Journalists are not doing their job.

Content warning: There are extensive discussions of rape and sexual assault in this article as this was what made me form this view in the first place. There are also discussions of the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Journalists are disincentivised from challenging power structures as they may then lose access to those who inhabit them; politicians, company executives, and the like. This would, in their view, deprive them of the exclusives and background information they require to do their jobs.

This is why political commentary today has devolved into what feels like a team sport. It’s everywhere, and their collective choice to prioritise political relationships over the core tenets of their profession is preventing them from conducting the deep analysis we saw in the days of yore.

While I think this is an explanation, please do not take it as an excuse. Understanding why something is happening is important, but it does not remotely justify their collective abrogation of responsibility. I deliberately used the word “choice” in the last paragraph to make it clear that this is something they are electing to do, and could stop at any time. They are prioritising their collective prestige over everything that matters.

EPBC Act

The government rammed through changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) shortly before Parliament adjourned for 2025.

This is despite the fact there was a consultation on the legislation open at the time. The legislation passed 27 November, eight days prior to the consultation’s close on 5 December. The committee plans to report back on the consultation on 24 March 2026 (these often get delayed, but you can check the progress here at any time), not that it matters anymore.

While this was going on, I listened to an interview with the Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt, and was frustrated both by what he was saying, and by how one of this country’s most experienced journalists was not holding him to account.

Watt ruled out adding a climate trigger, which would force the government to take greenhouse gas emissions into account when approving projects. He cited other initiatives from the government to reduce emissions, the implication being that their existence means we don’t need a climate trigger int he EPBC Act.

He didn’t name them, because they don’t exist.

Where was the pushback on this? Our most significant piece of environmental legislation has no way to take the climate crisis into account. This is utterly absurd. Why wasn’t Watt pressed on why they’re forcing through legislation while consultations are still open? Will they be making further amendments once consultations close? If not, why even do the consultations?

Why wasn’t Watt asked about the hypocrisy of our Prime Minister proposing climate trigger legislation in Opposition, but never once he came to power?

Only a handful approvals have been refused under the Act, one of which was for wind power. On what planet does it need to be made more development-friendly?

I’m picking on this one interview, but it’s a wider problem. So many journalists talk about the politics like it’s a game; what a particular maneuver will do to the other team, or if that team is wedging the other one.

I. Don’t. Care.

I want reporting that contextualises what policies mean for every day people and holds power to account. The only reason I am across politics and political speak is because I pay close attention and had the patience to learn the jargon. Because it is jargon; political reporters talk in such a way that anyone who doesn’t pay close attention will find it baffling and switch off. Part of my understanding came from Amy Remeikis actually explaining things, such as what the hell “doors” is (it’s a specific set of doors at Parliament in Canberra where journalists gather; politicians walk through when they have something to say).

Part of the reason, I think, they don’t explain anything is because the less people understand and the more we switch off, the we will scrutinise them. This means most people remain unaware of the depths of their gutlessness or the shallowness of their reporting, and it prevents our collective regard for them from cratering even more than it already has.

No; instead, we get a press which is utterly out of touch, advocating for one side or the other at the expense of the rest of us.

Rape & Sexual Assault

I became completely disillusioned with political reporting during the sexual assault cases of early 2021. One centred around allegations of a rape inside the office of Senator Linda Reynolds, who was in cabinet back then. Both the perpetrator, Bruce Lehrmann, and the victim-survivor, Brittany Higgins, were employed by Reynolds at the time. The other case was a historical rape allegation against an unnamed federal cabinet minister, who later outed himself as then-Attorney-General, Christian Porter, presumably to put a stop to the endless speculation.

All of the reporting around these rapes, a crime described by the UN as a “grave and systematic human rights violation”, was about politics as a team sport. How each revelation would affect either party, both sides accusing the other of political point scoring, and the like. Basically no one was talking about the impacts this was having on sexual assault survivors.

