What qualifies people to describe themselves as journalists? Two major stories in the past week – Wikileaks in the global context and the #twitdef saga here in Australia – have given new impetus to a question that is being asked increasingly in both the mainstream media and digital media space.
Broadly, there are two camps. Representing one view is ABC managing director Mark Scott, who in a recent speech observed that new digital tools allow anyone to perform the functions of a journalist – in sifting through multiple sources of information on matters of public interest and drawing their readers’ attention to the salient points, while providing historical context and commentary.
“In this new world, there are two newsrooms – the traditional one that exists now, and the virtual one that has emerged as one of the most significant features of digital life,” Scott said. “What interests me is how many people are willing to engage, to contribute, to be part of a media experience – and for whom the psychic payoff comes not from getting paid, but from taking part.”
Representing the contrarian view is Caroline Overington, who in The Australian’s Media Diary (the relevant version of which is no longer online) stated that the only people who can claim to be journalists are those who were trained as such and who now work in the newsrooms of the nation.
“It is actually offensive for Scott to argue that anyone can practise journalism,” Overington said. “It’s insulting to people actually trained to do it. Whatever Scott may think, journalism isn’t easy.”
And who said it was? Good journalism – writing a rough first draft of breaking news events that accurately informs people, while capturing nuance, keeping the reader’s attention AND adding value through analysis and informed commentary – is exceedingly difficult.
But Overington’s patronising caricature and blanket condemnation of content in the non-MSM as “absolute dross” speaks volumes for the protectionist, paranoid, clannish and closed shop mentality developing in some parts of the traditional media, most noticeably in an increasingly unhinged Murdoch empire.
There is dross and idiocy online, certainly. But there is just as much low-rent fodder in the mainstream media. The difference, of course, is that the bloggers and twitterati do it for nothing – happy just to take part in a conversation that sheds light on issues of public interest. They do not do it because they are climbing some political totem pole inside a viper-ridden news company. And they do not do it because they have some clubbish and vain assumptions that only THEY are qualified to call themselves writers.
Arguably, the most valuable journalists now are not those employed by corporate media who churn out predictable “he said-she said” cut-and-paste copy and whose primary role is serving the interests of advertisers or pushing the ideological agenda of their proprietors. The most valuable ones are those who work outside the MSM. Think of Nicholas Gruen and Ken Parish on Club Troppo who provide analysis of economic and policy issues from a centrist perspective. And think of Scott Steel, AKA blogger Possum Comitatus, who has completely lifted the lid on running stories story through old fashioned techniques like uncovering evidence and assembling data that challenge pre-fabricated media narratives. This type of journalism requires a level of expertise that is often lacking in newsrooms, which often struggle to meet the basic standards of numeracy (what’s a spreadsheet?) and knowledge of history (“the perpetual present”).
The more expert bloggers are journalists in my book because they sift through and point their readers to information that sheds light on issues of public interest, report accurately and supply context and meaning to those issues. Better still, they have no obvious axes to grind. And if they do, they will soon be found out and the marketplace will make its own judgement on their work. Whether they are paid as journalists or not, they are still “doing” journalism. And we are better for it.
In this light, perhaps it is time for the mainstream media critics – who often early in their careers trumpet the need for greater transparency and the challenging of authority – to drop their defensive attitude and embrace new media voices, recognise that journalism is changing and evolving and thank their stars for those who donate their own time and insights to improve our understanding of a complex world.
10 Comments
Anonymous · December 1, 2010 at 10:56 PM
If they're in it primarily to serve corporate or ideological interests perhaps a career change is in order? Advertising Copywriter perhaps? Adviser to the Coalition? Rupert's shoeshine boy?
It's amusing to hear Mark Scott posing as an oracle on journalism. Not that his observations about online amateurs are not correct. What he says has merit, even if it is largely self-evident. But if he's the Great Sage then how come journalistic standards at the ABC are the lowest they've arguably ever been? It can't all be explained by the usual excuses: not enough funding, laziness, timidity etc. At some point the buck must stop with the boss.
Anonymous · December 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM
So it's not just me going mad. Only a few years ago I persevered with buying the SMH and Australian alternatively, most days. It became impossible to justify spending money on the latter because of its weird and blatant propaganda campaigns, which formerly were limited to discreet periods but more recently seemed to merge into a continuous and relentless barrage. Much easier to check it out occasionally to see whether it's still true (and it is). Thank goodness for the rise of the high quality blog (like this one, which I've only recently discovered).
