I don’t know why I keep expecting QandA to be intelligent, because most of what I see certainly isn’t.
Kim Powell, blogger
Although it is usually dominated by politicians, pundits and other political apparatchiks (past and present), last night’s edition of ABC Television’s Q&A consisted of one of the more unusual panels the programme has seen. This week, viewers were tuned into three actors and performers — Jacki Weaver, Miriam Margolyes and Barry Humphries. Alongside them were journalist David Marr and a Liberal party leader from the 1990s, John Hewson. There was much mirth and merriment as the likes of Margolyes and Humphries cracked jokes, with Marr joining in with his barbs along the way. (Hewson and Weaver might as well have stayed home for the night.)
The lack of informed discussion about major policy issues was hardly unique to this edition of Q&A. But where the show plumbed new depths was with the ‘wit’ — if it can be called that — of Humphries and Marr. As Kim Powell writes, misogyny and hypocrisy seemed to be the order of the day. Successful (and, yes, wealthy) businesswoman Gina Rinehart was the target of much hurtful commentary, with the starting premise provided in one question that she was ‘greedy’. Humphries saw fit to comment on Rinehart’s physical appearance, and referred to her ‘neverending hole’ — not a reference to her mining interests, to clarify. Meanwhile, Marr saw fit to pass judgement on Rinehart’s family life, and also took the opportunity to describe a sex worker who was reportedly involved with embattled MP Craig Thomson as a ‘tart’. Breathtakingly, Marr also decried the ‘vicious’ attacks on Cate Blanchett for daring to stick her head above the parapet by commenting on contentious political matters (chiefly, climate change).
As a defender of free speech, I do not dispute the right of anyone to make jokes at the expense of others (assuming they don’t cross the line into, say, defamation). I might consider the humour in poor taste, but individuals can express themselves however they like. Likewise, critics are free to attack them for the content of what those individuals have said. And both Humphries and Marr put on a deplorable show, made worse by a selection of questions from the audience that seemed only to fan the flames. I don’t believe the ABC can take responsibility for what any guests on its airwaves say — especially on a live programme like Q&A. But it can and should challenge those who cross a line into indecency. The ABC failed to do so. For that, the national broadcaster should apologise.
Charles Dickens said of the United States that if its citizens were to be believed America “always is depressed, and always is stagnated, and always is at an alarming crisis, and never was otherwise.” On a variety of objective measures, it is in an awful mess right now. And yet America of all countries still has plenty of grounds to hope for a better future, despite its underperforming politics, and no matter who triumphs in November.
Lexington column, The Economist
Late last week, Peter David died in a car accident. His is not a name that would be widely known. But since 2009, he was the man behind the Lexington column in The Economist, focused on US political events. David had an illustrious 28-year career at the internationally esteemed newspaper, including stints in London and Brussels, before moving to the United States to become the publication’s Washington bureau chief.
In his last column, he explored the negative outlook most Americans have about their country today. It is a condition that in a highly partisan environment, politicians have exploited relentlessly. But as David wrote, the US still has much going for it, notwithstanding the rise of China. Higher education remains a strong suit for the country, as does its pro-business climate that favours entrepreneurialism and innovation. Even its political system — which many outside (and some inside) the Beltway might regard as toxic — still continues to tick over.
David did not dismiss the concerns Americans have about their country. Many are legitimate and worthy of public debate. But it is a question of perspective. The United States is not in some fundamental decline. It is imperfect, yes, but still has good stories to tell. As many of his colleagues have attested, it is sad that David will no longer be around to tell them.
Everybody in the world knows who is responsible for the wrongdoing of News Corp: Rupert Murdoch. More than any individual alive, he is to blame. Morally, the deeds are his. He paid the piper and he called the tune.
Tom Watson, UK Labour MP, passes his judgement on News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch and his role in the phone-hacking scandal that culminated in the closing of the popular News of the World.
Overnight, a British parliamentary inquiry into allegations of phone hacking by UK newspapers handed down its findings. It does not make for pleasant reading for News Corporation, whose News of the World Sunday tabloid was at the centre of the storm. NotW is no longer with us, having been shuttered last year. But the fallout continues, with Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs declaring that octogenarian media tycoon Rupert Murdoch was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to run a news empire.
