One standard attack line from the mainstream media against bloggers is that they could not deal with the pressures of daily reporting as a professional journalist. According to this argument, there is a chasm between the effort required to casually opine about a pet subject on a hobby blog and the high craft standards demanded of the daily newspaper, television or radio reporter.
My previous blog entry on The Australian’s outing of popular blogger Grogs Gamut looked at the business-driven reasons for that newspaper identifying him in such a provocative manner (namely as a trolling mechanism) . But that’s not the whole story – because at the individual level, there is more than a hint of the closed shop mentality at work here.
The fact is that many (not all) mainstream media journalists feel beseiged by the social media phenomenon. Their work is coming under scrutiny as never before. Previously, feedback only came through the letters to the editor and you could always count on whoever was editing the leaders page to bin or take the scissors to the ones that might reflect badly on the paper or yourself. Now journos have to cope with unsolicited and unfiltered opinions in real time via social media that redistributes the most devastating critiques almost immediately.
Not only are their professional standards and craft under attack, but they are being told by the accountants and the smartly dressed jargon-spouting 25-year-old consultants that regularly trawl through their newsrooms looking for “productivity improvements” that to keep their jobs they must learn to file for “multiple platforms” and “explore synergies between legacy media and new distribution technologies”. Meanwhile, layers and layers of quality control have been peeled away in successive redundancy culls over the past 10 years as the business model underpinning their organisations slowly disintegrates.
Against this background, is it any wonder that professional journalists might look for payback against upstart amateur pretenders? So they sink their master’s boot into blogging poster boy Grogs Gamut and then wheel out self-serving platitudes about the public’s right to know and spurious arguments about public servants expressing political opinions – opinions conveniently not shared by their employer. (Incidentally, one wonders whether the attack on Grog would have been made had he been a creature of the Right. No doubt in those circumstances he would have been cast as a Godwin Grech, a brave and lonely voice of reason in a bureaucracy full of politically correct cardigan wearers, hippies and bearded socialists).
To my mind, I can understand (though not admire) The Australian’s trolling on this issue. It drives eyeballs to their site and engages an audience that, while hating what they write, feels driven to click on it. It’s why, after all, the SMH for years engaged the services of trollumnist like Miranda Devine, getting a rise out of the mythical doctor’s wives on the north shore by complaining about trees and cyclists. And I can understand the resentment craft journalists feel at having their livelihood slowly cut away by new technology.
But what’s not excusable is the sloppy standards The Australian have employed over this story. In his extremely oily ‘why-I-unmasked-Grog’ piece in Tuesday’s edition, reporter James Massola manages in the space of a few paragraphs to praise, patronise and defame his subject. In this, Massola uses the power granted to him by virtue of working for the world’s most powerful media company to essentially trash the reputation of an amateur and very talented writer who had happened to put Australian journalists under a critical microscope during the election campaign.
The lowest blow came when Massola said what had finally made up his mind about identifying the blogger was his suspicion that Grog was skiving off work to attend a New Media conference in Canberra.”Was it a sick day, a day in lieu, annual leave, did he clear it with his supervisor?” Massola asked rhetorically, between a pair of cowardly parentheses. But why didn’t he clear that up with Grog BEFORE he went to print with this snide remark? Or was the stereotype of the work shy public servant just too delicious to leave out?
Forget the ethical arguments about anonymity over the web. Forget the manufactured left-right culture wars that The Australian loves to plough to pander to its dwindling and aging Tory readership. At heart, this stoush is an extension of the issue that Grog helped bring to the public’s attention in the first place – sloppy and self-serving journalism from an industry in terminal decline. It’s a point worth keeping in mind next time you hear the “professionals” lecturing the “amateurs” about standards.
15 Comments
Anonymous · September 28, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Yes, and thank you! There must be no backward stepping on this matter and the issues it raises.
Stop Murdoch · September 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM
“dwindling and aging Tory readership”
Rupert variously thinks of them as 'my base' or 'the youngsters'.
If that is true, why is it that the ABC is slavish in its daily regurgitation of whatever is on the Murdoch whiteboard?
We don't need an inquiry into “bias” at the ABC, we need an inquiry into the parasitic infiltration and control of the ABC by New Ltd.
