The SMH’s readers (are wrong) editor
We are now about five months into the reign of Australia’s first readers’ editor. And I don’t think it is working.
It struck me at the time of Judy Prisk’s appointment to the Sydney Morning Herald that the fact that her boss was editor-in-chief Peter Fray was not going to be ideal if she was going to be the independent voice of the reader.
The model in other markets – and the example I know best is the readers’ editor for The Guardian in the UK – is to give the role full independence rather than reporting to the person who effectively it’s their job to criticise.
I’ve been watching Prisk’s Readers’ Editor column with interest.
For me as a news nerd, the Open Door column for The Guardian has been a consistently good read – helping readers’ understand more about news processes and taking the paper to task where called for.
I’m sorry to say that I don’t think that Prisk is achieving the same tone.
The sense that comes across, to me at any rate, is a low level of exasperation at the foolish complaints that readers make. So far, there has been almost no significant criticism of the newspaper.
In the 19 columns to date, I’ve found just three minor examples where Prisk has accepted that the paper could have done better: A missing “comment” label on a story, not putting an image of Sam Stosur on the front page when she won the US Open, and some grammatical errors.
The tone is understandable – a journalist who has been embedded at the newspaper as chief sub, stylebook editor and letters editor, Prisk will have played a significant role in creating the system that produces the newspaper she critiques. It would be natural to see it from the journalists’ point of view.
The fact that she addresses her readers as “you” also has the perhaps unwanted side effect that for anyone consuming her column, it feels rather like being ticked off for the misunderstandings of the wider readership.
To return to the Guardian example, the tone there is that somebody is speaking on behalf of the readers to those in the newsroom. Prisk, a journalist for 36 years, tends to do it the other way round – acting as a spokesman for the journalists to the readers.
Here’s how she’s gone thus far:
Week one starts promisingly enough. She tells readers: “It’s about you, and I’m on your side.”
Week two and the readers are complaining about the newspaper’s coverage of Neville Wran’s illness: “I beg to differ with your assessments.”
Week three and the readers have been complaining about columnists’ biases. But Prisk tells them: “Unfortunately, again you offer no specifics, which makes it difficult to follow up. It is more ”a general feeling”, said one reader: when I asked for an example I could work with.”
The headline on the article? “Full steam ahead on good ship Balance.” So that’s okay then.
Week four, and readers who lack grace when their contributions don’t make the letters page are under fire: “Even the most gentle and erudite of people become tooth-and-claw aggressives over this page. Accusations fly and outrageous claims are made.”
Week five, and there’s finally a mild criticism from Prisk after readers accuse the paper of doing a disservice to Sam Stosur by failing to put her US Open win on the front page. Prisk concedes: “I thought it remiss, too – even horses get the cover.”
She then explains the reason which “had less to do with discrimination against women and more to do with the problem of what is ”new” and what is ‘old’ when readers have television, radio, internet news sites, mobile phones, Twitter and Facebook to update them all day, every day.”
Week six and the readers are unhappy about continued high profile coverage of Kevin Rudd’s battles with Julia Gillard. Sadly: “”I cannot adjudicate about who is right and who is wrong.”
Week seven and the readers’ editor is onto the issue of online commentary:
“There are a lot of very angry people out there, and a lot of you want to vent that anger online. If you veer slightly, or completely, off the topic, so? And if you are spewing invective, abuse, insults, vulgarity, disparagement and just plain old rudeness, well that’s your right, no?
“Actually, no it is not.”
Week eight and it’s time to explain to readers who criticise the paper for not being a journal of record why they are wrong:
“I detect a certain hankering among many readers for days gone by – not so much for horse-and-buggy days, thank heavens, but for the gentler times of 25 or so years ago, before mobile phones and the internet, and definitely before Facebook and Twitter. For the days when newspapers, radio and television were the only sources of news; when James Dibble’s nightly reading of the ABC news on television was the signal for children’s bedtime; when a radio was on every nest of side tables, under the standard lamp. And when The Sydney Morning Herald was ”the country’s oldest journal of record”, a claim made by many when chastising the paper for not publishing a story or angle the reader is interested in.”
Week nine and “Conspiracy theorists are alive and well and living in reader land.” This week those who complain about the publication having hidden agendas are wrong.
Week ten and we’re onto the paper’s coverage of global warming. Readers complain that the paper is biased towards the “greenies” side of the agenda. “That’s not true”, rules Prisk.
Week 11 and readers are unhappy when politicians don’t get a title. But there’s a good explanation.
“Manners, a lack of respect, professionalism and poor training does not come into it. The opposite, actually. It is the Heralds’ style to drop honorifics in feature pieces, analysis and comment.”
However, Prisk does concede that in one example a production error meant that a piece that referred to “Gillard” rather than “Ms Gillard” had not been labelled as “comment”.
Week 12 and the topic is the media inquiry, which Fairfax doesn’t consider necessary although it is cooperating. According to Prisk: “That you are reading a column by Australia’s only readers’ editor I think shows Fairfax’s commitment to openness and honesty with its readers.”
Week 13, and the topic is a complaint from a naval officer after the paper ran an AAP report on the death of a sailor and incorrectly stated the victim was female rather than male.
Prisk reports:
“He was explicit in his opinion of journalists, including – when I said reporters would not have made it up – ‘They do make it up! They do!’
“They don’t, of course, and the error was tracked back to an AAP report, picked up by news organisations which take copy from it.”
