Tainted Journalism

Yes, I’m writing on this topic again. On the same topic that I wrote about last week in response to Mr Denmore and the same topic that my mother, Kay Rollison, has written so eloquently about today. There’s more to be said and no doubt I will keep saying more because this topic is important.

I’m talking about the quality of our mainstream press.

I’m sure mainstream journalists who write about politics in Australia have noticed how angry huge swaths of the politically engaged populace are with them and their measly efforts at ‘journalism’. I often wonder what they think about the criticism they receive, week in, week out on social media, blogs and independent news sites. But I’m not likely to find out, because to tell us, they would have to reveal what they really think, and as I’ve already established, this is a big no no. Having an opinion is akin to hysterical nonsense in their world. So they end up saying nothing at all. They end up saying ‘the Opposition Leader says’ while we all yell at our TV’s ‘so what? This is completely irrelevant!’

I’ve been thinking this week about how has this sorry situation occurred. How has it come about that we have an oversupply of right wing commentators and talking heads all over our TV, including the ABC, but we never seem to hear from anyone who is willing to go out on limb and say anything about the successes of the Labor government? There are a couple out there, I will admit. Channel 10’s Paul Bongiorno is one who battles on, giving his opinion on policy and sometimes even debating on Twitter, proudly showing off what he really thinks about political news. But the fact that Bongiorno stands out as not always negative about the Gillard government, while there are literally tens of journalists, commentators, columnists and personalities on News Ltd, Fairfax and the ABC who are openly partisan towards the right, openly hostile about the Gillard government, and completely unreasonable when it comes to balance and accuracy, shows just how slim pickings there are for a left-wing audience. And I’ve got a hypothesis about why this is the case.

The problem is, the likes of Andrew Bolt in all his revolting disrespect for facts, accuracy and balance, scares the pants off journalists who don’t want to appear to be as downright unprofessional and dodgy as this gutter dweller is. It’s like their thought process works as follows:

‘Andrew Bolt agrees with everything Abbott does, and hates everything Gillard does. He is quite obviously a terrible excuse for a journalist. He is a propagandist and is untrustworthy. If I endorse anything Gillard does, I’m just a left-wing version of Bolt and this is not the type of journalist I want to be. I’m above that’.

The whole ‘above it’ argument has been brought up again by Jonathon Green on the Drum this week. The headline is all you really need to read to understand Green’s point: Journalism tainted by conviction isn’t journalism. Conviction. Defined as “a firmly held belief or opinion”. Green’s basically saying if you have a a firmly held belief or opinion as a journalist, you are tainted. You are alike to Andrew Bolt. But here lies the problem. There are so many journalists making such an effort not to be ‘tainted’, they are missing the fact that their lack of conviction is destroying their work. Because they have no conviction, or they hide their conviction in order to make it appear they are pure and unaffected, they end up being nothing and offering their audience crap.

It’s no wonder so many of us are frustrated. Because it’s perfectly clear that while the left has this problem, the right doesn’t.

Let’s pause for a moment and think about this left/right divide. If I write that I think the Gonksi education reforms are a fantastic idea and will be good for the long term success of the Australian economy and I provide evidence for why I have this view, am I automatically ‘tainted’ as a ‘lefty’? Remember I’m analysing the policy and I’m providing evidence for why I think it’s a good policy. Does this make me a Labor stooge? Does this make me a propagandist? Does this make me a tainted ‘lefty’? No. It doesn’t. I’m not behaving like Bolt in any way shape or form. Because Bolt doesn’t use facts. He prefers to misrepresent them. He prefers to use hyperbole, mock outrage and general nastiness towards people he doesn’t agree with. He doesn’t reason. He doesn’t analyse. And his conclusions are always utterly predictable and easy to refute. But somehow, journalists have let the Bolts of the world win by using this tactic, as they have convinced themselves that if they say anything complimentary about the Gillard government, they’ll be tainted in the same way Bolt is who obviously campaigns for Abbott regardless of what he think of his policies.

