Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Big Ideas -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) 'Despite the money, RM was unhappy. filled with antiques. He was living in a city mansion parties, polo and celebrities There were to be someone he was not. but he was pretending living the simple life, in the bush.' RM realised he was happiest prosperity. Perhaps I couldn't handle there's a lot more freedom And what's more I think in a tent than there is in a castle. 'RM's marriage collapsed to start all over again. and he returned to the bush After some searching, called Rockybar in Queensland. he settled on a property more children - a total of nine. In 1955 he remarried and had three own many properties. Today, RM and his family His bush wear business is thriving and his range of distinctive clothing throughout the world. has become an Australian trademark legends are made of RM Williams has lived a life and he'll be remembered to our unique Australian identity.' for contributing

This program is captioned live.

North Korea is threatening to carry

out further military attacks against

the south unless Seoul agrees to

re-draw a disputed maritime border.

The north fired dozens of shells at

South Korean island The north fired dozens of shells at a killing two of the South's marines. South Korean island yesterday,

Seoul returned fire and is now

threatening to use missiles against

the North if Pyongyang shows any further aggression. Police

gases in the New Zealand mine where further aggression. Police say toxic

29 men are missing, might never

29 men are missing, might never reach

ventila a zero level. Tests from a new

ventilation shaft finished overnight

show high toxic gas levels and

oxygen. A second robot has entered show high toxic gas levels and little

the Pike River mine, searching for

the miners who haven't been heard from since

UN report says the number of people from since last Friday's explosion. A

dying from AIDS has dropped

access significantly as more patients gain

access to treatment. The decline was

more than 25% in 33 countries many

them in

them in sub-Saharan Africa. more than 25% in 33 countries many of

Heightened awareness and use of

condoms have been cited as reasons for the

for the decrease in infection

And one for the decrease in infection rates.

And one of the world's first

computers has sold for less than And one of the world's first personal

expected in London. The rare Apple 1

computer fetched about

200 computer fetched about $210,000.

200 of the machines computer fetched about $210,000. Only

between 1976 and 1977. More ABC news 200 of the machines were produced at midday. This Program is Captioned


Hello and welcome to a

special edition of Big Ideas.

I'm Tony Jones. On the show

today maintaining diversity in

a rapidly changing media world. The Andrew Olle Media Lecture

was established in 196 by ABC

Radio to honour the memory of Andrew Olle. This would Weir

year's speaker is Alan

Rusbridger the editor of chief

in the UK based Guardian news

and media. He has been nameded UK editor of the year three

times. Over the last 15 years

he has moved his paper into the

digital aid with the Guardian's

website now attracting more

than 30 million unique visitors

a month and earning a place

among the top 10 global news

sites. Alan Rusbridger argue

the changes we're living

through today is as far reach

ago the printing press. The

title after address is the

splint terring of the Fourth

Estate. I'm fluff fluff from

702 ABC Sydney. This is the 15th Andrew Olle Media Lecture.

Recently I went to a hostel for

people who are quite old and

quite unwell and if the you've

done it, it is a very topb

confronting thing to do.

People shuffle around, they're stooped, they're in

wheelchairs. On this visit I

saw one particular old man and

he was kind of stuffed into a

chair with a kind of built

in-tray and the poor old fell

loaves bent forward over this

tray and his nose was two

inches from the surface of the

tray as if his very spine could

no longer hold him upright. I

really felt for him and I

wondered close. I realised

when I got within a few feet

I'm of him he was bent over so

he could read the tiny type of

the Guardian weekly which he

had on his table. I thought at

that point when I'm 90 years

old I want to be doing this. I

want to be reading one of the

world's great newspapers. Our

speaker tonight is the editor

of that paper in its various

forms. Alan Rusbridger. The Guardian of course has a long

and distinguished history as a

home for great British

journalism. Through Allen's

editor ship though it has

become a place famous for

embracing the challenges of the

digital age with a kind of

crazy, brave gusto, if I might

say. What did they say in yes

minister, he's a courageous

editor. He has brought and the

net has brought generally great

changes to journalism. It is

an inspiring and terrifying

time to work in the media.

Inspiring because the best of

the rest of the world is there

for you every day. For those

of who love radio it is simple

to tune into BBC 4 or NPR and

terrifying because it is easy

for our listeners to also tune

into the best of the world, to

BBC 4 or MPR. It is no longer

worth bought therg unless your

ambition is to be as good as

anything anywhere and that's unwith of the challenging

things the net has brought, one

of the great things. Of course

a long time before the Internet

the Guardian was already part

of Australian lives. Curt sift

paper I mentioned, the Guardian

weekly printed back then on

strange air mail paper. When I

was a teenager a copy of the

Guardian weekly was an

invaluable tool in the art of

romance. A copy of the paper

left eye Dili on a coffee table

when a prospective girl or

boyfriend came visiting a what

s a calling card in 70s

Australia, identifying yourself

as a intellectual or at least a

poser, interested in politics,

art and the world. As such, it

was the accompaniment of every

teenage inmisscy I enjoyed

between the age of 17 and 19.

