By Graham Cooke
Is journalism dead? No, but in its traditional form it is dieing, and it will not be long before the last rites are held.
I stress 'in its traditional form'. Journalism as a whole will not die. People will still want information; they will want to know about things going on around them - we are by nature inquisitive, and that's a good thing.
But the kind of information we access, and the way it is brought to us, is changing and the concern is whether the new-style journalism that is also evolving, is up to the task.
A recent survey conducted by the Media Trust in the United Kingdom surveyed the state of regional journalism in that country and its findings make bleak reading.
It found that newspaper closures and job cuts were having a 'devastating' effect on the quality of news in local areas, with job insecurity and commercial priorities limiting journalists' ability to question and analyse.
Reporters were stuck at their desk, cutting and pasting media releases, scarcely finding time to lift a phone and call contacts, let alone get out into the community and find stories.
The internet, instead of becoming a valuable additional tool for research was becoming the be-all-and-end-all; media officers and publicity companies were increasingly dictating what appeared in the news pages.
As traditional journalism sinks into this malaise it is being replaced by a new breed of 'citizen journalists' - untrained amateurs using mobile phones and emails to tap into the media, providing information on everything from the local Rotary Club meeting to potholes in the road outside their homes.
It is a development that is enthusiastically embraced by media owners - free news from an army of unpaid reporters and photographers. Many actually encourage the practice by running prizes and give-aways for the best news tip or photograph of the week.
Meanwhile, the increasingly diminishing pool of trained journalists are put to work knocking the often semi-literate contributions into shape.
In parallel with this is the growth of so-called celebrity journalism. What might have once been material for gossip columns is increasingly represented as hard news. Again media owners will argue that its popularity demonstrates that is what the public wants. Maybe, but is it all it wants? And does this represent a demeaning race to the bottom?
A free and unfettered media is a cornerstone of all democracies. The paradox is that with the exception of government-financed television and radio channels this essential service is provided by commercial interests. For most of modern history the hybrid system seemed to work reasonably well, and it is only in the last decade or so that it has been showing signs of breaking down.
If professional journalists are chained to their desks, and 'citizen journalists' do not have the training or experience to seek stories other than those right under their noses; if we become obsessed with the latest B-grade starlet's sex scandal to the exclusion of all else, then who is left to uncover dirty dealings at City Hall?
As one frustrated journalist, writing in response to the Media Trust report put it: "There's no time these days to cultivate contacts, go out and cover stories and give your work any thought - it's just like bagging spuds. Do one, on to the next one.
"It's heartbreaking."
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Is this Gillard's biggest mistake?
By Graham Cooke
The decision by Julia Gillard to head into an election campaign less than a month after becoming Prime Minister is beginning to look like the biggest mistake of her political career.
As well as Australia's first woman Prime Minister, she is in serious danger of becoming one of shortest-lived.
At the time of writing the Tony Abbott-led Coalition, while not exactly having the Government on the run, has certainly seized the initiative. There is still plenty of time for Labor to pull back the lost ground, but any thoughts of a comfortable cruise into a second term have evaporated.
The early election strategy revolved around two major factors: Capitalising on the honeymoon period a new Prime Minister normally receives and enthusiasm for the fact a woman held the office for the first time.
It seems the honeymoon has failed to survive the blistering spotlight of an election campaign, while the expected support for a woman PM among woman voters has not crystallised - at least not yet.
Instead, the man she deposed, Kevin Rudd, has become a factor, with many potential Labor voters turned off by the ruthless way he was deposed in the wake of significant, but far from catastrophic falls in his popularity rating.
Add to the number of leaks and counter-leaks springing from the Labor camp and the Opposition is successfully portraying Gillard as an opportunist who doesn't have the full confidence of her own party, let alone the electorate.
Hindsight is wonderful, but had she waited until later in the year - the end of November or even early December - the Rudd 'assassination' would have faded in the public's memory.
As I said, Labor can still turn it around. A key factor will be Rudd, and how he conducts himself when he returns to the campaign trail after his gall bladder operation. Unqualified support for Gillard and a willingness to campaign for her nationally, will be a major plus.
But as things stand the Coalition must be seriously contemplating a return to government that would have been unthinkable less than a year ago.
