What is news anyway? Young journalists are told it’s what’s new, noteworthy or unusual. It’s something that prompts an “oh, really?” response. You usually know it when you see it.  But to be deemed as news, events needed to pass a certain bar. These days, though, they must be setting the bar particularly low.

On the day AC Nielsen reported the Labor Party’s primary vote had fallen to a 39-year low of 27 per cent, ABC News splashed with the headline “Abbott Blames Policies for Labor Slide.” The lead ran: “Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the Labor Party’s unpopular policies are to blame for its dramatic slump in the polls.” Now I realise that news can be scarce on a quiet Saturday, but this particular item would have to rank alongside “Catholicism Rocks, says Pope” in terms of newsworthiness.

In the days when editors used to actually spike stories, the rule was that if the copy prompted the question “well, he would say that, wouldn’t he”, then it wasn’t news. It was publicity. And there’s a lot of unpaid publicity around on the ABC these days. I’m not sure whether it’s laziness, lack of news judgement, lack of staff, desperation for content or a pathetic attempt by an intimidated broadcaster to appear “balanced” to the paranoid culture warriors of the right  – but this shameless recycling of press releases does not do much for the ABC’s news brand.

And it’s not just the national broadcaster. Many of the major problems facing Australia right now are extremely complex and multi-faceted in their origins and effects (climate change, a destabilising resources boom, a rising rate of inflation for food, housing and essential services, inadequate retirement savings, under-funded public education and a change in the global strategic power balance, to name just a few). As the government seeks to act on some of these issues, powerful and entrenched forces become increasingly adept at forestalling reform by running paid and unpaid publicity campaigns through the media to conflate the national interest with their own interests.

At times like these, an independent, sceptical and questioning media is vital. Journalists must not blithely accept the statistics and industry-commissioned “surveys” thrust at them in shiny packages by ever helpful PR spinners. Sometimes they have to drop a story if they can’t verify it from independent sources or do their own research. Unfortunately, that’s not happening. In fact, a lack of training, the loss of older, harder heads to the industry, tighter deadlines, fewer resources and the pressures to do more with less are making our media collectively gormless and easy meat for the spinners. Just because the Opposition says something does not make it news (the same rule applies to the government by the way, although with the proviso that the bar is slightly lower because governments are actually able to do stuff).

Respected SMH economics commentator Ross Gittins, in a column this week, points to this increasing tendency by a desperate media to waive everything through as legitimate news, without verification. And nowhere is this more evident than with the resource industry – which, having robbed Australian taxpayers of $60 billion last year by nobbling the super profits tax, is now trying to scare the public into opposing action on climate change on the basis it will destroy jobs in an economy already running at full employment.

“If you come up with a big-sounding figure for supposed job losses, you can be reasonably sure the media will trumpet the figure in shocked tones,” Gittins writes. “You can also be sure few if any journalists will subject your claims to examination to see how credible they are. Why spoil a good story? I didn’t say it, they did. If it’s wrong, blame them, not me. All I’m doing is acting as a messenger, recording both sides of the debate. It’s not my job to act as a censor.”

That’s the nub of the problem. Journalists appear to have lost their bullshit detectors – or least the media organisations that employ them have abdicated any sense that their mission goes beyond creating widgets to keep the ads apart, or in the case of the ABC, succumbed to the view that its mission is to blandly report the “he said-she said” parade of press releases and uncritically point cameras and microphones at PR set-ups without a moment’s scrutiny.

In the absence of a strong media and with the government depending on a handful of independents to remain in power, powerful vested interests are succeeding in ensuring that ‘news’ is whatever they want it to be.


9 Comments

Aidan · June 21, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Media Watch pointed out that the ABC and SBS showed a grab of Tony Abbott shovelling sand and making a stupid pun, whereas the 7pm Project made fun of Abbott's metaphor addiction.

Why did the ABC news even have to show Abbott? The answer is they didn't. It is lazy and stupid, and reinforces the trivilisation of democracy.

Our democracy does not need 24 hour politics. It is in fact harmful. By all means report on the doings of Parliament. Perhaps report on the pronouncements of ministers if they have something substantive to say. Otherwise spare us all the shouting and bullshit.

Ramon Insertnamehere · June 21, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Mr D, as a former radio journo I find myself muttering “but why is this even news?” during most ABC bulletins these days.

Mr D · June 21, 2011 at 3:52 AM

Ramon, that's a ritual expression in my household as well – usually along with 'well, what do you expect them to say?'

Anonymous · June 21, 2011 at 8:31 AM

Did you see this recent plagiarism by Aunty from SMH Mr Denmore? Even stealing the headline. Not just lazy, this looks like theft.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/18/3247410.htm?section=justin

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-to-fight-on-despite-poll-gloom-20110618-1g8fk.html

Anonymous · June 21, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Actually, anonymous, if you look a little closer, you will see that both the SMH and the ABC sourced their stories from Australian Associated Press, which is a news agency that sells stories wherever it can. Relax.

-Ozy

Anonymous · June 21, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Yes, Ozy, but did you notice Xavier La Canna is attributed as the writer in the SMH piece and is unacknowledged in the ABC copycat article. Not flash, at all.

Dan · June 22, 2011 at 2:55 AM

I've always said that there are just two things wrong with ABC news (radio in particular). It's badly written and badly read. I should now add badly edited/directed. Otherwise it's OK.

Helga Fremlin · June 24, 2011 at 3:32 AM

'I find myself muttering “but why is this even news?” during most ABC bulletins these days.' So does Helga, Ramon. And sad to say: I am also relieved if 'the opposition says' is item no. 2 instead of being no. 1

Patricia WA · June 24, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Surely someone, somewhere is keeping count of those 'The Opposition says' opening lines? I can't understand how they've got away with it for so long. Quite apart from which, don't they feel like fools when they hear playback? Or don't they listen to themselves. What about the news readers don't they give feedback on how sick they are of regurgitating the same opening lines again and again?

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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