To the extent that even forward

mere mention of the term "the

Guardian" still brings with it

a strange sexual feeling. I'm

going to have to control myself

during your speech. Don't even

mention the air mail paper.

The aim of tonight of course is

to talk about journalism and to

celebrate the life of a great

journalist, our friend and

colleague Andrew Olle, who died

far too young after an

extraordinary career in both

radio and television. It will

raise much needed fund for the

will Andrew Olle fund for brain

cancer veer: it's often said

that people live on in the

lives of others, but with Andrew I think this is really

true. His example really does

inspires us. It is inspires us

every day. We think about him

those who work in radio and

television. Talk to his many

friends and colleagues tonight

and they'll tell you who Andrew

still guides them. It is still

owe pleasing that the event in

his name attracts such

distipping wished speakers and

such a distinguished audience.

Among many others here we're thrilled to welcome many

visitors from the UK tonight,

such as Lord and lady put Nam

and to David Puttnam I say no,

sir, that when anyone in this

room in distant Australia runs

to catch a bus, the soundtrack

to chariots of fire is somehow

in the back of our minds. Also

from the UK Samuel west and

Laura Wade, welcome to you,

they're doing a fine play

around the country. Malcolm

and Lucie Turnbull, our opposition here in New South

Wales, Barry O'Farrell, Mark

Col I haven't, our friends from

News Limited and Fairfax of

course, but most important of

all, Andrew's wife Annette

and and Nina ollie. Alan

Rusbridger has been editor of

the Guardian since 1995. He's

also editor in chief of

Guardian news and media. He

first joined the Guardian in

1979 and worked as a general

reporter, feature writer and

diary columnist before leaving

to succeed Clive James as The

Observer's TV critic. As you

know, it is always very tough

taking on after an Aussie.

Alan managed to do quite well.

This created a springboard,

they said he took over from an

Aussie and he did all right.

This was a springboard to a

great career and a spring of

promotions up to the editor

ship of the Guardian. He's

been named the UK editor for

three times. He's a visiting

professor of history at queens

Mary college London. So on and

see forth. He's a big noise in

the world of journalism.

Ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome your Andrew Olle

Lecturer for 2010, Alan

Rusbridger. CHEERING AND

APPLAUSE Thank you, that's a

tough one to follow, isn't it.

Thank you for that and thank

you for asking me to speak

tonight. It is humbling to

speak in memory of such a widely admired Australian

journalist and since coming

here this week I've heard so

many people talk in the spirit

that we've just heard about

what a remarkable broadcaster

Andrew Olle was and how keenly his death was felt by so many

people and I repeat how lovely

his width co-Annette and his

daughter Nina are here P the

last lecture I gave back in

June when I was invisited to

speak in Amsterdam. The

invitation was called something

fancy like a Royal Symposium

which I took with a pinch of

salt and I didn't quite

appreciate that I was in fact a

guest of the queen until I

landed at Skipton airport to

find her car pay the waiting

for me at the foot of the

stairs to whisk me off to a

glass of wine with her in her

palace in the Hague. There are

moments of sheer terror in most lives it, wasn't so much

meeting the Queen, although

that was something that has

never happened to me before and never expect it to happen

again. The terror came from

the realisation I was in deep

trouble the next day. There

was the small matter of an

unwritten lecture still in my

head. I stayed up all night

composing a thesis suitable for

royal ears. I turned up the

next day and it turned out I

was sharing a stage with a

writer on the media that I

greatly admire, not least for

his searching essays about how

the American press covered the

Iraq war, Michael Massing. I

did the best I could in

describing the present state of

the media as I saw it, but

Michael Massing was much more

original. He plunged straight

into the media trends of the

late 15th and 16th centuries, a

period when the old spiritual

and culture order dominated by

the Catholic Church was

breaking down and a new one was

struggling to meerj. With the

invention of printing, books by

the thousand were tumbling off

the presses, scholars were

gripped by a kind of fever as

they searched for new ideas

about how to organise society

in tracts and treatises they

debated such issues as the

nature of man, the powers of

God and the path to salvation.

The historian John Mann puts

the Gutenberg revolution like

this. Suddenly, in a historical eye blink scribes

were redundant. One year it

took a month or two to produce

a single copy of a book. The

next could you have 500 copies

in a week. Hardly an aspect of

life remained untouched.

Gutenberg's invention made the

soil from which sprang modern.5history, science,

popular literature, so much of

everything by which we define

modernity. Massing is not the

only writer to be fascinated by

the parallels between that

period and today's revolution

in communication which in the

opinion of many is as great as

that of Gutenberg. The

difference today is that the

change is happening much

faster. So fast that we are,

as an industry, collectively

suffering from what deep-sea

diver refer to as the bends.

We're travelling through

periods of extreme change,

faster than our corporate

bodies can really cope with it.

I want to talk tonight about

the possibility that we're

living at the end of a great

arc of history which began with

the invention of moveable type.

There of course have been other

transformative steps in

communication during that half

a millenium, the invention of

the Telegraph, radio,

television, but essentially

they were continuations of an

idea of communication that

involved one person speaking to

many. That's not dead as an

idea, of course it isn't, but

what's happening today the mass ability to communicate with

each other without having to go

through a traditional ipt

immediate dri is truly

transformative. It is a change

that was only imaginable by previous generations. I

recently reread the formative

book Culture and Society by

Raymond Williams written a

little over 50 years ago and

this is what he wrote in 1958.

