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.