Of course.
Later in the piece she argues against naming staff journalists when they get facts wrong. She argues: “A mistake made in a newspaper’s name should be corrected in its name.” Unless the mistake belongs to AAP of course, who clearly should be named.
Week 14 sees the focus on picture choice. A number of readers were unhappy about a front page picture of victims of the fire in a nursing home in Quakers Hill. Prisk backs the decision to run the image though.
Week 15, and the final column of the year finally sees some focus on mistakes made by the newspaper. Mainly grammatical mistakes.
Column number 17 came on January 4. Among the topics, are readers who object to the shrinking editorial space over Christmas at the expense of ads.
“Most readers appreciate that without the ads there would be no stories. Our frustrated reader will have to learn to love ’em, just as we have.”
Column 18 tackled complaints over the paper’s extended coverage of the cricket and an article about aggressive bowling by James Pattinson. Prisk’s verdict: “I cannot agree with the criticism of either the headline or the piece.”
Column 19, today, looks at the lot of the poor old journalists when politically correct readers complain about terminology like “wheelchair bound” and “shared custody” of children.
In fairness, I think it’s a good thing that the SMH has a readers’ editor. It’s a step forward. And I’m sure that Prisk comes to this with the intention of being a fair arbiter.
But that may require the acceptance that at times, the readers may be right.
Tim Burrowes
most people who comment online are schmucks, including me
User ID not verified.
Me too.
Why do I keep reading that stuff?
User ID not verified.
Sounds like a missed opportunity for the SMH.
But honesty and self reflection has never come easy to Australian media.
User ID not verified.
Of course it might be that the reason the Herald has glued on a fig leaf is that it’s editors and journalists do not give a fig (oops) for the reader. In fact it might be that they are so out of touch that the only way they can pretend to be engaged with the audience is to fake it?
Judy Prisk (and others) would no doubt demolish my obervation with convincing ease, but it would seem to this (now almost lapsed) reader that the most stark example of the SMH’s failure was the overwhelming view expressed by ballot of NSW citizens on the efficacy of the last Labor Government, which managed in its many years to suffer not a single serious rogering from the Herald on any material element of its shocking administration.
Nowadays Fairfax is a ship of fools, well reflected in its foppish web sites.
User ID not verified.
Almost everyone who comments online is a schmuck and I’m also including myself. I am slightly surprised that the paper even takes into account that other news sources exist. I would have thought a lot of people who still by the paper use it as their primary source of news. On the rare occasion I’ve picked it up I’ve found so few things that I haven’t already read elsewhere that I’ve regretted the purchase. If they put a full version of the Age online, even as a PDF I’d happily pay something for it to get the stuff I’m missing out on. I’d be interested in hearing journo’s opinions on how they work out what is “old news” 24 hours later and what isn’t
User ID not verified.
On the topic, when I sent a ‘release/story’ to smh.com.au suggesting they add balance to their coverage of the call for greater Coral Sea protection (from what? but that is another story . . .) and perhaps counter Valerie Taylor’s comments that there is a severe shortage of tuna and pelagaic fish in our seas with ACTUAL FACTS from the Tuna industry (the CEO to be precise), they referred me to OPINION page and told me to send my thoughts there.
Okaaaaay. Perhaps, as I sent back, their journalists could follow up and BALANCE the story with real figures from the Fisheries rather than just diatribe from Ms Taylor about endangered fish that would be better off in a marine park, rather than on our dinner tables. Talk about off course.
User ID not verified.
PRs should be banned by newspapers. As should reader editors. I am sick to desth of PR as news and of news media who live a life of spin. The types who run these companies are far removed from what readers know snd want and in my experience are accelerating the trends that accrue from digital media.
I will happily pay for reporters who ask questions of interest and who write the snswerd in a clear, balanced and intelligent way. I will not pay to read about a couple of PR hacks who want to pretend they care about a social issue ( such as gambling).
User ID not verified.
What about the rubbish smh website? The amount of rubbish celebrity stories and Internet memes they publish makes it look like th Telegraph!
User ID not verified.
I agree with Chris Sherlock’s comment; the SMH website is a shocker, deliberately tailored to emphasise celebs, crime, accidental deaths, and wacky stories off the net. Must be the only broadsheet newspaper in the world to have a tabloid website! It’s also poorly designed.
User ID not verified.
Come off it: you’ll actually find that the journos who still have jobs there actually do give a rat’s about the readers. But as FFX outsource more and more of their production, they’re hard pressed to produce the same paper with fewer numbers. You could argue that the subs gave even more of a shit about the content of the paper – except they’re now all dumped, and subbing is handled typewriter/monkeys style by Pagemasters, who have an even worse track-record than yer average blogger.
The website is separate to the paper, and designed to attract eyeballs with populist shit, to try and undercut the opposition’s more glitzy entries. Most staffers I know abhor it, particularly the fact that it was never subbed before being sent live. (And probably still isn’t.)
User ID not verified.
you pay peanuts is bang on. i just left the place after a fair while because – partly – i felt embarrassed telling people i worked there. back on topic: i do tend to agree with burrowes’ observations over judy prisk’s column. indeed, she is a bloody fine journalist and i’ll be forever indebted to her as the subs desk den mother. but i do suspect that there is probably a fair bit of meddling on the part of peter fray – and amanda wilson, for that matter – with the readers’ column. both love to micro-manage at a deckchair-on-the-titanic level.
User ID not verified.