At the coalface

In conducting my research for my journalism feature, I came across coalface magazine. My feature will be on the coverage of mining in Australian media, something of a hot topic in recent years.

While interviewing John Krey, vice-president of the Bulga-Milbrodale Progress Association about mining, he made mention of Coalface, an independent magazine dedicated to promoting the benefits of mining to the public.

Or as he put it, a "piece of complete propaganda."

Now we have to take a step back from the issue here. Obviously Krey, being in his position, might have his opinions coloured by recent events. Certainly his village has been embroiled in several battles with mining giant Rio Tinto in recent times. Well, more than several.

But it is an interesting premise. Coalface, which can be found here, is advertised as an independent magazine in the Hunter to highlight the real faces of mining in the Hunter Valley. It says so right here on the NSW Mineral's Council website.... 

While I have not particularly taken one stand over another in the 'propaganda' claim, I do think the issue of this magazine raises a few interesting points. Here we have a publication that openly communicates it is pro-mining and has an agenda of promoting the industry.

Can we call this magazine journalism? Or is it really just well-dressed PR? It makes me think of Johnsen's diagram from Journalism Research and Investigation in a Digital World (2013)

 This magazine is almost entirely accommodation. Spelled incorrectly in my slide. How embarrassing.But if there is no accommodation to journalistic questions, does it become PR? Despite it being an independent magazine, operating outside the industry, can we really call it journalism?

Don't bite the hand that feeds

Just doing some research for a seminar I'm going to give later this week, and one little bit of information jumped out at me.

The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism Study at the University of Technology in Sydney did a survey of different newspapers around Australia to assess the impact of PR companies in news.

They found nearly 55 per cent of all stories were triggered by public relations firms. 

Ironically enough, the story the ABC reported on no doubt began it's life as a press release from the University or the Centre itself, adding another statistic on top of the pile.

Particularly troubling however, was this line:

"most journalists and editors refused to respond when asked about the public relations element in their stories, and some later withdrew comments out of fear they would be reprimanded or fired."

Clearly, commenting on the nature of this huge public relations spin on modern newsrooms has an unpleasant effect on a journalists career. 


I can only surmise that criticizing the nature of news resourcing in modern times may make the proverbial well of information being fed to journalists daily from PR people dry up.

And if your sources aren't talking to you, what use are you to a news editor who needs new stories everyday?

In this way, there's an immense pressure on journalists to toe the line most of the time. 

This isn't to say all PR people are evil and their impact is wholly negative, just an observation of some insightful statistics.

Data Journalism and Stand Up Comedy

I remember a stand up show where a comedian called Pete Holmes was lamenting the spread of iPhone and the internet, saying "You don't know something? WAIT. 2 SECONDS. YOU WILL KNOW."

On reading that back, the comedy is in the delivery, but the fact remains the same. The global ubiquity of digital technology has made information easier to get than a cup of coffee. Type anything you want into a search bar and instantly, it is presented. While the debate rages on whether this actually makes us "smarter" or not, there's no doubt we certainly have access to more knowledge than any time before in human history.

Which puts journalism in a special place.

Given that journalism is often associated with delivering information and the truth to the masses and providing a check on governments and the inner workings of society, the internet has provided a virtual smorgasbord of material for use.

In her presentation given to the CMNS3420 class this past Wednesday, Emily O'Brien presented a snippet of an analysis of data journalism done by Stamford University, and her conclusion on the topic may have summed up the shifting nature of journalism under the weight of all this new information.

She wrote: 

"[By] Utilizing data the journalists’ role shifts from being the first to break a story, to telling the audience what exactly a certain development might mean."


Instead of fulfilling the role as a first come-first serve responder to a story, (a role in which they are fiercely outmatched by on-location citizens with camera phones) journalists are instead changing their role to that of an in-depth researcher that can use the resources at their disposal to tell the story in a deeper, more meaningful way.

While not all journalists employed by papers could devote their time to this, it is a new and exciting way to report on stories previously impossible to cover, and bodes well for the future of journalism.

—

Blow my whistle baby

Yeah, just having a good think about whistle blowers today. Not this one:

But ones that leak information to the media for the public benefit.

In particular, I was tossing up whether or not it's worth it.

