ABC’s Stephen McDonell criticised over Walkley nominated piece
Two journalism academics from RMIT University’s journalism school have issued an open letter calling on the the Walkley Foundation not to award ABC China correspondent Stephen McDonell a Walkley for his piece “Covert Chinese media”.
The radio piece revealed how the Chinese government had established an Australian front company, CAMG Media International, and employed Australian Andrea Yu to be a “reporter”, asking pre-vetted questions which appeared to be coming from foreign media at highly staged government press conferences.
In their open letter journalism academics Jill Singer and Alex Wake defend Yu, who is now a journalism student at RMIT: “It will be a sad day for journalism if Stephen McDonnell’s shortlisted piece… wins a Walkley Award.
“At the heart of his story is a young Australian woman, Andrea Yu, who had just arrived in China after securing her first paid employment after her Arts degree. She hadn’t even been paid before McDonnell’s piece went to air, claiming that she was somehow a patsy for the Chinese government.”
Speaking from Beijing last night McDonell said he felt sympathy for the young woman but was clear that his story was not about her.
“It’s not a story about Andrea Yu,” McDonell told Mumbrella. “It is a story about a Chinese front company laundering Chinese government propaganda through Australia and on-selling it to other countries and pretending it is Australian journalism.”
“I don’t wish any malice towards Andrea Yu. It wasn’t mean to her or rude to her and when I interviewed her I gave her every chance to respond.”
The academics argue that Yu made a simple mistake of not doing her due diligence and is being unfairly victimised. Since returning to Australia Yu has struggled to find work in Australian journalism.
“Considering there are judges, politicians and even journalists who regularly make the same mistake, it seems unfair that Yu copped such a shellacking. In terms of degrees of difficulty, McDonnell’s job on Yu was akin to shooting goldfish in a barrel,” the academics wrote.
McDonell rejected this criticism arguing that the questions were legitimate of anyone acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the Chinese government.
“If Andrea Yu was a 40-year-old man doing that, and I’d asked those same questions, would anyone think there was anything untoward about the story?”, he told Mumbrella.
“You can’t just say ‘I don’t know what I’m doing’ if you’re going to stand up on the world stage as a journalist. The press conferences are already rigged. It is really hard to ask a question anyway and most of the questions are pre-vetted.”
Wake said the issue was now around whether McDonell should be recognise by the Walkley Foundation for his piece.
“This was an attack on a young person not the broader issue and surely journalism is better than that,” Wake told Mumbrella.
“For the ABC with the hundreds and hundreds of hours of fantastic journalism they put out, to put forward this story as an example of excellence in current affairs broadcasting is really quite embarrassing.”
“This is akin to having a go at a bank teller for not passing on interest rates.”
However, McDonell maintains the piece was focused on the broader issue and that it showed how Australian journalism was being used to pass on Chinese government propaganda.
“There are only a certain number of questions that they would let foreigners ask. On multiple occasions there was a question from ‘a foreign CAMG journalist’ which is not actually a question from a foreign journalist but is rather a question from themselves because Andrea was representing a Chinese government entity and she knew she was,” said McDonell.
“She knew what she was because she knew what questions she was being told to ask,” he said.
At the time of posting the Walkley Foundation had not responded to requests for comment.
Nic Christensen
Update: Host of the ABC’s PM program Mark Colvin has also given Mumbrella a comment on Stephen McDonell’s piece.
It can be read below:
Stephen McDonell’s story was about an important subject and it dealt with it seriously and fairly.
The subject is what’s come to be known as “astroturfing”, which is becoming a blight on journalism – and indeed on democracy.
Astroturfing is the practice of using real or pseudonymous figures to push a cause without declaring their interest.
It’s becoming perniciously widespread in the corporate world, and regrettably also among governments.
That was the case in this story, where a young Australian had allowed herself to become a pawn of a repressive government which doesn’t like its policies questioned.
She appears to have been allowed to ask questions on different occasions precisely so that the Chinese Government could pretend that it did not exclude foreigners from doing so.
That’s a stark contrast to her tutors’ claim, that “The fact that she was allowed to ask a question did no one any harm, she certainly didn’t deny anyone else a speaking position”.
Andrea Yu’s tutors also claim that she “made a simple mistake of not doing her due diligence” on CAMG.
In the actual interview, however, she made it clear that she had established that:
a) she chose to be employed by them;
b) when she asked questions in press conferences she was representing the company;
c) she knew the company was majority owned from Beijing;
d) that she suspected, at the very least, that it was controlled by the Government.So I’m afraid the “no due diligence” defence just doesn’t fly.
Andrea Yu’s interview was not cut to make a point or quoted out of context: indeed she was quoted at length precisely because it made it clear she had been given a fair chance to put her own case.
Ms Yu’s tutors say her “only crime was failing to understand the distinction between journalism and PR.”
Let’s be very clear: in journalism, that’s not a small crime.
It’s right up there with plagiarism and fabrication.
If you’re doing PR, especially for a regime that locks up journalists, artists and writers, up to and including a Nobel Prize winner, as political prisoners, you have to say so up front.
Youth, inexperience and naivety are not a good enough excuse.
Jill Singer and Alex Wake ‘s open letter can also be viewed below:
It will be a sad day for journalism if Stephen McDonnell’s shortlisted piece “China uses mysterious Australian to rig Congress Coverage” wins a Walkley Award.
At the heart of his story is a young Australian woman, Andrea Yu, who had just arrived in China after securing her first paid employment after her Arts degree. She hadn’t even been paid before McDonnell’s piece went to air, claiming that she was somehow a patsy for the Chinese government.
Yu made a simple mistake. In the joy of getting a job (using her hard-earned language skills) with a Melbourne-based firm, she hadn’t researched her employers all that thoroughly.
She didn’t have any journalism training and hadn’t looked up the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to find out who ultimately would be paying her wages.
The fact that she was allowed to ask a question did no one any harm, she certainly didn’t deny anyone else a speaking position.
While there may well be a Walkley Award winning story in the ownership of the firm Yu worked for (CAMG and Australian Chinese businessman Tommy Jiang) or even in the theatre of the Chinese propaganda machine – McDonnell’s piece is instead a story of an experienced journalist (himself) grilling an inexperienced, obliging and naïve young woman whose only crime was failing to understand the distinction between journalism and PR.
Considering there are judges, politicians and even journalists who regularly make the same mistake, it seems unfair that Yu copped such a shellacking. In terms of degrees of difficulty, McDonnell’s job on Yu was akin to shooting goldfish in a barrel.
For the record, Yu immediately returned to Australia, enrolled in a graduate diploma of journalism at RMIT University and will graduate with distinction at the end of this year. She is a young person of great integrity, who has impressed her lecturers with her dedication to learn about the theory and practice of journalism.
Jill Singer & Alex WakeRMIT University
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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!
User ID not verified.
“Any publicity is good publicity so long as they spell your name right”
Should get quite a good run out of this one.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.