The following piece was originally published at blog The Spongeist. Crikey has republished with his permission…
If you work or are otherwise interested in the media industry, we live in interesting times. Digital distribution has drastically changed the landscape, creating a new state of play almost every day. For media professionals, keeping up with this change is incredibly challenging, but fortunately there are many excellent sources enabling you to do so, ranging from traditional media, to consultancies, to blogs.
While not very widely read (it is the eighth most popular newspaper), The Australian is the most serious-minded paper in the country. So it should be the best place to go for intelligent, comprehensive and knowledgeable analysis of the media industry, right? Not, unfortunately, on the latest evidence.
The right-leaning Australian has in the past become sidetracked by its own partisan political obsessions and petty vendettas, to (I believe) the detriment of its readership — as I’ve argued elsewhere. The latest example of this takes place in the paper’s Media Diary section, by veteran journo Caroline Overington. It’s a short snippet so I quote in full, but read it here:
ERIC Beecher’s nasty little website Crikey continues on its foul way. On Friday afternoon, it published the following comment from a reader: “The Australian will soon be deader than Frank Devine. Looks like it’s going to be a prolonged death, too, just like Frank’s!”
Devine was an editor of The Australian and father of Miranda Devine and a kinder, gentler soul you could not hope to meet.
Crikey has allowed readers to post disgusting comments before, but allowing a reader to gloat about a good man’s death is perhaps a new low.
Then again, it was just weeks ago that Crikey readers posted slurs about James Packer’s wife and children so foul and defamatory they could not be republished anywhere.
This was followed up again the next day. I quote in full again so you can appreciate the full idiocy, but read it here:
Crikey has published what it regards as an apology for the foul behaviour of its readers. Here’s a snippet:
There’s more in the same vein: it’s not our fault, it’s readers who don’t know how to behave properly; we do our best to pull them up when we catch them at it.
One problem:
The comment about Frank Devine went up on Friday afternoon. Nobody in the comments thread said: “Hang on, that’s just awful” or “Hey, that’s cruel” — they just kept adding new comments.
The same thing happened when Crikey’s readers ripped into James Packer’s wife and children. Nobody said: “That’s a bit rough” or “Hold on, let’s leave the children out of our hate campaign”.
On the contrary, readers seemed to be competing to say something more putrid than was said before.
On both occasions, Crikey acted only when The Australian called them on it — which, when you think about it, tells you all you need to know. They are blind to how ugly they are.
So, essentially, The Australian’s Media Diary — “this week’s take on Australian media” — has taken to trawling through the comments section of another website in search of offensive material, and then holding the site accountable for its readers’ comments. Let’s take this point by point:
“Crikey has allowed readers to post disgusting comments before, but allowing a reader to gloat about a good man’s death is perhaps a new low.”
Crikey uses a post-moderation commenting policy, which means they check reader comments only after they’ve been published. Criticising Crikey for “allowing” this reader to comment is meaningless — you are essentially criticising them for allowing any reader to comment, or for allowing reader comments full stop.
“There’s more in the same vein: it’s not our fault, it’s readers who don’t know how to behave properly; we do our best to pull them up when we catch them at it.”
Well, yes, Caroline. Crikey would say that — because it is true. Check Crikey’s Code of Conduct, which is freely available if you’re curious.
“One problem: The comment about Frank Devine went up on Friday afternoon. Nobody in the comments thread said: ‘Hang on, that’s just awful’ or ‘Hey, that’s cruel’ — they just kept adding new comments.”
Is it the job of Crikey readers to police other readers’ comments? To be fair, Crikey respectfully ask their readers to do just this in their Code of Conduct. And if they fail, is that Crikey’s fault? If there’s a factual error in The Australian do you blame your readers for not ringing you up and telling you?
“On both occasions, Crikey acted only when The Australian called them on it — which, when you think about it, tells you all you need to know.”
Well, it tells me all I need to know: Crikey has a post-moderated commenting system that seems to work, in that they actively remove offensive comments in response to complaints. Job well done.
*Read the rest of the post here
so has Crikey re-published this blog as an insightful piece on new Vs traditional media or a equally cheap shot at the OZ?
You have to wonder if maybe the gyst of The Australian’s gripe isn’t this “competition” to their “pre-digested/filtration” system of what constitutes news – printing what they see fits their message/agenda, ignoring that which doesn’t, while playing politics.
Yes the original post was bloody tasteless – but that’s the problem with “free speech”, who “judges” taste?
There are some that would see what “Limited News” have presented as “news” over the years, has been pretty tasteless too. Let alone the consequences of their policy of acting as PR managers and apologists for the party they think we all should vote for. The way they spin news to make their LNP (“Limited News Party”) look better (seemingly unable to bring themselves to embellish, with the vehemence and negativity, revelations about “the Left” that they seem to attract in their publications) to influence voter perceptions of “fitness to govern”.
Someone who works for News Ltd pretending to the moral high ground on moderation of blog posts? Comedy gold.
You haven’t been listening in on anyone’s phone calls, have you?
I’m not sure that Crikey’s code of conduct asks readers to police other readers’ comments. I presume this is the relevant clause –
‘We prefer not to have to edit or delete comments on our website, so please help us uphold the code of conduct so we don’t have to.’
I read this as enjoining posters to uphold the code in their own posts, not in others’ posts. But maybe I’m misreading the code.
ROTFL Ah bless her…. “Eric Beecher’s nasty little website Crikey.”
I mean, who could resist subscribing (with actual money) to *that* little beauty?
As opposed to forking out the readies for a “once tolerable” dead tree operation called “The Australian”.