|
July 12, 2007
It's finally happened. The war between the blogs and Murdoch's Australian has opened. The issue is the interpretation of Newspoll and the blogs challenging The Australian's upbeat that Rudd's days are numbered as Howard fights back. What the polls say that the Howard government is in a desperate electoral position, and the Australian is doing its best to dig up glimmers of gold amidst the coal dust.
The Australian's opening salvo in the 'Newspoll wars' is an editorial subtitled Online prejudice no substitute for real work. The position is simple--the online commentariat are prejudiced whilst The Australian does the real political analysis. The salvo opens thus:
The measure of good journalism is objectivity and a fearless regard for truth. Bias, nonetheless, is in the eye of the beholder and some people will always see conspiracy when the facts don't suit their view of the world. This is the affliction that has gripped, to a large measure, Australia's online news commentariat that has found passing endless comment on other people's work preferable to breaking real stories and adding to society's pool of knowledge.
Now we must pinch ourselves to remind us that this is coming from The Australian, which is widely noted for its partisan commentary, bias and dumping of objectivity in the culture wars and the war on terror. Though two critics are mentioned--- Mumble's Peter Brent and Crikey--the salvo is much broader. The 'online news commentariat' are positioned as 'our woolly-headed critics' and 'as the one-eyed anti-Howard cheer squad now masquerading as serious online political commentary,'who, apart from a few notable exceptions, 'has all but exhausted its claim to be taken seriously.'
The following sentence 'Smug, self assured, delusional swagger is no substitute for getting it right' would apply to The Australian: to the low grade work of Dennis Shanahan that mocks the truth telling ethos of journalism, and as well as many of the other journalists in The Australian's stable whose work relies on the regular drip feed from the always unnamed "senior sources" in the Howard Ministry. This culture of hiding the sources for government stories corrupts journalistic culture.
Then we have this paragraph:
If there is a common theme to the criticisms levelled against The Australian's political coverage by the self appointed online commentariat it is that our critics only howl when the heat is being applied to Labor.... The self appointed experts online come ...from the extreme Left, populated as many sites are by sheltered academics and failed journalists who would not get a job on a real newspaper. We fully expect that if anything goes wrong for Mr Rudd in the campaign this year we will be blamed for Labor's misfortune.
There's a touch a persecutory complex here with the suggestion of feelings of paranoia that the critics are plotting against them, or out to harm them.
It is highly probable that the online commentators do not want a job on a real newspaper like the Australian and be obliged to spin for the Coalition to retain their jobs. They do not want to be caught up in self-deception that they are practicing real journalism. What hey have done is break the monopoly of the mainstream media and political elites, on interpreting the news to the electorate.
The Australian adopts a defensive position in its attacks on its online critics in wards that project its own practices onto its critics.
It reflects how out of touch with ordinary views so many on-line commentators are. They claim to understand the mainstream but in reality represent a clique that believes what it considers to be the evils of the Howard Government position on Iraq, climate change, and Work Choices to be self-evident truths....Such commentators clearly have a market because there are a lot of people who want to have their own prejudices endlessly confirmed. But they should not kid themselves they are engaged in proper journalism and real reporting.
Dennis Shanahan engaged in proper journalism and real reporting? How's that for self-deception. What does that 'real reporting ' mean in the context of the partisan commentary practised by The Australian's journalists? If a delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue, then the statement that The Australian's commentators are engaged in proper journalism and real reporting is an example of an irrational belief that defies normal reasoning, as it is one that remains firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to dispute them.
The reality is that online commentators (Crikey and the political bloggers) are engaged in holding The Australian to account, and they are using the skills of journalism to make it's journalists more accountable to citizens in a liberal democracy.The Australian really doesn't like this online surveillance of its activities and commentary, judging by this shrill paragraph:
On almost every issue it is difficult not to conclude that most of the electronic offerings that feed off the work of The Australian to create their own content are a waste of time. They contribute only defamatory comments and politically coloured analysis. Not properly understanding how polls work gives our critics licence to project their own bias onto analysis of our reporting. The Australian is not beholden to any one side of politics and recent election outcomes vindicate our treatment of our polls. So let's not mince words. [W]e just don't think many of our critics have any real clue about polling and very little practical experience of politics.
Only The Australian understands politics. This appeal to authority to bolster a defensive position has an grandiose complex as The Australian assumes its the only newspaper in town. It has an over-inflated sense of self-worth, as only they engage in professional political analysis.
This self-delusion:----The Australian understands itself as 'not beholden to any one side of politics' when it functions as the publicity machine for the Coalition in our political discourse--is severe. What we have is a delusion accompanied by hallucinations, which are acting to strengthen confidence in the delusion that The Australian's partisan commentators are engaged in proper journalism and real reporting.
|
Gary
I see that Tim Dunlop's post on The Australian vs the Blogosphere at Blogocracy has been pulled. It was there last night, but not now. Is the OZ sensitive to bloggers pointing out it's obvious bias in its interpretation of NewsPoll?
Apparently part of Dunlop's post said the following about the OZ editorial:
“I think the editorial is ill-conceived and way off the mark in singling out Peter Brent in the way that it does. His site largely confines itself to interpretation and in doing so, provides a great service. The idea that he can’t comment without the editor of The Australian ringing him up to say they are going to “go” him is disturbing...”
It is disturbing that the post on The Oz editorial is pulled by News Ltd, given that they say that the OZ is a newspaper that encourages debate about the public issues of the day.
The OZ is appearing to be a mouthpiece for the Coalition, and their storylines are slanted to favour the Coalition. Why bother to deny it? Everyone can see it.