24-7 but barely skin deep

With an ever increasing stream of News, especially in the lead up to the next election, our media are happy. There is no shortage of material to feed the 24-7 news cycle monster. There is an unprecedented range of serious issues to cover; -

• Islamic Terrorism
• Geopolitical power tremors; - rise of Russia and China to challenge the 'status quo"
• Migration and asylum seekers
• Climate change
• US presidential elections
• Senate reform legislation
• Our economic challenges - deficits and budgets
• Coping with growth in our cities
• Developing the North
• Indigenous Affairs
• Education and Health
• The federal election

Yet of all these serious issues the one that seems to take a disproportionate time is the machinations of the politicians. Our media commentators are sidetracked into the spurious, the tawdry, the scuttlebutt. Revision after revision of past elections and PMs. A book on Abbott by Savva held attention of every media outlet for weeks. Last week it was about Abbott Turnbull relationship and whether Scott Morrison was 'in' or 'out' of the 'inner circle'. All this to the neglect of in-depth analysis.

I accept that these personality politics are a valid topic for commentary and analysis. They are a great source of merriment and titillation for the journos and listeners alike. So coverage is relevant. But really !! How much time should be spent on the gossip as opposed to the serious?

This last week coverage of the Abbott 'intervention' and the Morrison -Turnbull relationship were incessant on virtually every news and political medium. It seems the journos 'fiddle while Rome burns'.

Where is the in-depth analysis?

Dominated by these distractions our 24-7 media makes no time for the real work of journalists to provide both broad and comprehensive coverage of topics relevant to society. There are many relevant topics that are begging for attention (eg see the dot points above). Let me also suggest a few more specific subjects that deserve scrutiny; -

• What is the relationship between Educational Outcomes and investment?
• What is the underlying cause of aboriginal disadvantage ?
• What should be the size of government? 
• What is 'Fair' when it comes to economic matters?
• Is there too much legislation? 
• What is the proper role of government in Education? 
• How much should a modern government spend on Health?
• Where is the line between personal and state responsibility?
• Is there a case against foreign ownership? 
• How to fight corruption?
• Should there be public funding for elections?

Each of these question is relevant to our daily lives. Yet the news media pay scant attention to them.

Must present all viewpoints

These questions and many like them can be covered in many different media formats. But to inform the public any coverage must include all opposing viewpoints. Too often our media regards analysis as simply presenting one side of the story, often backed up by an 'expert'. A contrarian view is often not covered at all. Or even when it is, it is presented in unequal light through 'tricks of the trade', the order in which arguments are presented, being given unequal time, the words, tone and body language of the presenter and so on. That is simply advocacy and not journalism. The ABC has been particularly guilty of this approach, but it is really quite widespread on all our political commentary programs.

My preference is to always present the topic in general terms by a journalist then advocates of each side of the argument face each other and present their views. It is only when a proposition is tested by direct confrontation with its opposite that the viewer starts to appreciate the complexities and nuances in an issue. 

This format has been used very successfully on America's PBS Newshour program where topics are invariably covered both in depth and without bias by presenting both sides of an argument and allowing the adherents to face each other in debate. I should also mention that the interaction of all the journalists is exemplary. No aggressive tone or body language, no interruptions at all, but respectable discourse. (see Raising the standard of Australian Journalism )

Code of Ethics

To a great extent the success of the PBS Newshour program reflects the code of ethics it sets as a benchmark for all reporting on the program (see below).

I could think of no better starting point for our own Australian media!

10 rules to raise the standard of professional journailsm

In many earlier posts I have written about our media, highlighting bias, inappropriate priorities and the poor attitudes of journalists always looking for gotcha moments (see Media posts ).  The posts provide many examples of these failures so I won't go through them again.

A major contributor to these failures is the ever-increasing competition by a voracious media for engaged and loyal audiences. Journalists and news commentators adopt attitudes aligned with their audience in order to garner a following. This in turn drives the selection of the stories they cover, the arguments/questions they raise and their attitude in interviews.

Given journalists have these 'negative' drivers, management must be ever more proactive to ensure standards are maintained, or preferably raised. They can do this by setting clear editorial guidelines, and ensuring all journalists know are fully informed and expected to follow them. Moreover compliance should be monitored and any failures penalized.

This post would not be complete without at least a suggested list of Editorial Guidelines. My suggestions are based on the editorial guidelines for the highly professional PBS Newshour. (see Another Chapter Begins for Newshour)

10 rules for professional journalists

1. Do not report anything you cannot defend.
2. Cover, write, and present every story with the care you would want if the story were about you.
3. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
4. Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as you believe yourself to be.
5. Assume the same about all people on whom you report.
6. Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
7. Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything
8. Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions.
9. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
10. Remember you are NOT in the entertainment business.

