It’s probably also a lot to do with the more managerialist approach to politics and the more formulaic approach to day to day message politics. It’s easier to cooperate and have civil respect when you’re genuinely engaging in a contest of ideas. When you’re really just slipping around wrestling in a bullpit of bullshit, while smoke machines are pumping away from all sides and the commentators are more interested in who’s got the best moves (or who says who’s got the best moves) rather than what the consequences are to the real world, practical cooperation is all a bit meaningless, even when you have lots of common ground. Indeed, the more common ground you really have, the more danergous it might be to be seen to be cooperating, because then people might cotton on that most of that frenzied movement and action in the arena in amongst the smoke and mirrors is just bullshit - a bit like world chamionship wrestling really.

(Of course, I use the term ‘bullshit’ as it is deployed by learned philosophers of high esteem, not just as a common crudity.

It’s not the chicken or the egg, Ken. To stretch a metaphor, it’s the farmer — that is, “we the people”.

Both the media and politicians react to what sells to the public. If the public demanded better standards of political discourse, we’d get it.

With the Curtin and Chifley examples given by Geoff, you have to ask: why would they be a problem today? It’s not media scrutiny per se that’s the issue, but more that the public hold politicians to impossible standards, and deny them the right to human foibles.

Surely the important yardstick for a politician is whether they improve our lives and our society, not whether they like to drink alcohol or enjoy a morally questionable personal life?

While the media certainly have a role to play in educating the public, they can’t instill a respect for politicians — that can only be changed in the non-profit-driven world of our schools and universities.

Unfortunately, ignorance breeds more ignorance and I can’t see how we’ll ever convince the general population, especially in Australia, that politicians are an essential part of what makes democracies work.

Tony “Still here?” Blair criticized the media, calling it a feral beast. Evidently he would prefer it to be a tame beast, docile and obedient — as, perhaps, when it swallowed the drugged meat of “Saddam can launch a bioweapon attack in 45 minutes” and so forth. Happy days they were, just before the war. That the media has since descended into what Blair decries as “cynicism” is, of course, a terrible injustice that hurts all of society and is spoiling his legacy.

“I think the choice we have these days is fantastic. You can avoid the trailer trash like Paris Hilton stories simply by going to serious information networks that would avoid that sort of thing. NYTimes, Pink and White Times, Guardian, Wash Post.”

There’s is no reason to feel bad about our present choices as we now have the best the world has to offer along with the worst. We can avoid the trash.
I want what he’s on.

(I want what he’s on).

On the other hand, this is also true (ish).

“I’m afraid I can’t see any grounds for optimism that anything will change. The consequences are that the quality of government gets worse and worse, because sensible long-term planning is overlooked in the endless chase for political ratings - thus the virtually continuous obsession with the polls.”

The optimist vs the pessimist?

I think we really deserve to know what came first. I’m thinking it was probably a synchronous thing, but I’m hedging my bets towards the chicken as a sort of morphed and slightly constipated lizard with who went on to grow feathers, and in an ice-age perhaps produced an egg.

Both the press-mind and the political mind have a tendency for wickedness. Not so much a chicken/egg scenario as the comingling of a like-mindedness for guts and glory.

Mind you, I do remember being allowed to stay up till 8.30 with a hot Milo to listen to “Life with Dexter”.

Perhaps you think we ought to go back to the time we had three channels. That was before 10 got a license. Oh and it was a time when there was no such thing as the web…not even the US DoD.

I’m afraid I can’t see any grounds for optimism that anything will change. The consequences are that the quality of government gets worse and worse, because sensible long-term planning is overlooked in the endless chase for political ratings - thus the virtually continuous obsession with the polls.

Sooner or later a national emergency of some kind might jolt the nation into demanding more effective government. It’s unlikely to be a change that improves democratic accountability but then again there’s not much of that under the current system, is there?

At least we can be consoled by Jc’s assurance that the quality of entertainment on offer will improve … I do wish it would hurry up though.

Fifty years ago, Canberra really was a bush capital where parliamentarians gathered in a kind of sheltered, country club atmosphere, shielded by a quiescent press gallery and a Public Service locked away behind the Official Secrets Act. Ministerial staffers were very few in number and were basically seconded public servants when they did exist.

Elections were stump speeches in community halls, the odd newspaper story and a bit on the wireless news.

Anyone who thinks that this was some golden era of blunt, homespun political honesty is seriously deluded. Nor were issues any more likely to be soberly debated. Menzies won office by portraying Ben Chifley as a Communist.

The permanent campaign is the child of the technological revolution’s intensive 24/7 scrutiny and the serried ranks of spin doctors, media minders, message massagers are its Praetorian Guards.

You might take heart, however, from the knowledge that politicians have never, ever been plain-spoken truth-tellers. The substantive difference between now and then is that they’re far less likely to get away with it.

Believe it or not there are actually very few news junkies around despite what us news junkies think. US figures still show that the vast number of the population watches free to air news. I don’t know the exact numbers but it dwarfs what CNN, FOX CNBC etc. get. Cable gets a tiny fraction.

Back to what you say:

I don’t actually think it’s depressing. I think the choices are wonderful. News is entertainment for the most part except for exceptional circumstances.

Want left wing or right wing slanted news days and there’s CNN and Fox and the BBC. Want financial news and there’s the excellent Bloomberg and CNBC. Want Hollywood news there’s the E channel. There’s even a fashion channel as I learned from my teenage daughter. How about court TV?

With choice comes specialization, which is why we are seeing a huge increase in this form of entertainment.

I think Blair is simply crying out for the days when there were a couple of TV channels.

I would be worried though if I was a cable operator as most kids these days are getting their news from the web…. In other words they’re actually reading!

I think the choice we have these days is fantastic. You can avoid the trailer trash like Paris Hilton stories simply by going to serious information networks that would avoid that sort of thing. NYTimes, Pink and White Times, Guardian, Wash Post.

There’s is no reason to feel bad about our present choices as we now have the best the world has to offer along with the worst. We can avoid the trash.

Here’s a thought:
Cable operators are always looking for fresh ideas to create new viewing. A good idea can always find financing. That’s what the current president did with Fox news. He was Bush senior’s talking head who went to Murdoch after the administration got turfed with the idea of creating a conservative news Channel. It now has roughly about 50% of the cable audience. Now people can say what they like about Fox but the idea and it conception was terrific from an opportunity point of view.

Good ideas now are cheaper to get going than the old days. This is a good thing. A great thing as the barriers to entry is far cheaper the before. With this we will end up with specialization.

It is getting worse and worse. It’s one of the things that many of the major thinkers of the 19th century worried about. They understood that elites held important aspects of the culture together and that democracy and the market might fatally destroy them (though in the process of course creating elites of their own with very different values.)