I don’t have free-to-air television. In my peripatetic existence, if I can’t watch it on an iPad or laptop, I can’t watch it at all. So all I’ve seen of the Alex McKinnon interview is what’s been replayed on news programs and what’s on YouTube.
But I can tell you some things about the way the media works, and about a few trends in the mainstream media.
One point, raised on the radio last Sunday by the Storm’s ex-journo CEO Dave Donaghy, was about ‘focus’. The focus should have been on something else. Thousands agree with this.
Dave knows that’s not how it works. He knows that news is stuff that’s new (sorry if you’ve heard this before from me). In this regard, the media does not behave like a bunch of individuals, it’s like a tide coming in and out (I know, I’ve used that before, too).
So, if McKinnon makes the comments he made and 60 Minutes simply report them and focus on something else, then their rivals will be highlighting those comments before the program is even over. AAP and News and Fairfax would have stories about the comments up on their websites in minutes.
Channel Nine would be scooped by everyone on their own story, which they paid for. Not gonna happen.
I am often reluctant to judge my colleagues (what gives me the right, what do I know, who the hell am I etc.) but I believe 60 Minutes erred badly by not giving Cameron Smith the right of reply.
In saying that, I would like to explain a common, but complex, situation that reporters often find themselves in as part of this era of spin and message control. It was a problem 20 years ago but is almost ubiquitous now.
By going to someone for their reaction and fulfilling your ethical obligation, you often surrender all competitive advantage. Smith and his club, the Melbourne Storm, could possibly have made the decision to take control of the message when Smith was approached, by putting out a media release contesting McKinnon’s quotes before anyone had heard them.
Once more, Channel Nine’s investment in their biggest story of the year is completely blown. They may as well have not done the interview at all.
Of course, if you are about to be portrayed badly by someone, you do not feel any obligation to simply defend yourself as asked, then shut up and wait for the likely hatchet job to appear.
It’s called ‘the front foot’. But if you get on the front foot this time, on the next occasion someone says something unkind about you, a reporter is going to think twice about giving you the right of reply.
Consumers often overlook that fact that competition is what gets news organisations into print and on the air each day – without it, nothing gets covered properly at all, no-one has a job.
As I said, I still think Smith should have been consulted, regardless of the competitive factors at play. So where should the line have been drawn?
Here’s where I draw it. If there is a low probability of a story being blown, always go for every possible alternative viewpoint.
If, however, there is a high probability of a story being devalued by someone who does not like what you are about to report and who will do his or her best to soften the blow before it comes out, then I would decide what to do based on this criteria.
If no reputation is being impinged by the claims – if it’s just a case of ‘I did this’, ‘this happened’, etc. – then present these as just that, claims. Make sure they are sourced to the person making them and don’t suggest to the reader or listener that you necessarily believe or disbelieve them.
But publish, or broadcast. No-one is going to be hurt. No reputations are being damaged and giving your opposition a free kick would not make sense.
However, if someone is going to have their reputation impinged by the claims, if the comments or allegations involve another person and paint them in a poor light, you really have no alternative than to provide them with the right of reply.
In this situation, ethics trump commerce or competition.
Having said all that, I have probably made poor decisions in this area myself in the past. It happens. Someone reading this may have been sullied by a story I wrote without checking in with them.
I recall in 2010 in Jacksonville, a group of Jamaican players claimed to have witnessed a gunfight involving police while travelling around town. Great story, right? On-the-record quotes. No-one defamed.
But local rugby league officials were horrified. They called the police who said they had no knowledge of any such incident. They were concerned Jacksonville would get no more major rugby league events as a result of the negative publicity.
Even when you think no-one will be hurt by a story, someone often is. Your absolute obligation is to get it right, and to never knowingly quote someone telling an unchallenged lie. Of course, I shouldn’t have trusted the players – I should have called the cops myself. To this day, I don’t know what really happened.
What has happened here is just sad and unfortunate. I am not aware of the veracity of recent claims about discrepancies in the audio presented to McKinnon and what actually occurred at the ground.
But this is no workaday rugby league soap opera. I don’t feel the same compelling desire to take sides which seems to have overcome everyone else.
I’d do things differently if I had that night last April over again – and so would Cameron, I’m sure.
Jasper
Guest
Fox Sports News today. AFL coach falls off bike is top news before a NRL match report.
Carlos
Guest
Have you ever even watched Q&A? I ask because it seems like both you and Zedman don't actually understand what it is? i.e. that it's not a "journalistic" program for starters. I'd love for you to clarify what agenda you think Q&A is promoting and on basis you make the claim.
Carlos
Guest
What a ridiculous statement
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
What I find interesting,channel 7 showed snippets of the Australian Secondary Schools rugby league tournament in Wollongong last week.ch7 the non holder of the NRL Tv contract. Channel 9 the oft quoted" home of rugby league" unless i missed it ,nowhere to be seen.It is not the first time 7 has scooped or secured a special story about there non NRL side of the game. I remember the days of rugby league journalism in the print media.Chippy Frilingos at the Telegraph and Clarkson at the Herald. Balanced top line journalists ,thoughtful,incisive ,well researched ,respected by players and officials alike.Boy has journalism gone downhill since then with sensationalism,character assassination,minor incidents blown out of proportion,all in the name of flogging the papers. Regretfully I see ch9 securing the next Tv contract with Foxtel,scheduling will change that will,be a plus,but the same old same old ch9 treatment of the game will be sustained.I scratch my head at times.
Semi Radrunrun
Guest
I think Zedman is relating the poor journalistic standards of both QandA and 60 minutes. Watching both these shows ( and there are others like the Bolt report, the project, insiders, 730 report, lateline, etc) you quickly realise that they will do anything to promote their own agendas.
