Yes, along with a less formal commitment to cross fertilisation as well. More cross linking and the the like. My tentative feeling is that are good signs for both atm, more so than since the early blogging days (2002-2007 approx). The number of progressive/left sites an aggregator like True North draws on is reasonably impressive. But yeah, need that systemic strategy. (https://truenorthnews.substack.com/about)
Thank you, I feel spoilt by this kind of article and commentary, it cuts through so well. And really starkly exposes the limited insightfulness provided by so many mainstream journalists, including those seen wandering around a certain Ball cosying up with politicians.
Thanks. I'm always wary about putting up articles like this, based on such reports as the DNR, because they tend not to be all that popular (there is a whole thing in the book publishing industry about the limited appeal of books on media, for example). Still, as I say, I think it is important to get our heads around this stuff. I genuinely feel like we still talk about media in the wrong way, but that it is very hard to find the "right" way. That Broderick piece I link is from a site (Garbageday) that does a better job than most. https://www.garbageday.email/
This gets me thinking about the labels themselves. “Refugee journalists” might be especially useful, because it captures people pushed out of institutions who are still reporting, investigating and trying to hold power to account, often on their own dollar and without a corporate masthead (complete with lawyers) standing behind them.
That seems to strengthen your broader point about hybridity. The old categories are breaking down, and some of that is genuinely democratic. Good journalism can now survive outside institutions that no longer want to fund it, protect it or sometimes even tolerate it.
The difficulty is that the same fracture also gives organised political operations room to present themselves as just another voice in the ecosystem. A journalist with a newsletter and a billionaire-backed political network might both be called “creators”, but they aren’t doing remotely the same thing. One is trying to produce journalism. The other may be trying to manufacture consent, seed talking points or make coordinated influence look like spontaneous public opinion.
I wonder whether the next useful distinction is less mainstream versus independent, and more about money, infrastructure and power. Who’s reporting? Who’s organising? Who’s paying for the reach? Who gets amplified by the platforms? And who gets mistaken for an ordinary bloke with a microphone once the machinery disappears behind the feed?
Having said that, the distinction between merely independent and powerfully backed is an ongoing concern, though I'm not sure how it works as a way of labelling. It risks the same us-and-them polarisation, without necessarily acknowledging the continuum which I think is the heart of all this. The hybridity. But for sure, we have to be cognisant of how power and influence deploy within that hybridity.
A side issue, but I don't think the rise of One Nation needs a lot of explaining. As well as absorbing rivals like Trumpet of Patriots, ONP is stating the views of the median LNP voter, but without equivocation. With weak Liberal leaders like Ley and Taylor, and the revolving door of the Nationals, there's no reason for those voters to stay with LNP
I think you're right about the realignment on the right, but I do genuinely get stumped by all the motivations. I suspect there are a lot of fairly inchoate reasons behind the shift to ON; that it's not quite as straightforward as you say. I guess I'm saying that a lot of the attachment to ON atm is weak and could be broken off with some other formation. I'm also not sure how the community independents (particularly the "teal" subset) sit with your formulation of the median LNP voter. Maybe I'm overcomplicating things, not for the first time!
Traditional media thoroughly compromised by Murdoch, Stokes and AFR. Not only do they account for something like 50 per cent of private sector, but it's almost impossible to have a career in journalism without a spell in one of them.
As an illustrative example, my 17yo son just watched a one hour YouTube show/clip/piece, whatever do you call it? about a 'creator' (Boy_boy) and his journey to embargoed Cuba on a fishing boat delivering humanitarian aid, which included a twenty minute bit on the history of the situation, and he now knows far more about the crisis than he ever did.
We need a systemic strategy for a progressive media ecosystem in Australia
Yes, along with a less formal commitment to cross fertilisation as well. More cross linking and the the like. My tentative feeling is that are good signs for both atm, more so than since the early blogging days (2002-2007 approx). The number of progressive/left sites an aggregator like True North draws on is reasonably impressive. But yeah, need that systemic strategy. (https://truenorthnews.substack.com/about)
Thank you, I feel spoilt by this kind of article and commentary, it cuts through so well. And really starkly exposes the limited insightfulness provided by so many mainstream journalists, including those seen wandering around a certain Ball cosying up with politicians.
Thanks. I'm always wary about putting up articles like this, based on such reports as the DNR, because they tend not to be all that popular (there is a whole thing in the book publishing industry about the limited appeal of books on media, for example). Still, as I say, I think it is important to get our heads around this stuff. I genuinely feel like we still talk about media in the wrong way, but that it is very hard to find the "right" way. That Broderick piece I link is from a site (Garbageday) that does a better job than most. https://www.garbageday.email/
This gets me thinking about the labels themselves. “Refugee journalists” might be especially useful, because it captures people pushed out of institutions who are still reporting, investigating and trying to hold power to account, often on their own dollar and without a corporate masthead (complete with lawyers) standing behind them.
That seems to strengthen your broader point about hybridity. The old categories are breaking down, and some of that is genuinely democratic. Good journalism can now survive outside institutions that no longer want to fund it, protect it or sometimes even tolerate it.
The difficulty is that the same fracture also gives organised political operations room to present themselves as just another voice in the ecosystem. A journalist with a newsletter and a billionaire-backed political network might both be called “creators”, but they aren’t doing remotely the same thing. One is trying to produce journalism. The other may be trying to manufacture consent, seed talking points or make coordinated influence look like spontaneous public opinion.
I wonder whether the next useful distinction is less mainstream versus independent, and more about money, infrastructure and power. Who’s reporting? Who’s organising? Who’s paying for the reach? Who gets amplified by the platforms? And who gets mistaken for an ordinary bloke with a microphone once the machinery disappears behind the feed?
Yes, to all this, I think.
Having said that, the distinction between merely independent and powerfully backed is an ongoing concern, though I'm not sure how it works as a way of labelling. It risks the same us-and-them polarisation, without necessarily acknowledging the continuum which I think is the heart of all this. The hybridity. But for sure, we have to be cognisant of how power and influence deploy within that hybridity.
A side issue, but I don't think the rise of One Nation needs a lot of explaining. As well as absorbing rivals like Trumpet of Patriots, ONP is stating the views of the median LNP voter, but without equivocation. With weak Liberal leaders like Ley and Taylor, and the revolving door of the Nationals, there's no reason for those voters to stay with LNP
I think you're right about the realignment on the right, but I do genuinely get stumped by all the motivations. I suspect there are a lot of fairly inchoate reasons behind the shift to ON; that it's not quite as straightforward as you say. I guess I'm saying that a lot of the attachment to ON atm is weak and could be broken off with some other formation. I'm also not sure how the community independents (particularly the "teal" subset) sit with your formulation of the median LNP voter. Maybe I'm overcomplicating things, not for the first time!
Traditional media thoroughly compromised by Murdoch, Stokes and AFR. Not only do they account for something like 50 per cent of private sector, but it's almost impossible to have a career in journalism without a spell in one of them.
Absolutely. And that enculturation process is pretty intense.
(Also, this makes me wonder more about the "consolidation" that is happening in the US atm.)
Very incisive TD - great article
As an illustrative example, my 17yo son just watched a one hour YouTube show/clip/piece, whatever do you call it? about a 'creator' (Boy_boy) and his journey to embargoed Cuba on a fishing boat delivering humanitarian aid, which included a twenty minute bit on the history of the situation, and he now knows far more about the crisis than he ever did.
It's really interesting, isn't it? So many people are using it this way. (I must look up that video, too.)
https://youtu.be/5Dvu7qiM5rg
Thank you!