Is it worth it to put your reputation, career and future on the line to let the public know something that will benefit them?

Gillian Sneddon and Edward Snowden certainly thought so.

But what you or I? Would we have the same courage? It all comes down to personal choices sure, but it can't be denied that the world in general does not look kindly upon whistle blowers.

As former New South Wales Police Commissioner Tony Lauer said “Nobody in Australia much likes whistleblowers, particularly in an organisation like the Police or the Government.”

That statement might summarize the attitudes and climates whistle blowers are up against.

Look no further than Gillian Sneddon, who spoke out against a rotten Labor party figure in Milton Orkopoulos, was vilified and swept under the rug for years before finally winning an appeal and beingawarded damages.

That being said, it's not all an uphill battle.

New legislation passed this June to give greater protection to whistle blowers working in public service.

Highlights of the law include: 

• A key mechanism of new protection for whistleblowers is the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). They will be able to seek remedies where they have been unfairly dismissed or had adverse action taken against them.

• The risk of costs being awarded against a whistleblower has been alleviated. When whistleblowers seek to enforce their rights under the bill, the costs of that action (even if they lose) are now only payable by the whistleblower where action is brought vexatiously. This is an important step forward as the cost of whistleblowers seeking compensation via legal action has proven to be a major problem.

• There are now tougher penalties for reprisal against whistleblowers (up to two years in prison).

• It is now possible to make a disclosure externally (such as to the media). A whistleblower will still be protected if he goes public in circumstances where he believes on reasonable grounds that an investigation into his internal disclosure was inadequate.

• To gain protection, the bill requires the whistleblower to disclose the wrongdoing internally first.

There are a couple of issues here. Firstly, the fact the whistle-blower has to disclose wrongdoing internally first. What if the person you're supposed to disclose to IS the culprit? Where do you go then? And while they might not be able to fire you directly for leaking, you can imagine the sort of work environment you'd then have to be employed in. One of distrust and dislike.

But if it's for justice and the truth, some people might be willing to risk everything they have to let the public know.

And it's the role of the journalist to do everything in their power to help them.

Mum, I want to thank you for the slinky and the pocket radio

The hot topic issue for journalism right at this very moment is how we're all going to get paid, and it's probably one that weighs heavily on the minds of most budding journalists.

Shrinking newsrooms,the rise of citizen journalism, dwindling coverage of current events. these are the ghost stories told around the campfire at a journalist student's retreat, and unlike the escaped lunatic for a hook with a hand, they're problems journalists cannot simply run away from.

But the main problem with journalism in the 21st century is that it is free. If a crisis happens anywhere in the world, a quick google (or Bing if you're that way inclined) search will find you all the information you'll ever need, in real time and living colour, at no cost.

The Australian has embraced paywalls with gusto

So what was the initial solution? Charge the bastards.

Paywalls have come in to several newspapers in Australia over the past few years. News Limited's The Australian became the first general newspaper in Australia to introduce a paywall in 2011.

Charge people to read the news online, and all of a sudden, we're back and booming. And ignoring the obvious problems of a relatively homogenous product being sold at a price when readily available elsewhere for free, it has worked in some respects. If we look internationally, the New York Times' paywall has certainly succeeded.

There's just one minor problem, which is that not every newspaper in the world is the New York Times.

Blogger Mathew Ingram makes the point that "the NYT is an outlier in almost every sense of the term, and therefore isn't a good benchmark for all papers."

As such, despite many paywalls being financially stable around the world, the newspapers aren't attracting any new readers. Michael Wolff wrote in the Guardian about this underlying problem that there is "An extraordinary indifference, if not utter lack of interest, on the part of younger people to news brands and to news habits, a development that established news organizations have been unable to address, stall, or even fathom."

So no people are subscribing to your paper, only middle aged people. That sucks. And it gets worse.

Because generally speaking, revenue from newspapers hasn't come from readers buying copies. It has always come from advertisers attracted to subscription and circulation numbers. So with paywalls stalling growth in the newspaper market, it's no surprise that online advertising sales are stalling just as quickly.

That is way scarier than any ghost.

So if paywalls aren't the answer, what is?

