Dig a little deeper, pry a little further

by Jenna Hancock

Dreamy aspirations of journalism often include the romantic lenses of honesty, truth and fairness. What goes to broadcast or print serves the purpose of the public’s interest and ultimately disperses fact into the clear skies of news telling. Well it appears the clouds are gathering over journalism professionals as they are constantly questioning their role as the fourth estate. It seems their job investigating people and events is being turned on its head as the new form of peeping toms and literary paparazzi are being lowered from their pedestals from some the writers within the profession itself. 

Journalists are paid to break the news and dig up the stories with the juiciest dirt. But what is the result when private matters become the latest headline and people are becoming the latest victims of tabloid journalism? The result is the disappointing reality that not all writing is done with a fair and honest hand.

The plight of personal privacy in Australia’s media is gradually fading to an extinct value as more publications and news bureaus turn to celebrity gossip and news that sees what personal information lies underneath the surface of a known face. The likes of celebrity model Lara Bingle are continually seen splashed across the front pages of women’s magazines joined by a banner of private issues being made public. Earlier in the year Bingle announced she would be suing a former boyfriend for a breach of privacy over a leaked nude photograph. Sadly because of her reputation at the time there was little support shown for her fight for personal privacy. Jessica Lake, doctoral student of Melbourne University and writer for the Sydney Morning Herald wrote that the privacy elements breached by the published photo of Bingle held no concern for the viewing public, saying that there was “even less appreciation of the legal and ethical issues involved.”

For Karen Brook, Associate Professor of Media Studies at Southern Cross University, her work and research on cultural media studies has lead her to believe that privacy is often abandoned by journalists and the media and the reason is so that audiences are made to feel they have to know personal information. “I think it’s because of the way it’s been packaged. Not only is it presented as ‘news’ infotainment and there as something we ‘need’ to know about, but because in our very pop culture focussed world, it gives the informed social currency,” she says. The writers of such news are aware of reader’s and viewer’s demands to be met with the latest gossip and Brook thinks this has made our journalists slow on the job but quick to inform the celebrity culture we have adopted. “It’s a distracted time and the culture we create, but I think to a degree it is also quick, convenient and frankly, lazy journalism,” Brook says.

Politics and privacy are constantly thrown into the media blender as policy making figures are attracting the same attention as celebrities in the same style of reporting. In May 2010, the personal life of New South Wales Transport Minister David Campbell came under the scrutiny of the Australian public as Channel Seven destroyed his career and reputation with mere seconds of low quality night time footage. The vision captured Mr Campbell leaving a gay sex club in a ministerial car. The story revealed itself to be the secret of a family man who lived dual lives for decades. The story resulted in the resignation of Mr Campbell and saw him red faced, ashamed and sorry for his personal battles. Channel Seven swept the story under the ‘in the public’s interest’ rug and claimed Mr Campbell had been lying to electorate by campaigning as a family man. The story was met with criticism from some writers and journalists within the industry itself, some who even doubt whether they could write such a story themselves. Sydney Morning Herald sub editor, James Polson looks at the case of Mr Campbell and hopes he is never faced with that decision. “I’d like to be high and mighty and say I absolutely wouldn’t, and I don’t think I would, but until I’m in such a situation myself it’s hard to say. There might be pressures from above to run it, which is something you can’t really control,” he says.

Miranda Devine, known columnist for The Daily Telegraph and formerly of The Sydney Morning Herald condemned Channel Seven for the salacious story in article entitled A family man beyond our Ken. Devine’s article argued that the media’s disgusting display of personal information held surprisingly modest reactions from the Australian public. “Reactions quickly morphing from surprise and mirth to distaste for media prurience and sympathy for the round, red-faced walrus-moustached NSW Minister for Transport,” she wrote.

Sympathy for David Campbell is a sure sign that the media got it wrong. Channel Seven sent journalists Adam Walters on the trail for a story that should never been broadcast due to its reliance on private information that pertained to Mr Campbell’s sexuality. When asked if Mr Campbell was treated unfairly, Karen Brooks didn’t pause to answer. “Absolutely and unequivocally. His sexuality or sexual choices did not impact upon his work performance. It was salacious and unethical reporting at its worst,” she says pointedly.

