In defence of ‘legacy media’

Here’s a paradox: distrust of main- stream media has never been higher, yet never has the media been more important. Striking evidence for this in the past couple of weeks has been the searing exposure of corruption, bullying, intimidation and links to organised crime within the CFMEU, especially in Victoria.

I’m sure Spectator Australia readers were astounded to learn that much of this was an open secret within the industry and the Victorian Labor government – in the same way that Peter Lorre, an habitué at Rick’s casino in Casablanca is ‘shocked, Rick, shocked’ to learn there is gambling going on.

Here’s the point: it took a sizeable team of Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review and 60 Minutes journalists a long time to prepare the month-long series of more than thirty articles, which would have required extensive legalling.

No one but a large mainstream media organisation could afford to commit the staff, time and resources to such an investigation, yet how important it has been. It has brought into the light festering sores, and already forced hitherto quiescent authorities into action. Nick McKenzie et al. did the public interest work that the much better resourced institutions of the state — the government, the parliament, the police, the anti-corruption commission — wouldn’t.

First, a caveat. Critics of mainstream media are wrong – but also right. It is much diminished from thirty years ago, in a variety of ways and for a number of reasons, of which more below. Yet journalism’s vital role in preserving democracy and holding powers accountable is more than just a cliché. The Speccie itself is proof of this.

Let us note that virtually every royal commission since the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland in the late 1980s that led to the jailing of four ministers has been inspired by journalistic excellence and courage after government reluctance to act.

For example, the Banking Royal Commission was inspired by the reporting of Adele Ferguson in The Age, the Aged Care Royal Commission by revelations from the ABC and the pink batts royal commission by The Australian.

As religion editor for the Age from 2002 for twelve years, I played a small role with others in exposing clergy sexual abuse that led first to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry, then to the royal commission – surely one of the most important and effective in Australia’s history. When I began reporting on victims’ experiences, the police, state and church hierarchies had little interest, and only the tenacity and determination of the survivors and journalists forced action.

During my tenure several writs were brought against me, all (I believe) designed to close down particular reporting. Without the backing of a large media organisation these threats probably would have worked, but The Age indemnified me – ‘It’s just the cost of doing business,’ the editor told me – and none went to court.

Mainstream media are accountable in a way social media cannot match: they check their work more diligently, they can be identified, sued and made to retract or apologise by the Press Council.

They can demand answers ordinary citizens cannot, and can present uncomfortable ideas. But they won’t give you deep-fake AI, as the social media giants may.

Back to the critics: they have a point, or several. Today’s media landscape is very different from the one I joined five decades ago. Respect has certainly declined. Part of this is the general loss of trust suffered by all institutions, from governments to banks to police and courts, and part of it is the changing social landscape. In the 1970s mainstream media were the gatekeepers of news and information to the community. The rise of social media this century terminated that, with consequences both good and bad. The good includes the ability to bypass mainstream agenda-setting, while the bad is exactly the same: the ability to bury one- self in echo chambers of one’s liking and the ability to dispute anything, however ignorantly. Anyone with a mobile phone can make a public statement.

But the mainstream media have also contributed to their own decline. Newspapers in the 1970s were ‘papers of record’, trying to cover everything of importance to the community but no Australian outlet attempts that today. This means more agendas.

Allied to that is the catastrophic loss of revenue wrought by the internet and social media titans. The Age in the 1980s, fuelled by the ‘rivers of gold’ (classified advertising) often had 300-page Saturday papers. This allowed staff numbers and coverage unimaginable today. If I filed a story in 1981, it would have been read by the copy taster (assessing its value), the news or section editor, the layout sub-editor who put it on the page, the sub-editor, a check sub, a proof reader, the night editor and a final page-proof read by a sub-editor. That’s a lot of eyes to pick up errors or lacunae. Today it might be read by the section editor and a sub-editor, spell checked, and posted online before appearing in print. Naturally many errors of fact, spelling and grammar slip through, and readers notice.

Even more damaging is the rise of activist journalists.

At journalism school I was taught that my own views play no part in news coverage; news and opinion should be clearly distinguished. Today many writers see no impediment to shaping their stories to reflect their own biases.

Young activist journalists in mainstream media tend to favour the causes of the left, assuming their own moral rectitude. Agendas of the right are equally present but more open and institutional – Sky After Dark’s main purpose is to combat the left in today’s culture wars.

As religion reporter, I was proud that readers could not discern my position (I was often asked), though it emerged once I began writing opinion articles. A striking contrast to this approach came last November when some 300 Australian journalists signed an open letter about reporting on Gaza, accusing mainstream media of being pro-Israel, condemning Israel without a word of criticism of Hamas, and providing a deeply tendentious account of the historical ‘context’.

They apparently saw no conflict between journalistic integrity and a highly partisan stance, which Denis Muller – a Senior Research Fellow at Melbourne University’s Centre for Advancing Journalism and former night editor at The Age – said called into question their impartiality and journalistic ethics. Nine management responded by saying signatories could not be involved in covering the conflict – in my view, the right response.

How can one tread through this quagmire?

Only by reading widely and carefully across the spectrum. Being fortunate to have time to read, I subscribe to The Spectator Australia, The Australian, the Herald Sun, The Age/SMH, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Foreign Affairs and at least a dozen daily news emails. This enables me to be utterly confused about everything – but in an impartial way.

This article was first published in The Spectator Australia.