On old media, balance, polls, journalism, interest groups, lobbyists and corruption

Since old media want both a fair return on their investment and to claim
the moral high ground (above bloggers, of course) what exactly do we want
or expect from old media, their paid journalists and their old media
cohorts, the pollsters, the lobbyists and self-interested groups? What
independent standards should we apply to "news" creation and distribution?
None? A few? The ones we have already?

Bear with me, but it seems that daily we get drip-fed meaningless polls
that may or may not show that (a) climate change is off the popular agenda,
(b) that we may or may not be coming out of a recession that we may or may
not have had, or that (c) Turnbull is now a dead dog, because we (or
someone) says so. OK, I'm being a little harsh here, but the old media
seems to be driven by a need to pump out as much content as possible. To do
so they critique the content less and less, or make it up themselves. So a
press release becomes reportable fact, a lobbyist becomes an expert and
someone with a clear vested interest is reported uncritically without
balance. To me this seems corrupt, as in a deviation from the ideal, a
blatent distortion and the victory of money over morals or ethics. When
those reported make a contribution also to the old media bottom line via
advertising dollars, it starts to raise an eyebrow or two. Of course to you
it may be 'open, honest debate' or an expression of free speech. But to me
it's borderline perverted and sick, and it's getting worse. If we really
believe that polling people for their opinions and then releasing the juicy
bits is legitimate news, and that its creation and distribution without a
balanced analysis or clear statement of self-interest is open and honest
then fine, keep on keeping on.

The 'climate change has dropped down the list' poll was a classic - it was
leaked, reported, released, reported again. Sure, it was interesting, in a
manufactured and manipulated way. It certainly suited someone's agenda. And
it was critiqued here and there. After all, you can always find someone to
offer another opinion if you look hard enough. But how many people actually
read a full, balanced analysis of that poll? (Not that we can make them
read or watch it, of course.) If we step back and look at it, what sort of
distorted world view was actually delivered by the mass media over the last
few days, and to what end? And then look at the Liberal leadership polls.
Interesting again, sure, but who commissioned them? Who reported them? How
many conflicting interests were involved and how much of this is simple
news generation, rather than reporting? Do you care?

Which finds me grating once again at "reporting" in the local
sensationalist rag, the Central Coast Express Advocate. Of course
journalists love to personalise a story, and of course home builders will
be "hit" by an interest rate rise, as will everyone who borrows money. On
the flipside people who save money or otherwise invest in cash will earn
more, too. And it may well be in the overall best interest of the
Australian economy and those who partcipate in it to see interest rates
rise and monetary policy adjusted in this way. So a balanced view would
present both sides. Instead the Express Advocate gets one view - that of
the Master Builders Association, and bolsters it with a Real Estate agent's
view as well. Wonderful stuff. The builders want low rates so building
keeps growing, and the estate agent wants to see low rates because that'll
keep home sales up. That's a balanced view! Of course we can all read
between the lines and we are well educated people who can smell a vested
interest a mile away. Hopefully. More remarkable were the confused
ramblings of the estate agent: interest rate rises would cool an
overinflated market (sounds about right) yet this was a bad thing. Perhaps
the journalist got confused. The agent also had a dig at the stimulus
package (it should be wound back faster, doesn't that sound like original
thought?) and a swipe at the Reserve Bank which he saw as making "another
big grab". Huh? What exactly does that mean? Overall, here's an "expert"
who doesn't understand the Reserve Bank's role or can't explain it to a
journalist, with a clear vested interest, getting a guernsey in the local
press. A couple of lines of flimsy "balance" appear at the end. It's sad,
it's self-interested and it smells. Thankfully the paper doesn't collect
money from that particular chain of estate agents in return for advertising
space, does it? Not that this would influence anyone in their independent
judgements, of course. I bet the agent is happy they got their name "out
there". Hopefully not too many people will see through the smoke, either.

The article is here:
http://express-advocate-gosford.whereilive.com.au/news/story/builders-brace-for-another-rate-rise/

Ok, it's a small issue - but a common one. What's a local paper - a virtual
monopolist at that - to do? They only have so much space and they can't be
filling it with balanced reporting, can they?

Posted via email from gtveloce's posterous