There’s a bit of an irony in the fact that News Ltd columnist Malcolm Colless chooses to take a swipe today at demands that Mike Carlton be reinstated as a columnist in the Sydney Morning Herald because of his popularity with readers. [Carlton, as folks may recall, refused to file his copy because of a journos' strike at Fairfax.] The irony in question lies in the fact that Colless’ own usually impenetrable stream of consciousness efforts are no doubt read by very few, so incomprehensible most of his musings are. Possibly that extends to sub-editors. Surely “rebirthing” is a crime against the English language?
But there’s something more at stake here. Colless’ mind dumps very often give readers an insight into what passes for thought among the managerial minds of the press. Perhaps precisely because no one is reading his stuff, he’s departed from the News Limited correct line and failed to decry the Fairfax cost-cutting as a threat to the quality of journalism. What you can make of this tangled paragraph is probably up to you:
McCarthy cannot afford to be blindsided by sweeping and emotional claims that change, of itself, will necessarily destroy quality journalism. Quality, after all, often can be the exclusive prerogative of the creator. But at the same time he should be careful not to confuse muscle with fat as he wields his cost-cutting scythe.
But, unwittingly, with his union bashing schtick, Colless has actually exposed a fault line that bedevils and cripples the quality of the quality journalism debate. It’s still too much about ownership – either a faceless public company with corporate buccaneers focused solely on cost cutting like Fairfax, or a private(ish) media fiefdom run by an almighty Proprietor like Murdoch’s News Limited. According to News, the latter allows quality journalism to be funded, while the impersonal mavens of corporate capitalism sacrifice the fourth estate to the lowest common denominator – the bottom line of the buck. And indeed, there’s another irony in the defence of Fairfax – for several years the venerable mastheads have been the go to place for celebrity trash on the intertubes while their print editions have increasingly adopted a tone narrowly tailored to an inner city and Eastern suburbs audience.
What we really need to be thinking about here in the new media landscape is less about ownership and more about an information and analysis commons. Part of the argument in the journos v. bloggers wars is often a reiteration of a tired meme that bloggers are parasitic on content created by journalists. Maybe so. But that’s actually ignoring something central to the information architecture of an innovative and creative economy – value is added by re-arranging, analysing and deconstructing bites of information and opening them up rather than acting as a one directional transmission point from authoritative reporter of “news” to “consumer” or “reader”. There have to be viable options other than a dependence on either the God Proprietor or the corporate megalith which professional journalists of good will and citizens can work together on facilitating.
Maybe some of these issues will be discussed at the Walkley Foundation’s Future of Journalism shinding on Brisbane on Saturday. There’s some discussion of the event here from Axel Bruns, and as Mark is one of the speakers, I’m sure he’ll be writing something about it too.
There isn’t one.
Always the pessimist, Adrien!
I see a lot of the problem in the erosion of the ethics of citizenry all ’round. The fourth estate’s descent into barbarian partisanship is just a feature. How many times do people, engaging what passes these days for political debate, link to some hysterical partisan guttersnipe whose sole function is to wage war against the hysterical partisan guttersnipes of the other side?
.
I just had such a moment on Thoughts on Freedom. The link, concerning Sarah Palin’s excursions into the possibility of banning books was a refutation of a ‘list’ of such prospective, proscribed tomes being touted as Ms Palin’s. The list is total hooey. There is none. Ms Palin apparently made inquiries via the local librarian about banning books but never did so. There probably isn’t a list. However the internet is alive with ‘debate’ about this non-existent list.
.
Because of the internet’s lowers costs and wider scope it has the potential to substantially increase the quality of information. At the very least it undermines the oligopolistic stranglehold on information. But unfortunately most of the discourse is tripe precisely because a. the punters are paid-up members of the [insert political religion here] and b. either can’t be bothered or don’t know how to exercise a little critical and deductive reasoning.
.
In Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier there’s a style guide for conducting political discussion. It was a high point in the history of such discourse.
.
And it’s been downhill ever since.
.
And also why does Philip Adams have a job? Surely it’s Soylent Green time for him.
Not to mention those wonderful tips on ‘how to be noticed’ by the Prince, distilled and tabulated in future translations for the benefit of wannabe hipster Courtiers. I assume, also, that you believe the Sir Humphrey-esque, anti-democratic backroom ‘politician management in the interests of the state at whatever cost’ Castiglione instantiated were also a high point in political discourse?
Ya think? What’s your basis for that assertion?
btw, excellent post, Kim
At FOM08, there was plenty of talk from the journo side that Journalism of the Future would be primarily the digestion and distillation – rather than dissemination – of information.
