Yesterday, in her analysis of The New York Times in Australia, Ruby Hamad put forward the idea that journos are significantly more combative about the publication’s potential faults than its readers. Considering the responses we received from Crikey readers, that looks to be true! Attn journos: maybe no one really cares.

Meanwhile, Bernard Keane’s piece about Liberal Party culpability in the royal commission got people riled up about politicians’ and the state of democracy at large. For more on that, make sure you get across his follow-up today.

 

Re: Ruby Hamad’s “The uncomfortable reason Australian journos don’t like The New York Times”

Julanne Sweeney writes: I appreciate my subscription to The New York Times for its style of journalism and its world coverage. Recently I did a readers’ survey for the NYT  and when asked for extra comments, I wrote how I loved the way Damien Cave opens up Oz e.g. Gerald Murnane and his country town, Little Nipper life savers…

I am 81 and never thought I’d see the  day when I can almost ignore the Murdoch press (not at the weekend) and read daily Crikey, The Conversation, The Guardian and The Monthly briefings — and The Saturday Paper. One complaint: they take too much TIME.

Simon Nasht writes: The NYT had its report on the committal of George Pell to trial online before major Australian outlets, including Fairfax. If the locals can’t even compete on breaking news, then their criticism of the Gray Lady tastes like sour grapes.

Alison Marcus writes: Things have reached the point where I read the NYT and The Guardian online — and now Crikey as well, after a lapse in my subscription — but not any of the local hard copy papers, apart from The Saturday Paper.

The way Damien Cave and others describe Australia is actually interesting — I am not sure what this fuss is about. I am much more energised by the loss of a local voice worth reading in the dailies — and the threats to the ABC.

Bob Smith writes: Thanks for asking us for our views. I do not read the NYT daily briefing carefully every day, but I like to have it. And Damien Cave’s ruminations about Australia in comparison to the US are a plus — and often delightfully full of insight too.

Finally, given that many of our leaders and fellow citizens cannot bear to think about any alliance but that with the US, it is good to have some US citizens reporting back to base straight from the field.

John Nightingale writes: I love it. Australia as NYT journos see us. We and our journalists are important but we see ourselves in ways that are routine and often anodyne.
Outsiders obviously see us differently and point us to some aspects of Australia that we take for granted, that are idiosyncratic without our noticing. If the NYT seems patronising at times, well, suck it up princesses.

 

Re: Bernard Keane’s “Liberals owe more than an apology on royal commission. A lot more.”

Ian Ferrier writes: The Libs who pursued this are traitors to ordinary Australians and deserve to be dumped at the next election. Where are their morals? Where is their conscience? In doing what they have done they are actually traitors to the whole country because the effect of their actions has seriously undermined the whole trust in our democratic system of government. 

My only problem is will the Labor Party do any better! Do they have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what is right for the country and not just pay back the Liberals. Certainly based on his history, Bill Shorten doesn’t have a mortgage on truth and doing the right thing. They will soon have the choice of restoring the faith of most Australians or continuing the distrust of political parties by all.

Thank goodness for those Nationals who had the guts to force the royal commission into the disgraceful actions of the leaders of those banking and financial corporations.

Gary Butler writes: Scandalous and criminal! Whilst having to wait until the next election to turf these self-serving bastards out, what recourse legally do Australians have to breakup this tightly linked band of crooks?

Frank Chalmers: The rich array of people and episodes of Liberals protecting banks etc will mean little if it fails to escape Canberra into everyday media, especially via nightly TV news — a main source, I assume, for most Australians.

We are overdue for a daily report on TV news anyway — how they endorse and protect the government in telling current stories. The banking royal commission and its ramifications is a great, focussed place to start. Followed closely by similar treatment for the budget? And the election? What fun.

The job of journalism we hear, occasionally, is to tell the truth. But if we aren’t told how news is made/disseminated, we do not get the whole truth. Of course, no one can tell the whole truth, life is too short and there is wine, but Crikey is well-placed to approach the whole truth more closely in this way.

Anne writes: The scale of bank and financial institution wrongdoing and malfeasance emanating like a toxic gas from the banking royal commission gets more shocking by the day. Also shocking are the eye-watering salaries and bonuses paid to those near the top of these institutions. Like the $940,000 bonus on top of a seven-figure salary, paid to one bank executive who had $60,000 sliced off his bonus for some transgression. What a hit to his budget! Apparently his [huge] salary was an insufficient incentive for him to do his job. What planet do these people live on?

There are plenty of other questions which require answers. One is who selected Clayton Utz to write the “independent report” for the AMP board? Was it someone at AMP who previously worked at the firm, or was it just a coincidence?

What did the report that require 25 changes cost the AMP? How close was AMP’s former legal counsel to senior people at ASIC at the time? Who else is on the federal treasurer’s financial advisory board other than bankers and financial industry representatives? Are other stakeholders on that board, such as a consumer representative? Or an industry super representative? Or a trustee? Or an ethics advisor? Or is the whole advisory board merely a lobby group for the banks and the large for profit financial institutions?

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.