Give the MSM a break

By Barry Tucker                    February 12, 2013

Noely Neate describes herself as not a journalist, or a writer, but she is a keen observer of news media (and writes very well, IMO).

In her latest blog (Eleventy-nomics, Brough, Ashbygate Trifecta — Proof MSM should not always be a dirty word) Noely reminds us to give the MSM some credit and not to lump all of it in the same category:

A lot of these Journos are just the same as the rest of us in relation to factors affecting their jobs. Many are not their own men/women when it comes to what we see in print, they have editors, sub-editors, legals and their own corporation’s hoops to jump through and this should often be considered when we read the finished product.

Read Noely’s blog YaThink? here


4 thoughts on “Give the MSM a break

  1. I agree. I saw some tweets saying they should just go against what their editors wanted. How unrealistic.
    It wouldn’t get printed anyway and they do need to earn, just like the rest of us.

  2. Are these the same Journo`s who then turn around and make `gate-keeper` and `4-estate` claims.?
    Should we `really` be consuming the finished product.?
    Sure, Noely has done a nice post, but it is really just referring to the salt sprinkled on the steak. Not the steak itself. The steak itself, is contaminated with `mad-cow`, providing consumers with exposure to the diseases of `crime` and `corruption`.
    The Leveson Inquiry investigated the off-shore arm of the Limited-News Global Criminal Organization.
    At home, the Local arm of the Limited-News Monster, corrupts and distorts information on a daily basis, attacking topics, people and parties that don`t fit their ideal `daily-squawking-points` and social/political themes.
    As made public in the Finkelstein Inquiry Transcripts.

  3. I remember thinking ‘give MSM a break’ when I read this response to Craig Emerson’s piece in the Independent Australia:

    “Editors and journalists to a large degree serve their master. They are not honorary keepers of the truth (even if they believe that to be true) they merely impart a version of the truth as they see it or wish it to be seen. In the case of Murdoch his mantra is cast in stone. Within News Ltd, News Corporation, Fox etc there is a clear understanding of that mantra and as such his associates and employees adopt that mantra and it filters into their psyche. Murdoch does not need to sit down with every editor and journalist to ensure biased coverage, they know the mantra. Yes it is self serving [to] blame editors and journalists for biased coverage, that’s obvious but it’s not disingenuous. Those who claim to be the messengers of truth should be scrutinized the most. Steve Lewis is a perfect case in point. While attempting to deliver ‘his’ truth he entwined himself in a greater untruth.”

    Me? I’m looking forward to when our ABC is returned to its original state of fair, current and unbiased reporting. In the meantime, and thankfully with the power of Twitter, I’m linked up to many informative political blogs and publications (yours included) — all written by inspiring independent thinking authors focused on reporting the facts.

    • I recall reading the comments above Marina. The ABC periodically comes under fire for perceived bias towards the Left or the Right. I think it’s a national treasure, and I look forward to the time when it dedicates itself to objective, balanced reporting.

      Murdoch has supported the Left in Australia (and then turned on them). Because of the near-monopoly of the Right-wing Murdoch news media, the ABC’s role as a trustworthy broadcaster of news and opinion is more important than ever.

Comments are closed.