Drug Use in Parliament House

the old model is decaying, but new models arise.

like I said, the press gallery is, if anything, too forgiving of the private lives of politicians.

a poor target for this particular attack.

Definitely agree about needing more media: there’s just not enough outlets broadcasting or publishing their own material these days.

But I’m not talking about greater regulation of the media, except to say that there needs to be stricter rules about the AMOUNT of original news broadcast/published in regional areas.

I’m talking about the tendency of journalists to apply vastly different standards to themselves than they do to the people they report on.

And when someone calls them on it, they say it’s irrelevant to the issue or story, even when their private lives may well have an influence on what they publish, or make them look like hypocrites.

If we’re going to lift our popularity rating slightly above that of used-car salesmen, we need to start being able to admit our mistakes, stop being so damn defensive, and start demanding the resources to do our jobs properly, if that’s at all possible.

It would also help if media bosses could start nurturing some talent instead of cutting newsroom budgets to within an inch of their lives, so that there are less fame-whores and more ethical story-chasers.

Journalists are accountable to both their publishers and their readers every single day.

Politicians are accountable to a public they rob via taxation, and then spend the money deceiving with propoganda campaigns, once ever three years (six for senators).

The necessary disclosures are vastly different.

Greater regulation of media is the absolute last thing a free society needs.

We need more and more unregulated media so they can report on each other.

The interesting thing about that NowUC story is the reaction of James Grubel to Mark Latham actually naming who these alleged drug suppliers in the press gallery are.

Part of what he said was that because journos aren’t elected and paid for by the public, you shouldn’t name names like that.

But aren’t journalists in a position of power nonetheless? Shouldn’t we hold them to a similar standard as we do our MPs? Maybe we do that by not listening or buying the paper, or whatever.

I make NO comment whatsoever about the truth or lack thereof of Latham’s allegations, because I am not in a position to know that.

But I do know that journalists – and I am one myself – get very touchy when you start talking about what they do in their private lives, about ethical standards and getting stories/facts wrong.

Noone likes to admit they’ve made a mistake, or as an industry are failing their public. Journos are definitely in this category. In my opinion, professional defensiveness explains much of the reaction to the Mark Latham diaries.

Direct references in the book to ‘alleged sordid affairs/encounters’ between certain MP’s and staffers won’t win Mr Latham any acquantances either – guess that really doesn’t matter when you have a comfortable pension and are a stay at home mumsy.