I made some observations a little while ago about Mark Scott’s A. N. Smith memorial lecture, principally concerned with his intervention in the debate about News Limited’s paywall strategy. Much of what Scott said has been discussed in a frame heavily shaped by the claim that there is a developing conflict between public broadcasters and declining commercial media empires, a perspective which Scott himself certainly encouraged. Much less attention has been paid to the implications of the ABC’s digital media strategy itself.
That’s a topic Marni Cordell takes up at New Matilda:
Scott’s speech was warmly welcomed by most if not all of the journalists, new media pundits and academics in attendance at Media140. Not a single hard-hitting question was asked of him at the time — or indeed, since, in any coverage of the event that I have read (people seem to be too busy firing shots at the very soft target of News Ltd journalist Caroline Overington who dared to talk about her own media organisation’s digital ‘vision’). I find this bizarre.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Scott’s efforts to align himself with the cutting edge of digital technology are commendable — a good public broadcaster should keep on top of new media developments and the ABC has mostly done so pretty well.
But how is that going to contribute to the production of “quality journalism” that these very same punters like to fret about? Missing from this debate — and from the uncritical applauding of Scott’s foray into community-driven content — seems to be a collective recognition that Scott oversees a very large part of a dwindling resource: that is, money to be spent on good, original journalism.
In comments on the piece, Cordell recognises that she ommitted to mention one question put to Scott at Media140 by a commenter on the thread – whether the ABC’s new local community hubs (for which 50 digital media producers are being hired) will pay people for their contributions, and if not, what that does to the income opportunities of freelance journos, film makers, and so on. The answer, as she notes, is probably obvious. In that context, it will be interesting to see whether the new ABC Online opinion site – to be edited by Jonathan Green, currently Crikey’s editor – will follow The Punch and The National Times and not pay contributors.
The hackneyed debates between social media proponents and opponents usually tend to obscure the central fact that both big and small media are contributing, whether consciously or otherwise, to a trend to outsource the production of content to unpaid or poorly paid labour. That’s recognised by some contributors to the debate, but tends to be obscured when the big guns are fired. Notions that “journalism will become an avocation” are tossed off too glibly, and in such a way as to obscure the political economy of the emerging media space. It should not be so, and ethically, I would strongly argue that public broadcasters have a duty not to be complicit in this trend.
Elsewhere: Margaret Simons.
Disclosure: I applied for the gig Green got, which was advertised. The one week period for applications suggested to me that there was probably a preferred candidate. I would be very interested to learn if there was ever a shortlist, or if he was in effect the only candidate considered (and effectively head-hunted for the role). I am not casting any aspersions on Green himself, for whom I have worked and for whom I have a liking and considerable respect. But I think there’s a potential issue here about the ABC’s practices in this regard.
Update: Margaret Simons on Green’s departure and the current shake up at Crikey.
Further update: Margaret Simons:
However, I understand that despite appearances, the job was NOT stitched up before hand. Green was interviewed only recently, along with other candidates, and was informed of his appointment late last week.
I’m happy to accept that, but I think some questions remain. The job ad specified that the position could be taken up in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. I was surprised to see an announcement made 6 working days after the applications closed given the logistics of organising interviews with candidates from several cities. Having worked in HR myself in a previous incarnation, I am somewhat bemused – though stuff ups are always a plausible explanation, too.
I’d reiterate that I think Jonathan Green will do a top notch job. But he’s not been done any favours either, when his appointment was bound to come under political fire. Decision makers at the ABC – who we’re constantly told are savvy to how information travels online – need to understand how important good process and transparency are, and there’s a little bit of an object lesson here.
Another update: Margaret Simons has the answer to the question of whether contributors to the ABC Online opinion site will be paid (yes) and has more on the idea of the thing, and the ABC’s digital strategy generally.
Elsewhere: qed on the corporatisation of ABC culture.
Update: Margaret Simons on Green’s departure and the current shake up at Crikey.
The role specs sure sounded like you. I’m sure you’ll be kept on file for one of the other 49 slots. Very canny getting on the public front foot here: after all, the ad called for someone to set the agenda and be provocative. I wonder if Andrew Bolt applied for a job, just as a hoot.
… who’d of thought the digital ABC production house would turn out to be such an inequitable workplace as to made up a few folks pulling a hundred thou or so, on 12 month contracts, and the rest virtual scabs providing free copy?
