Big three’s domination of the Walkleys says it all about media diversity
I’ve been looking at this week’s Walkley shortlist.
When you start tallying the mentions, a picture begins to emerge of which organisations are investing in journalism – and how concentrated the serious media is in Australia.
I make it 25 nominations for Fairfax, 24 for the ABC and 22 for News Ltd.
But tellingly, no other organisation comes close. If you put together Kerry Stokes’ various interests – West Australian Newspapers, Seven and Yahoo!7 – they deliver nine shortlistings. SBS gets a disappointing three nominations.
Yeh, I dunno Tim.
Sometimes I just like to think that it’s because those are the organisations that simply attract the best talent and there’s nothing funny in it. Never that simple though.
Really don’t know though. It does seem to be exclusive, so it depends on your point of view I guess (much like everything).
I think those bleating (rather jealously) about why the Walkleys don’t represent new media and independent media need to just accept the fact that the broadsheets still house the vast majority of journalists with the talent and contacts to break stories.
We can all pick holes in The Australia, but its front page will tell you something genuinely new most days. How often can you say that about Crikey.com.au?
If people like Crikey owner Eric Beacher were REALLY serious about journalism they’d spend less money sending out opinion and news aggregation each day and more money hiring gun journos to investigate stories.
The Walkleys aren’t biased – new media just isn’t as good.
Don’t represent new media?
They don’t even represent old media given the awards are run by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, a union that represents a fraction of the people working in the industry .
The Walkleys are as relevent to non-union members as the Code of Ethics the union presides over on behalf of all journalists.
In the words of Paul Keating they are “unrepresentative swill” and so are the Walkley Awards.
Well said Jason Whittaker. And as for ACP Magazines – I’m not certain writing a product endorsement about an advertiser’s lipstick attracts the attention of the Walkley judges, does it? PS There’s a typo in your header!
*** puts on best Barbara Woodhouse voice *** …. “Walkeys …. now sit Tim”.
Ha! I read it three times before I could find the typo – for those who don’t get it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7lZnxrF694
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
You fixed it. Now we look like fools.
Jason, you said it in one. New media doesn’t qualify for true grit, investigative journalism. And Tim is spot on in saying that those who are nominated are those who continue to invest in the merits of journalism. I wouldn’t go as far or be as altruistic tosuggest that all those nominated abide by the ‘truth at all cost’ theory, but they’re largely worthy recipients of the nomination.
“The Walkleys are as relevent to non-union members as the Code of Ethics the union presides over on behalf of all journalists.”
Ethics: not relevant, says new media booster. Pathetic.
This says it all.
I received an email from an independent publisher earlier in the year: “The 2009 Walkley Awards are coming up and we’d love to enter your essay “Xxx” in the Magazine Feature Writing section….
“There is one catch though – we need to know if you’re a member of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). Entry is free for members, but otherwise there’s an accompanying fee of $260, which unfortunately we don’t have the funds for (and we certainly don’t expect you to pay). If you’re an MEAA member, and keen to enter, let me know and I’ll organise the application on your behalf. ”
No I’m not a member. I rang the Alliance to see if it would be cheaper to join just to qualify for the awards. The cost (I’m a freelance)? Around $600 per year!
Surely it says more about those judging the entries than the investment organisations are putting into journalism. And it seems if you work in sport, there is nothing to be had, even if you deliver world firsts. Disappointing indeed.
Well Crikey entered and they didn’t get anything … not even for Bernard Keane who comprehensively provides the best coverage in the Canberra press gallery.