“news value” means “of value to news outlets”. It does not mean “has more value to society than other competing news stories among the abstract total of all stories available to be told in news bulletins today”.
journalists could use this platform to clarify the difference between what “news value” actually means - to media operatives - and the useful false assumption that it means something of value to audiences, readers, voters, or society at large.
every time I turn on the ABC these last two days, a member of the herd is reciting misinformation to their audiences about corrupted spending of public money by her majestys government and election campaign promises made by her majestys loyal opposition.
it is in this sense that the Costello Bevan Crowe front page has value - to them. The story itself has catalysed vast volumes of misinformation to readers, then audiences of other outlets, voters, and ultimately the polity.
presumably the troika are pleased with their handiwork, because they are powerful media operatives and the potential news value they assessed as inhering to *that* front page has been realised, by them.
Maley running cover for the trash troika “story” is in the same vein as Maiden defending disgraceful Kitching coverage, which they are all indulging in, even before her funeral - because it has “news value” to media outlets.
the way press gallery journalists obediently amplified a Liberal Party lie seeded on facebook - about opposition tax policy - every fucking day of the 2019 election was bad, but a front page legacy media campaign to re-elect the Morrison government is worse imo.
after nudging Turnbull and Morrison over the line in 2016 and 2019 eg by loyally enabling the Coalition strategy of weaponising the federal budget for electoral advantage, you might think corporate media would change gear instead of digging in. Why would they tho.
a broader comparison, I have noticed as a law scholar and observer of corporate media cover gifted to Liberal and National Party politicians, is misinformation about the inherently and structurally political character of legislation.
legislation is literally enacted by politicians, it is constitutively political. The useful and false assumption is that the judiciary apply law impartially and therefore legislation is somehow impartial (apolitical) too.
I wrote a long read on the constitutively political character of legislation back in Sept 2014. It has not been updated but was written during the current (Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison) federal government and much of it holds in general terms:
imatthewsblog.com/2014/09/22/leg…
imatthewsblog.com/2014/09/22/leg…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