“And also why does Philip Adams have a job? Surely it’s Soylent Green time for him.”
Gosh, that is a bit harsh Adrien.
The bloke is totally compliant with right wing ABC rules. Anybody who endures the Christian Kerr’ piffle, without question, deserves, at least, employment.
Oh absolutely. I can’t read a book with either agreeing or disagreeing with everything the writer says. So, because I believe that Marx was dead right when in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napaoleon he described parliamentary idiocy then I also endorse everything he said about surplus value.
.
And naturally because I think that Aristotle’s notion of catharsis in the Poetics is useful I’m also highly in favour of excluding women from political franchise.
.
And so forth.
.
Thanks for your comment. It’s subtle, incisive, wit like this which wrenches my assertion that political discourse has sunk to the level of a trough-bound pig’s foot to bits.
.
Golf clap.
Oh … I thought the whole point of the book was to establish the different ‘faces’ of the courtier – the backroom dealer, the effervescent political discussant you seem so enamoured with – all with enough literary flourishes to keep it in the best seller lists for over century.
Ok, let’s try and avoid the “all about commenters” comments, please.
dk @ 6, thanks. Are you still planning to post on the Sydney FOM?
The Book of the Courtier is a style guide. It was written 480 years ago and concerns the cultivated individual. I think you’re possibly actually thinking of this.
.
No further comment.
.
Joe2 – Yes it’s harsh but Mr Adams has had a good innings. He writes inane tosh and he’s past it. Let someone else have a go.
Mmmm, taste the yummy irony.
Mr Colless’ article is indeed somewhat lacking in those qualities that I think’d be mandatory for one who is paid to write:
I believe we need to bring back flogging.
.
It’s the only way to get rid of this pernicious misuse of the word irony. Unfortunately this is a relatively apt use of the term; more apt than its usual use. And I don’t suppose he cares that ‘government intervention’ can be differentiated (somewhat) from ‘publicly funded’.
.
Kevvie won’t bring back flogging. He’ll institute IronyWatch.
While Ackerman, Bolt, Albrechsen and the rest have page space quality journalism will forever be a distant memory and implausible future.
“Kevvie won’t bring back flogging. He’ll institute IronyWatch.”
And blocked in the Senate by Steve Fielding who would prefer his wife, with 23 kids, to iron his shirt.
The future of ‘quality journalism’ ( I have long had more regard for many ‘letters-to-the-editor than this ‘Unicorn’.) seems inextricably linked with social-democracy.
They’re a bit like a couple of small kids drowning. They both have a good grip on each others hair and are pulling each down at a steady rate. We could wade in and save them I suppose… but is the world running out of loud, spoiled, infantile brats?
Says Colless:
No it isn’t. The union has managed to rustle up enough freelancers to hold a convention 11 years running.
Rebirthing is a perfectly good word. It’s a policing term for stolen cars with new engines and clean rego. Just saying.
‘Rebirthing’ is a nicer word than ‘multiculturalism’. Bleh.
Kim, I’ve been trying to get in touch with some super smart media people to get there thoughts on the most interesting issues that came out of the Summit but it just doesn’t seem to be happening.
I suppose the run up to the Brissie one is a good time to resurrect the post…
Fwiw, Adrien, my original comment wasn’t intended to be as provocative as your reaction suggests. I heard a fascinating paper today on the conceptual interchange between political and natural philosophy centred around Castiglione’s tome that made me reconsider the extent to which it was just a style guide…. Anyway. no further comments necessary.
dk.au, you’re a super smart media person yourself so post away I say!
Back to neglected aspect of the thread.
What is happening over Carlton. Why hasn’t hasn’t his union called a strike and what are all his workmates doing?.
Sad most of all to see Adele Horin’s drab piece; also dull stuff from Grattin and various other “Age” and “SMH” journos you’d expect better of. But as noted elsewhere, no sign of Richard Ackland last week- is he the sole journo left prepared to step up for a mate?
And what of souless, gormless people are people like Marohasy, Sheehan, Albrechtsen, Devine, Kerr and Colless; or Alan Sunderland of the ABC, featured this week for a particularly cowardly act of censorship there, by Media Watch.
Just Goebellsian Nazis?
Hey Professor Rat
_ “but is the world running out of loud, spoiled, infantile brats?”
Not so – You now haff me !
