Kate McClymont: ‘New media doesn’t yet have the capacity to hold the powerful to account’
Sydney Morning Herald investigative journalist Kate McClymont believes that new media do not yet have the capacity to deliver robust investigate journalism.
Speaking at the St James Ethics Centre’s IQ2 debate on the proposition ‘Good riddance to the media dinosaurs’, McClymont said that “for a free and fearless press”, new and traditional media needed to “coexist”.
“The things we do, we do well. You don’t yet have the capacity to do that. You don’t yet have the capacity to hold the powerful to account,” she told the panel of new media experts.
The debate panel saw Margo Kingston (No Fibs), Sophie Black (Private Media) and Tim Duggan (Sound Alliance) argue against traditional media, with McClymont (SMH), Sarrah Le Marquand (The Daily Telegraph) and Jonathan Holmes (The Age) taking up the defence.
Kingston, who left Fairfax Media in 2005 and founded her crowdfunded citizen journalism platform No Fibs in 2012, caused a stir when she said there was no ethical accountability in Australian newsrooms.
“There is no enforcement of ethics in the Australian media. There is no accountability,” Kinston said. “In new media, there are constantly evolving debates about what is ethical.”
McClymont countered that the Australian Press Council was one body that offered accountability and that traditional media was compelled to run apologies and corrections by them.
Kinston said: “The Daily Telegraph breaches the code of ethics it subscribes to for the Press Council every single day of the week.”
Former Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes said that online news ventures could not offer the same scrutiny of state governments and local councils.
“Those are the entities that rule our lives and somebody has to watch them while they’re at it. At present it’s overwhelmingly the mainstream media with its great big news rooms that do that,” Holmes said.
“I’m not saying there can’t be start up websites and mobile platforms that detect a couple of localities and cities and states. Adelaide’s InDaily, for example, is trying to turn Adelaide from a one newspaper city into a two news website city. But all over the country, local newspapers are dying and not much is popping up in their place. Nothing besides ABC Rural and regional websites paid for by city taxpayers.
“Even in our cities as the great newsrooms of the dinosaur media shrink, courts go unreported, complex policies go oversimplified or simply ignored, decisions get taken in council chambers and state parliaments with far too little scrutiny or discussion. The ABC – shamefully in my view – has chopped its state television current affairs, allegedly to meet budget cuts. Basically because it has placed a higher priority on reaching a younger audience with a mobile, digital buzz.”
Daily Telegraph columnist Sarrah le Marquand said that the dominant Australian news sites are all produced by traditional media organisations and spruiked the competition to illustrate her point.
“On April 29 for instance, the day of the Bali 9 executions, the Sydney Morning Herald website had two and a half million hits. Perhaps out with the old in with the new-old is the most accurate summation of digital journalism in this country,” she said.
Editor in chief of Private Media, which publishes Crikey, Sophie Black, highlighted NPR’s “addictive” podcast Serial, live-tweeting of the Ferguson and Baltimore protests and Wikileaks releases as some of new media’s triumphs.
Black said: “Let’s get real: journalists have always been under pressure – victims of deadlines, commercial interests and their own human error. It’s just that on the internet, there’s nowhere to hide.”
Jack Fisher
This is a bit of an old-skool debate. What is the definition of “old media” vs “new media” anyway? The ability to hold people and institutions to account comes down to two or three things: Firstly audience /readership — this is a big part of what gives a media organisation real clout. Those being held to account care less about media outlets that have low readership than they do about those which have a large audience. Traditional media outlets are most certainly under pressure from newer players on this front (think buzzfeed, huffpo etc). Secondly its about having the resources- both in terms of money and expertise – to chase those stories, hold people/institutions to account – again some of the new media players are building large and experienced/skilled editorial teams while traditional media continues to cut, cut, cut. Much as I love what Kate does, I think her comments reek of the same sort of complacency about the role/importance of traditional media that got them into the dire spot they find themselves in now. (didn’t they say much the same sort of thing about classifieds 20 years ago?)
User ID not verified.
what year is this again?
User ID not verified.
This was the third IQ debate I have been to, and it was a good one. Interesting to see how the very largely undecided audience were swayed by the end of the night in the old media’s favour.
I felt a bit sorry for Tim Duggan who seemed to cop all the questions for the new media. Strong performances from all of the speakers, although the three from the old media were particularly strong.
Think it should be pointed out that it wasn’t only Sarrah Le Marquand who charitably spruiked the competition. Kate McCylmont made several kind references to News Ltd too. It was likely that sense of solidarity between Fairfax and News in staring down the new media that won the audience around.
User ID not verified.
Was there any forecasting discussed, in terms of when ‘new media’ will be able to swing elections…?
User ID not verified.
“McClymont countered that the Australian Press Council was one body that offered accountability and that traditional media was compelled to run apologies and corrections by them.”
With nowhere near the same prominence and profile as the original transgressions, she forgot to add. I love it when the holier-than-thou are prime transgressors.
User ID not verified.