This is the text of a recent lecture by Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, titled “Does journalism exist?”

It’s a fantastic read, and very relevant to what we are discussing here.

Found out about this via a tweet by Mark Colvin.

If you reread my comment, I said that journalists *do* care about who gets the scoops – I’m sure it still gets them out of bed in the morning, its just that everyone else doesn’t care who that journalist is. If they don’t get the news from the original journalist/network, they can get it from a different network 15minutes later, after the story is picked up by other providers.

And again, you seem to make light of the role of information processing (As opposed to info gathering) and sorting. I actually think it is the absolutely key skill for just about everyone these days, but especially important for researchers and journo’s. If you don’t get that, then I am forced to say to you: The world has moved on.

Anthony Nolan: it wasn’t a sneer. I’m not the expert on what other people want to hear, but I imagine that news editors are. You criticise me for the arrogance or ruling class consciousness, but in fact it is you guys who have a problem with the content of ABC news, which one can only assume is chosen by editors because that’s what they deterimine most of their viewers want to hear about.

I personally don’t find ABC news shite. As I’ve been saying throughout this thread, I just think it is catering to its medium – television. It can’t compete with other media on depth, so it does what it can best, which is attach pictures and sound and emotion to the main stories of the day.

Mr Denmore: “I’m talking about stuff that other people don’t want publised”
And are these sorts of stories not publicised because there aren’t enough reporters employed to find them? Or are they not publicised because editors have decided they are not newsworthy? Or to puncture the conspiracy theory, is their any proof that there are loads of big stories out there that aren’t publicised?

Bringing this back to the original topic: I am looking for some kind of justification that spending more money on researchers for 730 report and 4 corners is of greater benefit than directing funding to technical innovation such as multi-channelling and iView. In any case, I read that the ABC is hiring more journo’s to serve the new news channel.

“Its down to ABC reporting the news that other people want to hear about, instead of the kinds of stories you are interested in.”

Yeah? Who made you an expert in ‘other people’? SCPrich’s banality now masquerades as a democratic impulse by arguing that what ‘other people’ want is an endless stream of shite. Substitute ‘common people’ for ‘other people’ and the arrogant sleight of hand of ruling class consciousness becomes apparent.

Rubbish. Conservatives in media have used that line on real journalists for decades to suppress their real role as public advocates and questioners and inquirers.

You ask what news I am talking about?? I’m talking about stuff that other people don’t want publised – not celebrity fluff or ‘political’ news driven by press releases or stories based on ‘surveys’ assembled by PR companies or business ‘news’ that is nothing more than a recitation of prices.

What you describe is information processing and sorting. Your “journalists” are nothing more than glorified librarians and content providers, rearranging bits of pre-existing information from a vast pool of junk.

You say it yourself.”There is already enough news (sic) to choose from”. Gobsmacking.

As for journalists not caring anymore about scoops, I’m not sure what planet you’re on, but in my world (and I worked in newspapers, radio, TV and the web for 25 years),the desire to break news was what got us up in the morning.And don’t tell me the world has moved on.

Journalists in your world have no curiosity. They just cut and paste and rearrange pre-existing content.

No Chris Masters in your world, no Quentin Dempsters, no Neil Cheneworths. Just twitterers.

How depressing and what better argument against the ABC wasting tens of millions on a 24 hour TV channel that recycles the same old wallpaper.

Honestly, what exactly are the kinds of stories that you feel we are missing out on because of a dearth of good reporters? Do you really think that in this day and age of cameras-in-phones and email and internet and satellite feeds that there are fantastic scoops out there lying unscooped?

Nonsense.

The truth is that if ABC (or any other network news) is not meeting your standards, then its due to their editorial choice of what constitutes newsworthiness not matching up with your own. That isn’t a funding issue, its an editorial issue. Its down to ABC reporting the news that other people want to hear about, instead of the kinds of stories you are interested in. Bummer. Go get the niche news and depth that you are after from the internet. In fact, maybe the fact that so many people are doing just that is the reason why TV news editors are choosing the mix of headlines and light stories that they do – because depth and narrow-interest news is better delivered elsewhere.

Nobody (apart from the journos themselves) cares which journalist gets the scoop anymore. News moves too fast these days, the scoop gets taken up by everyone else within literally minutes if it is newsworthy.

Between all the newspapers and TV stations, there are enough reporters and enough news for editors to choose from. And yes, judicious cutting and pasting out of the huge streams of info available is probably a necessary skill for editors and op-ed writers in this day and age, even though you tried to belittle it. Info filtering is the challenge, not info gathering – we have plenty of info.

The ABC already has enough pipes. It just needs news that isn’t predigested spundry fluff.

For that you need REPORTERS