Why ‘quality journalism’ should be left to die

Hear hear.

Hal, you write:

“Online journalism isn’t squalid or shallow. It’s as good as the people who write it and the people who read it. And the link between those two groups is closer and stronger than ever before – for a journalist, there is no hiding from the audience. Real time data tell you exactly how popular a story is, and to maximise your audience size you need to weed out stories that no one wants to read. This kind of brutal treatment can be hard for an old school journalist to take.

Initially you may get upset that no one is reading the ‘important’ stories, but that arrogance fades quickly. Truly important stories rate. If some piece of news is going to change lives or become socially necessary or is just plain interesting, it gets traffic. It can take a lot of swallowing, but eventually every online editor comes to the conclusion that the audience is right.”

In the above two paragraphs you collapse quality news with a popularist notion that the audience size determines quality, then add that ‘important’ stories will rate. Can you provide metrics for this (perhaps on your Share Wars site, which I have been following)? Perhaps turned into percentages so real data is not given away.

I am very curious to see evidence of this process above and the specific stories you are discussing. Not only would I find it useful for discussions with students, I think those with an interest in this Media Inquiry would also find it very useful.

My reading of the terms of reference is that from a government perspective, it is more about the democratic institution of journalism, rather than the specific ways this institution has for a specific period of history overlapped with the interest of the media industry as ‘the press’. ‘The press’ is a not a necesary relation between the institution of journalism (reporting newsworthy events for the purposes of enabling citizens to be informed about issues relating to the democratic process) and the media industry (‘selling eyeballs’, etc.).

Hal as I read the terms of reference, Ninemsn is not included in the inquiry – is that yr understanding?

1. Let’s not automatically assume “saving” journalism means saving it from the digital world. Just because that assumption is rife among print media doesn’t mean the government shares it. There are a lot of things digital news can’t yet pay for.

2. It is easy and clever to deride government regulation of the media but if you look at all current forms of self-regulation, they basically do nothing. Let’s not deal in absolutes.

3. With all respect to the author, what exactly does Nine contribute to Australian journalism?

Also… I wd be careful of the idea that the market is the major indicator of good journalism. I agree we should do our best to make all journalism interesting and readable. But there is good reason why PIs and UBs aren’t major criteria for Walkley award winning stories.
There are many examples of journalism that has changed society for good – and yet have not attracted kazillions of PIs.
Yes, popular journalism is important – not least of all because it funds stories that may attract fewer PIs. But plenty of stories display courage, impact and public benefit without PIs… The PIs may come later for a journalist who sticks to an important story for years without support… but even if not, if one wrong is righted by that story, it’s still important journalism.

Hal,

digital journalism means that overwhelmingly stories that feature sex, showbiz are the ones clicked on and while that is the market speaking, it doens’t mean that quality journalism isn’t important. After all we know that on the internet, a video of a cute cat doing something or a baby laughing will get millions and millions of clicks whilst a story of a politician improperly influencing their department or doing favours for developers will get nowhere near as many clicks.

Quality journalism such as in the SMH, Age and ocassionally the Australian is incredibly important for the wellbeing of journalism.

The quality papers have (and still do, tho how long that will last is anyone’s guess) a very important role in holding government, business and politics to account.

Bloggers are all very well, and while some may breaks important stories from time to time, they don’t have the resources to stare down a defamation threat from a minister or someone from the big end of town. They don’t have the resources to fund months of investigation that ‘old’ media still does.

The quality press and the tabloids/TV at the moment still have this sort of money.

Crooked politicians, corrupt public servants and business would totally agree with you Hal that ‘quality’ journalism should be left to die.

Great discussion, thanks Hal.

What does popularity and profitability have to do with broadcasting or digitally casting the news and the state of responsible journalism, which is the agenda of the government’s inquiry?

Responsible journalism demands an adherence to reporting facts, not topical gossip or stories that support the advertising department’s revenues, and in a world where the powerful control information through a consolidation of the available media in an increasingly alarming fashion, it is incumbent upon government to level the playing field to insure that the only free press in existence is not solely free to the man, or woman who can afford to own one.

They used to be called the public airways, which incorporates radio and tv where one needs a broadcasting license and is regulated, as well as the proliferation of print media in a particular region. The digital model makes things a good deal more complicated and hopefully more democratic in the end, so long as search engines and media portals do not restrict or constrict what information people can freely obtain.

This entire argument about popularity, or the number of people interested in the information one has to disseminate being a determinate of good journalism is a false premise, and journalism is it’s most important Fourth Estate role should never be the tool of the wealthy nor subject to the rules of the marketplace. It has int he past, and we’ve seen the slippery slope and the damage it can do to our democracies . . . witness the pernicious effect of News Corp, especially here in OZ where they can make or break a government through their power of the press.