I note Someone had the very rye sense of humour to include a typo in the very job ad where the charge to de-professionalise Australian journalism is being led from:
. Surely that was meant to be ‘public discussion OF major issaues’?
Full marks tho’ for the forthright declaration of their aim to be agenda setters: mealy-mouthed oleaginous platitudes on the part of the media that they are mere innocent bystanders are well past their use by date. I do hope there is still a place for the values of old fashioned accurate and in-depth reportage within the ‘provocative… agenda setting’ strategy, the hoped-for stickiness of which I expect is meant to support an adwordy-type revenue stream.
Marni Cordell “The ABC news rooms across the country do a great job of providing fair and balanced daily news. No serious commentator could question their commitment to this or the fact that they do it, in the most part, very well.”
“Fair and balanced” like Fox News, that is.
Scott is just a recycled Liberal Party staffer and an archetypal North Shore wanker.
The ABC is being further outsourced to right-wing hyenas and zealots.
Agree with CMMC@3 (and slightly off-topic). Marni obviously does not listen to the hourly news bulletins on ABC Radio National, or is just too young and naive to understand how much has changed over the past decade. What a fatuous claim: “fair and balanced” reporting. Rubbish.
For one thing, the ABC News Rooms are actively contributing to the distortion of the climate change debate in this country, by politely and reverently referencing “climate change sceptics” (not denialists), and repeatedly foregrounding the denialists in the daily news cycle instead of our own climate scientists. This is not “balanced” reporting, its mouthing Liberal Party propaganda, against the national interest.
Mark Scott, ex-Liberal Party staffer, is not the man to restore quality journalism to our national broadcaster. He was complicit in, if not centrally responsible for, destroying independence and quality in ABC news reporting, under the shabby rubric of “balance”. But hey, look over here, we have new digital production stuff and an empire to build overseas…
Well a couple of points I suppose. The developments at Crikey post Green look interesting and I wonder if Green didn’t see some writing on the wall he didn’t like although in these times what journalist or editor wouldn’t gravitate to a secure position with the ABC. That said I agree with the comments @3 and 4 about the ABC news agenda and Mark Scott in particular.
Looking at Scott I think some clear trends emerge. He clearly wants to be able to claim he did something big for the ABC. He is very much involved with the push to rationalise the ABC and getting rid of legacy artefacts such as the in house documentary production for TV and specialist radio programming like the Religion Report is all part of the plan.
Then there are attacks on the culture of the ABC reflected in the new management imposed “ABC Values” and the earlier plan for “editorial balance” which was driven through news rooms across the country and complements the famous ABC management decree of “refer upwards”. I think Mark Scott is very much driving most of these big ticket items.
Where Mr Scott wants to take the ABC seems less well defined despite his grand speeches. My suspicion is he wants to destroy the larrakin in the ABC as a matter of course but he’s smart enough to realise a direct confrontation will not work. So his tactic is to push the ABC forward in terms of aspiration goals, the Scott vision of online Town Squares and the expansion overseas and simultaneously undercut dissent within the ABC by a softly softly approach to outsourcing.
You can’t simply wipe-out dissent internally and then somehow expect, as if by magic, for your news to be cutting edge and breaking new ground. For all of Scott’s theatrics on the new media front, what’s really at work is an expensive exercise in getting rid of subversion in the ABC.
Are these community hubs replacing what the ABC already does? How is the ABC having unpaid contributors significantly different in de-professionalising journalism than any number of online blog/opinion sites who also do not financially reward contributors?
My wife was the Groote Eylandt “country correspondent” for the ABC in the 70’s. Got paid peanuts if her contribution made it to the air. The attraction was the title allowed her to seek interviews etc. in a way that she couldn’t have done as a private individual. So el-cheapo journalism has been around for a long time.
It doesn’t bother me that journos aren’t being paid or are paid less. As a consumer, there isn’t a single media publication in this country which I would pay money to read, except for the odd copy of The Big Issue and hat isn’t entirely becuase f the content. So how can any journalist justify being paid to write the drivel that they do?
The main issue for me is Mark Scott being a former Fairfax employee and now enjoying playing press baron at the ABC with public money. And also seeing all of the MSM hacks being pulled in to the sheltered workshop of the ABC as their own ships sink through their incompetence. We can only hope that as journalism ceases to be such a white middle class “profession” then it will cease to have such a white middle class outlook on the world.
I can only see, as per job description “Network amongst opinion makers with a capacity to assess the pressing topical issues of the moment.” how The Centre for Independent Studies, Lowy Institute, Gerard Henderson will get even more oxygen for their ranting.