The decision by Julia Gillard to head into an election campaign less than a month after becoming Prime Minister is beginning to look like the biggest mistake of her political career.
As well as Australia's first woman Prime Minister, she is in serious danger of becoming one of shortest-lived.
At the time of writing the Tony Abbott-led Coalition, while not exactly having the Government on the run, has certainly seized the initiative. There is still plenty of time for Labor to pull back the lost ground, but any thoughts of a comfortable cruise into a second term have evaporated.
The early election strategy revolved around two major factors: Capitalising on the honeymoon period a new Prime Minister normally receives and enthusiasm for the fact a woman held the office for the first time.
It seems the honeymoon has failed to survive the blistering spotlight of an election campaign, while the expected support for a woman PM among woman voters has not crystallised - at least not yet.
Instead, the man she deposed, Kevin Rudd, has become a factor, with many potential Labor voters turned off by the ruthless way he was deposed in the wake of significant, but far from catastrophic falls in his popularity rating.
Add to the number of leaks and counter-leaks springing from the Labor camp and the Opposition is successfully portraying Gillard as an opportunist who doesn't have the full confidence of her own party, let alone the electorate.
Hindsight is wonderful, but had she waited until later in the year - the end of November or even early December - the Rudd 'assassination' would have faded in the public's memory.
As I said, Labor can still turn it around. A key factor will be Rudd, and how he conducts himself when he returns to the campaign trail after his gall bladder operation. Unqualified support for Gillard and a willingness to campaign for her nationally, will be a major plus.
But as things stand the Coalition must be seriously contemplating a return to government that would have been unthinkable less than a year ago.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Grey power needs to organise
By Graham Cooke
The call by the Council on the Ageing for a Minister for Older Australians to be part of the next Government deserves support. This is a segment of the population that is increasing in size and, potentially, influence and ought to be given due recognition.
We already have a Minister for Early Childhood and for Youth. There is a Minister for the Status of Women and for Indigenous Australians. It is true that Justine Elliot holds the non-Cabinet position of Minister for Ageing, but her portfolio is wrapped up in health and biased towards aged care rather than the broad spectrum of issues that concern the over 55s.
Ageism is the last of the 'isms' to be properly addressed in Australia. Legislation exists, but it is weak and largely ignored. It has also failed to keep pace with the ambitions and aspirations of older people.
Today's seniors are healthier and more active than at any time in history. An Australian reaching the age of 55 in 2010 can, on average, look forward to another 25 years of life. For many it is much longer than that.
So it is no wonder that many people do not want to spend this length of time sitting on the porch or playing golf, yet outlets - especially in continuing employment - are significantly limited compared to any other age group.
COTA says a Minister for Older Australians should have Cabinet clout and be responsible for reviewing all current legislation that might have inbuilt discrimination against seniors. That would be an excellent beginning.
However, there is one theory going the rounds as to why both sides of politics can ignore the demands of their older voters.
It is that by the time they reach their 50s people have locked into support for a particular party and rarely change, meaning the concentration must be on the swinging voters in the 18-to-34 age group where elections are won and lost.
This is a view put forward by the highly respected Chief Executive of Newspoll, Martin O'Shannassy, so it should be given some weight. In which case it is high time older Australians began to organise themselves around the issues rather than simply following long-standing emotional attachments.
Politics today has become as brutal and back-stabbing as it was during the schemes and plots of Regency England, and if the views of Australia's older citizens are not to be trampled in the day-to-day rucks and mauls they had better organise themselves and learn how to play the game.
The call by the Council on the Ageing for a Minister for Older Australians to be part of the next Government deserves support. This is a segment of the population that is increasing in size and, potentially, influence and ought to be given due recognition.
We already have a Minister for Early Childhood and for Youth. There is a Minister for the Status of Women and for Indigenous Australians. It is true that Justine Elliot holds the non-Cabinet position of Minister for Ageing, but her portfolio is wrapped up in health and biased towards aged care rather than the broad spectrum of issues that concern the over 55s.
Ageism is the last of the 'isms' to be properly addressed in Australia. Legislation exists, but it is weak and largely ignored. It has also failed to keep pace with the ambitions and aspirations of older people.
