Regular LP commenter, Mr Denmore, is contributing a series of posts about shifts in the media and journospheres in the context of this year’s federal election. Mr Denmore has extensive professional experience in the media, and we trust you will find his perspective valuable and informative. This is the second in the series.
Just before Australia’s 1998 election, a journalist working for an international financial wire service interviewed the then Labor Opposition’s shadow treasurer Gareth Evans on the fringes of the ALP campaign launch in Brisbane.
The journalist, with camera crew in tow, had travelled to the Queensland capital on the firm promise of an interview with the party leader Kim Beazley. But upon arriving at the conference venue, Beazley’s spin doctor point blank denied that any such arrangement had been made. The hard-nosed decision had obviously been made in Beazley’s office that there were no votes to be had in talking to a foreign news service.
Determined not to have wasted the effort, the reporter tracked down Evans’ spinner and pitched an interview with the shadow treasurer about Labor’s economic platform and his view of first term record of the Howard government. The audience for the interview was to be global financial market players.
A cosmopolitan fellow, Evans was typically diplomatic in the interview, conscious of the sensitivities of talking down the Australian dollar in front of an international audience. Recall, that this was the time of the Asian currency crisis and markets were particularly jumpy.
Back in Sydney, the reporter satellited the interview to Tokyo and it aired the next morning in bank dealing rooms around the region, including in Australia.
At lunch that day with a market contact, the reporter was interrupted by a call on his mobile phone. It was a spin doctor from the office of Peter Costello, then treasurer. The spinner said he had heard from a financial market source that Evans had said during the interview that Howard and Costello had left the economy “no worse” than how it was when the Keating government was defeated two and half years before. “Can you send us a copy of the tape?”.
Not seeing his role as helping political operatives from either side, the reporter politely declined and hung up. Ten minutes later, a Nine Network producer rang with the same request. Then someone from Seven, then the ABC, and on it went. Conscious of not being able to turn down local media clients of his wire service, the journo played out copies of the tape to Seven, Nine and the ABC.
That night, ABC television news led with a story saying, effectively, that the momentum generated by Labor’s campaign launch had quickly been derailed thanks to a characteristically clumsy “gaffe” from a hapless and naive Evans. Nine and Seven ran similar stories using the same grab.
Funnily enough, no-one ran the second part of Evans’ quote – that Howard had not done enough with the economy. Neither did they mention that Evans, a former foreign minister, had deliberately chosen his words carefully because he knew he was speaking to a nervous global foreign exchange market looking for any excuse to trash the $A. Not surprisingly, the reporter felt no joy from his “scoop”, knowing that the story had been manufactured out of nothing. Evans’ office, of course, was livid.
Costello’s spinner clearly had constructed the “gaffe” narrative and pitched it to the press gallery. Desperate for a story that was something other than Kim Beazley wallowing in the adulation of the true believers in Brisbane, the media took the bait and then some.
History records that Howard went onto win that election and a second term, but only by the slightest of margins. Indeed, Labor won a slight majority of votes overall.
This is not to claim that this relatively minor episode in a six-week campaign was instrumental in Howard being returned that year. But any political campaigner will tell you that election victories are built on the backs of lots of little wins. And this was one of them.
This story is a perfect illustration of how the game works in Canberra. If anything, this game has become more intense over the intervening 12 years as spin doctors (many of them former journalists) have developed increasingly sophisticated strategies for managing the media narrative and stage managing the news.
At the same time, the news cycle has sped up enormously thanks to cable news, 24-hour news radio and, most of all, the internet. Journalists spend 90 per cent of their time rooted to their desks, relying on transcription services, radio, twitter, the wires and fearful of missing something they (or at least their editors) judge as critical.
Consequently, everyone is watching the same things, everyone is working off the same source material, everyone is trying to squeeze through the same narrow door – and that’s why their output all looks and sounds the same. It’s why a narrative so easily takes hold. Pooling of crews and bureaus compounds the problem.
Is it individual bias? My honest view is that apart from the unapologetically partisan hacks of News Ltd, it’s not so much political bias that drives this groupthink but a type of confirmation bias. The media, unconsciously, decides on the master narrative. And then every event, however trivial and inconsequential, is interpreted in the context of that pre-determined narrative.
It’s a bit like the funds management industry. Every active fund manager trumpets their value-adding ability and “unique” process, but they all tend to deliver index-like returns because they’re frightened of looking too different to the market. The risks in that sense are asymmetrical.
Likewise, journalists all like to think of themselves as critical, independent thinkers. But the risks of coming up with stories and framing devices that look too different to what’s on offer elsewhere makes them timid. It’s easier at the end of the day to join the rest of the herd.
While most journalists aren’t driven by their personal political leanings (they are for the most part motivated by the story), it is fair to say that Murdoch’s dominance has effectively institutionalised media bias in Australia. News Ltd controls more than 60 per cent of metropolitan print media in this country – and while few people read The Australian – print media nearly always leads the agenda for the more widely consumed mediums of radio and television. So naturally, the News Ltd view tends to get echoed elsewhere, particularly by the ABC.
So why doesn’t the ABC follow Fairfax? Well, it used to. But the fact is that Fairfax’s papers are a shadow of their former selves. Hundreds of experienced journalists have either been let go by Fairfax in successive rounds of redundancies or been lured to News Ltd by Murdoch’s deep pockets. The ABC also these days is taking a more “commercial” approach to news – and the fact is that the News Ltd papers’ beat-ups on “backflips” and “gaffes” fit the public broadcaster’s new style better.
It’s a depressing story and one that can only get worse from here. If it were just the media’s business fortunes and individual journalists’ professional fortunes at stake here, this would not count for that much. But it is not an exaggeration to say that our very democracy is on the line. The spinners are grinners.
As for me, I so regret not saying I had lost that tape.
Piping Shrike has it right. Politics in Australia and in many other countries now is entirely theatre played for the benefit of a media that desperately needs the play to continue because it has so much invested in the ongoing spectacle.
So the politicians do the media a favour by magnifying or manufacturing differences to build a sense of conflict. Formerly, politicians spent 60 to 70 per cent of their time on policy and the rest showboating about it. Now the equation is probably reversed. And the reason for that is the media’s need to fill an increasing amount of space and airtime with a decreasing amount of news.
Not much you could do really. Ethically you had no choice but to release the tape. How it was cut, pasted and shaped afterwards wasn’t your responsibility.
At the very least the rise of internet journalism combined with shrinking newspaper numbers mean if such an event were to happen again there would be a voice for those not in the mainstream to talk about and even listen to the full quote.
The fix may be in, the narrative is being spun but is anyone listening anymore?
Not much you could do really. Ethically you had no choice but to release the tape. How it was cut, pasted and shaped afterwards wasn’t your responsibility.
At the very least the rise of internet journalism combined with shrinking newspaper numbers mean if such an event were to happen again there would be a voice for those not in the mainstream to talk about and even listen to the full quote.
The fix may be in, the narrative is being spun but is anyone listening anymore?
Sobering, cautionary – and depressing. The question, of course, is “How can we remedy this?” I hope journalists will read these articles and reflect upon them.
Sobering, cautionary – and depressing. The question, of course, is “How can we remedy this?” I hope journalists will read these articles and reflect upon them.
OK, it was the ethical thing to do to release the tape to the newsfolks.
They then had the raw data, and could have treated it properly. But that is when they revealed, all of them, at 7, 9 and the ABC, that they are not in fact journalists.
The proper thing for them to have done would have been to report a summary of everything that Evans said, in context and with qualifications. And also, to report that the Liberals had instructed them to say something different, with selective and out-of-context quotes as support.
Instead, they acted as additional volunteer propagandists for the Libs. Not a critical or independent thought to be seen. What have they been teaching them in journalism school for the last decade-and-a-bit?
OK, it was the ethical thing to do to release the tape to the newsfolks.
They then had the raw data, and could have treated it properly. But that is when they revealed, all of them, at 7, 9 and the ABC, that they are not in fact journalists.
The proper thing for them to have done would have been to report a summary of everything that Evans said, in context and with qualifications. And also, to report that the Liberals had instructed them to say something different, with selective and out-of-context quotes as support.
Instead, they acted as additional volunteer propagandists for the Libs. Not a critical or independent thought to be seen. What have they been teaching them in journalism school for the last decade-and-a-bit?
Much of the mentoring is by example and there is an enormous amount of forgiveness for minor indiscretions.
p.s. Any excuse will do to watch it again.
Much of the mentoring is by example and there is an enormous amount of forgiveness for minor indiscretions.
p.s. Any excuse will do to watch it again.
Theatre for the media and by extension the public too…maybe circus is a better term since it goes round and looks spectacular occasionally while the audience is distracted from the mundane.
Despite the honest protestation of many media professionals to the contrary, the truth is the media does not serve the public interest, it serves the people holding the paychecks.
Theatre for the media and by extension the public too…maybe circus is a better term since it goes round and looks spectacular occasionally while the audience is distracted from the mundane.
Despite the honest protestation of many media professionals to the contrary, the truth is the media does not serve the public interest, it serves the people holding the paychecks.
The worrying thing from my professional perspective is how easy it is to spin the media. I work outside the industry now and know from my colleagues still inside that the problems of resourcing and time pressures and commercial pressures have gotten worse in recent years.
If I could put my finger on a single driver it would be the loss of so many older and wiser heads from newsrooms. The youngsters left behind have come to rely too much on pre-manufactured press releases and helpful press “kits” that given them all the background, all the quotes and suggested contacts.
They’re spoon fed these days and that’s made them an easy target for the spinners.
The worrying thing from my professional perspective is how easy it is to spin the media. I work outside the industry now and know from my colleagues still inside that the problems of resourcing and time pressures and commercial pressures have gotten worse in recent years.
If I could put my finger on a single driver it would be the loss of so many older and wiser heads from newsrooms. The youngsters left behind have come to rely too much on pre-manufactured press releases and helpful press “kits” that given them all the background, all the quotes and suggested contacts.
They’re spoon fed these days and that’s made them an easy target for the spinners.
Excuse me please!Could you clarify wether your statements of 100s of journalists to Murdoch equates with and how… your last statement using the word journalists?
Excuse me please!Could you clarify wether your statements of 100s of journalists to Murdoch equates with and how… your last statement using the word journalists?
Not sure I get the question. Are you saying they can’t be journalists if they work for Murdoch? Bit harsh, given that you basically only half a dozen major employers to choose from as a working journalist – Fairfax, the ABC, the commercial TV and radio networks (and commercial radio is mainly rip-and-read), plus the wires.
The columnists are News Ltd are professional ratbags, but there are still hundreds of working stiffs who just do the other stuff. I’ve got a few mates who work there, including one or two pretty senior people – and even they shake their heads at the bias. But what can you do?
Not sure I get the question. Are you saying they can’t be journalists if they work for Murdoch? Bit harsh, given that you basically only half a dozen major employers to choose from as a working journalist – Fairfax, the ABC, the commercial TV and radio networks (and commercial radio is mainly rip-and-read), plus the wires.
The columnists are News Ltd are professional ratbags, but there are still hundreds of working stiffs who just do the other stuff. I’ve got a few mates who work there, including one or two pretty senior people – and even they shake their heads at the bias. But what can you do?
Don’t make eye contact, Mr Denmore – p.a.travers is off his meds again …
Don’t make eye contact, Mr Denmore – p.a.travers is off his meds again …
Another great article, thanks, Mr Denmore. Bread & circuses, isn’t that the saying from the fall of Rome (or something). We get it in spades. Unless you are a bit of of a political wonk you don’t have the time, or the inclination (i would guess) to use the net. So most voters take the bites that come from MSM and the circus continues. Under those circumstances it probably isn’t any wonder that policy and actually doing some good takes a (very) back seat.
Another great article, thanks, Mr Denmore. Bread & circuses, isn’t that the saying from the fall of Rome (or something). We get it in spades. Unless you are a bit of of a political wonk you don’t have the time, or the inclination (i would guess) to use the net. So most voters take the bites that come from MSM and the circus continues. Under those circumstances it probably isn’t any wonder that policy and actually doing some good takes a (very) back seat.
So why such outrage from the progressives when the PM’s office behaves in ways that clearly recognise these risks.
Politics is the only game in town! Rudd doesn’t do it brilliantly, but being risk-averse is a sensible strategy. The alternative would be suicide.
So why such outrage from the progressives when the PM’s office behaves in ways that clearly recognise these risks.
Politics is the only game in town! Rudd doesn’t do it brilliantly, but being risk-averse is a sensible strategy. The alternative would be suicide.
Debbieanne @10: “Under those circumstances it probably isn’t any wonder that policy and actually doing some good takes a (very) back seat.”
Indeed. It could in fact be argued that the travesty that passes for media in Oz these days is so detrimental to democracy and good governance that we have little to lose from fairly radical solutions.
How about bringing in some sort of serious accreditation/good practice regs for journalists, and bar them if they are ever shown not to be up to standard?
Reboot the industry by nationalising the whole damn lot, excising Murdoch once and for all, breaking up the biggies and redistributing them to small indepndent operators, with anti-merger rules in place?
I’d normally be utterly anti this level of government takeover of independent media, but the thing is, they are not independent any more: they are under the control of multinational corporate interests who we did not vote for. It’s becoming questionable whether the sort of thing I suggest above is any less safe than the status quo.
Debbieanne @10: “Under those circumstances it probably isn’t any wonder that policy and actually doing some good takes a (very) back seat.”
Indeed. It could in fact be argued that the travesty that passes for media in Oz these days is so detrimental to democracy and good governance that we have little to lose from fairly radical solutions.
How about bringing in some sort of serious accreditation/good practice regs for journalists, and bar them if they are ever shown not to be up to standard?
Reboot the industry by nationalising the whole damn lot, excising Murdoch once and for all, breaking up the biggies and redistributing them to small indepndent operators, with anti-merger rules in place?
I’d normally be utterly anti this level of government takeover of independent media, but the thing is, they are not independent any more: they are under the control of multinational corporate interests who we did not vote for. It’s becoming questionable whether the sort of thing I suggest above is any less safe than the status quo.
I was merely reacting to a mathematical uncertainty,which was entirely mine and the transformative in descriptors,I am not a LIBRA!?
I was merely reacting to a mathematical uncertainty,which was entirely mine and the transformative in descriptors,I am not a LIBRA!?