Even if followed rigorously these rules may not guarantee audiences, but would certainly raise the standards of news commentary.

Some media accepting some blame

Is hell freezing over? Are pigs taking to the sky? Perhaps not, but I do seem to detect a whiff of mea- culpa from the media. There is at least partial acceptance that media has been a cause of our political instability.

First it was Niki Sava asking the question "is the system broken?", and offering a stern denial (see The Australian, Sep 19, 2015, Yes, we’re not a banana republic, and no, the system ain’t broke).

Then came Paul Kelly, with his forthright, but gentlemanly rebuttal of Sava (see The Australian, Sep 23 2015, Negative politics the biggest enemy of reform). Yes, our political system is broken. Yes, this is having a negative impact on our society. By our media's focus on the negatives our politicians are busy fighting fires and as a consequence have deferred reform for virtually a decade. Yes, the media are at least partially at fault, by their unedifying emphasis on the trivial while ignoring the significant.

Today, we have Troy Bramston on the same topic and building on Kelly's arguments (see The Australian, Sep 28,2015, Revolving-door PMs not healthy for the nation).

"Clearly, we have a problem. As Paul Kelly wrote last week, we have had a revolving-door prime ministership, countless ministers and no substantial economic reforms since 2004. As a result, our living standards are declining. Poor performing leaders are always going to be vulnerable but this level of instability is affecting our economy and society." 
Troy Bramston, Revolving-door PMs not healthy for the nation

While Troy steers a kindly middle of the road, in the main, he has put forward a couple of suggestions which could alleviate the problem. He notes that there are too many polls, that parliamentary terms should be increased and that the Liberal party could take a leaf from the ALP and change the rules relating to party spills. These are constructive contributions that could provide greater stability. Although I don't know how you could prevent a pollster from producing a poll.

But as the others before him, the focus on the media is superficial. There is no attempt at identifying the media culture that is the root cause of the negative reporting. The culture that treats the trivial on equal terms as the substantial, the culture that seeks out foibles and slip ups. The culture that looks for gotcha moments, with aggressive interviewing tactics. The culture that worships moments of anguish by interview victims.

I have written about this before (see Interviewing:boxing or surgery?, Mischievous media magnifies mayhem, Raising the standard of public broadcasting ) I guess it is one of my 'bug-bears'.
I believe our media culture has a vital role in our society. It has a direct impact on our political and economic system, as evidenced by the political instability now acknowledged by Kelly and Bramston.

However its influence goes beyond that. Our media enters our homes, and becomes part of our daily life. Whether they intend it or not, our media set an example for all our behaviour. How we interact with our colleagues, our friends, or the man in the street. By their interactions on the radio and our TV screens we learn that it is okay to shout down those with whom we disagree. It is ok to laugh at others' discomfort. It is okay to ridicule and make fun of foibles.

But it isn't. And I am sure that the Leigh Sales's, Emma Albericis and the various Jones's of our media, indeed all our commentators, do not believe that their behaviour should be taken into our daily lives. I am sure they believe they are doing their professional duty as journalists. Even if they interrupt or talk over the interviewee, or ask questions with aggression and malice, or indeed focus on the trivial, such as winks or flags, they believe these behaviours are justified in the quest for truth. Their role as noble guardians of our society somehow justifies such transgressions of respectful discourse. Alas these are but empty rationalisations. There are many examples where journalists, despite their common role as 'noble guardians', manage to maintain higher standards than many in our media (see Raising the standard of public broadcasting).

I suggest, however, our journalists, particularly our radio and TV presenters, should think more about their audience. They should visualise their audience as impressionable youngsters or indeed their own children. Is this the way they would want their children to behave, or indeed is this the way they would want their children to see them behave? I suggest this perspective may encourage them to tone down and fulfil their role with greater professionalism.

Interviewing:Boxing or Surgery?

(This is an excerpt from earlier post titled "Raising the standard of public broadcasting" . I have posted it in response to some Twitter interaction.)

Journalistic aggression

With all the encouragement from their supporters, and indeed their colleagues, it is not surprising that many a journalist has taken taken a pugnacious stance against those 'on the other side'. Interviewing is perceived by many a journalist, as a 'blood sport'. Journos and their audience each baying for the 'gotcha moment', seeking that telling bead of sweat on the brow, or even the odd broken glass. These are hailed as measures of success and receive general acclaim from journalists and the twitterati alike. 