Amy Remeikis was a lifeline; being a survivor herself, she gets it in a way the overwhelming majority of her colleagues did not. She would later talk about this in On Reckoning; of [male] colleagues complaining about how the story was still ongoing and they didn’t understand why, until they noticed her standing there:

When Brittany Higgins’s story first broke, many of the men around me became awkward. No-one wants to say the wrong thing around a Rape Victim. If, in those early days, any male colleagues expressed frustration that the story wasn’t moving on, or that women were being ‘too sensitive’ about Scott Morrison’s comments, they’d realise I was there and quickly depart, suddenly remembering why the story wasn’t moving on. Because there were real-life examples of the wreckage sexual assault can wrought, everywhere.¹

As a survivor myself, I can assure you that time was utterly horrific. I was subjected to two years of child sexual abuse by a family friend when I was young; he was a child himself, only five years older than me. I don’t remember the overwhelming majority of it as I was so young and trauma does weird things to brains; I only know it went on for two years because that was what he confessed to.

I bought my first colouring books in January 2021 for the express purpose of giving myself something mindless to do that wasn’t scrolling social media, as the discourse was unrelenting and devastating.

In May, I suddenly realised that people were no longer talking about Christian Porter; the government hadn’t deigned to look into it at all.

I broke.

I spent the next day in bed, physically ill with a horrendous head cold. My mental state was awful until I could see my psych at the time, who wasn’t available for two months. In that time, I was listless, lethargic, and in the middle of the semester, which, shockingly, I scored atrociously in. I later found out I could have seen the psych sooner if I’d explained how bad I was, which… would have been good to know beforehand.

The allegations against Porter faded into the background pretty quickly as the woman in question, dubbed “Kate”, died by suicide in 2020, despite the efforts of her friend, Jo Dyer, to keep the story alive. Porter sued Dyer and the ABC for defamation, which he then lost.

The allegations against Lehrmann turned into a media circus, which is still ongoing.

There was a criminal trial, which was abandoned due to juror misconduct and then not retried due to the effect it was having on Higgins’s health. Lehrmann then sued Higgins for defamation, which ended with a spectacular finding against Lehrmann that floored me in the best possible way.

Justice Michael Lee not only ruled in favour of Higgins, but busted a number of rape myths in his judgement. He laid out 10 facts which demonstrate how trauma’s impact on memory means someone who has been through a traumatic experience may seem like an unreliable witness due to the very trauma they are reporting. They’re worth reading in full; it’s page 29 of his judgement. Later, Lee says that he does not believe Higgins said no during the rape, but that ultimately this didn’t matter, as Lehrmann was “recklessly indifferent” to whether Higgins consented. He then stated plainly on page 150 that “Mr Lehrmann raped Ms. Higgins.” It is worth noting that this was a civil case, and not a criminal one; this was a finding “on the balance of probabilities.”

In his pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.²

There have been a string of other defamation actions variously involving Reynolds, Lehrmann, Network 10, and Lisa Wilkinson which I will not detail here. But it just. Keeps. Going.

None of this has been handled with sensitivity by the media. There’s one particular journalist I’d like to talk about, but defamation law in this country is cooked, so I’m not going to.

I understand there will be political pundits who will want to discuss what this for their field.

However, why are they all refusing to discuss how this affects the millions of people in Australia who have been raped or sexually assaulted? Or doing anything that could materially help us; to stop more from joining us in the After?

For every article about the “politics”, it should be counterbalanced with at least two on the impacts on survivors and their loved ones. There needs to be an accompanying discussion on how we can stop people (overwhelmingly men) from raping. There needs to be rape myth busting, like we saw in Justice Lee’s judgement. Platform us; let us tell our stories. If the thought makes you uncomfortable, spare a thought for those of us who are forced to think about it every day; to feel it in our bodies and in our new thought patterns.

Journalists need to dig deeper, do work like my favourite Substack writer Jo, and discuss rape more frankly. Here are some potential topics off the top of my head:

