The future of newspapers:

Patricia O’Donnell writes: Re. “Beecher: Can quality newspapers find their niche?” (Friday, item 5). Five or so years ago I was flattered and honoured to be asked for my opinion on the current condition of and future directions for The Age. My mind being of a generalist turn and my preferred conceptual framework historical, I suggested that the 20th century newspaper, broadsheet or tabloid, was the child of the telegraph in conjunction with mass literacy in the early 1900s.

The telegraph meant speed and required brevity in reporting news. Every word cost money — so detailed information and informed analysis became luxuries. (Please note that this did not then, as it does not now, prohibit or inhibit opinion pieces — whether editorial or contributed. These are different beasts entirely.) The development or refinement of other technologies through the 20th century (photography, radio, TV, colour, all the digital stuff, print etc etc) complemented and supplemented the power of the newspaper. As did the increasing audiences provided by universal education — first primary and then secondary and now tertiary — each a stream contributing to the advertising “rivers of gold”.

But then came a technology that was not complementary, nor supplementary. It was a replacement. It was the internet and it was words -on screen instead of on the page but word vs. word, opinion for opinion, advertisement for advertisement. It was only about 15 years ago that it began. But that was when it happened: the 20th century newspaper was replaced. But, so I argued five years ago, the real point was that the newspaper had abandoned the battle for the reader. The internet provides quantity and immediacy. Newspapers must re-invent the 19th century and provide the detail, context, and expert and informed analysis available nowhere else.

The other possible niche is training. Newspapers of record (i.e. those with residual memories of proper reporting technique) might consider returning to their cadet training and earning income via reliable and trustworthy contributions to the internet!

Graham Gurr writes: I don’t know the answer. But what I would like is to see something that plays a role like the media played in the early 1900s. That is to say, a vehicle that prompts discussion on important issues, but that also reliably informs the discussions on those issues. Al Gore thinks that the Internet can play that role. Our present politicians are ill-informed on almost every issue except the latest opinion poll. For example, I’d like to see an easily accessible and democratic forum for the development of consensus on the future role of nuclear energy in this country — but not controlled by party hacks and their spin doctors — and not overwhelmed by the ranting unwashed — let them talk to Bob Francis.

I can think of many other topics that need such discussion, e.g. abortion, euthanasia, Rupert Murdoch’s comments on disincentives to an aspirational generation, the increase of the nanny state, intrusion on civil liberties, etc.. But as I said, I don’t know how to achieve that. I fear that any initiative that became influential would be hijacked by government.

The Garnaut Review:

Dr Frank Jotzo, former Economic Advisor, Garnaut Climate Change Review, writes: Re. “Clive Hamilton v. Paul Kelly: climate death match” (11 December, item 4). Re. Clive Hamilton’s claim that:

In truth, Garnaut lifted the contraction and convergence proposal lock stock and barrel from London’s Global Commons Institute, which has been pushing the idea hard since 1995. As a long-term goal, equal per capita emission entitlements has enjoyed strong support from greens for years. I have been advocating it since 1997.

In his report, Garnaut gave virtually no acknowledgement of his debt to the GCI and has been writing and talking as if he invented it the idea, allowing Kelly to claim that greens oppose it.

This is rather misleading. The very first mention of contraction and convergence on page 203 in the Garnaut Review states: “9.4.3 Contraction and convergence. A precise version of the per capita approach, often referred to as ‘contraction and convergence’ (Global Commons Institute 2000), has figured in the international debate for some time.”

Think tanks:

Chris Berg, Editor of the IPA Review writes: Re. “The Grattan Institute: Centre for Ruddist Thinking” (Friday, item 4). Andrew Crook weirdly asserts that the Institute of Public Affairs has been “effectively frozen out of the national debate” since Kevin Rudd won office. If being frozen out of the national debate is getting more than 200 op-eds published in the national media during the year and having had hundreds and hundreds media mentions and media appearances — then we’re pretty happy with that. We’re not doing too badly for an organisation with a budget of much less than $2 million.

Gerard Henderson, from the The Sydney Institute, writes: I always read Crikey but long for the day when it employs a fact-checker. In his piece on the Grattan Institute last Friday, Andrew Crook wrote that “Gerard Henderson’s Sydney Institute” has been “effectively frozen out of the national debate”. Mr Crook went on to assert that “the idea of Rudd launching a major policy initiative alongside someone like Henderson … is all but unthinkable”.

