Never mind the depth, feel the impact

The University of Auckland’s winter lecture series on “The end(s) of journalism” attracted a full house of people interested in the media.

They were probably expecting more fireworks than Radio New Zealand’s Mediawatch presenter Colin Peacock delivered. He gave a balanced view of changes in the mainstream media, focusing on TV news, radio and daily papers.

When forced to make a judgment on whether “news” had become more sensational and lacking in gravitas, he preferred to blame “impact” – that “stories” were more dependent on how they could be told or presented rather than whether the content was important.

And even that assessment was largely based on quoting a second-hand observation by an Australian critic.

It would be hard to quibble with this verdict from a public broadcaster. But during the course of the lecture I couldn’t thinking about the stridency of public radio’s coverage of certain stories over the past week.

Most of it seemed to concern alcohol and an obvious tone of disbelief, if not bias, that Transport Minister Steven Joyce hadn’t agreed to lower drink-driving levels.

Not was the public broadcaster impressed with the government’s reluctance to impose higher age restriction on access to alcohol and reduced opening hours for bars and the like.

Radio NZ is not the only offender. A chorus of critics, ranging through the full spectrum of anti-drink lobbyists, was quoted incessantly. The only dissent came from the Automobile Association, which supported the minister’s decision to park the issue (and no doubt the sale of liquor law review) until next year (that is, after after the Rugby World Cup).

Pictures of mayhem distort responsibility

You could be forgiven in this climate of media hostility for thinking that most journalists had become wowsers – which to my knowledge is far from reality.

Yet, at the weekend, it was reported that the supposedly inadequate drive-drink laws had netted a prominent radio news editor and a top barrister.

It is customary every Sunday for motor vehicle crashes to feature on the front page in the absence of anything else having the same “impact.”

Yet this helps build a picture that the mayhem can be stopped only by means other than greater personal responsibility – calls for more laws and regulation are easy media reactions to such events, even when the evidence points to them being futile.

In such cases, the words from authority such as Mr Joyce far outweigh the cacophony from interest groups. You could go on with other examples, such as Radio New Zealand’s scoop on a tricky Jetstar flight out of Queenstown.

When simulated on TV3’s news, I would have thought congratulations were due to the pilots taking the risk of takeoff rather than aborting the flight, as I am sure most passengers would have preferred rather the inconvenience of being grounded.

No lights on the runway? Who needs them after takeoff? A bit of wind and a mountain to miss?  That’s why pilots are highly paid. As for the potential of a crash – most occur on landing. None of these were raised in reports.

What's that you can't see on your veggie?

Failing to analyse risk and ignoring the role of personal responsibility also leads to other bizarre “stories.”

The food industry is an easy target. Two examples surfaced in the past the week.

In one, a piece of harmless plastic wrapping, even if consumed, was found in a tin of baby food. Easily spotted and removed by a parent during feeding, it hardly rates with regular hospitalisations from infants swallowing small toys or other dangerous items.

But somehow the odd can of wayward food always pushes the buttons of news editors, if only because they are “news” because of their infrequency.

The other item was a scientific report from the Food Safety Authority on pesticide residues in fresh produce that are prone to pest damage.

These sample-based studies are conducted regularly and to a high level of scientific accuracy.

In the examples reported by the FSA, traces of a banned chemical were measured at their highest as 50-60 parts per BILLION.

But it was also necessary for the FSA to explain that this chemical, while recently banned but evidently still in use by some grower or growers, was not a danger.

In fact, the average-sized adult of 70kg would have to eat 1.7kg of this vegetable (bok choy) a DAY for the whole of their life “with no effect,” NZPA reported. But when reported overseas this news is highly damaging.

An explanation was that growers were spraying bok choy (a Chinese cabbage) as a brassica (cabbage, cauliflower or broccoli) rather than a leafy vegetable (lettuce), which have lower residue limits.

Lessons from the Japanese

Not long ago I was interviewed for a Japanese TV business programme on how New Zealand’s inflation-targeting had worked since it was pioneered here in 1989.

The interview required a bilingual Kiwi asking questions and receiving answers in English. The replies were then translated for the Japanese producer. He would then pose further questions until he was satisfied he had an explanation his viewers back in Japan would understand.

So I was intrigued to read in Neville Bennett’s economics column in the NBR print edition this week of a London School of Economics lecture by American economist Adam Posen, who is a member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee as well as other high-level advisory positions in the US. (Incidentally, he has also written a text on inflation-targeting with Ben Bernanke.)

Posen’s lecture tackles the conundrum of why Japan remains what Dr Bennett describes as in a “slough of despond” despite its high productivity, innovation, a trade surplus, strong export markets and cheap, reliable supply of raw materials and intermediate goods.

Yet for two decades now the government has launched waves of stimulus, including massive expenditure, zero interest rates and quantitive easing. And that in country that after the 1990 bust had little debt, low taxes and the world’s greatest savers.

In his lecture, Dr Bennett writes, Posen’s was seeking explanations and lessons for the UK in its recovery:

This is important as some people have argued that Japan was in structural decline. It was not but policy makers lowered their sights and an enduring lesson is to remain optimistic. Japan was not doomed to low growth as some observers think.

The real cost of a financial crisis accumulates: into long-term unemployment, under-investment and capital misallocation. Posen said central banks should apply strong monetary policy to powerful shocks to offset negative structural effects. He believes the case is stronger for the UK now than it was for Japan,

I don’t usually need to draw attention to NBR articles, but this one deserves it, if only so you can easily access Posen’s lecture here.