Nipper @11, Rudd’s problem is he listens too much to the spinners. He seems to lack his own political antennae, so he delegates communication strategies to people who grew up on the Daily Tele. These guys figure it’s not worth explaining unless it fits into the “Fair Deal for Working Families” pitch.
To gove you an example, Rudd’s advisors are treating the electorate like nongs and that’s a reflection of the attitude of tabloid journos forever talking down to their audience. (By the way, that’s usually because the journalists themselves don’t understand or at least can’t be bothered understanding the policy detail).
Rudd is struggling with the RSPT because he has got the pitch wrong. His thumbsuckers in the media office have constructed the argument as “We’re hitting fatcat miners so you can have more super”. Apart from that not being an accurate statement (employers pay for the added super), it’s old school politics.
The economic arguments for the RSPT are quite sensible. We’re getting huge prices for our minerals right now. But we can only mine this publicly owned asset once. The economy has basically got a huge pay rise. But it’s too much at once. And it’s pushing our interest rates higher than they need to be. So why not spread the wealth out and give other industries – like farmers and manufacturers – more space to grow? Otherwise, we end up like a plane running on a single engine.
This isn’t radical. Treasury has modelled it. Big international organisations like the IMF and OECD like it. Industry groups like it, the wealth management sector likes it and the mining unions think it makes sense. The only people who don’t like it are a few billionaire miners, the Liberal Party and their spruikers in the media. Who are you going to believe?
So the pitch is, the RSPT lengthens the life of the boom, while spreading the benefits more fairly, taking pressure off other industries and keeping our interest rates and exchange rates at more competitive levels.
Nipper @11, Rudd’s problem is he listens too much to the spinners. He seems to lack his own political antennae, so he delegates communication strategies to people who grew up on the Daily Tele. These guys figure it’s not worth explaining unless it fits into the “Fair Deal for Working Families” pitch.
To gove you an example, Rudd’s advisors are treating the electorate like nongs and that’s a reflection of the attitude of tabloid journos forever talking down to their audience. (By the way, that’s usually because the journalists themselves don’t understand or at least can’t be bothered understanding the policy detail).
Rudd is struggling with the RSPT because he has got the pitch wrong. His thumbsuckers in the media office have constructed the argument as “We’re hitting fatcat miners so you can have more super”. Apart from that not being an accurate statement (employers pay for the added super), it’s old school politics.
The economic arguments for the RSPT are quite sensible. We’re getting huge prices for our minerals right now. But we can only mine this publicly owned asset once. The economy has basically got a huge pay rise. But it’s too much at once. And it’s pushing our interest rates higher than they need to be. So why not spread the wealth out and give other industries – like farmers and manufacturers – more space to grow? Otherwise, we end up like a plane running on a single engine.
This isn’t radical. Treasury has modelled it. Big international organisations like the IMF and OECD like it. Industry groups like it, the wealth management sector likes it and the mining unions think it makes sense. The only people who don’t like it are a few billionaire miners, the Liberal Party and their spruikers in the media. Who are you going to believe?
So the pitch is, the RSPT lengthens the life of the boom, while spreading the benefits more fairly, taking pressure off other industries and keeping our interest rates and exchange rates at more competitive levels.
Advising readers that Ad Astra’s blog, The Political Sword has a new section called ABC Watch. It will act as a repository for reported cases of bias on the ABC.
Ad Astra writes:
http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/page/ABC-Watch.aspx
Advising readers that Ad Astra’s blog, The Political Sword has a new section called ABC Watch. It will act as a repository for reported cases of bias on the ABC.
Ad Astra writes:
http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/page/ABC-Watch.aspx
Mr Denmore
Is it the loss of older heads or just general laziness in your opinion?
Human nature says its easier to reword a government press release rather than tackle a multi week investigation.
I see how harder heads would help, and a lot of the old networks of info leakers would have gone, but surely a journo would get more at a Canberra bar than out of a press release any day?
Mr Denmore
Is it the loss of older heads or just general laziness in your opinion?
Human nature says its easier to reword a government press release rather than tackle a multi week investigation.
I see how harder heads would help, and a lot of the old networks of info leakers would have gone, but surely a journo would get more at a Canberra bar than out of a press release any day?
I think it’s more the loss of experience, Mole. The media has lost so many old heads that youngsters just coming into the media are being trained by people who have only been there only three or four years.
There are a few grey heads, but so few that they spend all their time on management. So what’s happening is the blind are leading the blind. Bad habits are being reinforced and there’s no-one there to show them the right way.
It’s not just me saying this by the way. It’s common consensus when a group of old journos, past and present, get together.
What’s not happening when this spin comes through is someone saying to the reporter, “well, what do you expect them to say son?” We have a couple of generations of kids who’ve come through now thinking it all gets handed to them on a plate.
But the best news takes some digging, some effort. It usually involves being hung up on and being given the bum steer and the runaround. The best journos are not necessarily the best writers, either. The best ones are the most dogged, the most curious, the ones who are forever sceptical and know how to ask the right question.
That’s why you do the job in the first place. That’s what makes it fulfilling. But the media now is full of byline chasers and celebrity wannabees with no-one to steer them back on the right track. Harumph.
I think it’s more the loss of experience, Mole. The media has lost so many old heads that youngsters just coming into the media are being trained by people who have only been there only three or four years.
There are a few grey heads, but so few that they spend all their time on management. So what’s happening is the blind are leading the blind. Bad habits are being reinforced and there’s no-one there to show them the right way.
It’s not just me saying this by the way. It’s common consensus when a group of old journos, past and present, get together.
What’s not happening when this spin comes through is someone saying to the reporter, “well, what do you expect them to say son?” We have a couple of generations of kids who’ve come through now thinking it all gets handed to them on a plate.
But the best news takes some digging, some effort. It usually involves being hung up on and being given the bum steer and the runaround. The best journos are not necessarily the best writers, either. The best ones are the most dogged, the most curious, the ones who are forever sceptical and know how to ask the right question.
That’s why you do the job in the first place. That’s what makes it fulfilling. But the media now is full of byline chasers and celebrity wannabees with no-one to steer them back on the right track. Harumph.
A sucker for a well swung fist enclosed or other wise,I am losing respect of Denmore,which makes me know,I am having a bad toenail cuticles day.Endless commentary as expertise seems to only finesse those qualities that are not journalism.
A sucker for a well swung fist enclosed or other wise,I am losing respect of Denmore,which makes me know,I am having a bad toenail cuticles day.Endless commentary as expertise seems to only finesse those qualities that are not journalism.
“Who pays the piper calls the tune”.
The COALition is the parliamentary arm of capitalism, the media is one of the propaganda arms.
The media will always, with occasional wobbles according to cirmcumstance and subservience of the pollies, prefer the ultra right COALition to the less right ALP.
“Who pays the piper calls the tune”.
The COALition is the parliamentary arm of capitalism, the media is one of the propaganda arms.
The media will always, with occasional wobbles according to cirmcumstance and subservience of the pollies, prefer the ultra right COALition to the less right ALP.
[of or for] I can argue a case for ‘of’ rather than for because in the context usage,the choosing of reading the Denmore product rather than person is what I meant.If only the readers were as luck in moments of his descriptors of unnamed journalists.
[of or for] I can argue a case for ‘of’ rather than for because in the context usage,the choosing of reading the Denmore product rather than person is what I meant.If only the readers were as luck in moments of his descriptors of unnamed journalists.
Missing from your thesis: too many journalists are lazy hacks who will do the absolute minimum possible work necessary to stir up some shit, before heading down the pub.
Missing from your thesis: too many journalists are lazy hacks who will do the absolute minimum possible work necessary to stir up some shit, before heading down the pub.
Jacques
Nope. Its included [presuming your comment is aimed at mine].
Its much easier for ‘lazy hacks’ to churn out pieces that fit the company line than to write something against such and have to justify such to those above whether its print editors or programme managers.
Jacques
Nope. Its included [presuming your comment is aimed at mine].
Its much easier for ‘lazy hacks’ to churn out pieces that fit the company line than to write something against such and have to justify such to those above whether its print editors or programme managers.
Actually, I suspect being “rooted to their desks, relying on transcription services, radio, twitter, the wires and fearful of missing something they (or at least their editors) judge as critical” is quite hard work.
Actually, I suspect being “rooted to their desks, relying on transcription services, radio, twitter, the wires and fearful of missing something they (or at least their editors) judge as critical” is quite hard work.
You lot are probably aware of this but it seems appropriate to chuck it into the arena again.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2009/10/they-do-things-differently-at-newscorp.html
“They do things differently at Newscorp.
Here’s how staff of the Adelaide Advertiser describe things in an internal memo:
(HT: Crikey)
“There are many conflicting instructions, blanket bans on certain words and subjects, and a lack of trust in the reporter to choose what to focus on…
Management often dictates an editorial line it wants reporters to take that is in conflict with what our contacts say. Much of a day can be wasted trying to find one person to say what management wants them to say. This is not reporting, it is fabricating news…”
You lot are probably aware of this but it seems appropriate to chuck it into the arena again.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2009/10/they-do-things-differently-at-newscorp.html
“They do things differently at Newscorp.
Here’s how staff of the Adelaide Advertiser describe things in an internal memo:
(HT: Crikey)
“There are many conflicting instructions, blanket bans on certain words and subjects, and a lack of trust in the reporter to choose what to focus on…
Management often dictates an editorial line it wants reporters to take that is in conflict with what our contacts say. Much of a day can be wasted trying to find one person to say what management wants them to say. This is not reporting, it is fabricating news…”
Bloody Hell and the mob at the ’tiser aren’t anywhere near as bad as they are at the OO!
Bloody Hell and the mob at the ’tiser aren’t anywhere near as bad as they are at the OO!
The suggestion that too many journalists are ‘lazy hacks’ misses the point.
I live in a regional area and I am constantly surprised at the turnover of journalists at the local paper. The key reasons seem to be that the pay is poor and the workloads are high. My guess would be that it wouldn’t be that different at a major paper.
Its not the quality of the journalist that is the issue its the culture of the organisations, the brightest and best quickly find greener pastures…
The suggestion that too many journalists are ‘lazy hacks’ misses the point.
I live in a regional area and I am constantly surprised at the turnover of journalists at the local paper. The key reasons seem to be that the pay is poor and the workloads are high. My guess would be that it wouldn’t be that different at a major paper.
Its not the quality of the journalist that is the issue its the culture of the organisations, the brightest and best quickly find greener pastures…
What bullshit. What self-serving, myopic, whiny garbage from an insular bunch of people who richly deserve the redundancy they have worked hard for over many years.
Densmore, square the circle: the more “consistent” the journosphere is, the less it is consumed. All those cuts have led to a bland, homogenised product from which the market is less and less interested. Healthy industries don’t stack piles of free product up in public places and count these as sales. Proprietors operate on the basis that the pap will do for content because consumers are mugs.
The 24-hour news cycle is so much self-serving nonsense once you realise two facts. First, you can’t get a story up after 3pm, because that’s when nightly TV programs and newspapers are “put to bed”. Second, when there’s a busy news day, important stories are not followed up and do not appear when the narrative lurches in the direction of such stories. Both these instances show the “24 hour news cycle” to be a straw man. Media people whingeing about the 24 hour news cycle reminds me of politicians justifying pay-rises on the basis of “productivity”: it’s self-serving drivel and bears no relation to reality, it’s ruinous to your credibility Mr Denmore, please stop it.
I love a bit of groupthink in the morning, particularly mixed with some self-serving tripe, some arse-covering, and a splash of I-didn’t-get-where-I-am-today-by-rocking-the-boat.
It’s the “old heads” who are responsible for reducing budget commentary to “beer, cigs up”. The antidote to any argument about “old heads” is to read anything by Mark Day or John B. Fairfax, then read it again, and again as many times as it takes to stop listening to these fools.
Have you seen the Federal budget papers? They’re massive. For political and economic journalists, you can live off that document for a year at least, checking that this has been spent and what the impact has been, where it hasn’t been spent and why. By the time you run out of stories, chances are it’s May again and the next one isn’t far off. The idea that the budget is “old news” and hence infra dig for journalists to even mention by early June is to blame others for their stupidity. The idea that journalists can spend a coupla day representing themselves as if they’ve read the whole thing, then jumping onto the next bit of ephemera, shows these people don’t understand their own job (let alone those of the Treasurer, the PM, the Opposition and others).
When press gallery journalists go into the lock-up and review budget documents in detail, and then (as happened this year) the Treasurer tells them what story they should be writing – any self-respecting bunch of professionals should have wrung his neck. From this (and other examples) we can conclude a) that journalists aren’t self-respecting professionals, and b) that any respect accorded them – “old heads” or no – is wasted.
Journalism requires an in-depth understanding of an issue and the ability to relate that to a wider, non-specialist audience: the relationship with the wider audience is non-existant and the in-depth understanding is, with isolated examples, also lacking. That’s why journalism is stuffed, and the fact that it won’t change shows this predicament will continue.
You can criticise the media in the same way that you can criticise any other product: if I’m in a restaurant and I get a badly cooked meal, I’ll send it back. If restaurants were run on the same basis as media organisations, I wouldn’t get a properly cooked meal, or my money back: I’d get a lecture about how the chef is a celebrity with this much experience and whatever qualifications, that I should be privileged to be let into the restaurant, also that woe-is-me we get criticised all the time – then I’d get sent back to eat more pap because that’s what this kitchen is serving today and every day, so there.
When you hear an “old head” proclaim: “the punters don’t want to hear about X, they want to hear about Y”, why does nobody call bullshit on this and ask them on what basis they say it? The “old heads” are the very people who’ve overseen a precipitous decline in sales and impact of their product. Fuck the old heads.
Jacques Chester’s comment is valid only if you regard journalists as self-managing entities. It is possible for a journalist to be assiduous and get it totally wrong. Case in point: Michelle Grattan. She’s been in Canberra since it was a sheep paddock and she still breathlessly reports ephemera like it matters, still overlooks big issues snuck in late on Friday afternoons or on “busy news days”, still does not bring her experience to bear on actual government and governance – preferring instead the “24 hour news cycle” of forgetfulness as an excuse for not calling bullshit on the sort of stunts she should be well and truly over by now.
Chester also requires you to believe that the bean-counter management layer in media organisations over the past twenty years or so has had no effect, that highly-paid managers and skilled financial analysts were as helpless as kittens while other industries had more success in extracting productivity increases from their staff (media organisations cover other industries, you’d think they’d identify some best practice and bring it in-house).
