Comments on: The Digital Economy: just for big business?

By: Philip Argy

Philip Argy — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:11:11 +0000

I’d suggest you could more productively turn your critique skills toward Dr Terry Cutler’s Innovation Review Report entitled “Venturous Australia”:
http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Pages/home.aspx

“Venturous” I assume is a Freudian admission, because it’s not at all adventurous, and it’s more deja vu than review!

Very light on the critical issues of digital literacy and competence which are essential life skills if Australia is to have any hope of remaining globally relevant let alone competitive.

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:51:41 +0000

@Philip Argy: Ah well “the reporter” in this case was me. Yes, I was writing solely from the perspective of Senator Conroy’s keynote. And, for that matter, from an emailed transcript rather than personal experience. I wasn’t even in the same city!

The process which produced this story is an interesting example of 21st Century media. I make no claim to “balance” or being a “journalist” — though I’ve worked as a media professional in various ways, primarily as a producer for ABC Radio in a distant past, and the fact that I write about current events for money means I get labelled a journo sometimes. I don’t subscribe to capital-J Journalism’s myth of “objectivity”, however, but instead write it openly from my personal perspective — putting my biases on the table for all to see.

I only heard about the Digital Economy Forum that morning. The information didn’t seem promising: only Big Business names were mentioned. When the transcript of Conroy’s speech arrived at 1010, the words seemed to reinforce my fears. I phoned Crikey’s editor, pitched the story and got a green light. By 1145 the story was written and submitted.

If you wanted to summarise the story in a sentence it would be, “Please God, don’t make this another Big Business pig trough!” As it turns out, it wasn’t. Good. And you’re right, Philip, it is very unusual for a Minister to stay for a day like this. Full marks to Conroy.

By: Philip Argy

Philip Argy — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:55:33 +0000

I think the original Crikey article was unbalanced, but at least it was clear that it had been written without the reporter being present for most of the event.

I agree with others that the discussion was robust and the Minister and his advisors not only participated but remained present for over 6 hours — I have never known a Minister to stay at an event for that amount of time. It reflects a genuine interest by Stephen Conroy that deserves much greater recognition and approval than he receives. It means that the entirety of the discussion went unfiltered to the Minister’s ears; it means that decisions can be made with the benefit of a broad range of perspectives being taken into account and without any minders’ spin affecting the outcome.

Great as Crikey normally is, on this occasion it was badly off the mark due to deadline constraints.