A note to subscribers has become the source of grumblings in corners of The Sydney Morning Herald’s newsroom this morning, as some staffers grow frustrated about once again becoming “the story” so soon after the paper was forced to issue an apology for its reporting on Rebel Wilson.
The Herald’s editor, Bevan Shields, stood firmly behind the paper’s work in a note to subscribers late Wednesday, following a spray from former prime minister Paul Keating that took aim at a multi-part series titled “Red Alert” published by the paper and its sister publication, The Age, which warned of Australia’s involvement in an imminent war with China.
In an address to the National Press Club on Wednesday, Keating labelled the Herald’s political editor Peter Hartcher a “psychopath”, and suggested the paper’s foreign affairs and national security correspondent, Matthew Knott, hang his head in shame for writing the stories.
One week earlier, Keating described the series as “the most egregious and provocative news presentation” he’d seen in 50 years of public life.
In his note, Shields took aim at Keating himself, likening the former prime minister to former US president Donald Trump.
The editor claimed Keating disregarded “important” recent events, including comments made by China’s foreign minister, as well as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s appearance in San Diego to announce AUKUS, which he said was “sobering confirmation” of a deteriorating security situation in the Indo-Pacific.
“For years, we have laughed along with Keating as he hurls his trademark barbs. But it’s not funny anymore,” Shields wrote.
“His attack on Wong, defence of the CCP and the Donald Trump-like abuse of journalists doing their jobs show just how far removed from the political mainstream Keating’s views and behaviour have become.”
Inside the newsroom, the series landed to mixed reviews, Crikey understands. Sources say the reporting has prompted internal criticism of varying shades: some say worthy subject matter was let down by poor reporting; others say it should never have made it into print.
ABC’s Media Watch didn’t take well to the series, either. Host Paul Barry called it “extraordinary stuff”, citing Keating’s criticisms alongside those of Nick Bisley, dean of humanities and social sciences and professor of international relations at La Trobe University, who called the reporting “hyperbolic”.
Shields in his note to subscribers said Media Watch “professes to be the arbiter of good and bad reporting” but that it failed in its review of the paper’s “Red Alert” series to offer Herald leadership a right of reply before airing the segment. In his note to subscribers, The Age editor Patrick Elligett hammered the same line.
“We will write to the ABC demanding an on-air apology for Media Watch’s hypocrisy and poor standards,” Shields wrote.
In a tweet on Thursday morning, Barry said news outlets like the Herald don’t need to be quoted by Media Watch to defend their journalism. “They have their own megaphone — as you can see,” he wrote, tweeting out a link to Shields’ note to subscribers.
“But we did summarise their defence and quote from the SMH editorial. Fair and reasonable IMHO.”
Corners of the Herald newsroom say the controversy, so soon after the publication was forced to apologise for its reporting on Rebel Wilson’s relationship with Ramona Agruma, has become another embarrassment that risks undermining the paper’s credibility.
Shields told Crikey he had nothing to add to his note to subscribers, and declined to comment. A spokesperson for the ABC said it has nothing to add to Barry’s tweet.
Australian newspapers can dish it out but have a very low tolerance level to criticism of their own shortcomings. Hands up those who think the standard of commercial reporting in Australia is of a high standard? The ABC is always voted the most trusted news source by the populace…& for valid reasons.
The first day’s sensational headline to the SMH ‘Red Alert’ series guaranteed not bothering to read further.
Under the influence of financial and ideological imperatives, vested and self-interest contaminating and polluting news – misleading ‘rubes’ for selfish reasons.
What does anyone expect nowadays from Australian legacy media; another cartel or oligopoly allowed to fester under and/or support LNP policies*?
Exemplified by now employing, ‘political activists’ masquerading as journalists, too close to power, too far from society, focus on now and use other PR techniques, over good analysis in favour of ‘wedging’. PR techniques include persuading voters via legacy media’ curated content going to social media for further dissemination, via other ‘activists’ or ‘influencers’, to reinforce the messaging.
*When they hit the financial walls they can be sold off &/or broken up according to their authoritarian ‘free market’ ideology for everyone else….
It seems the Age and SMH handpicked specialists with a certain view. They would have had more credibility had they also run specialists with a different view. They made their decision about the line they’d take before they chose informants accordingly. That doesnt lead to a nuanced or honest debate. So I agree it was fear mongering. Even if you think China is a serious concern, and there is plenty of argument for that, it doesn’t follow that you effectively only present one facet of what is a complex multi layered discussion. Or should be. They are meant to be informing the public not cheering a very particular view on.
Exactly – it wasn’t a debate, it was a Hartcher-led circle jerk – a mass debate without the mass.
It was, as cryptic xworders would notice, a perfect example of ‘I heard‘ – say ‘mass debate‘ aloud and it describes the entire farrago of mendacity.
SMH needs a clean out, starting with Shields. The standard of journalism in that place has been on a downward trajectory for quite some time.
Ever since the Channel 9 merger, Fairfax has become totally lobotomized.
So true. Some really journos at Fairfax went to the AFR and they have gone downhill there too.
Delete your browser history and close tabs then you see the articles again.
Lets add the West Australian tabloid to that which has also become lazy and lobotomized, with respect to the many young and hardworking journalists there.
The West Australian has played the China issue with more or less a straight bat. WA economy is very dependent on China. The West Australian is more obsessed with sharks and bikers than geo politics.
The West Australian? Low brow conservative and very parochial. Known in the trade as the Worst Australian…
Although the decline of SMH began after Wokka, the speed increased after Maserati Hywood took over as editor in 2010 – he had the brilliant idea of strengthening the bottom line by sacking journalists.
Shows, doesn’t it?
Agree it needs a clean out. I’d start with the Chairman, as I believe the declining standard of its “Journalism” is a symptom of his presence.
What credibility?
Peter Hartcher has been writing the Ten Minutes’ Hate about China since at least 2020. I cancelled my sub to Domain, or whatever his paper’s called, as a result. I am concerned about the foreign policy strategy of a number of major countries but found his blurted pieces unlikely to help either substantive global tension or my understanding of it.
Yep. I buy each Quarterly Essay from my newsagent. Hartcher wrote no 76: Red Flag: waking up to China’s challenge. I was unable to finish it.
I see his name and know what is coming up so I just don’t read it. The only appropriate use for it that I can see is to keep the floor of a public convenience clean.
I came upon a pile of SMHs from the last week in a throw-out and noticed the double front pages.
This used to be called a ‘wrap-around’- once rare and used for special events or shoddy advertising.
How long has this been the norm for the daily edition?