The first the Australian public heard of the now infamous Say Yes television advertisement on climate change action was when The Sunday Telegraph told its readers that “Carbon Cate” Blanchett had “sparked outrage in the community” by fronting a campaign that no-one had actually seen at that point.

Acting under the instructions of Murdoch editors salivating at a Marie Antoinette-style story of “elite Hollywood star lectures Western Suburbs to take their tax medicine”, the reporter tricked up some some outrage from rent-a-quote Barnaby Joyce and Plymouth Brethren reactionaries masquerading as the forgotten voices of middle Australia.

True to form, the ABC echo chamber dutifully ran with the story and we were off to the races before the ad had even aired on mainstream television.

Such is the speed of the news cycle now that media organisations ritually ‘throw forward’ a story before the actual events on which it is based become public. This allows them to frame the story according to their own ideological and commercial imperatives. It’s also economically efficient as they can manufacture reaction and plot the course of the story over a five-day news cycle in anticipation of the reaction it will receive. Editors love predictability, particularly given earlier deadlines and tighter production budgets.

The other recent example of the media jumping the gun on a story, based on their own impatient presumptions, was the early mentions of Lindsay Tanner’s book ‘Sideshow’. As Media Watch noted, these stories, again appearing first in the Sunday Torygraph, had Tanner “unloading on the Rudd government” when the book said nothing of the sort and when the reporter herself admitted she hadn’t even read it. The fact that their incorrect and superficial reaction only proved Tanner’s point about the media’s obsession with the political contest, as opposed to the underlying policy reality, was completely lost on many journalists.

This tendency to, in effect, manufacture news according to the inbuilt preferred templates of the news organisation is a product of the combined forces of increasing encroachment of partisanship in nominally ‘straight’ news coverage, the competitive pressures brought about by the slow death of the mainstream media business model and the pressures of the accelerating news cycle driven by new technology.

Think of how often you hear of the Opposition’s reaction to a major Government policy announcement before you have heard the announcement itself. Governments respond to this by seeking to get two or three cracks at a policy initiative by leaking its intentions to favoured correspondents beforehand. But this merely serves to fast-track the Opposition reaction and alerts less favoured correspondents and outlets (usually the Murdoch ones) to arrange a stitch-up that undermines the announcement.

This phenomenon of second and third guessing ‘virtual news’ before it registers in the real world is prevalent around the world.  In the US, it was noted by Pulitzer Prize-winning television critic Howard Rosenberg and former CNN correspondent Charles Feldman in their 2008 book ‘No Time to Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-Hour News Cycle..

“Contrary to Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book ‘Blink’ treatise on the validity of first glances and snap judgements, instant response is not necessarily wise response,” Rosenberg and Feldman write. “Plus the stakes become greater – quickness at times leading to quackery – in a higher and higher tech society that urges us to move faster. Not such a good idea.”

The increase in speed puts pressures on journalists to offer “analysis” of events virtually as they occur, or, as we have seen, even before they occur.  Due to the impossible deadlines and the sophistication of the spinners and fixers working for vested interests (almost always former journalists), the “analysis” usually amounts to a pre-positioning by those interests around a contentious policy area. The aim is to hotwire the narrative with the aim of forestalling action, usually on the pretext of “saving jobs”.  It works every time and encourages the view among a naive public that this is democracy in action.

But it should be evident by now that we are all being taken for a ride in this big, fast and fatuous media vehicle that manufactures news out of nothing and leaves democracy as the road kill.


12 Comments

pk · June 5, 2011 at 1:26 PM

excellent read.

I suppose you could argue that the stereotyping and narrative cliches prevalent in individual stories has made its way to a ready-made plot structure – maybe News Limited should be sending their journos to their colleagues at Fox movie studios to learn better writing.

Anonymous · June 5, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Manufacturing to a template is an important point. I've been called on several occasions by Tele journos who just want a quote for their story even if the facts (and the quote) totally contradict the template they are working on. Then denying an utterly false claim becomes the angle for a make believe story.

Hillbilly Skeleton · June 5, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Might I also just add that it is getting to the point now where the ABC is simply being used to provide free publicity and a platform for the daily dissemination of Coalition disinformation. Tony Abbott's daily Press Conference, and appearance at whatever conference or dinner he has plonked himself down in. A lot of the reportage is just straight playback of whatever he is saying. Also, it appears that the ABC has acquiesced to Mr Abbott's desire to avoid any more hard interviews and questions.
I just can't see how that sort of treatment of the Opposition Leader is fulfilling the ABC's Charter.

Mr D · June 5, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Hillbily, I've had to remove your first comment as it contained an attack on an individual journalist's personal appearance. I agree with your sentiments about that person's work, but please keep it civil. 🙂

Lyn · June 5, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Hi Mr Denmore

Thankyou so much for another enjoyable, genuine, honest article, you are a wonder.

Your blog is delighful, providing genuine honest insight into the problems we face with news reporting. I have to say the distortion of facts we so often see these days is depressing, I worry about democracy a lot.

“News out of nothing” how right you are .

Cheers Mr Denmore

Anonymous · June 5, 2011 at 11:37 PM

i wonder if some journalists are becoming concerned about this and the implications for democracy.there seems to be some discussion of their destructive roll beginning in the msm.

Mr D · June 5, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Why thank you Lyn!

Rhiannon · June 6, 2011 at 6:19 AM

What Lyn said.
Thanks again, I am really appreciating and enjoying your blog.

Anonymous · June 6, 2011 at 7:04 AM

As always, nice work again Mr D.

It seems that the tabloid media is increasingly treating news stories as mass produced widgets, in a sense. Standardising the process no doubt cuts the costs.

johnnycomelately

mollymalone · June 6, 2011 at 7:55 AM

I hope MSM journalists read and absorb the points you are making in your blog, particularly the ABC journos and their head honcho. But somehow I doubt that they do since standards continue to deteriorate. Glad we've at least got your excellent blog to rage against the dying of the light.

adelaide · June 6, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Well said sir! Have you read “Flat Earth News” by the English hack Nick Davies? Covers a lot of the same ground, especially laying into the UK Daily Mail and the Independent. Basically uses the Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model without ever admitting it…

Anonymous · June 8, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Insightful analysis.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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