Week 11 - Journalism in the Global Village

Breit’s chapter ‘Journalism in the global village’ raises some interesting points, like how local laws regarding the media are open to being manipulated in today’s global corporate world. The example she gave of copyright laws, contrasting their original intent with how they are being manipulated by transnational corporations to suit their own interests today, was something I had never considered before.

The use of the One.Tel example (page 215) really showed how dated the article is. Given the collapse of One.Tel (was it six years ago?), using it as an example of News Ltd and PBL dominating internet and multi-media markets in Australia is completely invalid. It’s 2007, not 1997, and including this in a text that was reprinted in 2006 I think is really unacceptable.

Week 9 - Minefields and Legal landmarks

I think, in general terms, the law favours those who can afford the many legal expanses that come with pursuing a matter through the courts. As journalists are constrained by the law, I therefore also think it is important that they don’t, as Marcus Westbury once stated, be strong on the weak and weak on the strong.

I joined a petition a couple of years ago for two journalists who were in contempt of court for not naming their sources. They were facing jail time, not because their articles were untruthful, but precisely because they were truthful and embarrassing the government. I think it had to do with the Federal government and Indigenous affairs. The government wanted the journalists to reveal their sources so they could punish the whistleblowers. I think these journalists should be applauded for the integrity and highlighting the indiscrepancies that sometimes exist between the law and the liberal democratic society the law is supposed to be protecting.

On the other hand, and unfortunately probably more common, journalists instead of focusing on challenging or critiquing the social structures and culture we live in, they use their privileged position to exploit individuals, or the ‘common person’ so to speak. I had a placement this year at a local council, where there was a fair bit of clandestine tension between the then communications officer and the management above him. I was aware that the communications officer was intending to hand his notice in. A couple months after finishing my placement, I read in my local paper explicit personal details of how his employment was terminated. They gave his full name, position and the circumstances that lead to him being asked to leave the building. (He published a faux media release, for training purposes on the internet, stating that the mayor had been asked to resign after throwing a chair at a fellow councillor. This ruffled a few feathers.) I still have no idea what relevance the article had to the general public, other than a little bit of scandal and humour at council. But even then names and positions didn’t have to be given. I was especially disappointed with the paper because the reporters there had a working relationship with the communication officer for years, and then they did that too him. It is dirty, lazy journalism. I can’t imagine the humiliation it would have caused the communications officer.

Journalism can be used for tremendous good, even when that includes breaking existing laws, or can lawfully wreck unnecessary havoc on the personal lives of individuals.

Week 4 – Journalism as a public conversation

This post takes us back to week 4, which I had forgot!

I found Romano & Hippocrates discussion on Public Journalism strong in some areas and weak in others. I found that their chapter was helpful in describing public journalism but some of their augments in favour of it where not as convincing as they made them out to be.

In particular they raise the fact that audiences consume news in a sporadic way, often reading only what suits their world view, which is fair enough. But exactly how public journalism addresses this matter over traditional journalism is not clearly stated. Instead, they go onto argue that news involving deeper social/cultural issues need background and context worked into the articles, which is also fair enough but how does that solve their fist assertion that people read news sporadically? Surely longer articles that require more of a commitment on behalf of an already superficial audience isn’t the solution.

Another fundamental notion of public journalism that I’m yet to comprehend is this idea of subverting the news agenda set by those in power, i.e. politicians, big business etc to be set by the common person. Sure the news agenda is set by people with influence and power in society. But that’s exactly why it is news – they have power and influence over how everyone else lives their lives – that is therefore of direct interest to everybody. Having said that, we also don’t want to be dictated too – but that’s exactly why we have quotes from different institutions with different levels of interest in truth and levels of engagement with an issue to allow for different angles on the same issue. In reality, whether news organisations look to multiple sources for articles is up to them.

Also the fact that they say having an ‘open marketplace of ideas’, with a ‘mass of competing, conflicting views’ is ‘inappropriate’ (p: 168) really makes me worry about were the authors are coming from. John Stuart Mill argued centuries ago that, in theory, the only way to arrive at truth was for all views and opinions to be heard without censorship, so that everything could be in the open to be disproved or proved right.

Week 8 - Literary Journalism

I really admire the idea of literary journalism and its goal of seeking ‘underlying truth’. I can see that there is a need for a genre of writing that exists somewhere between fiction and journalism. At first it sounds incomprehensible that you could reach a greater truth by resorting to ‘fictional’ techniques but I think it satisfies our need to understand the world through narrative; I think we all understand reality by stories.

Literary Journalism, for all that it offers, obviously hasn’t become the be all and end all of reporting/writing. It has its problems – its particularly demanding on the author’s time and there remains a problem with the vagueness of its position between fiction and non-fiction. This leads to the question: is it trustworthy? Where does the non-fiction begin and fiction end? Is it enlightening or distorting actual events? Has the author’s level of engagement been so intense instead of informing it has narrowed the authors perception of events, leading to a conflict of interest? i.e. with Truman Capote’s novel.

Hopefully good Literary Journalism answers the above questions and provides us with greater insight into our world.

Week 7 - Journalism representation of others

For me, chapters 8-9 held the most pertinent discussion so far in the textbook. The history behind the Wik decision was all new to me and the critique of journalistic practice was insightful and really brought home how journalism is a cultural product.

Race relations highlight the importance of understanding your own subjectivity in journalism. It’s not the fact that journalists are subjective (In reality can anyone not be subjective), but the dangers in not acknowledging your subjectivity will always skew your ultimate aim for objectivity.

