Good journalists quickly learn cynicism is an easier attitude than trust. Being a journalist is a tough job requiring tough questions, vast ambition and great network of contacts. The best journalists know there’s always one more question that should be asked, and strive to find it. Those that do often find there’s more than basic truth in many stories.
It’s been almost three years since I quit the ABC and went to work for a state government minister. The switch wasn’t easy. Working for the ABC remains the best job I’ve ever had. I did my best and believe my reputation was solid and respected. It wasn’t without folly though, inexperience, embarrassing moments and dreadful mistakes.
The fuck off truck moment remains my most infamous mistake and almost cost me my job. For those who aren’t aware, I swore under pressure of deadline while recording a story about Indian born doctor Mohamed Haneef, who had just been charged with terrorism offences.
Minutes later the wrong audio was loaded in the newsroom and instead of Queenslanders hearing about Dr Haneef, they heard me swear at a noisy cement truck outside the Roma Street courtrooms. The sounds of the cement truck and his horn couldn’t be heard in the audio that went around Queensland.
It seems funny now. People laugh when they hear the clip. At the time it was funny but it wasn’t. A mate, when I told him, said you legend, you dickhead. I had to explain myself to the state editor, and send an apologetic email to ABC’s national news editor. Unbeknown to me, there was some suggestion I’d be sacked. In the background, colleagues offered support to tough questions from management, which ensured I wasn’t terminated. It took six months for me to find out the level of support my colleagues offered. I thank them for it.
About a year later, during another major story about Haneef, I used the wrong name, Bill Kelty, a well-known union man and AFL commissioner instead of Mick Kelty, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.
The story went national. The network wasn’t impressed. I apologised for the muck-up, wondering how I made such a basic mistake, why I’d substituted an AFL man for a cop. The answer was obvious.
In 2008, in a story about industrial action taken by the union representing Queensland’s paramedics, I wrongly attributed a quote by the union’s spokesman to a spokeswoman from Queensland Health.
Getting the quote wrong didn’t change the tone of the story too much, but it made Queensland Health complicit in union action when they were mere bystanders. The spokeswoman was miffed at the error and called the newsroom. Later that day, after getting her message, I made a phone call, an elaborate apology, which was appreciated as much as the mistake wasn’t.
‘I didn’t expect you to call,’ she said. I made a promise to get my facts right.
From November 2008 until December 2010 I worked as a media advisor to Tim Mulherin, the current Minister for Agriculture. For six months from January to June, 2011, I represented the Department of Environment and Resource Management. Now I’m at Queensland Health.
Being a media advisor is challenging where learning enough is never too much. Mostly I write, act as a buffer between the Minister’s office and departmental people, but I also handle inquiries by journalists, analyse their questions and help engineer suitable responses.
This doesn’t mean I write lies, order cover-ups or misrepresent the truth. The Minister Tim Mulherin believed in transparency, which meant telling the truth. When he toured Queensland for meetings with all levels of government and key stakeholders, if the media was there he invited them in.
Tim gave journalists access to crisis meetings regarding floods, drought and all the calamity those disasters created. His portfolio is based on science and facts, so that’s what he offered. He ran his portfolio honestly, as it should be, and the journalists thanked him for it.
When I was a journalist at the ABC, holding the government accountable was paramount, which is no different to any newsroom across the world. I used to joke about busting the government’s arse, simply because they were the government. Doing it ethically at the ABC was not negotiable. Each story written was checked, or subbed, by producers and executive producers. Mistakes rarely got through. Sensationalism or embellishment never got past the producers.
After working for the government since November 2008, use of ethics is what sets ABC journalists apart from the rest.
Many journalists seem to believe government media advisors are involved in constant corruption, fudging, erasing or shredding evidence and engineering cover-ups. Though some may have indulged in those acts, media advisors don’t spend their days plotting ways of erasing evidence or keeping whistleblowers quiet.
This is the attitude I have received though, from many journalists, poor behaviour, journalists who write biased or factually incorrect stories and make threats if unreasonable deadlines aren’t met.
It is staggering what some journalists have done to me, things I never would’ve tried getting away with at the ABC, stories that left me incensed and bewildered.
