February 20, 2004

MEDIA WATCH EXPLAINED

How come some journalistic errors attract the attention of the ABC’s Media Watch program, while others don’t? Let’s compare two similar cases, to see if we can detect Media Watch’s criteria:

CASE A: In November 1999, a columnist for The Age presented as fact a false story about an American in Vietnam.
CASE B: In December 2003, a columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald and a columnist for The Australian presented as fact a false story about an American in Iraq.

CASE A: In February 2000, after returning from its summer break, Media Watch exposed the columnist's mistake.
CASE B: In February 2004, after returning from its summer break, Media Watch hasn’t mentioned the columnists at all.

CASE A: The columnist apologised.
CASE B: Neither columnist has apologised.

CASE A:The columnist lost his column, and his job.
CASE B: Neither columnist has lost anything.

What could possibly explain Media Watch’s different treatment of these similar stories? Adding to this mystery, the senior Media Watch decision-maker in 2000 and 2004 is the same man: executive producer Peter "balanced and happy" McEvoy. Have his views on blundering, error-repeating, biased journalists changed? Does he no longer feel that they deserve to be exposed? Why was Case A treated so seriously -- resulting in very serious consequences for the journalist involved -- while the writers in Case B remain safely ignored?

Perhaps a further look at Case A is required. Here’s how Media Watch began its takedown of Michael Warby:

Warby hates welfare, whiners, and what he calls progressive views, but most of all he hates the ABC. In fact he's written three weighty reports on ABC bias and numerous articles.

I believe we have our answer.

Posted by Tim Blair at February 20, 2004 02:45 AM
Comments

Looks like the ABC have managed to make Warby's case for him.

Posted by: The Mongrel at February 20, 2004 at 08:31 AM

Didn't Warby get sacked for plagairism?

From the Mediawatch link you provided:

Paul Barry: But Warby didn't only steal that small paragraph. There are 600 words in his article, and no less than 400 came verbatim from Dougherty's column or a chain e-mail also circulating on the internet.

And from the IPA press release link you provided:

Beyond this, once he re-appraised the original article, he realised much of it represented 'cutting and pasting' of allegedly factual material from his original source.

Although Philip Adams & Alan Ramsay deserve to be outed in Media Watch for the "plastic turkey" saga , surely Warby's alleged plagairism in the same story would partly answer your query on "Media Watch’s different treatment of these similar stories"?


Posted by: Jethro at February 20, 2004 at 09:22 AM

CASE A: It is hate speech to discuss the actions of a liberal and make a mistake.
CASE B: It is a journalistic requirement to lie about Republican Presidents.

Posted by: perfectsense at February 20, 2004 at 10:03 AM

Leave David Marr alone! As Sandra Levy pointed out in The Australian, he is one of our most prominent intellectuals....

(anyone see my reply the next day? I thought the attack dogs would come after me... very disappointing...)

Posted by: GeoffM at February 20, 2004 at 11:03 AM

"(anyone see my reply the next day? I thought the attack dogs would come after me... very disappointing...)"

I've been reading Aesop's Fables to my kids lately - anyone recall The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

It's very hard for a person to get worked up about the niggle & squabble over the ABC that gets repeated ad nauseam on a couple of blogs.

How many posts do you reckon? 1,456, or 789? The power of complaint, or of relevance of same is decreased each time.

The decreasing amount of responses every time Tim posts on the same subject are a pretty fair market indicator of public interest in the question too.

Disclaimer: I would LOVE to see a retraction on the turkey too! And I was busy complaining to the ABC y'day on their Monty Python-esque sports desk decision. Dunces.

Posted by: chico o'farrill at February 20, 2004 at 11:27 AM

Let's face it, Mr O'Farrill has a point. As I keep on telling people no-one of any real importance cares about the ABC's news and current affairs. We all know it is biased hopelessly to the left. What most of us in the AB social groups want the ABC for is ABC FM and the drama and arts programmes (mostly from the UK) on the telly.

The ABC journalists are like teachers: their stupidity and left wing weltanschaungg ahve diminished their standing in the community down to nothing.

The same is true of Phat Phil, Robert manne and Raimond the Git. They are all laughing stocks who none but the saddest, loneliness onanist on the left could ever take seriously. That doesn't mean that every so often, we shouldn't have some fun in showing these "writers" up for the fatuous twits that they are.

