More discussion on the Press Council move to embrace new media … with a few different points of view — including a sound bite of my own.
The NZ Herald‘s media columnist John Drinnan, I think, ‘gets’ the distinction between blogging as self-expression/discussion/current affairs and ‘blogging’ as a dirty, abusive, weaponised PR campaign … which we’ve discussed here a bit now and then.
See: John Drinnan: Press Council embraces the bloggers (NZ Herald)
The question for many is whether treating blogs under the same rules as newspapers will make blogs more careful or diminish the stature of traditional media. Even among bloggers like Peter Aranyi there are concerns,
Some bloggers seeking legitimisation as ‘news media’ …through membership of the Press Council – should more properly be applying for membership of the Public Relations Institute, said Aranyi who has written a lot about a culture of attacks in some blogs.
Let me expand on those thoughts of mine …
Some bloggers seeking legitimisation as ‘news media’ — perhaps, later this year, through membership of the Press Council — should more properly be applying for membership of the Public Relations Institute. That would be a more honest umbrella for their activities. But even there, members are required to be honest, ‘accurate and truthful’ in their endeavours on behalf of their clients.
Honesty
We are accurate and truthful in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.
from PRINZ Code of Ethics (PDF)
Anyone can blog. That’s freedom of speech. But clearly not every ‘new media’ enterprise is a ‘news medium’ — not by a long chalk. It’s pretty clear that some blogs and bloggers take their partisanship to a highly personal level.
Some run political and business vendettas, and engage in ongoing abusive public campaigns to unfairly denigrate or corrode the reputation of others.
That’s not journalism.
In some cases, those activities can be seen to be a commercial enterprise, or in support, or at the service of such enterprises. Cameron Slater’s efforts to demean striking watersiders using personnel files leaked by someone at the Ports of Auckland come to mind.
One might think bringing the online cowboys under the Press Council, with its complaints system and standards for ‘accuracy’ would be a good thing.
Well, maybe. But, as the target of a particularly nasty online campaign wrote last year: Some of them are no more journalists than they are brain surgeons. (see: Target of Cameron Slater’s ‘campaign’ speaks up)
– P
Here’s the Press Council’s press release: NZ Press Council to extend coverage, gain new powers (PDF)
“Some of them are no more journalists than they are brain surgeons.”
But some blogs do both journalist type content and non-journalist type content. Same with traditional media, although the non-journalist type content is different.
It’s a lot easier to dabble at journalism type activities than it is to dabble at brain surgery.
I’m pretty sure the brain surgeon reference was to make a point, rather than imply any equivalency.
The point remains, whatever you think of the need for (or superfluousness of) training & experience as a journalist, you don’t just wake up one morning and ‘be’ a journalist ‘doing’ what’s commonly seen as journalism.
Of course there are exceptions.
With the case we’re discussing (Slater’s appeal — as part of his defence in defamation proceedings — to protect the identity of the person or persons who supplied him with the material he used in his campaign against the Auckland businessman) it’s pretty clear to me the ‘output’ of his website wasn’t journalism. Or brain surgery.
– P
[…] Peter Aranyi has a post about the issue today, on The Paepae. He says that in the Public Relations Institute, […]
On a different tangent you get the content spinners who regurgitate the work of actual journalists and then whine because Google doesn’t consider them a credible “news” site – something they want because it boosts traffic and therefore ad revenue.
Well .. i think your journalistic profession have hoist themselves by their own petard as it were …
The standards set and managed and continued for some years now are not very high .. so why not let in the white shoes/greypants/gold chains brigade (Bloggers – and amateur communicators) … an example was TV3’s the Nation this weekend just past. Gower and the other waller … well …. what can i say. And the long line of “expert panellists” week after week … well they only reflect the low level of journalistic skill by those who have invited them onto the show.
Then .. have you ever looked at the linguistic and grammar skills etc of Herald journos … the spelling and grammatical errors? The impossible to understand stories (unless accompanied by poorly edited video).
Best … was the video interview on Q and A with Kim Dotcom today … not due to Rachel Smalley either … although at least she has some dignitas and gravitas about her and unlike some TVone and TV3 presenters doesnt try to be some de facto “mother of the nation” … seamless and a clear presentation. She wont get any job offers fronting for every TV doco and programme about wild animals on TV at present. Have i mentioned i absolutely loathe Tony Robinson in any role on TV apart from Baldric (where he actually made sense in the role …).