I’ve been yelled at, abused, threatened with deadline agony, quoted, misquoted and humiliated. Some of it seems funny now. Here are some examples:
In my experience, few print journalists admit mistakes, either by phone or email. They’ll argue they’re right, because the story involved the government. It’s harder getting a correction or apology printed in the paper, and if it is, it’s tucked away deep in the classifieds.
Print journalists have made up conversations, quoted me from off the record conversations and twisted statements into something they were not.
Chatting to the journalists about errors of judgement or ethics hardly makes a difference, they don’t care. Facts, it seems, gets in the way of a good story. There seems to be an unwritten rule in newsrooms that it’s the government’s fault, and if it isn’t, find someone who says it’s the government’s fault.
Recently a major metropolitan newspaper wrote about the death of a baby in a hospital emergency department, and suggested the baby had been sent home earlier that day before being rushed back to emergency. The journalist got the story wrong, combining two separate cases, the death of a baby and the death of a 73-year old woman.
The story was meant to highlight an incompetent emergency department. Instead, it highlighted the incompetence of the journalist, who blamed the amount of information he sifted through for combining the two cases. The journalist was contrite. He promised a correction or apology, which, to my knowledge, was never printed.
Instead, the following day the newspaper sprouted a scathing editorial about a department unable to cope with right to information laws and basic, everyday emergencies. It named and shamed departmental people and politicians. The editorial criticised the payroll issue, which is fair enough, but I’d never seen such a blatant error by a journalist. There are thousands of people across Queensland who read and believed that story, but he was never exposed for the error. Few people across the state know how wrong he was.
The media holds the government accountable for everyday decisions that affect how Queensland operates. I have no problem with that at all. Rarely though, publicly at least, are journalists held accountable.
Occasionally there are recriminations. Journalists have been sacked for stories either plagiarised or fabricated, for attributing quotes to people never interviewed and writing about places never visited, which is surprising, because it can’t be that hard to get it right.
I believe a journalist is only as good as their last use of ethics, which is why the small minority disappoint me.
News writing is an acquired skill, written to a basic formula, the most important information at the top followed by quotes and background information. Breakout boxes highlight important statistics or case studies. The summary below outlines the process used to build most stories.
– A journalist receives information from a contact or press release and calls the relevant government department, community group or other organisation
– A media advisor takes the inquiry and contacts the department for information
– The departmental information is reviewed by the media advisor, who seeks approval from managers, director-generals or a Ministerial office
– The journalist gets the response or interview and writes the story
Departmental responses can vary in length, from a few sentences or a page, sometimes more. The average exclusive news story in major newspapers is about 400 words long, written in simple language aimed at a teenage mentality. The story highlights the topic, quotes people impacted, blames the government and gives the opposition their whack, which is fair enough.
Journalists routinely use one or two sentences from a departmental response. Often they use half a sentence or nothing at all. When an interview is done, journalists listen for a grab that can expose problems or provide the worst answers to serious questions. This can slant the meaning of some stories.
Research has shown the average reader rarely gets through a 400 word news story, or begins to skim towards the end, so journalists often put the government’s response in the last two paragraphs.
Fitting all components of a major story into 400 words can be tough, and though there’s nothing tough about objectivity, it isn’t always a feature of print journalism.
All media advisors feel a sense of frustration, because most journalists have written their story before they call seeking departmental information. They’ve already formed an opinion of departmental or government performance, and they pick statements apart, looking for the worst series of words, often half a sentence, to highlight the problems.
On occasion, some stories that appear in print newspapers are manifestly flawed.
I’ve watched the News-Limited story with interest and without surprise. Journalism is competitive, an industry where your biggest rivals are in the same newsroom. Breaking a story becomes addictive. Contacts are utilised and protected. Ethics can be forgotten among the lust for a front page story.
I’m not implying Australian journalists are involved in phone hacking, bribery or corruption, I’d like to think not, but that doesn’t mean ethics aren’t consistently broken by journalists and their editors. There’s a belief among the industry that News-Limited newspapers are intent on getting rid of state and federal Labor governments. That’s got to cause concern, given the low happenings in England.
