Sometimes, even in journalism, words are superfluous. Simple images and the unmediated experiences of those at the centre of newsworthy events are all that is required to communicate to viewers and readers the magnitude of those events.
So why does Australian commercial television continue to ignore this principle? Instead of simply showing what has happened – in a flood, in a cyclone, in an earthquake – we are told what we can see for ourselves on screen.
Even worse, the accompanying commentary in voiceover and pieces to camera consists of the most wretched, mindless cliché; a cut-and-paste no-brand and no-brain string of pat phrases that reveal nothing beyond the insensitivity and incompetence of the blow-dried “personalities” delivering them.
Victims, positioned as extras in a moveable backdrop for the flown-in presenters’ monstrous egos, are both insulted and patronised with vapid questions about how they are feeling. It is proforma television that drains the most profound and human events of meaning and exploits tragedy for cheap rating points.
Within hours of the Christchurch earthquake, Channel Nine was running the now familiar promos that treat real and concurrent events as trailers for disaster movies; slow-mo montages overlaid by adagios and cheesy voiceovers that in seeking to dramatise real events merely serve to commoditise and cheapen them.
Over at Channel Seven, meanwhile, the story wasn’t about the earthquake, the story was about ‘Kochie’ at the earthquake. Christchurch was merely the back lot for another ‘story of drama and heartache and heroism’ brought to you by whomever.
By contrast, ABC24 sensibly left the telling of the story to the Kiwis themselves. And the no-nonsense coverage from New Zealand’s state-owned One Network showed up the glib and slick superficiality of Australian commercial television.
The New Zealand journalists – uncorrupted by the idea that THEY were the story – quietly let those at the centre of the carnage simply recount what had happened. There were no hyperbolic voiceovers about ‘heroism’ or attempts to fit some fake pre-constructed ‘noble’ narrative from network central.
The focus instead was on the efficient relaying of information. The pain and the anxiety and the humanity were clear enough to anyone with eyes. There was no need to embellish it with the now standard Walkley-seeking emoting we see in Australian television journalism..
For a properly trained journalist, this is all simple stuff. You get out of the way as much as you can and let your readers see what is there to be seen. You add explanation and context where necessary. You eschew adjectives for verbs. And you never presume to know how anyone is feeling.
Most of all, you speak out against the cynical, low-life show business wankers who seek to exploit real-life tragedy by turning it into cheap entertainment.
See also:
· Jonathan Powles:
Post-script: I saw Jonathon Green on the Drum defending his article against accusations from Latika Bourke that he was tarring all journalists with the same brush. He made the point, which I agree with, that individual journos tend to be overly sensitive about these things and (understandably) fail to grasp this as an industry problem.
Journalists don’t like to reflect on the fact that the media is a business. In the commercial world, it serves to look after the needs of its shareholders and advertisers. There is nothing sinister about this. That’s the way capitalism works. Rival commercial networks use disaster news to position their “brand”. So it’s Karl vs Kochie in Christchurch, the city’s pain a backdrop for their “show”. But journos, quaintly and naively thinking they offer a social service, often don’t connect the dots with their craft and the business in which they work.
It’s only when you get out of the industry, as I did, that you appreciate this. As nobel and as sensitive as individual reporters are, the industry that employs them is at base a voracious and amoral beast that is about delivering the eyeballs of its readers and viewers to the advertisers it serves. And disasters do that for them in spades.
11 Comments
Paul C · February 24, 2011 at 3:08 AM
I was watching ABC 24's coverage of the Christchurch quake, 10 hours after it happened, claiming 'live coverage', but showing the same 15 or so clips repeatedly. It was 10PM in NZ at the time, but their 'live coverage' was showing stuff happening during the day.
CNN's was no better.
The Worst of Perth · February 24, 2011 at 4:13 AM
They didn't really send that tool Kochie over did they?
Anonymous · February 24, 2011 at 6:01 AM
Mr D wrote:
“ABC24 sensibly left the telling of the story to the Kiwis themselves”
I daresay the Kiwis could cover Australian news and politics more professionally than ABC24 do.
Doug · February 24, 2011 at 10:08 AM
I agree. ABC24's cutover to TVNZ's live coverage was the best decision. Let the pictures tell the story and the commentary was by the Kiwis who, as locals, were in the best position to report and interpret.
