The Australian’s latest edition of a hurt critique of Media Watch did contain one essential truth, Media Watch totally missed the boat in a week of great media stories, particularly the Peter Costello/Press Gallery edition; and Tim Palmer’s editorial defense was weak at best.
There was nothing left to squeeze out of them”. “Media Watch used to have this field to itself,” Palmer says. “Now the mainstream media covers all the big media stories. The number of times we think: ‘I hope this is not in Thursday’s Media section’ (because then we can’t use it on Monday).”
For an editor he’s got some funny ideas about competition, can’t the staff find an angle to pursue? And since when does anyone anywhere cede territory to the Australian on anything? And doesn’t he have his own audience?
He says Media Watch considered doing an item on the Brissenden affair, which had the attention of every politician and journalist in the country, but “suggest to me what was new (about the story) by the time we got to air on Monday”, he says. “It had been sucked dry. We are not a newspaper. We don’t have a responsibility like a newspaper to cover the biggest story of the day.
“We have to look at what is different. The Costello one, we (were) all worked up to do it, but there are times when a story just gets burned out.”
But it wasn’t and isn’t, at least according to ABC managing director Mark Scott who effectively confirmed that Media Watch took their eye off the ball, at least on the Costello story.
I watched Media Watch on Monday. I was probably expecting to see something on these contentious issues. But then they have to exercise their own editorial judgement.
But it was the wrong judgement. And as if to further rub salt into the shows wounds, Scott announced a review of ABC journalistic ethics surrounding the Costello story, with the discussion brilliantly (bypassing what should be Media Watch’ brief) opened up for comment by viewers and readers on the 7:30 Report’s online site.
Michael Brissenden’s coverage of Costello’s alleged remarks on the leadership during a 2005 dinner has been one of the most commented on and controversial stories of the year. This is your opportunity to join the discussion and have your say on the issue. What do you make of the story? Should the program have reported it at all?
There are too many weeks like last week where I’d tune in to see the kind of coverage you’d expect of a program that claims media as it’s brief only to be disappointed. As for timeliness well I’d argue that it’s 15 minutes would be better spent with a well prepared story covering all the angles of an event of note rather that the immature narky media trivia that currently prevails.
Today, Media Watch is practically un-watchable as a set time television program, why would you bother given the many missed opportunities of late. I currently time shift it as a Vodcast and watch two or three days after broadcast because I know that I won’t have missed anything important. In fact I’d suggest that Vodcasting is where it’s best suited and that it doesn’t deserve a prime time television slot.
People still watch “Grumpy Monica Attard Nitpicks Local Radio Producers: The Show”?
Leinad, these days it is more commonly known as “Media Botch”.
…. Or “Muslim Watch”, due to the general thrust of their “stories”.
A radical muslim researcher with a strong personality has served only to make the show into a laughing stock. But none of this is fresh news.
If being overtaken by other media is such a big concern, maybe they should consider going vodcast-only with as-needed releases rather than a weekly scheduled release? Crank out three in a big-issue week like this and then take a breather for a couple of weeks if nothing else happens?
But really, I don’t see why they can’t bring something new to any issue, no matter how much it’s been done to death. Maybe they should look at the kind of job a small team can do on something like NPR’s On the Media - that’s a show I make sure I never miss, because I always learn something new, even about the issues I’ve been reading about for the past week.
Compare the current feeble efforts to the show fronted by Cliff Mitchelmore, David Marr, Richard Ackland.
They had fun with misprints and gaffs but never a show went out without dripping red meat.
I cannot recall the last time Attard did … anything. And yet she was an competent jounralist and left a sinecure on Sunday night’s doing a deep, weel researched interview with a worthy if neglected person.
Why would she leave that (her signature)for this tripe? DOes she want to front TT or Currant Bun for mega bucks?
I used to watch “Media Watch” every week. It was one of my “must see” shows.
But the last couple of years it has lost any bite it once had. I haven’t seen an episode for over a year. Did they cover the recent Haneef debacle, and those dodgy stories planted in the media? Will they cover Glen Milne’s bogus allegations regarding “warnings” to Ruddy at Scores?
Well maybe they did (or will), but such is my disillusionment that I would not be surprised if the answer is “no”.
Although I reckon the GovGazzette’s reaction this week seems way out of proportion and petulant.
How can so many people write such daft comments?
Media Watch is under attack from powerful vested interests to silence its revelations concerning the corrupt relationship between government and press and media, in this deteriorating democracy.
Could no one sense the presence of the Howard government’s Murdoch stooge on the ABC board; Albrechtsen, virtually dictating the Overington “report”?
