Media Watch discovered the blogosphere last night, ironically on the first night I didn’t watch it as I’ve been finding the latest Liz Jackson incarnation rather lame. To cut a long story short, Jackson took on Janet Albrechtsen – who’d been running the familiar right wing lament that the media ignore “good news” from Iraq. A confected piece of conspicuous indignation, if you ever wanted an example. The media has its own priorities for what it reports – and these are shaped to some degree by the adage that bad news is more interesting. It’s also worth observing that much of the “news” that Albrechtsen refers to is actually press releases and propaganda from the US government. It’s hardly surprising that in the wake of the justified criticism levelled at the US media in particular for its hopeless compromising of journalistic integrity in reporting on Bush and the War on Terror, any newspaper worth its salt would be suspicious of reproducing administration spin. In fact, there’s a public duty to probe and expose such spin when it departs from the truth.
But to the blogosphere connection. Albrechtsen had lauded blogger Arthur Chrenkoff, without however disclosing that he was a blogger and insinuating that his material was published by the Wall Street Journal. Media Watch, in other words, is doing what it does best – tediously. Exposing the misrepresentations of a prominent columnist – but without probing the issues that corporate dominance of the media and media subservience to government spin raise. I’m not one of Chrenkoff’s readers, and my only comment would be that to suggest that the “bad news” (reported by the liberal meeja) needs “balance” is a specious and spurious misinterpretation of what balance actually means – rampant throughout the right wing media. It’s become trite to observe that ludicrous faith-based indoctrination must balance scientific theory, or that trenchantly wrong and politically motivated accounts must be published in order to provide “balance”. The best example of the latter is the furore over Kerry’s service record last year. What all this ignores is the duty of the media to report the truth, to check facts, and to properly contextualise claims which are self-serving and politically motivated.
It’s in the public interest to report what’s going on in Iraq – good or bad, and the fact that it’s mostly bad doesn’t help the Iraqi people by pretending otherwise. It does help the right-wing postmodernists in the Bush administration, and their antipodean devotees.
It’s those sorts of issues that Media Watch ought to be focussing on. Phil Gomes comments that Media Watch may have signed its death warrant by tackling Albrechtsen, now an ABC board member. I doubt it actually, as it would look very suspicious indeed if Media Watch suffered as a result of such an attack. No doubt that was in the mind of the producers of the show. But the ABC would do better to reflect on why – as a public broadcaster – they can’t produce a programme which tackles the very serious issues about journalism and the public interest which cry out for coverage rather than producing a programme which delights in pointing out minor errors and is driven by the same motivation to take scalps that much of the dysfunctional media it criticises suffers from.
Elsewhere: More on the blogospheric aspects of this issue at Tim Dunlop and wsacaucus.org and a defence of Chrenkoff by Tim Blair.
Yeah, its another one of those “who cares?” occurances that doesnt even deserve a mention. Media watch must have been desperate for material.
What was so nauseating about Albrechsten’s article was the heading which basically said there was her ‘truth’ versus the terrorists, a slight variation on the toxic texan’s mantra, ”you are either with us or against us.” Prior Meeja Watch luminary David Marr (good one David) I think coined a new verb “to Albrechsten”—I think Liz applied an antidote of sorts but I agree with Mark that journalism and public interest issues need a big airing.
In the meantime Good News from Iraq, (to *Albrechsten* the issue):
1) 100 prison inmates were not proven to be screwed up the a*** or wired to the mains.
2) Only about a 100 Iraqis were killed in a day or so, instead of a thousand
3) The new government did not appoint Allawi or Chalabi as treasurer
4) 30% of the working population are employed
5) C4 and Semtex futures have improved in Iraq.
6) US patent laws have not allowed the modification of garage opening electronics for use in IEDs (improvised explosive devices)
So easy to write the good news from Iraq !!!
Good Post Mark, However surely to take on the appalling misrepresentation, confectioneering, and manipulation of today’s Media is beyond the scope and capacity of a 15 minute program.
To do as you suggest requires background, context and a documentary length program, which if the ABC chose to do, would simply form another example of leftist bias for the mouthpiece mob.
I think Media Watch is doing all it can reasonably be expected to do.
