What’s the key difference between good and bad journalism? In the former, the facts always come first, assumptions are to be avoided and the simple questions ‘who, what, where, when, how and why’ are the tools of the trade. For the latter, the facts are just a convenient hook on which to hang a specific agenda. The tragic events in Norway provide a prime example of how this works.
The best journalists this blogger ever worked with were in the wire services. They were trained to work under the pressure of constant deadlines and they had the skills to deliver clear, concise, accurate and properly sourced copy in real-time on breaking news events. When the facts were incomplete or unclear, wire journos say so. It wasn’t just pride in their craft that made them this way. It was good business. Agencies like Reuters or The Associated Press – who traditionally were wholesalers of news to retail media – know that the business they are in is fundamentally about trust. When you lose that, your product becomes worthless.
While social media and the ability for anyone to publish in real-time to a global audience have changed the dynamics of breaking news reporting, the major agencies are thriving in new ways by being trusted sources to an unmediated audience. Most newspapers, though, are struggling. Unable to compete on speed – primarily because they have never properly adapted to real-time news – some newspapers have decided their digital future is in instant punditry. In other words, their online business model consists of telling you what something means or what they think about it before the facts are known. And when the facts prove unhelpful, they often torture them to suit their pre-cooked agenda. Think of it as a gigantic trolling machine.
In Australia, the masters of this ‘fit-the-world-into-a-pre-made-ideological-template’ are, of course, the News Ltd tabloid attack columnists like Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt. So we saw these two fire up their blogs on Saturday morning as soon as the news came out of Norway – obviously seeing in those events a prime opportunity to push the instant hate buttons of their unhinged yet hopelessly devoted readerships. Imagine their disappointment, then, when the troublesome facts (lone gunman, white, right-wing and clearly delusional) did not fit the chosen template. Bolt’s first line in his coverage of the story was:
“Once the identity of the attackers becomes known, the consequences for Norway’s immigration policies could be profound.”
Yes, Bolt did update his blog to correct those initial impressions and provided accurate, real-time cut-and-paste updates from the wires. But he quickly lost interest in the story when it didn’t fit the single narrative his readers constantly look to him to deliver – like small children wanting a parent to read them the same story over and over again. You see, people don’t read Andrew Bolt for news. They go to him to have their prejudices confirmed. In other words, the agenda he pursues with almost religious fervour is more important than the facts, which are just there to be adjusted to his world view – one in which hard-working, white, conservative, Christian people are under attack from the brown, bludging, Muslim hordes and meddling bleeding heart “leftists”. In fact, it’s a world view eerily in sync with that of the gunman in Norway.
For a busted mainstream media, this get-your-prejudices-confirmed-here approach delivers page impressions, no doubt. It’s successful, to be sure; if, of course, your idea of success is twisting and distorting real-world events to fit an agenda that panders to ignorance, bigotry and xenophobia. There’s ALWAYS been a market for that. I’m not sure I would call it journalism, though. Not in my book.
13 Comments
megpie71 · July 24, 2011 at 8:48 AM
In a small push for political correctness here, could I just point out that there's no evidence the man who shot over 50 people at the campsite in Norway was ever diagnosed with a mental illness (which makes the label of “lunatic” inaccurate). As someone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness, can I also point out that the majority of persons with diagnosed mental illnesses are not violent, and that indeed a diagnosis of mental illness is more of a predictor of being a victim of crime than of being a perpetrator of them. Just in the interests of working against existing stereotypes, prejudices, and political agenda, you understand.
Anonymous · July 24, 2011 at 9:32 AM
@ megpie71, quite so. Diagnosis of a mental illness usually (not always I grant) implies acceptance that there is a problem to be solved (which is actually a part of the cure). For a mentally ill person, acceptance of one's diagnosis usually means that one is no longer fighting against oneself.
OTOH I think it is entirely possible to be a “madman” without being diagnosed (formally or otherwise).
If what Mr Denton says about Bolt's blog as of lunchtime Saturday is right (I don't really want to know because in my opinion Bolt is not worth paying any attention to) then it should have dealt him a h*u*g*e credibility blow.
But that might not matter since for Bolt, it's all about the site hit statistics. Agree or disagree with him, click on his link and he gets a “piece of pie”. Remember that term called “link bait”……any thing that starts “http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/” should **never** be clicked IMHO.
Regards,
Maurice19
maurice19@live.com.au
Mr D · July 24, 2011 at 11:08 AM
I've corrected, though I think calling someone a 'lunatic' has a colloquial meaning separate to any mental illness.
