It’s been exactly one year since The New York Times set up an Australian bureau in Sydney. And almost as long since some Australians began grumbling about it.
Grievances — mostly from local journos on social media — include perceptions the NYT is needlessly explaining Australia to Australians, engaging in parachute journalism, and not employing enough local journalists.
Most of the ire, however, seems to be directed firmly at the writing style and tone of bureau chief Damien Cave, mainly because of things like this:
Think of the neighborhood butchers. And the chemists. And, well, all the small storefront business, and the crowded shopping centers — this, my friends, is not the way Americans shop. Ordering online and waiting is the reality in cities across the United States, but here in this remarkably wealthy country, brick-and-mortar retail is still king.
For his part, Cave admits to being flummoxed by the “combative response”.
“The vast majority of our stories are written by Australians, not Americans,” he informed me by email. “[But] our audience is global, not just local, and so we will occasionally explain things to the world that Australians already know about — to the chagrin of those who think it’s obvious to everyone, everywhere. For example, what Bunnings, a pokie, or a postal survey is.”
I’ve watched the drama unfold with a mixture of interest and amusement. Interest, because I’m a media criticism nerd (my academic research focusses on western media coverage of the Middle East); and amusement, because it was apparent to me quite early on that the NYT wasn’t doing anything in its coverage that English-language journalists don’t do as a matter of routine when covering foreign places.
What is Western objectivity?
If It Happened There, a now-sadly defunct satirical series on Slate penned by Joshua Keating, described events in America “using the tropes and tone normally employed by the American media to describe events in other countries”. In other words, it showed Americans what an “otherised” America would look like.
This is how Keating “covered” the firing of James Comey:
The surprise dismissal of a powerful security services chief Tuesday night is widely seen here as a part of strongman President Donald Trump’s efforts to sideline critics and consolidate power, raising concerns about the state of democracy and the rule of law in this fragile but strategically vital North American country.
Keating is exaggerating, but not by much. And our own media takes a similar approach. Here is Fairfax Media’s Farid Farid explaining Iran:
Iran’s sphere of influence has also widened in recent years. Its longstanding funding for the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah and concomitant support for the Assad regime in Syria has been added to as it reinforces the Iraqi army and Shiite militias in their fight against Islamic State and provides logistical support to the insurgent Houthis in Yemen.
Although tempting to put this down to a problem of western journalism, Kenyan journalist Patrick Gathara argues that, when it comes to the coverage of the African continent, journalists from other African nations also tend to report with a lack of nuance and context, they just don’t attract the same level of scrutiny as western outlets.
“While Africans in almost every country on the continent have opportunity to be regularly appalled by their portrayal on CNN, Al Jazeera and BBC,” he explains, “it is rare that Kenyans will flip the channel to check what Nigerian journalists are reporting about them.”
Gathara does add the caveat that the offending African journalists seem to be taking their cues from their western counterparts, applying western perceptions of Africa as fact rather than interpretation. The dangers of which, of course, were spelled out to us 40 years ago by Edward Said in Orientalism.
The question then, is not what is the NYT doing wrong, but, are current western media conventions adequate for covering foreign places fairly and without making the local population cringe?
The West vs The Rest
“Australian readers overall have been responding positively,” Cave says. He notes subscriptions from Australia have more than doubled since the bureau opened, indicating the resistance is coming mostly from some corners of the media itself (one Australian headline referred to it as “The New York Times of Our Lives”).
BuzzFeed editor, and former NYT contributor, Christine Kenneally, concurs. “Perfectly reasonable, good will statements, stories, and questions are taken as offensive or patronising,” she told me by email. “Perhaps this is too simplistic but it seems there’s a misperception that the NYT considers itself somehow superior to the local press.”
But is this a simplistic assessment? Regardless of the NYT‘s benign intentions, perhaps what is happening here is that Australian readers seem more comfortable with the NYT than Australian journalists do because readers implicitly understand that, in this specific instance at least, what they are reading is an interpretation of reality, rather than the real thing. Journalists, on the other hand, seem less than thrilled at the prospect of having their own journalism reflected back at them.
My family hails from the Levant and I’m accustomed to (though no less frustrated by) coverage of the Syrian war written by journalists and “experts” that frequently follows a cringeworthy western conceit. People and places they are visiting (or in the case of Syria, not even visiting) are described with such detached certainty it recalls Said’s scathing assessment that western writers on the Middle East are convinced they know Arabs better than Arabs could ever know themselves. The presumption being that only the West can be “objective”. Who said so? The West, of course. If anything, the NYT‘s Australian coverage is far less objectionable given the stakes are not exactly high.