However some writers in the profession do understand from a media perspective why the story was given a go ahead. Port Macquarie Prime journalist Clementine Johnson can see why the story seemed so appealing to an audience of Australian voters and taxpayers. “He is accountable to the public and therefore his private life is of public interest, if it is going to jeopardise his ability to conduct his work, or represent a group of people,” she says. Johnson believes that it the ability of a good and honest reporter to sum up the information present and then make a conscious choice as to its newsworthiness and if it fulfils the criteria of serving the public’s interest. If given the choice to tell the same story, Johnson says she would make sure all the boxes are ticked before she went ahead. “I would first make sure I have all my facts and fully understand the context to which he was involved. Then I would use my news judgement to work out whether his actions compromise his work ethic or reflects badly on the people he represents,” she says. However Johnson does conceive that some private issues should not be revealed if they do not fulfil the public’s interest. “I do think private matters which are not of public significance, should have their privacy respected,” she says. Many stories, similar to the Mr Campbell’s however escape these moral plights and become public knowledge warranted or not.

The footage showed Mr Campbell leaving a gay sex club and using his ministerial car to do so. It was simply a captured private moment outside of his duties as a state minister. Channel Seven news chief, Peter Meakin played up the use of the ministerial car and this became the news channel’s argument for allowing the story to go to air. Meakin maintained that the purpose of the story was not to make news of his sexual choices but to demonstrate Campbell’s lack of commitment to his portfolio, suggesting he used his ministry appointed car inappropriately (a theory which was later debunked) and to defraud the Minister’s claim that he was a family man. In her article, Miranda Devine wrapped up her column on the former Minister for Transport by arguing that Mr Campbell was wrongly persecuted by the media and the sum of his personal life cannot be captured by the story shown by Seven news. “Campbell’s identity is not encapsulated in a two hour session at Ken’s of Kensington on Tuesday night. He is still a family man,” she concluded.  

These distasteful parts of journalism, some say are all apart of doing the job and stepping up in the newsroom hierarchy. It’s about dissecting the information, and if it’s private or sensitive you either follow your gut or follow your chief of staff.  Pressures from news boss are something never far from the journalist’s mind. Sydney Morning Herald sub editor, James Polson looks at the case of Mr Campbell and hopes he is never faced with that decision. “I’d like to be high and mighty and say I absolutely wouldn’t, and I don’t think I would, but until I’m in such a situation myself it’s hard to say. There might be pressures from above to run it, which is something you can’t really control,” he says. If personal is what the boss wants, then that’s what the boss expects.

Michael Morrissey, former reporter of the Maitland Mercury cum lawyer says politicians have to be prepared for the journalists who go a bit further to get a story about their personal life. “Politicians again, you get lots of backroom info when you know people but all aspects of their personal lives, including sordid pasts and affairs, and you again need to weigh up the public utility. Part of getting that info and holding it close to your chest builds the trust that allows you to do real stories or real issues,” Morrissey explains. When working for the Maitland Mercury, Morrissey recalls writing ‘naming and shaming’ stories. “I’ve only ever done a couple but I dislike then, Where someone has done something inappropriate but not illegal,” he explains. When asked if he would write about Mr Campbell’s personal life in the same manner as the Channel Seven’s Adam Walters the answer was quite simply no due to the personal nature of the information. “No. At least not in that circumstance. There was absolutely no utility to the outing. It didn’t achieve anything except shame a man and his family,” he says shaking his head. The former journalist says privacy is something we all want but not something we all enjoy, depending on who we are and what we’ve done. “Privacy is absolutely an inherent value that should only be compromised to the extent that a person chooses to compromise by their own actions. But it is a value and a not a right and so much harder to enforce,” he says.

Privacy is an idyllic value many citizens and media professions need to regard with more importance. The loss of privacy often deals a heavy blower to the loser, resulting in public shame and a fall in grace. As reporters we place our morals and journalism codes in one hand and in the other we hold the private information that can turn an individual’s world upside down. As journalists we strive to be fair, honest and write with integrity but when a sensational story with all the exclusive details come along, some journalists and chief of staff find it hard to resist making the headlines. The journalists spoken to for this article all agreed on one thing, privacy is an essential lesson that the media need to be reminded of.