Indeed some of these aggressive interviews have become icons of reportage, heralded long after their normal use-by date. Consider the Alberici interview on Lateline with the Hizb ut Tahrir representative, or Sarah Ferguson's interview on ABC 730 report with Joe Hockey on budget night.

Boxing or Surgery?

I have always found this rather distasteful for a couple of reasons. Primarily, our journalists, are the first line of our public discourse, a demonstration of how professionals deal with each other even when they may have differing views. By their large audience our media set the standard for all our behaviour. Aggressive questioning, clearly intended to attack the individual, interrupting them while they are talking, talking over them, or signs of enjoyment of another's discomfort, does not set a good example.  It is not how we want people to treat each other.

And secondly, it is also counter-productive.When a journalist takes an aggressive attitude, the interviewee, usually a politician, will 'clam up'. When they reluctantly appear for battle, they become guarded, mechanical, limiting their discourse and offering less information. Often they will avoid the interviewer altogether. The consequence is we are all the losers.

Journalism, professional journalism, should be about content not about style. The professional journalist should be more surgeon than boxer. With good knowledge of the topic and a quick wit they should be able to cut through the defensive shields of even the most capable politician. 

If a politician refuses to answer a question, that is his prerogative. You can ask a couple of times, but if he doesn't answer he has certainly demonstrated his unwillingness to do so, and he has shown this to the whole viewing audience. If a politician makes long-winded answers and you cannot get your questions in, that is also his prerogative. Again he has demonstrated his unwillingness to converse, in other than sloganese, to the viewing public.

PBS Newshour as the paragon

Whereas 'Gotcha journalism has become fashionable, especially on our public broadcaster, great journalists rarely have had to resort to overt emotions or aggressive questioning. The Frost/Nixon interviews come immediately to mind, but there are many others.

PBS Newshour, televised each day on SBS is the template I wish would be followed by all our Australian news media, and especially our public broadcaster. Its success is founded on the editorial guidelines (see table below) created by Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, the creators of the program.

PBS Newhour Editorial guidelines

(also called MacNeil / Lehrer journalism.)

"Do nothing I cannot defend."

"Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me."

"Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

"Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am."

"Assume the same about all people on whom I report."

"Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise."

"Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything."

"Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions."

"No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously."

"And finally, I am not in the entertainment business."

Some characteristics stand out; -

• Strong debate on topics of political and general interest
• all journalists top of their game ( regular presenters include Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, Hari Sreenivasan, Margaret Warner, Jeffrey Brown, Paul Solman
• all interviews focused on a topic, interviewers always polite, questions however are sharpened to clearly highlight every aspects of the topic
• most interviews have the journalist as an independent moderator with two interviewees representing each side of the argument

This last point is perhaps the most pertinent and should be used more often in Australia.

SkyNews does do this quite often, but could do more. Our ABC mostly fails to do this. If the ABC went out of its way to ensure both sides of an argument were presented by articulate and knowledgeable advocates, a lot of the criticism of the ABC for bias, would be dissipated.

How do we fare?

How do I rate our Australian networks and shows? Let me stick my neck out. No doubt you will tell me where you disagree.

As far as networks are concerned I think PBS Newshour is Gold, SkyNews is Silver and our own ABC is bronze.

With regard to News debate I believe SkyNews' Sunday Agenda comes closest to the high quality professional interviewing of the PBS Newshour. A straightforward panel discussion with pollies and journos asking questions, sometimes very probing questions, and sufficient time to subvert the 'pollie-waffle' escape.

SBS' Dateline and Four Corners do a creditable job on specific topics, but often strongly advocate for one side of an argument without adequately presenting the alternate view.

These are weekly programs, the dailies don't fare as well. Sky News' PM Agenda, ABC's AM and PM radio prgrams do a creditable job. Sky's PM Agenda goes out of it s way to have two advocates in debate format. ABC's 730 Report and Lateline rarely do this and often take adversarial, and patronising approach in their interviews.

I know I have left many out, but these are my regulars, and prefer not to comment on those I do not follow.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

ABC, A Biased Commentator

In days of Yore all was well

I have been a viewer and listener of our ABC for more decades than I care to remember. My earliest recollections are of an organisation with a quiet, professional and detached tone. It had universal admiration from those, admittedly relatively small proportion of the population, who viewed and listened. I too was an advocate, and would readily defend its critics.

