When Greens leader Bob Brown recently broke up the ritual of a Canberra doorstop to bravely take a direct swipe at elements in a thin-skinned media that demand intense scrutiny of everyone but themselves one could guess what was coming next.
Sure enough, journalists reflexively jumped onto their pulpits to say that Brown was wilting under the merciless pressure of a Fourth Estate merely doing its job in holding him to account. Leaving aside the fact that Brown showed no sign of ‘spitting the dummy’ over the deliberate misrepresentation of his party, he nevertheless found himself in the classic lose-lose situation of those treated shabbily by the media. You can either sit back and allow them to bag you and distort everything you say to suit their own agenda, or you can call them on it and then have them double their efforts to stitch you up.
This time, Brown called them on it. And didn’t they (with the notable exception of Michelle Grattan) take it badly? One Fairfax radio reporter, clinging to the inch-deep attack line of his shockjock overlords, became so indignant at the media being publicly questioned that he sounded like he might break down and cry.
“You just come out here every day and you just bag out the Murdoch press or any media you don’t like and you call them the hate press,” the reporter whined. With remarkable restraint and equanimity, Brown simply replied: “The Murdoch press comes out every day and bags out the Greens — why one rule for you and not one for the others?”
Indeed. It is hard to see how the Greens might ever expect to receive fair treatment from a media organisation which has declared it wants them destroyed; that they are “ruining Australia” and that the government they are helping to keep in power is illegitimate. As an indication as to why Bob Brown is peeved, take a look at this handful of recent headlines from Murdoch papers:
- Squirming Brown Cornered and Relentlessly Grilled Over Coal – Daily Telegraph, May 19, 2011
- Beware as Green Turns to Red – The Australian, April 19, 2011
- Voters See True Colour of Greens – Daily Telegraph, April 14
- If Gillard Means What She Says, She’ll Divorce the Greens – The Australian, April 12
- Greens Pulling the Treasury Strings – Daily Telegraph, April 8
Of course, newspapers are entitled to take an editorial line….on their editorial pages. But they are not entitled (unless they want to give up the fiction that they are ‘news’ organisations) to start using their news pages to run a political agenda of their own. (Lest this be seen as some kind of “leftist” view, even journalists who work for The Australian will tell you privately that they cringe at the partisanship and distortion of the news agenda at that paper to serve the Murdoch agenda.)
News organisations often talk piously about “holding politicians to account”. And it is true, that that is one important role of journalists in democracy. But accountability cannot be selective. You cannot put one political party under the grill and wave through to the keeper another’s lies, deceptions, half-truths and dodgy arithmetic. Indeed, anyone who has grown old in journalism knows that this high minded language about accountability increasingly is used to justify confrontational behaviour that is purely about drawing attention to itself. Journalists and media figures too often now see their role purely in terms of the level of “hits” or manufactured outrage their work creates. Think back to the Tony Abbott staredown with Mark Riley or the extremely ill-mannered reception “Ju-liar” Gillard received from Alan Jones (who while not a journalist receives all the privileges of one).
The fact is most journalistic output is entertainment dressed up as ‘news’. Long gone are the old Chinese walls that separated the editorial and the commercial agendas of the media organisations which employ journalists. For their part, many journalists deal with this disconnect by sticking their fingers in their ears, screwing up their eyes and screeching every more loudly about the “public’s right to know” or their own “sacred trust” as guardians, when the real motivation is the grubby commercial and ideological imperatives of their employers and the advertisers who pay their salaries, a point Lindsay Tanner makes in his book ‘Sideshow’:
“Much of the media’s campaigning on matters of journalistic principle is, in fact, thinly disguised self-interest- the energetic pursuit of more marketable content – dressed up as the public interest.”
While nominally non-commercial, even the ABC in recent years has become more commercially-oriented in its approach to news and current affairs, particularly on television. The intention appears to be to create a more low-to-middle brow Nine Network-lookalike that focuses on car crashes and crime and, in terms of politics, old fashioned adversarialism for its own sake. Look at the rebadged ‘7.30’, which this year cast aside the crumpled but substantial Kerry O’Brien for the rather more marketable Leigh Sales and her sidekick, political correspondent Chris Uhlmann.
It was the latter who this past week trumpeted his ‘interview’ with Bob Brown, full of warmed over Murdoch talking points, as an accountability exercise. The whole interview (in which Uhlmann hardly let his subject answer a question) was based on a misrepresentation – that Brown wants the coal industry shut down overnight. Responding to criticism by viewers that he had not let Brown get a word in edgeways amid his hysterical interjections, Uhlmann’s response was that the Greens leader needed to “harden up” (a phrase that would have sounded appropriate coming out of the mouth of Tony Abbott, a politician much closer to real power and one whom he incidentally had given an armchair ride to in an interview the week before).