  

Although he no longer writes professionally, Morrissey is still an avid supporter of the role of the journalist but thinks privacy needs to be more clearly defined. “I think privacy is still a solid aspect of journalism in principal. It’s just the lines between what’s private and what it public are being continually blurred. Drawing the line is harder than it ever used to be, but that doesn’t mean to say it can’t be and I think it is a contingent of the fourth estate to do so,” Morrissey says.

David Campbell’s private sex life became public knowledge under a thinly veiled excuse of public knowledge. His job as a state minister was in no way compromised as he visited Ken’s at Kensington or lied to his family; those are private matters that bore no effect on his state responsibilities. Public figures should not be subject to the desperate headlines of the media. In a speech made to the Centre for Advanced Journalism in August of this year, former Prime Minister Paul Keating told media professionals they need to rethink the current cultural model of gossip journalism. “Industry leaders and the profession itself should acknowledge that the current ‘free for all’ cannot go on. That invading the privacy of celebrities, starlets, models and sometimes ordinary non consenting members of the public, has nought to do with the public interest and everything to do with the profit flowing,” Keating concluded. Perhaps it is wise for all journalists to have a hard look in the mirror and see what side of journalism they want to be on when the walls of privacy start to hold firm.

new to the newsroom

The newsroom is often portrayed by Hollywood as the centre of news action and a place of independence. After recently completing a work experience in a television newsroom, I'm starting to doubt the free will of journalists at large and find myself looking at news releases as the major source of news for newsrooms.

Does the image of a media release create a different version to what we have conjured in our own minds of how journalists find their stories?

I find it somewhat disappointing that the morning check of an email now directs a journalist as to what stories will be selected for the broadcast at the end of the business day. Understandably some days are slow in terms of news stories but what I really found amusing was journalists referring to PR practitioners as 'hacks'. But when a journalist needs that 'hack' there is little complaint.

Ethically Speaking..

Ethics is a concern that many professionals in any industry confront at some stage or another, and there is no difference for journalists. As a student of journalism, questions of ethics are thrown around quite often and I think we all try to look at the matter a little more romantically than what the reality calls for.

Some media critics see ethical journalism as a oxymoron that helps some journos sleep at night and forget their dodgy dealings. Ethics in modern journalism can concern the price at which journalists and news outlets will pay for a story. I've learnt from being a news consumer and studying the profession that not all journalism is about hard work or digging up the story and getting interviews easily. If people have a great story to sell that will appeal to a mass audience, chances are they are going to sell to the highest bid.

After some discussion about this topic in my journalism class, it got me thinking about the Beaconsfield miners who were trapped in a Victorian mine in April 2006.

 The two miners from Beaconsfield, trapped underground, sold their story to Channel Nine after a bidding war erupted for a reported $2 million. Chequebook journalism is not a new thing to the profession, however seeing such large amounts can be a little perturbing for some with a idyllic reality of journalism and the methods for getting a story and the interviewees along with it.  Nicola Goc and Jason Bainbridge's The Beaconsfield mine disaster and the evolution of chequebook journalism looks at nature of chequebook journalism and how news has changed to values of entertainment and exclusivity, and not traditional news values. 

Looking over Goc and Bainbridge's analysis, I'm most interested by the miner's bold attitude towards the competing television stations bidding for their dramatic story. Todd Russell demanded Eddie McGuire, the then CEO of Channel Nine to "tell me how big your chequebook is and we'll talk" on national television on Nine's The Footy Show.

I think chequebook journalism is placing power and control into the hands of the original storyteller - the public. Todd Russell's demands were met with an applause from the audience and eventually a deal and $2 million from Channel Nine. The media in these situations are reduced to bidders at a story auction. They gain a story which will last 24 hours and hopefully gain them an increase in audience and then its onto the next bid.

Your truth or my truth?

A journalist's position to disseminate information and news requires an ability to remain objective and truthful. Conley and Lamble say that "the best journalists are on a crusade but it is never personal" (2006: xiii). This romantic view of journalism is a slowly slipping standard in some newsrooms.