Justthetip
Guest
I agree with you sheek but channel 9 top level of management have failed dismally with the company direction for garnering profit. Their grey area is corrosive where their conniving is limitless in the search of short term solutions. They would be nothing without sport and it's what draws many to their station. Sporting bodies such as the NRL chose channel 9 to market their product but channel 9's desperation for survival has seen them abuse their power. The NRL are the customer as much as we fans are and our customer service and product satisfaction is so very poor. No one will miss channel 9, in fact the quicker the dominant print and free to air tv media die the better.
Jay C
Roar Guru
Everybody has instances in their life where, in the heat of the moment, they have erred. That doesn't mean they should have their character assassinated so a corporation can make a few extra dollars. I believe Channel 9 manipulated McKinnon by heavily editing the footage to make Cameron Smiths actions appear worse than they were. What value is their to society in any of this? News media was once an ethical, fair and necessary service for the people. What it has become is disgusting. Thank goodness there are places like the roar, which can offer a far more fair commentary. TV is over. It is so clunky it's embarrassing. Live Sport is the only thing that will prop it up for the next few years and I believe 9 just devalued its self immensely
Jackson Henry
Roar Guru
Afternoon Steve - off topic: would you ever consider putting on The Roar that article about the Left and Right of Rugby League. It was one of the best things I've ever read. I've always thought the divide was more progressive versus traditionalist, but I hadn't thought of it in anywhere near as much detail. For consideration etc.
Richie
Guest
I think It was competitive sport at its worst actually Jay C . An illegal horrible tackle with a young player being driven head first into the ground and breaking his neck ,followed by the national captain arguing with the referee over a penalty and basically blaming McKinnon for it !!!!!!!!!!!! Take your blinkers off The whole thing was atrocious capped off with the disregard shown by Smith for McKinnon .the penalty was still more important for Smith than the player . He got it badly wrong ,that's not 60 minutes or Mckinnons fault it Smiths.He carried on with it and we all saw Mckinnons reaction when he saw what happened .. Is Cameron Smith a decent guy,yes most likely ,did he get it wrong ,definitely . Why defend it .
AJ
Guest
I only watch Ch 9 when I have to, ie sporting events which are exclusive. In my opinion everything else on that channel and the other free to air commercials is moronic rubbish. 60 minutes serious journalism? I think I had realised that this show was sensationalist pap before I was out of my teens. 9 are right up there with banks for disdain of their customers and abuse of their position. Do yourself a favour and just don't watch, instead, watch 9 whither and die. Good Riddance!
XI
Roar Guru
Nobody should be. But when hasn't victim blaming been a part of any incident/crime/tragedy?
Carlos
Guest
60 minutes/ch 9 like the courier mail and daily terrorgraph, are completely selfserving amoral corporate sociopaths it was a hatchet job intended to hurt and generate controversy the subsequent publicity for themselves. This is the limited imagination of this scum. If your reading this and work for for 60m feel ashamed. Smith, a great but dirty player who seems a decent guy once whistle blows. One thing is for sure he's certainly a better human than any of the garbage working at 60 mins.
Tony
Guest
Steve, let it go, rugby league as we love it is predominately a NSW v QLD game. Rugby as in " Union " is a toffs game in Australia, a national game in NZ, and elitist game in other nations. I have long admired you for your more than admiral coverage of International Rugby League. Most NSW and QLD fans I know couldn't give a rodents about AFL, although most love seeing the Socceroos in action, and Cricket is probs our true national sport. Point of this post is lets focus on our strengths. Yeah NZ have won the last 3 internationals. Who won the last umpteen before that without recognition? Don't get me wrong, NZ have put together a magnificent team, and the individual players are magnificent players, but, Australian players are far more focused on Origin than playing against NZ. NSW and QLD are the Rugby League Heartlands.
Steve Mascord
Guest
If you asked most ABC and SBS journos if they were personally motivated by competition, I believe the majority would say they are. And I think many ABC and SBS journos would wait until the last minute to give someone right of reply to avoid their story being knocked off by someone going on "front foot".
Rellum
Roar Guru
"Consumers often overlook that fact that competition is what gets news organisations into print and on the air each day – without it, nothing gets covered properly at all, no-one has a job." For a start that is not true. The ABC and SBS for example don't have this problem and they do cover things properly, far more the the commercial print media does. Yes we can get into they have a guaranteed budget but they still cover it and with ethics/standards and very little sensationalism. Secondly am I the only one who cringes when a journo calls people consumers. The story was a disgrace and as others have said Liz Haynes and her ilk are not journo's but sales people.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
They're not the only thing stopping stand alone Origins at all. There are a large number of reasons why standalone Origin is a bad idea. I find that kind of stupidity rather irritating.
Jackson Henry
Roar Guru
Well said ROC. Agree entirely.
Jay C
Roar Guru
Long term this will have a much stronger impact on 9 than the NRL. You can read the Grant thinks and I reckon Smith has had a gutful of them as well. Would love to see the new deal look like this; NRL produce their own content and sell it to 2 or more stations - NOT 9 NRL get its own Channel with 18 hours a day of Rugby League. They can then put some shows together, play old matches, show us the U20s and Qld Cup etc. I would watch a replay of the 1993 GF over an episode of Law and Order or The Gang Bang Theory All matches shown live. Every single one. HD for all matches and 4K for the big ones. NRL given more control over scheduling. Channel 9 go bankrupt
madmonk
Guest
FTA television is in a death spiral. They may not exist in 20 years time. I am not sure they have the capacity to care about collateral damage.
Jackso
Guest
Yeah but at what cost?? The public moral yardstick just lowered again . Perhaps they are flexing their muscles to the NRL after the NRL suggested they might sell SOO rights separately..