How is it possible to defend a plagarist?
Incidently Mark. Take a look at spin in action here.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/09.html#a2847
Its a video of Pat Robertson on the Larry King show. Robertson takes a few phone in questions from callers who are critical. Then there’s a break. Its what gets said in the break thats the killer.
Are you kidding, Mark? What about last week’s Media Watch about Chanel 9 and the Bali Nine families? That was a piece of arid pedantry was it? As I recall you even blogged on that…or was it someone else?
What happens, Rex – I still need to buy speakers for my new computer!
James, no it wasn’t me. I did see it and I think that’s been the high point so far this year. But I still don’t see MW getting to grips with why this goes on and on. I’m not at all convinced that it’s impossible to address those issues in a short programme – in itself demonstrating the linkages between different types of media scandal would have an educational effect – rather than treating everything as a seemingly isolated breach of ethics. They’re not – they’re reflections of big structural problems with the media in general – including, I’d argue, ABC TV.
The video starts with an address by Robertson at the Republican National Convention. Robertson in his address makes reference to “a plague”. A voice over, presumably one put together by a gay rights group, says that the use of the word plague is a thinly veiled reference to AIDS and homosexuality.
On the Larry King show, a caller says that the Republican convention was one of the most hateful things he’s heard, he’s a republican but that was the reason he didn’t vote for Bush.
Larry King then asks a question, and the audio is bad at this point.
Then there’s a break:
In the break Robertson whispers to his advisers. “That guy was a homo as sure as you‚Äôre alive”
His adviser comforts him, saying that he didn’t look rattled. He then tells Robertson how to twist his way out of calls like that.
Next the spin doctor tells him that he‚Äôs spoken to the producers and asked for the calls to be screened. He wants to see some “balance out there”.
Three of the callers were Homosexuals claims Robertson.
Robertson then says to his adviser that the producers of the show are trying to set him up.
–end–
Its funny to see Robertson label these callers, who he can’t even see, homosexuals. But is the clear spinning going on, and the paranoia that its a setup, and that they’ve got to spin their way out of it, rather than just honestly confront the issue that’s the eye opener.
‘…treating everything as a seemingly isolated breach of ethics.’
This is preposterous, Mark. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are many ongoing themes – non-disclosure of financial interest, self-censorship in reporting adverstisers, merging of news and advertising, plagiarism and other deceptions, cash for comment, ceque-book journalism the inadequacy of the Broadcasting Tribunal – and the root causes that tie these all together – media monopoly, general erosion of journalistic standards and ethics, governments’ failure to regulate. The way you talk, it’s all about grammatical errors and other cock-ups, a kind of highbrow Funniest Home Videos. Here’s a challenge: list three major items this year that struck you as both trivial and divorced from issues of systemic rot. At least, get up from the computer and pay attention next time it’s on.
And while I’m in a rage, where’s Rob when you need him? Quiggin is bagging opera again, and it’s left all to me to mount a defense.
I’ll simply refer you to Phil Gomes, James.
James, I just posted a comment (emotive, proabably incomprehensible) in support of opera over at Q’s. Thanks for the tip. Bastards with tin ears and big beards.
Rob: good work.
Mark: The point of the Sheahan story was not that Sheahan is an ass, but that a paper like the SMH will put the personas of it’s star writers ahead of what, for want of a better word, I’ll call the truth. So they missed the Hun scandal. They can’t cover everything. It’s only Melbourne anyway.
James, how about I write a longer piece on this at a later date.
Considering all the misrepresentation, poor research, and occasional flat-out lies Albrechtsen regularly comes up with, why the hell does this story matter? If anything, her Chrenkoff column comes as a welcome relief!
There should be some sort of scale at work here: You Must Be This Untruthful To Register On Our RADAR. Anything less and you may even get a Tim Tam for being willing to pretend to be an honest journalist for a week.
There’s been an interesting development, over a certain misleading statement made by Chrenk to MW regarding remuneration and editing. Forgive a clayton’s trackback:
http://northcoteknob.blogspot.com/2005/05/chrenkoff-affair.html
A follow-up on next week’s Media Watch? Should be interesting…
Tim Dunlop has more on this, Martin.