Scrutiny scrutinised

Another week, another pretty grim news cycle for, well, news.

First, Network Ten axed its long-running current affairs show, The Project. Not to be outdone, ABC followed suit by announcing it was dropping Q+A after more than 500 episodes.

There is, of course, just a touch of self-interest in a comms agency bemoaning the decline of the media. But something far more important is also at play.

Well-informed, properly resourced public scrutiny has never been more important, nor more under threat. The evidence is everywhere.

In Scotland, a lack of proper scrutiny led to lavish spending at the country’s water commission. Among the purchases were a $350 Mulberry wallet and a pair of $600 glasses. Nine meals, costing an average of $650 each, were also among items that were somewhat superfluously described as having “no clear business purpose.”

Scrutiny is particularly important when someone in a position of power attempts to break the rules and constraints placed on them. It’s not difficult to find an example of that.

In fact, Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which has been called the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history, was only properly scrutinsed by actual lawmakers when Elon Musk started pointing out clauses as part of the messiest breakup in history.

As institutions designed to hold power to account creak, the role of the media becomes more vital than ever.

The Project and Q+A were victims of commercial realities and falling audience numbers. But that doesn’t mean people don’t want informed opinion and tough scrutiny. It just means they’re looking for it elsewhere. The problem, of course, is that ‘elsewhere’ is increasingly AI-powered search engines which rely on earned media content for informed answers.

It’s a mess that dwarfs even the Trump-Musk fallout. And whether you watched The Project and Q+A or not, we’re all poorer without them.