The one saving grace for Murdoch is that while agreeing with the broad thrust of the inquiry report, the Conservative MPs on the committee flat out rejected the judgement — championed in particular by Labour’s Tom Watson — that Murdoch should be hammered. As the Conservatives’ Louise Mensch argued, it was not the committee’s place to make a determination of whether Murdoch was a ‘fit and proper’ media proprietor. Furthermore, she felt that given the size of the News Corp empire, it was simply too much to expect that one man could possibly know every single detail of what was happening at one newspaper in one country in which his company operated.
Despite the partisan split, the committee’s majority findings will inevitably have significant impacts. In the United States, where News Corp is primarily based, the inquiry report may prompt the Justice Department or the FBI to investigate News Corp’s conduct in that country. Even if it does not, it could still increase shareholder pressure on News Corp to consider management changes — while Murdoch is unlikely to be ousted out in a boardroom coup, the heat may bring forward any retirement plans he already has.
There could still be further ramifications in Britain as well. The communications regulator, Ofcom, could force News Corp to divest itself of its sizeable shareholding of subscription television broadcaster BSkyB — a company that News Corp was attempting to take over outright just as the phone hacking scandal erupted. This scenario becomes even more likely if the parliament as a whole takes up the committee’s report, with the possibility of a vote in the House of Commons to condemn Murdoch and News Corp.
Today is plainly a dark day for News Corp. But there will likely be many more dark days to come.
Media misconduct and the regulatory fallout
Much of the commentary around the British media inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson has expressed nothing short of delight about the prospect of a sledgehammer being brought down upon Rupert Murdoch, the head of News International (the UK arm of News Corporation). Outrage at the phone-hacking conducted for the now defunct Sunday tabloid News of the World, and further evidence that journalists at a number of newspapers (including News of the World’s daily counterpart, The Sun) have been bribing public officials, has revealed much anger about the power and influence of Murdoch, with many hoping to bring the old man down a peg or two.
But caution is also required about what the Leveson inquiry might lead to. And Brendan O’Neill delivers a bucketful. O’Neill is concerned that Lord Justice Leveson has been demonstrating some ‘authoritarian’ inclinations, including an assertion that his own inquiry should be above public criticism. The fear is that Leveson may seek to curb the freedom of the press — backed by many, including some from higher-brow broadsheet mastheads, who disapprove of the muckraking that passes for tabloid ‘journalism’.
It seems plain, based on the evidence presently available, that too many journalists have considered themselves above the law in plying their trade. Such lawbreaking cannot be defended. That, however, does not mean a full-frontal assault on the press — even the gutter press — is justified. Crimes should be prosecuted, whoever they are perpetrated by and against. The fact they have apparently not been is less a fault of the media, and more the independent institutions of authority and justice that have until now failed to hold them to account.
Murdoch was very excited about last weekend’s launch of the Sun on Sunday … One doubts whether the non-Murdoch executives in the company are quite as excited about the notion of increasing their exposure to newspapers.
Stephen Bartholomeusz, Business Spectator
News Corporation is a global media behemoth. But it is also reviled by many around the globe. Its Australian publications are condemned by some politicians as the ‘hate media’. It American news channel, Fox News, is slammed for being a partisan outlet for the country’s political right-wing. And its tabloid newspapers in the United Kingdom have been under intense scrutiny over evidence of phone-hacking and corruption by journalists.
Rupert Murdoch, News Corp’s executive chairman, is at heart a newspaper publisher — printing ink runs through his veins. But his company’s media interests extend far beyond purely print interests. And others within his empire, looking not only at the troubles in Britain but at the general decline of newspapers in the digital world, are keen to concentrate on News Corp’s far more profitable television and film operations.
The conventional wisdom, as Stephen Bartholomeusz writes, is that newspapers would always be a part of News Corp’s DNA while Murdoch is in charge — and would promptly be dumped shortly after any leadership change. But the blowback from the UK allegations looks increasingly likely to force Murdoch to confront the reality of the current marketplace — newspapers are dying. More to the point, they now pose a real threat to the future of News Corp as a whole.
