given Hanson every opportunity to comment on the pictures before they were published, but she did not do so.

“It’s now a battle of he-said she-said,” Mr Breen said.

Well if the photos have been put through “something called Photoshop”, as Breen has painfully asserted, then that’s all right then, eh? Whether the photos are indeed shots of Hanson or not is one question. The fact that a stinking morass of doubt exists about their authenticity, however, raises some serious concerns about how this has unfolded. Hanson denies that the woman in Johnson’s photos is her, and has made a few decent points in the public domain supporting her case. Unless the Tele has some further information that not been aired yet in the public domain, it has published these photos on the word of just one man, and stunningly circumstantial evidence. The woman looks like she could be Hanson, and Johnson recalls the woman’s name to be “Pauline”. Is that really all they are going on? A name and a likeness? Could it in anyway be fair or just for a newspaper to publish photos of someone in a state of undress without proving beyond reasonable doubt that the photos feature who they think they do?

It is currently unclear whether Neil Breen and the Tele have been played like fiddles, John Johnson is just plain mistaken, or, in fact, the photos do feature Hanson and the controversial belle from Ipswich has purposefully or absent-mindedly put the whole episode behind her. What is clear is that regardless of her political views, Pauline Hanson has been needlessly burnt at the stake in the media once again, and it is looking likely that she will collect a swag of votes from a sympathetic electorate when this episode is finally done and dusted.

For once I am with Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt – whether they feature Hanson or not (and there is a decent chance they do not) publishing these photos was a mistake of diabolical proportions. The pursuit of a lurid exclusive has landed the Tele knee deep in excrement.

Good news for the ABC and SBS

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

I am quite sure that industry veterans working for the ABC and SBS have become accustomed to their Federal Government telling them to tighten up their act, cut costs, and to not expect any funding increases in the near future. In other words, funding cuts in real terms, at a minimum. This sort of attitude from government can only work to the operational detriment of Australia’s public broadcasters, in a media environment where the Australian market is being flooded with often high-profile, low-quality programming from overseas. In recent years, we have the humble ABC to thank for critically acclaimed shows such as Seachange, The Hollowmen, and of course the various incarnations of the Chaser Team’s hijinks. The 7:30 Report, despite the occasional flat batting from Kerry O’Brien, remains the most important current affairs program on Australian television. SBS, of course, continues to screen the best documentaries available on free to air, and offers a global perspective on day-to-day news not offered by any other station.

It is thus extremely satisfying (and refreshing!) to read the reflections of Senator Stephen Conroy in this report from Matthew Ricketson in The Age today:

Senator Conroy said the federal cabinet would have “a very healthy debate” about the next round of funding for the public broadcasters. “I will be going in hard in the next budget debates, saying that the future is dramatically shifting,” he said. “The ABC and the SBS have a responsibility to step up to the plate, but to do that they will need new funds, and Kevin Rudd and the Labor Government understand the changing nature of the media.”

Mark Scott and his colleagues working for our public broadcasters must be shocked, having become conditioned during the life of the previous government to having their organisations used as public waste receptacles by high profile ministers.

I have (I think fairly!) taken more than one swing at Senator Conroy over the government’s content filtering plans, but with respect to his stated vision for the public broadcasters, I think he deserves some kudos. Once again we have someone in the Federal Government who is prepared to do the unfashionable thing and actually stand up for the public services that so many of us take for granted, to the ire of blinkered right-wing sell off merchants everywhere. Let’s hope we see some results when it comes to the crunch on this front.

Minding Your Money – a bridge too far?

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

Last weekend, some readers will no doubt have tuned into Channel Seven’s landmark Minding Your Money: An Audience with the Prime Minister program which was televised on Sunday evening. Hosted by David Koch, the program featured Prime Minister Kevin Rudd fielding questions from a studio audience on Australia’s standing in the global financial crisis. For those that missed the program, it can be viewed on the Yahoo7 site here.