Today's seniors are healthier and more active than at any time in history. An Australian reaching the age of 55 in 2010 can, on average, look forward to another 25 years of life. For many it is much longer than that.
So it is no wonder that many people do not want to spend this length of time sitting on the porch or playing golf, yet outlets - especially in continuing employment - are significantly limited compared to any other age group.
COTA says a Minister for Older Australians should have Cabinet clout and be responsible for reviewing all current legislation that might have inbuilt discrimination against seniors. That would be an excellent beginning.
However, there is one theory going the rounds as to why both sides of politics can ignore the demands of their older voters.
It is that by the time they reach their 50s people have locked into support for a particular party and rarely change, meaning the concentration must be on the swinging voters in the 18-to-34 age group where elections are won and lost.
This is a view put forward by the highly respected Chief Executive of Newspoll, Martin O'Shannassy, so it should be given some weight. In which case it is high time older Australians began to organise themselves around the issues rather than simply following long-standing emotional attachments.
Politics today has become as brutal and back-stabbing as it was during the schemes and plots of Regency England, and if the views of Australia's older citizens are not to be trampled in the day-to-day rucks and mauls they had better organise themselves and learn how to play the game.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Top cop has every right to speak
By Graham Cooke
What on earth was all the fuss about Victorian Chief Police Commissioner Simon Overland giving a speech at the school his son attended?
Commissioner Overland's planned address to a $100-a-head fund-raising night for the private Xavier College gave the Herald Sun apoplexy, with a front page lead story continued inside the newspaper and a leading article condemning his actions.
The newspaper was outraged at the fact the Police Commissioner was favouring his son's alma mater and demanded to know whether he would perform the same service for other, less privileged educational establishments.
What a ridiculous beat-up. Of course Xavier College has the right to ask a prominent citizen who has a significant link with it to assist in its fund-raising. It happens the world over and is a perfectly acceptable practice.
Certainly it was an expensive night out for those who attended, but that is the nature of fund raising. Presumably Xavier College knows its constituency and what that constituency can afford.
Whether Commissioner Overland would do the same for other schools is irrelevant and he was quite within his rights to refuse to answer that question.
The Herald Sun quoted Victorian Council of School Organisations President, Nicholas Abbey as saying it was "unfair the way some schools were able to raise more money than other schools".
Well Mr Abbey, life isn't always fair and schools without the resources to hold $100 dinners can always find other ways of raising smaller amounts more frequently through sausage sizzles, fetes and so on.
Much more sensible was the quote buried at the end of the article from the President of Schools Victoria, Elaine Crowley who said that she "did not find it unreasonable that [Commissioner Overland] is going to speak there given his child went there".
If this article discourages other prominent citizens from lending their name to school fund-raising activities, the Herald Sun will have done education in Victoria a grave disservice.
What on earth was all the fuss about Victorian Chief Police Commissioner Simon Overland giving a speech at the school his son attended?
Commissioner Overland's planned address to a $100-a-head fund-raising night for the private Xavier College gave the Herald Sun apoplexy, with a front page lead story continued inside the newspaper and a leading article condemning his actions.
The newspaper was outraged at the fact the Police Commissioner was favouring his son's alma mater and demanded to know whether he would perform the same service for other, less privileged educational establishments.
What a ridiculous beat-up. Of course Xavier College has the right to ask a prominent citizen who has a significant link with it to assist in its fund-raising. It happens the world over and is a perfectly acceptable practice.
Certainly it was an expensive night out for those who attended, but that is the nature of fund raising. Presumably Xavier College knows its constituency and what that constituency can afford.
Whether Commissioner Overland would do the same for other schools is irrelevant and he was quite within his rights to refuse to answer that question.
The Herald Sun quoted Victorian Council of School Organisations President, Nicholas Abbey as saying it was "unfair the way some schools were able to raise more money than other schools".
Well Mr Abbey, life isn't always fair and schools without the resources to hold $100 dinners can always find other ways of raising smaller amounts more frequently through sausage sizzles, fetes and so on.
Much more sensible was the quote buried at the end of the article from the President of Schools Victoria, Elaine Crowley who said that she "did not find it unreasonable that [Commissioner Overland] is going to speak there given his child went there".
