Most journalists believe that they are independent, brave and noble fighters for freedom, truth, democracy, accountability … like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They have a Press Council code of conduct and employers’ code of ethics that instruct them to act as such. But they are codes honoured more in the breach. That’s because most journalists … and their employers … don’t have what it takes to be Woodward and Bernstein.
So, they find themselves having to deal with a host of grubbier things in the great sausage-machine world of getting the next story. They trample over each other to get their next story. They abandon their principles and independence and do deals to get their next story or to ingratiate themselves with the big shots in town, such as those who run the AFL.
In a survey a couple of years ago, journalists came in fourth last on the profession respect totem pole, just above ladies of the night, politicians and second-hand car salesmen. As new legislation makes it harder and harder for second-hand car salesman to do dodgy deals that comparison with journalists is no longer valid. Yet, as they go about their squalid ways, most journalists continue to believe they still are independent, brave and noble fighters for freedom, truth, democracy and accountability. In their work places, they keep telling each other that is what they do. They believe their own PR so much they even give themselves awards (Walkleys) for their self-perceived noble efforts.
One year, a gong was won by a Sydney Morning Herald journalist David Leser whose article contained 36 direct quotes. Thirty-three were from unnamed sources. On over twenty occasions the Walkley winner denigrated his target by making allegations based on terms such as ‘some people’; ‘said one’; ‘said another’; ‘says a third’; ‘it is understood’; ‘according to some’; ‘in some quarters’; ‘well-placed sources’; ‘some say’; ‘said two of his close confidants’; ‘the rumours’; ‘extraordinary rumour’; ‘one source’; ‘some of his friends’; ‘many in the Cabinet’; ‘well-placed sources’; ‘says one friend’; ‘according to those who know but declined to be named’; ‘sources close to’; ‘it’s understood’; ‘party colleagues and friends’; ‘could it have been?’; ‘reportedly’; ‘he could often been heard demanding [by unnamed sources]’; Sadly, this journalist’s success obviously inspired a couple of high-flying Melbourne journalists to write in the same way. Recipients for some Walkleys in 2013 were just as undeserving.
There’s not a lot you can do to change that narcissistic behaviour because journalists are the worst people in the world for admitting they are wrong. When other people make mistakes, they hound them into admission, believing it to be their noble duty to do so.
Trying to get a journalist to correct his or her mistake is like trying to get former AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, to admit he is not God.
We’ve all see those miniscule corrections buried deep within a newspaper for the major blunder the day before that has destroyed someone’s reputation or livelihood, or both. The Press Council and all those other bodies that allegedly are the watchdogs of the media are pretty much asleep in their kennels. Even when roused, they merely wag their tails, rather than snarling out the errors of the media. So, they too, become part of the great illusion that most journalists are noble fighters for freedom, truth, democracy and accountability.
The fight for freedom, truth, democracy and accountability should begin not out in the community but in the very newsrooms of the journalists themselves. Journalists who are dictated to about what they should write by editors should start their noble fight there. Instead, they kowtow to often unwritten rules about what can be written or join agendas set by those above them … I was tempted to say superiors but there is little that is superior about many of them.
Nowhere has that grubbiness been more on display in the way the media, particularly the Victorian incarnation of it, handled the AFL’s involvement in the alleged use by Essendon of performance enhancing substances. As truth, justice and accountability went up in flames, there was the Melbourne media with the next can of petrol to throw on the bonfire in order to ingratiate themselves with the AFL. Bowser after bowser of leaks were poured onto the conflagration so arrogantly created by those at the AFL who were arsonists in firemen’s uniforms.
The paper that carries as its motto “Independent Always” allowed itself to become a mouthpiece for the pyromaniacs in firefighters’ uniforms. The newspaper that outsells everyone else in Australia found a few cans of water but too often found it was easier to get petrol from the firefighters than try and pump water.
Where are the journalists who ask those questions and keep asking them until they are answered? Too busy being grubby to get their next story or cosying up to the AFL to get their next can of petrol to help burn the reputation of the next poor sod the AFL decides it doesn’t like, or needs to make a scapegoat for its own failings. So, we have a subset of this book: Guilty, The Media or James Hird?
Before addressing the individual breaches, it is important to understand some of the journalists’ obligations. The Age Code of Conduct goes on for pages and pages and includes passages from Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance: Australia Journalists Association Code of Ethics. Key elements include:
i. “The overriding principles are fairness, integrity, openness, responsibility and commitment to accuracy and truth.”
ii. “Staff should seek to act always in the best interests of the public and the maintenance of good faith with the community we serve, rather than for the benefit of sectional interests” [such as the AFL {my qualification}].
iii. “Investigating and exposing hypocrisy, falsehoods or double standards of behaviour by public figures or institutions. It also includes protecting public health and safety.”
iv. “Staff should seek to present only fair, balanced and accurate material.”
v. “Where a significant inaccuracy or distortion has been published, The Age should publish a correction or clarification promptly.”
vi. “Sources promised confidentiality must be protected at all costs. However, where possible the sources of information should be identified as specifically as possible.”
vii. “Staff should be alert to conflicts of interests that may arise and declare to the Editor or an appropriate senior editor any real or perceived conflict of interest that arises or is foreseen.”
viii. “Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree, without first considering the source’s motive and any alternative attributable source.”