Gawenda: journalists move on, disaster remains
|
Journalists, editors, television news executives and even radio shock jocks are human and therefore no doubt they have been as genuinely shocked and saddened as “ordinary” Australians by the Victorian fires and their aftermath. As genuinely shocked and saddened as the politicians in Canberra and Spring Street. And no doubt too that the reporters and photographers and camera crews sent to cover the aftermath of the fires have been deeply affected by what they have seen and heard. They will never quite forget this experience and never quite get over it. Okay, so we journalists are human. I assume even those who think we are cynical dirt bags might, reluctantly acknowledge our humanity. But that’s not the end of the story. Journalists and media executives are not “ordinary” people. They have a range of motivations when it comes to covering a major disaster like this. Journalists want to get the “best” stories. Editors and executive producers want to beat their competitors. They all know that a disaster like this is not just a shocking and grief-producing event, but an opportunity. They know that their ratings will climb through the roof and newspaper circulations will spike. We also hope they know and understand their role in communal grieving and solidarity, but that’s not, in my experience, a major consideration. Media not only covers an event like the Victorian fires, but in a sense, creates and defines it as well. And frankly, there is a kind of formula for this that most journalists and editors and executive producers implicitly follow. It was followed in the coverage of these fires. Across all media, from last Sunday onwards, the focus has been on describing the fires and their aftermath as vividly as possible — through words and pictures and video footage. All this is done, according to the formula, through “human” stories. Up to a point, there’s nothing wrong with that. The human stories are important, part of the communal grieving process. There are basically three categories of human stories in disaster coverage: People who have lost their lives, people who have survived but have lost all their material possessions and inevitably, those who have been chosen to be described as heroes. Mostly, all the mainstream media in my view, produced this sort of coverage to the point that what was done, say, on the commercial television networks was no different to ABC television’s coverage. The same is true for the newspapers, broadsheet and tabloid, though in my view, The Australian, despite the fact that it couldn’t resist some silly and predictable ideological stuff on its op-ed page, did try, from day one, to raise some of disturbing questions raised by the fires. And so did Crikey, running the Clive Hamilton piece on climate change for which, I understand, it received some criticism. Crikey also ran the best piece in my view (written by an intern!) examining the stay or go early policy, a piece crying out to be done really from day one. From day one, the question of why this happened and could it have been avoided, the loss of life I mean, was on the mind of everyone I spoke to. It was on my mind. So in terms of standard disaster coverage, the media in general did well. I thought Jon Faine was very good from Saturday night onwards and I thought Cameron Stewart’s reporting in The Australian, which did raise questions about the stay or go early policy was good too. But I must admit that after a while, there was a clichéd sameness about the survivor stories that was mind-numbing. There were too many questions of the “how do you feel” variety, too much emoting from reporters, too much “devastation” and “disaster”, too much once over lightly in the interviews with shell-shocked and traumatized people who kept saying they couldn’t find the words to describe what they had been through — and neither could the reporters. The most memorable and affecting survivor story, the one that I won’t quickly forget, was written by The Australian’s Gary Hughes who was an actual survivor and told his story in unadorned and understated prose. It was palpably authentic. That’s important. There is always the danger with a disaster like this that “people” stories become exploitative, ghoulish, invasions of privacy, traumatising people who are already deeply traumatised. Journalists who have covered disasters all know that there comes a time, often quite early on, when the victims of a disaster start to feel they are being exploited, when they become hostile, when many wish we would just go away. Perhaps that stage has now been reached with the Victorian fires. I suspect if it hasn’t, it soon will. On the other hand, as the media’s blanket coverage of these people stories recedes, some of those survivors who have become the “faces” of this disaster, will have to cope with media abandonment because that’s what inevitably will happen. One day, they will no longer be sought out by journalists and camera crew. One day their stories will no longer be of such intense media interest. Journalists move on. In the end, the relationship was all about getting a story. Editors and news producers need to be aware of this and need to work out ways of “staying with the story”. This will be increasingly hard to do because most newspapers, most newsrooms are being relentlessly slimmed down through redundancies, voluntary and not so voluntary. Chances are, most media won’t easily manage to stay on this story. I fear that those people whose stories we told will ultimately feel their contact with journalists was a rotten experience. And the public we are meant to serve may not feel we have served them well. In a way, these past few days, while no doubt difficult and life-affecting for the journalists who covered the fires and their aftermath, have been the easy part of covering this disaster. Staying on the story, asking all the hard questions about what happened and why, committing resources and space to a story that will offer ever diminishing returns in terms of ratings and circulation, that will be the hard part of covering what has happened in those towns and villages in Victoria in recent days. That hard part starts now. |
|
|
|
15 Comments
Well said vernise…that’s the only angle missing from Michael’s article. We’re all hurting in some way here in Vic. I want this inept Brumby government and SP Ausnet to be held accountable. People deserve the truth and proper compensation, not just Eddie-driven donations, helpful though it will (hopefully) be.