If this article discourages other prominent citizens from lending their name to school fund-raising activities, the Herald Sun will have done education in Victoria a grave disservice.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Gillard caves in to reactionaries
By Graham Cooke
The Australian Labor Government's new policy on asylum seekers is a bitter disappointment.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has caved in to reactionary forces and produced a position that is little different from what existed under the previous Howard Government.
Instead of the Pacific Solution we have the Timor Sea Solution.
It is to be hoped that the proposal will be roundly rejected by the Government of East Timor and that it will not give in to the financial inducements that will inevitably be offered to allow a 'Regional Processing Facility' to be set up on its soil.
In a prime example of the spin employed by governments of all persuasions these days that Gillard has attempted to dress up this objectionable plan as a way of halting the people smuggling trade, while trying to hide it behind the announcement that processing will begin again on asylum seekers from Sri Lanka.
The Coalition and Labor are now engaged in a disreputable race to the bottom, with eyes firmly fixed on how their pronouncements play out in the opinion polls. The concept that governments provide leadership on the important issues of the day is dead.
The sad fact is that this is really a non-issue. As the prominent lawyer, Julian Burnside, has pointed out, even at the current rate of arrivals, it would take 20 years to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground with boat people.
The problems existing in some of the outer suburbs of our major cities are real, but they are caused by poor planning and incompetent local authorities, not by asylum seekers arriving by boat.
We are entering a new and dangerous era in Australian politics where opinion polls and the pronouncements of populist media shock jocks form government policy and, therefore, the way we live our lives.
A not so brave new world.
The Australian Labor Government's new policy on asylum seekers is a bitter disappointment.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has caved in to reactionary forces and produced a position that is little different from what existed under the previous Howard Government.
Instead of the Pacific Solution we have the Timor Sea Solution.
It is to be hoped that the proposal will be roundly rejected by the Government of East Timor and that it will not give in to the financial inducements that will inevitably be offered to allow a 'Regional Processing Facility' to be set up on its soil.
In a prime example of the spin employed by governments of all persuasions these days that Gillard has attempted to dress up this objectionable plan as a way of halting the people smuggling trade, while trying to hide it behind the announcement that processing will begin again on asylum seekers from Sri Lanka.
The Coalition and Labor are now engaged in a disreputable race to the bottom, with eyes firmly fixed on how their pronouncements play out in the opinion polls. The concept that governments provide leadership on the important issues of the day is dead.
The sad fact is that this is really a non-issue. As the prominent lawyer, Julian Burnside, has pointed out, even at the current rate of arrivals, it would take 20 years to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground with boat people.
The problems existing in some of the outer suburbs of our major cities are real, but they are caused by poor planning and incompetent local authorities, not by asylum seekers arriving by boat.
We are entering a new and dangerous era in Australian politics where opinion polls and the pronouncements of populist media shock jocks form government policy and, therefore, the way we live our lives.
A not so brave new world.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Football needs the video referee
By Graham Cooke
The farcical sending off of Brazilian Ricardo Kaka for a supposed foul on Ivory Coast's Abdelkader Keita in the World Cup of football has finally convinced me. Video evidence must be introduced into the game at this level.
For years I have resisted this call, but things are getting out of hand. Top players are increasingly becoming cynical cheats; the game is now too fast and the cheats too cunning for a referee and two assistants to monitor.
At the same time, technology has never been better. We can view an incident from a dozen different angles. A top-quality referee, sitting in front of a screen, would know immediately which angles to check, a decision could be delivered to the man in the middle within seconds. A cheat revealed will see the red card rather than the opponent he was trying to sucker.
And the fact players know this this will very quickly end the play-acting, rolling about on the ground, stretchers being brought on. We might actually save time in games.
I know the arguments that will be brought to bear against using video evidence: It will create two classes of football because obviously video technology will be too expensive for all but the top leagues; it will change the way the game is played, interrupting its rhythm and turning it into a stop-start spectacle rather like American football; the referee in the middle will lose authority with players demanding he consult the video referee at every turn.
It will certainly change the game, but what's wrong with that? The game is constantly changing, and you don't have to go back to the days when the goal uprights were joined by pieces of tape rather than a crossbar and referees in tweed jackets officiated from the sidelines using a pocket watch.