Craig Edwards · July 24, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Re Maurice,
Being a 'madman' in the sense that you refer to is not necessarily indicative of mental illness. Too many people apply the term 'mental illness' to beliefs/attitudes that are bizarre or incorrect – bizarre beliefs and mental illness are not the same thing. People can and do hold bizarre beliefs without having any brain dysfunction. Giving such people antipsychotic or similar medication will not do anything to help them.
There's an important distinction between a dysfunctional brain (mental illness), and the use of a normally functioning brain to reach bizarre or unjustifiable beliefs/attitudes. For a start, people displaying the latter quality are fully responsible for their actions and are criminally liable, whereas a person who acts out of mental illness is neither morally nor legally liable.
'Acceptance' of one's mental illness is not a diagnostic criteria under any major diagnostic system (e.g. the DSM-IV), and as someone who has worked for years in mental health, I've worked with plenty of patients/clients who have no awareness of their illness. In fact, a lack of insight into one's own illness is a common symptom for schizoprhrenia and many competence-impairing conditions. Similarly, there is no requirement to 'accept one's illness' to be found not guilty by reason of mental impairment in any Australian jurisdiction. I do not know where you seem to have got the idea that insight is a necessary criterion of mental illness – nothing could be further from the truth.
Moreover, a person with normal brain function but bizarre beliefs/attitudes MAY respond to education, cultural shifts, punishment and rehabilitation. A person with a mental illness, on the other hand, requires treatment and a supportive environment. Yes, too many people associate schizophrenia with total impairment, when many schizophrenics can live unremarkable (in the positive sense) lives with a combination of medication, supportive environment and psychological treatment. But you also do them a disservice by extending mental illness to anyone who behaves abominably or who holds bizarre beliefs. Just as most mentally ill individuals due not hold antisocial beliefs/attitudes, most fascists/murders/racists are in fact completely responsible for their own actions.
Equating mental illness with abominable behaviours or beliefs helps nobody.
Anonymous · July 24, 2011 at 3:04 PM
Nice summary Craig. The resort to mental illness == ethical failure (and vice versa) is especially odious but of long standing, predating analytic theories of mind.
Pip · July 24, 2011 at 5:41 PM
I think the type of creature who can plan and execute such unconscionable acts, has no conscience, ie., a psychopath.
Grandiose paranoic personality as opposed to a mental illness.
Meg71, 'lunatic' isn't meant to be offensive to anyone suffering from a mentsl illnes and I'm certain that Mr. Denmore meant no offence.
The word lunatic is generally used to describe a person or group with extremist or fanatical views, which suits the murderer in Norway.
Dan · July 25, 2011 at 3:49 AM
“…a diagnosis of mental illness is more of a predictor of being a victim of crime than of being a perpetrator of them”. Indeed that is probably correct. These comments should be drawn to the attention of Andrew Robb and others in relation to allegations against a certain SA Senator.
Notus · July 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM
Mad or bad a moot point. The scary thing is that so many believe they are thinking “clever” thoughts when all they are doing is reinforcing their prejudices.
The Piping Shrike · July 25, 2011 at 10:25 AM
Um, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that someone who shoots kids in order to revive the Knights Templar is a nutter.
Precisely because it is irrational and represents nothing in society of significance that I heartily agree with the view that anyone who tries to make a political point about this reveals a lot about their own bankruptcy.
NotZed · July 25, 2011 at 1:08 PM
Bolt just needs starving of oxygen, which unfortunately even negative articles like this provide.
Anonymous · July 26, 2011 at 4:04 AM
It will be interesting to see what (probably nothing) is made by the MSM of the killer's admiration for Howard and Costello. Imagine the screaming that would be going on if a muslim terrorist avowed an admiration for Gillard or Rudd or Bob Brown.
Anonymous · July 26, 2011 at 5:42 PM
I don't know why Bolt removed that first sentiment from his blog. It fits perfectly well with his agenda. The only difference is that the perpetrator was not a Muslim, but instead was inspired by Norwegian cultural purity being corrupted by Muslim infidel. So it's still the fault of the Muslims. Sort of like blaming rape victims for dressing provocatively, or the Jews for the Holocaust.
With regard to whether or not Breivik is unhinged, I think anyone seduced by the ideology of Pell, Howard and Costello automatically qualifies.
Anonymous · July 27, 2011 at 7:43 AM
Foolhardily following in Piping Shrike's footsteps, one moves to NotZed. A simple solution for the problem would be the garotte.
Breivik is unhinged, what's Bolt's excuse, or is this the difference between a mere nutter and a genuinely, consciously evil person?
Frankly, I cant tell the difference, as to these…Paul Walter