It’s quite obvious that the reason there is an abundance of left wing bloggers, and a distinct shortage of right wing ones, is because the right have their opinions adequately covered in the mainstream press, and the left are screaming out for a voice. So us bloggers are doing the job of journalists in analysing policy and providing our thoughts on the impact of these policies. We can’t find this analysis elsewhere so we write it ourselves. Let’s be clear – we’re not doing this because we’re campaigning for the Labor party. We have convictions that we have no intention of hiding. We’re not in anyone’s pocket and there’s no vested interests dictating our views. Just because I’m a Labor voter, and proud to say it, does not mean I’ve given up the right to analyse with an objective eye. Each and every post I write is filtered through my view of the world – which is all any one can ask of any writer or journalists. In fact, most independent bloggers I read, who would be considered ‘left wing’, are critical of the Labor party when they feel it’s warranted. And we’re always very particular about getting our facts right. We’re doing the job of the journalists too when it comes to correcting the official trail of lies the right wingers in our press leave in their wake.  For example, since journalists aren’t pulling Andrew Bolt up on his blatant misrepresentation of climate change (and his insult to mathematics), independent bloggers like Greg Jericho point out these facts instead.

Independent writers and bloggers seem to have more conviction in one post, than the mainstream media have collectively in all their work. Mainstream journalists don’t care that Abbott’s Opposition are constantly distorting the facts about the current state of the Australian economy and the size of Australia’s debt. They don’t care that a well orchestrated campaign was carried out within the Liberal National Party to force the resignation of the Speaker, to try to force an early election. They don’t care that Abbott’s Direct Action policy has been left un-scrutinised, while the story about climate change and the Carbon Price was all about Gillard’s supposed ‘lie’. If they had even an ounce of conviction (not left or right, just plain old conviction about right and wrong), how could they possibly ignore this? How can we trust what they say if they are so determined not to care about anything? Surely this is the definition of tainted; writing without conviction.

The question of balance is also one that needs to be examined. Does balance mean being negative about Gillard one day, and positive the next, while being equally negative and positive about Abbott? Do climate change deniers funded by vested interests get the same access to an audience as distinguished scientists who have proved time and time again that the deniers are wrong? Of course balance means none of these things. Gillard should only get positive coverage when her government deserves it. But when you look at the facts, and the resulting coverage, there is a huge hole when it comes to positive stories about the Gillard government. Balance is the ability to weigh up facts fairly, to report these facts fairly and to provide analysis of the impact of these facts fairly, without prejudice or dishonesty. There is no simpler way to explain it.

Frankly, I’ve had enough of the whole scene and I don’t think I’m alone. While Abbott gets a free run in a cowardly press, who refuse to question anything he does, while Gillard’s achievements are buried and her problems over-exaggerated or created, and while the right wing mouth-pieces get free rein to say anything they want without any standards of fact-checking or decency applied, we are all losers. While journalists are ducking and weaving to hide their convictions, all that is left for the thinking public is to find analysis and inspiration elsewhere. And if we can’t find it, we write it ourselves.

“in among it with everyone else”

I know it’s a bit unorthodox to post on a Sunday night. I usually pipe up at the start of a weekend. This post actually started it’s life as a very long comment on Mr Denmore’s excellent blog post which also went up tonight: The God Complex. But when I went to submit the comment, everything disappeared and I thought, stuff this, I will just write a post instead.

Mr Denmore’s words struck a chord with me. In fact, he reminded me of a foggy frustrated idea that’s been buzzing around my head for months, that I haven’t quite managed to write into a post yet. So thank you Mr Denmore, because now it’s flowing out.

I couldn’t agree more that the media landscape has changed. Now that us independent bloggers are having our say, it seems more and more obvious that the divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’ (that is the mainstream journalists), is this:

they spend all their time desperately trying not to show what they really think, whilst we do the complete opposite.

There’s no doubt that many of us bloggers who write about politics, media and the nexus between are utterly fed up with the work produced by mainstream journalists. And the mainstream journalists are fed up with us.