News is a product you can simply leave out of your daily purchases, and people increasingly do because what’s produced is not consistently interesting to consumers. Sure, there’s focus groups and other forms of marketing busywork, and it’s easy to get drawn in by that; but could it be that the marketing people are no better at their jobs than the clowns who are running these organisations?
What bullshit. What self-serving, myopic, whiny garbage from an insular bunch of people who richly deserve the redundancy they have worked hard for over many years.
Densmore, square the circle: the more “consistent” the journosphere is, the less it is consumed. All those cuts have led to a bland, homogenised product from which the market is less and less interested. Healthy industries don’t stack piles of free product up in public places and count these as sales. Proprietors operate on the basis that the pap will do for content because consumers are mugs.
The 24-hour news cycle is so much self-serving nonsense once you realise two facts. First, you can’t get a story up after 3pm, because that’s when nightly TV programs and newspapers are “put to bed”. Second, when there’s a busy news day, important stories are not followed up and do not appear when the narrative lurches in the direction of such stories. Both these instances show the “24 hour news cycle” to be a straw man. Media people whingeing about the 24 hour news cycle reminds me of politicians justifying pay-rises on the basis of “productivity”: it’s self-serving drivel and bears no relation to reality, it’s ruinous to your credibility Mr Denmore, please stop it.
I love a bit of groupthink in the morning, particularly mixed with some self-serving tripe, some arse-covering, and a splash of I-didn’t-get-where-I-am-today-by-rocking-the-boat.
It’s the “old heads” who are responsible for reducing budget commentary to “beer, cigs up”. The antidote to any argument about “old heads” is to read anything by Mark Day or John B. Fairfax, then read it again, and again as many times as it takes to stop listening to these fools.
Have you seen the Federal budget papers? They’re massive. For political and economic journalists, you can live off that document for a year at least, checking that this has been spent and what the impact has been, where it hasn’t been spent and why. By the time you run out of stories, chances are it’s May again and the next one isn’t far off. The idea that the budget is “old news” and hence infra dig for journalists to even mention by early June is to blame others for their stupidity. The idea that journalists can spend a coupla day representing themselves as if they’ve read the whole thing, then jumping onto the next bit of ephemera, shows these people don’t understand their own job (let alone those of the Treasurer, the PM, the Opposition and others).
When press gallery journalists go into the lock-up and review budget documents in detail, and then (as happened this year) the Treasurer tells them what story they should be writing – any self-respecting bunch of professionals should have wrung his neck. From this (and other examples) we can conclude a) that journalists aren’t self-respecting professionals, and b) that any respect accorded them – “old heads” or no – is wasted.
Journalism requires an in-depth understanding of an issue and the ability to relate that to a wider, non-specialist audience: the relationship with the wider audience is non-existant and the in-depth understanding is, with isolated examples, also lacking. That’s why journalism is stuffed, and the fact that it won’t change shows this predicament will continue.
You can criticise the media in the same way that you can criticise any other product: if I’m in a restaurant and I get a badly cooked meal, I’ll send it back. If restaurants were run on the same basis as media organisations, I wouldn’t get a properly cooked meal, or my money back: I’d get a lecture about how the chef is a celebrity with this much experience and whatever qualifications, that I should be privileged to be let into the restaurant, also that woe-is-me we get criticised all the time – then I’d get sent back to eat more pap because that’s what this kitchen is serving today and every day, so there.
When you hear an “old head” proclaim: “the punters don’t want to hear about X, they want to hear about Y”, why does nobody call bullshit on this and ask them on what basis they say it? The “old heads” are the very people who’ve overseen a precipitous decline in sales and impact of their product. Fuck the old heads.
Jacques Chester’s comment is valid only if you regard journalists as self-managing entities. It is possible for a journalist to be assiduous and get it totally wrong. Case in point: Michelle Grattan. She’s been in Canberra since it was a sheep paddock and she still breathlessly reports ephemera like it matters, still overlooks big issues snuck in late on Friday afternoons or on “busy news days”, still does not bring her experience to bear on actual government and governance – preferring instead the “24 hour news cycle” of forgetfulness as an excuse for not calling bullshit on the sort of stunts she should be well and truly over by now.
Chester also requires you to believe that the bean-counter management layer in media organisations over the past twenty years or so has had no effect, that highly-paid managers and skilled financial analysts were as helpless as kittens while other industries had more success in extracting productivity increases from their staff (media organisations cover other industries, you’d think they’d identify some best practice and bring it in-house).
News is a product you can simply leave out of your daily purchases, and people increasingly do because what’s produced is not consistently interesting to consumers. Sure, there’s focus groups and other forms of marketing busywork, and it’s easy to get drawn in by that; but could it be that the marketing people are no better at their jobs than the clowns who are running these organisations?
Then there is Mungo MacCallum the only sheepskin with authority authenticity and angst to know them owners aren’t sheep!
Then there is Mungo MacCallum the only sheepskin with authority authenticity and angst to know them owners aren’t sheep!
I reiterate what I said in a comment in the first installment: this is the expected outcome. The shrinking of the press landscape in Australia during the Eighties and the dominant position of Murdoch were expected to deliver something akin to what Mr D describes, i.e. an homogeneous, trivialized simple binary-opposition-based narrative. And as I said before the doesn’t appear to be any end in sight.
I reiterate what I said in a comment in the first installment: this is the expected outcome. The shrinking of the press landscape in Australia during the Eighties and the dominant position of Murdoch were expected to deliver something akin to what Mr D describes, i.e. an homogeneous, trivialized simple binary-opposition-based narrative. And as I said before the doesn’t appear to be any end in sight.
Anything else on your mind, Andrew?
Anything else on your mind, Andrew?
^5 FDB, that was a C|N>K moment. Andrew describes a lot of the outcomes of Mr Denmore’s analysis, even though he appears to think he’s invalidating it. My concern is that a great deal of the public hasn’t yet dumped the news cycle as an ephemeral sideshow because they’ve become habituated to Life As Who Magazine. When something actually serious occurs, and the perfect example was the GFC, the media starts well (4corners in particular telegraphed the danger well before), but as the crisis deepens, we get the kind of useless over-reporting often seen on cable news: lots of detail, no direction. I’m strongly reminded of that mini-series Supervolcano, where the impact isn’t so much about the disaster itself, but how it would likely be “managed” disastrously because the media fuels such “management”. I fear this is a self-fulfilling prophecy which will play out repeatedly in the future.
^5 FDB, that was a C|N>K moment. Andrew describes a lot of the outcomes of Mr Denmore’s analysis, even though he appears to think he’s invalidating it. My concern is that a great deal of the public hasn’t yet dumped the news cycle as an ephemeral sideshow because they’ve become habituated to Life As Who Magazine. When something actually serious occurs, and the perfect example was the GFC, the media starts well (4corners in particular telegraphed the danger well before), but as the crisis deepens, we get the kind of useless over-reporting often seen on cable news: lots of detail, no direction. I’m strongly reminded of that mini-series Supervolcano, where the impact isn’t so much about the disaster itself, but how it would likely be “managed” disastrously because the media fuels such “management”. I fear this is a self-fulfilling prophecy which will play out repeatedly in the future.
I would thing that if the above article assumptions are true then the present is primed for am entirely new “”"independent”"” journalism to arise in the form of a digital publication perhaps called the INDEPENDENT NEWS, as happened in New Zealand under similar circumstances. People very quickly latch onto news product that rejects bias. It becomes news in itself.
Are there any Jounos out there with any backbone?
I would thing that if the above article assumptions are true then the present is primed for am entirely new “”"independent”"” journalism to arise in the form of a digital publication perhaps called the INDEPENDENT NEWS, as happened in New Zealand under similar circumstances. People very quickly latch onto news product that rejects bias. It becomes news in itself.
Are there any Jounos out there with any backbone?
I know you style yourself some kind of Menzian, Andrew E., but wow, I had no idea you’re actually still living in the world of Menzies.
There’s plenty of evidence out there about a technological determinist effect on news media because of advances in tech over the years, about it changing patterns of professional behaviour among journos. It’s mad to deny the existence/importance of a 24hr news cycle. Talkback radio, portable video cameras, fax machines, cheap satellite hookups—that’s the original huge shift that came in at least thirty years ago. Mr Denmore’s thesis is absolutely spot on about how more than a decade of communications advances had, by the end of last century, hollowed out the newsgathering ‘comprehension skills’ of the MSM when it came to figuring out what was worthy of reporting, and what merely trifling. Once upon a time a harmless off the cuff statement would never have been given the weight of a speech given on dozens of hustings. By 1998 it was offered as proof that Evans was somehow a threat to the national interest. Doesn’t get more obvious than that.
If anything, I think Denmore should expand his analysis here to include the impact of contemporary Net content that isn’t coming from the corporate media and the professional flacks (i.e., the blogs).
I know you style yourself some kind of Menzian, Andrew E., but wow, I had no idea you’re actually still living in the world of Menzies.
There’s plenty of evidence out there about a technological determinist effect on news media because of advances in tech over the years, about it changing patterns of professional behaviour among journos. It’s mad to deny the existence/importance of a 24hr news cycle. Talkback radio, portable video cameras, fax machines, cheap satellite hookups—that’s the original huge shift that came in at least thirty years ago. Mr Denmore’s thesis is absolutely spot on about how more than a decade of communications advances had, by the end of last century, hollowed out the newsgathering ‘comprehension skills’ of the MSM when it came to figuring out what was worthy of reporting, and what merely trifling. Once upon a time a harmless off the cuff statement would never have been given the weight of a speech given on dozens of hustings. By 1998 it was offered as proof that Evans was somehow a threat to the national interest. Doesn’t get more obvious than that.
If anything, I think Denmore should expand his analysis here to include the impact of contemporary Net content that isn’t coming from the corporate media and the professional flacks (i.e., the blogs).
Nickws
Thanks for reminding us that we live in the new media era. I’m just back from the Global Voices Citizen Media Summit in Santiago. The 24 hour cycle is just that; the voices are legion and the content now. Take a look. It’s the future.
Nickws
Thanks for reminding us that we live in the new media era. I’m just back from the Global Voices Citizen Media Summit in Santiago. The 24 hour cycle is just that; the voices are legion and the content now. Take a look. It’s the future.
ewe2′s observation @31 is accurate. As technology has improved, so that reporters can provide second-to-second live commentary on major news events via multiple platforms, the media’s ability to provide a big picture, long-run view of these events has progressively weakened.
As close as our media gets to it is Paul Kelly’s rather laboured and clunky attempts to cast modern Australian political history into a bigger narrative. But Kelly tends to disappear up his own orifice and it’s going to take someone with a better handle on the implications of the newer technologies to build a better analysis.
The positive view is that web forums such as this and the ability to go straight to the source have disintermediated the news process. The negative view is that the new technologies have just multiplied the opportunities for the power elite to manage the information flow.
My sense is we are reaching a kind of tipping point in which most people are vaguely, and a large minority consciously, aware of how the game is played.
ewe2′s observation @31 is accurate. As technology has improved, so that reporters can provide second-to-second live commentary on major news events via multiple platforms, the media’s ability to provide a big picture, long-run view of these events has progressively weakened.
As close as our media gets to it is Paul Kelly’s rather laboured and clunky attempts to cast modern Australian political history into a bigger narrative. But Kelly tends to disappear up his own orifice and it’s going to take someone with a better handle on the implications of the newer technologies to build a better analysis.
The positive view is that web forums such as this and the ability to go straight to the source have disintermediated the news process. The negative view is that the new technologies have just multiplied the opportunities for the power elite to manage the information flow.
My sense is we are reaching a kind of tipping point in which most people are vaguely, and a large minority consciously, aware of how the game is played.
Andrew your comment displays both the strength and weaknesses of someone looking in from outside.
Your positing of journalists as choosing to serve up plates of bullshit is contingent upon them not wanting a salary, or a job at a paper – they are simply skipping to an editorial tune. Not in a grand conspiracy sense, as some here are wont to ascribe, but in the sense that when you have an entire system geared towards making you produce a certain type of content, a certain amount of it, a certain way, your skillset becomes almost irrelevant. It takes tremendous strength to buck the trend in this way – I say this as someone who has worked as both a journalist, and in PR.
For example, one of my freelancing jobs from days of yore involved: once every two weeks, producing approximately 5-6 thousand words – of news, not editorial – in two days. Two days. Now, I had to eat, I had a “vocation”, how was I supposed to write real news in that kind of timeframe and volume, skills or no? The only possible way was to lean, more than heavily; desperately, on press releases and information spoon-fed to me by the agencies in the sector I was covering.
To expand on this, and Mr Denmore may or may not agree with me on this one. The 24 hour news cycle (and yes, Virginia, there is a news cycle, as anyone working in PR and especially issues management will tell you) and the online environment have created a huge demand for quantity, but not quality. In my opinion, this feeds into an already prevalent editorial culture of “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it comes to where, how, and why you got your sources and your content. When you are paying people circa 10 cents a word or under, with short deadlines, you are effectively forcing them to produce and write content in a certain way. I laugh when I see the outrage and stink when people like Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass were discovered as fabricator – the amazing thing to me isn’t that they were able to do it for so long, but that they were caught at all. In my experience, a level of – if not outright fabrication, then ellipsis and ambiguity – is widespread. Fictitious quotes, spoon-fed sources etc.
So you can blame journalists, in the sense that you can blame them for wanting to be journalists when the title and the job are synonymous and contingent upon rank bullshit these days. But you can’t blame them for pumping out the written equivalent of sewage outflow. That, unfortunately, is the job, these days – and that, I feel is what Mr Denmore is trying to highlight. This problem is larger than a few bad apples ruining the op-ed (“anaylsis”) section; on the contrary, those journalists are simply the most visible, risible, example of a malaise that is set into the very marrow of the sector. At least their paucity of intellectual capital and research is displayed proudly and prominently; I’m far more concerned about the “straight” news sections, which are anything but.
In my opinion, in addition to shrinking budgets, gross mismanagement, etc. the decline of a cadetship model in favour of degrees has also played a part (albeit not the main one) in this sickening and waning of a healthy journalistic culture. Of course, the new funding models don’t support a cadetship program, so it’s a bit chicken and egg. Nonetheless, however much people may criticise the ABC, they remain one of the few organisations left that in my opinion try to teach their recruits what proper news-making is and it still – despite the efforts of many – shows to a degree.
So, in essence, you’re half right, but paradoxically you don’t know how wrong you are re: the other half.
Andrew your comment displays both the strength and weaknesses of someone looking in from outside.