If Andrew Crook did any research he would know that the Prime Minister delivered The Sydney Institute’s 2008 Annual Lecture last April — where he launched Labor’s policy proposal to create, in the year 2020, universal parent and childcare centres for all 0-5 year old children. The Prime Minister subsequently put this idea to the Australia 2020 Summit. Mr Crook should also know that Kevin Rudd addressed the Institute on five occasions before he became prime minister.

The record demonstrates that The Sydney Institute, which is a forum for debate and discussion, has always enjoyed good relations with both sides of mainsteam politics.

Credit default swaps:

John Taylor writes: It seems to me that Julian Gillespie’s contribution (Friday, comments) was the best article in Friday’s edition. He almost makes sense of credit default swaps and how someone can make a quid out of them. Incidentally, the last time I heard someone try to explain CDS was on Lateline. His explanation sounded like the kid’s game of pass-the-parcel, except you didn’t want to be the holder when the music stopped and there were so many slices to the pie that no-one was making any money.

Ben Cousins:

Marty Ross writes: Re. “Letting Cousins back willl be a backwards step for the AFL” (Friday, item 22). Greg Hill is right. Except rather than simply being sacked, Cousins could have been executed. Then Greg would have had a *really* impressive graph to go with his hysterical sanctimony.

Wilfred Burchett:

James Jeffrey writes: Not many Australians have experienced a communist dictatorship, which is why we have so many idiots falling over themselves to defend Wilfred Burchett. Yes, the man did some amazing things — no one disputes the importance or courage of his reporting out of Hiroshima — but he later lost himself in a serious way and caused real damage to real people, including Tibor Meray, a Hungarian journalist who worked with Burchett during the Korean War and in Budapest during the build up to the 1956 uprising.

Not only was Burchett eager to traduce the reputations of far braver people on the behalf of cruel regimes, he refused to acknowledge his mistakes, even decades after those very regimes had. It’s foolish to make Burchett out to be Satan, but it makes no sense either to portray him as some sort of martyred visionary. Burchett may be dead, but some of the people he seriously hurt or whose lives he endangered along the way are still alive, Meray included.

Nick Shimmin’s suggestion (Friday, comments) that Meray would be envious of Burchett is surely one of the most idiotic lines Crikey has published outside of a David Flint missive. Meray deserves an apology.

Stephen Magee writes: It is no surprise that apologists for Wilfred Burchett don’t understand why such a politically diverse group of commentators is still pursuing him. Burchett was a tool (in both senses of the word), who lied in the cause of Stalinism and in the name of journalism. The fact that people are still trying to deny or gloss over that fact is a clear illustration of why it is necessary continually to tell the truth about him. Hitler loved children and pets, but I don’t see anyone seriously suggesting that as a reason for overlooking his crimes.

West Papua:

Peter Burnett writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (11 December, item 7). Your anonymous correspondent in Crikey has a swipe at Marrickville and Leichhardt councils for flying the Morning Star flag on 1 December, in solidarity with West Papua.

The writer cites the Lombok Treaty on the “territorial integrity” of Indonesia as if this Howard-era propaganda exercise actually made the Morning Star illegal. But people who blather on about territorial integrity rarely look at the source of the idea, UN General Assembly resolution 2625, the Declaration of Principles Concerning Friendly Relations Among States (1970).

The resolution notes that nothing in the right to self-determination “shall be construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to a territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour”.

This second part of the resolution (the bit that pro-Indonesian apologists never cite) highlights the point that we should be respectful of nation states that don’t commit human rights abuses against their citizens, and those that respect the fundamental right of self-determination which is at the heart of UN human rights declarations. Obviously, most West Papuans feel that the Indonesian state and the TNI military forces are not acting in compliance with these principles!

In the interests of comprehensive coverage, you might like to run this picture of West Papuans gathering illegally in the Baliem valley on 1 December to fly the Morning Star flag in solidarity with the brothers and sisters in Marrickville and Leichhardt.

The horror:

Zachary King writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (Friday, December, item 7). Regarding the lawyer who was retrenched from my job at one of the big firms: no offence but I think I will hold back a little before playing the violin for the poor unemployed lawyer here, despite the positive press the company is getting. Working for one of the “big firms” and being “given a package” means you are hardly scratching by to survive. God forbid you might have to seek employment at a middle tier firm. The horror, the horror.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name — we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.