On almost any day of the week, Australia’s big newspapers go about the business of demanding accountability — of governments, public officials, politicians, business people, police officers, sports stars and many other public and private figures. That’s the way the system operates: the media assumes the role of society’s interrogator and their subjects are expected (or pressured) to respond to that scrutiny.
So it’s instructive to see what happens when the editors of those big newspapers are themselves placed under scrutiny.
The result — as we discovered as part of this week ‘s Crikey-Australian Centre for Independent Journalism’s Spinning the Media survey — is that when they’re on the receiving end, most Australian newspaper editors don’t consider themselves in the accountability business.
Only four of the 10 editors whose newspapers were surveyed in great detail agreed to be interviewed. And of those four, only one, Chris Mitchell of The Australian, was prepared to acknowledge and intelligently discuss the challenges created by the amount of PR that props up Australian journalism. The other three denied there was a problem, while six others (including all three editors in the Fairfax stable) simply refused to engage in any discussion about their professional practices.
We draw two conclusions from this response.
First, it’s no coincidence that the only editor prepared to engage in the debate happens to run the only truly vibrant, intelligent newspaper in the country.
And second, the accountability demanded of everyone else by the six editors who wouldn’t comment, is clearly a one-way street full of potholes.
‘Vibrant’, ‘intelligent’, and ‘newspaper’ are words that can rarely appear together in one sentence lacking any trace of irony, nowadays.
I admit that I buy the Australian for its serious news coverage, and for the relief of its (well, relatively speaking) lack of resemblance to its own website. The Fairfax newspapers – barring the Canberra Times – have unmade themselves as print news and disappeared up the arsehole of their own glib op-ed, magazine and celeb-driven web-chatter. But for me and for many others, reading the Oz is a constant fight with the nausea created by the relentless virulence of the anti-government stance now currently adopted by the Murdoch Press.
What’s vibrant or intelligent about a lackey?
It’s also bizarre that I listened to Sarah Everingham report on the inquest into the deaths of 5 Afghan men and the coroner distinctly said it would have been avoided if the navy had done their jobs and not terrorised the refugees.
The OZ has taken a 100 degree turn on their reportage of refugee issues from some years ago, just to try and goad Rudd into breaking the law.
It doesn’t matter how many times clowns like Bolt and Akerman say we must turn people away, it is illegal and kills people as this inquest has shown.
Now for a genuine inquest into the deaths on SIEVX or the families our soldiers are slaughtering in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of the constant cover ups.
I’m afraid the sole part of “the only truly vibrant, intelligent newspaper in the country” I agree with is the “in the country bit” – and only because the Oz is a national paper. “Dull” is my overriding impression every time I make the mistake of reading it, and that’s without even touching the politics of Murdoch and News Ltd. Nor is it remotely intelligent, desite having some undeniably bright and talented writers – it cleaves to an ideological line that is breathtaking and often just plain wrong. However, as the fairfax stable of papers slowly runs print media into the ground, maybe the Oz will be left standing unchallenged for a little while longer. But as far as a national newspaper goes – an utterly wasted opportunity.
There is a strong element of circularity about one news outlet (Crikey, supported by undergraduate researchers at UTS) seeking to hold ten other news outlets accountable for their journalistic style, content and methods. Even more so is this the case when the study which is driving the questions is not available to the questioned.
Transparency lacking on both sides?
I am happy to follow this series of contributions, however it seems to me that the pot has suggested that the kettle is a little dark.
Of course, in an academic environment, sources are expected to be quoted. Is it possible that a quality daily newspaper would/could require a similar approach by its journalists?
I well remember the head of school telling the assembled post-graduate class of which I was a member, that we would during the next couple of years not have any original ideas, thus everything which we include in our theses must be referenced – every fact and every opinion, with the rider: “If, by chance, you do have an original thought, either keep it to yourself or submit it to a peer reviewed journal.”
It’s a bit rough, but we came to understand the ethical and practical basis for this advice.
Unreferenced material, in whatever format be: it newspapers, letters to the editor or academic work; is only plagiarism.
So the ACIJ is talking their book? It’s a good book, so hooray for having a go. And good on Chris Mitchell for engaging in the ethical and intellectual debate. As for the other editors, there is a more charitable interpretation beyond guilt or cover up and that is desperation: That they are just too busy trying to survive in a hostile historic downturn to lift their head to the broader issues about them. In short crisis management without strategic reflection. This at least would be a very human reaction.
And of course Crikey is talking it’s book being new media versus old. In that sense it’s all conventional arm wrestle and may the best practitioners and model win as surely they will incrementally.