Your positing of journalists as choosing to serve up plates of bullshit is contingent upon them not wanting a salary, or a job at a paper – they are simply skipping to an editorial tune. Not in a grand conspiracy sense, as some here are wont to ascribe, but in the sense that when you have an entire system geared towards making you produce a certain type of content, a certain amount of it, a certain way, your skillset becomes almost irrelevant. It takes tremendous strength to buck the trend in this way – I say this as someone who has worked as both a journalist, and in PR.
For example, one of my freelancing jobs from days of yore involved: once every two weeks, producing approximately 5-6 thousand words – of news, not editorial – in two days. Two days. Now, I had to eat, I had a “vocation”, how was I supposed to write real news in that kind of timeframe and volume, skills or no? The only possible way was to lean, more than heavily; desperately, on press releases and information spoon-fed to me by the agencies in the sector I was covering.
To expand on this, and Mr Denmore may or may not agree with me on this one. The 24 hour news cycle (and yes, Virginia, there is a news cycle, as anyone working in PR and especially issues management will tell you) and the online environment have created a huge demand for quantity, but not quality. In my opinion, this feeds into an already prevalent editorial culture of “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it comes to where, how, and why you got your sources and your content. When you are paying people circa 10 cents a word or under, with short deadlines, you are effectively forcing them to produce and write content in a certain way. I laugh when I see the outrage and stink when people like Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass were discovered as fabricator – the amazing thing to me isn’t that they were able to do it for so long, but that they were caught at all. In my experience, a level of – if not outright fabrication, then ellipsis and ambiguity – is widespread. Fictitious quotes, spoon-fed sources etc.
So you can blame journalists, in the sense that you can blame them for wanting to be journalists when the title and the job are synonymous and contingent upon rank bullshit these days. But you can’t blame them for pumping out the written equivalent of sewage outflow. That, unfortunately, is the job, these days – and that, I feel is what Mr Denmore is trying to highlight. This problem is larger than a few bad apples ruining the op-ed (“anaylsis”) section; on the contrary, those journalists are simply the most visible, risible, example of a malaise that is set into the very marrow of the sector. At least their paucity of intellectual capital and research is displayed proudly and prominently; I’m far more concerned about the “straight” news sections, which are anything but.
In my opinion, in addition to shrinking budgets, gross mismanagement, etc. the decline of a cadetship model in favour of degrees has also played a part (albeit not the main one) in this sickening and waning of a healthy journalistic culture. Of course, the new funding models don’t support a cadetship program, so it’s a bit chicken and egg. Nonetheless, however much people may criticise the ABC, they remain one of the few organisations left that in my opinion try to teach their recruits what proper news-making is and it still – despite the efforts of many – shows to a degree.
So, in essence, you’re half right, but paradoxically you don’t know how wrong you are re: the other half.
PatrickG, when Fred Hilmer was CEO of Fairfax he pissed off all the journalists by describing them as “content providers for an advertising platform”. The reason that it rubbed so many people up the wrong way was that it was true. That’s what the job of journalism has reduced itself too – filling the white spaces between the ads. There’s no incentive to produce quality – just churn it out.
Luckily for those inside the sausage factory, the constant chatter on the internet and twitter and Sunday morning TV shows provides plenty of gristle. No need to leave your desk, just spend your entire time filtering the noise.
PatrickG, when Fred Hilmer was CEO of Fairfax he pissed off all the journalists by describing them as “content providers for an advertising platform”. The reason that it rubbed so many people up the wrong way was that it was true. That’s what the job of journalism has reduced itself too – filling the white spaces between the ads. There’s no incentive to produce quality – just churn it out.
Luckily for those inside the sausage factory, the constant chatter on the internet and twitter and Sunday morning TV shows provides plenty of gristle. No need to leave your desk, just spend your entire time filtering the noise.
On the last point Mr Denmore I hazard an opinion that the power elite will not stand idle while the internet dismantles their tools of disinformation.
On the last point Mr Denmore I hazard an opinion that the power elite will not stand idle while the internet dismantles their tools of disinformation.
It appears everyone contributing to this website has a far better idea of what’s really going on than any journalist. To myself, a professional journalist, this seem somewhat surprising. Or perhaps the truth is just a little bit more complex than it appears from this article. Gareth Evans was responsible for numerous media disasters during the ’98 campaign. The seat of Eden Monaro is supposedly the ‘bellweather’ seat that determines the government. It has a significant proportion of 4 wheel drive owners. Evans had insinuated these were just Toorack tractors and floated the possibility of making them more expensive to operate. Eden Monaro voted Liberal.
Attempting to blame the media for this is ridiculous.
It appears everyone contributing to this website has a far better idea of what’s really going on than any journalist. To myself, a professional journalist, this seem somewhat surprising. Or perhaps the truth is just a little bit more complex than it appears from this article. Gareth Evans was responsible for numerous media disasters during the ’98 campaign. The seat of Eden Monaro is supposedly the ‘bellweather’ seat that determines the government. It has a significant proportion of 4 wheel drive owners. Evans had insinuated these were just Toorack tractors and floated the possibility of making them more expensive to operate. Eden Monaro voted Liberal.
Attempting to blame the media for this is ridiculous.
Yes dave.
One of the major changes that has occurred in recent years in the interface between the msm and the public is that the latter has gained something advantageous that was largely conspicuously lacking in the previous era.
Memory.
Once upon a time the msm could seize upon a cyclic event and present it in its desired manner, perhaps ‘breathlessly’ [I borrowed that from Julia describing the msm's 'utegate'], flog the horse for a while and then move on.
Later, down the track, in a new ‘cycle’ it could repeat the exercise and vary the ‘narrative’, or repeat it for effect if it so wished, and then move on again.
A week is a long time in politics.
And the public lacked context and memory.
How do all of these cyclic breathless brouhahas relate to each other?
Is there a connection between them, a pattern, a trend a repeatable narrative?
What’s the big picture?
Well unless you kept files in your filing cabinet dated and cross indexed then you got lost in the confusion between daily life, family and work and all that, and the ‘breathless’ flickering images on the screen or the braying voices of the jocks or a vague memory of a past headline similar to todays issue in some way but buggered if I can recall exactly.
So the public was presented with a series of apparently disjointed images that did not overtly display the underlying ‘narrative’ but which instead operated as a sort of Pavlov’s bell softly tingling and eliciting responses throughout such as unions [boo, hiss, holding the country to ransom], greenies [bloody hippy tree huggers], tax cuts [good], economic competence [COALition natch], ‘illegal’ [sic] boat people, lots of examples.
No context [well minimal].
Enter the net.
Suddenly Abbott saying ‘no big new taxes’ in one cycle can be connected to Abbott promising something wonderful that neccesitates an “Abbott great big new tax”.
Now maybe the msm can skip blithely over the blatant contradiction, its easy to do just mumble we are in a new cycle and forget the context.
But with a few keystrokes somebody can provide the context and the memory, chuck it on Youtube, play the audio, link to the transcript and let us all, potentially, know about.
Context and memory.
One of the [many] key elements in the demise of the Howard govt IMO was the COALition contradiction about interest rates.
Johnny tried to obfuscate that he had promised no rises and ordinarily in the good ole days he would have got away with it and the caravan, or circus, would have moved on.
But the net gave us the image of him standing at a lectern with the promise of no interest rate rises and he was sprung badly.
Context and memory had been supplied and it was largely out of the control of the msm.
Its not all good yet, the msm still sits between the issues and the public making lots of noise [witness the OOs 'war on science'] but at least the public now have the potential to know context and facts that previously were unavailable.
Yes dave.
One of the major changes that has occurred in recent years in the interface between the msm and the public is that the latter has gained something advantageous that was largely conspicuously lacking in the previous era.
Memory.
Once upon a time the msm could seize upon a cyclic event and present it in its desired manner, perhaps ‘breathlessly’ [I borrowed that from Julia describing the msm's 'utegate'], flog the horse for a while and then move on.
Later, down the track, in a new ‘cycle’ it could repeat the exercise and vary the ‘narrative’, or repeat it for effect if it so wished, and then move on again.
A week is a long time in politics.
And the public lacked context and memory.
How do all of these cyclic breathless brouhahas relate to each other?
Is there a connection between them, a pattern, a trend a repeatable narrative?
What’s the big picture?
Well unless you kept files in your filing cabinet dated and cross indexed then you got lost in the confusion between daily life, family and work and all that, and the ‘breathless’ flickering images on the screen or the braying voices of the jocks or a vague memory of a past headline similar to todays issue in some way but buggered if I can recall exactly.
So the public was presented with a series of apparently disjointed images that did not overtly display the underlying ‘narrative’ but which instead operated as a sort of Pavlov’s bell softly tingling and eliciting responses throughout such as unions [boo, hiss, holding the country to ransom], greenies [bloody hippy tree huggers], tax cuts [good], economic competence [COALition natch], ‘illegal’ [sic] boat people, lots of examples.
No context [well minimal].
Enter the net.
Suddenly Abbott saying ‘no big new taxes’ in one cycle can be connected to Abbott promising something wonderful that neccesitates an “Abbott great big new tax”.
Now maybe the msm can skip blithely over the blatant contradiction, its easy to do just mumble we are in a new cycle and forget the context.
But with a few keystrokes somebody can provide the context and the memory, chuck it on Youtube, play the audio, link to the transcript and let us all, potentially, know about.
Context and memory.
One of the [many] key elements in the demise of the Howard govt IMO was the COALition contradiction about interest rates.
Johnny tried to obfuscate that he had promised no rises and ordinarily in the good ole days he would have got away with it and the caravan, or circus, would have moved on.
But the net gave us the image of him standing at a lectern with the promise of no interest rate rises and he was sprung badly.
Context and memory had been supplied and it was largely out of the control of the msm.
Its not all good yet, the msm still sits between the issues and the public making lots of noise [witness the OOs 'war on science'] but at least the public now have the potential to know context and facts that previously were unavailable.
Mr Denmore,
I realise that this sounds and is niave. But what would happen if the Govt. had the courage to release policies etc. on a site such as Crikey?
Mr Denmore,
I realise that this sounds and is niave. But what would happen if the Govt. had the courage to release policies etc. on a site such as Crikey?
How refreshing is this expose?
At last some sense has been spoken.
All like “reality TV” I say,
This oxymoron, sadly just a token!
How refreshing is this expose?
At last some sense has been spoken.
All like “reality TV” I say,
This oxymoron, sadly just a token!
@Nic Stuart
It’s bellwether and Toorak. HTH, HAND.
@Nic Stuart
It’s bellwether and Toorak. HTH, HAND.
joe2 says
True, but depressingly context and ‘facts’ are too often stored and framed as content of the MSM with their particular spin. For me the best feature of the net is its immediacy of reportage with no journalistic filter, but that doesn’t happen often enough. In broadcast interviews etc. the perspective is still distorted simply by the questions posed and forward planned by the interviewer. I notice that interviewees like Ross Garnaut get asked completely different questions from say, mining magnates with varying levels of intensity and scrutiny. As well if the answers are not what the interviewers are looking for they’ll change tack, or as Fran Kelly did on AM with Garnaut this week simply change the subject. Truth still has a huge filter to fight through, even on the net.
joe2 says
True, but depressingly context and ‘facts’ are too often stored and framed as content of the MSM with their particular spin. For me the best feature of the net is its immediacy of reportage with no journalistic filter, but that doesn’t happen often enough. In broadcast interviews etc. the perspective is still distorted simply by the questions posed and forward planned by the interviewer. I notice that interviewees like Ross Garnaut get asked completely different questions from say, mining magnates with varying levels of intensity and scrutiny. As well if the answers are not what the interviewers are looking for they’ll change tack, or as Fran Kelly did on AM with Garnaut this week simply change the subject. Truth still has a huge filter to fight through, even on the net.
Ian @41, governments in recent years have attempted to do just that – to remove the media from the equation. Howard did it by speaking through (admittedly sympathetic) talkback radio shockjocks to the population. He knew the grabs in these softball interviews would go straight into the TV news.
Rudd did it during his ascendancy through his appearances on Sunrise and in his circumventing of journalistic media by agreeing to come onto ‘youth’-oriented shows like Rove where he could pretend to be something other than a politician.
Unfortunately, the result of this process of politicians seeking ever greater control over the message is that the starved journos become ever more cynical and the focus turns increasingly to reporting how each side is managing the day-to-day tactical game, which is seen as an end in itself.
Insofar as policy is discussed (witness the storm over the RSPT), this is almost inevitably boiled down to half truths, slogans and barefaced lies. Rudd’s government is reasonably accused of contributing to this by holding back for six months the release the Henry review until it had its response ready. But it did that partly because it knew the media disinformation process would have whiteanted it to death in the interim. Same with the ETS.
I’m not sure what the answer is to all of this. But we could start by cleaning up the media and holding journos to account when they blithely repeat spin generated by cynical people serving their own interests. In other words, they remember why they became journalists in the first place. Don’t hold your breath, though.
Ian @41, governments in recent years have attempted to do just that – to remove the media from the equation. Howard did it by speaking through (admittedly sympathetic) talkback radio shockjocks to the population. He knew the grabs in these softball interviews would go straight into the TV news.
Rudd did it during his ascendancy through his appearances on Sunrise and in his circumventing of journalistic media by agreeing to come onto ‘youth’-oriented shows like Rove where he could pretend to be something other than a politician.
Unfortunately, the result of this process of politicians seeking ever greater control over the message is that the starved journos become ever more cynical and the focus turns increasingly to reporting how each side is managing the day-to-day tactical game, which is seen as an end in itself.
Insofar as policy is discussed (witness the storm over the RSPT), this is almost inevitably boiled down to half truths, slogans and barefaced lies. Rudd’s government is reasonably accused of contributing to this by holding back for six months the release the Henry review until it had its response ready. But it did that partly because it knew the media disinformation process would have whiteanted it to death in the interim. Same with the ETS.
I’m not sure what the answer is to all of this. But we could start by cleaning up the media and holding journos to account when they blithely repeat spin generated by cynical people serving their own interests. In other words, they remember why they became journalists in the first place. Don’t hold your breath, though.
Plenty, FDB: stay tuned.
