Actually, the Craig Thomson beat-up is exactly the sort of political “up-skirting” that’s turning those wanting quality journalism off the old mastheads
I agree with John Birmingham that there has to be a model for paying real journalists exposing important stories about which we need to know for our democracy to function – and that mixing their work in with celebrity fluff isn’t it. But I think he could have picked a better example of a “worthy” story that hasn’t received enough attention:
Can blogs replace some of the reportage and analysis done by the old metropolitan media? Of course they can. If you can choose which of the hundreds of millions of blogs currently available to follow.
Will the world stop turning, will the skies rain down fiery poison toads on us all if old-school newspapers just go away? No, probably not.
But something will be lost. After all, it wasn’t a blogger who broke the story of Craig Thomson and problems within the Health Services Union. It was a couple of Herald journalists working the phones, wearing down shoe leather, chasing a story that powerful interests wanted to keep quiet.
I don’t think TMZ.com has managed that yet. Although I haven’t checked for any up skirt Lohan coverage recently.
Coverage related to the quality of Craig Thomson’s tenure at the HSU before he joined the parliament has become the equivalent of a political up-skirt story.
Instead of covering the legislation the parliament is actually passing or debating, the Canberra press gallery has been obsessed for months over a personality-based side-issue. There are 150 MPs in the Parliament, and the amount of time devoted to one, in relation to something he may or may not have done before entering parliament, in relation to something over which he has not even been charged – that’s a case study in exactly why the people who do want to be informed about the substantive matters of government are no longer keen to pay the old mastheads for their coverage of it.
Yeah, but has crikey got the sort of commitment and resourcing that it will take to break the next really MASSIVE upsk[1]? I mean, a lot of people think that crikey’s got the basics right – internet scandal sheet, small-circulation propaganda sheet, both great accolades from the very serious people at NEWS.
But will crikey be able to measure up when the next “krudd in strip club” story comes along? When the nation needs to know that kevin rudd seems to spend quite a lot of time twittering, will crikey have what it takes? Does crikey have the resources to sustain a long-term hissy fit against the totalitarian might of Media Watch? Even if crikey is actually WRONG? People think it takes courage to be right, but it takes a lot more to be wrong – and you need to have a lot of apparently independent journalists, all willing to write the same crap (but in their own words), to stand up to The Man like that. Does crikey have enough voices to appear to be more than just a straightforward agenda handed down from above?
Nah, sorry, I fear that crikey is going to be confined to the domain of facts and reason, and that’s never going to be enough to challenge the murdoch’s empire.
[1] that’s actually a really gross mental image. Sorry.
Funny, I thought Peter Wicks did the hard yards in reporting regarding the Craig Thomson affair (any relation to Thomas Crown?); as opposed to just giving voice to the Liberal Party line…
And his reportage was on his blog and Independant Australia, which John Birmingham would likely consider a blog.
In fact, you could argue the traditional media completely fell for the marketing and spin in that particular situation, and it took a blogger and an independant news outlet to actually start doing reporting- you know, digging, fact checking, looking at the both sides.
Very poor example indeed.
Now what did I say!
What he means is the Thomson story has generated public interest, hence ratings for advertisers. Media being the business it is, journos and pundits now don’t see much of a difference between the public interest and their sponsors’ demands. They’ve become conjoined.
Sorry Birmo, “WikiLeaks”.
Random thought: Can a newspaper make more money by giving away the hard copies to increase circulation and then sell more advertising?
FWIW – I would pick a day of the week and I would give away that one edition for 2-3 months and see what happens to the revenue. I would pick an edition with some good features (like the Tuesday edition with a full NRL wrap up) and make a real fist of it for the duration. Work the phones to the advertisers and tell them the circulation figures. But also – remind people how enjoyable it is to sit down and read the paper of a morning.
“Will the world stop turning, will the skies rain down fiery poison toads on us all…” no, that’s the ‘Carbon tax’. Or is it the Mining Tax?
Even worse, Crikey attacked Wixxsy and IA for their reporting of Thomson and have avoided the subject ever since Wixxsy fired back. So no, I don’t think Crikey is going to be the vanguard of anything special going by those actions. To be fair, they printed a number of complaints by readers about their Thomson editorial, but that’s as far as their fairness goes.
Wait till Gina and Rupert go head to head. Then we’ll see some serious upskirting.
I have just added wixxy to my favourites bar and it sits just where crikey used to.
I wonder if the govt could set a statutory body to assist and fund independent journalism based upon results.
Some (all) funds could be taken from the the ABC now that it’s just an outlet for Reith and the IPA. I this ideal world, a decent sum would go Wixxy’s way for his real bit of work re Thomson case
A competitive marketplace for journalism
maybe funded by the fines against those that make stuff up eg anything published by Lewis
I can’t fault it – and there will be a requirement for some experienced hands at sorting rubbish articles from gems
Crikey has become very short on facts and investigation lately.
OldSkool & Sean,
Thanks.
Never heard of ‘Wixxy’ before – now a BIG fan.
THAT’s journalism!
As usual, the MSM will either steal it unattributed (we’ve been a victim of that countless times at “Spring Hill Voice”) or they’ll ignore it.
“Real” journalists aren’t allowed by their bosses to do REAL journalism, it simply isn’t acceptable in the polite company they all keep.
A recent post from Wixxy may be of interest to you http://wixxy.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/a-hard-rains-gonna-fall/
It seems the more information that comes out, the more that Craig Thompsons ridiculous claims become more credible and believable.