media
12 Nov 2009
The Future Of Journalism Needs Journalists
The ABC's Mark Scott likes describing the media future as a 'town square', but is very quiet on how actual investigative journalism fits into that, writes Marni Cordell
It's official: ABC managing director Mark Scott is the darling of new media. He's been working on the image for some time, making regular appearances at media conferences and using every opportunity available to spruik his vision for the public broadcaster as a virtual "town square".A year ago, I identified this trend and questioned whether it was the right direction for the ABC to be taking. Now that he has the support of a chorus of journalists and new media types it's even more urgent that we scrutinise this shift for what it is.
Last week Scott spoke at the Media140 conference in Sydney about the ABC's plans to transform the ABC into a hub for user-generated content, announcing that he would soon open at least 50 new positions for digital media trainers across the country. The ABC Open Project, to be launched next year, will see more than 50 digital media producers stationed in ABC centres around Australia. Their job will be to teach the punters how to upload their own content to the ABC's website.
Scott announced: "Educating Australians to create their own media will in turn benefit other media organisations around the country as more and more people learn the skills to be able to engage using digital media."
Scott's speech was warmly welcomed by most if not all of the journalists, new media pundits and academics in attendance at Media140. Not a single hard-hitting question was asked of him at the time — or indeed, since, in any coverage of the event that I have read (people seem to be too busy firing shots at the very soft target of News Ltd journalist Caroline Overington who dared to talk about her own media organisation's digital 'vision'). I find this bizarre.
Don't get me wrong, I think Scott's efforts to align himself with the cutting edge of digital technology are commendable — a good public broadcaster should keep on top of new media developments and the ABC has mostly done so pretty well.
But how is that going to contribute to the production of "quality journalism" that these very same people like to fret about? Missing from this debate — and from the uncritical applauding of Scott's foray into community-driven content — seems to be a collective recognition that Scott oversees a very large part of a dwindling resource: that is, money to be spent on good, original journalism.
It has been suggested by some media commentators (Eric Beecher at Crikey and Jeff Sparrow at newmatilda.com, among others) that Australia needs a publicly funded newspaper to fill the gap in the market that will be left by the decline of commercial newspapers. But there has been little scrutiny by these same commentators of the journalism that the taxpayer already funds. How much of this can be defined as "quality" or "investigative", and is the ABC looking at ways to increase this output in response to an industry in decline? Indeed, how does the public broadcaster intend to fulfil its legislated role — as outlined in its 1983 charter — to step in where the market fails?
The ABC news rooms across the country do a great job of providing fair and balanced daily news. No serious commentator could question their commitment to this or the fact that they do it, in the most part, very well.
But what about investigative journalism? What about the journalism that isn't based on a government press release but on information that has been dug up through the journalist's own initiative — the kind of journalism that exposes things that those in power would prefer remained hidden.
Indeed, what is investigative journalism — and how do we go about measuring its health in the current Australian media environment?
James Ettema and Theodore Glasser, authors of a key text on investigative journalism Custodians of Conscience, argue that the difference between the daily news journalist and the investigative journalist is their relationship to those in positions of power. That is: the daily reporter ordinarily accepts statements from governments and other official institutions as true — or if not true, then at least as worthy of reporting — while the investigative journalist's role is to test claims made by the authorities.
How much of the ABC's journalism fits the latter definition?
Based on a very preliminary research project that I undertook looking at the output of ABC TV's flagship investigative program, Four Corners, the answer is: not as much as should. Of the 30 Four Corners stories I analysed, only 15 fit all the criteria of investigative journalism. (The results of the study can be found in this month's Pacific Journalism Review.)
Imagine what 50 new investigative journalist positions would do to turn this situation around.
It's time the impressive body of academics, journalists and commentators who regularly gather to discuss the "future of journalism" turned their critical attention to the one organisation that will survive the predicted collapse of commercial media models.
Let's help Mark Scott down off the pedestal and start asking him some hard questions about his budget commitment to investigative journalism. You know, like journalists.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Good post Marni, at least somebody is asking if the emperor has any clothes. I think this bit is particularly relevant
A cynic might suggest that most of the support for this activity is self-serving, both on the part of the ABC and the advocates of new media.