Mr Denmore relies on and excuses those he calls “old heads”, whom I regard as perpetrators of this malaise.)Hhe is actually engaging in the very sort of groupthink and arse-covering he decries in the modern generation of journalists.
patrickg: I gave the example of the budget as a year-long source of articles that should insulate you from having to jump whenever a press release comes in. Another example, in covering books for the Sydney market, it seems that speakers who are coming to/are speaking at/have spoken to the Sydney Writers’ Festival provide a year-round source of stories. If you have a bedrock of stories to draw on, and if you have to produce (say) 600 words every 24 hours to justify your existence, surely you can say: no need for your press release rehash today, here’s a story drawn on something more solid. That’s how you stand up for so-called journalistic values.
Nickws: I’m not responsible for your stylings, but yes, there sure is plenty out there. The question is, why doesn’t it stay out there? Why would newspapers consider themselves as competing with different media formats? Let’s say that you were fascinated with, for example, the antics of celebrities: Mr Denmore provides plenty of excuses for those who succumb to printing wire-feeds about celebs and much arse-covering for doing so. What’s missing is the recognition that newspapers are operating in a different market, and that there are benefits to clearing out the fluff. Given that other platforms are better at the fluff, why is there no push for fluff removal in newspapers or other organs not pitching to a lowest-common denominator (seems like journalists can’t distinguish between fluff generally and that generated in their own navels).
There is no responsible journalism crying out to be heard, and j’accuse Mr Denmore’s “old heads” for being the very ones responsible for this predicament.
Plenty, FDB: stay tuned.
Mr Denmore relies on and excuses those he calls “old heads”, whom I regard as perpetrators of this malaise.)Hhe is actually engaging in the very sort of groupthink and arse-covering he decries in the modern generation of journalists.
patrickg: I gave the example of the budget as a year-long source of articles that should insulate you from having to jump whenever a press release comes in. Another example, in covering books for the Sydney market, it seems that speakers who are coming to/are speaking at/have spoken to the Sydney Writers’ Festival provide a year-round source of stories. If you have a bedrock of stories to draw on, and if you have to produce (say) 600 words every 24 hours to justify your existence, surely you can say: no need for your press release rehash today, here’s a story drawn on something more solid. That’s how you stand up for so-called journalistic values.
Nickws: I’m not responsible for your stylings, but yes, there sure is plenty out there. The question is, why doesn’t it stay out there? Why would newspapers consider themselves as competing with different media formats? Let’s say that you were fascinated with, for example, the antics of celebrities: Mr Denmore provides plenty of excuses for those who succumb to printing wire-feeds about celebs and much arse-covering for doing so. What’s missing is the recognition that newspapers are operating in a different market, and that there are benefits to clearing out the fluff. Given that other platforms are better at the fluff, why is there no push for fluff removal in newspapers or other organs not pitching to a lowest-common denominator (seems like journalists can’t distinguish between fluff generally and that generated in their own navels).
There is no responsible journalism crying out to be heard, and j’accuse Mr Denmore’s “old heads” for being the very ones responsible for this predicament.
Andrew E, we’ll have to disagree. The old heads generally are working for the politicians and the big companies these days and they issue instructions to the young reporters, not according to journalistic dictates, but in the service of the interests of their new employers.
Formerly, there were hardened old cynics in newsrooms who could sniff out the spin. Great journalists have inbuilt bullshit detectors and know a good story when they see one. The younger ones left behind mnay know a good story, but they don’t seem so able to separate the spin from the real stuff. They encouraged by the accountants who run newsrooms these days to lift their “productivity”, so it’s all about how many words they produce each day.
The profession, if we can call it that, has lost its old school craftsmen. And I’m not talking about the money men or the marketing men or the proprietors. I’m talking about the old-fashioned tradesmen of journalism – not slick, not fast, not hip, but able to parse a press release at 50 paces. That’s what I mean by old heads. I think you’re talking about something different.
Andrew E, we’ll have to disagree. The old heads generally are working for the politicians and the big companies these days and they issue instructions to the young reporters, not according to journalistic dictates, but in the service of the interests of their new employers.
Formerly, there were hardened old cynics in newsrooms who could sniff out the spin. Great journalists have inbuilt bullshit detectors and know a good story when they see one. The younger ones left behind mnay know a good story, but they don’t seem so able to separate the spin from the real stuff. They encouraged by the accountants who run newsrooms these days to lift their “productivity”, so it’s all about how many words they produce each day.
The profession, if we can call it that, has lost its old school craftsmen. And I’m not talking about the money men or the marketing men or the proprietors. I’m talking about the old-fashioned tradesmen of journalism – not slick, not fast, not hip, but able to parse a press release at 50 paces. That’s what I mean by old heads. I think you’re talking about something different.
Andrew, no offense intended, but that is so naive – your ignorance of the industry is really coming through, here.
You think writers get to pick what they cover? You think those follow-up budget stories you tout can be pulled together in a day? Those types of stories takes months to happen, months to research and typically a couple of days to write. You can’t just sit down and bang one out, or, when your editor approaches you, say “No thanks, old chap, I don’t feel like covering that story, but here’s one which is sure to tickle your fancy” (hint: fancies go untickled, you get fired, and worse; a bad rep in the industry for being ‘difficult’; career kryptonite).
Journalists are victims of the system in addition to the public. It is an entire system that is sick, and hiving off blame to one section is naive, unfair and unproductive (let the record reflect, I’m not exonerating them entirely, but this is what I was alluding to before: when an entire system is geared to produce a certain response, it really takes a remarkable person to take a different route. I’m not gonna judge someone who can’t meet that high standard – most of us couldn’t, and I certainly couldn’t when I was a journo, which is why I quit).
Andrew, no offense intended, but that is so naive – your ignorance of the industry is really coming through, here.
You think writers get to pick what they cover? You think those follow-up budget stories you tout can be pulled together in a day? Those types of stories takes months to happen, months to research and typically a couple of days to write. You can’t just sit down and bang one out, or, when your editor approaches you, say “No thanks, old chap, I don’t feel like covering that story, but here’s one which is sure to tickle your fancy” (hint: fancies go untickled, you get fired, and worse; a bad rep in the industry for being ‘difficult’; career kryptonite).
Journalists are victims of the system in addition to the public. It is an entire system that is sick, and hiving off blame to one section is naive, unfair and unproductive (let the record reflect, I’m not exonerating them entirely, but this is what I was alluding to before: when an entire system is geared to produce a certain response, it really takes a remarkable person to take a different route. I’m not gonna judge someone who can’t meet that high standard – most of us couldn’t, and I certainly couldn’t when I was a journo, which is why I quit).
Er, _weeks_ to write, not days.
Er, _weeks_ to write, not days.
I don’t think I’m understanding the assumptions here.
Newpapers, magazines and news TV shows exist to provide an outlet for advertising.
Journalists are people employed to fill the pages/air time with material agreeable to their audience so that the audience will see the advertising.
What appeals to the audience has changed over the last n decades and proprietors have become more sophisticated in how they determine what the audience wishes to see.
Mr Denmore hits this at comment 37:
“That’s what the job of journalism has reduced itself too – filling the white spaces between the ads. ”
I might be displaying an ignorance of history here, but when in the last 100 years was journalism anything ‘greater’ than ‘filling the white space between the ads’? When there was greater competition there was more diversity in the approaches taken to maximising the audience (Afternoon publication, comics, specialised reporting & commentary, etc) but since we have almost zero competition in Australia, the ‘state’ of ‘journalism’ is more or less what you’d expect.
The only mystery that needs explaining, to my mind, is ‘why do people expect anything other than what we are getting’?
I know I’m a dry old grump and a cynic at the best of times, but I really don’t understand why there is this romantic expectation about the role of journalists. God, I remember a couple of years ago seeing the start of SBS’ coverage of the Walkleys, and a woman on the ‘red carpet’ said ‘this is the Logies for intellectuals’. I know I shouldn’t assume that one woman’s comments are reflective of the attitude of an entire profession, but the overwrought analysis I occasionally read about “the condition of the fourth estate” makes me wonder if her view is actually representative of the people working at the elite end of the industry.
d
I don’t think I’m understanding the assumptions here.
Newpapers, magazines and news TV shows exist to provide an outlet for advertising.
Journalists are people employed to fill the pages/air time with material agreeable to their audience so that the audience will see the advertising.
What appeals to the audience has changed over the last n decades and proprietors have become more sophisticated in how they determine what the audience wishes to see.
Mr Denmore hits this at comment 37:
“That’s what the job of journalism has reduced itself too – filling the white spaces between the ads. ”
I might be displaying an ignorance of history here, but when in the last 100 years was journalism anything ‘greater’ than ‘filling the white space between the ads’? When there was greater competition there was more diversity in the approaches taken to maximising the audience (Afternoon publication, comics, specialised reporting & commentary, etc) but since we have almost zero competition in Australia, the ‘state’ of ‘journalism’ is more or less what you’d expect.
The only mystery that needs explaining, to my mind, is ‘why do people expect anything other than what we are getting’?
I know I’m a dry old grump and a cynic at the best of times, but I really don’t understand why there is this romantic expectation about the role of journalists. God, I remember a couple of years ago seeing the start of SBS’ coverage of the Walkleys, and a woman on the ‘red carpet’ said ‘this is the Logies for intellectuals’. I know I shouldn’t assume that one woman’s comments are reflective of the attitude of an entire profession, but the overwrought analysis I occasionally read about “the condition of the fourth estate” makes me wonder if her view is actually representative of the people working at the elite end of the industry.
d
Darryl, yes it has always been about filling spaces between the ads, but there used be Chinese walls between the advertising and the editorial departments. Journalists guarded very closely their independence.
These days, the walls are coming down and most journalists are very bottom-line conscious. They understand their role is to get people looking at the ads, and advertising/marketing departments have a far greater role than formerly in how the news is framed and positioned.
This has happened firstly because media outlets these days tend to be own by listed companies, who answer to shareholders. The days of benevolent press barons who largely were absentee landlords have long gone. With no growth in the industry, shareholder value is preserved and extended through constant productivity improvements (cost cuts) that ultimately devalue the brand. Margins are being squeezed and ad managers are as powerful as editorial managers.
To give you an example, look at the full page ads the mining industry currently is placing in the AFR at enormous expense. These ads cost $30-$50,000 at least, chicken feed for the miners but a nice little earner for the Fin. Now look at the campaign the newspaper is running through its editorial against the tax. There was a front page story the other day somehow attributing the plight of the $A to the RSPT, a piece of sophistry that one could excuse in the Daily Tele, but in the nation’s financial daily an absolute travesty. The Fin has jumped the shark on this story and I bet you dollars to donuts it is due to advertising pressure.
Good editors formerly were interested only in the story. Now they all parrot the jargon of modern business, with references in their staff chats to preserving the “brand value” and improving “productivity” and “leveraging” their editorial assets into multiple platforms. When editorial bosses started doing MBAs, you knew the world was changing.
The upshot is that journalists are now identifying much closer with their sources, whether they be business leaders or politicians, and see their job more as “representing” the interests of the powerful than challenging them. The consequences of this should be pretty plain by now.
Darryl, yes it has always been about filling spaces between the ads, but there used be Chinese walls between the advertising and the editorial departments. Journalists guarded very closely their independence.
These days, the walls are coming down and most journalists are very bottom-line conscious. They understand their role is to get people looking at the ads, and advertising/marketing departments have a far greater role than formerly in how the news is framed and positioned.
This has happened firstly because media outlets these days tend to be own by listed companies, who answer to shareholders. The days of benevolent press barons who largely were absentee landlords have long gone. With no growth in the industry, shareholder value is preserved and extended through constant productivity improvements (cost cuts) that ultimately devalue the brand. Margins are being squeezed and ad managers are as powerful as editorial managers.
To give you an example, look at the full page ads the mining industry currently is placing in the AFR at enormous expense. These ads cost $30-$50,000 at least, chicken feed for the miners but a nice little earner for the Fin. Now look at the campaign the newspaper is running through its editorial against the tax. There was a front page story the other day somehow attributing the plight of the $A to the RSPT, a piece of sophistry that one could excuse in the Daily Tele, but in the nation’s financial daily an absolute travesty. The Fin has jumped the shark on this story and I bet you dollars to donuts it is due to advertising pressure.
Good editors formerly were interested only in the story. Now they all parrot the jargon of modern business, with references in their staff chats to preserving the “brand value” and improving “productivity” and “leveraging” their editorial assets into multiple platforms. When editorial bosses started doing MBAs, you knew the world was changing.
The upshot is that journalists are now identifying much closer with their sources, whether they be business leaders or politicians, and see their job more as “representing” the interests of the powerful than challenging them. The consequences of this should be pretty plain by now.
Still, in the context of an election, saying that yer opposition hasn’t buggered up the economy is not good politicking. Sure yer gotta be diplomatic when talking to the financial services crowd but “hey the other mob really aren’t as incompetent as we’ve been saying” stuffs up the talking points a bit, lazy hacks or no.
Still, in the context of an election, saying that yer opposition hasn’t buggered up the economy is not good politicking. Sure yer gotta be diplomatic when talking to the financial services crowd but “hey the other mob really aren’t as incompetent as we’ve been saying” stuffs up the talking points a bit, lazy hacks or no.
Mr Denmore
“The Fin has jumped the shark on this story and I bet you dollars to donuts it is due to advertising pressure.”
How does that actually work in the physical workplace?
Does someone from on high have a direct word to a journo or two or is a memo sent around or is there a meeting between advertising and editorial in which words are exchanged and then followed up at a separate editorial and journo meeting, is it done with open language or wink wink nudge nudge type code?
Or whatever else gets the job done?
I’ve seen journos quoted as claiming that ‘no one has ever told me what and how to write” and I’m wondering if you can throw some light on the nitty gritty of the process that you describe as ‘advertising pressure’.
Any others willing to jump in?
Oh and does anyone care to comment on the Advertiser internal memo I cited back at #24?
Mr Denmore
“The Fin has jumped the shark on this story and I bet you dollars to donuts it is due to advertising pressure.”
How does that actually work in the physical workplace?
Does someone from on high have a direct word to a journo or two or is a memo sent around or is there a meeting between advertising and editorial in which words are exchanged and then followed up at a separate editorial and journo meeting, is it done with open language or wink wink nudge nudge type code?
Or whatever else gets the job done?
I’ve seen journos quoted as claiming that ‘no one has ever told me what and how to write” and I’m wondering if you can throw some light on the nitty gritty of the process that you describe as ‘advertising pressure’.
Any others willing to jump in?
Oh and does anyone care to comment on the Advertiser internal memo I cited back at #24?
“Darryl, yes it has always been about filling spaces between the ads, but there used be Chinese walls between the advertising and the editorial departments. Journalists guarded very closely their independence.”