I must roll my eyes and sigh.

You old dinosaurs just don’t get it.

Hello all – thanks for the responses.

Glen – I don’t actually think I’m collapsing quality journalism into audience size absolutely. That is, I’m not saying they are one and the same thing. I’m saying that important stories tend to get decent attention from audiences. They do that both because they matter to the audience (and it could be a niche publication, like Mumbrella, so size is relative) and because they matter to the editors. I’d like to take you up on the evidence – I’ll see what I can rustle up.

David – ninemsn isn’t mentioned in the terms of reference but it would seem weird if a media inquiry didn’t extend to the big digital players. My response to the second point would be the above – yes, there’s no absolute identity between UBs and story worth, but there is a tendency for stories that matter to find traffic.

Cheers

Hal

@ Andrew Bolt & Gina Reinharts Love Child

Don’t just troll.

Say why.

Because it’s the internet. The internet changes everything. Didn’t you know that?

The internet doubles in size every six months and the advertisers are all over that shit. There will never be enough advertisers to monetise all that content so we can all look forward to ever increasing ad yields on our content.

Plus with the advent of social media I never have to listen to actual lame journalists. What with all their research and facts and impartiality and stuff.

Look. Over there! Squirrels!

David Higgins’ point at (5) is spot on. Glenn at (2) makes a similar point.

Hal, I’m inclined to agree with a lot of what you say about online and quality, and I’m particularly pleased to see you acknowledge ‘the journalist does not stand apart from the process.’ Too many journalists act and speak like they do stand apart from the process.

I also really like that you say this: ” The idea that technological change – that is, online news – is a malevolent force eroding journalism pervades the inquiry press release and terms of reference. It’s an assumption shared by most traditional media commentators and it’s entirely false.” That just can’t be drummed into ‘traditional media commentators’ and others who spout it enough. (This is precisely the sort of thinking that made Lindsay Tanner’s recent book such a disappointing analysis at the the end of the day.)

Still, I agree with David and Glenn that the net effect of your argument is to equate quality with readership.

You say in the article that, ‘Truly important stories rate. If some piece of news is going to change lives or become socially necessary or is just plain interesting, it gets traffic’.

But in your response to David, this becomes, ‘there is a tendency for stories that matter to find traffic’, which is a much weaker claim.

It would be good to see a follow-up piece where you spell out what you see as the connection between quality and traffic because as it is what you are saying is confusing (to me, anyway) and that’s a shame because it is at the heart of your argument.

Hal

Good journalism is rarely popular. Especially good investigative journalism.
Speaking truth to power is the duty of the fourth estate, and it will not withstand a popularity contest; and it is being eroded by both ludicrous government enquiries (as you point out) AND the idea that popular is all that matters. If that is true, then all the internet will be (in the main) good for is porn and gambling. ….. hey … hang on …

Well said by Tom:
“Crooked politicians, corrupt public servants and business would totally agree with you Hal that ‘quality’ journalism should be left to die.”

Fast Eddy, Tom, Higgins are right, Hal is woefully wrong, and if this article – replete with unsubstantiated assertions and non sequiturs – serves as his example of quality journalism, he has disproved his own position in this debate.

The government is democratically elected. The media are not. They are self-appointed and the only effective control we over them is via government regulation.

I’ve been waiting for a while for someone to do a story on the traffic numbers attributed to Walkley award winning stories going back, say, 10 years.
I’m sure it would make for depressing reading if you judged the value of a decade’s worth of the best Australian journalism against their PIs alone.
I haven’t done the exercise but based on my experience at SMH and news.com.au I bet few of those stories judged to be our best journalism would qualify as “quality journalism” under your definition Hal. But have a look through those past winners on the Walkley website — imagine a world where none of that journalism ever saw the light of day.
And though I can’t prove it — because Nielsen doesn’t measure it — I think your story mix does have an impact on the image and reputation of your brand. And therefore on sales.
Ninemsn trades on reach — and so it’s perhaps natural that you edit purely on numbers. But plenty of other publishers trade on the quality of their audience and that attracts advertisers that don’t consider ninemsn.

Unfortunately there are laws. Like defamation. Laws that create huge, random costs for people who publish challenging facts. Powerful people use those laws at their whim. Then there’s time. Asking lots of questions, walking around looking at stuff, waiting for people, digging around in files – these things a tiresome. Essential to the task of informing people, time is expensive. Then there’s talent. People who are really good at all this have many choices in their lives. They have to paid something like what they’re worth (though many do subsidise their employer).
My point: quality ain’t about the technology. Nor the business model. Not regulation either. It’s about management.
Our problem is that managements have failed to maintain relevant journalism. In fact at Fairfax they’ve decided to make their digital product a soft porn pop channel.
Can we import some media managers?

