ABC’s Stephen McDonell criticised over Walkley nominated piece

What a baffling criticism. It seems off to have the former host of Today Tonight lecturing someone on ethics. I really can’t see any issue with the story, you don’t get a pass because you’re young. It looks like the Walkley’s didn’t have a problem with it.

I’m surprised Singer & Wake are going to such lengths. She applied for a job without doing sufficient research and there’s consequences. An important life lesson.

Give me a spell. Anyone who has been through the process of getting a work visa with a Chinese-related entity knows who is employing them. No need for an ASIC search, either. Just Google it. ‘Content producers’. Click on the ‘partners’ link on its website – takes you straight to CRI & CIBN. Quick Wiki & amazingly it reveals that it’s the PRC’s state-owned radio station & international broadcaster. A bit like Radio Australia & ABC, just without the government criticism. If 10 minutes’ research reveals that, maybe I should have gone for a Walkley.

Obviously the RMIT authors know Ms Yu through her attendance at RMIT, and understandably have felt a need to defend her personal nature. Maybe they have witnessed the flow on effects from this piece and feel obliged to stand up for their acquaintance.

Consequently, and perhaps unfortunately, this can hardly be considered an objective argument.

That Ms Yu “has impressed her lecturers with her dedication to learn about the theory and practice of journalism” shows that Ms Yu has the wisdom to learn from her mistakes, but others denying that mistakes were made is not beneficial.

As for being ‘grilled’, all journalists should regularly have their ethics and motivations questioned for the sake of integrity. It’s what journalists do to others, so if it’s okay for them to ask questions, it should be just as okay for them to be questioned.
A case of heat and kitchens.

Personally I wish Ms Yu all the best, and hope an employer will see the benefit of hiring someone who has been ‘through the grill’ and come out a wiser individual because of it. There’s nothing like good old perseverance!

“Any publicity is good publicity so long as they spell your name right”

Should get quite a good run out of this one.

wow. Singer & Wake should be ignored. She applied for a job without thinking about the consequences. And the story that went to air was not only important but actually pretty compelling.

Singer and Wake describe Yu as a “naïve young woman whose only crime was failing to understand the distinction between journalism and PR.”
They also say she is graduating with distinction in a journalism diploma at RMIT. Surely RMIT must take responsibility for its failure to teach the difference.

It is a healthy thing to see public discussion about Walkley nominations.
In his defence of Stephen McDonell’s story, Mark Colvin writes as though Alex Wake and I suggested a journalist’s failure to understand the distinction between journalism and PR is no small crime. This is not our view.
Andrea (Andi) Yu was not a journalist. She was PR dressed as journalism – an agreed fact.
Colvin could also be read as suggesting Andi Yu was a student of Alex Wake’s and mine at the time McDonell reported on her. Not so.
These points need to be made in light of the fact that Andi Yu’s grasp of journalism practice is central to our criticism of McDonell’s report.
We know she was employed by CAMG in a PR capacity. She was not a journalist but presented as one – not the kind of behaviour any of us want encouraged.
McDonell’s interview with Yu provides a stark contrast between the skills of an experienced journalist and those of the stumbling pretender. She was toast.
His subsequent remark that we wouldn’t be worried about his report if Andi was a 40-year-old man is unworthy of him. We just wanted to see more substance and less picking of low-hanging fruit.
Tellingly, in my view, both McDonell and Colvin seem unclear about the angle of this story that has gone on to be shortlisted for a Walkley.
McDonell says it’s about broad issues and “It’s not a story about Andrea Yu”. Yet Colvin tells us it’s about a “young Australian who allowed herself to become a pawn of a repressive government” – Andi Yu.
Colvin also praises McDonell’s report for being about the serious and important issue of “what’s come to be known as ‘astroturfing’ which is becoming a blight on journalism – and indeed on democracy”.
That does sound like important news, if not for the fact astroturfing has been around for decades and didn’t crack a mention in McDonell’s story. Nor was a single question put to CAMG, Yu’s employer.
We might all learn something from this about what we admire in journalism (like how to spell Stephen McDonell’s name!) I know that Andi Yu has.

Good grief! It will certainly be a sad day for journalism if The Walkley Foundation considers for a second the bleating of a Today Tonight host.

Congrats on the piece Steve, and for exposing not only the Chinese propaganda machine, but also the incompetence of RMIT.

Jill, your response to Mark just doesn’t make sense.

“McDonell says it’s about broad issues and “It’s not a story about Andrea Yu”. Yet Colvin tells us it’s about a “young Australian who allowed herself to become a pawn of a repressive government” – Andi Yu.”

– The piece was about the wider issue, explored through the example of a young Australian. Surely as teachers of journalism you understand the basic structure required of a piece like this. The fact that wider issues are always explored through relative view points.

“That does sound like important news, if not for the fact astroturfing has been around for decades and didn’t crack a mention in McDonell’s story.”

– What does the age of an issue have to do with it’s relevance? Sexual discrimination has existed for centuries and it’s still an issue worthy of treatment by current affairs programs. Also whether or not the piece mentioned the term “astroturfing” explicitly, it was clearly the subject being explored.

lastly, your motivation in this matter seems to be your concern for the wellbeing and future job prospects of Andrea Yu. If this is the case I really think you need to have a look at twitter and other social media sites. As well as having a bit of a google. The sentiment I’ve seen expressed in the wider community is nearly unanimously at odds with yours. In fact, your justification of Andrea is making her the target of much more criticism than I believe she already was.

It’s very easy for people here to dismiss Jill’s criticisms because she hosted Today Tonight years ago.

But saying that the Walkley Foundation shouldn’t listen to her because of that is a bit rich — she won a Walkley herself for an outstanding piece of journalism just a few short years ago.

Let’s not get into name-calling and reputation-bashing. It’s a fair debate, I think. While youth should be no defence for a fair and compelling report, it is tragic in its own way that this will blacken Andrea’s record for the rest of her career when in fact I suspect she’s learned a very valuable lesson many of us have gone without.

I don’t think I agree with Alex and Jill, but I think they’re very much in their right to publicly question the report.

Talk about a case pot kettle black for Jill Singer to criticise. Remember her performance on Today Tonight? That’s all most Australians will ever remember Jill Singer for.

Stephen McDonell is a breath of fresh on the overseas reporter stage. His story was very newsworthy, exposing the very machinations used to manipulate journalism.

Kinda ironic since the ABC’s Stephen McDonnell’s stories on North Korea are all straight out of the CIA Song Book on the DPRK.