Two recent events in the Fairfax press have made me ask, what is the role we expect of the media today.
We all know the agendas of the HUN. Its a Murdoch rag, and has made no quams about pushing certain barrows (be they corporate or political). The Age however has always maintained its above the fray, and reports with impartiality and fairness.
Two recent comments though ask me what this role of impartial reporting involves.
Firstly there is the following comment from Roebuck in the Australian (he was being asked to comment on recent opinion pieces in the Age and SMH):
Roebuck denied that he had "flip-flopped" on certain issues - he no longer thinks that Ponting, Hayden or Gilchrist should be sacked - and said that he had simply acknowledged that the on-field conduct of the Australian team had changed for the better since the Sydney Test.
"The initial article (January 8) was overstated and provocative, but it was intended to have the effect of making people think about the fierce debate that ensued," he said.
"And it had the desired effect of making Australian cricket confront itself.
"Their conduct changed for the better in Perth and Adelaide, they started shaking hands with opponents and so on, and I had to acknowledge that."
So its okay to overstate or exaggerate something, just as long as you stimulate debate or get a desired outcome? I know this is an opinion piece and not an article, but it worries me that facts and even personal beliefs are being hyped for outcome.
Then we had an interview with (I believe) the editor of the Age on 774 yesterday. When Faine was asking if the Age had an agenda against dredging, he said that he believed there were viable options outside dredging, and it was important for people to hear this. I have no issue with this, but when the editor of a paper is pushing an agenda rather than informing, this needs to be made clear. If you heard the man, it is clear he does not support dredging to the current plan, and he supports publishing articles informing of the negatives of the dredge.
My main issue with this is I read the paper to make up my own mind, not to have someone promote a cause. It was bad enough with Murdoch doing this, but if the Age is now walking this path of agenda setting rather than informing, where is someone supposed to go to find out something to make their own mind up?
Am I old fashioned in wanting media without an agenda?
We all know the agendas of the HUN. Its a Murdoch rag, and has made no quams about pushing certain barrows (be they corporate or political). The Age however has always maintained its above the fray, and reports with impartiality and fairness.
Two recent comments though ask me what this role of impartial reporting involves.
Firstly there is the following comment from Roebuck in the Australian (he was being asked to comment on recent opinion pieces in the Age and SMH):
Roebuck denied that he had "flip-flopped" on certain issues - he no longer thinks that Ponting, Hayden or Gilchrist should be sacked - and said that he had simply acknowledged that the on-field conduct of the Australian team had changed for the better since the Sydney Test.
"The initial article (January 8) was overstated and provocative, but it was intended to have the effect of making people think about the fierce debate that ensued," he said.
"And it had the desired effect of making Australian cricket confront itself.
"Their conduct changed for the better in Perth and Adelaide, they started shaking hands with opponents and so on, and I had to acknowledge that."
So its okay to overstate or exaggerate something, just as long as you stimulate debate or get a desired outcome? I know this is an opinion piece and not an article, but it worries me that facts and even personal beliefs are being hyped for outcome.
Then we had an interview with (I believe) the editor of the Age on 774 yesterday. When Faine was asking if the Age had an agenda against dredging, he said that he believed there were viable options outside dredging, and it was important for people to hear this. I have no issue with this, but when the editor of a paper is pushing an agenda rather than informing, this needs to be made clear. If you heard the man, it is clear he does not support dredging to the current plan, and he supports publishing articles informing of the negatives of the dredge.
My main issue with this is I read the paper to make up my own mind, not to have someone promote a cause. It was bad enough with Murdoch doing this, but if the Age is now walking this path of agenda setting rather than informing, where is someone supposed to go to find out something to make their own mind up?
Am I old fashioned in wanting media without an agenda?