Over the past few years ABC news has been giving such people a platform to spruik on a daily basis (Does Henderson still have his weekly editorial on Radio National?}.
A trivial example, but it was hilarious last night to hear some teenage ABC newsreader reporting on a new supercomputer and comparing it to the famous fictional computer “Deep Throat”. Errr…
It is my considered opinion that you are all snobs of the highest order.
Meh.
These high-falutin’ sounding “hubs” are really just URLs with some dudes typing on them.
There are billions of URLs.
Unless the ABC’s projected Hub gauleiters can attract eyes and commenters, then the whole project is just a waste of time and is damaging to the corporate image of the ABC.
At present the ABC probably has hundreds of Web 2.0 style operations. None of them have set the world on fire. Why should these new ones be any different, unless of course they attract talent.
Can you imagine hundreds, let alone hundreds of thousands of folks beating a path to Hendo’s ABC-modern-style URL?
Hendo doesn’t even know how to hotlink!
Further update: Margaret Simons:
I’m happy to accept that, but I think some questions remain. The job ad specified that the position could be taken up in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. I was surprised to see an announcement made 6 working days after the applications closed given the logistics of organising interviews with candidates from several cities. Having worked in HR myself in a previous incarnation, I am somewhat bemused – though stuff ups are always a plausible explanation, too.
I’d reiterate that I think Jonathan Green will do a top notch job. But he’s not been done any favours either, when his appointment was bound to come under political fire. Decision makers at the ABC – who we’re constantly told are savvy to how information travels online – need to understand how important good process and transparency are, and there’s a little bit of an object lesson here.
That’s not “political fire” that’s just Andrew. More like a “predictable wet blanket”, I would say. He sees “leftys” coming out of his cornflakes. And as for Crikey being “far-left” he is just playing that silly old game of organising the playing field to his advantage, again.
More likely you dipped out, Mark, because the ABC has a hiring policy, with the best intentions of The Liberal Party in mind. Today being a perfect example where they simply buried a Newspoll that did not follow their narrative of “Rudd under fire over asylumn seekers” and carried on regardless.
Just one point of clarification. The new op ed type site that Green will edit is NOT the same as ABC Open – which is the project under which 50 professional content makers will head to the regions to help people tell their own stories. They are separate projects with separate rationales, though undoubtedly part of the same “vibe”.
Another update: Margaret Simons has the answer to the question of whether contributors to the ABC Online opinion site will be paid (yes) and has more on the idea of the thing, and the ABC’s digital strategy generally.
IS that a trick question ?The abc and real journalism ?please dont make me laugh ,if you guys were any more left or communist you would be spinning around in a circle ,its so obvious your the one’s paid by tax dollars pushing the world gov through the green scam which has now been proven beyond any doubt by prof linzden to be a fake made up scam ,and remeber this he beat gore to a pulp in court with the science and the latest science is even more certain and factual ,a quantified equasion means goodnight irene for you lot.TELL THE FRIGGEN TRUTH.
Yeah, oops I mean YEAH, tell the friggen truth everyone… see, that’s why I think any sort of job involving online + opinion + editing + iss-ewes is best avoided (see Speak You’re Branes if more opinionated analysis is required.)
All I can contribute to the present conversation is the fairly pissweak observation that while I’ve been following Mark Scott on twitter for a good while now, he hardly ever has anything to say that isn’t boosting some ABC product or other. It’s very very boring. And today there was a nice little cautionary tale in The Age about the failure of Second Life to live up to any of the grandiloquent claims that were being made for it a couple of years ago.
The tweet on the street is that Andrew Bolt will be applying for Jonathan Green’s old job.
Orly? That would certainly be a shakeup for Crikey!
Oh for goodness sake, Mark. You’re coming across as really precious that you weren’t even considered for the job. What experience does you have to become an online editor at ABC anyway? “Oh Green got it and not me, I’m not suggesting anything, but it could be a conspiracy.” As for your sycophants here…
Ah, I see, the Bolta’s folks finally arrived.
Veronica – that’s not at all what I was saying, as would be clear from what I actually wrote.
Now you’re being presumptuous, Mark. I’m not a fan of Bolt, I don’t read his shit and I haven’t in years. I’m not a fan of any of the rightwing so-called “journalists” and bloggers, no more than I am a fan of people who think they have the experience and expertise to be an online editor of a major website (because running a group blog is the same, right?). I just find it sad that you had to diminish Mr Green’s good luck in being selected for this position by raising questions over the selection criteria and timeframe, despite wishing him well.
