When the ABC’s Drum was launched, Margaret Simons cited a piece by Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes on internal discussions of ABC journos writing opinion pieces, which I referred to in this post:
Simons then looks at the cult(ure) of personality attached to high profile journos, and questions whether non-witty, non-pretty, non-Tweeting writers are perhaps missing out in a new age of “audience engagement”. She also worries about objectivity, which is another distinction which is hard to maintain.
I was thinking about this again yesterday, prompted partly by the renewed criticism of the right wing balancing act on the ABC, and partly by a snippet from a Crikey reader (more of that later). Annabel Crabb also popped up to discuss her practice as a ‘political sketch writer’ [deconstructed here by Andrew Elder].
This is what an anonymous writer in Crikey‘s tips and rumours section had to say yesterday:
Notwithstanding the important role played by ex-Crikey editor Jonathan Green, the ABC’s new journos’ play pen The Drum is a lacklustre affair, which seems to be based on the assumption that anyone who can talk can write and vice versa, thus newspaper writers have become broadcasters and broadcasters are writing columns and opinion pieces. Is this the new journalism?
Annabel Crabb, who earned something of a reputation as a perky sketch writer for Fairfax, is now making regular appearances on ABC local radio shows to update listeners on “what’s going on in Canberra”. Clearly nobody thought to give her a few tips on how to be a broadcaster, so her Q&As with such luminaries as Steve Cannane and Richard Glover have been peppered with elongated “ums” and “ahs” and other irritating hesitations to the point where she sounds as dull as the ever-grey Michelle Grattan on Radio National Breakfast show.
It’s sad, but one wonders why those who dreamed up The Drum really thought that ABC online users would want to read the writings of “top” broadcasters such as Tony Eastley, Leigh Sales, Jonathan Holmes, Mark Colvin (probably one of the few who can write) et al. It’s a sort of media junkies’ dump bin that assumes we all want to read what these people have to say — and most of that is about “the future of journalism” — although it seems to be a generation of has-beens trying to prove they are with it.
Time for a generational change, but the ABC has not invested much in training young talent in the arts of writing or broadcasting, so the online venture will remain frumpish and dull. The only place where the real money is going is to is the cutesy Kids TV channel expensively promoted as a funky lolly show with sparky young teeny presenters doing that jump-and-grin thing that was all the go when the Dave Clark Five were trying to oust the Beatles.
There was a time when the ABC was ahead, but as each new CEO takes over, they behave as if talking up the future and associating the brand with “new technology” as if the ABC really understood it.
Whether or not you agree with this critique (and I just post, not endorse, unless noted otherwise), there are a couple of real issues here.
I was also thinking about Chris Uhlmann’s dire performance as the summer host of the 7 30 report. I tend to think of Uhlmann as a bit of a shill for the News Limited commentariat line du jour, and as one of those journos who believes that it’s appropriate to adopt a post of ‘above the fray’ irony and cynicism. His predecessor as the 7 30 Report’s political editor, Michael Brissenden, was much the same. But, whether you agree with that or not, I think it’s reasonably uncontroversial to say that as someone trained in the craft of a radio reporter, he doesn’t really do tv interviewing very well. So, while it’s highly fashionable at all levels in ABC news and current affairs to suggest that journos have to be able to cross various media, I don’t think it’s as easily said or done.
Secondly, we can circle back to the point about journalist as celebrity that Simons made. While various ABC types might have more followers on Twitter than the average Joelle or Joe, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re the most authoritative analysts around.
There are some real questions for the ABC to ponder, I’d suggest, which need a much deeper, well, analysis, than Mark Scott’s techno-cheersquad provides.
Just one point. The ABC got budget money specifically to set up a kids’ channel. So, it’s not as though it’s stealing money from NewsCaf.
This goes along with the push for broadcast journalists to be one person crews with a camera stuck to their shoulder. It makes sense in some contexts, but not all journos are good at it.
It also reminds me of a friend who’s an Age journo. She received an afternoon’s training in how to use a video camera, came up with an idea she thought would work really well on-line and then was told there was no gear available to her anyway. Confusion reigns.
I think you mean Michael, not Matthew?
Agree on how tiresome the ‘professional cynic’ thing is though. You see/read/hear it on a lot of reporting about protests. The irony is the journos are often woefully uninformed compared to those protesting (when they are not wilfully misreporting things).
Yes, dj, thanks. Fixed now!
@DJ – I completely agree. Most journalists at major news outlets are “jacks of all trades”, even the specialist ones. Only the industry journals have reporters that are really across their field.
@Mark – I’d add that the celebrity given to them by the ABC or their masthead (The Age, SMH, Oz, etc) gives them more legitimacy and followers than they’d get if they were blogging on their own Crabb.com website or similar. They are definitely beneficiaries of large marketing budgets – not necessarily quality of political analysis.
That’s right, Alex.
Apparently yes, there is a very definite current ABC policy of mixing up TV, radio and on-line newsrooms.
It is unbelievable that journalists, who now need at least an undergraduate degree and probably a grad cert, seem to be less informed that previous generations who went in as apprentices at 15. They seem woefully ignorant of anything that happened more than a year ago (even if they were working journalists then). Don’t they do any research? Keep notes?
I think that often the bias/‘above the fray’ irony and cynicism is front and bluster to cover up the fact that they know jack shit about their subjects.
I’ve given up RN Breakfast because I just couldn’t stand another minute of Fran “chortle at the thought of a gotcha” Kelly (never heard her succeed at a gotcha, mind you, just make herself sound as ignorant as she no doubt is). The Drum is beyond tedious. I don’t even bother checking it any more. Annabell Crabb can manage the odd funny one-liner, but it isn’t enough to wade through the rest of her tripe to find. Brissinden and Uhlmann are both a complete waste of space. Can’t wait for Red Kerry’s holidays to be over! It is so hard to find a reliable, honest source of news these days.