I’ve written a lot over the last few months about the failures of the mainstream media, but I’ve never managed to entirely portray the difference between us quite as eloquently as Mr Denmore. In his post, he writes about two problems with the attitude of mainstream journalists – the view from nowhere and false equivalences. If you haven’t already, as I said, this post is definitely worth a read. Mr Denmore concluded with the following suggestion to mainstream journalists:

If they are to succeed, they are going to have to stop seeing themselves as boundary riders, referees and voices of God and get in among it with everyone else.

It was the words among it with everyone else which fired me up. Mainstream journalists have become absolute experts at writing articles, or speaking on the radio, or appearing on TV show panels, and providing many words, without actually telling anyone what they actually think. It’s as if having an opinion is an unforgivable sin. Because having an opinion equates to partisanship and if you’re partisan, you can’t possibly be professional. Of course I’m not talking about those journalists who make a living out of campaigning for their political party. The Andrew Bolts and the Piers Akermans and the Chris Kennys. I’m talking about the ones who are meant to be providing fair, balanced and interesting political commentary. I’m talking about those who we expect to see policy analysis from, but we end up just getting hollow narratives along the lines of ‘they’re all as bad as each other, so we may as well make a joke about the whole thing’. The Annabel Crabbs, Philip Cooreys, Peter Hartchers and Waleed Alys. And worse than offering bland nothingness in the place of real analysis, they offer sideshows and irrelevant innuendo in the place of a real, in depth look at something that’s really important. Like the future of our country, or the effect a policy will have on our community.

And still it gets worse. It gets much worse, when these people treat anyone that does write about policy, as if we’re too close and too partisan to matter. Those of us who do care about politics care about it not because it’s the topic we happen to make a living writing about. We don’t fixate on it because it’s a ‘thing’ and it’s ‘entertaining’. We care about politics because it actually does matter. And when we care about policy, and we write about how much we care about it, it’s as if our words are somehow tainted with the hysterics of being passionate on a topic. As if we’re just offering a biased opinion, and that this opinion therefore doesn’t count. Because we care too much. This is the attitude that oozes out of mainstream political journalists and commentators. And I’m sick of it. Surely a prerequisite for writing about politics is caring about the outcome?

A perfect example of this attitude was the Press Gallery’s decision to lock out Independent Australia journalist, Callum Davidson, from the ‘in club’. David Speers, the current president of the Press Gallery, provided this reasoning for the decision to reject Davidson’s application to join the Canberra Press Gallery:

“Your website appears to be opinion-based rather than a news site. We have received numerous requests from similar sites which have also been declined.”

I was dumbfounded when I read this. The first reason is because the Press Gallery generally doesn’t offer ‘news’ in any way shape or form which isn’t also easily categorized as ‘opinion’. News comes thick and fast, usually instantly and by the time the Press Gallery has time to present it, we already know the facts and all that is left for them to talk about is their analysis of these facts. Their opinions of the facts. But these ‘opinions’ just look different from the opinions you see on Independent Australia because most of the writers on Independent Australia care about the subjects they are writing about.

The second reason I was amazed was because I get most of my news from sites like Independent Australia these days – since these sites are the only ones interested in actually finding out what the hell is going on in Canberra. No doubt Press Gallery journalists are sick of people on social media begging them to investigate the circumstances behind James Ashby’s decision to take Peter Slipper to court. But guess what – there’s a reason we’re begging. It’s because we just can’t believe that mainstream journalists have become so cynical, so lazy and so unambitious that they wouldn’t be desperate to investigate this story for themselves. It is really exciting that Independent Australia has managed to raise funds from the public to investigate Ashbygate. But it’s also depressing because the mainstream media should be doing this. And Independent Australia is the publication that the Press Gallery have decided ‘don’t count’, because they have too much opinion on their site. They’re offering us exclusive news, and the Press Gallery is trying to block their access to the source of this news. It’s ridiculous.