"Much of what we call

communication is necessarily no

more than transmission. That

is to say, a one way sending,

reception and response which

complete communication, depend

on other factors." That's the

revolutionary change we're

living through today. There's transformation from transmission to communication.

Williams would have added

another significant difference,

the move from I'm permanent

media, which is what print is,

to personal. Many of us who

grew up in the world of

transmission face the

existential question of whether

we can stay in business, doing

transmission alone. That's prot found question which lies

behind attempts to wall off or

sell our content or the

contrary instinct to seek to

embed it assent trally as

possible in the new ways in

which information response and

counter response are

developing. I want to talk

tonight about what this digital

revolution means. First, I

want to drawback briefly and

look at the effect it's having

on the overall media ecology.

It's always been a given in our

business that the business Weir

we're in is not quite like

other businesses. What it does

matters too much. That's why

it is sometimes grandly called

the Fourth Estate, a part of

society that's important as the

government, or the church,

every adult over the age of 30

grew up with the Fourth Estate

consisted of the press and

broadcasting. Each gave way to

a different idea of what

journalism was. The privately

owned press was in general more opinioned, partisan,

politically engaged and lightly

regulated, if at all.

Broadcasting whether publicly

financed or commercial usually

came with a requirement that it

strove for impartiality. It

had an obligation to reflect

all parts of the political

spectrum and special duties to

cover news which left to the

market alone wouldn't be

covered. There was much to

cherish in that balance and

tension between in those two

bits of that due yop Lee. A

voo reader or viewer could

measure one media against

another. There was the tent

peg of impartial by which to

measure the westerlies of the

printed word. There's a new

kid on the block, a third wing

got Fourth Estate, if that's

not too mixed a meta far.

There was the world wide web,

essentially another form of

transmission, and Web 2.0, the

advent and rapid maturing of

so-called social or open media.

No-one owns the digital space

and it's barely regulated. It

brings with it an entirely new

idea of what journalism is,

indeed for some it calls into

question whether there is any

such distinct thing as

journalism which is a theme I

tried to tackle in the Nigel

Cudlipp lecture in January.

This double revolution within

50 years is having an effect on

the norms and categorisation of

information. What we're seeing

is the splintering of the

fought es if Fourth Estate.

Digital is most fiercely biting

on the press if only because we

somehow have to earn our

living, I'll qualify that in a

minute, and we don't enjoy the

sheltered protection of licence

fees or government funding. As

digital eats into the press so

the press has turned its fire

on public broadcasters, imagining that if they were

only to go away everything in

the garden would once more come

out in bloom and so the balance

between these three separate

ideas of journalism begins to

teeter. Before looking at these digital forces in close

up, I want to touch on this

tenuous nature of this balance

and ask whether that status quo

can or indeed should hold in

its present form. We all know

that digital forces are

threatening to weaken or even

destroy the traditional basis,

role and funding of the press,

and we know that digital

enables everyone to disrupt

everyone else's business. Text

publishers can get into moving

pictures and the broadcasters

can get into text. It was only

a matter of time before it

would seem overwhelmingly

obvious and economically

irresistible for people to

converge, consolidate and

integrate. Before we rush to

sweep away the differentiation

that exists at the moment, just

pause to consider the virt you

ans of the present balance.

Because the press is what it

is, magnificently opinioned and

partisan, it has had pretty

unfetterred licence to set the

narrative about its bedfellows

in the media. Public funded

broadcasting in the UK is not a

flattering one. Other than BP,

the Royal Bank of Scotland or

the Scientologists it is

difficult to think of a large

organisation which has had such

a hostile press as the BBC has

recently had. It's not simply

the size or the way it is run

that's criticised, sometimes

with good reason, it is the

very idea of public service

broadcasting that is being

questioned. Some have gone on

to suggest that public funding

turns public broadcasters into

Orwellian merchants of

propaganda, the BBC re

centimetre bells the dying

embers of 1970s industrial

planning, it Spautz

paternalistic we know best

views of knowledge. Whenever I

feel creeping in I put aside

the newspapers and look at the

iplayer, the British equivalent

of iview. That extraordinary

device for replaying and

playing BBC content. As

opposed to reading the news or

views about the BBC. There you

see the greatest possible

richness, programming that

could never be provided by any

form of market funding. It is

exactly what an open space of publicly available information

should look like, a richness of

learning about science,

history, technology, parenting,

business, economics, food,

music, the environment,

physics, religion eltd ethics

and politics. All of that was

from one eke week in October.