Ok, thanks, Veronica, for clarifying.
Having said that, I don’t think I need to account to you for what I think my qualifications for a particular job are, and I actually think if I were to do so, I’d be guilty of what you’re accusing me of.
I won’t say any more about this here after this comment, because I’m aware that it might look like sour grapes on my part, and I considered that before I said anything. I nevertheless did for two reasons:
(a) In my view, it would be disingenuous, and unethical, to comment on Green’s appointment to the ABC gig (which is a matter of public interest and directly on topic) without disclosing that I had also applied for the job;
(b) I do think that it is undesirable for a position to be advertised with only one week between the advertisement appearing and the closing date, and that’s particularly the case for a public organisation. Margaret Simons also noted that some people didn’t have time to complete an application. There is surely a public interest in attracting the broadest possible field for a position such as this, and in giving potential applicants sufficient time to make their best case.
I’ll close by saying that with jobs like this, where people who are applying, some of those doing the selecting and refereeing are known to each other, and all have some form of public platform, it’s precisely where transparency is important. That’s what I’m seeking to do – by disclosing my interest.
I’ll reiterate that I know and like JG, and have worked with him in the past. I sought in no way to “diminish” anything to do with his appointment, which I am confident he richly deserves. I’ll stand by what I wrote, which I don’t think is capable of being read in the way you suggest.
And that’s my final word on this matter.
Mark I think JG has a slightly higher profile and his departure from Crikey is also a plus for the ABC. It sounds like an executive decision and I think you demean yourself by going on about it, you do a great job with LP
I have an extended version of my thoughts on the ABC here.
Oh for sure, David_H, I wouldn’t expect to have got the gig when JG had his hat in the ring. No contest!
Anyway, you’ve just made me “go on about it” again! 
And I’ve added a link to your post. It’s good to get a historical dimension, and to remind ourselves exactly what the implications of the corporatised structure of the ABC are. Appreciate reading your well considered thoughts!
God knows how you “demean yourself” by declaring an interest in a matter you post on.
And I think we all need to know a lot more about how Aunty is making appointments and that they be made, at least, fairly and transparently.
Thanks, joe2.
You are welcome, Mark. You should have a go at the job left open at Crikey.
Now will Veronica call me a “sycophant”? I love the word.
I thought if you were a sycophant you’d have people what danced around you while you lay back on an opulent Roman purple or bright red couch in a toga, with ruby rings on yer fingers, and a gold band in yer hair, and scented pomades in yer beard, while people poured sweet Mediterranean wines down yer gob and popped juicy grapes in yer mouth, etc, etc.
Oh, hang on – that’s a sybarite. Well, I can’t get everything right.
Whatever it is, I will go for it, Paul, with bells on.
I thing being ‘presumptuous’ isn’t bad either, although I prefer sycophant.
But who is Marni Cordell, and why is she writing crap such as this:
“The ABC news rooms across the country do a great job of providing fair and balanced daily news. No serious commentator could question their commitment to this or the fact that they do it, in the most part, very well.”
Really it is not so much the inaccuracy of this statement that is quite breathtaking, but the ‘No serious commentator…’ line, that I thought was the preserve of people like Miranda Devine. Why doens’t she just come out and say anybody who disagrees with my assessment is not a serious commentator!
Such specious arguments!!
And the ABC does NOT provide fair and balanced news. Everyday as I walk to work, I listen to Sydney local radio 9.00am news, and virtually every day it leads its political coverage with a sound bite from an opposition spokesperson, and for the last 4 weeks it has been one topic and one topic only. The government barely gets a look in. Today they even trotted out the ghost of Phillip Ruddock for heaven’s sake! I guess Turnball and Stone were unavailable.
This is consistent, deliberate and unacceptably partial news reporting and if replicated in their other news outlets (it certainly is on-line) grounds for serious action from the government.
I know Mark Scott is an ex-Liberal Party member and the board is stacked to the hilt with hard right idealogues, but really this is getting beyond a joke.
I think the sycophants are the ones doing the wine-pouring and grape-popping, Paul.
Where do I get a gig as a sybarite, just out of curiosity?
Yes adrian@32, and this morning Michelle Grattan and Fran Kelly had a little chat and agreed that while Rudd was not actually telling “a lie” about the Oceanic Viking “deal”, it certainly was not as “black and white” as he claimed.
