 |
| Untitled Implosion ©Jim Kazanjian |
A deluge of hitherto secret diplomatic cables is one thing; telling the public what they mean and why they should care is another. Clearly, this is proving a challenge for the Australian media, who in comparison to their US and UK counterparts, are struggling for one reason or another to supply context and analysis around Wikileaks for their audiences.
In fact, one could almost hear the sighs of relief today from news editors when Australia finally got mentioned in one of the cables. This recalled the old wire service rule that 300 Indonesians dying in a ferry boat accident is a news brief; 299 Indonesians and one young Australian backpacker dying is an alert.
Aside from the predictable local follow-ups, there has been little of the quality analysis seen on the New York Times or Guardian websites. The best of the Australian coverage has come from Guy Rundle on Crikey, who wrote an insightful analysis on how, aside from the diplomatic embarrassments caused by the leaks, the Wikileaks phenomenon had changed something fundamental in politics and media.
“The ‘cablegate’ releases go a step further, moving forward a historical shift that has long been obvious – once information is no longer paper-bound, there is a categorical and qualitative change in its character and the relationship of power to information,” Rundle said. “When the diplomatic correspondence of an entire nation can be loaded onto a memory stick, then security is only as good as the least ‘dependable’ individual in the whole chain.”
This hints at the reason for the difficulty the bulk of the media is experiencing in covering this story. Not only is it extremely fast-moving (there are thousands of cables), it is diffuse and cannot be reported with any degree of insight by relying on traditional sources and conventional narrative structures. It also requires a level of expertise in foreign policy that is rarely found in Australian media. The best we can normally expect is a credulous recounting of an “off-the-record briefing” from a DFAT source that merely reflects the official line.
In some ways, this story is reminiscent of how our media struggled to report with any distinctive authority on the global financial crisis. Admittedly, the big banking problems were in London and New York, but there were opportunities early on to provide a contrast on how Australian banks had dodged the bullet. Then, as now, conventional structures, sourcing and ways of seeing the world were breaking down. In this more anarchistic climate, falling back on knee-jerk news templates (‘The Federal Opposition has condemned…’) just reinforces the view that our media has become irrelevant through either fundamental laziness, being under-skilled and under-resourced after waves of restructuring or just lacking the imagination to reinvent itself.
That lack of imagination, by the way, also explains the sudden departure of Brian McCarthy as chief executive officer of Fairfax Media. As Stephen Bartholomeusz points out on Business Spectator, McCarthy was skilled at cutting costs, but appeared to lack the ability to grow, or even maintain, revenues at a time when the value of traditional newspaper mastheads is imploding. The answer is for newspapers and other mainstream media outlets to stop the endless “restructuring” and think about WHY journalism exists in the first place (not, as McCarthy’s one-step removed predecessor Fred Hilmer described as being “content provision for advertising platforms). Hopefully, the respected Greg Hywood, a highly experienced and thoughtful journalist, will stop the rot at Fairfax in the role of acting CEO.
Hywood is not wanting for a story to build his new business models around. As we have seen, there is no lack of news and data and raw information out there, all raising serious questions about the rapidly evolving world we find ourselves living in. In fact, there are good arguments that the entire post-Cold War financial and political edifice is falling apart at this moment. We just need journalists – with the help of data analysts and experts from outside the usual rent-a-quote circles – to tell us what it means. THAT’s where the value lies.
- Tim Dunlop reports on a “deathbed” conversion by The Australian Scott Burchill is appalled at journalists cuddling up to the state over wilileaks
7 Comments
Tim · December 6, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Good piece (no doubt I'll quote it sometime soon!) But I wonder about your conclusion: do we really journalists to tell us what it means? Isn't this just further proof that we don't?
Phil · December 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM
“Rent-a-quote circles” is precious. I wonder do said quoters understand how un-necessary they really are in the grand scheme of things.
One thing is certain, they are irritating and often overly confident.
The Daily Magnet · December 7, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Hullo Mr D, I have been reluctant to post on this since “cablegate,” I felt very uninspired by all that was going on for the very reasons you have outlined. But I did quite like the post yesterday by Penberthy and I noted that some news orgs are starting to filter out the spin, reporting on things like Assange's bank account being closed after James Ball announced that they would be releasing cables soon about the banking industry.
Chris Warren also came out swinging in defence of Wikileaks in the face of Gillard(IR lawyer) claiming that Assange was a criminal – she really should have known that what she did was very contemptuous because her comments would reach Sweden, no doubt, whereas your average punter's speculation about Assange's guilt or innocence would not. Journos should know the reporting laws too – why did they not bother to adhere to them?
Mr D · December 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM
Tim Dunlop has drawn attention to a very good editorial in The Australian of all places that talks up the need for reporters to stop waiting for the news to come to them. I agree with that sentiment.
Mr D · December 7, 2010 at 11:32 PM
To Tim's comment about whether we need journalists at all, I think we do. Doing their job properly, journalists can bring together diffuse and complex information and comment in concise and accessible formats.
Now I know we have thousands of tools on the internet that do that for us, but the fact is not everyone either has access or knows how to use those tools, or indeed can be bothered.
The fact is most people still get their news from TV, radio and newspapers. And so we need journalists providing good accurate information in context and asking tough questions of those whose interests are in covering up the truth.
What's happened with the web is that process to a large extent has become disintermediated and many mainstream media organisations feel threatened by it. That's partly because years of cutbacks and creeping commercialisation have lessened their capacity to add value where it's needed. They're for the most part under-resourced and under-skilled. They can't see what they can add.
But it's only when you leave the media that you get a sharp sense of what a good journalist can bring to an issue like this. We have great skills if we know how to use them.
Anonymous · December 8, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Mr D,
Re: your comment on December 8, 2010 10:32 AM …
I don't mean to downsell the training and (ability of some) journalists. But a good number of reasonably-educated people are trained to do, if not the same as journalists, then something broadly similar. Anyone who's been trained in the writing of essays knows at least the fundamentals of journalistic writing: research, compile sources, filter out the irrelevant, look for thematic connections, synthesise the data, conceive an argument, and compose and polish the final product. It's not easy, but it's not exclusive to the traditional players either.
Given how traditional journalism increasingly lets the public down, I say, let the amateurs loose to do journalism online, free from the constraints of commercialism and editorial control. What we're seeing with the evolution of online amateur journalism is healthy, vigorous, and, being a complement/antidote to the traditional form, needs to be encouraged fully.
As we've seen, there are any number of 'amateurs' out there who do the job better, more effectively and with more integrity than the so-called specialists. Writing on and reporting current affairs is no longer closed shop. The traditional players need to adapt and improve – or fall by the wayside.
Mr D · December 8, 2010 at 1:56 AM
Anonymous @11.15AM, I agree with you entirely. The only qualification I'd add is that it's not either/or. You can have excellence in traditional journalism alongside excellence from 'amateur' writers on the web, who bring their own expertise.
I'm fairly sure a lot of the silliness from The Australian and others is really just a form of professional protectionism. A lot of these people feel under siege anyway – their industry is faltering, their pay and conditions are lousy and they're being asked to do more with less. So naturally, they're antagonistic to 'new media' voices.
But they're not all like that. The more enlightened ones see the multiplication of outlets and the wider dissemination of ideas as a good thing and an opportunity for the media to reinvent itself.
Wikileaks – in the role of the Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel in collating and interpreting the cables – is a case in point. The two arms – online and MSM together – are stronger than one.