Hopefully the News of The World scandal will ensure Australia’s editors remind their journalists about ethical behaviour, because I’m sick of poor behaviour.
I am sick of being quoted in stories because I work for a government department. It is lazy, unethical and devious, and it’s happening more regularly now than it ever has.
Some people work hard to feature in newspapers, whether they’re politicians, sportspeople, community leaders or victims of crime. Others are exposed as criminals. Either way, they earn the publicity. Not me. I’ve been quoted, misquoted and slammed on the front page because I work as a media advisor.
Every journalist who completes a journalism degree does a subject on ethics and the law, as it applies to the media. One fundamental of that subject is not quoting people without telling them and not quoting people off the record.
Since November 2008 I’ve been quoted a dozen times just because I’m the voice on the other end of the phone, or the writer of an email. Some journalists, it seems, don’t understand that I don’t write departmental policy or make decisions that alter the machinations of government. I’m not a doctor, director-general or Minister. I don’t schedule meetings that make people unavailable for an interview.
I simply answer questions and provide responses, and journalists have quoted me, four times in various newspapers in the past three months, without me knowing it would happen.
As mentioned previously, it is shoddy, immoral journalism to quote a media adviser without informing them, and without their permission.
The majority of journalists I know are hard working, ethical people who write fair and balanced stories. They will take advice, are polite and respectful. I enjoy reading what they write, particularly feature stories.
The majority of stories I read are fair and balanced. If a journalist has great contacts and wants to bust the government’s arse, all credit to them, as long as the story is factual and ethical. Journalists must remember that they don’t write government policy and they don’t work for the opposition. A good journalist can influence government policy if they do they job correctly, and if they achieve that, they deserve the satisfaction.
I will continue to defend journalists, and this is not a criticism of every journalist in Australia, just those who don’t adhere to the code of ethics.
The ABC continues to produce the most balanced and ethical stories. If the government deserves a boot, the ABC will do it, but they don’t behave like print journalists. The ABC doesn’t rely on advertising for profit and remains largely impartial, no matter the region, no matter the issue, so there is no sensationalism, blatantly wrong stories or obvious campaigns against the government or its departments.
In my experience as a media advisor, the ABC is the best and most trusted organisation to deal with. It’s no wonder they’re the most respected news network in Australia.
Television journalists perform admirably too, rarely causing any issues with incorrect facts or blatantly biased stories.
It is a very small minority of print journalists that have caused me the most problems by acting unethically, by twisting facts or making mistakes. Having never worked in print media, I’m not qualified to offer an explanation why, but it relates, in my opinion, to the use, or misuse of ethics.
I’d like to discuss this issue with a few print journalists, off the record of course, but they’d probably quote me in a story, like the one below:
Government media advisor slams print journalists.
Matt Watson, who works as a departmental media advisor, yesterday slammed print journalists in a vitriolic ramble on his website.
Mr Watson, who worked for the ABC for three years, currently works for Queensland Health after stints as a Ministerial media advisor and with the Department of Environment and Resource Management.
Based on his experience, Mr Watson claims to be an expert on media. But an investigation by this newspaper has revealed Mr Watson once said fu*k live on air while working for the ABC.
Mr Watson also wrongly attributed a quote to Queensland Health in June 2008 and used inside information to break a story about a possible cancer cluster at Deception Bay High School.
Former colleagues have revealed how Mr Watson used to go to the gym during his lunchtime, and wear his North Melbourne scarf during winter in an attempt to convince others that AFL is the best code of football and they should follow North.
Despite his latest claims against print journalists, a close friend said Mr Watson reads the Courier Mail and the Australian each day.
When contacted by this newspaper, Mr Watson was evasive.
‘I’ve got nothing to say,’ he said. ‘And don’t quote me on that.’
Fight fire with fire and tap their phones next time
Matty
Tips as follows:
St Kilda
North
Sydney
Collingwood
Bombers
Geelong
Hawthorn
Freo
Cheers
AJ
stkilda
north melbourne
sydney
collingwood
carlton
geelong
hawthorn
west coast
QH clearly not keeping you busy enough
Matt, if you have time to write this up.