Anonymous · December 1, 2010 at 11:25 PM
I meant alternately, of course…
Although the appearance of well-considered blogs has been very welcome, it's still of great concern that the more established so-called MSM companies are greeting the serious challenges of the new media age with such overtly political editorial policies. Not all news is political! And not all readers need be treated with the contempt that assumes we are basically tribal. There is a crying need for better reportage and for way less political obsession among journalists. In fact, the proliferation of 'comment' is the bane of the MSM and is helping to undermine its entire credibility. It's been depressing to see the ABC fall into this trap (Annabel Crabb, looking at you).
It would be far better if Murdoch were to sell the Oz and let someone else reform it than to run it into the ground this way.
Mr D · December 1, 2010 at 11:34 PM
That's a good point, anonymous, about the tendency in the MSM (again imported from an increasingly polarised US market) to turn every issue into a party political one – thus shoe-horning people into nominal camps.
My theory on why this is happening, from a media perspective, is it's just easier that way. You have a black team and a white team (or red team and blue team, as in the US) annd each uses whatever matter of public interest that is top of mind to box the other in. Thus reporting difficult issues for the media becomes more like calling a tennis match.
“Oh, he's broken serve.” Bit depressing really.
fitzroyalty · December 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM
I'm a blogger. I also happen to have a PhD and to work as a writer, editor and publisher. I've received more education and training in critical think and analysis than your average journalist. What makes journalists like Overington think they are the only experts in this area? Many of the bloggers I know are highly educated professionals with degrees in law, business and the arts. None are as arrogant as the many journalists I have encountered, and all of them are more ethical.
weaver · December 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM
“It is actually offensive for Scott to argue that anyone can practise journalism,” Overington said.
What's it to Caroline Overington what Scott thinks a journalist is? I thought she was a colour writer.
Andrew Elder · December 2, 2010 at 11:02 AM
I'm not a journalist, but don't underestimate how easy it would be to become one. Is Richard Ackland a journalist? What about Overington's colleagues, Peter Brent and Tim Blair?
I've cooked hundreds of meals but I'm not a chef. It's not 'offensive' to describe as such, just inaccurate: using words like 'offensive' serves to substitute emotion for content.
The decision as to who is a journalist is a matter for HR departments at a decreasingly small number of organisations. If you're employed to be a journalist, then you're a journalist (by that definition, Mark Latham was a journalist for Channel 9 in this year's election).
If you're a PR flack with enough journo knowledge to mess with the heads of legitimate journalists and throw them off the scent of a real story, does that make you an anti-journalist? I reckon it would. What if such a person funded drinks for Caroline and her pals? Well, once a journo always a journo, eh?
By contrast, the various professions in IT, the law, medicine etc. are setting and enforcing standards so that they don't end up as discredited as journalists are. I could become a journalist, but why would I want to?
Miglo · December 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Great post, Mr Denmore. I've linked it over at Café Whispers in our Media Watch page.
terangeree · December 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Isn't a person who keeps a journal a “journalist”?
Myself, I don't keep a journal and my blogs tend to go untended for long periods of time.
And yet I spent a number of years at university being trained in the skills required to participate in the news media as a professional (some of the then-“sweet young things” I studied with went on to become foreign correspondents, current affairs programme hosts and newspaper editors), and I carry current and valid Australian and international press cards.
And yet, according to double-Walkley winner Caroline Overington, I am not a real “Journalist”, because I do not work in one of the country's newsrooms.
I think I know enough about the trade to know good journalism when I see it.
And it is many years since I've read it in the pages of an Australian newspaper, heard it broadcast on commercial radio or seen it broadcast on commercial television in Australia.
But I have seen it in the blogs: Larvatus Prodeo, Grog's Gamut and Pollytics are three examples that immediately come to mind.
But, according to the winner of two Walkleys who typed a truckload of errors in a recent piece about GTV9 closing their Richmond studio, none of those blogs are of any worth.
They're not produced by “proper” journalists.
There is a fitting Biblical quote for such an attitude:-
John 11:35
The Daily Magnet · December 3, 2010 at 5:53 PM
Yeah, wept with laughter at Overington's ego, far out, full of herself or what?! What a dinosaur.