This threat shows how hostile the public debate has become

Twitter is a particularly bilious place where sensible, well-meaning discussion is seldom encountered and the people who shout the loudest are rewarded with “likes” and “shares” which are frequently misinterpreted as celebrity and influence. Hatred thrives on platforms like this.

Loading

But as Grant pointed out in his farewell Q+A speech, it’s not only social media that can have a negative impact on public debate. “The media” more broadly also has a responsibility to help maintain the standard of discussion.

We take that responsibility very seriously at The Age, as we do with our responsibility to report all sides of a story and provide a forum for respectful debate. That’s a difficult balance sometimes, but one we approach with care and good intentions. As other publications gravitate towards polemics and become further ideologically entrenched, our attempt to challenge people with a plurality of views and bring nuance and thoughtfulness to the discussion is becoming an increasingly lonely quest.

Our leaders, too, have a big part to play in lifting the tone. The way they speak to the public, to journalists and to each other, plays a large part in setting the tone for the way issues are discussed and debated. Heckling during parliamentary question time, getting personal at press conferences, or being unnecessarily aggressive towards opponents can pollute the discussion as well.

Journalists know their work will invite public critique and scrutiny. They expect it. It is simultaneously thrilling and daunting that, in 2023, we can receive instant feedback on our work.

Loading

And that is a good thing. More than ever we are part of a genuine conversation with readers. We should listen to them more often, in my view.

This message I send to you each week, for example, attracts many responses. And because it goes exclusively to an audience of loyal Age subscribers, the correspondence is almost entirely intelligent and respectful. Sometimes you disagree with me, but that’s OK. You mostly do it politely and I enjoy the discussion. I listen, too. Many of you have suggested ideas that have become stories. Some of you have influenced my thinking on editorial matters or brought something to my attention. So keep it coming!

I just wish all my colleagues at The Age and elsewhere in the media had the same healthy rapport and standard of debate that I have with you, dear subscribers.

Now, before I bid you an excellent weekend, there is something else I wanted to mention.

Several of the journalists you support through your subscription have been recognised for their hard work with nominations for the mid-year Walkley Awards.

As we reported today:

• Political reporter Paul Sakkal is in contention in the short-form journalism category for a series of stories in November that revealed Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews was privately quizzed by the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission during Operation Daintree investigations.

• Melissa Fyfe and Jacqueline Maley’s April Good Weekend feature Rethinking Rape is vying for the Walkley Foundation’s Our Watch award. The piece examined how convictions for sexual assault in Australia remain low despite skyrocketing reports, with particular attention on the brutal legacy the legal process often leaves for complainants.

All of these reporters are more than deserving of the awards they are nominated for, I’m sure you’ll agree. Why don’t you drop them a line and tell them so? I’m sure they’d appreciate a positive message.

Patrick Elligett sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.