Joe Hildebrand’s Painted Journalism Landscape
Monday, July 18th, 2011
The News of the World tabloid in Britain has been put to rest but the drums of enquiry appear to be set onto the Australian media landscape. Journalist, Joe Hildebrand, puts a strong case for freedom of the press in an Australia that committed no wrong. Unfortunately, I can see a few fuzzy smudges in Hildebrand’s painted landscape.
But first let me explain that I respect Hildebrand as a talented writer with a witty and insightful tongue. However, that being said, it doesn’t mean for a second that I’m willing to let a sacred cow past my pillbox without a shot at that bovine backside. Alright, now to those fuzzy smudges in Hildebrand’s painting.
I would begin by stating this categorically… and all journalists should paste this note above their desk and on their editorial office doors – “As much as current Australian politics is mired in a mud-patch without socks or gumboots… so, too, are Australian journalists. If the quality of research and reporting on climate change and carbon tax remains the calibre of journalism post-election, with or without an Abbott revival tent, then the Australian public will have devolved to reading product packaging for their latest news into the long-term future.
In short, a journalism culture that refuses to acknowledge science fact from science fiction – dare the public be aware of ‘peer reviewed’ climate science – falls short of the journalism Australia deserves.
The first smudge in Hildebrand’s argument stems from the international media ownership situation in relation to the Australian media landscape. As Paul Keating explained on the ABC show Lateline, John Howard opened up the media industry in this country where previously you could not own television and print media assets at the same time. The reason cross-media ownership had been limited was to prevent the immense power that comes with media ownership – and don’t deny the influence of newspapers like the Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald – on voters perceptions. It is categorically not the role of media organisations and billionaires to pursue a political agenda at the cost of our one-vote-one-person democratic process.