The general criticism at the time was that it was not for everyone. That it catered for only a small proportion of Australians, that its audience reach was inadequate for the cost and so on. Despite these criticisms it was held in high regard as a professional broadcasting organisation. While politicians would on occasions attack some aspect of a report that was not in their favour, Australians of all political persuasions accepted the ABC provided a balanced view on political subjects. It earned the accolade 'Auntie', as if reflecting the wise counsel of a near relative.

Times have changed

Alas, those days seem so long ago. Sometime over the past decade, or two, this respect for 'Auntie', as an unbiased presenter and commentator, has been sadly tarnished. For many longer term viewers it is all too apparent that the organisation has not maintained its own professional code for unbiased reporting.

Journalists as a group are already left-leaning, but the current 'crop' employed by the ABC are even more so. As a consequence there is a left-of-centre bias evident in many of its political programs and even the News. Sometimes it is overt, but more often it is nuanced. It can be simply selecting stories which present only the Leftist view of an argument, or displaying personal bias by an aggressive tone or  disdainful expression.There are many many examples, that I could cite. Just consider the relatively recent decision to air a series of interviews with Keating and failing to do the same for Albrechtsen's "John Howard Defined" even when the latter was offered to the ABC. How can you justify one and not the other?

Not suprisingly, in recent years there have been many accusations of bias leveled at the ABC. Here are just a few -

SMH - "Sarah Ferguson breached ABC bias guidelines"
IPA - "Independent report reveals ABC biased against fossil fuels"
JoNova - "Three times as many Australians think the ABC has a pro-Labor bias"

The ABC counters these with its 'complaints statistics', indicating that it receives about the same number of complaints that it is too 'right-leaning' as 'left-leaning'. However with the advent of Sky News pay TV channels, with its 'right-leaning' political and news broadcasts, the ABC's right-leaning audience has switched channels, leaving the remaining 10% of Australians who still watch the ABC generally left-of-centre. So its complaints statistics only speak for its left-of centre audience, and its use as a defence against bias is fallacious.

What can the ABC board do to counter bias?

Despite a professional code of ethics that mandates balanced reporting, our public broadcaster, our ABC, does not have one 'right-of-centre', 'conservative', host in any of its many political and news programs.

How can this encourage open debate of left-right politics? How can this represent a society that, by its vote in elections, is roughly equally divided between a left and right-leaning electorate?

It cannot and ABC's management and its board of directors, is failing in its duty to Australian society. It is also failing its duty as professional journalists to give fair and equal voice to all points of view and to allow arguments to stand on their merits.

I call on the ABC board to take the first step. Appoint a right leaning host to a political program. There are many who would do an admirable job; Janet Albrechtsen, Paul Murray, Chris Kenny, Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson, to name a few regulars from SkyNews.

You are not serving Australia by failing to appoint journalists who would provide balance to the organisation. Come on, what would you lose?


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Raising the standard of public broadcasting

I very recently joined the 'Twittersphere', perhaps rather later than many. It is a fascinating and  chaotic rabble of mostly anonymous individuals and organisations, persistently launching their modest 140 characters into the ether.  Each directed towards a target or targets be they individuals or topics of interest. Each seeking attention, a mere microsecond of focus from fellow travellers to anoint their submission with a 'favourite', or a 're-tweet', or, rarely, a direct response. I guess I don't need to tell you, as most of you are more experienced than I. I still have my training wheels, yet I am fascinated and must admit somewhat hooked. I can see in the ebb and flow of the commentary, the full range of human emotions on open display.

With my inclination towards political commentary I have spent most of my Twitter time on the regular news shows like ABC's 730 Report and Lateline, and Sky News' PM Agenda and Paul Murray Live. The many followers of these shows exhibit great passion in their tweets, as if they were ringside in some gladiatorial event. Each show has its supporters; the ABC's mainly left of centre and Sky's mainly right. But they share the same lust for blood. Invariably when the presenter is interviewing someone 'from the other side', there are calls for tougher questions, some name-calling of the interviewee and eventually name-calling of the interviewer.

Consider  these examples;

.....

21/11/2014 12:37 pm  .... 'Does @leighsales have Alzheimer's? Bring back @FergusonNews to @abc730 I say

.....

20/11/2014 10:20 pm Bring back Sarah Ferguson to #abc730 As soon as possible @leighsales too kind to LNP Pollies .....

.......

18/11/2014 5:51 pm David is keeping his options open to get a job on #THEIRabc #pmagenda Tell us they aren't BIASED. Go on.. dare ya.

......