But ‘Chinese walls’ are just an organizational fiction designed to appear regulators! You work for the same company, answer to the same boss and your output appears in the same publication. And there’s no regulators to appease.
I understand what you’re saying in your reply to me, but I think you’ve missed the point of my original comment. When, in the last 100 years, has the job of journalists ever been different? You seem to be saying that, once upon a time, nobody bothered checking what journalists did (the days of absentee proprietors). But that looks to me like just a shortish historical period where the profits where high enough that owners didn’t need to bother to see if their businesses were well run. Just about every industry looks back to a golden age where they didn’t have to worry about competition. Why are we supposed to imagine journalism as something different to, say, boot making, viola playing or copywriting?
d
“Darryl, yes it has always been about filling spaces between the ads, but there used be Chinese walls between the advertising and the editorial departments. Journalists guarded very closely their independence.”
But ‘Chinese walls’ are just an organizational fiction designed to appear regulators! You work for the same company, answer to the same boss and your output appears in the same publication. And there’s no regulators to appease.
I understand what you’re saying in your reply to me, but I think you’ve missed the point of my original comment. When, in the last 100 years, has the job of journalists ever been different? You seem to be saying that, once upon a time, nobody bothered checking what journalists did (the days of absentee proprietors). But that looks to me like just a shortish historical period where the profits where high enough that owners didn’t need to bother to see if their businesses were well run. Just about every industry looks back to a golden age where they didn’t have to worry about competition. Why are we supposed to imagine journalism as something different to, say, boot making, viola playing or copywriting?
d
hannah’s dad, it’s not as obvious as that. Marius Kloppers doesn’t get on the phone and direct the coverage. And it doesn’t happen at the level of the individual reporter, but through the editorial process.
In the case of that story the other day, a front page editor may have decided to rewrite the top six pars to place the RSPT bit higher in the story, so that it seemed more prominent a cause than the journo originally positioned it.
The editor – Glenn Burge in this case – would know quite well how much the miners are spending on advertising in his paper. So it’s an easy decision for him to go in hard for the miners, nothing to lose really. He achieves that through which stories are covered and HOW they are covered, in terms of news placement, in who he assigns to the story, in who gets quoted etc; etc;
hannah’s dad, it’s not as obvious as that. Marius Kloppers doesn’t get on the phone and direct the coverage. And it doesn’t happen at the level of the individual reporter, but through the editorial process.
In the case of that story the other day, a front page editor may have decided to rewrite the top six pars to place the RSPT bit higher in the story, so that it seemed more prominent a cause than the journo originally positioned it.
The editor – Glenn Burge in this case – would know quite well how much the miners are spending on advertising in his paper. So it’s an easy decision for him to go in hard for the miners, nothing to lose really. He achieves that through which stories are covered and HOW they are covered, in terms of news placement, in who he assigns to the story, in who gets quoted etc; etc;
By 2010 standards, sure Jethro, Gareth was being naive. But that’s sort of my point really. In 1998, there was room for that sort of judgement. These days, politicians have to keep up the silly facade 24 hours a day. The media won’t let them do otherwise. You get my drift?
By 2010 standards, sure Jethro, Gareth was being naive. But that’s sort of my point really. In 1998, there was room for that sort of judgement. These days, politicians have to keep up the silly facade 24 hours a day. The media won’t let them do otherwise. You get my drift?
How does that actually work in the physical workplace?
Not claiming to speak for the fin, but typically the at the senior management meetings it would come up, and then passed to senior editors and then down the chain, so on and so forth. However this does neglect the systemic aspects of this, where pressure can be largely unvoiced; mere implication can be enough to shape content. There are unspoken pressures behind every piece, and a journo who is unaware of it is going to be very limited in their careers. That’s the horrible, insidious nature of this business.
Darryl, and illustration, if you will: Once upon a time, people and companies that owned newspapers were very happy with a relatively modest 5%-15% revenue growth curve – a revenue growth that was, at the time, quite realistic with most paper hovering somewhere around the 10% mark, and some below, etc. etc.
Two things happened to change this: 1) the internet, where advertising revenues are much lower and – crucially – 2) Papers starting being bought out from private ownership or relatively low performing media conglomerates, and were instead bought by two main categories of companies: Huge multinational media companies with fingers in pies well and truly beyond the demesne of broadsheet publishing, and 2) Private Equity firms. The two groups don’t have a lot in common, but one thing they do have in common is interests in organisations and industries that had – in the latter part of the nineties and early 2000s – been performing _well and truly_ beyond a pathetic 5% – 15%. And 10% looked positively shithouse.
So, with the rise of the internet and barely stable if not plummeting subscriptions, papers were at the worst time possible confronted by boards and shareholders that didn’t just expect higher profits than papers had historically eked out in the _good_ times, but demanded higher returns (esp in the case of private equity, of which many only bought to flip for higher value).
Cutting the advertising department was out of the question; more advertising and more people looking at ads was what was needed. So the editorial department is a no brainer to cut. Worse still, the one advantage of web sites is that you get great metrics on what people click on, and the results were as clear as crystal: people click on drama, beat ups, and things like “My cat made me pregnant!”. Oh sure, there’s still people that click on real news, but they still tend to click on the cat-pregnant stories as well – and so do a whole additional class of readers that don’t click on anything else (I have seen these figures, I am hand on heart 100% telling the truth. You have no idea how big the difference is; it’s staggering). So it’s a no brainer: more cat preggers stories (which happen to be very bang-for-buck friendly, god forgive the pun), and less indepth reportage, which is as expensive as hell plus no one reads it.
And that is the other reason why we are where we are today.
How does that actually work in the physical workplace?
Not claiming to speak for the fin, but typically the at the senior management meetings it would come up, and then passed to senior editors and then down the chain, so on and so forth. However this does neglect the systemic aspects of this, where pressure can be largely unvoiced; mere implication can be enough to shape content. There are unspoken pressures behind every piece, and a journo who is unaware of it is going to be very limited in their careers. That’s the horrible, insidious nature of this business.
Darryl, and illustration, if you will: Once upon a time, people and companies that owned newspapers were very happy with a relatively modest 5%-15% revenue growth curve – a revenue growth that was, at the time, quite realistic with most paper hovering somewhere around the 10% mark, and some below, etc. etc.
Two things happened to change this: 1) the internet, where advertising revenues are much lower and – crucially – 2) Papers starting being bought out from private ownership or relatively low performing media conglomerates, and were instead bought by two main categories of companies: Huge multinational media companies with fingers in pies well and truly beyond the demesne of broadsheet publishing, and 2) Private Equity firms. The two groups don’t have a lot in common, but one thing they do have in common is interests in organisations and industries that had – in the latter part of the nineties and early 2000s – been performing _well and truly_ beyond a pathetic 5% – 15%. And 10% looked positively shithouse.
So, with the rise of the internet and barely stable if not plummeting subscriptions, papers were at the worst time possible confronted by boards and shareholders that didn’t just expect higher profits than papers had historically eked out in the _good_ times, but demanded higher returns (esp in the case of private equity, of which many only bought to flip for higher value).
Cutting the advertising department was out of the question; more advertising and more people looking at ads was what was needed. So the editorial department is a no brainer to cut. Worse still, the one advantage of web sites is that you get great metrics on what people click on, and the results were as clear as crystal: people click on drama, beat ups, and things like “My cat made me pregnant!”. Oh sure, there’s still people that click on real news, but they still tend to click on the cat-pregnant stories as well – and so do a whole additional class of readers that don’t click on anything else (I have seen these figures, I am hand on heart 100% telling the truth. You have no idea how big the difference is; it’s staggering). So it’s a no brainer: more cat preggers stories (which happen to be very bang-for-buck friendly, god forgive the pun), and less indepth reportage, which is as expensive as hell plus no one reads it.
And that is the other reason why we are where we are today.
“The editor – Glenn Burge in this case – would know quite well how much the miners are spending on advertising in his paper. So it’s an easy decision for him to go in hard for the miners, nothing to lose really. He achieves that through which stories are covered and HOW they are covered, in terms of news placement, in who he assigns to the story, in who gets quoted etc;”
And why would we expect him to do something different? I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse here (that just come naturally :^) I’m puzzled by the expectation that things should work differently to what you’ve just outlined.
I’m sure I’m missing something in this discussion but I can’t put my finger on what it is.
d
“The editor – Glenn Burge in this case – would know quite well how much the miners are spending on advertising in his paper. So it’s an easy decision for him to go in hard for the miners, nothing to lose really. He achieves that through which stories are covered and HOW they are covered, in terms of news placement, in who he assigns to the story, in who gets quoted etc;”
And why would we expect him to do something different? I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse here (that just come naturally :^) I’m puzzled by the expectation that things should work differently to what you’ve just outlined.
I’m sure I’m missing something in this discussion but I can’t put my finger on what it is.
d
I guess it depends on whether you have worked with a truly principled editor, who stood up for journalists against the pressures of the advertisers. Believe it or not, that’s what editors used to do.
There is always this tension between the business needs of the media owner and the editorial quality and independence that ultimately gives the masthead its market value. The editors knew that if the paper compromised its editorial integrity, it would ultimately be value-destroying.
But as PatrickG observed above, these days the pressures of delivering shareholder value in an age of tighter margins and the fact that editors work under commercial-style KPIs have made ideas of editorial integrity seem quaint.
I guess it depends on whether you have worked with a truly principled editor, who stood up for journalists against the pressures of the advertisers. Believe it or not, that’s what editors used to do.
There is always this tension between the business needs of the media owner and the editorial quality and independence that ultimately gives the masthead its market value. The editors knew that if the paper compromised its editorial integrity, it would ultimately be value-destroying.
But as PatrickG observed above, these days the pressures of delivering shareholder value in an age of tighter margins and the fact that editors work under commercial-style KPIs have made ideas of editorial integrity seem quaint.
Interesting discussion, but I agree with Daryl that there is a bit of a tendency to romanticise the past going on. Perhaps a few people might want to dig up the history of people like Viscount Rothermere and how he used the Daily Mail as an instrument of his politics during the 1930s? Or how about Viscount Northcliffe, who was actually appointed Director of Propaganda by Lloyd George during World War 1? Does Murdoch use the Australian as an instrument to wage political campaigns? Sure. Was it ever thus? Yes. Are the campaigns as often successful as unsuccessful? Yes. Are there alternative sources for information for those that bother to seek them out? Yes.
Interesting discussion, but I agree with Daryl that there is a bit of a tendency to romanticise the past going on. Perhaps a few people might want to dig up the history of people like Viscount Rothermere and how he used the Daily Mail as an instrument of his politics during the 1930s? Or how about Viscount Northcliffe, who was actually appointed Director of Propaganda by Lloyd George during World War 1? Does Murdoch use the Australian as an instrument to wage political campaigns? Sure. Was it ever thus? Yes. Are the campaigns as often successful as unsuccessful? Yes. Are there alternative sources for information for those that bother to seek them out? Yes.
There is nothing missing Darryl.
Its just that this topic, the links between big business advertising, mass media management, journalism and the resultant slanting of ‘news’ to reflect those relationships is not usually openly stated.
Its a bit of a no-no, sort of like farting in church.
What we have above, thanks to several people [Ta Mr D, patrickg] is not only that it is stated to occur but how it occurs.
That conflicts with the usual line ‘all the news that is fit to print”.
There is nothing missing Darryl.
Its just that this topic, the links between big business advertising, mass media management, journalism and the resultant slanting of ‘news’ to reflect those relationships is not usually openly stated.
Its a bit of a no-no, sort of like farting in church.
What we have above, thanks to several people [Ta Mr D, patrickg] is not only that it is stated to occur but how it occurs.
That conflicts with the usual line ‘all the news that is fit to print”.
Are there alternative sources for information for those that bother to seek them out? Yes.
Ah, but now you’re the one being dewy-eyed, LO. I’m the first to admit that papers have tried to shape political discourse – often for the worse – since their inception, but what we’re looking at now is different:
a) because there are far few papers than ever before, most owned by the same few companies with the same agenda across their publications. The alternative sources you allude to are drying up as easily if not accessible, certainly findable by those not in the know.
b) Like it or lump, there are certain things that only somebody with the resources – be they financial, knowledgeable, status or what-have-you – of a major paper can find. Can find, pursue, analyse, and produce in the appropriate manner. FOI is an absolutely stellar exmaple of this. Virtually no one in the blogosphere or Joe Public has the wherewithal – financial, logistical, know-how – to successfully pursue a thorny FOI request that’s being blocked.
Perhaps lots of papers don’t do it very often, either, or don’t do the right requests for the right reasons. But sometimes they do, and they are the only ones who can.
Are there alternative sources for information for those that bother to seek them out? Yes.
Ah, but now you’re the one being dewy-eyed, LO. I’m the first to admit that papers have tried to shape political discourse – often for the worse – since their inception, but what we’re looking at now is different:
a) because there are far few papers than ever before, most owned by the same few companies with the same agenda across their publications. The alternative sources you allude to are drying up as easily if not accessible, certainly findable by those not in the know.
b) Like it or lump, there are certain things that only somebody with the resources – be they financial, knowledgeable, status or what-have-you – of a major paper can find. Can find, pursue, analyse, and produce in the appropriate manner. FOI is an absolutely stellar exmaple of this. Virtually no one in the blogosphere or Joe Public has the wherewithal – financial, logistical, know-how – to successfully pursue a thorny FOI request that’s being blocked.
Perhaps lots of papers don’t do it very often, either, or don’t do the right requests for the right reasons. But sometimes they do, and they are the only ones who can.
“I guess it depends on whether you have worked with a truly principled editor, who stood up for journalists against the pressures of the advertisers. Believe it or not, that’s what editors used to do.”
OK, I guess I just don’t get it. You’re employed by some guy to write stuff. If the stuff you write helps sell ads, you’re doing a good job. If it doesn’t help sell ads, you should probably be replaced by someone who is better at helping to sell ads. This is the standard deal that goes with having a job. Why is this not supposed to apply to journalists?
“I guess it depends on whether you have worked with a truly principled editor, who stood up for journalists against the pressures of the advertisers. Believe it or not, that’s what editors used to do.”
OK, I guess I just don’t get it. You’re employed by some guy to write stuff. If the stuff you write helps sell ads, you’re doing a good job. If it doesn’t help sell ads, you should probably be replaced by someone who is better at helping to sell ads. This is the standard deal that goes with having a job. Why is this not supposed to apply to journalists?
