Here I cite this article by Annabel Crabb [fn1]. Here she defends the fact that all questions asked at press conferences are race calling in nature on the fact that policy literature isonly given to journalists at the beginning of the conference, and that the harried journos just don’t have time to digest it. Then follows a lengthy piece of discussion about press conferences.
The response is obvious. Was there no time for the journos to digest enough to even describe the policies before the nightly news/the morning paper or the self appointed flexible deadlines of the online world?
Was there no time to write a story that included any policy detail, only time enough to write vacuous race calling in the hours before the deadline?
Was there no space the day after to describe policies that will affect the country for years because they’re in a pointless race to nowhere against competitors to be the first with nothing?
Or was it because the space was needed for stories about the absence of a story, such as speculation about Lindsay Tanner leaking things?
It’s professional failure enough to be unable to ask a question on policy, but not to even be able to describe what the policies are in any detail (let alone critqueing them) based on demands of a self inflicted media cycle, and to fill papers/broadcasts invariably with race calling is abysmal.
What are they doing with all that time after the conference when they’re not reading the policy? Thankfully Annabel provides the answer. They seem to be thinking, and writing at great length on press conferences, the press gallery and self justification. Omega Journalism. They might be bored by policy, but my god, are they absolutely fascinated by themselves.
[fn1] I’d say Inaneable, but that’s the standard of wit that got her employed by the ABC. I have pretensions to something more.