One of the first things millions of Victorians want to know, have an absolute right to know, and perhaps a need, is the death toll of these fires.
Since Tuesday, that has been denied them. And the media have been complicit in this denial, without any attempt to explain.
I don’t know the reasons, but the hourly updates seemed to stop at 181 from the moment things started to get a bit ratty at the public meetings and the roadblocks.
What’s going on? Are we such an immature society that - like some tinpot dictatorship - we are to be shielded from the truth? And the media goes along with it ?
Do your job. Find out the present death toll and keep your readers appraised. .
On Greg Barns’s piece on tabloid ‘grief porn’ and mawkishness, summed up in his comment on a victim’s sad experience ‘do we really need to know this?’ Yes Greg, we do. The worst natural disaster in Australian history, and probably the deadliest recorded forest fire in human history (last being on the thumb of Michigan, Sept 5, 1881), and, horrors, Greg discovers that in six days of intense coverage some popular media have lapsed into moments of sentimentality, cameras a bit intrusive. Where’s he been? Overall, both the popular media and ABC coverage has been excellent, helpful, and comparatively restrained.
These pieces are so predictable. When one media starts to analyse the rest’s coverage you know they’ve nothing left to say. Greg sits back, in Canberra I think, and calls for the coolly clinical approach he saw with the London bombings.Where’s the analogy with the London bombings here, with thousands left homeless, living in tents, towns gone, and effects that will last for decades?
Yes some things are grating. A fat chaplain chasing after a disgusted suvivor who has seen not a cent of $45m in donations and other promised aid, bleating “are you okay?’
So there are still many issues. But find out the frigging death toll. It’s basic.
You forgot to mention the almost obligatory “blame it on the arsonists” angle that kicked up on day one, and certainly dominated international coverage such as CNN and the BBC. Blame it on the arsonists seems unique to Australian coverage of bushfires, or wildfires.
Raising the bog standard arsonists bogeymen-style angle marred coverage and perhaps diverted attention from the real probelms with bush fire policy.
And of course international media lapped up the distraught Rudd “mass murderers’ quote. Plus there were some bemused comments abotu declaring tracts of burnt areas as crime scenes. What were they/are they looking for? Matches?
Actually some of us have been analysing the underlying causes of mega fire every since the 2003 ACT locomotive, and the general bushfire politics since in my case 1994 here in NSW.
I deduced a 300 death toll by 7 am Tuesday morning from the hints of the main figures, and who knows this might have pushed it into the lead on ABC tv news 12 hours later. Crikey also mentioned the figure in unconfirmed rumours the day before.
My analysis started in this interweb thingy on 2.58 am last Monday, because I just couldn’t sleep knowing what had happened was in the mega fire category.
Just like after the 1994 disaster the opportunistic politics were cranking up, and as Rundle says “malign” it was. Very malign today, particularly The Australian:
1. Stephen Lunn implies an alleged call for restraint on prescribed burning submission by The Wilderness Society green group refers to any bush anywhere when almost certainly it’s only for remote large intact natural areas (the technical legal definition of wilderness eg 1987 NSW Act), not national parks as such, not council managed reserves, not roadside or private land or even State Forest.
2. In the main opinion piece again the TWS gets slimed to borrow a Bolt-ism by almost certainly falsely misquoting a reference to ‘massive increase in prescribed burning’ as statistically wrong for “southern Australia”. But TWS is a national ngo body. They worry about Northern Territory, and FNQ and NW WA. These are areas known to apply ‘let ‘er rip’ burnoffs. So what? Well they can INCREASE wildfire hazard by (a) promoting fire weeds (not a mention of this reality by the ‘expert’, and (b) too often escape as wildfires.
Indeed as I recall the father of the current NSW Bushfire Commissioner (Shane Fitsimmons) tragically died in hazard reduction burn working for the NSW NPWS that went wrong. Prescribed burning is NOT a panacea because they can go wrong.
To argue that prescribed burning is a panacea is a LIE that will kill as many as it sav
Excellent article Michael. I would like to know, based on your experience, what the chances are of a royal commission achieving anything? Our state government led by the IMHO corrupt John Brumby who has called for this commission In order to clear himself as being guilty of opposing any environment standards at all. (the fire alarm which he tried to duck-shove onto the federal government, the accepting the money of developers in order to permit them to erect cheap, shoddy houses and housing-estates on land which was adjacent to national parks. The allowance for local councils to fine people who wanted to have their land cleared of hazardous undergrowth. Allowing cul-de-sacs to be constructed in high-fire hazard areas. His being only too happy to apply for Melbourne to host a future olympics/bloody car race at Albert Park/ commonwealth games/swimming games. The plan to rebuild the Rod Laver arena at Melbourne Park at a mere AUS$500,000,000. Which will double in price by the time it is built. The gas powered desalination plant) The man is the worst state Premier in our recorded history.