Anonymous · September 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Just what is the readership of the Australian and how many of them would be one of the 1000 readers of Grog's Gamut – 100, 50, 10? So for all but a handful of the Oz readers this would be complete non-news story….Grog who? would have been the chorus, followed quickly (as in my case) by “what the hell was that all about?” But no, apparently the story had so much importance its been followed up by not 1, but 2 “justification” articles. To me it reeks of some kind of vindictive hurt campaign against someone all but 1000 people in not just Australia, but the whole world had never heard of. And that's journalism??? Weird…
SM · September 28, 2010 at 9:33 PM
As someone who has enjoyed Grogs insight and gave up reading commercial news sites as much as possible some time ago it saddens me to see what they are willing to do to silence their critics.
I note with some sadness that Grogs has neither blogged or tweeted for the last 24 hours, so the impact has been felt.
Anonymous · September 28, 2010 at 11:15 PM
I'm pretty confident the Fairwork Ombudman would have given Grogsgamut a more equitable outcome than The Australian's apparently new industrial relations machine. James Massola used his workplace to play one-upmanship. Not that The Australian is all that fussed about ethics.
Anonymous · September 29, 2010 at 12:17 AM
It's probably fair to say that the story's execution wasn't the most well conceived, but to suggest that it's revenge for poor work conditions brought on by the internet rings hollow to me.
It'd be a more convincing argument to point out that journalists who enter a risky, less-than lucrative profession because they believe in something have become fed up with being the target of the rude, myopic, biased (yes BIASED) invective of naive social media proponents that anonymously sit behinds keyboards thinking that qualification enough to snipe at people who have spent years training in their jobs.
Is it really any wonder journalists, who constantly have their heads above the parapet in high pressure environments fraught with the perils of defamation suits, deadlines and public ridicule, are becoming resentful that bloggers and tweeters with the luxury of anonymity, time and zero skin in the game are being lionised while they cop juvenile jeers from self-appointed social media experts?
That argument I could buy but not this notion that it was some childish vindictive “pay back” exercise.
I think you were getting closer with:
“Now journos have to cope with unsolicited and unfiltered opinions in real time via social media that redistributes the most devastating critiques almost immediately.” …but you don't acknowledge the anonymity factor.
I still think there are important questions to be considered such as “when” anonymity should be challenged but I think these claims the media were out to destroy a foe are naive.
For instance, I think people are misunderstanding why Massola was triggered by this, and perhaps understandably:
“Was it a sick day, a day in lieu, annual leave, did he clear it with his supervisor?”
I don't think it was because there was such a concern about the use of resources so much as the level of complicity of his employer in the blog … in this case, us.
There's worthwhile questions to ask: Is this another branch of public run media? Is it PR? Is it department spin in disguise? Does each department get its own blogger now? And thence most pertinently SHOULD THAT BE KNOWN TO THE READER?
He was parading around at a Media140 conference for heaven's sake (something which is profit-making exercise for some by the way).
So you cannot just put the issue of anonymity aside jump into these silly conspiratorial Evil Empire memes.
It's also worth noting that Jericho would never even have been able to make his clever observations and incisive critiques without the institutions that social media experts claim are dying. What are we going to do when it is dead? Are we going to attack the totally unaccountable home-office new media bloggers? What will we know about them and their agendas? Will we have a healthier media or will it all just plunge into an unsustainable cacophony of kindergarten accusations? But of course this won't happen because state run media will survive…it'll be our Xinhua.
We can't do without few trusted, sustainable, central points for our informational needs – excess choice is crippling.
So who will challenge state-run media if the commercial sector dies?
Anonymous · September 29, 2010 at 12:30 AM
What a load of rubbish. The idea that it was pay back for increased work place pressure is absurd.
Journalists with their heads above the parapet facing deadlines and defamation suits might be resentful that bloggers with the luxury of anonymity, time and safe public service jobs are lionised while they cop juvenile jeers from unqualified, self-appointed social media experts for their efforts, but your argument is just totally hollow. I could understand a media seeking equality of accountability for influence but a vindictive pay back for work pressures brought on by the internet Nah, doesn't ring true.
And you misunderstand the significance of this:
“Was it a sick day, a day in lieu, annual leave, did he clear it with his supervisor?”
He was getting at what level of complicity his employer had… i.e. the government/us.
It raises important questions like: Was it PR? Was it spin? Does every dept get a blogger now? And most importantly SHOULD THE READER KNOW?
You can't just put the anonymity issue aside and fall back to juvenile Evil Empire memes.
