The invasion of COVID 19 into our lives may well be a defining moment for all of us. And as with these things, it has engendered, and will continue for some time to continue to engender, a lot of thought, soul searching and analysis. I expect that the topic will feature heavily in PhDs for many years to come.

In the wash up one thing which I trust will receive its fair share of attention is the role of the media. By this I mean not the informal grab bag of ratbaggery and instant expertise that assail us from the Internet, but ‘real’ media reporting, by people paid for their time and effort, who work for recognised media with more than a hint of professional journalism.

To say I have been disappointed with a huge swag of reporting would be an understatement. Of course, the more rabid media has had a field day with their stories of the end of the world, but media outlets I expect to be more measured – ABC and SBS I’m looking at you – to report with only the slightest hint of exaggeration and hyperbole have also been guilty. How may times have we been told we are bracing, spiraling or racing towards or because of something? Is it really necessary to be bombarded with headlines and more that constantly reach for superlatives which one day forecast this sort of doom and the next day the exact opposite without so much as a raised eyebrow at the apparent cognitive dissonance evident in seeming to hold two opposite views at once – or at least on consecutive days? Sure things are moving quickly and what we know, don’t know and don’t know we don’t know are all moving targets, but really?

Media always fall back on the old trope that they need to give us headlines that catch our attention – click bait in today’s parlance. And while it may have worked for newspaper billboards that relied on folks stopping and buying a paper on the basis of that headline, I don’t buy that as a reason today. Most people only rarely buy an individual paper or story so really? And even if this is the case are we really that shallow? Maybe, but that’s a disheartening thought. If the media generates its income from advertising based on hits to its stories then maybe. But not all outlets have this model so what gives? I heard an academic refer to a journalism trope that the extraordinary gets preference in reporting over the ordinary. Sure, but if it is actually extraordinary, do we need so many adjectives that work only to try to emphasise the extra-ordinariness?

Perhaps the issue is the idea of news as entertainment. This is a really disturbing concept. Maybe the seriousness and the fact that covid explicitly affects pretty much all of us, we have a different desire to know and understand what is happening. But I don’t see any evidence of news outlets shifting their mode.

I understand that the media model is shifting and people have become accustomed to getting their news ‘for free’ from the Internet. But firstly, most of this is not news but the ratbaggery I referred to above. Do people know this? Secondly, there is still a role I think for subscription services but it needs finessing. Finally, at least in Australia, I suspect/hope elsewhere too, there is public broadcasting that can be more thoughtful in its presentation of news. Although, that is not always a given and the tension between giving factual news reports and competing with commercial channels will affect this goal too.

And there is a question too of what the public does demand. I have just watched a video of Leigh Sales interviewing Sarah Huckerbee – ostensibly about her new book. But it is quite the clinical dissection of her role in the politics of the last four years in the US. But what was more interesting for me, was that this came courtesy of a US website where the question posed was ‘…why don’t US reporters push the point when interviewees fail to answer the question and instead go off on bullet point no##. Why don’t they call out the failure to answer the question?’ The answer seemed to be that political interviews are gold dust to US news reporters and politicians know this. They will therefore only give interviews if the reporter plays by certain rules – including not pressing them to answer awkward questions. Breaking the rules would limit the political reporting of the news reporter (and Channel?). Wow. In Australia there are certainly news outlets which actively seek to be the mouthpieces of some in politics, but there are enough which don’t, so this type of behaviour is not possible. Some politicians here have tried it and been severely lambasted for their efforts.

In response to outcries from their readership asking The Age to provide something other than their unrelenting dark news, couched often in terms of those cliched words and phrases – which have almost lost their meaning due to their constant use to exaggerate and which may have been needed now but are so overused they cannot be useful – the paper has provided lots of ‘cat recused from up a tree’ stories. These are fine, but not really what I suspect most people were after. How about stories that celebrate the stoic or add a little humour. Or even, heavens such blasphemy, just allow a little less catastrophising. Sometimes this is possible if you read say, the business pages, and get a rather different slant on a front page story that has us all going to hell in a hand basket. But how many people even get that far?

There have been some really useful pieces of good journalism but they are relatively rare. They offer information not hyperbole, encourage thinking not panic and seem to not have an axe to grind.

Some news outlets would have you believe that the whole population of Melbourne in week 14 of a pretty strict lockdown is baying for the premier’s blood. Sure there is unrest, in some cases significant economic and psychological damage, but on the whole there is resignation, determination to dig deep and get on with it, and even muted anticipation for the gentle easing of restrictions. How else do you explain the joy of a forecast of a sunny Saturday so you can have a two-hour picnic with four friends? Does this aspect get reported? No. I guess the headline “Five friends enjoy a picnic” just doesn’t cut it. It should.

What I am seeking is a true return in enough media to make a difference, of reporting based on who, what, where and when and not endless opinion. There’s a place for opinion, it’s usually labelled as such. But I want my news to concentrate on facts, on events, on what is happening. I’ll read or listen to opinions because they can flesh out these things and provide useful perspectives and ideas, but they most certainly aren’t the main item, at least not in a pandemic.

So history, sociology, communications and anthropology PhDs, sharpen your pencils and get going. And anyone who can think of how to provide facts-based, non-sensationalist and viable news reporting please stand up now.