• Our systems disincentivise people from talking about having been raped.
• We’re unlikely to be believed.
• How many other crimes go to court to argue over whether they even happened?
• Being dragged through our legal system (which I refuse to call a justice system) leads to victim-survivors being re-traumatised, while alleged perpetrators can opt out of this.
• Survivors of rape (and other trauma) come across as unreliable witnesses due to the very nature of the violence we are testifying against, and effect it has on our brains. This makes the abovementioned court experience worse and serve no purpose in the pursuit of justice – but it is an excellent way to deter victim-survivors from reporting their experience.
• When people do report, we are often not taken seriously, or it does not proceed.³
• There needs to be additional effort to accommodate people society normally leaves behind, and/or are discriminated against by law enforcement. First Nations people, people with disabilities, queer people, people of colour, those who do not speak English, and other marginalised groups.
• The number of both false accusations is miniscule.
• The rate of conviction is so low, rape is effectively decriminalised.
• People who have been raped are likely to be blamed for violence which was not their fault.
• Victim-blaming as a self-defence mechanism, while making it clear that an explanation is not an excuse and this is completely unacceptable.
• All shame should always be on the rapist, not on the person who was raped.
• The banality of so many rapists, and how labelling them monsters is counterproductive.
• The perpetrator is likely to be someone we know.
• The onus should be on men to stop raping, not on women to protect ourselves.
• Telling women to watch our backs is effectively saying “Make sure he rapes someone else instead” and does nothing to solve the problem.
• Rape is often an exhibition of power, not lust.
• “Sexual assault” is often used as a euphemism to dodge unpleasantries many people don’t want to confront.
• All men benefit from rape even if they’d never rape someone themselves, as it keeps women cowed.

The ultimate effect of rape upon the woman’s mental and emotional health has been accomplished even without the act. For to accept a special burden of self-protection is to reinforce the concept that women must live and move about in fear and can never expect to achieve the personal freedom, independence, and self-assurance of men.

Susan Brownmiller

But no. It’s all a team sport to these vultures.

Instead of reporting that could actually make a difference, they focus on the politics. They could be using their platforms to explore any of the abovementioned topics and more, and they refuse to.

Social Media Ban

Journalists bemoan people turning away from them, refusing to see that it is their own fault. The old guard has been displaced by newer entrants who are more serious than them, as viewers are uninterested in politics as a contact sport.

A 2023 survey of young people from Western Sydney University found that social media was the most common news source after friends and family, equal with live TV. 17% got news from the radio, and coming in at less than 10% each were news apps, on-demand TV, podcasts or the newspaper. Trust in news organisations was low, with only 16% saying they trust them a lot. Almost two thirds struggle to find news tailored to them.

Half (50%) of 13-16 year olds and 37% of 8-12 year olds agree that getting news stories is important… However, two thirds (66%) of young Australians agree or strongly agree that most news media have no idea what the lives of people their age are really like.

Large media companies successfully lobbied the government to institute a social media ban so they could cultivate a captive audience. Their strategy to pick the low hanging fruit worked; they bleated about child safety to prevent people under the age of 16 from accessing good, alternative media that isn’t the garbage you see on TV or in the paper. Viewed through this lens, restricting access to large social media companies but allowing 4chan makes sense. People under the age of 16 are not going to find good news info on 4chan, and since it’s not actually about child safety, they don’t care that kids retain access to that cesspool.

Genocide

A year to the day that Labor Senator Fatima Payman crossed the floor to support a Greens resolution to recognise Palestinian statehood, Antionette Lattouf won her unfair dismissal case against the ABC. Lattouf had been dismissed after she posted on social media about a Human Rights Watch report which alleged Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza. To quote from an SBS report:

Justice Darryl Rangiah on Thursday found the national broadcaster contravened sections 50 and 772(1) of the Fair Work Act by terminating Lattouf’s employment for reasons including that she held political opinions opposing Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

It was decided that the ABC, “in a state of panic”, repudiated her contract — a decision said to have been made solely by chief content director Chris Oliver-Taylor. He did so to mitigate a “deluge of complaints” and “appease” pro-Israel lobbyists, Rangiah said.

In fact, the media’s treatment of the genocide in Gaza is an instructive example. At the time of writing, over 270 journalists in Gaza have been killed by Israel, more than in any other conflict. And yet, the media here still dithers on calling it a genocide, which the United Nations and so many other human rights experts declared long ago. If you’re seeing less information about Israel’s atrocities, don’t think it’s because they’ve stopped; it’s because there is no one left to tell us about them.

If Australian journalists aren’t going to stand by their colleagues who are literally dying, what hope do the rest of us have?

Bondi & Venezuela

I haven’t discussed the shitshow that has been coverage of the Bondi shooting for three reasons. The first is that I finished my first draft of this piece a couple of weeks before it occurred. The second is that, having largely switched off from mainstream media, I simply haven’t seen much of the coverage. Most of what I know about it has come from other people talking about it.