It doesn't include drama, come

can I, port or radio, the

orchestras or the world

service, the partially sighted

or for children. I haven't

even mentioned news with that

amazing network of something

like 200 Foreign

Correspondents. It is news of

a rare quality, serious news that's inquiring and

challenging, news that's

balanced and fair. News that

reveals things and places them

in context, news that's

international in scope. News

that's useful, news that opts

your mind and helping your

understanding, news that is

transparent in its ethical

standards and processes of self

criticism. The BBC is

self-evidently the finest news operation in the world. How

does it do it? Through

subsidy. Subsidy get bad press

but in reality few of us are in

a good position to ridicule

subsidy. The American essayist

Walter Lipmann in his 1922 book

Public Opinion made it plain

the press could not live

without the subsidy of

advertising. He wrote of the

reader nobody thinks for a

moment he ought to pay for his

newspaper. The citizen will

pay for his telephone, railroad rides, motor car and

entertainment but he does not

openly pay for news. He will

however pay handsomely for the privilege of having someone

read about him. He will pay

directly to advertise. The

public pays for the press but

only when the payment is

concealed. In the middle of

all the turmoil we're living

through it is clear the subsidy

model of general journalism is

the only one that works at the

moment. That's subsidy may be

a trust, a old gark, a

patriarch, a bill air, a sister

company, a licence fee, an

income direct from public

revenue or an advertiser. In

the turbulence of the coming

years when as the new media the

old model is breaking faster

than the new stuff gets put in

place, we may all come to rely

on an some form of medium terms

subsidy. If you include

advertising we're all members

of what some like to term the

subsidariat. We're fooling

ourselves if we fail to meet

the real direct cost of

providing general news.

Looking forward into the eye of

this unknowable digital storm,

it seems to be rather reckless

to propose dismantling or

hobbling the one model of

funding for traditional media

has any kind of predict #b89d

about it. What about the

press? The idea of public

broadcasting, one of the

glories of modern civilisation

could be so vigorously

challenged leads to another

attempt to overturn an idea

until recently was a given,

there should be a plurality of

ownership of the main forms of

media. I'm not going to Labor

this point because it is really

quite a simple one to grasp

even if it is a hard one to

articulate in law. The 1949 Royal Commission on the press 2349 UK department waste more

than a couple of paragraphs

trying to explain the

principle, I'm guessing because

they didn't feel it needed much

discussion. Indeed, it is a

sign of the current turmoil in

our industry one should have to

argue a case that any other

time since the enlightenment

would have seen too obvious to

make. Too great a

concentration of owner hip

shipped in media has also been

considered a bad idea whether you are you were on the right

or left. The revolution we're

talking about tonight is

changing all that. It seems

self-evident to some that a

combination of fierce economic

pressures and greater converse

against of text, data and

moving pictures leads to one

solution, consolidation.

Consolidation brings economies

of scale. It regulatory

regimes can't handle that get

rid of the regulators. The

economic and technological

arguments are serious ones, but

if they prevail we will soon

see more ah more power and influence concentrated in fewer

and fewer hands. The

consolidators will argue that

the digital space is itself

part of the new plurality and

here they too have a point. If

it seems obvious that media

plurality is not just a nice to

have, but a vital cornerstone of democracy, shouldn't it be

the starting point for the

public policy debate rather

than sliding in behind the

business, economic managerial

or technological arguments? Of

course, in the UK the most

immediate pressures are being

felt as I dare say they are

here in the local press where

there's already been much con

some depation over the years

and most topicly there is the prospect of a merger between

eye wholly owned BSkyB and the

four titles owned by News Corp.

That would give one company

control of nearly 40 per cent

of Britain's press as well as a

broadcaster with nearly 6

billion pounds in revenues

compared with the 3.5 billion

licence fee of the BBC. I

realise that even raising this question immediately translates

in the minds of some into an

argument about Rupert Murdoch.

It is not. There's no-one I

would want to have that much

power, not the Scott Trust, not

the BCC, not sculls sculls, not

the General Moderator of the

Church of Scotland, most even

David Attenborough. As it

happens, the events of the past

year or so in the aftermath of

the revelations of phone

hacking at the News of the

World, do illustrate the nature

of the problem. They raise

questions not so much about the

hacking, troubling as those

were, but about how other

forces in society, whether it's

other media organisations, the

police, the regulator or

Parliament itself, behave when

faced with the muscle of a very

large powerful concentrated and

sometimes very aggressive media

group, especially one which is

keenly interested in exerting

political influence and expressing powerful views on

how media regulation should

work. Something is dangerously

out of kilter when elected

members of Parliament confess,

as they recently have, that

they held back from probing

into or criticising one

particular media company for

fear of what that company might

do to them. Or when its former

employees who know what went on

and also what the company is

capable of are too frightened

to speak publicly about what

they know. Knowing the

chilling effect of one large

media company can have on

public life and institutions,

how could it be good public

policy to allow a still greater

concentration of power not

across one wing of this Fourth

Estate, but two. You can

devise all kinds of metrics of

reach and engagement and come

up with any number of

definitions of what constitutes

a market in order to justify

it, but it would still feel

wrong. That's why newspapers

and broadcasters in the UK have

for the first time in history

come together to oppose that

move and why in a recent House

of Lords debate inspired by

David Puttnam, who I'm very

pleased to see here tonight,

virtually every speaker was

lined up against it. As Lord

Gavron said in that debate the

strength of feeling was not

motivate bid a knee-jerk

prejudice kiss against the word

Rupert Murdoch. He praised Rupert Murdoch as being

straight loyal and honourable,

but he warned if the government

allowed this deal through, we

could end up with a Russian old

gark, an Arab prince or hedge

fund bill air in a similar

position of control. So to the

third sphere, the one causing

all the trouble. The digital

sphere, without going into complex argument about net

neutrality, is owned and

regulated by no-one. It's very

different kind of media from the two we've discussed so far.

