You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
My main concern regardless of presenter is when the presenter of a program just has a "fire side chat" or a puff piece with a talent or the presenter re-affirms the talent's views in accord with the presenter's world view.
In the case of Joe Hildebrand's interview with the NSW Premier or 2GB's Garden Clinic where the host interviewed the Premier about his gardening habits, there was no critical questioning of the government's policy on letting the virus "rip". There also was no critical questioning on on people being "personally irresponsible" by not wearing masks. Towards the end of December 2022 , I was in a large shopping mall where half the people were not wearing masks.
There was no critical questioning on the NSW Government's policy of "let it rip" instead of "slowly weaning" restrictions such as not wearing masks. There or not even asking questions as why the public are not notified on the distinction of reported cases based on those who contracted the more dangerous "delta" strain versus the milder "omicron" strain.
Equally, there was no questioning of how the benefits of a "let it rip" policy may result in a short, sharp and narrow time frame of high incidents of cases and the possiblity of the "omicron" strain eventually becoming impotent.
The Joe Hildebrand show with the NSW Premier on 2GB was just an example. Puff pieces occur on FM radio breakfast shows without any critical questioning of their talent. For example Prime Minister Mr Rudd would be available for FM breakfast shows but not for serious talk programs especially on commercial radio. The same goes for Mr Clive Palmer who would ‘twirk’ on an FM breakfast show but no questioning on serious issues.
Consequently, merely presenting interviews as a puff piece results in unaccountability of 'leaders'. One has to read readers' comments in both the "SMH" and "The Australian" and read the anger and insults given to the current NSW Premier about the current covid situation.
If the interviewee/talent ducks around questions when answering the interviewer with irrelevant statements, then the performance of the talent is recorded and the audience makes their own minds.
Is the talent's ducking and weaving around the question accountability? Most likely no. But by the interview going to air, there is a record of the talent's ducking and weaving questions. It registers in the mind of the audience and the audience decides whether to vote for the person or to purchase a product or service.
In conclusion, the media's role is diminished when there's a lack of accountability of leaders in politics and the commercial world. Merely presenting puff pieces results in lack of accountability. Then people have the voice by voting for the interviewed candidate/talent or to purchase or not purchase a product or service.
Thank you,
Anthony of exciting Belfield on lands of the Wangal and Darug peoples of the Eora Nation.