18/11/2014 4:56 pm the poll went down because the arsole media were blathering about a russian invasion remember that @David_Speers #pmagenda

Journalistic aggression

With all the encouragement from their supporters, and indeed their colleagues, it is not surprising that many a journalist has taken taken a pugnacious stance against those 'on the other side'. Interviewing is perceived by many a journalist, as a 'blood sport'. Journos and their audience each baying for the 'gotcha moment', seeking that telling bead of sweat on the brow, or even the odd broken glass. These are hailed as a measures of success and receive general acclaim from journalists and the twitterati alike. 

Indeed some of these aggressive interviews have become icons of reportage, heralded long after their normal use-by date. Consider the Alberici interview on Lateline with the Hizb ut Tahrir representative, or Sarah Ferguson's interview on ABC 730 report with Joe Hockey on budget night.

Boxing or Surgery?

I have always found this rather distasteful for a couple of reasons. Primarily, our journalists, are the first line of our public discourse, a demonstration of how professionals deal with each other even when they may have differing views. By their large audience our media set the standard for all our behaviour. Aggressive questioning, clearly intended to attack the individual, interrupting them while they are talking, talking over them, or signs of enjoyment of another's discomfort, does not set a good example.  It is not how we want people to treat each other.

And secondly, it is also counter-productive.When a journalist takes an aggressive attitude, the interviewee, usually a politician will 'clam up'. When they reluctantly appear for battle, they become guarded, mechanical, limiting their discourse and offering less information. Often they will avoid the interviewer altogether. The consequence is we are all the losers.

Journalism, professional journalism should be about content not about style. The professional journalist should be more surgeon than boxer. With good knowledge of the topic and a quick wit they should be able to cut through the defensive shields of even the most capable politician. 

If a politician refuses to answer a question, that is his prerogative. You can ask a couple of times, but if he doesn't answer he has certainly demonstrated his unwillingness to do so, and he has shown this to the whole viewing audience. If a politician makes long-winded answers and you cannot get your questions in , that is also his prerogative. Again he has demonstrated his unwillingness to converse, in other than sloganese, to the viewing public.

PBS Newshour as the paragon

Whereas 'Gotcha journalism has become fashionable, especially on our public broadcaster, great journalists rarely have had to resort to overt emotions or aggressive questioning. The Frost/Nixon interviews come immediately to mind, but there are many others.

PBS Newshour, televised each day on SBS is the template I wish would be followed by all our Australian news media, and especially our public broadcaster. Its success is founded on the editorial guidelines (see table below) created by Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, the creators of the program.

PBS Newhour Editorial guidelines

(also called MacNeil / Lehrer journalism.)

"Do nothing I cannot defend."

"Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me."

"Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

"Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am."

"Assume the same about all people on whom I report."

"Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise."

"Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything."

"Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions."

"No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously."

"And finally, I am not in the entertainment business."

Some characteristics stand out; -

• Strong debate on topics of political and general interest
• all journalists top of their game ( regular presenters include Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, Hari Sreenivasan, Margaret Warner, Jeffrey Brown, Paul Solman
• all interviews focussed on a topic, interviewers always polite, questions however are sharpened to clearly display all aspects of the the topic
• most interviews have the journalist as an independent moderator with two interviewees representing each side of the argument

This last point is perhaps the most pertinent and should be used more often in Australia.

SkyNews does do this quite often, but could do more. Our ABC mostly fails to do this. If the ABC went out of its way to ensure both sides of an argument were presented by articulate and knowledgeable advocates, a lot of the criticism of the ABC for bias, would be dissipated.

How do we fare?

How do I rate our Australian networks and shows? Let me stick my neck out. No doubt you will tell me where you disagree.

As far as networks are concerned I think PBS Newshour is Gold, SkyNews is Silver and our own ABC is bronze.

With regard to News debate I believe SkyNews' Sunday Agenda comes closest to the high quality professional interviewing of the PBS Newshour. A straightforward panel discussion with pollies and journos asking questions, sometimes very probing questions, and sufficient time to subvert the 'pollie-waffle' escape.

SBS' Dateline and Four Corners do a creditable job on specific topics, but often strongly advocate for one side of an argument without adequately presenting the alternate view.

These are weekly programs, the dailies don't fare as well. Sky News' PM Agenda, ABC's AM and PM radio prgrams do a creditable job. Sky's PM Agenda goes out of it s way to have two advocates in debate format. ABC's 730 Report and Lateline rarely do this and often take adversarial, and patronising approach in their interviews.

I know I have left many out, but these are my regulars, and prefer not to comment on those I do not follow.