In a world long ago divided into the “West” and the “Rest”, what some Australian journalists are suddenly, unexpectedly, and unintentionally experiencing is that sensation of what it feels likes to be part of the Rest, to be spoken about rather than doing the speaking for others. Unsurprisingly, they don’t like it one little bit.
What do you think of The New York Times‘ work in Australia? Send us your comments and letters to boss@crikey.com.au.
A wonderful refreshing take. If only there was a global perspective like NYT from an antipodean perspective – an Al-Jazeera of the south. Nonetheless I subscribe to NYT because their platform is so good, especially their Asia roundup. The Age app is execrable.
Al-Jazeera began well but it is now indistinguishable from the BBC; not altogether a bad thing but it can no longer be said that Al-Jazeera is in anyway alternative. I, for one, could do without an Al-Jazeera of the south but something like the Straits Times but with a bit more analysis : perhaps.
Why don’t you just use the websites rather than bother with the limited & execrable apps? What does the app offer that the website doesn’t? And yes I read crikey on the Web, on all my devices including my phone to write this.
I subscribed to the NYT newsletter, quickly found that I didn’t like it and attempted two or three times to cancel. The ‘cancel’ option didn’t work so I redirected it into junk mail where it goes reliably every day and I never see it. I wonder how many other ‘subscribers’ don’t actually read it?
To invoke Said’s brain burst as other than a sad admission of wasting time suggests a want of wit.
As for “Said’s scathing assessment that western writers on the Middle East are convinced they know Arabs better than Arabs could ever know themselves. The presumption being that only the West can be “objective”. Who said so? The West, of course.”
And, demonstrably, experience. The hoary old stat that more books in Arabic are translated into European languages every year than have ever been translated from a European anguage into Arabic.
Effective introspection and behavioural self management is not a noticeable trait.
To which Said would respond, “Knowledge is power.”
Invert those. Sorry, long day.
The question is : does (from a distance) Power depend (ultimately) on knowledge or is it the other way about. Play with the graph for a moment or two. Power on the ‘Y’ axis seems to be more creditable. While knowledge may come to be ameliorated by power it isn’t so clear that knowledge ‘depends’ (knowledge on the ‘Y’ axis) on power.
So yes : the perils of long days. The first association seems to be correct (after all).
Said borrows from Foucault’s analysis. Power requires knowledge and knowledge engenders power. So no, I definitely meant “power is knowledge.” The European project of translating Arab texts and studying the Arab world was not driven by mere intellectual curiosity but as part of the colonising process; to know you is to rule you.
AR: You clearly don’t know how funny/ironic your comment is: The Arabs’ early translations into various European languages of libraries of eastern science, including medicine, maths, algebra (an Arab word) philosophy, as well as stories (Aesop’s Fables comes to mind but there are many) is one of the great gifts of early Islam. And the revelation of an Indian zero to Europe/China.
Not only that but the Ottomans devoured the Alexandria library, read the Greek philosophers, were influenced by what they read. Empires fall, the wheel turns.
Yep, latter day European powers got into translating Arabic, among other languages, you have to know your possible future enemy/opponents/colonial subjects.
http://blog.globalizationpartners.com/arabic-translation-history.aspx – among many other easy-to-find web references.
I didn’t even know about the NYT’s Australian bureau and I consume more news media than 99% of Australians soooo… bang up marketing job there.
I find it hilarious that it’s even a complaint that coverage from an American news outlet, which they would no doubt expect to be read by some of their US readers, bothers to explain Australia. So what? As long as they aren’t presenting Australia as the country where everyone is throwing shrimps on the barbies and hunting crocs. Or confusing us with Austria again.
Said had his critics. Indeed to end of of Said’s life he had a major falling out with Hitchins (for what it might be worth to anyone). It so happens that I have mentioned Orientalism on rather more than one occasion when, it seemed to me that the (insular – non-traveling) arm-chair theorists were in dire need of correction.
As for the NYT it was the only paper (of my reading) that conveyed that Trump possessed some tangible chance of becoming president; in other words the coverage amounted to the antithesis of The Guardian or (for that matter) Aunty. I haven’t superscribed to the “newsletter” but like all newsletters (that I have read) – particularity those from political parties – assume an education level of about 10 years of age.
While by no means original in any sense the article does serve as a useful reminder of (just how might one put it) indexes of comparison.
Please let me know who else has made these arguments in relation to the NYT and Australia. I’d like to know who I am inadvertently ripping off so I can properly credit them.
I was taking the wider view Ruby. I don’t think there is (at last I am unaware of) any specific comparison between (e.g) what is or has been written by the BBC or The Guardian regarding Australia and ditto for the NYT.