I know I’m just one of many bloggers who write on this subject, and more than likely everyone in the Press Gallery has never heard of me. But that has never stopped me providing my thoughts. I write because I care. I always write about issues that are important to me and I think that’s obvious in the way that I write. If that makes me partisan, and therefore unqualified to provide an opinion, so be it. I wish just for once we could read an article in the mainstream press and actually get to the end with some sort of idea of what the journalist thinks. We need to feel them get amongst it with us because otherwise what they produce is bland, boring and completely irrelevant. Don’t they ever wonder why their readership is declining?

Spinach or shit?

A friend recently sent me a classic Tweet:

‘Voting for Tony Abbott because you don’t like Julia Gillard is like eating shit because you hate spinach’.

Fine, some people don’t like Gillard (spinach). They don’t like her voice. They don’t like her hair. They don’t like her glasses. They don’t like her boyfriend. They don’t like her marriage status. They don’t like her lack of religion. They don’t like her gender. They don’t like her. Fine. Some people are unhappy with some of Labor’s policies. I get it. It’s absolutely understandable that you don’t like everything the Labor party does. Neither do I. I like most of it. And I like some of it very much. But not all of it. Big deal. The odd thing is, every time these shit-eaters are asked why they are eating shit, they just go on and on about hating spinach. It’s quite irrational.

Let me say first up, I quite like spinach, especially with feta, so this is an easy choice for me. But there do seem to be quite a few people in Australia who are absolutely hell bent on rejecting the healthy spinach option, and haven’t even considered the side effects of eating shit instead. Let’s have a closer look at the alternatives in a few important areas of political policy.

Climate policy

There has been a lot of fascination over the last few years in Gillard’s determination to bring in an ETS, and her supposed lie of bringing in a Carbon Price instead. Never mind that Gillard quite clearly is doing what she promised, and bringing in an ETS, with the Carbon Price used in the interim to compromise with the Greens to form a minority government. Either way, if you’re a shit-eater who hates the Carbon Price, have you ever had a look at the shit alternative?

Ever heard of Abbott’s Direct Action Policy? In this fantastic post on the Political Sword, Ad astra asks some very good questions about this shit policy. It’s probably not your fault that you know little about Direct Action, considering how pathetic the mainstream media’s scrutiny of this policy has been. But if you can’t be bothered seeking it out, and haven’t even thought about the alternative once the Carbon Price is ‘axed’, it’s important that you know you are not being offered zero action against climate change. What you are being offered by Abbott is a shit, no details policy that will cost tax-payers $1,300 per household, per year. Considering the bleating about larger electricity bills, you’d think $1,300 per household would raise some eyebrows. And even worse, no one has been able to confirm that this policy will even reduce emissions, when the Carbon Price is already effectively doing this. So Direct Action is expensive and possibly won’t work. It’s funding coal instead of research and development into sustainable energies. It’s bullshit. And Abbott hasn’t even explained how he will fund it. If you’re going to hate the Carbon Price, the least you can do is justify this hatred with a love for Direct Action instead. And if you can’t muster love, at least be informed. Rather than ranting about ‘Gillard lying’ as if this is some sort of critique of the Carbon Price, when deep down it’s clear you don’t believe in climate change and therefore can’t understand why action needs to be taken, at least give it five seconds thought. Have a think about how it will taste to eat shit.

The NBN

Surely you can see how desperately embarrassed Malcolm Turnbull is of his party’s shit alternative to the Labor government’s National Broadband Network. If Turnbull can’t get excited about a crap alternative to a superior network, why on earth should you be excited about it? Labor’s NBN is going to cost $37.4 billion and will offer super-fast broadband to homes and businesses Australia wide. Turnbull and Abbott’s shit NBN will cost $29.5 billion, and will only supply not as fast broadband, to businesses in metro areas, and households who can afford up to $5,000 to connect. Murdoch is happy with this policy. It keeps his Foxtel TV subscriptions monopolizing the market for many years to come. It’s no wonder the Liberal’s launched their policy at Fox Studios, just to show Rupey how much they care. So you shit-eaters, when Telstra’s copper gives out and you’re left without any broadband, let alone the not so fast version that you paid through the nose to connect to, and when giant fridge units turn up on your pavement, will you at least do us spinach eaters the courtesy of admitting you’ve been eating shit?

