The right to know, but do we need to know?

This weeks discussions on media ethics raised some really interesting points.

Firstly, it seemed to bring to the forefront Australia's 'secret' obsession with the cult of the tabloid.

I use the word 'secret' because I don't think it is something that we are very proud of, but its undeniable.

Programs like Today Tonight and 60 Minutes relish on this 'trashy' form of news.

I dont mean this to be a direct attack on these programs, I just find some of the stories they present to be, well quite hilarious really and sometimes struggle to see how much this information is really in the public interest.

But one of the points brought up in class discussions was that if there was no market for tabloids, there would be no reason to invade people's privacy.

At the end of the day, its all about making money.

It goes back to the idea of quality journalism, and I've mentioned in previous blogs that despite most people recognizing networks such as the ABC as the most reputable in terms of news, this is not where they go to get their fix.

With terms of reference for the upcoming media enquiry have now been announced, "the effectiveness of current media codes of practice" and "ways of substantially strengthening the independence of the Australian Press Council".


Many are worries that the enquiry is going to infrine on the freedom of the press. 


There is a really interesting article written by Chris Berg from The Drum, who challenges the current system of newspapers self regulating. 


"Private entities are welcome to develop ethical and professional codes," he said. 


"Indeed, they probably should. 


"But it doesn't follow that government should muscle in to enforce those codes - particularly if the entities in question are newspapers critical of the government".


While I agree with what Mr. Berg is saying in this article, I still do question whether or not organizations are doing enough to ensure people are practicing ethical behaviour. 


What do you think?


The full article can be viewed here:http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2907894.html

Sexism on the Frontline

We’re told it’s a man’s world and in the realms of journalism it seems that this is very true; especially when it comes to female war reporters.

According to The Independent’s Glenda Cooper ‘Female war reporters have a glorious history – so why are they still being judged by their sex?’

Female reporters on the frontline of the Libyan revolution, such as Sky News’s Alex Crawford, feel that there is still a strong and very western orientated focus on their gender and whether or not it’s the ‘right’ place for a woman.

While female foreign correspondents are certainly nothing new, it seems that the ‘step-ford wife’ view of woman is still plaguing those brave enough to get behind a camera in more often than not, incredibly threatening situations.

“It's frankly really insulting and very, very sexist,” Crawford said.

“ I'm working alongside today the chief correspondent who's a man who's got three children and there will be no one who says: 'what do you think you're doing, how awful, what are you doing to your children?”

So why are female reporters subjected to discussion, even ridicule when their male counterparts aren’t?

According to the article, the media focus for Libya has been that the first three reporters to reach Tripoli were females; Crawford, Sarah Sidner of CNN and Zeina Khodr of al-Jazeera English.

And it is the western media focus that has honed in on this area.

"Those reporting on us rarely fail to mention what we are wearing, how our hair looks, and our overall appearance in some of the harshest conditions humans have to face,” Sidner said.

It seems the while the news itself may be subjective, such a sexist view of it may not be.

The full story can be viewed here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/female-war-reporters-were-given-the-softer-side-of-war-2354158.html

'What happened in the UK can't happen hear!'

So it’s official, there will be an inquiry into Australia’s print and online media.

Ray Finkelstein, a former Federal Court judge will lead the independent inquiry and will be assisted by former journalist and academic Mathew Ricketson.

This weeks class discussions on ‘Freedom of the Press ‘hacked’ to death… or the end of the news as we know it?’ couldn’t have come at a more convenient and indeed juicy time.

Its no surprise that the recent news hacking scandal in the UK was the dominant point of discussion. 

And while not everyone in class seemed to agree, am I the only one who thinks its just a bit too coincidental that mere months after arguably one of the biggest media scandals in recent times that it is now that Australia chooses a media enquiry?

Isn't it a given?

It's surprising to me then that so many people seemed to strongly oppose the enquiry; which just makes me wonder, what have you got to hide?

One of the questions raised in class was whether or not the recent phone hacking scandal in the UK weakened Australia's trust with its media. 

I have to say for me at least it definitely did.

So when the media enquiry was first proposed it was certainly interesting to see the different reactions. 

In a nutshell, those opposing the enquiry (mainly members of the media itself) see it as a threat to the freedom of the press. 

I find this a bit of a contradiction, considering after all the incredible concentration of Australia's media content. 

I think Jeremy Seer of Crikey makes a good point when he says that:

"Just what kind of freedom of the press can we have when one company controls more than half of it? What kind of freedom of the press do we have when the barriers to entry are high? It might not be difficult to start a website, but what about the many Australians whose only source of news is the printed newspaper or the broadcast media?"

