NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen gave a keynote address at the Walkley Public Affairs Conference last Thursday at 8.30am - the auditorium at the NSW Teachers Centre in Surrey Hills was almost empty.
His flight was way-laid in New Caledonia so he gave his speech a day late - lucky for me because I didn't attend the journalism strand (Mon-Wed).
After listening to Rosen talk about how journalists need to lift their game because journalism, per se, does not really contribute (as claimed by some) much to the democracy and culture it supposedly serves.
Sadly, I tend to agree with much of what he said.
I think the electorate is politically illiterate and disinterested - if not ignorant - because they switched the news off 15 years ago and started watching reality TV.
That's when TV news ratings surveys started showing a decline in viewer numbers - I used to do the weekly ratings reports on Mondays back then.
"Just putting news out there isn't good enough if you want an informed public any more" - you need to put it into CONTEXT.
Rosen's major concern is that news organisations continually spew out "updates" that carry no meaning to the general public unless they have a vested interest or at least some kind of interest that has them actually "following" an issue in some depth - like climate change or the Louisiana oil spill.
Rosen gave an example of good journalism.
It is a one-hour radio documentary which explains how the economic meltdown happened from the perspective of ordinary people at every level: the wage earner on $25,000 a year who borrowed $400,000; the banker who approved the loan...etc ... The American Life's Giant Pool of Money .
Rosen thinks that if journalism doesn't lift its game then we will have a "split public". Read his blog post: The Citizens' Agenda in Campaign Coverage
"Some people will understand what's going on. And there will be a mass of people who don't know what's going on." - he said.
So the "representatives of swill" (if you will allow me a Paul Keating pun) will feed upon a diet of entertainment and cheap and free superficial news - my interpretation of what Rosen said.
Perhaps something along the lines of Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars or - dare I say it - Master Chef.
I'm not particularly worried about insulting Master Chef and its fans - I've done far worse in my life as a journalist.
Once I questioned John Laws on his credibility. :o .... Phone call .... "How dare you talk to a respected bla-bla-bla ... who do you think you are ... bla-bla-bla".
I'm not bragging at all.
I'm just explaining how I learned that some people - like John Laws - are sanctified media Gods not to be questioned by mere mortals.
Quick question: Do you think that your average political journalist is a class above ordinary citizens by right of their access to the corridors of power?
Do you think that they think that they are?
Now, Jay Rosen says that journalism played a crucial part maintaining democracy since the French Revolution by keeping citizens informed - and democracy has flourished hasn't it?
But he warns that "the whole idea of a shared world of facts" is a "fragile, flimsy idea" now because journalists are failing to ask the right questions and produce meaningful reports - all the updates, the gossip grabs and quick picks just aren't producing an informed public.
We might all end up living in a realm akin to that of the French King Louis 14th - The Sun God.
Politics was known as "The King's Mystery" and was "the possession of the king" - Rosen said.
Politics was not debated - it was dictated. There was no political reporting at all, in fact.
If journalists fail to inform us properly then we can't scrutinize the facts for ourselves and decide whether the political system reflects our beliefs and serves our needs - sound familiar?
But there's something worse: parties and politicians who do not just deny facts - they re-invent the facts (once a hallmark of oppressive, totalitarian regimes: think Soviet Russia)
Politicians and parties have no qualms about inventing the truth - not just denying the facts - and people are gullible because they are not properly informed. Think GFC.
It's like my 8-year-old niece who calls Tony Abbott stupid because he doesn't believe in climate change - she only knows this because she's taking someone's word for it.
I wonder what Barnaby Joyce's children believe. Blindfold anyone?
"It's not the politics of denial or ignorance", Rosen said, "it's "verification in reverse: the undoing of facts."
"That's not ignorance, it's way beyond that," he said. "The idea that an open society can breed that is astounding."
I asked Rosen whether part of the problem is that democracy's watchdog - the media - identifies itself as a "privileged class rather than identifying with community and "ordinary" citizens.
Rosen replied: "Definitely."
So why is journalism failing? Why are we spiraling back to a situation of "ignorant masses" at a time when information has never been more free?
They used to say that the quality of an answer is only as good as the quality of the question - do you think that the right questions are being asked?
I don't know but when a politician running for PM talks about "family values" and being a "family man" I want to know: How much time did he spent with his children - changing nappies, singing lullabies, explaining the world?
I'd be insulted - if I were an atheist like Julia Gillard - about being singled out for scrutiny over honestly-held (but socially unacceptable) belief while all Tony Abbott has to do is claim some holy status as a "parent" and no one actually bothers to find out his track record. It's actually a more prickly question because it may make a lot of people squirm - or not.
At least it's obvious that this blog is nothing but my opinion and I have no faith in "objectivity" - I prefer to place my trust in "good faith".
Oh for the old-fashioned tabloid journalism that served the news in a fashion that was blunt (to the point) and sharp (clued in) - watching the election coverage reminds me more of a media wheel barrow race.
Journalists running politicians back and forth, back and forth.
So my question is as the title of this post suggests: Are we facing a cultural revolution against a class which no longer serves its purpose?
And is this part of the reason that this election is so boring? To hell with the election! ;)