It’s an inquiry! You know? Where you ask questions and find out stuff? The number of prognosticators who are running around complaining about policies that have not been adopted (or even proposed) based on recommendations that have not been written from evidence we have not yet seen is saying something. It makes it look like the fourth estate knows it has cause for concern. Show a bit of self-confidence. You’ll get plenty of chance to pillory the recommendations.
Online journalism is not as good only as the people who write it — it’s as good as the people plus the resources, and they are often slender. Hence most of it is opinion, commentary or prediction (like this piece): second phase play. THAT is as good as the people who write it (who often aren’t too flash) but if the main game goes under, it will have nothing to feed on.

The quote from the press release doesn’t say anything about quality journalism. It’s looking at the media fulfilling “its essential democratic purpose, and to operate in the public interest.”

If you think that the Australin media is a healthy part of the political debate, motivated by nothing other than an altruistic concern for the public good then maybe you can make an argument against the usefulness of the inquiry. I recommend you spend a day listening to 2GB before you try that argument out though.

It’s true that the idea of a government regulating it’s own watchers is scary but it’s also true that there are media outlets who seem to be dedicated to pouring a steady stream of poison into our society.

Andrew & Gina’s love child … which of your blind eyes did you roll?

Today’s most read articles on NineMSN News ….

Wife killer gets five years
Bizarre burlesque shocks at Fringe Festival
Boy,11, dies after hanging accident
Nose bitten off in Darwin fight
Hockey mum ‘had sex with son’s teammates’
ABC criticised for Gillard flag sex scene
‘Reality hits hard, bro’: Crash witness web star
Suburban footballer dies in Vic hospital
New footage of air show horror
Nine News 6PM bulletin

Not much in the way of “Truly important” news in that bunch. Some serious news stories (mostly of a gruesome nature), sure, but anything of national importance?

That said, there is a tendency of some print journalists to believe that every story they write is of Watergate-like proportions. It’s not, and readers can tell, hence many “important” stories get ignored by readers online. The stories might be important, it’s just that they’re not important to the readers.

Also, what’s the bet today’s most read Mumbrella article is “Ruby Rose to pose nude on Maxim cover”? That story will be paying for Tim’s next real scoop! (No sarcasm intended – I mean that)

At some point people are going to realise that protecting a free media doesn’t equate to protecting a profitable media. Then we will see some very interesting adaptation occurring.

There is a significant difference between popular and important news.

Popular is more often a metric used for entertainment, whereas important is a metric used for social impacts.

I see news media diverging into two primary approaches to the market. These are:

Entertainment news media, designed to make profit through reach, focusing on popular stories which pull in crowds through emotional appeals and controversy.

Change news media, designed to influence the social, political and economic development of nations, organisations and communities through revealing corruption, communicating innovation and otherwise challenging the status quo.

Change news media is more likely to be funded through public sources and delivered by independent not-for-profit organisations, unlike Entertainment news media, which will be commercially funded and distributed.

@johnGrono

I rolled my one good eye. The other eye has cataracts but I am getting that fixed with some laser surgery. I heard them advertising on 2GB. Apparently I get 20% off if I can prove I heard the ad on the Alan Jones show and I am under 70 years old.

Happy days!

I think we need a government inquiry into Hal Crawford being referred to by Mumbrella as a journalist. Publicist is more like it.

When will we see a ‘guest post’ from a media figure with some objective credibility, instead of the Head of News at NineMSN, a title most thinking people would term an oxymoron.

Let’s also remember that this is the same digital online publication that gave Alan Jones a softball interview to further spew his bile, without so much as a hard journalism question in the mix, even just to stir his anger.

The fact is that most of the quality journalism online still originates from the traditional mainstay mastheads from around the world (Australia being the exception – what with the SMH and the Australian online having been turned into tabloids). So most of what we read was actually researched, investigated and edited by titles like the Guardian, The New York Times, The Independent and so on. All of which did so first and foremost for their paper editions. Wait until those paper editions are all gone and their newsroom is the same size of yours at Ninemsn before judging. Then we’ll see where quality journalism online is really at and whether letting the largest section of the audience decide what is important news is really the way forward. Sadly I fear it will be too late by then.

I never visit ninemsn …. not for any particular reason, I just don’t.
After reading this article, I gave it a quick look.
Yeesh.