Which brings me to my third point: If I wrote something, it would just be an amalgamation of a handful of others’ writing. Instead, I’ll point you to the pieces I would have drawn from.

• Omar Sakr has published two long pieces on the mass media’s coverage. Sakr is struggling to find work because of his advocacy for Palestine; if you can, throw him some money to keep him afloat.
• Nick Feik has published a great piece on how grief has been weaponised. It contains a lot of the same points as Sakr’s posts, but it’s much shorter.
• Joel Jenkins asks who owns a national tragedy in his work a week after the shootings.

There are good discussions here about the political exploitation of a massacre to pass laws preventing our right to protest, and to shout down those of us who have been protesting against a genocide. Why are they quoting Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity? Why is no one talking about the intelligence failures; why was the father of a man on ASIO’s radar granted a gun permit? It took three years for him to get one; this is not normal. What was the hold up, and why was he eventually granted one?

Sakr and Feik also pointed out that ISIS, which the shooters had a flag of, hates Hamas and Palestine. I did not know this. They point out that anyone claiming the shooters were doing this for Palestine are assuming all Muslims are the same, when in reality, someone with an ISIS flag doesn’t give a damn about Palestine.

Incidentally, the second reason from my list at the start of this section is part of why I have said nothing about Venezuela. What I assume is happening and/or will happen will be the press talking about how Maduro was a dictator, while failing to point out that this does not mean Trump gets to kidnap a world leader. This abduction represents a huge upset to the current world order that will be bad for most of us, and other autocrats around the world will take it as licence to act against their political opponents around the world. I hate living in interesting times.

The main reason, though, is that we don’t need another uninformed person from the West talking about this. I know next to nothing about Venezuela. It is okay to shut up and just listen sometimes.

What I Want to See

I think of a friend of mine who wants to travel to communities across the country, explaining what a changing climate will mean for them and what they can do to prepare. I find the idea exhilarating. I think it’s sooooooo cool!! She’s already held one workshop for a community in Naarm/Melbourne, where she talked through what they can expect, and listened to them about the changes they’re already seeing. One of the key points here is that it was a two-way conversation, and not just her talking down to them.

Why aren’t journalists doing the same? Working in regional areas, reporting on local issues, from that region, and not an office in a city? We used to have independent local newspapers who did this, but they have been bought out and shut down over the years, leaving many places without. In their place, partisan papers masquerading as independent are rising. The four big players, which comprise 84% of newspaper revenue, are squeezing out the small ones, making us the second most concentrated media market in the world. For a detailed timeline of how Rupert Murdoch took over the media in this country, head here. I haven’t made my way through it yet, and will probably have more to say once I do.

I’m concerned they’re going to keep pushing for more restrictions on social media for more people, to prevent the rest of us from seeing through their sycophancy.

Who I Follow

There are, of course, some good ones out there. My favourite journalist is Amy Remeikis, and has been since the clusterfuck of early 2021. Cam Wilson is another one. Greg Jericho is the only economist I pay any attention to. I’m not sure if he’d call himself a journalist, but Ketan Joshi does a lot of awesome writing on climate.

My favourite news site, now, is Deepcut News. I like the Bogan Intelligentsia (which also wins the award for best name), and satire websites like the Betoota Advocate and The Shovel. I’ve also found a number writers, activists, unionists and academics, who I now follow individually for their work. I’m subscribed to a number of organisations that work on things I am interested in, such as Queers X Climate and The Australia Institute, including their new site, The Point.

For straight news I go to The Conversation, Al Jazeera, Reuters, SBS, ABC, and The Guardian – that last one to a lesser extent, now. I was a subscriber for five years but cancelled it earlier this year after I noticed a number of good people (particularly the aforementioned Remeikis and Jericho) had left.

Mainstream journalists need to treat devastating topics with the sensitivity they deserve. They need to hold powerful people to account and ask tricky questions. They need to relate their work back to the average person, minus the jargon. They need to own the fact that people are turning away from them because they are not doing any of the above; that it is their own fault.

Unless and until mainstream journalists start to report in a way that matters to people, I will continue to be one of the many Australians ignoring them.

1. Remeikis, A. (2022). On Reckoning. Hatchette Australia. Page 80. ↩︎
2. Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Reference Costs) [2025] FCA 225; Page 145. ↩︎
3. I was incredibly lucky to have parents who took me seriously. ↩︎