Freedom of (worthy) opinion and the OLO

On Line Opinion has just celebrated its 20^th year of publication as an e-journal.

One only has to view the very long list of those who have contributed to its pages as well as to the wide range of topics that have been covered in that time (and I’m not about to count them), to appreciate the value this journal has been, and is, to the health of that most precious and hard won freedom we enjoy in this country – freedom of opinion.

But the opinion I’m referring to is not the mindless load of tweets and twitters and other such junk that is carried on the internet, nor to the vacuous drivel that is served up on TV as opino-tainment, such as The Drum and Studio 10.

In countries where freedom of opinion is tightly controlled, that kind of opinion is easily contained. It’s the studious and informed opinion of the kind one reads in the OLO that is the more formidable and threatening to policies of suppressed information.

Since it began 20 years ago, OLO has been joined on line by a number of similar e-journals, including e-versions of the major news media sources of print and television. During this time OLO has held its ground and has continued to progress.

 The thing that is special about the OLO, is that it provides a forum for authors with special interests, knowledge and expertise in particular areas of public concern, whereas the many professional commentators in the current affairs media sector, including by-line print journalists, radio shock-jocks and TV news-hounds (not to overlook the protected species and baby-faced public servants on ABC/TV who tell us what we all should know) provide comments on anything and everything relating to  political and community issues, which do not disclose of any depth of critical thought or research in their assertions.

It’s what I call ‘off the cuff’ journalism that rates about the same quality and value as idle talk around a BBQ or in a noisy local pub. It’s worth to the reader or listener is illustrated by an occasion in my early career when I aspired to be another Walter Lipmann and was working as a cadet reporter for a weekly magazine that went to press at noon each Wednesday. On one such day as I was running late with my copy, the sub-editor burst through the door, ripped the unfinished copy out of my typewriter, turned with it as he went back out the door and said to me, “Look, save your literary talent until you write a book. All I want is words to go around the advertisements!”

As they say, today’s headline wraps up the cat’s meat tomorrow. I soon chose another profession.

The problem we now have in the World is that, whilst many countries exercise tight control of the media and public opinion, in open democratic countries like ours there is, in terms of volume and quality, too much poorly considered, biased and ill-informed opinion and too many self-appointed advisers to government and the public at large, in all manner of policy formulation and decision-making.

Among this breed of opinion-spinners are those who cynically think they can influence policy and manipulate the political landscape by their criticism and opinion without ever standing for political office (a breed once described by one of Australia’s best-known and respected columnists and writers, Alan Ramsey, as “power junkies”.) The ABC is full of them, without an editor or licence and the public is paying them handsome salaries for the privilege.

There are other good reasons for serious authors of serious subjects to be heard and to have a forum for their opinions.

There was a time when a clear line existed between reporting and journalism. The news was reported as it was, not as the reporter decided how the public should interpret it. At that time it seemed the public was thought to have enough sense and intelligence to assess the news for themselves. Indeed, the public just wanted the facts and only the facts, and was dismissive of any attempt at ‘spin’ or unsupported comment.

The reason for this was that very few, if any, reporters had a by-line (that is, to be allowed to attach their name to an article or be identified in a radio report as being by them). Even then, they had to be a respected, highly trusted, impartial reporter. Political opinion was always reserved to the editor.

Today, every bushy-tailed kid from the copy room seems to be a journalist and a commentator and is able to express an opinion on anything they report. (The ABC has over 1,000 journalists and no editor.)

The advent of guru-style political commentary in relation to social and current affairs, began on radio in the mid-1950s and later moved on to television.  It was introduced by a multi-media personality called Eric Baume who, with a bombastic manner similar to present-day shock-jocks that drowns out any argument or dissent others may have, began a segment on radio 2GB called “This, I believe” and then took it to Channel 7 in 1956.

That kind of ‘in-your-face’ commentary now demands to be listened to, and to influence, and to call into question and attendance for ‘cross-examination’ (without regard to the rules of evidence), political leaders and decision-makers with one purpose only: the hope of scoring off them and making them appear foolish, and to press upon them and the public the interviewer’s own opinion on whatever the subject may be. It’s a situation that politicians have been forced to endure in order to balance out the mis-information and often the sensationalised aspects of particular issues drummed up by the media as the day’s ‘big story’.

Even more disruptive of the formulation of sensible, well considered public opinion has been the advent of talk-back radio, once illegal, now 56 years old, which has become the most ill-informed and insidiously influencing public opinion-making medium.

Today, the news involving political and current affairs issues is not presented to us on the basis of ‘here’s the unvarnished facts for you to think about’. No, it comes to you as ‘here’s what you should know and here’s what you should believe. Now don’t argue. I’m telling you what it means. I’m a journalist’.

One has to ask: Who gave these news-gatherers the special mission of interpreting the facts relating to particular public issues, let alone being self-appointed to represent the public in advocating and dictating to government and others, how those issues should be addressed and resolved?

We live in uneasy times. With a self-made buffoon running the World’s most powerful nation and with the “utopia of triumphant individualism”, as referred to by Richard Tomkins in a significant  article published in the first edition of OLO, going nowhere twenty years on, there is more than ever a need for the publication of serious, well informed articles that bring to notice worthy opinions and concerns relevant to political and community affairs.

I join in congratulating the Editor, Graham Young and the Editorial Board of OLO on their outstanding achievement over the past twenty years and wish them well for the Journal’s continued success.