Virtual world all sound and fury, no substance
Plenty of the boys wanted the sports section, the wonks grabbed pages dealing with politics, a few had favourite columnists, most lingered over underwear ads and pictures of girls and I couldn’t resist the foreign pages.
The papers were torn apart and shared around. We sank into the world of beyond, muttering disbelief here, bawling outrage there and nodding in agreement with those writers who shared our varied prejudices.
A few of the smarter masters recognised that the daily papers could be employed in the fraught business of trying to engage us in class. The day’s news would be discussed, opinions explored and we were challenged to defend our views of current affairs. Occasionally, someone would feel so impassioned they’d write a letter to the editor. With a pen on paper.
It was another time. No iPads then, no mobile phones, smart or otherwise, no Twitter, no Facebook, no emails. Not even a computer, and fax machines were still in the future. The closest approximation of immediate information came from a fuzzy black-and-white TV and the transistor radios we hid beneath or pillows, which were almost always tuned to stations that played pop music. News could be digested in a measured manner, and there was time enough for a leisurely reaction and a chat about it.
This week in Parliament House, Canberra, hardened hacks and politicians of all stripe reacted as if a bolt of lightning had fried their brains simultaneously. Somewhere within the great house’s warren of offices, a merry prankster, mischievous mole or poorly informed activist had set a rumour aflame that Prime Minister Julia Gillard was about to be given the heave-ho by forces unspecified.
The most delicious version of how this might have occurred concerns an innocent visit to Parliament House by the Israeli ambassador, who dropped by on Thursday to farewell the former attorney-general, Robert McClelland, who is retiring. McClelland, to grant a little context, was dumped from the ministry by Gillard last year and is no friend to her at all.
When some excitable soul, identification unknown but likely from the Coalition, saw the ambassador’s security detail milling outside McClelland’s office, he or she mistook the bodyguards for Gillard’s protectors.
A mighty leap of logic was made: a spooked Gillard had rushed to Mr McClelland’s office, presumably to plead with him to stop a coup he might be involved in, or at the least to find out what was being hatched. Within a nanosecond the twittersphere was sparking, mobile phones were buzzing and trilling, email servers were in near meltdown, journalists were calling McClelland and camera crews were bolting towards the prime minister’s suite.
The rumour took wing far beyond Parliament House, for the electronic world knows no boundaries. Half of Australia and anyone with an interest anywhere in the world was alerted almost instantly. Were the Rudd forces involved? Why, Bill Shorten was plunged into the rumour mix, with some twits suggesting he was about to tap Gillard on the shoulder. In fact, he was in Melbourne, unwell.
And then, like a summer storm, the whole thing died, for it was nothing but a rumour, and the communications networks duly began killing it off. Nothing to see here.
The internet and instantaneous data transfer have granted us wonderful and almost unimagineable democratisation of information. All of us can have our say, and we can find and pass on news, views, pictures and video from anywhere. This very second. Grab the smartphone and get the fingers tapping.
But there is another side to the ledger. We have also been burdened by an age of impatience and a culture of overreaction. Everyone with a beef, a half-formed idea or no idea at all can toss a grenade into the ether. No need to sit and labour over a letter to the editor, to take 10 deep breaths and consider whatever thought may have popped into the mind before joining a debate. No need for discussion. Just do it. Now.
It is barely a step to the infection of conventional public discourse. Argue hard and fast. No time for courtesy, or even the checking of facts, for someone with faster fingers might beat you to the punch. The louder and nastier regularly win this race.
Traditional, or ‘‘legacy’’, media feels the itch to join in or lose out. The Murdoch-owned Sydney Daily Telegraph outdid the shrillest this week when, in the alleged defence of freedom of speech, it depicted Communications Minister Stephen Conroy as a tyrant comparable with Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao and Robert Mugabe. Dimwitted demonstrators searching for space in the modern tumult that clearly frustrates their understanding donned T-shirts outside Parliament House condemning Gillard as a ‘‘psychotic bitch’’.
It is too late, and meaningless anyway, to mourn a simpler age when schoolboys squabbled and yabbered over the daily newspaper as their singular window to wisdom. Yet even the Twitter-verballed Bill Shorten romanticised yesterday the idea of a place in which to take refuge from the new clamour. Opening a pub named Hogan’s Hotel at Wallan, 50 kilometres north-west of Melbourne, Shorten ruminated that a local pub was what poet Les Murray called ‘‘The common dish, around which we break bread and commune and know who we are in the neighbourhood, the valley, the region we live in’’.
‘‘The small act of sitting down and sharing a drink is a pressure valve in our democracy and in our society,’’ Shorten declared. ‘‘Because in the end a pub is not about food or drink or what is up on the screen or the menu, it’s about conversation. And conversation with peers, with mentors, with pupils, with parents, with sons and daughters, is the rite and passage of our humanity, our hellos and goodbyes, our grudges and redemptions, our making up when scalded in love, and saying sorry when we are in the wrong.’’
There’s a thought for our age. Next time we whip out the smartphone, it may be worth taking a breath and cogitating on the idea that it’s not about ‘‘what is up on the screen or the menu, it’s about conversation’’.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The article explains that social media and instant data transfer have democratised information, letting anyone share news, views, pictures and video immediately — but this has also bred impatience, overreaction and the rapid spread of half-formed ideas or rumours.
The piece recounts a rumour in Parliament House that Prime Minister Julia Gillard was about to be ousted, sparked by a mistaken sighting of an ambassador's security detail; the story spread almost instantly across Twitter, mobile phones and email before being killed off as unfounded.
The article highlights how quick, unchecked rumours can create noise and overreaction; investors are advised to be cautious because such stories often spread before facts are confirmed, so acting immediately on unverified political claims can lead to impulsive, poorly informed decisions.
Using the Daily Telegraph example, the article shows legacy media can amplify outrage with sensational headlines and imagery, which can skew public perception and stoke emotional responses — something investors should be mindful of when assessing news-driven market sentiment.
The article encourages taking a breath before reacting: check reliable sources, wait for confirmation, avoid joining the immediate online chorus, and prioritise measured conversation over instant posting — habits that help investors avoid impulsive trades driven by noise.
Drawing on Bill Shorten’s comments about pubs as places for conversation, the article suggests that slower, face-to-face dialogue and thoughtful debate provide perspective and a ‘pressure valve’ against the instant clamour of smartphones — useful for investors seeking to think clearly before acting.
The article implies investors should recognise the difference between fleeting online drama and durable information: resist immediate reactions to trending noise, focus on fundamentals and long‑term strategy, and use pauses for verification rather than trading on every headline.
Signs include rapid spread via social channels without official confirmation, dramatic leaps of logic (like mistaking security details for a politician’s guards), sensational headlines or language, and contradictory or thin sourcing — all clues to verify before acting.