The sad truth is the louder journalists thunder from their bully pulpits about accountability and the public’s ‘right to know’, the less savoury are their real motivations. Scratch a little below the surface and you will find the grandstanding is really about a need to generate hits and ratings or attract eyeballs in an increasingly competitive marketplace. It’s about branding themselves as players in the political game. It’s about impressing their bosses or their fellow journalists. It almost always has nothing to do with the wider public good. And the most telling evidence of this self-interested pantomime is that journalists themselves cannot bear the slightest scrutiny of their own behaviour without squealing like stuck pigs.
See also:
Tim Dunlop, ‘On Journalism and Fish Milkshakes’ – The Drum
Ben Eltham, ‘Bob Brown Versus the Press’ – New Matilda
17 Comments
Dan · May 22, 2011 at 4:21 AM
When I worked as a journalist, my jaw was as glassy as the next journo. It's only when you step outside the arena that you see them for what they are. Self-important, self-appointed guardians of what is 'rght' for the Australian people. All this wrapped in the falacy that media is not telling people what to think, rather it is reflecting the views of the public. In fact, it's got quite a bit worse since my (no doubt welcome) departure from the industry. In my day, we at least believed we were reporting things that people really wanted to know about. We weren't always right about that, but mostly we were. Now, it's a case of provoking a response and/or serving the interests of those who own the media. It's no wonder that, like you Mr D, I decamped the scene.
By the way, re Mr Uhlmann; I've said it before and it's worth repeating – look closely at his previous career/s if you want to get a handle on his politics.
rubiginosa · May 22, 2011 at 4:28 AM
News Ltd campaigns for the Coalition. News Ltd and its employees require just as much — if not more — scrutiny as politicians.
ernmalleyscat · May 22, 2011 at 8:06 AM
Good article again Mr D.
While I've cheered for Brown each time he has taken on journalists, I feel there is a bit more he could do.
First, call out the other misrepresenters. It's not just The Australian or Murdoch papers. The radio ranters are Fairfax and Macquarie employees, and probably have more actual voter influence.
And second, it may have no effect, but I think he could avoid some of these situations by reiterating his positions rather than assuming everyone remembers his actual words. Uhlmann could have been countered by Brown pointing out that he had said coal dependency would be phased out over decades.
And the journos pressuring him to state a preferred carbon price should have been told he objected to preempting outcomes or jeopardising ongoing negotiations by publicly airing figures (which I gather was his objection to Combet's 'well south of $40' comments).
He's so good at calm explanation (matched only by Tanner) so it is absolutely amazing to see the likes of Matthew Franklin and Michael Pachi getting so snippy and claiming Brown was the one who lost it.
Rhiannon · May 22, 2011 at 9:28 AM
What ernmalleyscat said.
Thanks for another great post Mr. Denmore!
Anonymous · May 22, 2011 at 10:51 AM
News Limited is the first truly global political party headed by a true Oligarch.
They elect US Presidents, take countries to war by convincing the populace of clear and present danger (WMD), normalize the practice of torture in a country which has always prided itself on not 'becoming those it abhors', destroys international efforts aimed at building consensus advocated by world scientific bodies to deal with AGW, work tirelessly to lower the political discourse and put its people in the Lodge, Number 10, or the Whitehouse.
Of course it reacts with this level of backlash when challenged on its shell game of pretending to be a News organization. Nothing could be further from the truth. And its leader has had 60 years to perfect this pretence of a disinterested party 'reporting' rather than what it actually does, create the news.
Ash · May 22, 2011 at 11:13 AM
When I got back from working overseas, I couldn't stomach working in the Australian media again as a journo. Watching the dumb-dumb whine-fest that comprises at least 75 percent of reportage in this country (not to mention the exhausting thought of having to scramble for plum jobs for years among some of the egotistical, merciless bloodhounds out there) led me straight to graduate school where I am currently figuring out what to do with myself.
When I heard Bob Brown's press con the other day, I thought he was right on the money. So is your post.
Obviously, there are some really good journos out there. But they are an endangered species.
Dan Cass · May 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Good post.
Did you see Mark Kenny on ABC's Insiders today?
There is a nice little culture war brewing in News Ltd now. Even very senior editors now complain, off record, about the anti-green ranters like Bolt.
The culture is conservative and thus generally opposed to the Greens, but Holt Street is not the Death Star (…yet!!?).
Most of the News Ltd journalists and editors I have known believe that journalism has standards and obligations. They want to do honest reporting and are not climate skeptics. Whether they have the guts to stand up for what they believe in, is the question.
If the ambitious editors who toe the Murdoch line are not careful, there may be dissent or leaks.
The credibility of Rupert Murdoch's nasty ideological stranglehold on News Ltd is severely threatened by climate change.
Watch this space, I reckon!
Stop Murdoch · May 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM
This bears repeating:
“I'm a journalist working for a crappy, rightwing corporate Australian newspaper. I do what I do because I cannot do anything else. Nothing I do makes one iota of a difference but there are millions of people like me in the world who need the money and will do whatever it takes to
support our families.”
Stop Murdoch · May 22, 2011 at 2:41 PM
Just as a PS:
You people have no idea, do you?
Our host writes: “…even journalists who work for The Australian will tell you privately that they cringe at the partisanship and distortion of the news agenda at that paper to serve the Murdoch agenda…”
“Privately”? How many people are allowed to effectively lie in the conduct of their daily work? – That's one weird craft you people are involved in.
