We published a Labor leadership speculation story last Monday. It was one of our most commented on stories that week. Trouble was, most of the comments told us to quit talking about it, concentrate on more important things and stop making up stories. Haters, all of you.
However, this latest round of leadership speculation, as The Sydney Morning Herald‘s Lenore Taylor rightly points out today, is not made up. BUT — and it is a big BUT — reporting on it requires “caution, judgment and the testing of what is said by sources who won’t be named.”
And that’s the caveat that gets missed by journalists and editors writhing around in what can only be described as close to a leadership speculation orgy. As Ben Eltham pointed out on Monday, “…last night I could count 811 articles on Google News for the search term “leadership speculation”. This morning it was 979. Most of the news articles I consulted were written almost identically…they asserted that Labor MPs are plotting against the prime minister, then carried a long series of quotes from senior Labor ministers saying there was no plotting, and that this was all a beat-up by the media.”
Our take: the story about unrest within Labor ranks is not made up. But it does not deserve a top story from us for a week straight, either. Especially if the drip feed consists of this kind of thing:
Headline: “Rudd supporters canvassed Oakeshott”
Scan to the bottom of paragraph five:
Oakeshott “said yesterday that Rudd supporters had canvassed him about change ‘in very general terms’ although not recently.”
There are rumblings, and then there are rumblings. That is not one of them. As press gallery journo Stephen Spencer tweeted this morning:
@sspencer_63: Leadership speculation: there’s no smoke without fire, but often the fire is a candle made out to be a bonfire.
Shine on.
To say nothing of journalists sitting around lighting each others f*rts, Mr Spencer.
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
After your indecent roll in the trough with other commercial media outlets over Federal Labour leadership, if you wish to keep any credibility at all as a conduit for genuine news, you must name the individuals in the Government who are responsible for the nonsense which currently blankets the country on this issue.
While the phantom author of the above article, ‘Crikey says’ who could be the cleaner, (But I presume the editor, would be courteous to advise readers), while the author seeks to justify Crikeys behaviour because “Lenore Taylor rightly points out”, is a cop out.
What in Taylors article proves her observation is correct. She is justifying her and her collegues ‘ roll in the trough’ (thanks Frank), nothing else.
This pathetic attempt to promote gossip into fact has been doing the rounds of the MSM ever since the 2010 election. Crikey kept out of the whispering game, until recently.
Credibility is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as ‘the quality of being trusted and believed in’ how can Crikey possibly be credible, when engaged in the promotion of an ongoing rumour campaign, kept alive by a media who have a definite agenda, associated with persons engaged in trying to bring down the PM and her Govt.
We are aware who those in the media are, but not their supposed sources, they remain nameless shadows. Ms Taylor seeks to protect those nameless shadows, while crying wolf when challenged. Was there a meeting in Adelaide by a Rudd shadow with some super brain? Hasn’t been denied, because the brain wont return Fairfax stirrer Phillip Cooreys phone call, but that’s enough to get the wagon wheel rolling again. That is an example of what Ms Taylor is attempting to justify. She lacks credibilty.
Smarten up your game Crikey, you have slipped badly so far in 2012.
We’ve had endless months of front-page speculation about this nonsense, backed up by anonymous tips and unnamed sources. On most issues, there’s the potential that those of us not in the inner sanctum could potentially verify that the stories were not just made up by the media. Not with this.
The most substantive fact to date seems to be that Oakeshott had been canvassed, months ago, by some low-level Labor staffer. At roughly the same levels, apparently, as he’d been canvassed by Lib staffers about supporting a Turnbull government.
Continuing to carry on with this rubbish is an insult to the intelligence of readers.