By Michelle Grattan
BEST not to see how the sausages are made, so the old saying goes. But vigilant consumers want to know the ingredients and that those preparing them have clean hands. Transparency can be good for the credibility of the sausage sellers, too.
The extraordinary News of the World saga in Britain is inevitably making some waves in Australia. The leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, has called for a wide-ranging inquiry into the media, including ownership rules and ethics. The government has left its options open; the opposition says it's unnecessary.
Sausages and legislation are said to be the two things best not seen in action.Credit: Domino Postiglione
We haven't had similar dramatic scandals here, although the ''cash for comment'' revelations involving high-profile radio presenters raised serious issues.
There's no doubt the Australian public is critical of and cynical about the media and there are important questions about the high concentration of ownership that's worsened in the wake of a liberalised cross-media law.
Politically, the media have great power; they can, in certain circumstances, make and break governments. Sometimes they use their clout in the public interest - there's nothing wrong with running hard on the faults of a bad administration. Other times media campaigns are more dubious. On some occasions, it will be a matter of legitimate debate whether the media have gone too far.
Former minister Lindsay Tanner argues today's media trivialise the political process and force the politicians into the same game. The media's ability to shape the way politics is played is partly a product of the sheer volume and pervasiveness of the 24-hour news cycle. Politicians have to feed the monster, to say nothing of constantly finding appropriate props to accompany their message (a coal mine, a hospital, a school).
Multiple media platforms have expanded the opportunity for ''voices'' but the mega voices are still in just a few organisations. These have rationalised and streamlined their operations, actually or potentially reducing diversity. There can be endless blogs but what's crucial is news gathering resources and, in relative terms, those aren't keeping up.
In the current fevered political atmosphere, politicians are often angry with the media and applying counter pressure. Brown has been scathing of The Australian in particular. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy fought back against what he sees as unfairness by certain News Ltd papers, releasing to others his answers to questions from their journalists. Julia Gillard told the Canberra press gallery last week ''don't write crap'' on the carbon price; Paul Keating said Abbott should be ''flogged'' by the media.
It's true the media should be more effective in holding politicians to account. I'd just add two qualifications. What is ''crap'' or even ''fact'' can be a matter of judgment; one politician's crap is another's debating point. Also, it depends where you sit: in opposition Labor talked a fair bit of ''crap'' about the GST.
While there are good arguments for an inquiry into the media - including citizens' right to privacy - it's also an area to be handled with care. The issues are complicated - for example, there is a case to better protect people's privacy but the law mustn't prevent the exposure of matters of legitimate concern. And the last thing in the public interest would be to fetter the media in ways that would make them less able to do a job that they sometimes fall down on but often perform pretty well.