Crikey is now reporting on Josh Bornstein’s speech.
Calling Josh on his supposed “IR club” vested interests, and saying “he would say that,” just serves to further emphasize his point about the failure to identify business commentators’ interests, and critically assess their comments having regard to those interests.
Today the leader of my national practice group, Josh Bornstein, made a great speech to the AI Group national conference.
I’ve had the pleasure of addressing that conference myself. It’s a great opportunity to talk directly to people on the ‘other side of the fence’ from those I act for, to (ahem) give them the benefit of a union lawyer’s view about IR.
Josh pulled no punches – you can read his speech here.
His speech has broader ramifications than talking about IR. It talks about the way that IR is reported in the ‘old media‘. Specifically, Josh takes aim at journalists who uncritically repeat assertions made by those with vested interests, without considering the validity of what they are saying.
It’s an issue of whether journalists should be investigators or mere stenographers – a point made by Dr Christopher Scanlon of La Trobe regarding the role of journalism with society.
I am in Daily Life today, with a short piece about porn at work. I don’t have particularly strong views for or against p-rn generally, but I do think it doesn’t belong at work. Some of the commenters seem to disagree with me. That’s up to them, but might be a bit of a worry for their HR managers, from a vicarious liability perspective. Time for some EEO training, I think.