Articles published in July, 2011

  1. Social media and rule of the mob

    Published on Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

    Writing his opinion piece in the Dominion Post today under the descriptor “curmudgeon”, columnist Karl du Fresne says it is hard to recall a time when the tone of public discourse was more vicious and abusive.  He cites the attacks on former EMA boss Alasdair Thompson and ACT leader Don Brash, saying little attempt was made to address the substance of the issues they raised.  “Far easier to shout them down with epithets”.

    The veteran journalist is in my view conservative when he says the level rancour in public debate has been cracked up tenfold by the internet, and puerile abuse trumps civilised discourse every time.

    Du Fresne says that anonymity gives courage to cowards, and newspapers learned decades ago that they attracted a higher standard of letter by having people sign their own names rather than hide behind pseudonyms.  Unfortunately I don’t think we will ever achieve the same level of maturity with social media.  For all its positive attributes, it’s a tailor-made tool for those with a mob mentality.

  2. When the line is crossed, let’s not forget our own role

    Published on Friday, July 15th, 2011
    While UK politicians and other media unite in their attacks on the Murdoch media empire over the hacking scandal, a high court judge in New Zealand put “the media” on notice over their treatment of Petricevic and, in fact, any other accused outside court.

    On the face of it there is no relationship between these events at opposite ends of the world, or is there?

    From reports we’ve read, hacking had become a routine tool of trade for some News of the World journalists, which helped them feed their public’s insatiable appetite for all manner of perversions.  Not for one minute can we believe this practice started with a missing teenager or a PM’s sick child. It would have been something much more justifiable in the eyes of the journalist involved…outing some loathsome character. It would have been “defensible”, if challenged. From that point, the line of “decency” was constantly in gradual retreat as readers lapped up scandals and exposes, to the position we read of today.

    I hold no brief at all for Petricevic, but what are the boundaries, if any, of the public’s right to know. A few weeks ago a weekend paper reported that the parents of the Kings’ boy ejected from the school ball went back to a wedding reception after collecting him and taking him home, and short time later he was found dead. The following week the paper said this was not correct and apologised.

    I know of a case where a reporter and cameraman turned up at the front door of woman who’d been caught up in the trauma of armed robbery and had a gun held to her head a day or two earlier. For her being confronted by the media was another trauma.

    Where is that “line”, and does it blur or change depending on our appetite for vengeance or prurience?  Don’t forget who feeds the media beast through our interest – we do.