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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ben,
It's true journalists must make some odd bed fellows (not literally) to get information. If no one who knows what's happening talks to you, you cannot report on it, can you. Laurie Oakes (correct spelling) has been in the Canberra Press Gallery since before I was a student and that's almost thirty years.He has used public service leaks to tell a story and has his ear to the ground when it comes to stories. He does not have a particular affiliation to either political party that is obvious, and he always asks the hard questions. Whether he gets an answer in this 'spin doctor' age is another thing.
Christina
Completed blog due October 25
Christina
I liked your example of the Costello dinner conversation as it raises an interesting debate regarding not only truth, but the “ground rules” of the journo/polly relationship. I tend to completely believe Michael Brissenden’s recollection of that dinner due his credibility, which thankfully still goes along way (despite his beady eyes). More than can be said for Costello.
Post a Comment