I WANT to be optimistic about the future of political journalism and the press gallery, if for no other reason than that its past shows that it really matters. But I have to say I'm not as optimistic as I'd like to be.
For 111 years Australia's federal politicians and members of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery have been matching wits. The politicians have used every trick they know to try to control what the journalists report and how they report it. Gallery members have used every trick they know to get behind the spin and try to dig out things the politicians want to keep hidden.
But in an internet era that is fragmenting the media as we've known it, and making new communications technology easily and cheaply available to anyone, the press gallery's role seems set to decline, which obviously has implications for the health of our political system.
A month or so ago, a press gallery journalist reported the name of the Canberra hotel where Kevin Rudd stays when Parliament is in session. A Labor MP commented to me at the time that journalists might need to be a bit more careful about this sort of thing in the future. Rudd, he pointed out, can be sensitive about his privacy - and had the means to retaliate, if he wanted to, by publishing information that would breach the privacy of the journalist.
There's no suggestion the former prime minister would do that. But the point is he could. Which signifies a subtle shift in the power balance between politicians and journalists. With 1.1 million Twitter followers, 75,000 Facebook friends, and his own YouTube channel, Rudd can get information to a substantial audience without having to rely on journalists or media organisations.
The underlying message from my discussion with this MP was that modern politicians are assuming journalistic functions. Or at least they have the ability to do so, and increasingly will take advantage of it. In the process they will reduce their reliance on, and the relevance of, those of us in the media who report on politics. A former political staffer puts it this way: ''Every politician is now a media entrepreneur.'' And: ''A political party is a media company.''
While a diminishing number of journalists try to cover the activities of politicians, politicians and political operatives are going to be engaged in do-it-yourself political coverage. DIY journalism. They'll be our competitors, if you like, as well as our subject matter. They'll be providers of news content in various ways.
As strapped-for-cash media organisations try desperately to do more with less, politicians and political parties will push out their own content with the invitation: ''Here is our footage. It's on YouTube and it's high definition. Use it if you want to.''
With the digitisation wrecking ball continuing to cause havoc and their resources dwindling, media organisations will find themselves less and less able to be proud or principled about this. They'll get to the stage where, if there's content and it's cheap - or, better still, free - they'll grab it.
Like it or not, that's where we're headed. It's already started. Among MPs, Rudd is leading the way. Look at his YouTube channel and you find that some of what he puts there undoubtedly amounts to news content.
With Labor leadership talk in the air, Rudd goes for a street walk and is mobbed. The media wants vision and - what do you know? - one of his staff has filmed the event and vision is available on YouTube. Rudd gives a speech. If it contains something newsworthy, vision of that is available too. He meets someone interesting, or gets involved in something amusing. Ditto.
That the mainstream media have access is one benefit, but also - and perhaps more importantly - Rudd gets to the constituency he wants directly. He goes to a school then tweets about it. Everyone interested can see it on YouTube. He talks about China or health or any other subject. People with an interest access it on his channel.
Rudd might be the master - the most advanced and media savvy - but any MP can do the same thing, and gradually they're getting into it.
For years politicians have searched for ways to go around the media - to avoid the so-called gatekeepers in the press gallery and elsewhere and present their message directly to voters. But now the digital revolution has not only knocked down the gates, it has provided a host of new ways for politicians to reach out to voters. They can present material in the way they want it presented, without pesky journalists getting in the way. And - here's the most important thing - without having to answer questions. The further this goes, the less accountability we have in the system.
Laurie Oakes is political editor for the Nine Network. This is an edited extract of his Walkley Centenary Lecture, delivered in Canberra on Thursday.
No comments:
Post a Comment