Marni wrote: "Not a single hard-hitting question was asked of him at the time"
- Um, I asked the very first question of Mark at Media140, which was ‘Are you going to pay the public for their contributions and if so, where will that leave journalists, especially freelancers, if you’re getting free or cheap content from the public?’
His answer was ‘I don’t know, we haven’t worked that out yet.’
But I did ask! :)
Hi katfox,
My apologies. I remember it now. It was a good question, and I think we both know the answer!
Cheers Marni
I would have thought all journalism is ‘investigative’ and demands to be backed up with facts and evidence, irregardless of the medium in which it is presented.
It therefore must be only reporters who regurgitate these secondhand facts for daily media consumption, never journalists.
Same people, just wearing different hats for different acts.
Digital media may be the future (and is already in a large way, a part of the present state) of journalism, but it is really only a ‘medium’ by which the information is transferred or transmitted, and it is not an end in itself.
The big difference today is that most people are connected to the internet and can follow up media driven stories by investigating further themselves, sometimes finding new and interesting facts and evidence to either confirm, confuse or contradict the mainstream information delivered.
"That is: the daily reporter ordinarily accepts statements from governments and other official institutions as true — or if not true, then at least as worthy of reporting — while the investigative journalist’s role is to test claims made by the authorities. "
How ironic that newmatilda published this article when it continues to censor opposing views to the climate change debate
Hmm.. one of my pet topics. I have said in other forums on this issue that democracy only works when the voters make good choices and they can only make good choices when they are informed with a variety of views. No argument: private media publishes and agenda to a niche and it is only the public media that can really take on the role of unbiased public informer. However the media organisation over which Scott presides is so morally and ethically corrupt, in journalistic standards, that it is probably beyond saving. The gushing 7:30 interview with Rudd’s wide was enough to make any reasonable person ill.
However what Scott proposes is one thing that may save the ABC: allowing comment on their so called investigative articles. Perhaps even involving the public in setting up interviews and questions BEFORE the fact. But that is of course if the "administrators" or "moderators" do not censor any debate.
The question as to remuneration is not relevant: the public does not need a staff of researchers to track down and follow up stories, they do not need to be present in a studio and their role is not to generate the stories, at least not directly, but rather to add comment and debate, to ask questions that should or could have been asked, to point out errors or omissions; in short to keep both the journalist and interviewee honest. In sense the journalist’s role may change slightly to be more of a facilitator to direct the questions that the public want answered to the politicians etc.
"The ABC news rooms across the country do a great job of providing fair and balanced daily news. No serious commentator could question their commitment to this or the fact that they do it, in the most part, very well."
I would have to totally disagree with that statement, and I think that I am a reasonably serious commentator. I spend a lot of time trying to listen to ABC Radio and watching ABC/SBS TV (at least that small segment that comes to the Qld. bush) and I find it utterly pathetic in it’s coverage of world events.
The ABC can be totally relied upon to keep to the Conservative (Lib/Lab) Government/establishment line on all matters. No alternative views are allowed on News segments, although some specialist programmes occasionally do cover some other views, very briefly and much censored. It is utterly shocking some times to watch SBS News in the evening and then the ABC News, and see the extreme difference in coverage of an event. At least the SBS does allow some divergent views to drift in sometimes.
With Scott and his all-Liberal Party appointed hacks still in control of the ABC ad SBS after nearly 2 years of the Krudd Govt. I do not suppose we can expect anything else.
I do a lot of exercising my democratic right these days….turn off the TV and Radio when it lapses beyond bearing into Liberal Party inspired puffery and idolatry (e.g. Fran Kelly) and Political PR release repeats.
Journalism…what journalism?!
My biggest bitch has to be with a radio and a TV programme on ABC, solely concerned with ‘journalists’ telling us how wonderful they are. I mean, puleeeease!!!!!
Other than that, I see that Fairfax Media have slipped back to pandering to the lowest common denominator (LCD!), with very little meat in the journalistic sandwich,and certainly NO spices! They are really doing their Swiss bit. Offend no advertisers or potential ones!
(p.s. I do not ever read News Ltd. so do not expect to be paying Rupert for his ‘journalists’ (Gawd, that would be a misnomer) output.)