Don George · September 29, 2010 at 12:47 AM
Thank you Mr Denmore for your piece. I also like your statement under'Your editor'.
It was through Grog that I took a greater interest in what is happening in this country. To read well written analysis with those untidy things called facts being used was like a breath of fresh air.
Anonymous I don't care about Grog's employer. I comment on blogs and it has nothing to do with my employer. My employer employs me to perform a certain task and I do that. I am sure it is the same with your employer. Is your employer complicit in the fact that you are commenting on this blog. Are they aware that you are putting forward these views? And if it is so important for Grog to be exposed then why don't we see your name in the header rather than anonymous?
Mr Denmore · September 29, 2010 at 1:00 AM
Anonymous, in your contrast of brave journalists with the “heads above the parapets” with the time-rich amateur bloggers with “safe public” service jobs”, you are rather proving my point. I ask you this: Whose job is safer now – James Massola's or Greg Jericho's?
As to your imputation that Jericho's department was complicit with his blogging activity and that there is some kind of mini-social media cartel within the public service attacking the commercial media, I rather fancy it is you who is the conspiratorial one.
drag0nista · September 29, 2010 at 1:44 AM
Thank you Mr Denmore for another post full of insight with crystal clarity. I have been mulling the same thoughts too. I would add only that the MSM journalists have fallen into the basic prejudicial position – automatically fearing something that is foreign to them. I see only a very small number of journalists engaging fully on Twitter – some use it to broadcast and some to plunder, very few immerse themselves in conversations.
Mr Denmore · September 29, 2010 at 2:03 AM
Dragonista, it's shame so many (not all) journalists are circling the wagons.
I can say that I wish Twitter was around when I was a working journalist. It's a great source of information and story ideas. Obviously, there's a lot of dross, as there is in any form of media, but smart filtering is what good journos do.
There's also a huge opportunity now in the fledging area of 'data journalism' of which I would argue Possum is the pre-eminent exponent in Australia. See my separate post on this:
http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/2010/09/numbers-game.html
Harlequin · September 29, 2010 at 2:30 AM
The justification for the “outting” of this blogger seems a little on the flimsy side to me ie that he had an influence on public opinion during the election campaign (and presumably Mr Massola didn't) seems a little like sour grapes to me. And it doesn't seem plausible that Grogs Gamut (allegedly) tweeting on Commonwealth time amounts to providing partisan advise to the Government. In fact, this alleged breach of the code of conduct makes one wonder whether we should go after public servants who make private phone calls, do their banking on line during their lunch hour or have excessive bathroom breaks on the public purse. In any case, that is a matter between Mr Gamut and his employer – not for the Australian or Mr Massola. In view of this, it is difficult to see this as anything other than a witch-hunt arising out of professional jealousy on the part of Mr Massola and the Australian. And it's a slippery slope for freedom of speech and privacy. But hey, anything to sell newspapers, right?
Anonymous · September 29, 2010 at 2:31 AM
Mr Denmore,
That doesn't prove your point at all and you know it. The safety or otherwise of his job after the fact is neither here nor there; it's the condition of things in the prior and the general which I'm pointing to. i.e. Every anonymous blogger put there is perfectly unaccountable for anything they write – journalists are and get attacked viciously and pubicly all the time. If Jericho is happy to be a public figure and authority at media forums then there is an entitlement to know what he's about.
I really don't think anyone wanted to damage Jericho – they just wanted to explore that.
And I never said Jericho's department was complicit in his blog. I said there were important questions to be answered about how much they were. And neither you nor I currently have full answers to that.
I'm sure you'd be appalled if you were to discover that a political party was seeding anonymous expert blogs with it's own agenda, just as you would if you were to discover an independent policy advisor was in the pay of a private interest.
We question government advertising and their spin doctors just as we check the ideology of our news sources.
If you would prefer that sort of question was not asked, then I'm afraid we really are in trouble.
Anonymous · September 29, 2010 at 3:22 AM
Mr Denmore,
“… you are rather proving my point. I ask you this: Whose job is safer now – James Massola's or Greg Jericho's?”
Really why is Greg Jericho's job in danger?
Macca · September 29, 2010 at 8:30 AM
The reason I read the occasional copy of The Courier Mail, another Murdoch rag;…it's on the bar at my local RSL.
The reason I read Grog's Gamut, The Political Sword, this blog and others?…….bloody good writing!…and nothing that a second rater like Masola can say, write(as if!)or do will change that in a hurry.