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.

Are secret Union deals simply extortion?

The TURC sittings this week have hardly raised a murmur in our 'distracted' press. I write 'distracted' but many other adjectives, unprofessional, feckless, irresponsible, incompetent, may be more suitable.

The statements of Thiess employees could be described as nothing less than bombshells casting asunder all of Bill Shorten's past testimony and the media's dismissal of smoking guns. What is more smoking than direct affirmation that the special 'side deals' were negotiated by Bill Shorten as secretary of the Victorian branch of the AWU. Deals whereby Thiess would make secret payments of large sums to the Union in exchange for industrial peace. 

It is all there. Secret payments for sham invoices for services which were never provided. Sham invoices paid in full paid by Thiess and money received by the AWU. Why was Thiess paying the AWU ? They were buying industrial peace. No doubt had the company not paid they believed they would have suffered industrial disruption. 

Lets check the definition of extortion and protection racquet; - 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

Mmm. Do you see any similarity with the apparent modus operandum of the AWU in their deal with Thiess? It seems the Union acts like common racketeers obtaining money in exchange for providing 'protection' from industrial action, by, no doubt, its own members. This smells awfully like extortion!

Make no mistake this payment to the Union is in effect a benefit to the Union bosses, who use these fraudulent funds either for advancing their Union as it competes for members against other Unions, or for, let's call it 'private purposes'. Such as those derived, for example by the likes of Williamson, Thompson, Jackson and let me include Shorten.

A Union should never accept employer payments

There is a legitimate role for Unions in working on behalf of their members to improve working conditions, but when a Union accepts any payment directly from an employer in any form it is not just a 'conflict of interest', it is a crime. It is akin to 'demanding money with menaces', it is eliciting a bribe, it is extortion.

Where is the media?

The testimony by employers on the AWU fraud has been reported in the print media.

• SMH Oct 12, "Royal commission testimony: Invoices to Bill Shorten's AWU 'bogus' in EastLink union deal
• SMH Oct 13,Bill Shorten's AWU 'sold out' workers for $300,000
• SMH Oct 14, AWU 'sold out' over 36-hour week, union royal commission told
• The Australian Oct 15, "ALP leader Bill Shorten failing to escape AWU ‘fraud’ vortex

However most surprisingly; for much of this week, the commentariat seems to have been on holidays! Except for Skynews' Paul Murray Live, discussion or even mention of the TURC, or the AWU, has been strangely absent from news bulletins and political programs. I may have missed some, but I cannot recall any reference to what should be a politically explosive issue on any of the ABC's news bulletins or indeed AM, PM or 730 programs. Astoundingly selective reporting!

Even when mentioned, there is a tendency for the media to regard this type of practice as an occasional slip up of an individual Union or individual Unionist. However evidence at the TURC seems to indicate otherwise. We have seen these types of criminal 'deals' at the CFMEU, the HSU, and now at the AWU. It is very likely a widespread prctice.

It seems that most of our media media has avoided calling the Union's role in accepting direct payments from employers a crime. This is despite the clear evidence to the contrary. Is the media shying away from reporting on a problem whose magnitude and political impact is potentially catastrophic to one of our leading political parties? You can draw your own conclusion. For me, I believe we have a significant problem. Not only do we have rampant extortion in operation within our industrial relations system, but by failing to report on it without fear or favour, our media seem to find it acceptable!

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

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

Mischievous media magnifies mayhem

Following closely on the heels of Australia Day's "knightmare", the Queensland election disaster extended the criticism of our PM, now by deposed LNP MPs. Any hint of a leadership challenge, is like a drop of blood to our of media sharks, immediately generating a frenzy.

As if the world had stopped turning, not a news bulletin, newspaper, political commentator, twitter-face-blog-post goes without the questions pertaining to this one issue; "Was Abbott's speech good enough?", "Who will challenge?",  a survey is produced showing the popularity of potential contenders, Bishop has not said she would not run, or has not denied it enough, or there was a delay in denying it.

And aren't the media enjoying themselves? You can see it on their faces. The excited tone, the animation, the energy, the overt joking and 'grinning'. This game certainly looks like fun. Of course everyone gets on the bandwagon. When the frenzy is on, no journalist wants to be left out.

Who can blame them? It is much easier than the hard slog of reporting on economic or social matters which require facts, analysis, and real journalistic effort. It is much more fun. It is new, exciting, titillating.

Who can blame them, if the opposition parties are also feeding the frenzy with whatever morsels they can muster to keep the story going. After all there is an advantage to be had.

Who can blame them, if indeed the electorate is lapping it up. Those on the Left side of politics remember too well the all too recent Leadership challenges of the Labour government. They are now pleased to have the 'shoe on the other foot'. They enjoy the discomfiture of the Right, and hang on every word, and discuss it at every opportunity.

I am not blaming this on anti-Abbott, anti-Liberal media.This is not a case of media bias, although certainly some bias is apparent. It is the way independent media fight for attention. It is the media's 'raison d'etre', each vying to be the one who tells the story, the one to best analyse the situation and who can best anticipate and predict what will happen. They have many good reason to report this story, after all; "There is something happening, we need to tell our audience about all the possibilities. After all we are talking about who will govern this country of ours. This is important."

And once the fire is started, it is hard to stop. All potential contributors to the story are canvassed repeatedly, and they are quoted directly or as 'anonymous' sources. Like embers in a fire, each mention, each nuance of difference re-ignites a brush fire elsewhere and the story spreads, into actions and re-actions. Who knows when and where the current 'fire' will lead?

Our media act as amplifiers, increasing the volume and duration of whatever occurs. Small gaffes are repeated, explored, expanded and extended. Large gaffes become leadership questions, become leadership instability, become on going chaotic government.

Is it just a coincidence that in step with the evolution of the always-on news media and social media over the past decade, we have seen  greater volatility in electorate sentiment, and the rise of unstable and chaotic governments.

But how well does this serve our society? How well does this media maelstrom serve the people it represents?

I lament this unedifying picture of democracy in the 21st century.

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.