Gonski Education Funding Reform

So you’re not happy about the Gonski school funding model? You don’t want extra money from the Federal Government for schools to provide a more equitable standard of education for all Australians, regardless of family wealth? Fine. So what do you think of the alternative? Christopher Pyne, the so called Shadow Education Minister, who wouldn’t recognise a good education if it was gifted to him, claims that:

“too much money has been wasted on reducing class sizes and that instead there should be more focus on the quality of teaching.”

Pyne also thinks the 5 – 15% of teachers, who he describes as ‘not up to scratch’ should be sacked. Apparently he thinks sacking teachers helps education quality. I guess the spinach eaters in this case would have to be those who value the benefits of a good education for all, whereas the shit-eaters just want to see the government cut, slash and burn spending with the selfish hope they’ll be left with a few extra dollars in their pocket each week through a tax break, and if that means larger classes, less teachers and lower quality education system, so be it. Sorry to tell you, those eating shit, that a short term tax decrease at the expense of quality education will just end up costing us all. Please think about this before picking up your spoon.

King of the Scandal

If you relied on the mainstream media for all your news, you might think the Labor party is the party of scandal and smear. You might think the most newsworthy political event in the last twelve months was a nasty misogynist blogger urging an incompetent, biased, idea-free press into beating up a story about the Prime Minister, surrounding unproven wrongdoing by her boyfriend 20 years ago. You might therefore have missed that Abbott was sued this week over his own little slush-fund affair, which he used to destroy the career of his right-wing rival, Pauline Hanson. It’s amazing how the mainstream media and their shit-eating cheer-squad change their tune about truth, public-interest and political scandal when it comes to Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.

You might also think ex-Liberal Peter Slipper was the most corrupt in James Ashby’s sexual harassment case. Again, the mainstream media would have you believe this to be the case. The mainstream media don’t want you to know that the real rat is Ashby. And Abbott’s pre-selected friend Mal Brough. So while you’re complaining about the problems with spinach, think how silly you’ll look, when you realise just how badly you’ve been duped. Duped by the mainstream media. Duped by the rich vested interests of Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch who have every reason to promote the eating of shit over spinach for their own self-interest.

So you hate Julia Gillard? Can you at least understand why I’m not just asking you to stop eating shit? I’m also asking you to stop forcing others into a shit-eating situation which is not of their own making. Don’t elect Abbott as Prime Minister. I don’t care if you don’t like spinach. Disliking spinach does not justify a vote for Abbott. Grow up and think of the alternative.

UPDATE: Original spinach or shit Tweet was by Geezlouise (@Turlow1)

Who is rich if not them?

This week, Labor backbencher and head Gillard white-anter, Joel Fitzgibbon, tore open again the tired debate about what constitutes a ‘wealthy’ Australian. Why this is even a debate is beyond me. The main reason the topic is discussed is because the government is currently making budgetary decisions about who should be the beneficiaries of a tax break on super. In effect this tax break is a government subsidy. A tax-payer funded government subsidy on superannuation savings. Fitzgibbon, who seems to have forgotten what the Labor party stands for, or never knew in the first place, came out with this criticism of Gillard’s suggestion that high earners should have their superannuation savings taxed, with this ridiculous comment:

”In Sydney’s west you can be on a quarter of a million dollars family income a year and you’re still struggling.’’

The fact that Fitzgibbon used the short-hand way of saying ‘250,000’ is significant as it makes his comment look even more preposterous. A quarter of a million dollars. A million dollars over four years before tax. In the same sentence as the word ‘struggling’. What planet is Joel Fitzgibbon on?

I can probably take a guess at the answer to this question. Fitzgibbons is on planet ‘get me re-elected’ and will say and do anything he feels necessary so not to offend or concern anyone in his electorate, including the very rich. This is a cowardly way to campaign. Particularly since he represents the traditionally safe Labor seat of Hunter. Fitzgibbon has already proven with his behaviour in the Rudd camp that he is undeserving of membership of the Labor party, let alone a seat. But pandering to the wealthy, at the expense of tax revenue that could be used to level the playing field for the very poor, is totally unacceptable for a Labor MP.