It is developing so fast we

forget now new it all is. It's

totally understandable those at

least one leg in the

traditional media should be impatient to understand the

business mod that will enable

us to transform ourselves into

digital businesses and continue

to earn the revenues we enjoyed

before the intention of the

web, Never Never mind the

disruption of Web 2.0. First

we have to understand what

we're up against. It is

constantly surprising to me how

people in positions of

influence in the media find it

difficult to look out side the

frame of their own medium and

look at what this animal called

social or open media does, how

it currently behaves, and what

it's capable of doing in the

future. On one level, there's

no great mystery about web 22..

it is about the fact that other

people like doing what we

journalist do. We like

creating things, words, pictures, films and graphics

and publishing them. So it

turns out does everybody else.

For 500 years since Gutenberg

they couldn't. Now they can.

In fact, they can do much more

than we ever could. All this

has happened in the blink of an

eye. That's one problem, the

rapidity of the represent

lution, the Bens. The other

thing is we find it difficult

to look at what we find around

us. Most of the digital up

starts don't look like media

companies. Ebay, it pies and

sells stuff, Amazon ditto,

Tripadvisor, it's flogging

holidays. Facebook it's where

teenagers post all the stuff

which will make them

unemployable later in life. If

that's all we see when we look

at those websites we're missing

the picture. Very early on in

the life Facebook I forced all

the senior Guardian editors to

open accounts so that they

could understand for themselves

how these new ways of

creativity and connection

worked. Ebay can teach us how

to handle the kind of

reputational and identity

issues we're all struggling to

come to term with with our

readers. Amazon or trip

advisers can reveal the power

of peer review. We should all understand what Tumblr or Flipboard or Twitter are all

about. Social media so new

they're not even yet Hollywood

blockbusters. I've lost count

of the times of people

including a surprising number

of people in the media roll

their eyes at the mention of

Twitter. No time for it, they

say, they name stuff about what

twits are having for breakfast,

nothing to do with the news of

business. Yes and no. Yes,

sure there's spen plenty of nan

knit. Saying that Twitter has

nothing to do with the news

business is as misguided as you

could be. I had a long plane

journey recently here and I

wrote down a list off the top

of my head of 15 things which I

thought Twitter does rather

effectively and which should be

of the deepest interest to

anybody involved in the media

at any level. Here am I are 15

things that Twitter does.

Number one, it is an amazing

form of distribution. It is a highly effective way of spreading ideas, information

and content. Don't be

distracted by the 140 character

limit. A lot of the best

tweets are links. It is

instantaneous. The its reach

did can be immensely far and

wide. We do distribution too.

We're competing with a medium

that can do many things faster

than we do. It is back to the

battle between scribes fan

moveable type. That matters in

journalistic terms and it

matters in business terms. The

life expect andcy of exclusive

information can be measured in

minutes if not second. That

has profound implications for

hour economic model and

journalist. Where have things

happened first. Not all

things. News organisations

still break lots of news, but

increasingly news happen first

on Twitter. If you're a

regular Twitter user even if

you're in the news business and

has access to wires, the

chances are that you'll check

out many rumours of breaking

news on Twitter first. Why?

Because there are millions of human monitors out there who

will pick up on the smallest

things and who the same

instincts as we do and the

agencies do, be first with the

news. As the more people join

the better that's going to get.

Number three, as a search

engine it rivals Google. Many people still don't quite

appreciate that Twitter is in some respects better than

Google in terms of finding

stuff out. Google is limited

to using algorithms to ferret

out information in the

unlikeliest hidden corners of

the web. Twitter goes one

stage further. Building on

those Al Gorisms and harnessing the human intelligence to the

poufr millions to find

information that's new,

valuable, relevant or

entertaining. It is a

formidable aggregation tool.

You set Twitter to find

information on any subject you

want and it will often bring

you the best information there

is. It becomes your

personalised news feed. If you're following the most interesting people, they will

in all likelihood bring you the

most interests information. It

is not simply you searching,

you can set back other people

you admire or research go out

searching and gathering for

you. No news organisation

could aim to match or beat the

combine power of all those

worker bees collects information and disseminating.

Number five, it is a great

reporting tool. Many of the

best reporters are habitually

using Twitter to gather and

find information. It can be

simple requests for knowledge

which other people already know, have to hand or could

easily find. The so-called

wisdom of crowds comes into

play. They know more than we

do, theory of life. Or you're

simply in a hurry and you know

somebody will know the answer

quickly or reporters using

Twitter to find witnesses for specific events, people who

were in the right place and the

right time but would otherwise

be impossible to find. Number

6, it is an amazing form of

marketing. You've written your

piece on your blog. You may

have involved others in the

researching of it. Now you can

let them know it is there so

they come to your site. Awe

lert your community of

followers, it drives traffic

and engagement. It they like

what they read they'll tell

others about it. If they

really like it it will go

viral. I have a puny 18,500

followers, but if I get

re-tweeted by one of our

columnists Charlie Brooker I

instantly reach a further

200,000. If Guardian

Technology picks it it goes to

a audience of 1.6 million. If

Stephen Fry notices it I'm

famous. Number 7, it is a

series of common conversations

or it can be as well as reading

what you've written and

spreading the word, people can

respond, they can agree or

disagree or denounce T they can

blog elsewhere and link to it.