Journalists are encouraged to immerse themselves in the culture on which they report. Remaining objective and unbiased in some conditions can almost be considered a turn against pre-structures. As humans we naturally form ideas, opinions and reality based upon what we call our own social understanding. However as mentioned before at the start of this post, a journalists profession does not primarily revolve around opinion, most of the time it calls for a balanced view of news and facts so the audience can judge for itself.

Truth and lies spell the black and white debate of journalism. However withholding information and failing to tell audiences crucial information is an important aspect of journalism as well. ABC Media Watch in August 2009 caught out Channel Ten news in QLD as they mislead the public on current real estate market opportunities. Media Watch's story was entitled TEN'S Real Estate Trifecta and showed a reporter interviewing what appears to be investors in QLD's markets but as Media Watch uncovers, they are actually employees of Ray White Real Estate in a QLD suburb. The reporter on the story failed to mention the role of their talent and ultimately lead the public to believe they were investors.

Is the naming and shaming of untrustworthy news sources enough or is there a way to put a stop to lies and deception? Unfortunately for now, there isn't. However a journalist should aim to be truthful about their own subjectivity and keep a watchful eye on it as they investigate stories so they can produce honest and balanced work.

Playing with private matters

Privacy is something we assume naturally belongs to us and no one else. How wrong we were.

The news values are structured so that what ever is current, timely, personable, within proximity, personality/celebrity based, interesting or even ground breaking makes news. Within these news values lies stories that can injure or bring forth issues that are apart of someone's privacy. Journalism is a profession based on hard research, that may take on unusual forms to get to the heart of an issue, or an underlying facet that can be brought to light to discredit or shame someone.

The AJA Code of Ethics states that journalists "do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability." In light of these recommendations, why do some stories still go ahead when there are clear privacy issues prevalent?

It's in the public's interest. This is the reasoning behind many stories that contain breaches of privacy. Journalists and media organisations can throw weight behind a story that involves research and footage that brings forth unsavoury personal information. 

An example of this is NSW's former Transport Minister David Campbell who was forced to resign after Channel Seven ran a story earlier in the year that showed Mr Campbell leaving a gay club in a Ministerial car. Channel Seven attempted to defend their expose by saying that it was run in the best interest of the public as Campbell was not living up to the reputation of a state minister. He was accused of abusing his car privileges (it came out later that it was within his right to use the car for personal matters) and misleading his electorate.  

This is an example of ignored privacy and unethical practice. It is within the best interests of each journalism in the field or studying to enter the field that not only can the reputation of the subject be seriously damaged but so can the author. Simply writing up the saucy story that underlies many problems within the fabric of ethics is not writing to be celebrated but rather frowned upon and thrown into the rubbish bin.  

Tweets, Twits and Twists

It is exciting that journalism is a multifaceted profession with many areas that need constant attention. However the rise of citizen journalism and social networking sites is causing significant problems for the industry, users and problematic messages sent into a vast world of everyone and the unknown.

In the media recently, Olympic gold medalist Stephanie Rice has been slapped over the wrists after she wrote homophobic remarks on Twitter. The Sydney Morning Herald reported the story as "anti-social networking." Now, it is believable that Rice only wrote 'suck on that faggots' after she was caught up in the moment after watching the Australian rugby team beat South Africa. But what is inappropriate is the phrase and use of language she used will probably be forgotten in a week after she wins us another gold medal. Journalists in a similar case would lose their job, be blacklisted from many employment opportunities afterwards and gain unpleasant career file footage. What I am getting at is the disadvantages for anyone with an opinion and a social networking account to express opinions. Journalists rightfully reap what they sow every day, and so should those citizens using literary and journalistic tools.  Foot-in-mouth is a common problem faced by users of social networking sites and journalists who use the Twitter site in and after work hours.

The social networking site can be used successfully by media organisations and journalists for researching purposes and constant streams of updates. Journalists have taken up Twitter fever with many signing up to find out whats going in other areas of journalism and what is making news amongst citizens and celebrities. The Australian ran a story in June 2009 when the social site was just coming into full bloom and catching every media outlet's attention. Immediacy and reporting on the ground as events occur are important elements in journalism and tweeting can afford journalists to constantly update as stories occur and be updated.