In this article Dr Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute, makes a key point about the definition of what constitutes ‘wealthy’ in the Australian community:

In 1996, when Howard was elected, the top tax rate kicked in at $50,000 and by the time he left office it had risen to $150,000. Obviously you couldn’t be a high-income earner if you weren’t in the top tax bracket.

He used the same approach to welfare support, introducing a range of benefits that flowed to middle- and high-income earners. Again, how could families feel they were doing very well by community standards when the community saw them as being in need of financial support?

By giving wealthy people middle class welfare, such as super tax breaks, the baby bonus and the first-home-owner grant, all Howard achieved was to imbed a sense of entitlement in the very rich. This sense of entitlement remains today. In my view it’s time to turn the tap off. It’s time to remind people who earn a crap load of money that they have absolutely no right to receive welfare of any kind. They should also be reminded that they are not entitled to resent the high rates of tax they pay since the only reason they are rich in the first place is because of the opportunities afforded them by living in a well run society, which was built on the back of a fair government taxation system. Elizabeth Warren explains this best.

Let’s look closer at an income of $250,000. If Fitzgibbon is correct, and there really are people in Western Sydney earning this much money and struggling, then what has gone wrong in their lives to cause this situation? What sort of consuming addiction and predilection to spend outside their means must a family have developed to feel stretched on this income?

Breaking this down, let’s look at an example where a wife earns $150,000 as a sales manager, and her husband earns $100,000 as a plumber. Their after-tax weekly income is $3,492. Anyone who thinks their daily necessities of life cannot be met with $3,492 a week needs to see a financial counsellor. I don’t even care if the family has five children. Food, clothes, bills and a mortgage in Western Sydney are not so expensive that $250,000 is a modest income. Obviously if you spend all of this income, you will feel broke. Is this what Fitzgibbon means? That these people spend too much and that’s why they’re struggling? Look at this house for sale in Cecil Hills. The real estate agent is offering buyers to ‘Live like a king on 943 m2 block of land!’ This mansion has five bedrooms and is on the market for $1,450,000. Assuming the buyer had a 10% deposit, their weekly mortgage payment on this house fit for a king would be $1,886. So our $250,000 family could afford this mortgage if they didn’t mind ‘stretching’ themselves, with $1,606 left each week for life’s necessities. (And also things they want, but don’t need, like take away dinners, holidays and designer clothes, new cars and electronic equipment).

When you compare this family living like a king, to a couple who works full time on a minimum wage, who take home $558 each a week, it’s hard to imagine how their lifestyles could be further apart. And it’s also impossible to imagine that the wealthy family is struggling and in need of government tax subsidies on their superannuation. To put it simply, a family earning $250,000 might want government assistance, but it’s easy to see that there is absolutely no argument that they need government assistance.

To get another perspective on whether a family earning $250,000 is struggling, it’s interesting to look at this US example of wealth inequality. Ignoring for a moment the monumental disgrace of the reality of the gap between rich and poor, I instead draw your attention to the ‘ideal’ amount of inequality. 92% of the 5,000 people surveyed in this research selected their ‘ideal’ inequality as the richest 20% being ten to twenty times richer than the poorest 20%. If this ideal was the reality, and I convert it back to Australian figures, a couple receiving a dole payment of $448.70 a week (who would fall into the poorest 20% of Australians), are receiving just 13% of what someone on $250,000 a year earns. In other words, families earning $250,000 a year earn eight to twenty times more than a family on the dole. So is Joel Fitzgibbon saying that the ideal top 20% of earners in our country are struggling? My question then for Fitzgibbon is – if our top 20% of earners are struggling, what words could we possibly use to describe the conditions of our lowest 20%? Here’s a suggestion: in desperate and immediate need of as much government assistance as the government can possibly afford. And if the government can afford to help these people more effectively by cancelling welfare for the very rich, then this should be done, and it should be done now.