Check out a few grainy black-and-white videos from the 1950s and 60s to see how the game has changed. Watch the incident in the 1958 FA Cup final when Nat Lofthouse shoulder-charged goalkeeper Harry Gregg and the ball into the net for Bolton's second goal against Manchester United. A modern Lofthouse would have been sent off for that.
Check out the 1966 World Cup and the cynical fouls that put Pele and Brazil out of that tournament. Those were the days when no substitutes were allowed. Remember the four-step rule for goalkeepers or the days when only one match ball was allowed? Remember when football on Sundays was a total no-no? How many times have we changed the offside rule?
Football changes. It has to change to meet the demands of a fast-changing world. The fact it has done so is part of its continued success - and we are now in the era of instant and ubiquitous communication.
And yes, it will mean that top-level football is governed by video evidence while 95 per cent of the game will have to carry on as before with just the referee and his assistants to make the decisions. It was ever thus. Can we honestly say that the officials at the local recreation ground are of the same quality as those in the English Premier League; that playing surfaces are of the same standard; that players have the same support services? Of course not.
Football always was a hierarchical game, and at its top level it is now too much of a showcase to be governed by the same process of refereeing decisions as exist in the Victorian League Division Four. Top games deserve top treatment
Embrace video technology, use it to stamp out phantom fouls and dives in the penalty area. The game will be the better for it.
The farcical sending off of Brazilian Ricardo Kaka for a supposed foul on Ivory Coast's Abdelkader Keita in the World Cup of football has finally convinced me. Video evidence must be introduced into the game at this level.
For years I have resisted this call, but things are getting out of hand. Top players are increasingly becoming cynical cheats; the game is now too fast and the cheats too cunning for a referee and two assistants to monitor.
At the same time, technology has never been better. We can view an incident from a dozen different angles. A top-quality referee, sitting in front of a screen, would know immediately which angles to check, a decision could be delivered to the man in the middle within seconds. A cheat revealed will see the red card rather than the opponent he was trying to sucker.
And the fact players know this this will very quickly end the play-acting, rolling about on the ground, stretchers being brought on. We might actually save time in games.
I know the arguments that will be brought to bear against using video evidence: It will create two classes of football because obviously video technology will be too expensive for all but the top leagues; it will change the way the game is played, interrupting its rhythm and turning it into a stop-start spectacle rather like American football; the referee in the middle will lose authority with players demanding he consult the video referee at every turn.
It will certainly change the game, but what's wrong with that? The game is constantly changing, and you don't have to go back to the days when the goal uprights were joined by pieces of tape rather than a crossbar and referees in tweed jackets officiated from the sidelines using a pocket watch.
Check out a few grainy black-and-white videos from the 1950s and 60s to see how the game has changed. Watch the incident in the 1958 FA Cup final when Nat Lofthouse shoulder-charged goalkeeper Harry Gregg and the ball into the net for Bolton's second goal against Manchester United. A modern Lofthouse would have been sent off for that.
Check out the 1966 World Cup and the cynical fouls that put Pele and Brazil out of that tournament. Those were the days when no substitutes were allowed. Remember the four-step rule for goalkeepers or the days when only one match ball was allowed? Remember when football on Sundays was a total no-no? How many times have we changed the offside rule?
Football changes. It has to change to meet the demands of a fast-changing world. The fact it has done so is part of its continued success - and we are now in the era of instant and ubiquitous communication.
And yes, it will mean that top-level football is governed by video evidence while 95 per cent of the game will have to carry on as before with just the referee and his assistants to make the decisions. It was ever thus. Can we honestly say that the officials at the local recreation ground are of the same quality as those in the English Premier League; that playing surfaces are of the same standard; that players have the same support services? Of course not.
Football always was a hierarchical game, and at its top level it is now too much of a showcase to be governed by the same process of refereeing decisions as exist in the Victorian League Division Four. Top games deserve top treatment
Embrace video technology, use it to stamp out phantom fouls and dives in the penalty area. The game will be the better for it.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A sad story from another time
By Graham Cooke
I have just received a communication from the National Gallery of Australia. Nothing unusual in that, I am a member and attend many of their functions and exhibition previews.