From all reports, the Prime Minister went down a treat with the studio audience, who reportedly were drafted in from the Sunrise email newsletter subscriber base. Watching the program, I certainly felt that Rudd did a damned good job of making clear his position on the issues raised by audience members, as well as conveying a sense of warmth and pathos. One could never have imagined John Howard fronting up like this, to a television studio audience in an impromptu fashion. With respect to the government’s relationship with the media, the former Howard Government was probably quite happy to keep doing things the way they had been done for the last few decades, with a couple of honourable exceptions.

Of course, “stunts” like this one will also attract cynicism from some quarters, and to be fair, that’s probably a good thing. I am quite sure that some viewers, when confronted with their Prime Minister lecturing them in an ad hoc fashion on national television, moved swiftly to issue an abusive remark and change the channel. Without necessarily being critical, there is the scent of something Orwellian in Rudd’s decision to participate in the program. The relationship between government and the media is arguably entering a new phase, whereby politicians with the requisite gall and self-confidence (some would say, arrogance?) can push themselves into previously unchartered openings in the infotainment landscape. When the Prime Minister offers himself up as a television host, as he effectively did last Sunday night, should we be concerned or appreciative that the government is launching itself into the infotainment sphere? Or both?

For my money, I think the endeavour offers some promise. At half an hour, including commercials and David Koch interludes, it was a bit saccharine for my tastes, but I think with some changes in the format, it could really fly. I would actually like to see senior members from the Federal Government or Opposition face up to scrutiny from a studio audience for an hour, once a week. We all know that parliament itself has declined in value as a house of debate in recent years, and the scrutiny of politicians in press conferences is at arms length from the majority of the population, twisted and mangled as it is into tidy packages for the nightly network news programs. Why not usher in a new, more direct breed of political debate into our living rooms?

Politics in itself can’t effectively compete with entertainment when it comes to holding people’s interest in the short-term, but maybe political infotainment can. In an age where hedonism is king and political apathy is of considerable concern for our democracy, why shouldn’t political parties be seizing every avenue they can for engaging people in debate about the big issues of the day?

When in doubt, attack the ABC

Monday, October 20th, 2008

I note with interest that Senator Eric Abetz has apparently attacked the ABC’s Q & A program in a Senate estimate committee hearing today. The full Hansard transcript will probably be worth a review before we pass total judgement, although the following report from AAP raises a couple of interesting opening questions:

Figures show that over the course of the program’s 2008 season, 32 per cent of the audience was made up of Labor supporters, while just 24 per cent supported the coalition.

In other words, the representation of Coalition supporters in the audience for this show in 2008 was on average 75% of that of the number of Labor supporters present. But is this really a big deal?

It might be worth reminding Senator Abetz that the Coalition only has 78% of the number of seats in the House of Representatives that Labor has in the current federal parliament. I wonder if he is also concerned about this imbalance.

The Coalition quite frankly should not be expected to be entitled to equal representation to Labor in the audience of this program. It is only entitled to receive representation proportional to the amount of support it enjoys in the nation at large. Senator Abetz might like to believe that this is 50/50; but this is nothing but a petty distortion. The senator should get on with the job with helping his party become an effective opposition, and cease bashing the national broadcaster when it is not particularly warranted.

Obama, Osama, a media piñata

Monday, July 14th, 2008

Sure, I think this is kind of clever and “wryly amusing”, but coming as it is supposedly from a liberal publication like The New Yorker, it is also somewhat stupefying. Don’t the magazine’s editorial staff realise (or is it that do they just don’t care?) that there are people out there in the United States whose racist or just plain insane views about Barack Obama could do without any (even satirical) reinforcing? In a not dissimilar fashion to the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, what we seem to have here is a media outlet indulging in a form of lurid self-gratification; self-gratification, of course, in the name of editorial freedom, artistic integrity, or whatever other elitist flag one can conceive of being bandied about.

Either that or it is just a plain colossal misjudgment that records (in wink nudge, ha-ha triplicate) that self-destructive foolishness is alive and well in the liberal media. Needless to say, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for any prominent conservative publication to make their man look like a joke on the front cover, for the sake of some insider giggles. No sir. Only us smart guy liberal types shoot down our own for laughs.