What Media Watch is in trouble for is not failure to do its job, but failure to avoid stories that revealed defects in the Government or the Murdoch press.
Yes, like all other forms of broadsheet media and press in this dumbed down country, MW has been weakened by a decade long onslaught by powerful vested interest eager to have certain facts obscured from the light of day.
The example of Mary Kostakidis should demonstrate the pressures broadsheet people are under, but in this case the bastardisation has been so blatant that even a single-digit IQ moron can se what’s happened.
If MW IS failing, the loss of heart is evidenced in its non reporting of what’s happened at SBS.
Some 4 months ago Amanda Meade of the Oz serially reported the demise of the SBS Dateline producer, in favour of imported Peter Charley, of Latteline Brough Aboriginal smears notoriety. Meade’s several reports bespoke ill of the murderous culture imposed on SBS indirectly by the government through its hand-picked board of hard right authoritarians. And surely I was not the only one who complained, including to MW. But no response; utter deafening silences,like a WorkChoices hotline.
So yes, probably Vale MW, at least in a spiritual sense. But not because of the cowardice of the show, but the sheer pressure for silence imposed from above, including no doubt, duplicitous Tory stooge Mark Scott.
They are all card carrying members of the Howard and GG cheersquad so seeing deeper than their party issued talking points is very difficult for them.
Whilst Media Watch is not as good as it used to be it still an essential programme to have and one of the few programmes I try to catch.
And I find the pot/kettle bit of the MSM criicising MW to be laughable.
I know that the GG’s had it in for MW for ages, but in this case I think they’re right. It’s been absolutely lame this year and seems completely without direction. Stopped watching it.
“Its been absolutely lame this year…”.
the thing is, Mandy, has it been lame because of the people involved in the making of the show or because of exogenous factors involving politics?
What’s worked so well in the past doesn’t work now. Why?
Worker “laziness”, or the affects of a long term ideological seige starting to evidence themselves in lack of opportunity to do the job because various managerial interference tactics?
As working girls know, hard to do the job if a hiding from the pimp is the only certainty to be faced at the end of the working day. And if customers miss the substance for appearances because you aren’t allowed to present the right “goods” in the “best” way; because the “pimp” does not want to spotted at what (s)he is really up to, now is that a working girl’s fault?
I got in trouble ages ago at Troppo for suggesting that MW fails to tackle the big issues and the structural issues in the media - and I think the case is being reinforced.
I think MW doesn’t have the teeth it once had but I think this has far more to do with those “inside” the ABC wanting a show less critical of certain vested interests.
Yes, but none of you seem interested in WHY this happening. It’s like everything else the government does. Aborigines, health, states; you name it. Undercut the target through fund starvation , choke it into unworkability through red tape and petty legalese and when it inevitably fails, mount a smear campaign blaming the victim.
Of course the bloody thing no longer tackles the “big” issues.
But WHY??
If you WANT an example of the final destination of Media Watch; in fact the and entire public/broadsheet system, re-read the pitiful piece of rubbish written by Oves in the OZ.
Look, go back to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the scientist attacked in the OZ (the REAL culprit!!) but exposed so well last week on MW.
What do some of you think THAT was about?… NOW think about the attack on MW, including previous examples of the same thing.
Its true MW is a mess, but so are the indigenes in the NT. Or the fund-starved states.
Point is, who do we blame. The victim, with a media-created “bad look”,
or the covert forces behind the mess.
Blaming “covert forces” doesn’t absolve the staff of MW itself from blame, Paul. Let’s be clear about this. It’s their choice either to resist a management/government agenda or go safely for the largely trivial. The Pachauri story again doesn’t go to the reasons why this sort of thing happens - which has always been my critique of MW. For the most part it ignores the structural issues and the big picture, thus individualising and trivialising its critique of journalism by pointing the finger at things that occur as though they occur in isolation.
Well, since you think a “boning” ( a la McEvoy? ) is an ‘easy’ issue for someone with a family to face in our era, lets hope you are up to it should your academic career ever be on the line over an issue of principle.
Secondly, there is the matter of technical staff having ‘hands on’ as to equipment. Who gives them their orders?
OK, am cornered here. Must now either admit MW workers or, say, Kostakidis workmates, are either gutless for not going out behalf of broadsheet and/ or its martyrs, or praise the atomised for their common sense Stepford capitulation to the seeming inevitable.
Have mentioned before classical Athens and plenty of other examples that offer insights as to how transient and irretreivable a “Golden Age” may be in the history of a civilization.
