spinbadz own

“MEDIA Watch, at least as we've known it for the past 18 years, is in serious trouble."

My goodness - 18 years!?

How does a program as lame as “Media Watch” even survive for 18 years?

Taxpayer funding, that’s how. Australian ABC TV’s “Media Watch” is a 13-mnutes weekly, seldom-watched segment. Its proponents used to loudly hallucinate about appeal to an “influential” demographic.

In fact, the few viewers the show had were mainly members of the left, especially the further reaches thereof. People with such views have a strong representation in the Australian media, and at the ABC (the 89% of US journalists who vote Democrat are mirrored in the number of Labor Party-supporting Australian journalists). The journalistic chatter about "Media Watch", especially before the advent of the Internet, gave it the appearance of relevance.

However, viewer numbers bespoke a greater truth. It has, quite simply, never been comfortable for persons of non-left political persuasions - being the vast majority of Australians - to watch "Media Watch".

This is largely because, given the show’s apparent mandate of querying particulars in select Australian media items from the preceding week:

a) It does so in a boring and derisive way; and

b) A dubious quantum and type of items derided are engineered on the right. Special (and often smug) attention seems to be paid to Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch-owned media, Rupert Murdoch media-employed journalists, right wing pundits and politicians and/or Mark Steyn.

David Salter (sayer of the quote at top and former MW executive producer) might (understandably) have us believe that the only person actively attacking MW is The Sydney Institute’s Gerard Henderson.

David must be having a Turkish. Try a Google instead, David.

Ironically, Mr Henderson appears to be offering MW a life line. Salter quotes him as pleading with the ABC to have MW:

" desist from its one-sided advocacy and facilitate genuine debate and discussion about the media".

Which is not asking a helluva lot – just a fair go: a dose of Hannity to balance the Colmes. Henderson is not therein calling for the program to be canned.

Salter, on the other hand appears to vehemently argue that Henderson’s suggested (fair and?) ‘balanced’ format can’t possibly work, that it would be too boring for public consumption:

“Media Watch works effectively only as a vehicle for individual comment, not as some "we said/they said" badminton match. What could be duller television than teams of media bores blathering on at each other for 13 minutes every Monday night? “

Personally, I would say that 13 minutes of only one team of media bores blathering unchallenged must, intrinsically, be more boring than that.

In any case modern precedent, as shown for example by Hannity & Colmes, suggests that Salter is wrong, that more rounded and roundly discussed input can deliver an entertaining product.

Not that I’m authoritatively qualified to comment on MW (apart from being one of its taxpayers sponsors). I don't often watch the program.

The last time I flicked (inadvertently) to MW some weeks back, presenters appeared to be inanely and breathlessly melodramatizing over an error that (Murdoch-affiliated, right-leaning) commentator Piers Ackerman had made – and evidently already apologized for. He had criticised the ABC children’s program “Play School”.

Yes: “Play School”. The hoo-ha was something to do with – I’m not making this up - the wording of “Mary had a little lamb”.

The “Media Watch” segment on this item ran for at least one-third of the entire program’s air time. Maybe even more: I did change the channel before it was over.

I mean, even if you accept that this item was important enough for a self-professed media watchdog to mention, there must be a reasonable query over the proportional time allocation. Given the other things going on in our world at the time.

Keep in mind that the 'Play School - Ackerman - Lamb' affair went to air around the same time, for example, that The Australian newspaper reported on the findings of the Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press.

Their survey of Muslims in 10 countries, showed, inter alia:

- Most saw 9/11 as a hoax perpetrated by the US Government, Israel or some other agency;

- Most displayed support for Osama bin Laden;

- Support for suicide bombing ranged from 13 per cent (in Germany) to 69 per cent (in Nigeria);

- Blame for Muslim nations' lack of prosperity on the United States and the west ranged from 14 per cent (in Pakistan) to 43 per cent (in Jordan);

- Many more British Muslims regard Westerners as violent, greedy, immoral and arrogant than do Muslims in France, Germany and Spain;

Et cetera. In defense of “Media Watch”, perhaps the Pew survey was disqualified from their commentary parameters because it was not:

a) An offering of Mark Steyn; and/or

b) An item originally engineered in or with specific reference to Australia; and/or

b) An erroneously detailed media item – showing, arguably, merely the effects of perception generated largely through the media.

The last point is, as I said, arguable, but just the kind of thing - showing an insight into the imagined propaganda-stoked thinking of young Muslims in Australia - that a government-sponsored media watching TV program ought to be keeping tabs on.

Perhaps, if MW's parameters are self-defined to preclude it from dealing with such as that, the real issue may be to redefine said parameters in ways that would make the program more relevant in the 21st century world.

Australians now live in an era of internationally accessible and pervasive media influence. We can tap the Internet direct for the latest from the BBC or The Guardian or The Independent – the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s apparent role as local purveyor of news and opinion on behalf of like-minded overseas media outlets is almost completely redundant these days.

Further, the Internet enables people to offer media criticism and comment themselves: so who needs MediaWatch? There are many web sites and blogs doing the same thing, without stifling parameters, and in many cases better. Much better.

Who would miss the show if it was canned? Henderson's being too kind.