|
|
|
BOOK REVIEW
| David Salter, The Media We Deserve: Underachievement in the Fourth Estate, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 2007. pp. xv + 304. $34.95 paper.
|
| The Media We Deserve is not a clinical, balanced, how-to guide to the practice of journalism in Australia. There is nothing detached or neutral here, and this book is depressing reading. I read it in several sittings, for respite from the unrelenting accusing, judgmental – some would say venomous – commentary on media standards and ethics. Handled this way, the book is very readable. It is interspersed with requisite and interesting information about, for example, who owns what in Australia's media, where the money comes from, and how profit and loss statements, not ratings, determine a program's future. The chapters are ripe for aspiring journalists to chew over, and the author's status as a journalist and former executive producer of the ABC's Media Watch allows him to offer a unique, 'insider's' perspective on media. This is especially relevant to sections of the book where the author rails against his colleagues and the forces he says undermine quality journalism, favour poor standards and ethics, and which we (the audience) – until we demand better from our media – deserve. |
1
|
|
Despite the admonition in the sub-title, Underachievement in the Fourth Estate, David Salter hopes his thoughts will have 'some small impact' on his media colleagues 'to encourage them to take a few moments to consider their own assumptions and habits. They do valuable work, but it could be done better', he writes (p. xv). Fair enough, but some of Salter's colleagues might have missed that conciliatory par in the 'Authors Note'. When, as a teacher (or critic) you give an 'F' or low pass for performance, the very least you should do is offer a better way of doing things after pointing out examples of where the student or writer got it wrong. Salter proposes little in the way of solutions or corrections. |
2
|
|
This omission also irritated my group of final-year broadcast reporting students. The topic of current affairs journalism was already high on their list. Each of them would be writing and producing current affairs stories before semester's end and in class we had discussed the hallmarks of good current affairs reporting. Their shortlist included going behind the news to provide analysis, and having the desire to educate and inform. |
3
|
|
References to broadcast current affairs are sprinkled throughout Salter's book but the students found chapter 9, 'Dirt Cheap', provided a good overview of current affairs programming. They also noted Salter's hefty slice of contempt for today's format on commercial television. From its (honourable) origins in 1967 on the ABC, today's commercial offerings, A Current Affair (ACA) and Today Tonight (TT), lack current content and genuine matters of public affairs. They are pitched at a level 'the producers guess is well below the lowest common denominator' (p. 145). Salter says 'the stock editorial technique of commercial current affairs programs for the past decade has been prejudice reinforcement' (p. 147). |
4
|
One student decided the chapter's tone was judgmental and personal: 'Salter makes generalisations and does not provide evidence apart from his own observations and experience', she wrote. 'While this does not invalidate his arguments, it does weaken them.' She questioned whether the public get the media they deserve when 'it really comes down to the motivation' of the journalist:
Is it to get ratings or inform? Merging news with entertainment on a current affairs program leads to a number of contentious questions about serious commentary on a medium that primarily champions entertainment.
|
5
|
Another felt Salter had no empathy for producers who were under pressure to increase advertising revenue.
At no point does he make any suggestions for how to improve the standard of journalism while keeping the masses who watch TT and ACA happy. He just leaves the reader feeling like there is no hope for anyone – be they journalist, viewer or listener.
|
6
|
| | | | |
| University of Southern Queensland |
DIANNE JONES (and students) | |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|