The role of the media - a reflection

Holiday time gives you the opportunity to take things a little slower and to read newspapers, journal articles, social media and books more thoughtfully. Reading one of Melbourne’s daily newspapers during this time alerted me to the fact that journalism and reporting is on the decline. It was apparent that some stories were run day after day in a slightly different form and new news was thin on the ground, as we say. Headlines bore little resemblance to the content of the articles.  The range of opinion writers during this time and their contributions to their subject matter left a great deal unsaid or not well understood.  Lindsay Tanner spoke in a similar fashion about the media in his book Sideshow: dumbing down democracy, when he stated what many across the country had been thinking for a number of years, that the media had reached an all-time low with debates trivialised and often reframed as entertainment. Many journalists are now writing opinion pieces that seem to reflect their own ideology or political bias. Editors appear to like the smart headline or pander to perceived public opinion.  The retrenchment of many seasoned journalists is now reflected in the written word.  Thankfully, this did not apply to the crossword during the holiday season; otherwise I may have cancelled my subscription permanently. Despite all, the media organisation that publishes my chosen paper assures the reader of quality reporting for 2013.

In a democracy we all want newspapers and the media in whatever form, including social media, to be a free press and not subject to state interference, censorship or control.  Likewise media ownership should not dictate what the media publishes, and, as with government, should not exercise censorship or control that favours certain agendas or causes that suit their owners. In a democracy the need is also to ensure that the media acts responsibly and in the interest of the public or common good, reflecting the values and aspirations of a civilised community that is concerned for the life of all its members, rich and poor, born locally or arrived from other shores. Where this line is transgressed or trivialised, ignored or abused, there needs to be some form of public recourse to amend and redress false or inaccurate claims or the abuse of privacy.  The media in whatever form has a privileged and important role in a democracy in reporting and analysing public policy, corporate activities, and community organisations including churches, synagogues and mosques, but in doing so it is not above the law, and like the medical and the legal professions, to name just two, some form of regulation or oversight is necessary in our increasingly complex society of today. The media must also critique and evaluate its own performance and ask whether a non-elected individual or organisation has the right to decide the future direction or behaviour of a community. Hasty judgements, sensational reporting for its own sake and engaging in partisan reporting should be avoided and replaced with factual reporting. Opinions should be restricted to the opinion pages and be clearly identified. While the media should be entitled to express a view it must also be aware that it is only one voice in shaping and forming what values our society should embrace and not set itself up as the sole voice.

The real question is what sort of and to what extent regulation by the state is necessary or desirable? Recent events suggest that the time has come for new thinking on the matter.  The whole community has been seduced into participating in the charade that is called news reporting. The Leveson inquiry in the UK exposed many shortcomings in the media with one-sided reporting, phone-tapping, abuse of privilege at the highest level, close personal relationships between politicians and corporate leaders seeking government contracts, and the promotion of views to shift public opinion to reflect a particular ideology. A case in point here in Australia has been the manner in which the mining industry has sought to defend itself against the federal government’s mining tax. Self-interest and profits have now become the number one priority, rather than the common good. Further it appears that cheap personal shots and guilt by innuendo are favoured over factual news reporting.  The values of honesty, integrity, fairness and concern for the common or public good are of lesser importance.

 Any form of statutory regulation being considered needs to guarantee the independence of editors and journalists from owners and shareholders, so they are free to report without fear or favour, but with evidence and balance. Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is not unconditional.  In a democracy, freedom of the press means freedom to act within the law, which includes laws against defamation; truth and accuracy in advertising; freedom from invading personal privacy; and ownership of intellectual property. In any new form of regulation the media must be required to separate evidence from personal opinion. Citing reference material should also be considered.

All who have the public interest at heart should reflect on the state of our media and demand higher standards as well as legislative control. Appropriate laws should be used to ensure media responsibility and to inform the social responsibility media organisations have in a democracy. The Australian Government has the responsibility to ensure that if existing legislation is vague or lacking enforcement then other measures should be publicly debated and legislated to protect the rights of all individuals and to ensure a balanced and responsible media committed to the common good and not to sectional interests or powerful individuals.