The ABC just does not want to offend any Liberal Party backers out there. They do not care that they offend daily anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
Hi Marni,
The core of your argument - that the ABC should invest more investigative journalism due to market failure - is entirely true. I’m with you on that but the assumption that i question here is that it is somehow an either/or proposition or that you’re making the right comparison by looking at the "cutting edge of digital technology" as the counterpoint.
You could argue similarly that opening new regional radio stations, new digital channels, expanding Australian drama or any other priority area that the ABC has identified as a counterpoint to spending money on investigative journalism.
I also think you are looking at some of this in the wrong context. When the ABC invests in "50 new positions for digital media trainers across the country" i don’t see it as an investment in some high tech vision or in devaluing journalists but rather as an investment in local communites that is urgent and overdue.
Outside the capital cities local media has had the guts ripped out of it. There has been an even larger and more evident market failure in LOCAL media than there has been in investigative journalism and that the ABC has methodically (going back to pre Mark Scott) made the case to successive governments that it needs resources to address it. It is reaping that now - whether this is the best way to do it is grounds for legitimate debate but the situation is dire.
You’re right to say that a similar case should be made internally and externally for investigative journalism. I’d need a lot of convincing that this approach (or whatever evolves from it) isn’t desperately important in regional communities and is worth throwing out.
The ABC does a great job and provides some of Australia’s best journalistic content, especially given how traditional media have been tracking in light of both the GFC and struggling with online models anyway.
BUT, as nice as it is for the ABC to be enabling people to upload their content to the ABC’s "community hubs" those hubs will never truly be the community’s. For many communities it’s rather important for them to have a real say in how they are represented at a structural level. It’s not as easy as simply giving people a place to upload content and teaching them how to upload it. There needs to be structures in place for the creation of that content, the skill development of the creators and to ensure that the community hubs are actually representative of the communities they represent.
Communities need more involvement, or even better, true ownership over these platforms to truly meet their needs. Too often a "one-size-fits-all" approach is adopted to communities in the media and it’s surprising that the ABC would take such an approach.
It’s a quality issue too - It’s great to give people a platform to contribute Australian content and culture online, but without decent structures to help them frame and create that content, we risk being the laughing stock of the world by having heaps of content, but none of it worth consuming.
Community broadcasters would be well placed to do this, they already have a volunteer structure and have spend the last four decades producing quality content on the cheap but like other traditional media they need to adapt too and do it soon.
"The future of journalism is perhaps one of you folk realising the revolution is happening outside of capital cities." Have any of you people looked at the ABC Contribute community? Have any of you checked back on what content was uploaded by the community during the past 5/6 years of natural disasters in this country - what was loaded during the February 7 fires? Do any of you know what a 21st century Rural Reporter does - daily - for the ABC? And finally - when Marni says "…based on a very preliminary research project that I undertook looking at the output of ABC TV’s flagship investigative program, Four Corners…" I laugh. Out loud. Give me an academic who will trace how long it takes for a story appearing on the ABC Rural news feed to appear on News Ltd’s site. Give me an academic who will watch a Prime television news bulletin and see which words they’ve changed from the ABC News website. Give me SOMEONE who will recognise ABC Local Online’s birthday this year - 10 years!
And just a note to JBAdel on "It’s not as easy as simply giving people a place to upload content and teaching them how to upload it…" - I got two words: Flickr, Youtube. People are already doing it. The sooner we have a media academic actually drive outside of Melbourne or Sydney and observe one of the 40 or so radio/onine producers based around regional Australia to find out what really happens in the life of a cross-platform journo, the sooner you will catch up with Actual Reality.
A little less convention-conversation, a little more action!
Marni:
CPD’s Barry Saunders and I recently finished an academic paper on this issue for the Communications Policy Research Forum in Sydney, 20th November. The paper and PowerPoint slides should be released in the next few weeks.
The ‘future of journalism’ conferences are rarely about ‘the future’ – in terms of multiple possibilities – and often more about the current ‘hot topic’ (Twitter in 2009, Open Source in 2006). The audiences often appear to be polarised between two camps: (a) social media proponents and consultants who have a ‘silver bullet’ solution, and (b) journalists who feel ‘apologetic’ about not being in the (a) camp. This leaves out an ‘excluded middle’: people who have honed their craft and appreciate the platforms and technologies for what they can do, but who differentiate between the two. Note also Margaret Simons’ recent distinction between journalism as a ‘process’ and social media as a ‘platform’.
