Fairfax strike disrespects journalism’s supporters
Fairfax Media editorial staff members have every right to be upset about the threat to their livelihood, but industrial action is not the answer, writes Momentum Media’s Aleks Vickovich.
For anyone who believes in the function of the Fourth Estate, there is no joy at the announcement that Fairfax is initiating another major round of editorial job cuts. The company and its journalists have been responsible for some of the most fearless and significant stories of our times. From the expose and ultimate demise of Eddie Obeid to corporate wrongdoing within the big four banks, their service to national dialogue cannot be overstated.But the decision to strike for seven days to “send a message to management that we are sick of their bullshit,” as one reporter anonymously told Buzzfeed, adds credibility to the idea that the mainstream media is out of touch.
Striking sends a message not only to management but to shareholders, advertisers and ultimately, to readers.
These are the individuals who pay journalists their salaries and continually offer support in the face of an evolving and challenging media landscape.
And yet, striking does nothing to respect these people or help the company achieve greater profitability so as to make Fairfax shares more valuable.
This is a bad take and you should feel bad.
Good constructive criticism here mate. This is a good comment and you should feel good.
Obviously a Futurama reference that has flown over your head, pal
Here’s something you don’t get Aleks. Fairfax has a history of providing an unusually good environment for journalism. It attracted people who otherwise had lots of career options. It fostered public interest. A lot of people who worked there in all sorts of roles including commercial ones took less money to work there because it was a great place to be.
In the years since the receivership it had a very poor board of directors. Mostly a club of people with certain linkages (unusually large number to Westfield). Many were people who didn’t get many good board offers, like Roger Corbett.
One prominent director was trustee of Kerry packers estate. Another flaunted his close ties to Rupert Murdoch.
After two decades of inertia the board had a few years of serious infighting before enabling the palace coup that put Hywood on the board and finally into ceo.
For all his claims, Hywood was never a great journalist. Nor was he a great executive. Hilmer moved him on because he is an inveterate politician.
What Hywood has been doing is simply saying whatever he has to say and doing whatever he has to do to get the huge salary. According to the Oz an astonishing $4.4milluon last year.
People are striking because all this makes them sick. It is very sad. And it has nothing to do with shareholder interest.
Retired has it right. Fairfax was done over by the ALP because it was independent and people like Keating hated them. Fairfax was done over by the Liberals because it was independent and people like Howard hated them. Of course it was the business tribes that really did it in in the end. You really do have to ask how did Fairfax get a board so closely aligned with its competitors and enemies?
The powerful do not like independent scrutiny so they have turned Fairfax into a second rate property spruiker.
“The quality of production in coming days will almost certainly be diminished, providing less value to readers and even less incentive to purchase a product that too few already do.”
That. Is. The. Exact. Point.
One quarter of the journos who walked out could potentially lose their jobs over the coming days, and we’ll therefore see a permanent loss of quality. It’s like you actually have no idea what the purpose of a strike is?
This.
The article really misses the mark.
The strike is a short term awareness raising exercise to limit huge ongoing damage to the product quality in future. As a loyal SMH reader I 100% support the strike if it means that less cuts are made to the editorial team, ensuring quality reportage in the long term.
As marketing professionals, what client on the planet would we advise to cut product quality in response to declining sales? The answer is none. This is exactly what FFX are proposing.
Wow Aleks, we always knew you were out of touch, but that time spent with Congressman Poe has obviously fine-tuned your right wing bile. Journo’s can’t all rely on industry-subsidised work as you do, selling away their journalistic integrity in the process, and thank God for that. Shame on Mumbrella for publishing this tripe.
Thank goodness Alex writes for an online title, otherwise our landfills would be overflowing with his ‘work’.
Oh please – you are saying that journalists do not have a right to stand up for their jobs because they are “not oppressed coal miners”?!
The average coal miner earns a hell of a lot more money than the average journalist.
The point is that media is not just another industry – it is a vital cog in a well-functioning democracy. Management of Fairfax has done its best to run this company into the ground over several decades of poor decisions and short sightedness. As a reader – i want to see a better product, not a declining one – and support the workers who trying to stop the latest in a long line of attacks on the quality of the work they produce which is at heart of any profits the company hopes to make.
Over the next week – I won’t be reading or buying their product. When the staff return I will too.
Shareholders, advertisers should be complaining about this, too, if they truly care about the longevity of this company.
Media communications is a business like any other, when the business is performing at a loss the battle for profitability will be fierce.
The Banking Sector had the GFC, there has been a Mining correction and it appears that Media corporations (Fairfax, Ten Network) are suffering from a transition in the operating model. Capitalism is efficient in removing poorly performing corporations from the “free market” which has happen in industry mentioned above.
Of course I feel for the effected staff having seen first hand redundancies, but throwing your toys out of the crib is not a grown up solution. Please don’t start on vital cogs for democracy, its capitalism not communism…
So why does the mining industry rely so much on government handouts?
FFS why is our government looking at a $1b handout for a railway for a mining company with a dodgy past that is based in a tax haven.
For a fraction of that cost we’d have a stronger Fourth Estate. Oops, I think I just answered my own question – the protection of opaqueness in business and government.
Great take Aleks, journalism and publishing are no different to any other industry who has/are faced disruption. Not only should the business’ look to be diversifying their revenue streams but the individuals should too.
Let’s face it, the idea that journalism is the fourth estate will and always be marred by the fact they are funded by their advertisers. Taking a hit to your pride and looking into the big bad world of ‘industry-subsidised work’ shouldn’t be too hard of a jump.
Has Mumbrella decided being the home of bad Fairfax hot takes is its new business model or something? For someone who claims to be a journalist and editor this piece exhibits shocking ignorance of how Fairfax (and other large media companies) work.
Also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works (the role of labour is not to “make Fairfax shares more valuable”, for a start) which is pretty odd coming from someone who works at a place specialising in finance industry trade publishing.
This elegantly-written – if misguided – piece of tripe from a rightly-respected journalist misses a key point: once the cuts are made, the operations rationalised, the profits increased, what’s actually on sale? Whither the content?
Several aspects of journalism’s traditional model have little place in media’s contemporary world, but I respectfully submit that the author confuses form and content and any commitment to the Fourth Estate needs to address both. Enthusiasm for form and business model has overtaken commitment to content quality.
The approach taken by Fairfax’s striking journalists may smack of 20th century industrial action – not a bad thing per se – but this is a newsroom working with a model that has been brought to its knees. Branding it a ‘tantrum’ disrespects the vast majority, if not the whole, who feel they are taking this action as absolutely the measure of last resort.
By all means, work to create a ‘great brand and workplace culture’ but last time I looked this was not the primary function of journalism. Of course, journalism is a business – although not like any other – but its true function is to provide accurate content that informs and entertains.
Cut editorial staff, put greater pressure on reporters to produce more content in less time, sack sub-editors, fact checkers and others who ensure quality, remove senior staff who pass on their knowledge and experience to the cadets and what are we left with?
A workforce that is adequately able to shine a light on the workings of the world and the nation and an industry that will appear attractive to bright young minds? Oh, please.
I would like to think that without a decent product, there would be nothing to sell. Unfortunately, that’s not true. But without a properly staffed newsroom and editorial team, it’s unlikely there will be little decent to sell and the consequences of that are indeed chilling.