I want to thank you both for deeming such a wonderfully inclement
morning on Sunday past. We raised the
blind on rain, sleet and darkish cold yet remained closeted within a tunnel of
yummy down. We just added a steaming cup
of tea and Saturday’s Age. Heaven.
My first lecturer at university some 40 years ago told us on
day one that “We at Melbourne University read the Age” implying that other
papers were not up to the same level of either reporting or journalism. This has stuck as has an innate desire to
wrestle with the glorious broadsheet format where there is lots of stuff on a
page. It does challenge the slightly
pulpy Sunday morning brain by requiring some degree of dedication and indeed alacrity
to manage the size but it’s well worth the two hour effort! We read reports about happenings all over the
world, dribbled over a few cars, scan read the ads and stuff of lesser
interest, went travelling all over the place
and really enjoyed some of the authored and journalistic pieces [Tony Wright is
always great].
We regret running out of reading.
The instant-news ‘android-tablet’ reader will never
understand nor will they understand that the world would be a poorer place
without broadsheets.
We even read about Ms Rinehart and her rising angst against
The Age. I find her motives confusing as
I find the Board’s response bemusing. Still, far be it from me to understand
the thought processes of the billionaires or the power struggles surrounding
boardroom martini machinations.
There are too many numbers to ignore the fact that print media
is in some degree of doo doo and indeed fairly obvious that not enough has
changed in The Age to remedy dropping [sic] relevance for a changing market.
All of us want instant news.
Simple fact.
Therefore it would seem relevant and appropriate to meet
those reporting needs as well as the needs of people who care about the stuff
behind the clinical reports. Perhaps there
is an answer to meet both markets head on whilst retaining much sought after
integrity.
However and firstly, get over the notion of journalistic
integrity while you have sub-editors concocting by-lines designed to excite and
amaze instead of just identifying a story and, journalists who are actually
human with real feelings and opinions.
Hence the difference between reporters and journalists. Reporters scribe what’s happened and
journalists tell us why it’s happened.
Add on an editor or two with a political persuasion and it becomes
obvious that journalistic integrity is what the paper wants it to be. But note, this is a good thing because
without ‘human’ journalists with a brain we sneak back to 1984 and big brother.
But, Mr Age and Ms Rinehart, perhaps there is a way forward.
Imagine our beautiful broadsheet with masthead oozing
integrity and editorial insight with page one dedicated to the big stories
continued by a journalist within the paper on page ‘x’. I personally would love to see the beginnings
of an editorial on the front page about the lead story by one of the
aforementioned egomanic journalists.
Mr Age, feed my brain, create thought, enable debate. Even with my Sunday morning pulpy brain I
want to be challenged.
But the big change would be pages 2 and 3. I believe both these pages should be
dedicated to android phone sized reporting with a photo and say 200 words. Instant news for the masses, similar to the
existing ‘World Tour’ on page 14, and in a format which would zip straight onto
a phone or tablet. Both markets in one
hit and at the front of the paper. A
perfect example could be the lead story ‘Mega Failure’ from last Saturday. The ‘report’ states the facts but it would
also be fascinating for a journalist to write something on just why a foreign
agency was allowed into NZ to raid a property and take documents out of the
country; with the help of local police. Last line of the report – “go to page 17 for Tony Wright’s analysis”.
Pages 4 through ‘x’ would be dedicated to this sort of real
journalism, to appeal to the rest of Melbourne.
A newspaper with class, insight and integrity and one that is relevant
to gen ‘x’ and us baby boomers.
Advertisements are good on a number of levels but keep them separate
from journalism and no ads on pages 1, 2 or 3.
In terms of ads, we personally do
not
have a ‘No junk mail’ sticker on our letterbox because we want to know what’s
happening out there, who is offering what and if there is anything we would
like to take advantage of. Same for The
Age. Look at the Office Works ad and be
amazed at the tumbling cost of external hard drives or ogle yet another Persian
Rug closing down sale or peruse an ad for a new chairperson at The Age [sic] or
contemplate a job leading the Melbourne Writers Festival. All interesting and informative.
For the weekend, throw in the add-ons such as Drive, Travel,
GW and all the rest but perhaps go back to broadsheet because if nothing else, it’s
a point of difference and for deities’ sake it’s a ‘newspaper’ and meant to be
devoured and thrown away post doo doo wrapping.
It’s cheap, nasty, supports thousands of jobs in a sustainable logging
industry, reports the facts but also creates angst, enables debate, is opinionated
and embodies what makes Australia great.
My personal opinion of Alan Jones is not very high nor do I
agree with Andrew Bolt a lot of the time and I am sad to see Michelle Grattan
confuse facts with journalism as a labour party pillar. But I am not a complete idiot and can see
through the verbiage and can make up my own mind as long as reporting is separated
from journalism. A really good example
is Jon Faine on Aunty of a morning. He
barely keeps his own feelings under wraps at times when dealing with guests and
callers yet, manages to seem unbiased, fair and engenders an intelligent
response. Every now and again he goes a
little berserk and that’s good. His ego
as a thinking human being lurches to his mouth.
Unfortunately, with other radio hosts and politicians the connection
between brain and mouth is somewhat challenged.
Perhaps, The Age can help bring people to task and engender
a new level of intellectual discussion.
Tony Windsor’s comment when referring to the leader of our alternative federal government as a “rabid
dog” during a walk through interview at some airport is appalling and shows a
level of disrespect which has no place in our society. Jones’ comment about our PM and a hessian bag
shows what type of person he is – one to be ignored. Respect is not earned, it is a God given
right.
Ms Rinehart, perhaps your rather direct approach might just
be seen as threatening to a bunch of egomanic journalists trying to ply their ‘throw
away trade’? Personally, I love ego as
long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. Indeed,
without ego, we are merely cadavers.
The Age IS
Melbourne and its intellectualism has benefited our great city for a long long
time.
We need to keep cognisance of falling standards and our
heritage. It’s too easy to spiral into
the ‘oh well’ syndrome where all is seen as lost and there is nothing we
can do so, let’s have another beer and celebrate our shiny new tablets for what
they can do but perhaps not for what they are capable of challenging us with. ‘Look,
how exciting, a new app to sort out our sock drawer’.
Sunday morning in bed is great with The Age but, in our
case, we need two front sections. At the
moment he or she who wakes first wins the battle.
No comments:
Post a Comment