There's nothing worse than

writing or broadcasting

something to no reaction at

all. With trit r Twitter you

get an instance reaction. It

is not transmission, it is

communication. S nt ability to

share and discuss with scores

or hundreds or thousands of

people in real time. Twitter

can be fragmented, it can be

the opposite of fragmentation.

It is a par religion universe

of conversations. It is more

diverse. Traditional media

allowed a few voices in,

Twitter ha hows in anybody.

Number 9, it changes the tone

of writing. A good conversation involves listening

as well as talking. You'll

want to engage and be

entertaining. There is

obviously more brevity on

Twitter but there's also more

humour, more mixing of comment with fact, it is more personal.

The elevated platform on which

journalists like to think they

were sitting is kicked away on

Twitter. We've started writing

differently. Talking of which

number 10, it is a level

playing field. If a so-called

recognised name on Twitter has

nothing interesting to say,

they'll talk it to an empty

room. The energy in Twitter

gathers around people who can

say things crisply and

entertainingly even though they

may be "unknown". They may

speak to a small audience but

if they say interesting things

they will be republish ed usual

time and the extent of those

re-transmissions can in time

with twar offed audience of the

any of the so-called big news.

Sometimes the people formerly

known as readers can write snappier headlines and copy

than we can. Number 11, it is

has different news values.

People on Twitter quite often have even material different

sense of what is and what isn't

news. What seems obvious to

journalists in terms of choices

we make is often quite markedly

from how others had see it both

in terms of the things we

choose to cover and the things

that we ignore. The power of

tens of thousands of people articulating those different

choices will increasingly wash

back into the newsrooms and

affect our choices. Number 12,

it has a long attention span.

The opposite is usually the

argued that Twitter is simply

an instant highly condensed

stream of consciousness, the

perfect medium for goldfish.

If you set your Tweetdeck to

follow a particular key word or

issue or subject, you may well

find the attention span of

Twitterers puts newspapers to

shame. They will be

aggregating information on the

issues that concern them long

after the caravan of the

professional journalists has

moved on. Number 13, we're

nearly there, it creates communities or rather

communities form themselves

around particular issues that

people, events, artefacts,

cultures, ideas or geographies.

They may be temporary communities or long-term,

strong or weak ones, but I

think they are recognisebly

communities. Number 14, it

changes notions of authority.

Instead of waiting to receive

the expert opinions of others,

mostly us journalists, Twitter

shifted this balance to the

so-called peer to peer

authority. It's not that

Twitterers ignore what we say,

on the contrary, see all the things about distribution in

the marketing. They're

becoming our most effective

transmitters and responders.

But equally we kid ourselves if

we think there isn't another

force in play here, that a

21-year-old student is quite

likely to be more drawn to the

opinions and preferences of

people who talk and look like

her. Or a 31-year-old mother

of young children or a had 1

year old bloke passionate about

politics and the rock music of

his youth. Finally, it is an

agent of change. As this ability of people to combine

around issues and to articulate

them grows, so it will have an

increasing effect on people in authority. Companies are

already learning to respect

even fear the power of

collaborative media.

Increasingly social media will

challenge conventional politics

and law. For example, the laws

relating to expression and

speech. Of course, you could

write a further list of things

that are irritating about the

way that people use Twitter.

It is not good at complexity.

It can be frustrating

reductive. It doesn't do what

investigative reporters or

world correspondents do. It

doesn't of itself verify facts.

It can be in discriminate,

distracting and overwhelmingly.

I'm just using it as one

example of the power of open or

social media. It quite well go

the way of the other now

forgotten flashes in the

digital pan. The downside of

it is that means the full

weight of the world's attention

can fall on a single unstable

piece of information. But we

can be sure that the motivating

idea behind these forms of open

media aren't going to go away

and that if we're blind to

their capabilities, we will be

make Iing a very serious

mistake both in terms of our

journalist and the economics of

our business. With any form

of, any rival form of

communication, you have to

understand whether you're going

to join it or beat it, but

first you have to understand

it. We can now glimpse better

what Raymond Williams was

anticipating when he wrote

about what issue he thought of

true communication, more than

50 years ago. For him it meant

what he called active reception

and living response. For that

to exist, he imagined you

needed an effective community

of experience and what he

called a recognition of

practical equality. Williams

thought we couldn't survive as

a common culture without such a

mechanism. Of course, social media isn't enough on its own

and I'm not in any way trying

to elevate it above traditional

media. We should be pleased

not resentful that Twitter is

in some measure parasitical,

that many of the referrals and

links take people to so-called

legacy media company who still

invest in original reporting,

who still confront authority,

fine things out, give context

and explain. But I do believe

that we should be relentless in

learning all we can about

people, about how people are using this post-Gutenberg

ability to create and share.