'Ash' wrote: “..Obviously, there are some really good journos out there..”
'Obviously'? In what way is it obvious, Ash?
Some kind of secretly obvious way only apparent to a secret club of truth-knowers?
“anguished shill wrestles with inner hypocrite” leaps, again, to mind.
By the way, hope you find a satisfying job, Ash.
Ash · May 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM
Flick on to the ABC, New Matilda or other independent sites. The problem with Australian journalism isn't one of skill, it's one of funding and management. There's a lot of good journos having to right a lot of crap right now because of who they work for or because of the ridiculous workload they have to bear, which only gives them enough time for churnalism or editorialism… I know I wasn't the only person in the newsroom forcibly writing junk somedays thinking “my god. I'm better than this crap and I hate my job now because it isn't about what it is supposed to be about.” When the people that care start leaving in even bigger numbers, the problems will only get worse. There's other issues too i.e. these days, a lot of the more malleable reporters get promoted faster.. Plus it is cheaper for news orgs to hire kids fresh out of uni than to keep on experienced reporters (AAP's strategy)… etc.
Ash · May 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM
Sorry for all the typos in that post… multitasking clearly reduces the quality of one's work!
Anonymous · May 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM
I wish this blog was compulsory reading for all Australians.
weaver · May 23, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Journalists who respond to accusations of bias, particularly legitimate ones, by whining about accountability and freedom of speech remind me of corrupt cops who defend themselves from scrutiny by claiming their accusers are attacking the Thin Blue Line. Cops and journos are the worst offenders when it comes to the relevant delusion (though we find it also in priests, politicians and the military) that produces the pathological sense of entitlement and thin skin that leads to the response. It goes like this:
If done well, my job is socially useful.
THEREFORE
a) because I do this job I am socially useful, even if I do the job really badly
b) any criticism of me is an attack on the job itself
c) any colleague of mine must be defended as a function of my esprit de corps even when incompetent, and even if I privately think the criticism of them is justified I should never break the kayfabe by admitting it.
This is why we have the absurd spectacle of even non-Murdoch hacks pretending they seriously find Brown's accusations of Newscorp bias baffling and unfounded. This is why ABC journalists think commercial journos are their colleagues, apparently being incapable of comprehending the difference between providing copy for an advertising platform and actually informing your viewers/readers. Or perhaps that last one's just stupidity.
Being a member of the Fourth Estate means you serve on the side of the angels, regardless of the character of your service, is the view. But the truth is, an incompetent, deceitful, biased or corporate-zombie journalist is not a tarnished angel, useful overall if flawed: they are, like corrupt cops, worse than useless.
On the other hand, this suggestion the problem is a psychological failing may be too kind. A more cynical view is this thin-skinned reaction is just part of the scam that the audience/readers are the customer rather than the product (note that slimebag Penberthy's recent remarks about newspapers having “constituencies”*) and the journos have a commitment to the “customer” to be accurate and unbiased. In reality, the advertiser is the customer and an important part of what the customer wants is that the audience are ill-informed.
Rhiannon · May 26, 2011 at 9:50 PM
Hmm, so very true and depressing, @weaver.
Great comment!
Doug · May 27, 2011 at 12:41 PM
Blogs like this only serve to illustrate further the message they deliver. The rise of global corporate media organisations, whose interests align with other business (ie for profit) organisations means we need stronger publicly-funded (ie not for profit) independent media. The declining standards of the ABC are thus not just intrinsically disappointing, but betray the interests of the community which pays for such a service.
Anonymous · June 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Whaddya know! That this site exists has wormed its way from the writers subconscous finally reaching the surface just as Mr Denmore comes up with a good, clear post on the continued denigration of the Greens. So apt, on the evening after another ugly tabloid stunt, this time involving the alleged comedien Austentayshus and the actual one, Pyne on the ABC, with Lee Rhiannon and Paul MGeough on the receiving end on QA.
Malley's Cat?
How can this be? Malley was a hoax, like Demidenko and even if the cat lived solong, how can cats write?
No, I think the whole thing is a new hoax.
btw, since the idiot system keeps telling me my characters are “illegal”, I, Paul Walter, must send this anonymously.
weaver · June 9, 2011 at 10:37 AM
So apt, on the evening after another ugly tabloid stunt, this time involving the alleged comedien Austentayshus and the actual one, Pyne on the ABC, with Lee Rhiannon and Paul MGeough on the receiving end on QA.
Gutman proved a compelling example of a man in the throes of Tu Quoque Tourette's, my term for the condition afflicting those who resort in rhetoric to the tu quoque fallacy (“How dare you condemn A? Whaddabout B? Or C? Or D? Or…”) with such kneejerk frequency and vehemence they give the impression they're suffering from a neurological disorder.
And what a gorgeous illustration of this blog's raison d'etre was the five minutes spent reducing the Israel/Palestine issue to a debate about when it would be appropriate for Paul McGeough to use the word “hyenas”.