The explanation for the current homogeneity amongst the MSM does indeed lie in technological developments in publishing and mergers in in the media sector. But saying it was ever thus is going far. I think the privately owned US mastheads have been able to maintain some balance between the interests of the proprietors and the decisions made in the daily editorial meeting. I’d be surprised if anyone would think the Katherine Graham would have thought it was a good idea to have editorial decisions made by the adverting department.
Of course the other parties to this debacle are the so-called “sources”. Access to information from large institutions is nowadays so centralised that a news gather who offends said institution may find themselves without a job after a call is taken from the media officer representing the offended officious organ. The paradox here is that govts. are trying to frame “whistle blower” legislation thus giving everyone the protection of a statute. It’s a paradox because the govt. is one of the principal “victims” of leaks etc and they’re the ones drawing up the definitions and rules. So long as you make sure you’ve ticked all the boxes on the official company whistle blower form and had it approved by your supervisor you should be OK to go with your startling revelations with regard to [describe in detail the company's wanton recklessness] and please leave an address at which you (or your next of kin) can be found.
The explanation for the current homogeneity amongst the MSM does indeed lie in technological developments in publishing and mergers in in the media sector. But saying it was ever thus is going far. I think the privately owned US mastheads have been able to maintain some balance between the interests of the proprietors and the decisions made in the daily editorial meeting. I’d be surprised if anyone would think the Katherine Graham would have thought it was a good idea to have editorial decisions made by the adverting department.
Of course the other parties to this debacle are the so-called “sources”. Access to information from large institutions is nowadays so centralised that a news gather who offends said institution may find themselves without a job after a call is taken from the media officer representing the offended officious organ. The paradox here is that govts. are trying to frame “whistle blower” legislation thus giving everyone the protection of a statute. It’s a paradox because the govt. is one of the principal “victims” of leaks etc and they’re the ones drawing up the definitions and rules. So long as you make sure you’ve ticked all the boxes on the official company whistle blower form and had it approved by your supervisor you should be OK to go with your startling revelations with regard to [describe in detail the company's wanton recklessness] and please leave an address at which you (or your next of kin) can be found.
Darryl you’re too cynical for your own good: that’s like saying a GP’s job is to sell pharmaceutical company products, and when they do that, they’re doing a good job. There’s such a thing as the public good – I know you believe in it so connect the dots. I feel that, between Denmore and I, we’ve painted a pretty three dimensional picture of what it could be, what it used to be, how it is now, and why.
Darryl you’re too cynical for your own good: that’s like saying a GP’s job is to sell pharmaceutical company products, and when they do that, they’re doing a good job. There’s such a thing as the public good – I know you believe in it so connect the dots. I feel that, between Denmore and I, we’ve painted a pretty three dimensional picture of what it could be, what it used to be, how it is now, and why.
PatrickB, what’s happened with the LA Times and the Chicago Sun-Times is a great example of what you’re talking about.
PatrickB, what’s happened with the LA Times and the Chicago Sun-Times is a great example of what you’re talking about.
Yes I had heard that the LA Times had been sold to private equity, this is usually the beginning of the end in my opinion. Further to that and the point that Darren Rosin is making, it is the case that in most organisations success is measured by the financial bottom line. But in the past certain papers that are held by a very limited number of private owners have practiced a business model based on a sustainable return and not one based on an every increasing return. In that case I believe that it is advertising that is seen to be paying for the news rather than the news selling advertising.
Indeed in the past is was thought that a certain type of news would attract a more well heeled consumer however this theory seems to have been tossed out, witness the degrading of SBS and the Fin Review. I would speculate that these types of high end news services have swapped quality news for “insider” commentary (witness George Negus talking to some Westminster wallahs this week) as the way to the heart of the A grade consumer.
Yes I had heard that the LA Times had been sold to private equity, this is usually the beginning of the end in my opinion. Further to that and the point that Darren Rosin is making, it is the case that in most organisations success is measured by the financial bottom line. But in the past certain papers that are held by a very limited number of private owners have practiced a business model based on a sustainable return and not one based on an every increasing return. In that case I believe that it is advertising that is seen to be paying for the news rather than the news selling advertising.
Indeed in the past is was thought that a certain type of news would attract a more well heeled consumer however this theory seems to have been tossed out, witness the degrading of SBS and the Fin Review. I would speculate that these types of high end news services have swapped quality news for “insider” commentary (witness George Negus talking to some Westminster wallahs this week) as the way to the heart of the A grade consumer.
Good value Mr Denmore.
I would like to see a dedicated Australian website called “Hackwatch” (to supplement “Media Watch” on telly), where citizen bloggers can deconstruct, on a daily basis, what passes for journalism in this country, by turning the spotlight back on journalists and exposing not only their partisan slant, bias and bad faith, not to mention lack of relevant education and mature perspective, but also gross personal hypocrisy (with a lawyer on board).
For example, what is the real story behind Andrew Bolt’s childhood, and why do I keep hearing Seth Efrican intonations in his speech patterns? Was Janet Albrechtsen really the most unpopular (and lonely) girl in her school? Where did Glenn Milne learn constitutional law, and does he really have a drinking problem? Why should we pay any attention to the mad ravings of drunk with a telephone? Who gave that angry mob of testosterone-propelled men at the Australian newspaper the right to frame our national conversation?
For the first time in my life, I am turning ABC Radio National off in the mornings. I cannot stand any longer to listen to Fran Kelly, self-appointed and unelected anti-government spokeswoman, who has been in campaign mode since the election of the Rudd Government.
I am tired of hearing every day which newly announced government program she is going to “tear apart” with her exciting line-up of rabid anti-government guests. I am tired of the news agenda, and anti-government frame, that is taken verbatim from the front pages of News Ltd. New government policy is barely announced, let alone explained and digested, before the ABC lynch mob is let loose the next morning. And then the media complains that the government has not “sold” its policy well enough!
The ABC is not serving the national interest, and it is not remotely “balanced”, except to an organisation that has completely lost sight of its public responsibility.
The loss of direction and talent in ABC journalism is what saddens me most. There is a lack of certainty and confidence, not to mention a lack of perspective and maturity, in processing the daily news.
We are left rudderless in a sea of trash.
Good value Mr Denmore.
I would like to see a dedicated Australian website called “Hackwatch” (to supplement “Media Watch” on telly), where citizen bloggers can deconstruct, on a daily basis, what passes for journalism in this country, by turning the spotlight back on journalists and exposing not only their partisan slant, bias and bad faith, not to mention lack of relevant education and mature perspective, but also gross personal hypocrisy (with a lawyer on board).
For example, what is the real story behind Andrew Bolt’s childhood, and why do I keep hearing Seth Efrican intonations in his speech patterns? Was Janet Albrechtsen really the most unpopular (and lonely) girl in her school? Where did Glenn Milne learn constitutional law, and does he really have a drinking problem? Why should we pay any attention to the mad ravings of drunk with a telephone? Who gave that angry mob of testosterone-propelled men at the Australian newspaper the right to frame our national conversation?
For the first time in my life, I am turning ABC Radio National off in the mornings. I cannot stand any longer to listen to Fran Kelly, self-appointed and unelected anti-government spokeswoman, who has been in campaign mode since the election of the Rudd Government.
I am tired of hearing every day which newly announced government program she is going to “tear apart” with her exciting line-up of rabid anti-government guests. I am tired of the news agenda, and anti-government frame, that is taken verbatim from the front pages of News Ltd. New government policy is barely announced, let alone explained and digested, before the ABC lynch mob is let loose the next morning. And then the media complains that the government has not “sold” its policy well enough!
The ABC is not serving the national interest, and it is not remotely “balanced”, except to an organisation that has completely lost sight of its public responsibility.
The loss of direction and talent in ABC journalism is what saddens me most. There is a lack of certainty and confidence, not to mention a lack of perspective and maturity, in processing the daily news.
We are left rudderless in a sea of trash.
“Darryl you’re too cynical for your own good”
I know! I’m too young, good-looking and optimistic to appear so jaded!
“that’s like saying a GP’s job is to sell pharmaceutical company products, and when they do that, they’re doing a good job.”
The relationship I have with my doctor is completely different to mu non-relationship with journalists or newspapers.
“There’s such a thing as the public good – I know you believe in it so connect the dots.”
Yeah but what I don’t get is why would anyone believe for a moment that this particular ‘public good’ is going to emerge from media companies! It’s like “hello, journalism? The 1980s called to remind you there was a neo-liberal realignment in our civil institutions are you were part of it.”
I’ve carried on too long about this. It seems to have stirred up something bee-like in my bonnet.
PS:
“advertising that is seen to be paying for the news rather than the news selling advertising.”
well put, sir!
“Darryl you’re too cynical for your own good”
I know! I’m too young, good-looking and optimistic to appear so jaded!
“that’s like saying a GP’s job is to sell pharmaceutical company products, and when they do that, they’re doing a good job.”
The relationship I have with my doctor is completely different to mu non-relationship with journalists or newspapers.
“There’s such a thing as the public good – I know you believe in it so connect the dots.”
Yeah but what I don’t get is why would anyone believe for a moment that this particular ‘public good’ is going to emerge from media companies! It’s like “hello, journalism? The 1980s called to remind you there was a neo-liberal realignment in our civil institutions are you were part of it.”
I’ve carried on too long about this. It seems to have stirred up something bee-like in my bonnet.
PS:
“advertising that is seen to be paying for the news rather than the news selling advertising.”
well put, sir!
Very well said, grace. While most of the commentary has focused on the commercial sector and commercial imperitives, the dire nature of commercial media makes the role of a public broadcaster even more important.
This is a field that the ABC has almost entirely vacated in recent years. Day after day you hear whatever the latest News Ltd/opposition talking point happens to be getting blanket coverage. At the moment it’s become the mining ‘super’ tax leading the way, but in the next couple of weeks it will be something else, but whatever it is, it’s sure to be anti-Labor.
They have totally lost sight of what news actually is. Even Fairfax shows more genuine balance and hires a few genuine journalists.
Very well said, grace. While most of the commentary has focused on the commercial sector and commercial imperitives, the dire nature of commercial media makes the role of a public broadcaster even more important.
This is a field that the ABC has almost entirely vacated in recent years. Day after day you hear whatever the latest News Ltd/opposition talking point happens to be getting blanket coverage. At the moment it’s become the mining ‘super’ tax leading the way, but in the next couple of weeks it will be something else, but whatever it is, it’s sure to be anti-Labor.
They have totally lost sight of what news actually is. Even Fairfax shows more genuine balance and hires a few genuine journalists.
grace pettigrew @69, perhaps we should start lodging complaints about the bias in ABC reporting. They’ve been allowed to get away with the tosh they spew forth too long.
grace pettigrew @69, perhaps we should start lodging complaints about the bias in ABC reporting. They’ve been allowed to get away with the tosh they spew forth too long.
jane@72, well yes, but I reckon public shaming works better than private complaining.
The ABC prefers to keep any criticism behind closed doors and individualised. This keeps it all civilised and painless (Media Watch is a bit of a tickle, but never fatal to the mother ship). On the other hand, a sustained public bollocking on widely read blogs such as this, would not go unnoticed.
And if the sans culottes started building barricades in the boulevards that would be nice too.
On a practical issue, it is not that easy to make personal complaints about the ABC newsroom hourly broadcasts, where the real problem lies (as the rumoured newsreaders’ revolt suggests). There are no convenient transcripts, and before you have composed your complaint the news caravan has moved on, and a new outrage appears on the horizon. And in the end what do you get? At the very best an understanding and concerned, but cleverly content-free, letter from management.
For armchair conspiracy theorists like me, this “balance” rot began its application inside the ABC newsrooms, and has spread like a plague into mainstream programs like Fran Kelly’s morning show. Over time (around about 11 howardian years) older wiser heads were removed from news management, and younger stupider heads put in their place. This was the neo-cons real “march through the institutions”, while we were all distracted elsewhere with high profile, but basically meaningless, board appointments, like that waste of space Janet Albrechtsen, and Ron who? Brunton and that cynical turncoat Windshuttle.
I am listening to Mark Colvin. Now there’s an ABC journo worth his salt. The ABC should switch him with Fran Kelly so I can turn the radio on again.
jane@72, well yes, but I reckon public shaming works better than private complaining.
The ABC prefers to keep any criticism behind closed doors and individualised. This keeps it all civilised and painless (Media Watch is a bit of a tickle, but never fatal to the mother ship). On the other hand, a sustained public bollocking on widely read blogs such as this, would not go unnoticed.
And if the sans culottes started building barricades in the boulevards that would be nice too.
On a practical issue, it is not that easy to make personal complaints about the ABC newsroom hourly broadcasts, where the real problem lies (as the rumoured newsreaders’ revolt suggests). There are no convenient transcripts, and before you have composed your complaint the news caravan has moved on, and a new outrage appears on the horizon. And in the end what do you get? At the very best an understanding and concerned, but cleverly content-free, letter from management.
For armchair conspiracy theorists like me, this “balance” rot began its application inside the ABC newsrooms, and has spread like a plague into mainstream programs like Fran Kelly’s morning show. Over time (around about 11 howardian years) older wiser heads were removed from news management, and younger stupider heads put in their place. This was the neo-cons real “march through the institutions”, while we were all distracted elsewhere with high profile, but basically meaningless, board appointments, like that waste of space Janet Albrechtsen, and Ron who? Brunton and that cynical turncoat Windshuttle.
I am listening to Mark Colvin. Now there’s an ABC journo worth his salt. The ABC should switch him with Fran Kelly so I can turn the radio on again.
…in the mornings.
…in the mornings.
Jane, complaining to the ABC is a fruitless exercise. I have put at least a dozen complaints in over the past few years, and being a slow learner keep convincing myself that it isn’t totally pointless. I put the last one in about 4 weeks ago, and when I eventually get a response, I might post it here so you can see what I mean.
It was about Alison Carabine BTW.
Jane, complaining to the ABC is a fruitless exercise. I have put at least a dozen complaints in over the past few years, and being a slow learner keep convincing myself that it isn’t totally pointless. I put the last one in about 4 weeks ago, and when I eventually get a response, I might post it here so you can see what I mean.
It was about Alison Carabine BTW.
“On a practical issue, it is not that easy to make personal complaints about the ABC newsroom hourly broadcasts, where the real problem lies (as the rumoured newsreaders’ revolt suggests).”