Jesus, Andrew Elder is savage (and right on the money, I might add). He should have Annabel Crabb’s job.
I’ve enjoyed the summer season of RN Breakfast, Polyquats. James Carlton has done a rather better job than Fran Kelly, imo. (Even so, I’ll keep listening to it after she returns as the morning radio and TV alternatives are even more vapid.)
Andre Welder [I can't help it, that's what i see every time I go to his blog] is always interesting and, more to the point, always informative.
That’s why he gets the linkage, hannah’s dad!
@ David – it’s as if James Carlton actually reads the notes given to him by the production staff or does his own research.
Frigthening if true, dj – he’d be breaking all the rules of Modern Journalism (TM).
the ABC has not invested much in training young talent in the arts of writing or broadcasting,
I really have to call this out as egregiously wrong. Really, stupidly wrong and uninformed – which is what you get for anonymous gossip I suppose.
One of my best friends was accepted in the ABC grad program a few years ago and, whilst there were things to criticise about the the program, the training and skills aspect was emphatically not it.
She received really high quality training in broadcast and news journalism, it was monitored and mentored. There was very much a “cadetship” aspect of it that journalism has largely lost, and I think you could arguably say it’s the best (only?) real journalism (in the old school sense) training left in the country – and I include universities in that statement.
Furthermore, the notion that the ABC has dropped the ball online is frankly moronic. In online, new media and digital television, they are light years ahead of their commercial counterparts and – along with the BBC – are demonstrating some real global best practice here, iView being just one example.
I agree wholeheartedly about Uhlman’s dreadful performance, and moreover, fail to understand why the ABC is trying to move further into opinion. The battles with Howard should have taught them to avoid it like the plague, and if they think the public is desperate for more bilious, ignorant pontificating from the self-annointed high priests of media, they are barking up the wrong tree. There is a surfeit of editorial bullshit – we are drowning in it. Conversely, there’s not very much journalism – real news. That’s a corner of the market that the ABC has a very good hold on. They should expand that. Of course, it’s expensive, and time-consuming…
I haven’t seen Chris Uhlmann much on the 7:30 report but I always found him far better than Paul Kelly on Insiders.
Chumpai, just because I would rather drink a cup of piss than a plate of shit, doesn’t make either an appetising prospect.
Thank you for that lovely thought just before dinner, patrickg.
The problem is that journalists are now required to provide intelligent commentary and opinion before they have learnt to be good reporters. And that takes years.
You need as columnists people who have been there-done that. But the way the media/politics/the economy/everything works these days, there is no time for this natural maturation of intelligence and insight. It has to be fast-tracked.
And THIS is why the tone of cynicism come across as so clearly a pose. These people aren’t ready to offer an opinion because they are still learning their trade. And, believe me, it is (or at least should be) seen as a trade.
Aside from the tendency for everything to be sped up, there is generally a lack of respect in journalism (and outside journalism) now for the skill of reporting straight news accurately and comprehensively under deadline pressure – for weaving facts and analysis together in a lively way that engages readers.
This IS a real skill, but one that goes largely unrecognised and unrewarded. The best journalists I have ever worked with have been wire journalists – from Reuters, Dow Jones and AP, who generate great copy under extraordinary pressure but without any of the prima donna behaviour seen in retail media. They gather the facts, break the news and then some overpaid “personality” journalist in a mainstream newspaper puts their name on the top.
I keep thinking why do we NEED mere journalists to tell us what they think when their most important job is to tell us what, who, when, where, how and why.
It’s like what happened to the banking system in recent years. The banks forgot about their basic function of being a conduit between lenders and borrowers. This was just too prosaic, so they transformed themselves into traders of derivatives and financial engineers.
Now journalists are supposed to be philosophers, seers, iconoclasts, political analysts and historians. If they were just given some decent time to learn their trade, we might all be better off. Instead, they’re cast as grizzled columnists before they’re out of their journalistic nappies.
Thanks, Mr Denmore – that’s very insightful.
Meanwhile, the pages of The Australian continue to be used as an anti-ABC outlet to blatantly push the commercial ambitions of SKY News.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/abcs-24-hour-news-channel-too-much-of-a-stretch/story-e6frg6zo-1225820145075
It is interesting to note the extent to which the future of TV news has become a battle between the ABC and SKY, The commercial free-to-air networks have largely left the field.
Link above don’t work.
Because you educated me about olden french intellectuals…
Linked text that works.
Paul, was about to do same. Thanks rumrebellious.
Well, the current ABC News service is boringly repetitive now. God knows how many times they repeat the same story per day now. The 24 hour News service will undoubtedly be worse. Still, giving Murdoch one in the eye is always a good thing.
Mr Denmore hits the nail on the head. You are much better at analysing and commenting on the news when you are constantly engaged in the job of gathering it. Hence the best commentators respect what the more mediocre regard as the lesser craft of reporting.
The ABC would do better to carry Al Jazeera on one of it’s digital channels. Foxtel refuses to broadcast Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is far superior to the ABC’s press release journalism.
Agree, ABC’s Drum is boring and trite – except for the “Your Photos” section. I tune in occasionally to enjoy the gallery of shots from just plain folks snapping away randomly at anything that strikes their fancy. My local newspaper has been running a similar section over the holidays that has been equally entertaining. Well, better than looking at the front page news photos of half-dead children being hauled from the wreckage of Haiti. And while on the subject of Haiti, did anyone catch that idiotic WIN TV newsreader on the first day of the disaster asking the on-site reporter “and has the looting started yet?”. What’s there to loot in Haiti?