And import these lessons back

into our own journalism and

businesses. It is not all

about rushing to be on Twitter,

we can make our own media

companies collaborative and

open too. Distribution

breaking news and aggregation

at the Guardian and Observer,

we have more than 450 of our

staff on Twitter, together with

70 different single subject

sites, or section feeds

followed by two million people. Our journalists are outreaching

a different audience from the

core Guardian read Sher ship,

seeking help, ideas, joining in

those common conversations.

Reporters are using open media

ace way of finding sources and

communitieses and audiences.

The notion of a story,

something that has a finite

starting point and a finishing

point, is changing. Live

blogging can bring audiences of

millions around specific

events. Linking allows you to

place your journalism at the

heart of issues, news and

information. Instead of trying

to write everything ourselves, we're increasingly a platform

as well as a publisher. It

started with Comment is Free in

2006. Soon our cultural

coverage will be just as open

and collaborative. We've done

it with our network of

environmental and science

blogs, traffic on the

environmental side trying

Incheon stead of trying to

write it all ourselves and

finding the experts out there

knowing more than we do, has

risen 800 per cent since the

start of the year. We benefit

because we get there expert

context and increased audience.

They share the revenue and we

can trace just the beginnings

of a virtuous circle. We

harness readers in our shoe leather investigations, whether

it is hunting down tax

avoidance or tracing people who

mites have digital records of

police assaults, the work that

Paul Lewis death on the death

of Ian follow Tom min-Lon at

the G20 last year. We inlisted

27,000 readers in the task of

searching through 400,000

records of MP expenses. They

were all released in one day.

It was a task not possible by a

conventional newsroom. We've

lerted readers to super

injunctions that stop us

telling us, amazingly they go

and find out where the

information is and they defeat

the super injunctions. It's us

and them. Guess what, the

readers love to be involved.

They, too, like being critics,

commentators and photographers.

They love helping defeating

injunctions and being asked to share their particular

knowledge or expertise. You

harbour a feeling that some of

the stuff they create is

rubbish. I agree. So let's

learn from ebay about

reputations, ranking and

identity. We're experimenting

with open data and open APIs.

We want to experiment in

distributing our content where the audiences are, preferably

with advertising attached.

Some of these more radical

ideas will work, some won't,

but the one thing I'm sure of a

failure to experiment is more

dangerous than not trying new

things. This open and

collaborative future for

journalism I've tried the word

mutualised to try to describe

some of the flavour of this

relationship, this new

journalism has with our readers

and our sources and our

advertisers, is already looking

very different from the

journalism that went before.

The more we can involve others

the more they will be engaged

participants in our future

rather than observers or worse,

former readers. That's not

theory, it's working now. Yes, we will charge for some of

this, as we have in the past.

While keeping the majority of

it open. My commercial

colleagues at the Guardian

firmly believe that this mutual

lies add approach is opening up

options for making money and

not closing them down. None of

this is to criticise people who

want to try and different path.

You can't preach plurality and

argue for a single model of

journalism or against attempts

to find alternative ways of

financing what we do. I've

always believed it is a good

thing that different organisations are trying

different routes to the future

and the models that are emerges

are currently looking very

different. Our web traffic

last month averaged just over 2

million unique browsers a day.

One independent company which

measured the experiment that

The Times is doing at the

moment with the UK audience

during September found that

their web traffic not including

IPad apps had fallen by 98 per

cent as people progressed past

the a wall. More sophisticated

analysts than me calculate that

the content behind the paywall

is generating a total global

audience of about 54,000 a

month of whom about 28,000 are

paying for the digital content.

The remainder are print

subscribers. That's not a

criticism of the times. That

path may well make sense to how

they see the future. The jury

on the relative financial

models for different approaches

will remain out for a while.

These comparative figures not

only point to completely

different ideas of scale,

reach, audience, engagement and

ambition, they point to

completely different ideas of

journalism itself. That's

where I want to end. I want to

thank you for inviting me

today, as I say, I'm deeply

flattered that you wanted me to

fly me all the way to come and

lecture you about the media.

What I've attempted tonight is

a very brief tour of what I

think of as this splintered

Fourth Estate. I suspect we

would never invent the BBC or

ABC today, the spirit of the

age is just against it. The

issues about plurality are

really complex and I don't want

to do an injustice to the

complexity of the arguments

that are in play there, but

when things are threatening to

distinct great did needs the

greatest wisdom to know how,

and when to intervene both to

enable change while preserving

what's precious or more than

that, necessary. As for

digital, I am unashamedly with

the Utopians, fully away some

see that as a term of abuse.