Indeed. As an example, the 12.00 ABC News today ran a very short, sharp, story that attributed a one cent drop in the dollar, that apparently just happened, to the proposed mining tax. It was almost subliminal in nature.
I find this now quite common thing quite distressing but there really is not much one can do about it apart from not listening any more.
“On a practical issue, it is not that easy to make personal complaints about the ABC newsroom hourly broadcasts, where the real problem lies (as the rumoured newsreaders’ revolt suggests).”
Indeed. As an example, the 12.00 ABC News today ran a very short, sharp, story that attributed a one cent drop in the dollar, that apparently just happened, to the proposed mining tax. It was almost subliminal in nature.
I find this now quite common thing quite distressing but there really is not much one can do about it apart from not listening any more.
Yes, Sunday 7.00 pm radio news bulletin. Lead item – ‘Debate over proposed mining tax intensifies.’
Why had this so called debate intensified? Because the mining council had started a new ad campaign of course. So an ad campaign becomes the most important news of the day, or any news at all.
Then we had the 5 sec soundbites of entirely predictable reactions from Abbott and Rudd.
They call this a debate?
They call this news?
Yes, Sunday 7.00 pm radio news bulletin. Lead item – ‘Debate over proposed mining tax intensifies.’
Why had this so called debate intensified? Because the mining council had started a new ad campaign of course. So an ad campaign becomes the most important news of the day, or any news at all.
Then we had the 5 sec soundbites of entirely predictable reactions from Abbott and Rudd.
They call this a debate?
They call this news?
‘Debate intensifies’ is a standard way of keeping a story alive. Nothing has actually ‘intensified’ but the bullshit factor.
Other common manufactured leads are “Controversy continues over…” (the Opposition released a press statement), “Confusion reigns over…” (the Opposition released a press statement), “There’s been a storm of criticism today over…” (yep); the whole strategy is to suggest some equivalence between two positions, one based on fact, the other just an attempt to take a position for the sake of it.
The sheer nonsense over the RSPT being behind the $A’s slide last week is a case in point. There were at least a couple of articles and broadcasts today suggesting some legitimacy in this claim. The facts are – and you won’t find ANY currency strategist that disputes it – is the $A fell because of the global unwinding of risk and carry trades due to the European debt crisis and worries about the sustainability of the global economic recovery.
But that won’t do for the goons at the ABC, who want this to be a “Controversy continues over…” story in which some global event is cast in a domestic political context.
Same with the Israeli expulsions. Before Howard, this would not have been a party political story. Yet the Opposition managed to cook up some talking point about a government over-reaction.
Basically, the journos at the ABC haven’t got any news sense any more. So they rely on ‘The Opposition says…’ to keep the story alive, irrespective of whether what the Opposition says is a complete fallacy.
ABC News is a joke these days – no discretion, no judgement, no perspective – just a relentless drive to appear “balanced”. Sell the bloody thing.
‘Debate intensifies’ is a standard way of keeping a story alive. Nothing has actually ‘intensified’ but the bullshit factor.
Other common manufactured leads are “Controversy continues over…” (the Opposition released a press statement), “Confusion reigns over…” (the Opposition released a press statement), “There’s been a storm of criticism today over…” (yep); the whole strategy is to suggest some equivalence between two positions, one based on fact, the other just an attempt to take a position for the sake of it.
The sheer nonsense over the RSPT being behind the $A’s slide last week is a case in point. There were at least a couple of articles and broadcasts today suggesting some legitimacy in this claim. The facts are – and you won’t find ANY currency strategist that disputes it – is the $A fell because of the global unwinding of risk and carry trades due to the European debt crisis and worries about the sustainability of the global economic recovery.
But that won’t do for the goons at the ABC, who want this to be a “Controversy continues over…” story in which some global event is cast in a domestic political context.
Same with the Israeli expulsions. Before Howard, this would not have been a party political story. Yet the Opposition managed to cook up some talking point about a government over-reaction.
Basically, the journos at the ABC haven’t got any news sense any more. So they rely on ‘The Opposition says…’ to keep the story alive, irrespective of whether what the Opposition says is a complete fallacy.
ABC News is a joke these days – no discretion, no judgement, no perspective – just a relentless drive to appear “balanced”. Sell the bloody thing.
And here I part ways with Mr Denmore.
Selling the ABC is not the answer.
And here I part ways with Mr Denmore.
Selling the ABC is not the answer.
“Selling the ABC is not the answer.”
Then what is?
“Selling the ABC is not the answer.”
Then what is?
Bring bring back Max Uechtritz?
Bring bring back Max Uechtritz?
I’m heartily sick of turning on ABC News bulletins to hear the phrase:
If it is ‘balance’ the ABC seeks, what makes them think it will be achieved by intro-ing practically every political story in that way?
Hands up who thinks the Coalition, if in government, would tolerate a Labor Opposition’s press releases and grabs dominating the political coverage in news and current affairs on the ABC…
And what’s with RN Breakfast and NewsRadio these days? They’re sounding like the broadcasting arms of the Liberal Party, mining fatcats and IPA goons. Lucky to hear someone from Labor get a word in, and then it’s usually only on a slow ‘news’ day.
I’m beginning to loathe their ABC.
I’m heartily sick of turning on ABC News bulletins to hear the phrase:
If it is ‘balance’ the ABC seeks, what makes them think it will be achieved by intro-ing practically every political story in that way?
Hands up who thinks the Coalition, if in government, would tolerate a Labor Opposition’s press releases and grabs dominating the political coverage in news and current affairs on the ABC…
And what’s with RN Breakfast and NewsRadio these days? They’re sounding like the broadcasting arms of the Liberal Party, mining fatcats and IPA goons. Lucky to hear someone from Labor get a word in, and then it’s usually only on a slow ‘news’ day.
I’m beginning to loathe their ABC.
You know, there’s a lot more to the ABC than the news department. That’s an important fact that seems to get forgotten around here.
d
You know, there’s a lot more to the ABC than the news department. That’s an important fact that seems to get forgotten around here.
d
@83
Yeah there’s all those English crime shows … actually I think they’re quite popular around here. Personally I don’t think they’re any better than the US counterparts.
@83
Yeah there’s all those English crime shows … actually I think they’re quite popular around here. Personally I don’t think they’re any better than the US counterparts.
And there’s Dr. Who.
And there’s Dr. Who.
Darryl Rosin@83, yes totally agree, absent the in-your-face anti-government bias in the hourly news broadcasts and on the increasingly ludicrous Fran Kelly’s Morning Show, ABC Radio National is a national treasure. Intelligent radio, paricularly on the weekends, is sustenance for the soul (faced with non-stop football reportage elsewhere).
Darryl Rosin@83, yes totally agree, absent the in-your-face anti-government bias in the hourly news broadcasts and on the increasingly ludicrous Fran Kelly’s Morning Show, ABC Radio National is a national treasure. Intelligent radio, paricularly on the weekends, is sustenance for the soul (faced with non-stop football reportage elsewhere).
@86
Agree that most of RN is very good, even Counterpoint provides some outrage and laughs, it’s like the ABC gave an entire hour of national radio air time to a couple of year 10 work experience boys. Re: the football, I tune to local radio on the weekend for the ABC’s AFL coverage, another national treasure.
Anyway I notice that RN news at 6:30 AM here reported a government non-change to the Federal Magistrates Court as a massive backflip. I mean how could this even make it into a 5 minute bulletin unless it is part of keeping the narrative alive? Most people don’t even know there is a FMC let alone what it’s jurisdiction might be.
@86
Agree that most of RN is very good, even Counterpoint provides some outrage and laughs, it’s like the ABC gave an entire hour of national radio air time to a couple of year 10 work experience boys. Re: the football, I tune to local radio on the weekend for the ABC’s AFL coverage, another national treasure.
Anyway I notice that RN news at 6:30 AM here reported a government non-change to the Federal Magistrates Court as a massive backflip. I mean how could this even make it into a 5 minute bulletin unless it is part of keeping the narrative alive? Most people don’t even know there is a FMC let alone what it’s jurisdiction might be.
Further to my 86: except that Duffy and whats-’is-name are being paid whereas the work experience kids wouldn’t be.
Further to my 86: except that Duffy and whats-’is-name are being paid whereas the work experience kids wouldn’t be.
And yet I read in the paper today that the Liberals are kicking up a stink about ABC “left-wing bias” in a senate inquiry; apparently there’s insufficient deference to denialist non-science (there’s no evidence of sea level rise coz some old timers at Bondi reckon the sea level is about the same as it was back in the days of yore, dontcha know), and on some ABC twitter feed someone called Our Tones “Budgies”. Teh horror.
And yet I read in the paper today that the Liberals are kicking up a stink about ABC “left-wing bias” in a senate inquiry; apparently there’s insufficient deference to denialist non-science (there’s no evidence of sea level rise coz some old timers at Bondi reckon the sea level is about the same as it was back in the days of yore, dontcha know), and on some ABC twitter feed someone called Our Tones “Budgies”. Teh horror.
Well keep the light entertainment bits and the radio. Actually I’d just keep the radio. Most of the TV content can be, or soon will be accessible by other means.
It’s not as though they produce much local content apart from a couple of quiz shows.
Speaking of Duffy etc being paid, I’d like to know how much every ABC journo and presenter is getting. If these figures are not available, surely a public broadcaster should make them available to the public that funds the salaries.
And speaking of keeping the narrative alive – 9.00am radio news. Mining tax soundbites from economic expert Barnaby Joyce, and independent analysis from the head of BHP.
And people wonder why the govt isn’t getting its message out.
Well keep the light entertainment bits and the radio. Actually I’d just keep the radio. Most of the TV content can be, or soon will be accessible by other means.
It’s not as though they produce much local content apart from a couple of quiz shows.
Speaking of Duffy etc being paid, I’d like to know how much every ABC journo and presenter is getting. If these figures are not available, surely a public broadcaster should make them available to the public that funds the salaries.
And speaking of keeping the narrative alive – 9.00am radio news. Mining tax soundbites from economic expert Barnaby Joyce, and independent analysis from the head of BHP.
And people wonder why the govt isn’t getting its message out.
Also, jethro, Tony Jones had the absolute cheek to interrupt Joe Hockey more than he did Wayne Swan. Abetz got what he deserved there, though. Was told Hockey wasn’t answering the questions.
btw, did any Labor Senators have the guts to ask about the newsroom’s anti-Labor bias? Bet not.
Also, jethro, Tony Jones had the absolute cheek to interrupt Joe Hockey more than he did Wayne Swan. Abetz got what he deserved there, though. Was told Hockey wasn’t answering the questions.
btw, did any Labor Senators have the guts to ask about the newsroom’s anti-Labor bias? Bet not.
grace pettigrew, adrian et al, I didn’t realise it was so bad. Like someone said a while ago, where’s Richard Alston when you actually need him?
I still like the idea of ripping out the throats of all the rwdbs on the board and the news room and slinging their lifeless corpses onto the street on hard rubbish night!
Perhaps our complaints should be sent to the government as well as putting them into the public domain. I’d like to see the government get stuck into them with a novel’s worth of complaints about bias. One way to neutralise the Smuggles Set, perhaps.
grace pettigrew, adrian et al, I didn’t realise it was so bad. Like someone said a while ago, where’s Richard Alston when you actually need him?
I still like the idea of ripping out the throats of all the rwdbs on the board and the news room and slinging their lifeless corpses onto the street on hard rubbish night!
Perhaps our complaints should be sent to the government as well as putting them into the public domain. I’d like to see the government get stuck into them with a novel’s worth of complaints about bias. One way to neutralise the Smuggles Set, perhaps.
jane @ 92,
Rudd doesn’t have the guts.
jane @ 92,
Rudd doesn’t have the guts.
“I’d like to see the government get stuck into them with a novel’s worth of complaints about bias.”
I think Rudd is smart enough not to go down that public path, Jane. It would likely just make matters worse.
As I have said a number of times before the government is moving to gradual change @ABC via an independent board. Two members have taken their place so far.
“I’d like to see the government get stuck into them with a novel’s worth of complaints about bias.”
I think Rudd is smart enough not to go down that public path, Jane. It would likely just make matters worse.
As I have said a number of times before the government is moving to gradual change @ABC via an independent board. Two members have taken their place so far.
Paul, on reflection I tend to agree more with joe2. While bombarding the ABC with a raft of complaints and heaving lifeless corpses into the gutter is a very satisfying image, it’s probably not a very smart tactic. Smacks too much of Libtard tactics.
Quietly handing the Rodent appointees a DCM slip at the appointed time, while showing them the back door is probably the best way. Nobody can publicly snivel and it short-cuts any antagonism from the herd, as the replacements slip into the boardroom.
Failing to renew the contracts of the most obnoxious news staff might also have a salutory effect.
Paul, on reflection I tend to agree more with joe2. While bombarding the ABC with a raft of complaints and heaving lifeless corpses into the gutter is a very satisfying image, it’s probably not a very smart tactic. Smacks too much of Libtard tactics.
Quietly handing the Rodent appointees a DCM slip at the appointed time, while showing them the back door is probably the best way. Nobody can publicly snivel and it short-cuts any antagonism from the herd, as the replacements slip into the boardroom.
Failing to renew the contracts of the most obnoxious news staff might also have a salutory effect.
There is certainly change in the air, Jane. A pretty good rundown can be found in the link below. I am not sure, though, if the third board member appointed under the new ‘hands off’ system has been announced yet.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/2010/04/10/new-abc-board-member-soon-to-be-announced/
There is certainly change in the air, Jane. A pretty good rundown can be found in the link below. I am not sure, though, if the third board member appointed under the new ‘hands off’ system has been announced yet.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/2010/04/10/new-abc-board-member-soon-to-be-announced/
Just in case anyone who missed it, is interested, I give below the link (via ad astra) to an interview Jon Faine did with Bruce Guthrie after he won his unfair dismissal case against Newscorp.
It is pretty interesting in the light of what is being discussed in these posts. It get’s better as it nears the end, so hang in there.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/local/melbourne/201005/r567563_3477619.mp3
Just in case anyone who missed it, is interested, I give below the link (via ad astra) to an interview Jon Faine did with Bruce Guthrie after he won his unfair dismissal case against Newscorp.
It is pretty interesting in the light of what is being discussed in these posts. It get’s better as it nears the end, so hang in there.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/local/melbourne/201005/r567563_3477619.mp3
The Australian editorial today has voiced its opinion on this subject…
The Australian editorial today has voiced its opinion on this subject…