We make a distinction that ‘investigative journalism’ (in contrast to ProAm, Citizen Journalism, community journalism and other types, including non-investigative journalism) involves a sensitisation to contexts and specific skills – which may come from non-journalism areas. AFR’s Neil Chenoweth who ‘broke’ stories on Rupert Murdoch and Offset Alpine was trained as a forensic accountant, whilst Fortune’s Bethany McLean who ‘broke’ the Enron scandal was an investment banker. Kurt Eichenwald (The Informant) developed a specific note-taking style due to epilepsy.
This doesn’t negate the above discussion about the merits/interest in community journalism, it’s just (potentially) a different type of journalism, for a different context.
We found that there is an ‘invisible infrastructure’ within media institutions – fact-checkers, journalist networks, legal support, senior managers who ‘champion’ and ‘greenlight’ specific investigations – who support long-term investigations. William D. Cohan, Connie Bruck, Bryan Burrough and John Helyar spent 8-9 months on their respective investigations of Bear Stearns, Drexel Burnham Lambert, and RJR Nabisco. Many investigations take 2-3 years. Neil Chenoweth and Dexter Filkins spent over 10 years on their Murdoch and Afghanistan/Iraq stories. A ProAm or CJ or community journalist doesn’t have the economy of scale/scope or support to take such stories on, usually only a media institution can.
On James Ettema and Theodore Glasser: yes, ‘test the truth’, although statecraft increasingly knows how to deal with journalists who attempt to emulate Watergate-style investigations.
On ‘Four Corners’: the program’s change in editorial style has been evident for the past 5-7 years and particularly when compared with its past (Chris Masters) or with international counterparts (BBC’s Panorama, PBS ‘Frontline’). This includes the topics, the story angles, the narrative, the sources used, and the (obvious) sources who are not used. Some investigations are closer to the ‘old’ ‘Four Corners’ whilst others are closer to the public relations exercise of ‘Australian Story’: don’t ask too many difficult, uncomfortable questions.
Hi Marcus,
Thanks for a thought provoking comment. Actually, I’m looking at this initiative in the same context in which Mark Scott regularly presents it: the future of journalism debate. And this, in fact, is the very reason this shift concerns me: to present it as one solution to the challenges facing the traditional media in the near future speaks of a misunderstanding of those challenges.
As traditional media models come unstuck, we will not be short of outlets that can host user-generated content and commentary - this stuff sustains itself, as you know, because it is cheap (or free) and community building. The real gap in the market will be journalism that is expensive, difficult and time consuming to produce – and none is more so than the investigative kind.
Also, on the question of local media: do you think investment in user-generated content from the regions is preferable to reinvigorated local coverage? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Cheers Marni
Hi Alex,
Your research sounds really interesting, I look forward to learning more about it. Maybe you’d like to write something for NM on the topic? I’m keen to keep this conversation going.
Cheers, M
Marni,
Your article is welcome and timely.
Mark Scott should be asked to justify this dubious investment.
RE: "Imagine what 50 new investigative journalist positions would do to turn this situation around."
I would imagine 10 new invetigative journalists with two reasearchers each could make a significant impact in evaluating key policy areas and pledges made by this government.
What does it say about the ABC and Quality when that irresponsible and completely biased 4 corners programme on a certain night in NZ wins a Walkley.
The whole treatment of the incident made me sick and the was the worst piece of "Australian Journalism" I have seen in forty years.
The comments about regional media needing more support could not be more true. The online ABC local coverage in my region (nearby to a large regional city) is limited. The articles are short, few and usually taken from the local Fairfax-papers or the privately owned radio stations in any case. They are also several days behind the rest of the local media.
We suffer from the ABC radio station located in the nearby city having staff who know little about, and have few resources for, the rest of the region. The Fairfax papers are vibrant voices in their communities. However, I fear for what will happen to the public voice in my area, and those nearby, if Fairfax falls. There would be no scrutiny on our local council or businesses, because the ABC would continue to confine itself to the city despite claiming the entire region as its audience.
Local (instead of regional) services, including broadcasting and online news, are the best way for the ABC to move forward outside of the capital cities. If that includes community-created content, so be it. But that approach must only be part of the overall re-investment in local communities.