It survived 128 years through the travails of federation, depression and two world wars. It outlasted every one of the countless colonial, state and federal Governments it mocked. It battled back from financial oblivion and prospered under the Packer family’s control.
But just a few months in the hands of venture capitalists and Australia’s most famous magazine is dead.
The Bulletin has ceased publication. The copies that hit news stands yesterday are the last to be published, bringing to an emphatic close a remarkable chapter in Australian journalism.
Perhaps the new rallying cry for the nation’s media should be “Australia for the Venture Capitalist,” as the bean counters at CVC Asia Pacific — the company that now owns 75% of the former Packer family’s Publishing and Broadcasting Limited — have had their way at the expense of one of the nation’s great institutions.
The Bulletin first launched under the guiding hand of J Archibald (pictured right with Henry Lawson), of the art prize fame, and John Haynes on 31 January 1880. It was, for at least the first fifty years of its life, at the centre of Australian public debate. It was unashamedly nationalistic and republican.
It brought us Banjo Patterson and Henry Lawson as well as legions of other significant literary and journalistic figures.
But The Bulletin’s deep seated racism also defined Australia’s xenophobia for decades. Through the anglophile cartoons of Norman Lindsay, The Bulletin depicted an evil forbidding world of oriental hordes devouring the nation. The magazine distrusted Jews and yet rallied the nation against Nazism. It was fearful of the world outside our borders and yet abhorred protectionism.
It was a paradox in other ways too. It was firmly capitalist and yet respectful of trade unionism.
When James Packer’s grandfather, Sir Frank, took over in the 1960s, The Bulletin had a renaissance. It prospered under the editorial leadership of Donald Horne and helped engender a new confidence in the nation. Its circulation grew too, to 100,000, giving it a sense of security that now seems laughable.
As the climate changed, The Bulletin modernised just enough to remain at least moderately influential. It incorporated the international news magazine, Newsweek and recruited tough and respected commentators and columnists. It also built successfully on its relationship with the then highest rating TV network, Channel Nine.
But, as CVC has shown in the decision to run down the Nine network’s once popular Sunday program, there is little respect for the loss-leading, high quality end of PBL’s media assets. In the quest for profits, The Bulletin has been sacrificed, and we are all the losers for it.
What people said:
Laurie Oaks: “It’s obviously very sad and upsetting. We all knew it was in trouble and hoped that an alternative solution could be found. It’s been in trouble for a long time, for as long as I’ve been involved. You only need to look at the ads in the magazine to see that it was in trouble but that doesn’t make it any less of a shock now. It’s a huge loss to Australian journalism. The Bulletin’s place in Australian journalism was unique as it covered politics, crime, health and show biz from an Australian perspective in a way that Newsweek or Time could not. But it’s also a loss to Australian history.”
Harold Mitchell of Mitchell and Partners: “This is a great shame. A really big organization should be encouraged to find a way to make an icon like the Bulletin survive. Even in the modern digital world it’s been a fantastic independent voice in Australian history and has broken big stories, driven by its editor in chief, John Lehman. The circulation has dropped steadily. It was at 100,000 in the mid 1990s. In June 2003 it had dropped to 70.395. By June 07 it had fallen to 60,108 and by September last year, the last audit, it had fallen again to 57,551. So all the good stories don’t mean much when the circulation is falling.”
Mungo MacCallum: ”Apart from the crossword (my bread and butter! Woe is me!) I have never had all that much to do with it … obviously it’s a great loss, whatever you think of the quality recently. It’s interesting that it’s happened just when The Monthly and Griffith Review are starting to turn the corner. What, if anything, can we deduce? Have another drink.
Well said, Johnny. I was a big fan of Bulletin through 80s & into 90s but then they drifted off hard stories & became just another fluff mag filling pages between ads. Perhaps they got too close to political & business establishment to write good stories.
Gotta agree with tony it had stopped being worthwile in the late one of my english lecturers described it as the bank clerks womens weekly. half of it was newsweek anyway
The Bulletin is a good read…and what about Patrick Cook? His satire is brilliant. My partner and I have had many laughs-out-loud, especially during the recent election campaign. Why not axe some of the other crap magazines. Dam and bugger!
Are you all serious? Did you actually read the amount of tripe in there? A magazine that has to give away cheap watches to anyone that subscribes has major problems as it is. Vacuum my foot. Good riddance, I say.
The Bulletin was reportedly losing millions of dollars a year. The decision to close had little to do with profit, it was more fundamental than that. Would you criticise them for shutting down any other kind of business?