It also made me think about readership and the market of journalism. If journalism can dispel cultural prejudice and challenge accepted myths amongst its core readership than perhaps journalism can move from the realm of entertainment to the educational (I mean in a scientific way, not in a propaganda way), or at least have some of both.

Week 6 - Truth & Objectivity

I think the general skepticism towards the ethics of journalists exemplifies the awkward responsibility journalists have towards truth. A journo I really admire, Laurie Oakes, wrote the following:

"Politicians and political journalists are two forms of parasite living on each other: they're mutually dependent.”

I think Tickle really could have tackled this angle, the journalist-source relationship opens up so many practical examples of what responsibility journalists have to truth (i.e. the recent controversy surrounding the infamous Costello dinner with 3 journos). Instead Tickle gets bogged down in trying, first, to give a short history of western approaches to truth throughout history, (namedropping countless prominent thinkers whose significance is only matched in their insignificance to the contemporary journalist) and secondly, in presenting an unusual argument on postmodernism and its incompatibility with journalism.

Laurie Oakes goes on to quote a speech he gave to a Liberal party function not long after the cons won office in 1996:

"Politicians and the journalists who report on politics occupy the same building, have a fair bit of contact, are obsessed by many of the same things, but they regard each other as two quite different species.

"Basically you've got to get to know the people in the Press Gallery, work out who's likely to treat you fairly.

"And always — ALWAYS — in your dealings with them you've got to spell out the ground rules. Make very specific whether you are saying something for attribution, simply as background, or not for use at all.

"Never ASSUME the ground rules. Some promising political careers have been wrecked by people assuming they would not be quoted."

I found Laurie’s comments very insightful, but to be honest I was a little disappointed in how contrived the whole process of political reporting can be.

I must commend Tickle though for her exist strategy. After spending so long on abstract arguments, attempting to condense the entire western history, and running up some unusual lines of thought, her conclusion was as self-evident as it was dismissive of any further discussion: ‘journalistic record serves as a store of instant, if imperfect history that constitutes a crucial element in public and national life.’ Hahahaha Great conclusion.

Week 5 Journalism-trade craft or profesion

I found the Wapping incident (and some of the detail about it found in the Hirst reading) really fascinating. I think Hirst’s comparison of the transition from typewriters to computers as akin to setting up a production-line for journalists, and creating a ‘weird and dispiriting place’ as just a tad fanciful. Hirst appears to indulge in a sentimentality towards typewriters and old printing methods that someone who has grown up with computers, such as myself, finds hard to understand. In particular the Engel quote of a lack of ‘happy chaos in the newspaper office’ at Wapping makes me cringe – as though the change in technology itself is responsible for the lack of quality discussion in the office. Perhaps he mistook the clatter of typewriters for constructive chatter in the workplace. If Hirst had presented this ‘new’ clinical environment in Wapping as symbolic of a deterioration in journalistic standards then that would be much more convincing.

Chapter 3 A Return to Practice: reclaiming journalism as public

I question Meadows's take on the history of journalism, that journalism was some natural progression from 'public-sphere activities where disparate members of the public...met to discuss politics, sports, gossip...' It sounds all a little idealistic, a l little democratic for my liking. Somehow I don’t think the aristocrats or the upper class of the day would mingle in "pubs" and "cafes" with the underclass’s and working poor to have intelligent conversations about the politics of the day. It doesn't happen now and I wouldn’t have expected it to happen back then when class differentiation was much more pronounced.

So following on from that, I take issue with this idea of returning or reclaiming journalism as public conversation. I doubt that it ever was, or at least to the degree that Meadows claims. Actually I was told by one of the contributors to our wonderful text, Mr Steve Mac, in first year, that newspapers began as a way for businesses to push their political burrows. So I think there are different views on the 'purity' of the origins of journalism and Meadows's views (although he presents them as facts) should not be taken as gospel.

I would like to take one last dig at Meadows if i could :-P He relies heavily on one source, Carey, to back up his arguments. A quick count finds 15 out of his 21 quotes in this four pages of his chapter cite Carey, which I think this shows a serious flaw in his research and brings into question the credibility of his arguments.

Chapter 2: Comfort or Curse?

The journalist’s first priority, in theory, should be to objectivity, to balanced truth, to this lofty notion of the ‘public interest’. In practice, however, it is to their employers and ultimately to their advertisers; media is a business, a commercial enterprise and therein lays the fundamental conflict of interest in journalism. How do you critique the powerful when rely on the same powerful for your existence? For example if the state government threatens to pull their advertising from your paper cause of negative press, then what?

This quote stood out for me: ‘Newspaper design and packaging needs favour predictable stories that reduce journalists to the role of researchers’ (p:26).

Chapter One: What is Journalism?

As a profession, journalism seems to be exceptional in that the roles and expectations of its practitioners are fairly ambiguous.

Traditional professions such as doctors, lawyers etc appear to have clear boundaries defining their roles and responsibilities, with institutions and bodies to govern their behaviour.

Journalism, on the other hand, seems to be caught in a perpetual conversation with itself about what it is they’re doing, who are they doing it for and sometimes even if it is right to be doing what they do.

The Media Entertainment Arts Alliance has attempted to define the fundamental principals of journalism, numerous academics (including the Tapsall & Varley) have conducted studies and written texts on the subject but I wonder how much these contributions actually inform the practice of everyday journalists.

Perhaps we have to settle with this quote lifted from the first chapter: ‘There is no simple definition of what a journalist is’.