HiResJournalism isn’t really a profession, much as some of its practitioners proclaim it to be. It’s much closer to being a trade or a craft. And like all crafts, success in journalism is usually achieved by getting not just one thing, but a number of small but critical things right.

These small things include spelling people’s names correctly, accurately reporting what people said, answering all the key questions like who, what, where, when and how, and, most of all, repeatedly asking ‘why’.

It’s the ‘why’ thing that’s falling down most right now.

A classic recent example was when much of the mainstream media readily took the bait over a report by consultancy BIS Shrapnel which the government said warned of dire consequences should Labor’s proposal to tighten negative gearing rules be enacted.

The report, trumpeted by the government and leaked to the Murdoch press, alleged that scrapping negative gearing – the practice where property investors can deduct any losses from their investment from their wage and salary income – would create economic havoc.

It turned out, however, that this document was written last year, way before Labor’s policy was released (a policy by the way which would not take effect until 1 July 2017, would not touch new housing and would be fully grandfathered for existing investors).

But as always in scare stories of this kind (as we saw with the astro-turfed hysteria over the carbon and mining taxes and pokies reform) the media tends to be a sucker for the self-serving propaganda of well-funded rent-seekers.

Fortunately, in this case, the credibility of the economic modelling was quickly undone by the discovery of elemental errors. But by the time this was pointed out, the scare had already had a good run in the tabloids, The Australian and commercial TV and radio.

Thankfully, Fairfax’s economics editor Ross Gittins was on hand to throw a bomb at dodgy modelling, while Paul Barry on ABC’s Media Watch expressed scepticism at both the refusal of BIS to identify who paid for the research and its denial of a political motive:

“Ask yourself this,” Barry said. “If you had no vested interest in negative gearing why would you commission such a report? Why would then you be so keen to have its findings made public? And why would you not own up to who you are? “

Quite. But for me the biggest “why” questions are: Why do journalists continue to fail to ask who stands to gain from research like this? Why do they not make a couple of checks first before running to print and to air with their “bombshell” findings? And why are they so intent on blandly taking one organisation’s word for it, particularly when it involves such a contentious and contested issue?

There are three possible explanations for this. One is that craft values in journalism are dying. Experienced hands have left the trade, either having been made redundant or just fed up at conditions in the industry. That leaves young and inexperienced reporters without the guiding hand of a seen-it-all editor who tells them to go out and get a more complete story. There’s probably an element of that in this vapid recycling of press releases.

Another explanation, and one that is related to the first, is that as newsrooms get smaller and deadlines multiply (everyone now has to file constantly for online) there is simply no time for checking facts or verifying sources. Individual journalists may be quite capable and skilled, but the conditions they work under mean anything but the most cursory quality control is close to impossible.

A third explanation – and this is the most sinister one – is that truth in journalism now is increasingly secondary to conflict and clicks. When I was online editor at the AFR, even as far back as a decade ago, we knew that any story related to property prices would go through the roof, so to speak. Traffic even then was becoming a news driver.

Now, there is an entire science around page impressions and click-through rates. Feedback is instantaneous. And journalists at Fairfax and elsewhere are being told to be mindful about what does and doesn’t generate clicks. If leaving out key information in a write-off (the paragraph advertising the story) lifts open rates, so be it.

An example of that might be running the scare headline “Bombshell Research: House Prices to Fall” (based on a single news release quoting research paid by unnamed interests) or it could be something as crude as this from the SMH online:

Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 9.45.21 pm

“Spate of Slashings Puts City on Edge. At least 12 victims have recently been attacked by men wielding knives or razors.” One can imagine the panic that sentence induced among people all over Sydney. What was to stop the editors inserting three words-  “in New York “-  in the intro? Quite simply because by leaving key information out, you maximise the potential audience and maximise click throughs.

So is this rush to publish misleading, incomplete or totally erroneous news a reflection of poor and undeveloped skills among journalists, inadequate newsroom resources and constant deadlines, or the most cynical and commercially crude compulsion to frighten your audience in a desperate lunge for eyeballs?

Probably all of the above. Now reflect on that as we head into a federal election.


Suzanne McGhie · March 16, 2016 at 8:35 am

the poor coverage of the real estate property scare was not covered well by ABC either. ABC has an ethical code, many of its reporters are extremely experienced & while ABC wants lots of followers on twitter & f/b and iview etc this does not explain the lack of questioning to LNP pollies using the -ve gearing issue to scare voters with the simple question: how many -ve geared properties do you or your spouse own? surely too many MoP have the conflict of interest & ought NOT to comment. Maybe also the ABC journos own many -ve geared properties too so do not want any changes such as ALP proposals?

Ana Flanagan · March 16, 2016 at 9:02 am

Excellent writing. Reflects exactly how I feel about journalists theses days. It is such a shame I’m reading this on Twitter and not in MSM. I love the ABC especially RN but slowly I have become fed up with ABC interviewers not asking the tough questions from Goverment MPs or Right Wing people. They are the ones who should be accountable right now not the opposition who may not get into Goverment anyway.
Thank you for the opportunity to leave a reply

Alan Morison · March 16, 2016 at 2:40 pm

Any examination of Australian journalism’s failing standards should not overlook the Paul Sheehan fiasco. Here was an experienced journalist who should have been sacked for ignoring the basic ethics of his craft. Editors should have also been sacked. Worse than that, home-grown terrorism begins with home-grown racism. The fact that Fairfax put Sheehan’s lies on the front page shows how low the brand and the craft has fallen.

Jane · March 16, 2016 at 2:48 pm

Changes to negative gearing? Whooo! It keeps me up at night.That and micro plastics in the seafood.

Alan Morison · March 16, 2016 at 5:52 pm

Turnbull government sets next tax target
Head of the Senate Economics Committee Sam Dastyari and RateSetter CEO Daniel Fogo spoke to money news
COMMENT Your right to claim full work-related expenses in your year-end tax return could be at stake.

This COMMENT piece is now the lead item on The Age online. It’s plain that all editorial decisions are now being made by drawing links at random out of
a barrel. All previous standards, developed over decades, have given way to clickbait. The brand is trashed every day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: