With so much talk of ‘fake news’ in recent years, some of the basic and assumed freedoms of the press may be more important than ever - but are they being treated accordingly or are commentators being trained to follow the lead of the news creators/instigators with the risk of being shut out if they rock the boat or probe too hard? Is the day of the determined investigative journalist a thing of the past? is a story just a story and all that matters is getting something vaguely resembling reality (or at least a believable fiction) published ‘first’ - details and corrections to follow?
There have been whiffs of the ‘follow the leader’ kind of journalism for a long time and I’ve sensed (probably a little cynically) that COVID-19 has emphasised this, with some exceptions that seem rather less than tolerated. The COVID-19 situation has brought about many changes in many areas, not the least of which are people’s awareness of some of the more ‘latent’ legislation that exists, some of which for a long time. It has also given many sectors of public life a story to tell where it could be suggested it was convenient or helpful in either selling people on something, or distracting people from something that wouldn’t sell. Some of this would be comical if it weren’t so serious, while some is just comical, and …
Where is the press in all of this? The current situation in the NT might be an interesting example. With a population less than some of history’s more famous rock concert attendances (even including tourists in a good year), it is a place of rare beauty, vast open spaces, and people who have opted away from the big smoke. It’s a small pond, population wise, so a cynic might suggest anything more than a sardine is probably a big fish relatively speaking. Big enough to nudge the Australian Constitution and get away with it? maybe …
My question is this - what have others seen in their local area, be it region or state/territory? How has the current health crisis affected that? What news has been filtered either by follow-the-leader style journalists (almost apologists?) or by diversion/etc, and how much freedom of the press is ‘ok’ and where should it stop? (for me, this means remembering that freedom of press and investigative journalism is something consumer organisations such as CHOICE often push to the limit to get the answers).