As an example, as recently as of today, there is a review on Swartz Media regarding yet another biography of Patrick White; this time by Christos Tsiolkas but utilising the perspectives of, as the reviewer put it, “a lesser-known book by the critic and academic Vrasidas Karalis ..[regarding] his Recollections of Mr Manoly Lascaris”. As the review expressed it : White came to assess Australia vis a vis the experiences of Lascaris. For those that prefer “simple” the adage : “(military) history is written by the victors” might suffice.
No one (at least not I) is accusing you of plagiarism. As conveyed : the article is useful, if only as a reminder, but the theme is not original. The theme exists in any course on discourse analysis or indeed anything with an oblique reference to post modernism.’
I trust that I have clarified any confusion that my have existed.
OMG. You read that stuff? Surely life’s too short 🙂
I’m wondering why you felt the need to disparage my work in this manner. I don’t claim to have invented discourse analysis (hence my reference to Said) or to be the first to point out the patronising tone employed by western journalists covering other countries (hence my references to Keating). I am however, as far as I know, original in suggesting that this may be what lies behind the resistance to Cave’s coverage of Australia. It’s pretty frustrating that you felt the need to put me down for no apparent reason.
{apologies for grabbing this space but there is none beneath my posts}
Believe it or not, Ruby, I have been drumming my thumbs on the desk for some minutes considering options for the best course for a response. Let’s do it in reverse order : i.e. with your observations to my remarks appearing last.
[snip ..] “weed out those who dismiss the words of a writer and media researcher because of her ethnic background but I guess not.”
I don’t for a moment, Ruby, claim any great knowledge of the Crikey readership but it does seem to be that it is as long a a piece of string. There are some very talented and critical (read knowledgeable) readers and there are some who are seeking (it seems) a de facto education. Within that lot Crickey has managed to attract its (fair) share of knee-jerkers or those who respond to Pavlov’s whistle or bell.
I don’t think you are being criticised for your Semitic background (in the strict sense of the adjective). For these guys you have failed to “join the dots”. I’d bet a grand that these guys have never heard (much less read) Raymond Williams, Althusser, Walter Benjamin or (indeed) Middlemarch – i.e. Eliot; all of whom Said refers to in the introduction and first chapter of the book that you cite. Of course others are mentioned including Kissinger and Gibbon.
In all humility, if you are going to attempt something of a project as you have done, a good deal more needs to be “linked-in” if only for context. If such isn’t possible in the space for the article attempt an alternative approach contrasting a (western) perceived view that prevailed (on account of power/authority) with an alternative perspective that came to be vindicated. A few come to mind just in typing this sentence. Now, to me.
“Said borrows from Foucault’s analysis. Power requires knowledge and knowledge engenders power.
In the long term : possibly but in the short term (Discipline and Punish or Ernest Mandel) brute force will do (for power). Knowledge certainly engenders power hence Power deserving to be on the ‘Y’ axis; my assertion. As to Foucault – well : for the empiricists among us : no! So, on this basis alone, I assert what I have done.
“The European project of translating Arab texts and studying the Arab world was not driven by mere intellectual curiosity but as part of the colonising process”.
yes; as with stamp-collecting – agreed. Having made that point the ‘Arab world’ salvaged a good deal of the Greek of the ancient world which was damned fortunate for the early (European) Middle Ages. The literate were among the first to starve as the western Roman Empire dissolved. No messaging with Constantinople until some centuries later.
“to know you is to rule you”. Indeed! Short version follows : the Turkish lecturer for Middle East Economics (some decades ago) declared within minutes into the first lecture that the Middle East was impossible to comprehend without a solid foundation in Islam. So we (all) learnt Islam and a failure in Islam implied an outright failure for the course. As an aside I was the kid that won the Divinity Prize each year. More could be written.
Lastly, “I’m wondering why you felt the need to disparage my work in this manner.”
.mmm ! stumped! I actually wrote that your article was a useful reminder which I don’t consider to be an act of disparagement and – for the record – I certainly did not (or intend to) “put you down”. For the 3rd? time I was taking the wider view. I trust the foregoing suffices as a clarification (that I attempted previously). That you happened to mention Cave and Keating is incidental – but disagree by all means.
As to a “nation response” to international criticism Australians are not much concerned. Particular reporters may react in non-forecastable directions [or more predictable of one works for Murdoch/Fairfax] but the population (as someone on the list pointed out) in general doesn’t give a damn (and will continue to think what they do anyway). In this (small) regard the lists on Crikey prove the rule.