Now, have a prozac to take, if you’ll excuse me!
Like your comments paul.
That’s too dichotomous, Paul. There’s a lot of effective resistance that lies between compliance and pushing things far enough to get sacked.
And if you think I don’t take calculated risks in my career, you’d be wrong.
PaulWalter - I don’t disagree with a single word of your posts. However I do object to gutless people on relatively high salaries. OK, they have mortgages, hostages to fortune (aka kids) but, as Niedemayer put it, “When they came for the … I didn’t object coz I wasn’t a … but when they came for me, they was no-one left to object”. All more contemproary try the Goanna song,
We are ALL in this situation now. Most people, most of the time live lives of comfortable, simple ignorance until some arm of the State grabs them - it may be a faulty speed camera, it may be the kid being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it may be grandma a little confused as to whether she’s payed for that tin of beans.
Sooner or later most sentient citizens come up against the State, or the Status Quo, or the Establishment, call it what you choose but it AIN’T there for our benefit.
the question is, do you stand your ground or go for the easy option? To paraphrase -
“Those who would give up freedom for safety will get, and deserve, neither.”
You are right, Mark. To have even attempted a doctorate, let alone acheived the necessary for the award of one, then followed it up with a career in academia passing on a way to an understanding of the world and the means for and enjoyment of, thinking for ones self, bespeaks far greater courage in a moment than this writer’s entire life would reveal.
Just reread your post.
As to MW, like yourself I beleive the problem is systemic. The people who run things seem to know it, too. MW is just an example of (about) any workplace post-Webb Dock. W………s style employment conditions have indeed been inexorably imposed on the workforce over the decade.
That there is still, amazingly, a chance for the removal of Howard, is solemn testimony to all the whistleblowers who didn’t buckle under pressure and also those who tried to work things out despite the discouragement of the authorities. And ought to be a solemn rebuke to the self absorbed rest.
Oh look, forget the conspiracy theories will you? Pretty much down to a dud producer. And I can’t understand how Attard reads this tosh every week and carries on. She’s so much better.
No Ms Profumo, it is not JUST a dud producer. It is probably ALSO a dud producer- Palmer. But is he a dud because he is, well, a dud, or because he is coerced into being a dud by a repressive anti democratic culture fostered by the likes of Albrechtsen?
Are SBS and ABC the only unhappy worksites in the country? Or have not the pre-conditions that make for unpleasant workplaces been imposed right across society. Of course NOT to valorise the imperatives of big business and their politician lackeys at the expense of everyone and everything else?
Not.
And is this not through W……..s, commercial-in- confidence, ASIO laws and a stack of other things including de facto censorship AT the ABC, since Alston?
Christine, do you DENY that the Right has systematically stacked boards, law courts, commissions and the public service. How much of a conspiracy does shit fobbed off as “policy” have to be before it beomes a “conspiracy”?
“Walks like a duck; talks like a…”
Why are you so AFRAID of being honest, Christine?
Moi? Well, as I’m not close to the inner workings of the ABC I’d prefer not to jump to conclusions about orders coming from on high. I understand what you’re saying about a cultural hegemony, but I think that in this instance David Palmer seems still to be finding his feet.
He may have had a legitimate point of view about the Brissenden affair being milked, but given MB’s association with the ABC and MW’s status as a flagship production it should have been covered.
I don’t regard it a censorship. I regard it as a bad call. MW needs to get back to breaking stories rather than sniping at the edges.
I’d be interested on former EP David Salter’s (who no doubt is au fait with the inner workings of the ABC) take on the show’s decline.
With Christine there, though I’m loving the tinfoil too, but seriously, anyway, it’s not a conspiracy just a cock up - my take, Palmer is in over his head as a producer for this show.
It is indeed curious that with the ABC being such a staunch equal opportunity employer filled with highly qualified and educated women, that they cannot find one appropriate for Media Watch.
Well who has the slightest idea of WTF you’re on about JG, but if MW wanted to help its credibility, it could do a lot worse than shining its light on the crock of shit that is ‘Border Security’.
Purporting to be yer actual reality program, tonight BS had us following a group of Customs officers tracking down the recipients of an illegal tobacco import. Except it wasn’t footage of an actual operation, it was obviously recreated play-acting complete with perfectly focussed and located camera shots of the ‘arrest’.
Why do we need Media Watch when the blogosphere is now one vast distributed reverse panopticon for the media?
OK, yes it does get pretty crazy out there. Maybe it’s now time for “Blog Watch”. I’m sure there’ll be no shortage of applications for jobs here that only Argus on crystal meth could handle.