Reflecting on this with the benefit of sleep and consideration.
I cannot conceive of an editorial meeting in which a Serbian anti-vaxxer’s prima donna antics are ranked over the largest volcanic eruption in nearly half a century knocking an entire neighbouring nation offline.
Look, sheer spectacle alone should have done it. There was ample vision of massive explosions echoing over hundreds of kilometres, and jaw-dropping satellite imagery.
Ignoring all other concerns: This is great television.
And *then* we can talk about human interest….
Or rather, audience:
The Pacific island diaspora in Australia is hundreds of thousands strong, according to ANU’s Jame Batley. That’s a massive demographic, surely worthy of at least 2 minutes prime time.
And then, there’s national interest….
It is more than likely that the ADF will mobilise to assist. Australian Aid are working 24/7 to prepare a response. DFAT and diplomatic staff will be trying to determine the fate of Australians trapped in the middle of this, and helping connect Tongans with their families.
And—forgive my callousness this far—there is the human component.
A nation is going through a traumatic moment in its history. Ignoring economics, geopolitics, demographics, audience metrics….
It’s the right thing to do.
Instead, we get a double serving of Selfish Serbs.
To sum up:
Looking at this with the coldest, most jaundiced eye I can muster at this moment in time, I cannot conceive of an editorial discussion that does not run Tonga higher on the bill than tennis.
I can’t find any objective argument that even remotely equates the two.
This is a massive editorial own goal by ABC News. It erodes trust among its international audience, who look to it as an example to guide media across the region.
It does a disservice to its audience, leaving it dumber, more preoccupied with human petulance than global events.
I have contributed professionally to ABC. I know and like—and admire—many of its hard-working professionals. I respect the massive burden they’ve taken on. I understand the constraints of media markets and the vagaries of national interest.
So all I’ll say is Do Better. Please.
Post Scriptum:
TV1 in New Zealand ran a solid 2 minute piece with up to the minute reporting, a pre-recorded cross, and compelling vision.
They have updated several times since then, and run it high on the bill.
It’s not hard. It only takes a simple editorial decision.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Fibre-optic internet is superior in nearly every respect to satellite. It’s vastly less costly: tens of dollars per megabit vs thousands of dollars. It’s faster getting from here to there. Voice conversations over satellite feature 2 second lag, making crosstalk a constant woe.
Satellite latency doesn’t play nicely with TCP, the main language spoken between computers to transfer data. TCP is robust because it checks that every bit arrives at its destination, and resends any lost ones.
Over satellite, it stalls, stumbles and sometimes just fails.
I’ve seen Huawei’s network and data centre plans for Vanuatu’s eGov network. They were technically deficient, and ultimately needed a top to bottom refit, some of which was AUS-funded.
The original US $20m deal smacked of backroom cronyism. It was one of the first China EXIM loans that Vanuatu took, and like many others, it materialised almost overnight, without ever passing through our planning and policy processes.
BUT… it was also born of frustration.
At that time, ADB, WB and most bilateral development partners were infrastructure-averse. Building actual things was a fraught process, and seldom succeeded.
We had a fibre optic cable coming, and needed a national backbone, along with properly connected govt departments.