How news is made in Australia – some personal views

A theory which attempts to explain media influence is the phenomenon of the Spiral of Silence, a concept referred to in the project.

This theory postulates that as an individual suspects that his view on some important issues seems to be losing ground, the more uncertain he will become of himself and the less he will be inclined to express his opinion. This may be so even if what appears to be the dominant view is over-estimated because it is more frequently heard. The fear of isolation, and also doubt about one's own capacity for judgement, is an integral part of all processes of public opinion. The Spiral of Silence can inflict serious damage to the concept of the market place of ideas.

Outside his or her personal circle, the citizen today is wholly dependent on the media for information about public opinion. What happens then the citizen is told that public opinion is overwhelming or even unanimous?.

In Australia, we are confronted with an unusual degree of homogeneity in the apparent reporting, I stress the reporting, of political and related news. This extends not only to today's news, but to our own history and the media's recollection of this. This is a matter of some relevance, in responding to Parliament’s mandate: the greater the influence, the higher the regulation.

FACT OR COMMENT?

The phenomenon of campaign journalism in the reporting of political news led obviously into the subject of the distinction and comment or opinion on the other.

The division between fact, news and comment was once rigorously observed. In the press, journalists were not named, editors saw to what at least appeared objective reporting, and comment was reserved to the editorial. On the ABC comment was limited to the prestigious weekly Guest of Honour, a few talks and invited commentaries. That was it.

All that has changed. Accordingly, the report on this project observes, almost reproachfully: "A body of communication and cultural studies literature suggests that no-one, particularly journalists, can be objective, and that all news is laden with cultural baggage." I repeat, journalists cannot be objective!

No one suggests of course that comment should not be allowed. Indeed comment, good robust comment, is to be encouraged.

But sometimes comment is indistinguishable from news reporting. The signals or branding that journalists say indicate what is comment and what is news are either not understood or they are just not there. Sometimes there are even no facts, just comment.

It seems many of our news producers also agree that this is a problem. And it seems the public can make neither head nor tail of this. According to this survey – where the sample over-represents university graduates – only 30.5% find it somewhat easy to distinguish between fact and opinion, and 8.1% very easy. So more than 60% have difficulty distinguishing fact, news, from comment.

The news, after all, should be as far as possible an objective recital of facts. It should be consistent with The Times' observation in the 19th century: "The first duty of the Press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time, and instantly, by disclosing them, to make them the common property of the nation."