On the day the nation’s federal and state leaders met in Canberra to thrash out a new deal on health reform, the ABC’s website ran with this headline: ‘Desperate’ Gillard Set to Push Health Reform. Once again, our national broadcaster chooses as its preferred angle the Opposition’s interpretation of the story rather than the facts of the proposed reforms themselves, a baffling tendency this blog has explored before here.
One might have thought a smart editor at the ABC – without one eye on the balance nazis with stopwatches – could have chosen to add some value for readers with, perhaps, a timeline graphic of the attempted reforms to date, a selection of views from health economists on issues and trade-offs involved, a case study of the funding pressures in a state hospital, a breakdown of the health budget and where the money goes; in fact anything but the lazy, knee-jerk recycling of an Opposition press release.
For journalists working on Sundays, it’s just too easy to run a tape over ‘Insiders’ or ‘Meet the Press’ or whatever other political interview program is filling the airwaves on our traditional day of rest. Then you just wrap the same facts around a new set of cut-and-paste quotes and recast the story under a fresh lead, usually involving a totally non-contested claim from an Opposition attack dog. You’re not going to win any Walkley awards that way, but no-one’s going to complain either.
But this is lazy nothing-at-stake Sunday template journalism – a bland commentary on a predictable tennis match between opponents on left and right. And it is journalism of a kind that is fuelling mass disenchantment with the mainstream media and in turn bolstering the relative standing of social media or community journalism where people still believe in the actual truth, not the version formed by “official sources”.
These days part of a cosy establishment, much of the media too often has nothing to add of substance on public issues, so it confines itself merely to doing what one defender of Julian Assange described as “state stenography – merely taking down what cynical and malign power tells it”. This could be laziness. It could be a lack of imagination. It could be plain timidity and fear of standing out. It could just be a failure to see how the world is changing. Or it could be a combination of all of the above.
Whatever it is, it is failing the public. The world currently faces a series of earth-shaking issues – the catastrophic consequences of a global financial crisis that threaten Francis Fukuyama’s assumptions made 20 years ago about the end of history, an acceleration in extreme weather events brought about by man-made climate change, rapidly depleting natural resources and escalating food prices, a social media-driven revolution in the Middle East. These events are stretching the media’s capacity to understand and report on change in ways that move beyond a facile reliance on he said-she said journalism – a point made by Huffington Post’s business editor Peter Goodman in an excellent article recently
“For far too long, the public has suffered under the tyranny of dueling narratives served up by one or another interest group seeking self-serving shortcuts around nuanced truths, all the while shortchanging the clarity of important debates about the biggest issues of the day,” Goodman said. “Journalists have too often perpetuated the false notion that seemingly any issue can be cleanly divided into right and left, conservative and liberal, because these labels make our work simpler, supplying us with a handy structure we can impose at will on typically uncooperative facts.”
That’s it, the handy structure – “the Opposition says”, the bland reporting of claim and counter-claim without any independent attempt to get at the truth. From this perspective and in light of the fundamental changes our world is undergoing, it does not seem too much of a stretch to say that the media currently finds itself in the unfamiliar territory of Bob Dylan’s Ballad of a Thin Man: “Something is happening here, and you don’t know what it is, do you Mr Jones?”
24 Comments
tredlgt · February 13, 2011 at 7:07 AM
Its possible they don't know what's happening but more likely they do but don't care .
Although it would be good journalism to think and write for your self these lazy buggers want to get the job done easily so they can get on pretending to be celebrities . No thought needed on actual reporting but a lot on positioning themselves for their next turn in front of the cameras.
Take away the by-lines make them anonymous and they will need to write stories that interest us to keep their jobs. If we were to read say the drum for information rather than the dubious wit of crabb would we still read if the writers name was dropped and it was just the story . I think only if the story was any good .
Surely management want as many eyes as possible ,at the moment they build up a celeb journo to draw the crowd and I say this because the corps spend a lot of time building profiles for these entertainers . Without the faces it is only the words that can attract the customer ,us.
Anonymous · February 13, 2011 at 12:59 PM
I saw this headline, read through and thought someone is definitely going to comment on this. Just lazy journalism from the ABC once again.
Anonymous · February 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM
Their ABC's use of Coalition talking points didn't end there either.
Headline of 11 February 2011
Gillard’s health backdown ‘an absolute wipeout’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/11/3136587.htm?section=justin
I think the “lazy journalism” excuse has worn a little thin. Just because the ABC isn't supposed to be biased does not mean that at times it ISN'T biased.
The only question remaining for me is: How is the ABC allowed to get away with violating its own Charter and Code of Practice?
Anonymous · February 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM
Mr D,
Can I just add to your list of possible (probable) explanations, simple incompetence. Perhaps this incompetence is driven by laziness, lack of imagination, or fear, but maybe it's simply that our best and brightest from all backgrounds have far more and better opportunities than journalism provides and so we are left to be spoon fed slops by plodders. Apart from the usually excellent Ross Gittens I cannot think of another journalist who's work has enlightened me with an interesting perspective, or novel link between various facts.