Your profession only have yourselves to blame … set the benchmarks low and every man, his dog and aunty maude will leap into the fray.
I suspect the winds of change are blowing … and those who supposedly are the kaitiaki of our public communication conduits will be swept aside by people who actually get the messages through. And it wont be these backyard distillers of rubbish, crap and ersatz truth called “Bloggers” … i reckon
Thanks for your comments Ivan.
The whole question of media values is one that interests me … us both.
It’s a pity such issues seem to get considered on ‘edge cases’ like Cameron Slater’s grasp for ‘protection’ of the ‘sources’ of his hit-job. But what’s the saying about the price of free speech being assholes?
Free speech doesn’t equal journalism, in my view.
The question of whether Cameron Slater’s victim/the plaintiff in the defamation case will succeed in getting Slater to divulge the source of the hard drive and other material is a sideshow to the actual defamation trial, which will be an ordeal for both parties, I imagine.
—
Russell Brown recorded an interesting interview with TV3’s political editor Patrick Gower (the ‘deceitful bastard’: http://www.thepaepae.com/is-it-ok-for-don-brash-to-call-a-journo-a-deceitful-bastard/20123/ ). It’s worth a read, in my opinion, for Gower’s expression of Richard Long’s ‘piss off the government, then piss off the opposition’ definition of journalistic balance (seeL http://www.thepaepae.com/a-cynical-definition-of-journalistic-balance/18173/ ).
Here’s how Gower put it to Russell Brown:
Russell’s interview with Gower is here at publicaddress.net
http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/gower-speaks/
Well mate i guess my argument is particularly with Television … its this damnable “magazine style” formatting … its like “infomercial meets news, meets Womens Weekly”. (I watched with interest the two mini series on sky regarding the Packers vs the Murdochs and the Magazine wars between the same parties at a later epoch.)
They may all be good journalists .. but why why oh why do we have to have this undignified “lets give our viewpoint” style of presentation.
Gods .. give me Mr Tim Evans Freke reading the news as he did on AKTV2 when i was a child .. and it was black and white TV … life gets reduced a little in monochrome … less threatening.
Instead of this crazy cross examination … lets let the buggers say their piece .. then provide questioning … then a post mortem. it will take longer but it will ensure a fair hearing for the beleagured public.
Journalism should be about reporting the facts … certainly interpretations of statements by those in power or a position to comment .. but this self indulgent attempt by all these new media acolytes and sycophants like Gower etc , to provide a readymade opinion on the subject matter irks me. As i have said – i dont want a newsreader giving me their own slant in a chatty manner – it is condescending and offensive. Take your inflated salary – report the news – and shut your bloody cakehole otherwise is my stance.
Print Media and Radio arent any better – full of the same practices .. but Television is particularly intrusive.
I feel your pain, brother.
I guess you’ve read this from John Drinnan on Patrick Gower tabloid sensation?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11227808
Yep i read it … It isnt helped with Gower by being the man who always frightens me and makes me choke on my cup of tea when he pops onto screen … some may call me shallow but he has a very scary visage and set of teeth – and sometimes the lighting they give him doesnt help. A bit like ‘craters of the moon’ ralston perhaps.
Aside from those glib and very shallow observations … he has an awful style … and opts for style and boorishness over substance … as in my view, does Garner … Campbell …. as did Holmes and on it goes. And dont get me onto Mihi Forbes and that horrible voice and style … its not a good look.
I want the news … not these people that keep getting in the way. Even Newspapers are heavily “writer-opinion-piece…” skewed now.
But then i’m the guy who agreed with the head of the State Services Commission when he commented that in a meeting a former head of Social Welfare was showing too much of her boobs and the promised land …
Women in media … seem to walk around with this huge chip on their shoulder …and the guys seem to think they have to perform some cheap vaudeville act complete with soft shoe shuffle to gain any traction …
[…] See: Part of the news media? or a “PR blog” dedicated to “destroying” reputations? and More discussion on the Press Council’s move to ‘embrace’ new media) […]