I have also been contributing to their Masterpieces for the Nation Fund, under which members contribute small amounts - whatever they can afford - which are put together to purchase an artwork of significance for the NGA. The latest campaign is for a work by Robert Dowling - Miss Robertson of Colac (Dolly).
The picture is of a young woman with a rather wistful expression on her face, sitting, rather uncomfortably, bolt upright in a garden chair, a book in one hand and a tea service and plate of cakes within easy reach. A dog looks lovingly up at her.
But it was not so much the painting, as the accompanying background notes that stirred me. Dolly, or Elise Christian Margaret Robertson, to give her full name, was the daughter of a wealthy Victorian grazier, William Robertson.
The attractive Dolly - she was in her late teens at the time of the painting - had already attracted a number of suitors, but her father had forbidden them all, saying they were not good enough for her. She never married and died in 1939.
Reading this I felt overwhelmed with pity and anger for this long dead lady, denied the opportunity of married life by her overbearing father.
I rather suspect that William Robertson's real reason was to ensure his daughter stayed at home to take care of him in his old age - this was often considered a duty for one unfortunate child in large Victorian families. However, if this was the case Robertson was rich enough to have employed servants and nurses to look after him.
There is no doubt that Dolly bridled against this restriction on her life. She originally wore a white dress for the siting but asked Dowling to change the colour to dark brown because, as the story goes, "if I am never to marry , then I will be in mourning for the rest of eternity".
And what of Dowling's thoughts in this? The painter was in his late 50s and close to the end of his life, yet there are hints in the painting that he was very much on Dolly's side. The tea service was her favourite as were the vanilla slices. The faithful dog was added later.
There is also just a hint of eroticism in the way her foot protrudes ever so slightly from beneath her long dress, a suggestion that she was a tall, leggy lady.
Perhaps Dowling was a little in love with her, although in those times, and in that society, he would have kept such thoughts very much to himself.
So I will be contributing towards Miss Robertson of Colac (Dolly). Denied her right to seek happiness in life, she should at least be displayed to be admired by us in these more liberal, enlightened times.
I have just received a communication from the National Gallery of Australia. Nothing unusual in that, I am a member and attend many of their functions and exhibition previews.
I have also been contributing to their Masterpieces for the Nation Fund, under which members contribute small amounts - whatever they can afford - which are put together to purchase an artwork of significance for the NGA. The latest campaign is for a work by Robert Dowling - Miss Robertson of Colac (Dolly).
The picture is of a young woman with a rather wistful expression on her face, sitting, rather uncomfortably, bolt upright in a garden chair, a book in one hand and a tea service and plate of cakes within easy reach. A dog looks lovingly up at her.
But it was not so much the painting, as the accompanying background notes that stirred me. Dolly, or Elise Christian Margaret Robertson, to give her full name, was the daughter of a wealthy Victorian grazier, William Robertson.
The attractive Dolly - she was in her late teens at the time of the painting - had already attracted a number of suitors, but her father had forbidden them all, saying they were not good enough for her. She never married and died in 1939.
Reading this I felt overwhelmed with pity and anger for this long dead lady, denied the opportunity of married life by her overbearing father.
I rather suspect that William Robertson's real reason was to ensure his daughter stayed at home to take care of him in his old age - this was often considered a duty for one unfortunate child in large Victorian families. However, if this was the case Robertson was rich enough to have employed servants and nurses to look after him.
There is no doubt that Dolly bridled against this restriction on her life. She originally wore a white dress for the siting but asked Dowling to change the colour to dark brown because, as the story goes, "if I am never to marry , then I will be in mourning for the rest of eternity".
And what of Dowling's thoughts in this? The painter was in his late 50s and close to the end of his life, yet there are hints in the painting that he was very much on Dolly's side. The tea service was her favourite as were the vanilla slices. The faithful dog was added later.
There is also just a hint of eroticism in the way her foot protrudes ever so slightly from beneath her long dress, a suggestion that she was a tall, leggy lady.
Perhaps Dowling was a little in love with her, although in those times, and in that society, he would have kept such thoughts very much to himself.
So I will be contributing towards Miss Robertson of Colac (Dolly). Denied her right to seek happiness in life, she should at least be displayed to be admired by us in these more liberal, enlightened times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
