The release of this week’s Ethics Index — showing journalists (and media generally) languishing deep in the slough of mistrust — comes at a bad time, matched as it is with allegations of plagiarism, appropriation and just plain carelessness.
And in the middle of it all, there’s the mysterious case of the disappearing editor-in-chief with the sudden resignation of The Australian’s Chris Dore.
Blame social media — Twitter in particular. There’s so much more journalists could get away with (and used to get away with) if not for those pesky tweets.
Dore (who, shortly after he returned from visiting corporate HQ in New York, resigned suddenly this week for health reasons, four years into his stint as editor-in-chief of News Corp’s flagship masthead) has himself been a big critic of the state of play of journalism.
Journalists are, he told the Judith Neilson Institute of Journalism and Ideas last March, “vain, self-obsessed, craven, indulgent [and] needy”. Of course, #notalljournalists (and certainly not News Corp journalists), but still: ouch!
Perhaps he could have added: glass-jawed. His speech opened with a read-out of the criticisms levelled at him and News Corp by people unconstrained on social media: “these are not trolls, or anonymous pests on Twitter”, he complained, “these are real people, with public profiles … in many circumstances members of the media”.
Dore is not alone. As the Christian Porter scandal broke on social media in March last year, Australian Financial Review political correspondent Phillip Coorey dismissed Twitter as a “sewer”. Making sure the shot hit home, Nine’s recently departed Chris Uhlmann tweeted the story with: “Top of the morning, sewer rats.”
Dore’s right. Over the past few weeks, Twitter has been hacking away at Australia’s media.
ABC journalist Josh Bavas tweeted to ask why former Queensland Sunday Mail editor Peter Gleeson had included in a hit job on Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk “word for word chunks from my analysis for ABC News”. Dore’s “real people, with public profiles” piled on. The ABC’s Media Watch climbed in with “plagiarism!” and Gleeson apologised for the “unintentional” lifting.
Meanwhile, the social media shoe was on News Corp’s other foot — the one that kicks — when its commentators joined in the Twitter outrage to a comment by the ABC’s Norman Swan on Radio Breakfast, which linked reports about an elevated risk of heart attack and stroke after COVID-19 infection to the deaths of senator Kimberley Kitching and Shane Warne. Turns out Kitching had never had COVID, while Warne’s manager, James Erskine, described it as “sensationalist and disrespectful”.
The University of NSW Kirby Institute’s (and active pandemic tweeter) Greg Dore questioned the study: “prob biased due to increased COVID testing of people presenting to healthcare services (for any reason) at time when testing not broadly available”.
Swan apologised — a bit: “I got it wrong with Kimberley Kitching and I regret that, but the data are the data.”
Meanwhile, there was some evidence that Twitter interactions can make journalism better.
After SMH/Age journalist David Crowe used freedom of information documents to write about the complicated dealings over the governor-general’s leadership charity, Twitter rushed to point out that the FOI request had actually been made and tweeted by @RonniSalt and @jommy_tee two days before. Crowe responded that he had not seen the tweets but acknowledged the work of others in moving the story along.
Last Monday, news.com.au political editor Samantha Maiden bounced off the SMH/Age three-parter on Morrison to explain the work that went into breaking the story of Morrison’s now notorious Hawaii holiday.
Love it or hate it, Twitter is where journalists’ most committed readers can be found. It’s where the engagement between readers and writers that strengthens the work has been taking place.
It’s an uncomfortable truth recognised back in 2017 by New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr to justify abolishing the position of public editor: “our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”
Now, Twitter’s media watchdog role risks being lost in its Musk-driven restructure. Some journalists will celebrate. The more thoughtful will miss it when it’s gone.
Do you trust Twitter more than you trust traditional media? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