Even a simple chronology of events is beyond these incurious 'stenographers' (wonderful description). They couldn't tell you what past events have led to the present situation because they couldn't even understand simple cause and effect. There is that old adage (albeit unfair on the teaching profession) that “Those who can do, those who can't teach”. I add to that “and the really dumb ones become journalists”.
Mr D · February 13, 2011 at 11:53 PM
Anonymous, there ARE still plenty of bright young people going into journalism. The problem is a lot of the older wise seen-it-all heads have gone and the youngsters have no mentors.
What's happened in recent years is a lot of these youngsters have never understood that their role is as sceptical intermediaries, not as rubber stampers or mere conduits.
I know this from journalistic educators of my acquaintance, who tell me that cadets frequently will defend a lazy piece of copy with the line “well, they SAID it”, as if that is the final arbiter.
Anonymous · February 13, 2011 at 11:54 PM
'How is the ABC allowed to get away with violating its own Charter and Code of Practice?'
Well said, Anonymous! And I almost threw a heavy object at my radio when I listened to this Lyndall Curtis interview on AM earlier today:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3137724.htm. It is the first item btw.
Talk about running with Liberal/Oz talking points. Unbelievable!
And tonight they plan to run a hatchet job on Julian Assange and wikileaks apparently. Don't know whether to laugh or cry ..
Cheer from Daylesford, Victoria
Helga
Anonymous · February 14, 2011 at 12:21 AM
Oh, and then there was an interview of one Graham Bradley of the Business Council about possible spending cuts, where not only same director followed Liberal talking points – needless to say Tony Eastley in the introduction talks about the 'controversial' flood levy – and the interviewing 'journalist' egged him. The most despicable part is where Mr Bradley mentions disability benefits.
Interview starts around the 09:00 minute mark
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3137724.htm
NOT MY ABC, THAT'S FOR SURE!
Anonymous · February 14, 2011 at 1:15 AM
Mr D,
Lets say for the sake of the argument you are right and there are plenty of bright people in journalism. If they are so bright how come they need some old hand to guide them to simple ethics and basic analysis? There are plenty of old hands in the media, perhaps they all keep their own council, but more likely is that they are just part of the problem.
The example you cite of cadet's defence of lazy copy is hardly evidence against the accusation of lack of ability. Clearly the ambition to be anything more than a stenographer isn't there.
What are they learning in their degree courses beyond transcription from a tape? Surely they are being educated to be skeptical and to analyse the merits on any claim, simply to think critically. From their work you can't discern any evidence that these important lessons didn't just go in one ear and out the other.
A bright person should not need to be sat down and have the earth shattering news that sometimes when people say things it's not because they're true but because they are seeking some advantage explained to them. The apparent credulity of our journalists in regurgitating any old pap without any critical analysis certainly invites questioning of their ability.
Frankly a lack of competence is the kindest of all possible explanation of the current failings of our journalists.
I don't have a solution to that problem as the financial support for quality mainstream journalism is likely to continue to erode. Hopefully the independent online sphere will expand to fill the void with intelligent and critical analyses, but it's probably far more likely to remain a small niche with the bilge that the dominates radio, tv and is eating away at the press will actually be even worse on the the web. The ability to filter out all news and opinion that doesn't reinforce existing biases will leave us in intellectual ghettos and common cause will be more and more hard to find.
That's why I support your call to improve the quality of our media. We need a shared and accessible space where the vast majority of our stories can be told, analysed and debated or we will degenerate into warring tribes without any shared accepted norms. It's an important task and one I fear on the evidence is way beyond the ability of our journalists.
Anonymous · February 14, 2011 at 2:06 AM
“Frankly a lack of competence is the kindest of all possible explanation of the current failings of our journalists'
Often it just seems like they are exhibiting typical flocking behaviour.
Mike H · February 14, 2011 at 4:58 AM
I've come to the conclusion that the ABC just doesn't care. This parroting of the Liberal line has been going on for years. The number of times the radio news starts with “The Coalition says” is beyond a joke.
Mr D · February 14, 2011 at 5:35 AM
I think there's an element of asymmetry for the ABC in accusations of bias. They know that when Labor is in power, a lot of this stuff will just go through to the keeper. But when the Liberals are in power, they will be held accountable for every last slip. So the path of least resistance for ABC editors is to err on the side of pleasing the conservatives.
Someone over at Poll Bludger was saying they see a market for Progressive Talk radio. Personally, I don't think you fix this problem by creating another echo chamber on the left.
We just need good journalism that doesn't fly the flag for any side. In the meantime, I can sense Andrew Ollie spinning in his grave.
Anonymous · February 14, 2011 at 5:46 AM
Glad I discovered this site.
robertwalls · February 14, 2011 at 5:58 AM
This reminds me of Mark Twain's delightful description of the practitioners of the craft as “a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.”