Global diversity or local community?

The war rages between global new sources and the humble local news that supports the surrounding and directly involved community. Does this lead to questions of allegiance, business or merely an issue of preferred news sources?

The dominance of global media and the media companies who control many varieties of news are constantly called into question over their bias, direction and overall content. Global media firms are commonly controlled by American organisations and investors, and frequently hold second tier firms who work out of other countries but remain under the same roof and business/news model. Student journalists are taught that these media companies are leading to a shrinking diversity, ownership bias and manipulative filters, affect the integrity of the journalism profession and are ultimately leading to the downfall of localised media. This to me are harsh sentiments to a timeless news model to which society has adapted.

The questionable freewill of journalists lies within any organisation, whether it be multinational or a privately owned county paper. The underlying message and content of all news is created and spooned from a higher authority in the media chain. The hierarchy of newsrooms and the ownership of media outlets disseminate news values which have become the expected voice and opinion of certain subcultures, sectors, groups and individuals in society.

The small versus the large is an argument played out on many stages. The news and environments in which it is streamed can be for the intended audience of many or in the case of as many as you can get. Small news publications should be solely focused on their immediate vicinity and the news that affects their community markets whilst larger national and global news resources can look towards larger stories that deserve more journalists and resources. 

Will you pay for new journalism?

Journalism is a profession that relies on the flow and output of ideas, opinion and advertising to bring in money. Thus making it apart of a commercial industry driven by the pursuit of profit and commercial status. As this profession starts to evolve and change to new online media, should we paying for this content like we do with other traditional media?

The business of news is ever consuming and can be found in most public arenas through public conversation, hard copies such a newspapers, on television screens, radios and also on hand held devices which come with internet capabilities. We are paying for news in every type of instance. We buy the device that transmits our news and the services (internet, electricity, cars etc) that allow the news to enter our own personal environment and in some cases we pay for the hard copy.

When online news, the new kid on the journalism block, starts asking for users to pay and subscribe, will this be a cost one too many for news seekers?

Murdoch, owner of The Times has made the London online news version a subscription only read. Murdoch's reasoning for the change came down to changing the business model of newspapers in order to gain more revenue outside of advertising. Online news sources popularity initially rose out of its accessibility and free content. If more news outlets with an online medium turn to similar subscription fess like Murdoch are there more outlets to follow and start charging?

Modern society incurs many costs and ongoing fees but paying for something that was once assumed as free will be a tough pill to swallow for many online news observers. A suggestion to soften the blow would be for niche online news (business, finance, specific sports, fashion etc) to make the switch to subscription based reading ahead of common headline news.

Citizen Journalism or a Public Conversation?

Is a citizen journalist the real deal or a mere representation of opinion and gossip?

Journalism and the reporting of news and events is one of the world's oldest professions and that it should remain. Employment in the media requires study at tertiary level and often work experience or internships to step a foot into the competitive industry. The new tirade of blogs, online journals and social networking web sites serve their own function in the realm of commentary and social conversation but do not require degrees, experience or an employer backing your journalism. As a student journalist in her final semester of study, herein lies the difference for me between professional journalist and a citizen journalist. 

Citizen journalism has an effective way of setting the news agenda for media and news outlets and I think this is an important role for audiences of the news. David McKnight, author of the article 'Public Journalism' states that the media have a new responsibility of listening to the public and the news they are engaging with, ignoring and participating in. McKnight says that the media's perception of news audiences are outdated and no longer include "customers to be wooed or audiences to be entertained" but instead modern audiences instill "a public capable of action".

However citizen journalism needs to be kept at arms length in order to differentiate between news and citizen opinion. One of the undeniable problems I find with blogs and social networking sites is its rush for expediency and ignorance of truth, privacy and consequence. An important reference point for journalists working in the Australian media industry is the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) Code of Ethics. The Media Alliance Code of Ethics states that the news be reported with integrity, honesty, fairness and the hallmarks of respect and professional reporting. If bloggers and social networking sites are to be considered professional journalism they need to adhere to or provide a set of governed rules that can regulate their content before publishing goes ahead.