However while the exact terms of reference are not yet known, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has said that the enquiry will not target News Limited and that the reasons go far beyond just issues of ownership. 

"Quality Journalism is under threat in this country. 

"Not because of any individual or any organisation. Technological change is sweeping across the sector," he said. 

On the other side and perhaps in a less surprising statement, News Limited themselves have slammes the enquiry as regrettable.

 “This inquiry started life as a witch-hunt by the Greens and has morphed into a fairly
narrow look at a mixed bag of issues ostensibly focussed on print journalism,” News Ltd CEO John Hartigan said.

“Any substantive inquiry into the media should cover all media and all media equally,
particularly if it intends to investigate the need for a new overarching regulatory
system".

What do you think?

No matter what side of the fence you sit on the next few months are sure to be interesting!

Let's Talk about Twitter

I used to be the biggest sceptic of Twitter. Mainly because I didn’t get it, but also because I had never tried it and the idea of people ‘tweeting’ their heart and soul in 75 characters or less seemed a little bit silly.

But, in the last month I have become quite obsessed with it and I have to say it has become an integral part of my day. Having the app on my phone, it is a constant source of information for me from news, events, gossip, recipes and the list goes on.

Yet from a journalistic point of view, I still don’t understand why it is seen as such a threat?

Yes there are some people on Twitter who may hinder the news gathering process, but just don’t follow them.

The strength of this platform is that you seek out who you, and others deem to be credible. Just like journo’s back in the day who had a little black book of credible sources, it’s all about building a network.  

When social media like Twitter is embraced by journalists, and used correctly and with care, than its use for news gathering processes is almost unlimited right?

This being said, every system has its flaws and the somewhat lack of accountability for Twitter users is probably the biggest down fall of the network itself.

You can post anything and it doesn’t have to be true.  

Take the recent case in Mexico where  two twitter users are now facing thirty years in  jail after they wrongly reported an armed attack on a local school.

The full story can be read here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/06/us-mexico-twitter-idUSTRE7857PN20110906

Still, in regards to the news gathering process any good journalist will be critical of their sources, and in the case of twitter it’s not so much who you know, but who you follow.

Bad Journalism of Bad PM?

In last Mondays Australian Newspaper, journalist Glenn Milne claimed that before Prime Minister Julia Gillard entered Parliament she had been unknowingly implicated in a major union fraud while she was working as a lawyer in Melbourne.

The article was deemed false and incorrect in its allegation toward the Prime Minister and was soon repudiated by the paper who also made an apology acknowledging that the accusations were untrue and unsubstantiated.

 In fact Mr. Milne had made no attempt to contact her for a comment before the story was published.

 The apology published by The Australian read:

 "THE AUSTRALIAN published today an opinion piece by Glenn Milne which includes assertions about the conduct of the Prime Minister. The Australian acknowledges these assertions are untrue. The Australian also acknowledges no attempt was made by anyone employed by, or associated with, The Australian to contact the Prime Minister in relation to this matter.The Australian unreservedly apologises to the Prime Minister and to its readers for the publication of these claims."

 Since this ‘incident’ Mr. Milne has since been sacked by the ABC as a panellist on The Insiders.

 Another journalist caught up in this whole debacle is News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt, who has further attacked the Prime Minister for interfering with the freedom of the press.

There has been much discussion about this story, especially with fellow students.

 While some think that Mr. Milne’s column was clear cut example of poor journalism, that is not adhering to facts and accuracy, others feel that this is a deliberate obstruction the power of the press and that the Prime Minister has over-reacted and abused her authority.

 What do you think?

 Being the unbiased reporter that I am, here are some links to a number of stories, from different sides discussing the matter.

- http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/prime-ministers-hand-overplayed/story-e6frfifx-1226125924173
- http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-yarn-claims-scalp-20110906-1jw00.html- http://asiancorrespondent.com/64093/the-abcs-scandalous-silencing-of-glenn-milne/
- http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/media-needs-to-lift-standards-albanese-20110831-1jlea.html

I would like to draw your attention to a fantastic quote by Tim Dunlop, from a great opinion piece entitled ‘The Impossibility of Journalism’ from The Drum.

 He says, “Unfortunately for journalists, the impossibility of what they do does not let them off the hook. In fact, it is the very impossibility of what they do that defines their profession as a profession, and it is their ongoing battle to deal with the inherent contradictions in what they do that defines their success or failure”.

 You can read the full piece here: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2864816.html