The human condition and journos asking questions

Diary of the last nine hours

5.55am

My name is David and I’m an iPhone reader. Scrolling, scrolling; grinning at #NZhellhole; scowling at Trump; another day in bed in paradise.

Yes, the dim blue light of the screen, my constant companion. But only because I’m waiting for the light of the dawn so I can continue the new Pip Adam book.

Recovering addicts? Oh you bet that's my kind of story, let’s go.

Loving the observation of it, the language of the characters: both stunted and magnificently expressive. Here, have another recipe, sort of.

8.44am

Still reading, but also picking up that Twitter has opened up the Sunday paper and is saying OMG the state of it.

8.45am

Still not really regretting cancelling Sunday paper subscription in fit of pique at start of Level 4 tbh.

8.46am

I’m no philosopher but I have over the years come to believe that the human condition is: 

Scared. Hungry. Horny. 

Just recollected that. Thought I should pop it in here. You should always share your thinking in your column, if you’ve been doing any. I always say that.

9.40am

Not listening to radio because it’s Sunday and I'm mostly reading about people in recovery making quiche, and working at the Salvation Army store, and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

However also getting gist of today’s Mediawatch via Twitter. Essential argument seems to be: we are holding them to account and how dare you rag us noble journalists for doing the work of Woodward and Bernstein?

Okay, I’ll bite. How about: has the holding to account been proportionate to the problem and proportionate to the conduct of the people being upbraided?

Holding to account is a laudable thing but is that the right thing to call it if you put undue weight on particular failures and mislead by failing to place them in accurate context? Is that the right thing to call it if, in ascribing blame, you ascribe more than is warranted?

On what basis, for example, does it seem warranted to ask the DG of Health if he's going to resign, given no evidence of deceit or ineptitude, and in the context of the vast numbers of moving parts going at speed?

Do we really imagine anybody would have managed to get every step of this right?

For a sense of context and proportion, why not stop and ask: where in the world would you like to be right now? Where in the world do you rate your chances, and never mind a dumpster fire like Trumpland, would you even give Australia a higher rating?

And given that the people being ragged, or, if you prefer, held to account, are the people who managed to get us this far, in this good a shape, just how warranted is excoriation and vilification?

Holding to account asks:

You made a mistake, what are you going  to do about it?

This:

You made a mistake, when are you going to resign?

sounds more like scalp hunting.

Given how much our success in getting through this depends upon cooperation voluntarily given, and given how valuable that proved to be in the first lockdown, you'd want a pretty good reason to be tugging at the thread holding that together, wouldn't you?

Is it possible to hold to account without going so far and potentially doing so much harm? Bet you a MAGA hat it is. 

And is it possible that an undue reliance on holding to account is leaving some really valuable questions going begging?

For example:

• How do we keep this demonstrably hugely difficult virus under control? What further steps can help?

• What are the possibilities of making this economy perform near to its capability while these restrictions remain in place? Or to put it another way, what are some things we can do to protect jobs and mortgages and house prices; those staples of worry-reporting?

• What alternatives do we have, especially with respect to the tourist sector - because that's where all these jobs are going, and that’s where the mortgage payments are really hanging.  

And if you're looking for a story that exposes a dirty little secret, here's an idea:

What if much of what we have been offering to our 4 million tourists is not all that amazing, maybe even a bit shit? What if those pretty average tourist offerings were really only flourishing because the people who had come ten thousand miles were thinking with a defeated shrug: come all this way, might as well look at it.

If that can now be tested in a market where local tourists can say yeah or yeahnah,  that might be a chance to really get wheels moving in new ways, and get local money circulating into the hands of the revenue-choked.

The human condition of a journalist working in Old Media appears to be:

defensive, not scared of asking the hard questions mate, horny for ratings.

You can measure your work by what you brought down, you can also measure it by what you helped to build, or if you prefer to make it more like a headline, how you helped a plucky country escape disaster. 

12.59pm

Coming this week in More Than A Feilding: 

• Most Aussie story ever: in praise of pluggers 

• Wellington story: the day my cowboy mate and I nearly accidentally held up the Reserve Bank

• National Party story: Party of Free Enterprise and Mum and Dad Small Businesses In Copy-and-Paste Website-IP Swizz

• More Bad Language: sorry Mum

1.05pm

Just the one new community transmission case.  Remember that stage we arrived at in LockDown Season 1 when the echo of where we had been a week and a half ago began to sound good? Nice to hear it again. Sure hope that holds up.