Our national newspaper

had an editorial yesterday which questioned the standard of journalism at our national broadcaster. 

I have long been questioning the standard of journalism in Downunder. We do have some very good journalists who produce some very good work. We also have some very lazy journalists who produce some very poor work. We also have a few journalists who have axes to grind and who are out to make a name for themselves at whatever the cost to other people.

People right around the world are aware of the case of a certain Cardinal. Whatever you might believe about that case the reality has to be that there were no dissenting judgments when the case went before the highest court in the land. The Cardinal was released from prison - only to face a barrage of criticisim from journalists and others. They clearly believed they knew better than some of the best legal minds in the country. Perhaps they do or perhaps they don't but the way they went about the issue was lazy.

Not so long ago a journalist I know contacted me. He was looking to find someone who might actually know about a particular issue. Did I know anyone who might be able to help? Sadly, I could not help. This man was doing some research before he wrote something. He's a hard working and very thorough man. There is a lot of very tedious work in being a journalist. He accepts that and gets on with it. More than once he has expressed his frustration at what can happen to a story.

Getting the news out is all important now. You have to keep your ratings and your advertising revenue. Stories can actually be less important than these things. Accuracy goes out the window, off air, into the ether. There are issues which are untouchable and issues where only one side of the story is actually acceptable. There are issues which must not be debated.

I am a very naughty cat. I sometimes write letters to the editor. They almost always get published. Occasionally though I have had someone call me and say, "Good letter Cat but we aren't allowed to publish it." I know why. It will often raise a question we are not supposed to ask about a sacred issue. 

I have told people I don't always agree with myself in the letters I write. That is not the point of writing them. I write them to try and make the people who do read the letters page think. Is that so very wrong? If I, a mere reader and occasional letter writer, want to try that then why don't journalists want to do the same?