To quote one blogger, I read

this week, the social web is

not really about the end of

what came before, but the

starting point for what comes

next, richer and more complex

societies. I'm sometimes giddy

with the possibilities that new

technologies offer us for being

better journalists, for eaching

even larger audiences, for

having more influence, for

being embedded in the most

astonishing network of information the world has ever seen or ever could have

imagined. As with the early 16th century it is pour

privilege as a generation not

only to imagine the future of

information, but to take the

first steps on the road to

re-crafting the ways in which

it is going to be created and

spread. As the great editor CP

Scott, my predecessor on the

Guardian wrote in 121 about the

the technological changes in

the air when the Guardian

celebrated its first 100 years,

he wrote "what a change for the

world. What a chance for a

newspaper." CHEERING AND

APPLAUSE That's Alan Rusbridger

editor in chief of the Guardian

sharing his thoughts on the

shift from transmission to

Andrew Olle Media Lecture. The communication in the 2010

job of thanking him fell to the ABC's director mark

Scott. Before I get to thanking

my main speaker tonight a

special word of thanks to

Richard Glover who has been a

master master of ceremonies.

Each year Richard leads us

through this special event with

great style and enthusiasm. I

thought long and hard about how

to thank Richard in a way that

he would truly appreciate.

What I have in mind will really

dot trick. Can I have the

camera in type as I speak to

the audience across the

country. Fluff Richard Glover

has a new book, why men are

necessary. It is funny,

heartwarming and a must read,

he tells me. An ideal Chris

mast gift available at ABC

shops, centres and all good

bookshops. That by the way was

classified as a promotion not

advertisement under the ABC

Act. It will however likely

trigger correspondence from

Gerard Henderson. CHEERING

AND APPLAUSE And so to Alan

Rusbridger. I must say I

despaired on Tuesday night when

news first broke of the royal

engagement. Not the way that

Malcolm Turnbull did feeling

the couple would guarantee

another 50 years of royalty to

rule in Australia, but I knew

it was big news. I'm pleased

to report that I a full two

minutes before Lee sales did.

I despaired that surely tonight

we would lose our guest

speaker. I feared that Alan

would get off the plane from

London to learn the news and

get back on the return flight

to the heart of the story. I

knew what a big story this

would be. Pictorial wrap

arounds to commission,

commemorative plates free with

every news stand sale to be

ordered in the miltd on, investigative reporters to

unleash, phone calls to listen

in on. In fact, Alan's only

previous visit to Australia had

been as a correspondent on a

royal tour. He knew this

story. I feared his inevitable

and immediate departure would

reduce tonight's intellectual

contribution to being readings

by the author from "why men are

necessary." . But Alan showed

tonight that he is hardly your

typical newspaper editor. The

Guardian reported that the UK's

national newspapers devoted a

total of 120 pages to the story

of the royal engagement the day

after the announcement, but

Alan stayed in Australia and

let it all go on without him.

In fact, in my conversations

with him in recent days, he

hardly seemed to be engaged by

the forthcoming royal marriage

at all. He is, as we have seen

tonight, a writer and a

thinker. He is a global leader

in this industry and he is

leading us all as no-one else

is, taking the Guardian and

tens of millions of readers

into bold new experiments in

journalism. As we heard

tonight, the Guardian is

attracting vast readership and

then tapping into the expertise

of that readership to provide

richer, more detailed and

informed reporting than ever

would have been possible from

One News room. Accepting the realities of a transformed

business model, but excited by

how technology enables the

growth of reach and global

impact, by creating a

partnership between those at

the paper and those who want to

actively engage with it, Alan

is truly one of this industry's

brave pioneers. When you read

the Guardian, you see this

passionate commitment to

uncover the truth, to follow

the story through, a belief in

the importance of committing

great acts of journalism.

David Puttnam is with us

tonight and I heard him speak

earlier this week about

journalism that should go

beyond having responsibility to

consumers. It is about having

responsibility to citizens.

That's what drives Alan what he practices and whilst this can

be a painful transition for the

industry, and a difficult path

to replace revenues and build

new funding streams, you want

to back those who are so

committed to journalism of

integrity, who embrace the

opportunities of the new, who

can grow and keep audiences in

vast numbers by the sheer

quality of what they do. Alan

Rusbridger is such a leader and

thank you tonight for your

lecture, Alan, for your

insights and understanding,

your passion, your story of

hope, for your deeply

thoughtful and compelling

presentation. Alan, we're so grateful for you to have made

the extraordinary commitment

you've shown tonight to travel

around the world to be with us

here. It is an act of great personal generosity from you

and all of us here, the ollie

family, the board of the trust,

the ABC, all assembled here

thank you for making this

effort. I said to Alan that

he'll sit in his desk in London

on Monday morning with his head

spinning after this whirlwind

trip and wonder what it was all

about. I wasn't just referring

to his experience attending

Question Time in Canberra

yesterday. Alan, we greatly

appreciate you coming all this

way and delivering a remarkable

Andrew Olle Lecture. Ladies

and gentlemen, will you join me

in thanking Alan Rusbridger.


Scott wrapping up proceedings

at the 2010 Andrew Olle Media

Lecture in Sydney. That's all

for today. To see that event

in full and many other thought

provoking Big Ideas, head to

our website. I'm Tony Jones,

until next time. Closed Captions by CSI.

This Program is Captioned


The air that came out from

the hole was extremely high in

carbon monoxide, very high in

methane and fairly low in oxygen. The grim reality for 29

missing miners in New Zealand.

It's a very unstable

environment and currently it is

not safe to go underground. It

may never reach that point, but

if it does, rest assured we're

ready. Tensions run high on the

Korean peninsula after the North and South