Of Blogospheres and Pundospheres

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-04/green-insight-isnt-the-main-game-in-punditry/4607604

"The chaotic daily churn has left news organisations with gaping holes that political pundits are all too happy to fill. But don't assume they're motivated by a desire to inform..."

"Richard Cooke at the Monthly"

"Graham Richardson"

"Mark Latham in the Australian Financial Review"

So there is only little such thing as news now and instead we are being fed a modicum of what was once called 'news' followed by much 'punditry' epitomised by these examples.

Several thoughts spring to mind.

This 'chaotic daily churn' has sparse raison-d'etre except as an illustration of the evolutionary processs occurring in the fourth estate, initiated by the confluence of the IT revolution and the neoliberal paradigm. The neoliberal paradigm forces the fourth estate to compete within itself, producing winners and losers, as is inevitable. The winners bolster the fourth estate, increasing its quality and efficacy, while the losers retreat to form the blogosphere and the pundosphere, which together may be described as the Fifth Estate. ideally this is a description of the process, however nothing is ever ideal in this world.

Does this Fifth Estate have any influence on the democratic process? Does anyone pay any attention to what they say? I fear the answer is no, or more accurately, only to a small extent. The size of its readership and therefore the extent to which it influences public opinion can only be guessed at. The extent to which radio shock-jocks represent mainstream opinion, for instance, has been demonstrated to be relatively small. Together with what I have labeled the Fifth Estate, with which it overlaps to a greater or lesser extent, it seems to form a useful addition to the process.

On the issue of balance and bias, Richard Cooke must be assumed to be left of centre if he appears in the Monthly, which is often used as a podium for tirades against the right wing press and for cat fights amongst the intelligentsia of the left. This latter appears to be what is referred to here. His criticism of Richardson is probably valid, but this really isn't news. 

I would have expected a lightning bolt from the gods of neocon plutocracy to smite the offices of the AFR for publishing Mark Latham, a scion of the far left who has rebranded himself as elder statesman of late, but then the AFR as does the ABC needs to project at least a facade of balance. Whether this is only a facade or is their actual state is a moot point. The reader of the AFR can safely ignore this article if they so wish as do I ignore anything written by Peter Reith or Amanda Vanstone on the Drum, while applauding them for publishing them in the interests of balanced journalism.