Regrettably, although I understand its need to be in lockstep with the private sector or risk criticism from its vigilant enemies, even the ABC succumbed by sending over Joe O'Brien, which I thought was pathetic – not Joe, he is harmless enough, but the patronising assumption that the Kiwis were not up to the job.
The story is about the story, not who the f*%K is reporting it. If we need to have Australian journalists or “live to camera talking heads” then I am waiting for the Aust networks to send their talent to Tripoli instead of taking the CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera feeds.
The reason the Aust networks sent their talking heads to NZ was because it was affordable. None of them added anything to the story, which was covered perfectly well by TVNZ. As Piggy Muldoon said, every time a Kiwi migrates to Aust it raises the IQ of both countries.
The Kiwis, despite their odd little idiosyncracies, are actually very competent and well organised, as evidenced by the complete absence of any criticism of the response by the various disaster management agencies.
Having myself worked in a job which was involved in disaster response, I would add that the media crews (and politicians) just get in the way and if they were genuine in their desire to respond positively, they would take the local TV feed and donate the costs of putting their talent on-site to the Red Cross Earthquake Appeal.
As for the egos of the presenters, glory by association has proven a temptation too difficult for any of them to resist.
Anonymous · February 24, 2011 at 6:29 PM
“…vapid questions about how they are feeling” certainly struck a chord with me, Mr D. As a reporter in the late '70s I was sent to speak to the parents of a teenager killed in a car accident. When I submitted the story, my editor wanted to send me back to the obviously distraught parents to ask them this most vapid of questions. I refused on the grounds that anyone with half a brain would know the answer, and within six months I began a new career.
The super-supercilious Heather Ewart asked this same dumb question at least three times on last night's 7.30 Report. Ummm, “shaken, Heather!”
Great analysis, as always.
-Ozy
Doug · February 24, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Heather Ewart is painful to watch on 7.30 Report. She is out of her depth. When are Leigh Sales and Chris Uhlmann supposed to be starting? It's nearly March and even Kerry O'Brien had usually finished his holidays by now in years gone by.
Anonymous · February 24, 2011 at 11:26 PM
Again the ABC predicates its news coverage on right wing talking points:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/02/24/opposition-opposed/
sblake · February 24, 2011 at 11:44 PM
I have noticed that since Sky news has come on board with TVNZ3 the reportage is getting more and more melodramatic and there are more “look at me” presentations by journalists on the ground and much more searching for disaster porn.
Mr D · February 24, 2011 at 11:50 PM
TV3 is NZ's commercial network. It's more tabloid and apes its Australian cousins with most of the effort going into pieces to camera than actually reporting, er, facts.
Doug · February 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM
The Drum (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44422.html) has an interesting article about the role of journalists and the media. My comment was:
“What is missing is the role played by proprietors and editors in shaping the agenda according to the proprietors' corporate interests and those of his/her mates in the business world.
So long as the media, particularly the newspapers, is owned by corporate conglomerates, it will be driven not by any commitment to tell a balanced story or inform the public in a fair and open way but to deliver a narrative favourable to its proprietor's personal interests, either by skewing stories or omitting them. News Ltd's non-coverage of its $77 million tax bill in the ACT is a recent example.
Journalists who think their product is anything more than a commodity are misleading themselves. They self-censor all the time in order to pay the mortgage and put food on the table, same as most employees in other industries.
The other problem is that too many of them, no matter how mediocre, are promoted by their employers as celebrities to try to give their stories more credibility. When they get it wrong, as is too often the case, or try to bend the story towards a certain angle, they lose the trust of their readers.”
I neglected to add that the principal role of newspapers is to sell trees, converted to paper and covered with ads. The news and opinions are just the worms on the hook.
Scott · February 26, 2011 at 12:32 AM
You make a good point about the commercial reality that underlines Australian corporate “journalism”. It seems to me that to complain about the behaviour of Karl or Kochie is to miss the point- they are doing their jobs which is to bring in the viewers for the purpose of advertising.
Anyone who consumes 'for profit' media needs to bear this in mind, or else they run the risk of taking such media seriously.