Dr. Ray Cleary

26^th March 2013

The Dumbing Down of Public Discourse

At the heart of a healthy, vigorous and robust democracy in Australia is the Parliament elected by the people to govern and to represent the best interests of the nation. Central to the life and work of the parliament is a belief in the principles of law, respect for the individual and concern for the common good. In recent years the parliament of Australia, or perhaps more accurately the political process, and the behaviour of politicians alongside other institutions like the professions and the Church have come under increased media attention and public scrutiny. Many recent debates in the parliament have been no more than personal attacks on the integrity of individuals at the expense of serious debate on the economy and a future vision for Australia. One-liners, smart slogans and sound bites are no substitute for serious discussion on the nation’s future. At the same time the level of public discourse has taken on more of a “slanging match style” rather than open conversation and dialogue.  Increasingly, politicians appear to be poll-driven and lack the courage and leadership required to make unpopular decisions for the common good. One exception to this in recent days has been the decision of the Federal Treasurer to abandon the Government’s commitment to a surplus budget.  The same courage cannot be seen on the matter of boat people and asylum seekers.  Politicians themselves are not only to blame for the state of public discourse.  Following the Treasurer’s announcement on the budget, the Melbourne Age headline read “Treasurer Dumps Surplus”, with implied criticism of government failure despite the fact that both business and economists applauded the decision as the right one for the times. Recently, the ABC’s Q&A has seen cheap shots by Catherine Deveney, designed to gain audience approval at the expense of Peter Jensen, while on a previous occasion the discussion between George Pell and Richard Dawkins left most viewers wondering about the motives of the show’s producers. When Jensen tried to make serious comment on matters raised, Deveney pandered to the audience rather than responding with rational and intelligent debate. Controversy, not substance, seems to have become the objective of much journalism with information increasingly being seen as entertainment.

The mainstream media regularly talks about the role they play in a democracy and no one who cherishes and believes fully in the freedom of the press would want to see this freedom banished. However, this same media cannot claim this role with biased reporting and journalism that lacks substance by presenting the views they support strongly while alternative ideas or evidence are ignored or only briefly mentioned.  The media‘s own view should be limited to the editorial and not the content of articles. Opinion pieces should be presented by a greater variety of writers and commentators.  The growth in continuous TV news coverage and the steady decline in print journalism is contributing to this. As there are fewer and fewer journalists, factual research is being replaced with press releases often without question and the parroting of interest group views. In place of an expert journalist and one competent in analysing competing viewpoints to get the truth the media is increasingly hiding behind popular and often simplistic public views.   Media personalities who depend on shock tactics and scandal for their daily following on the airwaves should have no place in the political process or in matters of public concern. Growing support for social media as a way forward in addressing and improving the level of public discourse is gaining support, but this medium is also liable to scorn and unsavoury tactics in reporting as much as the mainstream media. Opinions are all very well, but opinions need to be based on facts, rather than perceptions and innuendo.  Social media is as much a problem here as a potential solution. It simply amplifies the number of uninformed opinions that then feed of each other in a classic feedback loop. It is still no substitute for proper research by expert journalists or analysts.

Unfortunately, there are some in the church who want to suppress free and open discussion on issues affecting the community and matters of faith.  They argue for a single view or so-called authentic or orthodox viewpoint on Christianity to be expressed in diocesan media, and wish to deny to those who have other thoughts an opportunity to share them. There have been numerous examples in recent times of comments that have been inflammatory, discourteous, lacking substance or rude posted on social media about individuals, including the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury, that place the Church in a poor light.  Christians or people of other faiths do not have an automatic right to criticise others for poor discussion and dialogue when they embark on the same path themselves.  Christians, as with all citizens, have a duty to lift the level of public discussion and we need to remind ourselves of the important role that the churches have played in shaping and informing our civil society.  Love, embracing justice, is at the core of God’s grace and our dialogue and discussion must always be open to the disturbing and even radical spirit of our calling for the time in which we live. The right behaviour we expect of others in public discourse must also be enshrined in our own. As The Age (Melbourne) editorial concluded on New Year’s Day:  “Australia needs people of strategic vision who will rise above petty arguments, the kind of people who are brave, compassionate and steadfast, who reach across political and social chasms to negotiate agreements because they want a stronger community”.

Christians have an obligation to respond to the challenge to ensure our internal and public discourse is of the highest standard and devoid of cheap shots and personal attacks.