Questions to you journos
by Jack Robertson
Dear Ms Kingston,
May I make the following observations, and issue the Canberra Press community with a challenge?
Firstly, it might be salutary for all political correspondents to keep a couple of things in mind when it comes to grandstand bagging of the political system and individual members of Parliament (whichever side they represent). Ultimately, it and they are at least slightly accountable to the public. We vote pollies in (more fool us), but we can also vote them out, too.
Contrary to what many journos seem to think, I believe that this notion is uppermost in even the most arrogant Rep’s mind ninety nine percent of the time. Now, I don’t wish to be overly facetious, but I think a dash of personal humility from the heavyweight journos in Canberra wouldn’t go astray on occasion, because I certainly can’t remember ever voting for Laurie Oakes, Jim Middleton, Michelle Grattan, Christine Wallace, or yourself, yet you all have very influential forums when it comes to public debate, too.
I hasten to add that I don’t make this point because I don’t like journos (although plenty of Australians evidently don’t). I am concerned for your own collective long-term credibility, and if you start to set yourselves up as (unelected) ‘moralisers-on-our-behalf’, ultimately we are going to get tired of you. And if you can’t hold our attention, we as a community might as well not have you there at all. Then the pollies would really be free to run amok.
Secondly, any fair-minded journo will have seen enough of the average politician’s lifestyle to at least acknowledge that politicians enter politics (at least in the beginning) for more or less the right reasons. For all the growing hoo-ha over perks and allowances, the truth is that only an idiot would become a Rep if it was money alone that got them all hot and sweaty. (You only have to look at the real cash ex-politicians go on to make on retirement or being dumped to know that politics is – relatively – not exactly a lucrative game.) Nor is there really much in the way of adulation or recognition, either. We rightly distrust (and generally dislike) our politicians in this country.
But let me turn the tables again – how much rorting and expense-fiddling goes on in the average Newsroom? For that matter, how much does a top draw political correspondent earn? What is a Laurie Oakes or a Kerry O’Brien pulling in? (Much more than a Prime Minister, I bet. What’s more, at least we know what a politician earns.) Again, I am not having a go at anyone who has worked hard to reap the commensurate rewards, I am simply pointing out – from a credibility of journalism perspective – that it becomes dangerous when journalists start to assume that they automatically represent the moral high ground on such matters.
Just why – to give you just one current example – should we take seriously any Channel Nine reporter’s sanctimonious huffing and puffing over Reith’s phone card, when we all know that Kerry Packer hasn’t paid a fair amount of tax for decades? Fine, maybe he doesn’t break the law, but then neither did Reith, strictly speaking. We’re not stupid out here, and we’ll vote him out when we get the chance. But we can’t vote Big Kezza out, can we? I think that journalists ought to take care when throwing stones. Yes – Reith absolutely deserves to be attacked, but it’s useless attacking anyone on any grounds on which you yourself may well – even indirectly – be hopelessly compromised. All it achieves is to make the public cynical about journalism.
My challenge to the Canberra Press community – if you indeed believe that the ‘System’ is rotten – is this: get your own house in order first. You are part of the ‘System’, after all. And a central one. Getting your house in order requires media transparency; tough, honest and on-going self-criticism; cutting the cosy ties that have developed (between various journos, with both sides of politics), and above all else, developing a professional disregard (perhaps almost contempt) for any of your own number who get swept up by the ‘high’ that can come from being ‘close to the action’ for a long time. While most of you would no doubt consider yourselves rather ‘detached’ and ‘cynical’ about the whole Canberra game, I put it to you that in fact the opposite is the case. I reckon you all just love it to bits. Far too much for anyone’s good…especially good journalism.
Now all this might be a bit wishy-washy, so perhaps, Ms Kingston, I can put my challenge to you all in the form of some specific questions for the Canberra Rat Pack. I hope that you – and other journos – will see the method behind what might seem to be cheap Meeja-bashing. I am in fact a huge fan of an effective free press, but the key word is effective. (Personally – contrary to most people, who probably see the press as too invasive and arrogant already – I happen to think exactly that the opposite is the case, at least when it comes to content. Too many journalists are mistaking aggressive styles for truly aggressive reporting.)