Anonymous · February 14, 2011 at 8:27 AM
Mr D wrote:
“We just need good journalism that doesn't fly the flag for any side.”
It's needed, alright, but I see nothing on the horizon to indicate it's coming. As your excellent blog repeatedly shows, the standard is getting worse. The commentary more politically-unipolar, the information (such as it is) typically reduced to soundbites and talking points.
The mainstream media has never been greyer, and yes, it's crying out for a shake-up.
Mike H · February 14, 2011 at 9:33 AM
And here's the current headline on the ABC News website: “Health deal leaves patients 'high and dry'”
Give me strength.
Mr D · February 14, 2011 at 9:44 AM
There's a pattern, isn't there? I suspect the ABC subs really aren't trained very well. Clearly, they don't have a lot of space to work with, but that can be dealt with in more honest fashion.
Victoria · February 14, 2011 at 8:29 PM
I think that the core of the problem here is that Public Broadcasters have been led to believe that 'Balance' is the solution, when it should be impartiality that they strive for when presenting the news to the genral public. All the 'Balance' credo has produced is a lopsided debate where the side with the best argument, as in Climate Change, for example, has been drowned out, all for the sake of achieving the new journalistic nirvana of 'Balance', by a self-interested cabal of disinformationists.
Journalists and their Editors should realise that they don't have to give these vested interests' shills equal time with the truth.
Not only that, but the ABC should get out of the game of sensationalising the news with their biased headlines. That's not what they're supposed to be there for.
Sadly, the nomen of 'Press Pack' is all too true. They, and especially the new, young journalists, like Latika Bourke, for example, all seem to adopt the credo of, 'Go along to get along'. If only they knew that there were lots of people out here not wanting politics reported with a tone of sneering condescension, like a goosip mag, but with in depth analysis of the issues. That young journalist's star would surely rise quicker than the rest as a result.
Anonymous · February 15, 2011 at 2:59 AM
Thanks for your link on Club Troppo Mr D. Very happy to have found this site. KH
Mr D · February 15, 2011 at 3:21 AM
No problem Ken. Glad you like it. And I admire your work over at Club Troppo.
Anonymous · February 15, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Another example from a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3126122.htm
I fail to see how the interview with Ross Fitzgerald adds anything to this story. All he does is state as unsubstantiated fact that the government has “form at wasting money” and then admit that he has no suggestion as to how to improve government emergency payments
Andrew Elder · February 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM
This is your best post yet, Mr D.
I think what needs to change is the mindset that journalists already know everything they need to know, the rest is just filler for tomorrow's copy. First, they need financial analysis skills. Second, they need to reorient political reporting away from parliament and toward policy, assessing political input against the policy.
You won't understand what Gillard has (and hasn't) achieved until you roll your sleeves up and get across health policy. Before you report Opposition policy, consider that its leader was Health Minister was minister for four years – and has nothing coherent to say now, and got monstered by Kevin Rudd this time year.
Journosphere wisdom is that the only reporting is of Canberra hype and bullshit, while delving into policy can only ever be worthy and dull. This is the mindset holding journalism back.
Gits · February 21, 2011 at 2:31 AM
As a 47yo in their last year of a journalism degree, I can see where graduates propagate the myth of “laziness”, even with a few years of experience.
After a redundancy and divorce (which included selling a house on NSW North Coast that was bought years ago..), my new found liquidity allowed me the indulgence of studying something that has fascinated me for years.
Old enough to remember the OLD cadetship system having an older brother start as a copyboy on Ruperts bold gamble with a national broadsheet in the mid 60's, I have summised that the demands of undergraduate assessement undermine the ability to rely on ones general knowledge. Attribution is a key tenet of journalism, however I have been marked down for stating within a submission something that I know as a result of my general knowledge. It may have been something I have read years ago or are aware of through anecdotal evidence, but is impossible to reference. Some markers comments have bordered on accusations of plagiarism.
I am no dill, I have a Masters degree in Business and I consider myself well read, so when someone suggests that I have lifted someone elses hard work, I get a bit miffed.
There are practical aspects of the degree which provide effective training for journalists such as news story composition; feature writing skills; investigative practices, etc but the majority of the course content in terms of historical and interpretive aspects of the field do not allow for people to demonstrate their intelligence or critical thinking.
Parts of it are about what people have said; getting the quote; the adversarial nature of reporting and exploring conflict. All of these are reliant on someone feeding you the content for the grab and before you can explore the implications in a more investigative and critical fashion, the next grab is due.
Its what the punters are after
Mr D · February 21, 2011 at 3:21 AM
Gits, it's tough to be asked to be a reporter when you have more experience than most of the people you are interviewing.
Journalism has become faster in recent years, much more akin to the commercial radio style of news-gathering that I grew up in.
This basically involves taking the story forward, as you say, with another 'grab'. And those 'grabs' are from predictable people saying predictable things.
nolan · February 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Hi
Tks very much for post:
I like it and hope that you continue posting.
Let me show other source that may be good for community.
Source: Police dispatcher interview questions
Best rgs
David