Future of Journalism – Ep 17 – Tina Rosenberg

Is our media good for us? For instance, at what point does the hostility between the ABC and The Australian become unhealthy? Is the sustained public polarisation good for us - and for a strong democracy, which, after all, a free press is committed to strengthening?

And is there an alternative to the wall-to-wall criticisms and ‘gotcha’ moments on current affairs TV?

The reason many people become journalists is to create a better society – that was certainly one of my motivations. Once you are there, though, the constant chase for a better story can tempt you to become an adrenaline junkie. It’s so exciting. And for Peter Wilkinson, a former television reporter, the reward was in great ratings. There were times when millions watched his stories. But that was when the audience had limited options, and there was lots of money in journalism – time for research; high production values; resources to focus on accuracy; high salaries, business class travel and top hotels.

Now the pressure is different, more about survival. The argument from editors is that bad news sells and good news does not. That is true. The publishers know their audience. However, an alternative might be for a journalist to be just as hard-nosed and investigative in delivering a high-rating exposé, but weaving into the narrative solutions that make things better. Report the problem, and a solution.

Future of Journalism Ep 17: Tina Rosenberg is co-founder of the Solutions Journalism Network (https://lnkd.in/gmSzAKVi), and co-author of the Fixes column in the New York Times. She’s just as keen on journalists exposing what’s wrong, but then, as well, showing somewhere or someone that’s doing it right (https://bloom.bg/3Dns2x6). #journalist #journalism #auspol #abcnews #Nine #News (The #FutureofJournalism interviews are created by the Alliance for Journalists'
Freedom in Australia. Catch the podcast series on Spotify and the video-series on the AJF website and YouTube)