A few days ago, the ANU released a revealing study showing that trust in government is at its lowest level on record. Only one-in-four Australians said they had confidence in their political leaders and institutions. And 56 per cent said government is run for a “few big interests”. Just as interesting is the way that some commercial media treated this significant news.
One might have thought that this was a politically newsworthy story deserving of some prominence in the media. After all, this Australian Election Study is authoritative, done only after each election and has been conducted since 1987.
The study also reported that Australians’ satisfaction with democracy is at its lowest since the constitutional crisis of the 1970s, and that just 59 per cent of Australians are satisfied with how democracy is working, down 27 percentage points from the record high of 86 per cent in 2007.
“I’ve been studying elections for 40 years, and never have I seen such poor returns for public trust in and satisfaction with democratic institutions,” lead researcher Ian McAllister said. “There is widespread public concern about how our democracy is underperforming.”
This is information that voters in a democracy need to know. It is also important feedback to politicians that they really need to lift their game. So, it might surprise some that two leading newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, ignored the story completely. Nothing in their news pages of Dec. 10, the day after the study release.
Another newspaper, arguably the most important on the political scene, the Australian, chose not to carry the story in its news pages. Instead, there was a passing reference to poor confidence in politicians in its editorial of Dec.10, with the rather bland headline “Restoring trust in politics begins with better policies“, a real motherhood statement. If the story had been in the news pages, readers might have seen something more startling like “Only 25% have confidence in politicians”, or “Most say government is run for big interests”.
Headlines do matter. The academic literature is clear that readers often choose to read a story or not depending on the headline, and their comprehension of the story is conditioned by the headline. To newspaper men and women in a highly competitive media world, the content of stories, headlines, prominence of display on front page or inside pages do matter. They help sell newspapers.
For media watchers, the treatment of stories also provide clues to editorial policy and whose interests the newspaper is protecting or promoting.
These comments are not criticism of journalists, both writers and editors, who rank with the world’s best, but the sad truth is that corporate power has overtaken a noble profession so necessary for democracy. Where once, editorial decisions were taken in the newsroom, and some newspaper proprietors respected the independence and integrity of journalists, today, editorial policy is run from a higher level, the boardroom. And seemingly, commercial interests reign supreme.
Equally lamentable is the effect that unbalanced reporting has on confidence in democracy. Most people would understand that journalism is indeed the fourth pillar, or estate, of democracy. An informed public is necessary for confidence in politics.
(The writer was a deputy editor in the Straits Times newspaper in Singapore)
John Tan was a deputy editor in the Straits Times newspaper in Singapore. He has been foreign editor and business editor.
Comments
8 responses to “JOHN TAN. Can we trust politicians? And newspapers?”
Since the Age and SMH became Ninenews, it has noticeably declined in quality. Just the fact that Peter Costello heads this corporation is enough to make readers wonder. It is made to look better than it is by the appalling Murdoch rags which are the sole print news in three capital cities and the fourth Perth is controlled by Stokes. Print media in this country is in a bad way sadly.
An excellent article, thank you Mr. Tan, as were the reader’s comments. Although I did feel you were casting a somewhat rose coloured view of newspapers more centred in the 1980’s than what we see in the press now. The fact is the SMH and Age ignore many newsworthy stories on a daily basis, not just ones about politician’s trustworthiness. Unfortunately, this is most probably a reflection of Channel 9, and this new owner’s political and philosophical leanings. (Yes I know, why on earth would this be a surprise.)
The Murdoch press is in a (despicable) class of its own, and I most definitely dispute your claim that the Australian is “arguably the most important on the political scene…”
Just to add a little extra about news reporting in press and television; to me a lot of the problems to do with Australia’s news and current affairs coverage is a lack of collective wisdom and experience in the various news rooms.
As a critical news consumer, I often feel that there is little depth or real understanding of events that might have brought us to the story being reported on. Or if there is an attempt to incorporate a background component, it is often a misinterpreted take from a few newspaper cuttings sourced from the news room’s library. The result is most of today’s news stories, press or television, are wafer thin.
One reason may be the general young age of reporters. Just check reporter by-lines and there accompanying pics, or watch any television news programs. Most appear to be under 25.
This in itself may not be of concern, so long as their chiefs of staff and/or producers have constructively guided their young charges to get the best out of story. But I hazard a guess that these behind the scenes coordinators have got similarly limited knowledge of their important craft.
William Randolph Hearst used to tell his reporters: “News is what someone, somewhere, doesn’t want reported: all the rest is advertisement.”
There is so much which the powers-that-be don’t want known – that is why our dead tree press is dying – just hasn’t stopped moving yet.
I think it’s why I am reading mainstream media with a more sceptical mind – The Age/SMH – but finding honest and in-depth reporting in other on-line outlets – here for example (Pearls & Irritations) or with Eureka Street, New Matilda or The Betoota Advocate, Andrew P Street (and used to – via John Birmingham) as well as overseas reporting sent via George Burchett! The ABC News has proven to be largely a mouthpiece for government press releases, sadly – I watch it for the weather nowadays – to be quite honest! Icheck in with The Guardian – excellent on Indigenous issues in Australia – one-eyed Zionist re Palestinian subjugation/murders. I (We) have to do so much dodging and weaving to get to the truth these days – so thank God, too, for WikiLeaks – the very best of investigative journalism and exposure of the rorters and vested interest ideologues of our world!
An informed public ? – I doubt we have had a less transparent government. Ever.
Thanks for this – the question is crying out for more research, and I know some people with the expertise are planning to do so. The AES is the best of the surveys, and because it takes time to compile, there are lots of existing assumptions about the last election that need querying. There is also pressure for “news values” (often shock headlines), and also the further concentration of a few media barons, as you say. My favourite example is that Liverpool (UK; a terribly poor city) does not read or view the Murdoch “products” after their vilifying Liverpool fans years ago when the Leeds constabulary were correctly, but much later, blamed for the terrible crushes and deaths at a match. After that, Liverpool didn’t come out in favour of leaving the EU, the opposite; it ran some neo-Nazis back to the train stations this year [peacefully too] and did not vote for Boris. Still on the British election, I am also laughing at how the FT assumed Boris would be “sensible” and, so soon after, the editorial board are shocked!
I think part of the reason for the lack of confidence is that people are well informed.
People know that their future is being sacrificed, that inequality is rising, that the government serves big business.
The fact that people vote in a government like the current one shows that people are very poorly informed. Unless you assume they are stupid.
No, I think it is the rubbish journalism by the Murdoch press and Fox that keep people uninformed.
Neither do they seem too keen to be informed. It is easier to watch simpleton programs on tv than to try and find out.