And bugger me, by midday today, Chrissie Pyne had popped up to say, on the ABC, that it is certainly not as “black and white” as Mr Rudd claims, etc. Well done ABC, inventing those effective little phrases that cut through for the Opposition in the media cycle…
Incidentally, who is actually running this country? Just thought I would ask, while listening to the Opposition telling us how their legislative amendments must be accepted in their entirety before the country is allowed to function. And even then, they might not pass them, just to be spiteful, or something..I thought they lost the last election?
DI (nr) @ 33,
Nero’s Great Palace? Tiberius’s palace on Capri. Probably the Byzantine Palace in Constantinople from time to time.
Mid 18c London? London in the swinging 60s. Hollywood, any day. Heaps of places, mate.
Exactly grace@34. It’s a little self perpetuating circle of spin now known as news.
Why over at 702 Alison Carrabine was breathlessly informing us that Rudd was being ‘disingenuous’ at best. Every day, no matter what the topic, she manages to find a negative for the government. ABC News: We interpret, you decide.
Bugger. Too long ago, or too far away.
Just my luck.
It’s interesting that adrian has detected a trend of the ABC being biased against the Federal Labor Government. This deserves further exploration.
We should bear in mind that the ABC has largely become and extension of News Limited with so many current employese of News Limited working for the ABC. Some of this has been documented on stopmurdoch.blogspot.com in the articles “Concern growing over Murdoch infiltration of ABC” of 25 Oct 09,“ABC answers a question with a question” of 4 Nov 09,“Riddle Me This …” of 6 Nov 09.
If Uncle Rupert had decided that his Federal Labor glove puppets had exceeded their usefulness to him, it should not be altogether unexpected for the ABC to turn on the Government.
Nevertheless, if true, this would have to be amongst the least of their crimes. As I have written elsewhere, the Brisbane local ABC radio almost completely censored both the Greens and Independents during the most recetn Queensland state elections. They blatently promoted the two major parties in spite of the fact that 59% of the electorate was respectively opposed to each of the two major parties. This was explicitly stated in am e-mail to me from Kirsten McLeod of Audience & Consumer Affairs on 10 Jun 09:
In fact, there was a realistic chance that the Independents and Greens could have formed the blanace of power, but by blatantly censoring views of independents like myself, even when my views such as my opposition to privatisation represented the overwhelming views of the Queensland public, the ABC changed the outcome of the election. We can largely thank the ABC for the appalling state of governance in Queensland today.
—
One policy I will be standing on will be to massively increase the funds available to the ABC and to remove from the ABC any influence by media monopolies. No employee of any of the private media corporations should be allowed to sit on the ABC board. I will challenge all the candidates I am standing against to at least match this policy.
James Sinnamon
Brisbane Independent for
Truth Democrac, and Economic Justice
Australian Federal Elections, 2010
Daggett, I’m not sure you know what censorship is.
Hint – editorial decisions to focus news and current affairs on certain major players are not it.
Whatever you want to bloody well call it the point is that by ommitting certain viewpoints and concentrating on others any news organisation can manipulate what the general public is allowed to see. So we have the current ABC giving regular airing of extreme right views, and relatively little from anything further to the left than centre left at best.
For example, John Pilger whose work is regularly published overseas recently won the Sydney Peace Prize, but listeners to the ABC would have been blissfully unaware of that, while being regularly treated to the rantings of Andrew Bolt and his ilk.
The commercial media cam publish what they like, but we are entitled to expect better from the ABC for obvious reasons. So call it censorship, bias, or whatever you like, but something is rotten in the ABC at the moment.
I reckon amongst other things they’re just overthinking. Journalistic instinct has gone out the window in favour of constantly second-guessing how their ‘product’ will be recieved and percieved in the broader media, and how the players in this or that story are going to respond, politically, to the coverage.
It’s basically weak, spineless crap from an organisation that used to lead – effortlessly.
FDB, I think a lot of the ABC’s problem is that they still haven’t recovered from being cowed by the last govt, and the current make-up of the Board won’t be helping.
It’s as though they still can’t quite believe we’ve had a change of government.
And they’re scared shitless what the Libs might do next time they get in, if they don’t tow the RWDB line. Even if it does take 15 years.
Frankly, they should have stuck to their guns then. And there’s certainly no excuse at all now. Just laziness and a cultural shift away from letting journalists just fucking journalise.