So, this is my cheeky little attempt to stir the possum a bit. I wonder if any of you have the guts to answer these on this site?
1. Please place on the public record the salaries and conditions for the following high profile journalists: Laurie Oakes, Michelle Grattan, Christine Wallace, Alan Ramsay, Kerry O’Brien, Margo Kingston. If you decline – and I could understand that – then please don’t bother to mention Reith’s phone card (or any other political rort) ever again.
Margo: I don’t know what the journos mentioned, apart from myself, get paid. I don’t think you have the ‘right’ to know what I am paid because you don’t pay my salary, whereas we, as taxpayers, pay the salaries of MPs. By the way, we are often more accountable than politicians – through defamation laws (unlike pollies with their parliamentary privilege), and through our reliance on the reputation of our only asset, our bylines. Pollies of mediocre and even seedy quality can hide behind their brandname – Labor or Liberal Party – to get elected. Let’s disclose anyway: my net pay for this month is $4,880.33. I work about 45 hours a week officially, and most of my waking life unofficially. I get 6 and a half weeks leave a year. I participate in the Fairfax employee share ownership plan, and have no other fringe benefits.
2. Please provide a full list of personal relationships that exist or have existed between Canberra journalists and members of the Canberra political fraternity. If you decline – and I could understand that – don’t bother to make reference to Bill Clinton’s (or any other politician’s) personal life again.
Margo: I have no right or wish to disclose the private lives of other journalists. I have never slept with a politician or a political staffer.
3. For Laurie Oakes – in your next Bulletin column, please give a full and frank summary of Kerry Packer’s communications strategy (particularly with regard to digital broadcasting), including the ‘inside dealing’ that has taken place over the years. If you decline – and I could understand that – don’t bother to mention any scurrilous links either the Labor or the Liberal Party has with ‘Big Business’ again.
Margo: I can’t answer this. You fail to separate the ethical responsibilities of the journalist from his duties to his owner. An ethical journalist will not allow proprietors’ interests and pressures to influence his professional behaviour. I agree this is an ideal, and is not, in many cases, the reality. That is why diversity of media ownership is vital, so competing publications can expose the newsworthy stories concerning competing proprietors. Without that diversity, a handshake between two powerful men can close down news on both of them. Laurie Oakes is one of the most rigorous and ethical journalists I know.
4. For Paul Kelly – ditto, for Rupert Murdoch and News Limited.
As above.
5. For you, Margo, and for Phillip Adams. On your next Radio National broadcast, please give a full account of how Phil made his personal fortune. If you decline – and I could understand that – please don’t bother to criticise Multi-nationals, corporate advertising, or the evils of ‘Globalism’ again.
Margo: Sorry mate, I just don’t get your point. Disclosure for politicians is about conflict of interest. In journalism, if our private financial affairs have the potential to impact on the news topic we are writing on, we have a duty to disclose. All good journalists do so. The Herald’s code of ethics requires it.
It’s all about establishing and maintaining credibility. Without it, even the Free-est Press is useless. To all Canberra Journos, I ask: what are you there for? To follow the Rat Pack and kiss fashionable arse, or keep us informed? Come on – get back a bit of personal humility, a bloody good dose of vocational aggro, and above all else, turn your bullshit detectors onto yourselves once in a while. Journalism is for grown-ups, not childish gossips and media wannabes.
Margo: We are here to uncover, inform, analyse and scrutinise. We are here, on behalf of the people, to keep our leaders accountable and to facilitate informed public debate on important issues affecting the nation and its people. We often fail. We are often compromised.
Ms Kingston, thank you for initiating this site. It is an excellent idea, and I hope that I have not abused it. I urge all journalists to remember that we need you to be good at your jobs. Now, more than ever.
Margo: I agree that journalism must be much more accountable that it is now, or face justified charges of rank hypocrisy. Self-regulation is an imperative since the last thing a free society needs is a State controlled press, but self-regulation must be strong, transparent, and fair. It isn’t now.
This article was first published in ‘Danger when journalists assume they represent the moral high ground’, webdiary4Nov2000