From good ‘ol JH at the AFR:
New technology, and the dramatic changes in the financial viability of the traditional media businesses, have driven a great proliferation of media outlets and channels all competing to report and comment on news.
…Politicians have responded by attempting to “win” what has become essentially a media game, played out hour by hour. The whole process has become incredibly short-term in its focus. It is mostly about point scoring, and usually negative, personal, and opportunistic. The debate and detail on policy and how it is to be implemented – the stuff that makes up good government – gets sacrificed.
…The policy process should have three clear stages. First, get the electorate to accept the problem/challenge. Second, spell out in some detail the available policy options. Third, select an option, and be prepared to argue and defend it, and encouraging public/parliamentary debate at each stage.
Why doesn’t the media start to campaign for such leadership?
Well, this super fast and responsive media does just that. But other than MB I’m inclined to agree.
The “great proliferation” is still dominated by the duopoly of Newscorp as hard core Liberal Party supporters, and Fairfax as hard core Labor Party supporters (except the AFR) but the death of the old media business model is changing the way they operate.
Securing a critical mass of monetisable readers is no small feat when Joe Bloggs can read anything from the West Wyalong Bugel to the New York Times with equal ease.
The answer appears to have been to turn to an ideological identification with readers rather than the production of good media. As well, biased media can be used as a loss-leading wedge to ensure policy favours for a larger business (not mentioning any names, Rup).
Not sure what the answer is. Put MB in charge?
