Future of local journalism

Commenting on the story: Killing The Messenger: News Corp’s bid to save failed weekly

How long can News Corporation keep The Advertiser and Messenger Press trading?

Massive editorial and production cuts, rationalisations, consolidations in both mastheads and a circulation base falling at 9 per cent per year at The Advertiser, means it’s last days are nigh.

I have no love for the Tiser, although some of its reporters are first class. Many of its stories make BuzzFeed look like The Washington Post. It’s pious hypocrisy is an embarrassment to all South Australians and those businesses associated with it.

The Messenger though was a training ground for many South Australian journalists who went on to do great things. Yet asking ratepayers to fund News Corporation publications is outrageous and a sign of desperation by an organisation that has lost its way in the digital world.

The question I pose is much larger. I call on Premier Stephen Marshall to contact Rupert Murdoch and confirm that News Corporation will still have some form of publishing presence in South Australia. If not, sell up and move on. – Malcolm King

In the 10 years I have lived in the eastern suburbs I don’t believe I have ever once read a Messenger newspaper or for that matter opened one.

My entire interaction with it entails picking it up off my front lawn – despite having rung Messenger Press to request they stop delivering it – swearing under my breath, and throwing the damn thing in the bin.

I dare say there are thousands of households which are none too different. Is anyone really interested in what it has to say any more?

Perhaps my biggest gripe is that being printed on expensive, nonabsorbent glossy paper (wholly unsure why this should be necessary) it is not even useful to line the cat’s litter bin.

I would be seriously annoyed if my local council wastes yet more ratepayer money, which they are all too good at, on propping this up.

Their time has passed. – Peter Marsden

In hindsight it might have been preferable for councils to save the Messenger and use it as their council’s newsletter, instead of each council having separate entities to stay in contact with their local communities. – Mike Lesiw 

Once it’s gone it’s gone

Commenting on the story: Protest over Shed 26 as Grand Designs host joins campaign

Telling another city your opinion in relation to demolishing a building or not is tantamount to telling another parent how to raise their children. You do so at great risk and subsequently often avoid doing so.

I was randomly flicking past a news story and my eye was caught by an image of Building 26.

I read on and thought surely they are not going to destroy such a singularly beautiful building.

I resign myself to being a distant observer inappropriately telling another city how to behave. I understand economics, I understand costs, I understand thoughtful ministerial considerations and so on.

Here is the best advice I can muster. If you can look at Building 26, then close your eyes and imagine the proposed replacement. Then open your eyes again.

If this exercise doesn’t fill you with the visual joy that the current building does, even in its current state of disrepair, then don’t proceed. It’s sometimes that simple. – PG Vinèy

I would be interested to know who is the owner listed on the Land Title for Shed 26. Is it the State Government or a SA government agency?

If so, then the land and Shed 26 still belong to the people of SA, not Cedar Woods, despite any contractual arrangements.

Cedar Woods will rush to demolish this building because once it’s gone, then that’s it. So the destruction of Port Adelaide history continues, by the government who are supposed to protect us from greedy developers and the developers themselves.

The Le Cornu example is misleading as the Le Cornu site was privately owned, this site I presume is still owned by the SA government.

For 25 years the maritime history of Port Adelaide has been destroyed or treated with contempt by SA governments.

I’m absolutely sick of the lack of imagination by governments and developers in repurposing existing heritage assets, only to be replaced structures that could be from anywhere. We deserve better. – Adrian Fechner

Social and economic benefits

Commenting on the story: Drop the ‘dole bludger’ tag and increase Newstart

There is a wealth of evidence supporting the argument that a substantial increase in Newstart will actually reduce the number of people on benefits. 

We only have to look to Northern Europe where unemployment benefits tend to be as high as 75% of the recipients last salary to see that this is true.

These nations do not find that people prefer to be on the dole, but rather paying them enough to live in dignity and maintain their self-respect acts as a spur to finding that next job – or in the case of the older unemployed they tend to engage in voluntary work.

What people tend to forget that the pay packet is only part of the motivation that gets us out of bed in the morning. 

Work gives you a sense of identity – when you meet someone new people do not ask how much you earn but what you do for a living – being in work is being part of society. 

Work connects you to society hence it is also the reason that people stick at jobs that are boring and repetitive.  

This is the right time to make a significant increase in  Newstart payments for the legislation that set up the job network has enough safeguards in it to very quickly identify those who will not actively seek out employment, and given the overseas experience they would constitute a small percentage of a provider’s caseload. – John Tons

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.