Gruss Gott – Knoppke
Sorry dk.au, knee-jerk sarcasm ‘n all that. The Courtier is a style guide for those who wish to acquire and maintain power. There’s a debate between a monarchist and a republican which struck me, in my student politics days, with it’s elegance and courtesy. A contrast with the reality I saw before me. I continue to see it in this ridiculous tit for tat that passes for the American election.
.
But on-topic:
This is obviously horseshit.
.
Newspapers suffer from the limitations of capital intensive, mass-market media. Unlike digital media there’s not much of anything by way of direct feedback. It’s also expensive to produce a newspaper in contrast to a blog. Furthermore there’s no way of guaging too accurately what’s being read and what’s not. All of these things inhibit quality journalism in a culture where people are disinclined to become genuinely informed. There’s always recourse to what ‘most people’ want.
This view of ‘professionals’ is misleading. Journalists themselves rely on feeds from Reuters and such. It’s also a bit rich considering just how servile and lazy this profession has become. It’s a Media Watch commonplace that published copy is often barely distinguishable from press releases. Who wants to check other sources or ask questions. It cuts into the time you can spend drinking.
.
Then there are blogs like this one that are a form of direct expression not possible before the internet and that cut out the MSM altogether. And worth much more than the agitprop diatribes of a billion columnists for The Daily Rupert.
How did Klaus K (not the LP Klaus K) sneak onto this thread of mine?
Oh well.
Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott.
So nice for you all to be able to cast nasturtiums from your ivory towers as rome burns all around.
We plebs needs another newspaper in this town.
That’s the only hope for quality journalism in the future.
Seriously, can anyone give an example of this ‘quality’ journalism in the present in the Courier-Mail?
While on the question of quality journalism, can someone please explain to me why the ABC must not publish a newspaper?
I’ve spent 20 years asking for an answer to this – and now I think if only I ask it here my question will finally be answered.
Well, wbb, why does everyone think that it must be a newspaper? I mean, I agree with Megan about the Curious Snail, but being ancient enough to remember when there were three newspapers in Brisbane, I really don’t know that the presence of the Telegraph and the Daily Sun did anything other than provide more jobs for journos. It certainly was not some golden age of competing views, investigative journalism and speaking truth to power etc. etc.
This is a bit like Mark Day’s false dichotomy – all newspapers apparently provide “probing reports” (compared to teh evil blogs which are no longer officially “the future of journalism” – because Mark Day’s “blog” told us so). But they don’t. There’s no logical relation between that claim and the claim made by the same sorts of commentators that there is no longer a “golden age of journalism” because journos sit in rooms with computers rewriting copy that someone else created.
The entire question of a “fourth estate” role in a one newspaper town needs rethinking way outside the square of “only one newspaper”. But the “fourth estate” thing needs rethinking too. And that’s not some arcane academic question.
Fairfax’s eminently forgettable Brisbane Times wouldn’t be any different if it was in print. It’d still be crime, political news by rote, Paris Hilton and John Birmingham. Except you could read it on the train without a laptop. Though Mx arguably has more news content.
Simply because I like to read a newspaper. Why can’t the ABC produce one for me. Why is it out of bounds?
I don’t think there’s any real reason – except the enormous expense of producing newspapers. And the fact that governments (“left”, right, it doesn’t matter) in English speaking countries are disinvesting rather then increasing funding for public broadcasters. But you might get more bang for buck by allocating a much smaller amount of money to all sorts of innovative media stuff people want to do anyway. Or by changing the defo laws so it would be easier for smaller media outfits to do investigative journalism.
And then there’s the fact that if the ABC had a newspaper, you’d have the balance police going over every single word.
I can see where Eric Beecher was coming from in making this suggestion, but it just sorta reinforced the irony that Beecher – who makes all his dosh from online media – really can’t see beyond the whole print mindset he imbibed back in his Fairfax days.
At the turn of last century, Brisbane had more than 10 daily newspapers – all representing different interests and not necessarily investigative or probing – but at least there was a choice.
I don’t think anyone is under any illusion that prior to Murdoch buying up and then closing down ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Telegraph’, Brisbane was in the thrall of a golden journalistic age.
Though if one could get a supervisor, there could be a nice little thesis in comparing reportage in the three!
There is a market for another newspaper – and not necessarily a Fairfax one – it’s just that the supposed free market advocates continually squash the market. Why does News Ltd. have 20 or so titles in Brisbane? It’s about maintaining control via and information monopoly and ensuring their can be no commercially viable competition. That’s why they constantly run at a loss. Murdoch is more interested in power and control than the profitability of an individual title. eg ‘The New York Post’ and the first 20 years of ‘The Australian’.
http://www.springhillvoice.com/reclaimdemocracy.html