Crowd Sourcing Journalism has been nominated as the next big thing by some pundits around the world, and Richard Aedy's interview with Joe Verdirame, head of crowd sourcing site Vourno. points toward a little bit of excitement in the industry for grass roots, freelance journalism. You propose a story, post it up for 30 days and have people donate to see the story covered. I'll admit, even I got a little excited when I heard of it. Until Aedy pointed out a major issue:

"What I'm maybe not clear on, is why anyone would fund a 22 year old kid who hasn't really done anything compared to someone who's maybe 38, has spent maybe 15 years in the business and already has this strong track record?"

That is what they call a bingo.

Verdirame admits this is the million dollar question, and then proceeds to say something which broke my heart. He proposed that young journalists were going to have to try extra hard and maybe rely on friends and family to fund their stories. Yes, you read that correctly, getting your mum to fund your career as a journalist through crowd sourcing.

It remind me of when the MS Read-a-thon would come to my school, and you would need to go and find sponsors to donate money to see you read a whole bunch of books and cure multiple sclerosis. Once you'd raised a certain dollar amount, you'd get a prize. So for 20 dollars, it was a slinky, for 30 it was a little pocket FM radio with fluorescent colours. It was great.


Only my mum wasn't comfortable with her 10 year old son going doorknocking around the neighbourhood for change, and just decided to drive me around to different Auntie's houses to have them sponsor me, or just outright give me money herself.

So it was less a charity drive and more just my mum buying me slinkys and radios and sticker books. And that is what Verdirame made it sound like to me.

Still, its an idea to rescue a failing industry. and I certainly can't think of anything better.

I personally think anyone who does PR is a hippo

Nature is full of wonderful little phenomena. Take the red-billed oxpecker for example. It flies around until it finds a big mammal covered in ticks and then proceeds to clean up things with the efficiency of a maid at the Ritz.

The hippo gets clean and free of ticks, while the red-billed oxpecker gets lunch and protection from the big hulking hippo.

 

Image Courtesy of Oregon Budget Traveler

They call this symbiosis, and I see it every day working in a newsroom between journalists working towards a deadline and PR people who have to spread the word. 

Which one is the hippo and which one is the little bird really depends on whose side you're on. The fact remains however that media releases sent out en masse by public relations professionals are increasingly becoming an integral part of the everyday news bulletin.

 

Richard Aedy stated in a 2012 media report that the heavy reliance on media releases was journalism's dirty little secret, and that "once you take out crime, disasters, sport and firemen rescuing kittens from stormwater drains, most of what’s left begins life as a media release."

There are more than a few reasons why this is the case.

Firstly, it's easy. As a journalist trying to meet daily or even hourly deadlines, taking news that land in your lap can only be too easy. 

Let's keep in mind that PR practitioners and journalists are being trained in the same Universities, often doing the same courses and learning the same techniques.

When a journalist sees a press release written in a concise manner selling a point, the temptation to simply add a byline and publish to meet a deadline is immense. And this is speaking from personal experience.

Secondly, if you ever want to speak to someone in a position of power, be it a politician or a prop for the Newcastle Knights, there will be a caveat. As Aedy states, to get to the source, a journalist will "have to deal with someone whose job it is to craft how their boss appears in the media." 

But perhaps the most telling reason as to why media releases have engrained themselves into news bulletins is the simple fact that there are just more PR professionals out there for journalists to fact check.

What does this mean for investigative journalism?

Clearly, newsrooms are shrinking and platoons of PR people are growing. The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill provided a clear picture of the times, with more PR people present at the press conference to give answers than there were journalists to ask questions.

Less personnel in the newsroom means less time to investigate stories thoroughly in the non-stop race to get a bulletin or a story up in time.

This does not make investigative journalism obselete or any less important.

Indeed, it makes it all the more critical for journalists to be on their guard and navigate the minefield of press releases unloaded on them each day with poise.

Media releases are the seed capital for a story, something to build on and explore. 

Unfortunately, journalists have just started serving up seeds - repackaged press releases with no insight into the issue.

Investigative journalism isn't dead by any stretch of the imagination, but if journalists want to keep the vital tradition alive in their own newsroom, perhaps its time to pick up the phone and make some calls the next time they open a press release.