I hardly ever watch commercial television news but happpened to catch some of a Channel 9 6pm broadcast one evening this week. I was barely paying attention but suddenly my eyes were rivetted to the set – in the final two minutes, on came Peter Harvey to deliver a pithy little homily, billed as The Last Word.
On that particular night, Harvey was talking about an 11 year old paraplegic girl’s “inspiring courage”. I didn’t catch the details (dare I call them ‘the facts’?) of the story, partly because the details weren’t important in this segment – Harvey’s sermon clearly pertained to something which had been mentioned earlier in the news broadcast, but his role was not as a news reporter, even though this was the leading news broadcast of the evening. No, Harvey’s role was as an editorialiser, of the most syrupy kind. It was the ‘voice of commonsense’, delivered by an ageing man. [Not that there's anything wrong with ageing men, but Australian public life and television has a few too many of them for my liking.]I’ve tried to uncover the history or rationale for The Last Word online but can find nothing, so I don’t know how long this has been going on. None of the segments are archived, so the one that’s up at any given moment is always the most recent. You’ll find it on the right, under In Focus, in ninemsn news.
We’ve been subject to the dumbing down, glossing up and tabloidisation of news broadcasts for some years now, but surely this breaks new ground (and surely it’s borrowed from the Americans?) For a start, why should anyone be interested in Peter Harvey’s folksy take on things? Are there people who would actually find him reassuring? (Presumably Channel 9 has focus-grouped this.) Memo to Mia Freedman, new creative services director: if they must have someone being the voice of reasonableness, why not a woman?
I take that back – the basic issue is about having someone editorialising in the first place. I’m all for opinion (I’m a blogger, after all) but opinion belongs in the opinion and current affairs slots. I realise I’m clinging to an increasingly slender thread in wanting “the news” to be about information and analysis (I don’t mind analysis but that’s not what Harvey is doing), but cling to it I will. The sooner we hear the last word from The Last Word, the better.
I’m not sure commercial ‘news’ is meant to be primarily about analysis or information .
Its about emotion pure and simple.
Be shocked.
Be disgusted.
Be despairing
Be cocooned.
Be whatever the advertisers what you to be.
As for Harveys cornball piece; well why not? Ya can’t have the punters depressed beyond hope can we?
ANyway,surely its got to be better than all that ’suburbs under attack’ crap.
If its news you want, listen to ABC Radio.
“Be shocked.
Be disgusted.
Be despairing
Be cocooned.”
Yeah, well, I think I gonna be sick.
Commercial TV rots your brain. Try Auntie, or SBS, or the Beeb on Foxtel.
Try anything but the bloody Commercials.
Point taken, suz, but then I think of the little essay pieces that often close the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour. I think the line between news and comment is blurred beyond recognition, and we’d be better off insisting on ethics and reflexivity in disclosing where the bias (or values) are coming from rather than clinging to the wreckage of the notion of objectivity in journalism. Of course, the big problem is the lack of diversity, and of diverse voices, in the media, which you highlight well.
suz Says:
A couple of weeks now. I find it irritating beyond belief, and have stopped watching the channel nine news.
Firstly, “commercial television news” is an oxymoron. It’s pretty much all editorial. I think they’ve put this blatant segment in to disguise the fact the rest of the show is just as opinionated. Like they put an obvious editorial in, to make it seem like the rest wasn’t.
The Last Word has been running for a few months, I think – or, at least, I remember seeing something like what you’re describing just after Christmas on one of the commercial channels.
One of the channels in Brisbane trialled this concept/format with Rod Henshaw some time back….and, doesn’t Alan Jones occassionally give a little spiel/rant on another??
Hi Suz, I moved to the UK a few months ago, and there is very little televised news reporting without a whole jar of syrupy opinionated commentry pured over the top. News is rarely reported without taking an ‘angle’, or getting in some half-baked expert to comment, and the BBC is probably the worst offender. But the real problem is that the angle is always from the same smug, middle class, anglo-centric, communitarian viewpoint. And that particular angle drives me nuts; so nuts that I’ve even remarked to my better half that I miss the MSM back in Aus! So I’m right with you.
I think the line between news and comment is blurred beyond recognition
Hmm, blurred, yes, but beyond recognition? I think I still recognise the difference.
we’d be better off insisting on ethics and reflexivity in disclosing where the bias (or values) are coming from rather than clinging to the wreckage of the notion of objectivity in journalism.
I agree that disclosure of bias is what’s called for but I can’t imagine how in a slot like The Last Word, Harvey could disclose bias. The format just doesn’t allow for that, whereas news reporting that aspires to “objectivity” at least has mechanisms in place for that eg providing evidence, witnesses, first-hand reports. And analysis surely requires some kind of competence or qualifications in the field under discussion. Harvey has none of this. He’s just a man who’s worked for Channel 9 for a long time.
It would be useful to gather a transcript of Harvey’s spiel so we can analyse it in detail. Is this available? If not, maybe someone could tape and transcribe the next one when it happens.
Peter Harvey has the deepest voice in the Southern Hemisphere – possibly the universe. So his opinions have gravitas. He MUST be right.