Posted by: Toryhere at February 20, 2004 at 12:59 PM

Let's face it, Mr O'Farrill has a point. As I keep on telling people no-one of any real importance cares about the ABC's news and current affairs. We all know it is biased hopelessly to the left. What most of us in the AB social groups want the ABC for is ABC FM and the drama and arts programmes (mostly from the UK) on the telly.

The ABC journalists are like teachers: their stupidity and left wing weltanschaungg ahve diminished their standing in the community down to nothing.

The same is true of Phat Phil, Robert manne and Raimond the Git. They are all laughing stocks who none but the saddest, loneliness onanist on the left could ever take seriously. That doesn't mean that every so often, we shouldn't have some fun in showing these "writers" up for the fatuous twits that they are.

Posted by: Toryhere at February 20, 2004 at 01:00 PM

Watch out for the "who let the 'tards on the internet" smackdowns, Toryhere, coz you posted twice.

Posted by: Jehro at February 20, 2004 at 01:12 PM

'The decreasing amount of responses every time Tim posts on the same subject are a pretty fair market indicator of public interest in the question too.'

Chico, there's another way to look at it: the sheer intractability of the problem. No-one can really be confident that anything will fundamentally change about the ABC's biasses which are in its fabric and run deeply throughout - it's narrow worldview is not limited merely to news and current affairs but extends to local drama production, selection of overseas drama, radio talk, 'religious' affairs, what passes for small talk on local radio (the twittering Virginia Triolis and Derek Guilles), selection of regular guests (conspiracy-theorist anti-US, anti-commercial media failed journalist media studies lecturers) etc etc.

The ABC rates poorly given its resources and battalion of station outlets. If the vast majority of the population doesn't care about the ABC and its problems - and that is probably true - then that is all the more reason why the ABC should not suck vast amounts of their taxes to promote its own agenda.

Posted by: ilibcc at February 20, 2004 at 01:34 PM

Tim Blair...this is starting to rival the Most boring blog on the Net! Havent you got anything new to whinge about?

Posted by: AJ at February 20, 2004 at 01:57 PM

He will have when football season starts.

Posted by: ilibcc at February 20, 2004 at 02:10 PM

"Tim Blair...this is starting to rival the Most boring blog on the Net! Havent you got anything new to whinge about?"

Looks like you're starting to have an affect Tim. (The best way to tell when this issue really *has* become boring will be when they *stop* whining about it being boring)

Posted by: JB at February 20, 2004 at 03:24 PM

Spot on Toryhere, there is some worthwhile content broadcasted by ABC but: it ain't p[roduced by it, it doesn't justify the amount of money ripped out of taxpayers to keep ABC into the `lifestyle' it believes it is entitled by some divine-feudal right, and , the worthwhile content can be ,no doubt about, broadcasted - and that is all it is at bottom, by low cost independent oufits.
It is time to put a bullet into ABC : after all it's a cow with mad cow disease. Just cruel to keep the beast alive when it is virtually dead anyway.

Posted by: d at February 20, 2004 at 03:59 PM

I've arrived just in time I see : It's simple really...first you have your known knowns then your known unknowns followed by your unknown unknows.....

With me?

Good!

Next you add potatoes, spinach and a few carrots...stir for a few minutes.....(best way to stir is to tell Lefties they might have a claim that Max Cleland was a war hero..)

Right your unknown known Ghoulash should be coming to the boil.....toss in a bit of salt...

then divide the number by 52 and the answer is...

Indian outsourcing......an' all.

Posted by: Traps at February 21, 2004 at 02:34 AM

What's a weltanschaungg? What's a ahve?

Posted by: slatts at February 21, 2004 at 03:42 PM

Every family has the rellies you cant do anything about, and we have ours, the Mad Auntie ABC. Dementia sets in and they are no longer responsible so ease off on the silly old biddy. But seriously folks it is a distraction for those who "KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR US", which allows us to go about our way quietly in the real world.

PS Why do they like the ABC, because they can spell it (Ho Hum).

Posted by: M Rintoule at February 22, 2004 at 09:44 AM

The stuff about military personnel taking the rumour seriously is worrying. Sure, a lot of them may be conservative and despise Hanoi Jane, but you'd expect them to be careful about facts rather than readily accepting internet rumour as true.

Posted by: Andjam at February 22, 2004 at 08:09 PM