All previous royal commissions into our bushfires have achieved almost nothing. What is left for the taxpayer? Endless legal bills for the most expensive lawyers in Australia. Endless fines for clearing fire-breaks. Plus that: the taxpayer dies.
Please tell me Mr Gawenda, how this royal commission will do anything but deflect blame from the Brumby government?
Commissioner Fitzsimmons background here, speech by his local Liberal MP, appointed by an ALP Govt
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA20071017034
“I pay tribute to Shane Fitzsimmons, the new Rural Fire Service Commissioner, who lives in Berowra Heights in the Hornsby electorate. Constituents in the Hornsby electorate are very proud of the fact that he was appointed to this extremely important position. Danielle Long from the Hornsby Advocate wrote a very nice article about Shane headed “Family support in top job.” Shane, who is only 38 years old, was appointed as Rural Fire Service Commissioner on 18 September and took over from Phil Koperberg, who stepped down from the position last year. Shane said that it was a tremendous honour and privilege to be given this top job. I wrote to him and personally called him. I know Shane ….
Shane was a little surprised that this opportunity arose so early in his career, but certainly he has been, firstly, a very committed Rural Fire Service volunteer and now he has progressed to the top job of commissioner. Sadly, his father, George Fitzsimmons, who also was in the Rural Fire Service, was just 52 years old when he died in 2000, along with three other National Parks and Wildlife staff, during a hazard reduction burn-off in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park that went wrong. As the family is totally committed to community service, Shane felt this loss deeply and wishes that his father could have seen this wonderful opportunity bestowed on him. Shane Fitzsimmons knows that his father would want him to look out for the safety of his 70,000 firefighters. Whilst his father perished in a hazard reduction burn, the problem of bushfire arsonists is keenly felt and …”
JB and Gawenda: the perfect couple.
In reference to journalistic standards I am deeply concerned at the insensitivity of both The Australian and The Herald Sun in relation to the recnt bushfires The Australian published a picture of a child’s body being removed from a burnt out house. This was one of four children who perished in the fire and the the identity of the child would be would be readily identifiable to any of the relatives or associates of the family. Similarly the publication of a paparazzi shot of a man being told by his father that his mother had been burnt to death is an unnecessary intrusion into the personal grief of these poor people.
I attempted several times to contact the editor of the Australian without success to ask the question that if this child was one of Rupert Murdoch’s children or grandchildren burnt to death in these fires whether News Corporation would publish these pictures. Similarly if Rupert was being told that Dame Elisabeth had been burnt to death in the bushfire would his grieving picture also be on the front page of the Australian?
I have a macabre sense of horror at the weasel sophistry of the gutless reporters in trying to protect the mass murders of the green movement..The deracinated urban zealots of the green movement -now running for cover like rabbits after the first shot- have accomplices in their press friends who are now trying to divert attention from the truth.
The greens are responsible for this mass murder.Is that plain enough for you.?A hot summer, zealots who refuse to burn off in the cooler months, and arcadian ratbaggery are a deadly( that is as in dead ) combination.
Greg Angelo
Thursday, 12 February 2009 1:59:23 PM
I’m with you Greg! Also Miranda Devine had an article today, blaming ‘greenies’ for the ramifications of the fires. As I pointed out, the fact is, that people who lost everything in previous fires have rebuilt in the same area, noting that they knew the risks, but the reason they lived there, was having the bush very close to their homes. It may be, that in future, insurance companies will dictate what homes will be built and where.
I’m so glad I didn’t see the photos as you described, Greg. I’ve shed a lot of tears for those who have lost so much, and whose real agony awaits them, as they’re probably still in shock! I can only imagine their trauma, and hate to see them expoited. I’ve made the comment many times already - “get that camera out of their face” or words to that effect. It’s an invasion of the most hideous kind! My heart goes out to them with love and care! I suggest the media operate in this manner too! These people and their lost loved ones deserve our respect, at least! Perhaps the authorities should tell the media to leave the area under these circumstances - it is not our business!
Hello Nobody,
Please shove your non-existent God up your monotheistic brainwashing a$$. The Rupert Murdoch owned The Sun recently described the affairs of Australia’s propaganda pulp that is The Zionist Bushfire 09’ Inc, as being Armageddon.
Let’s see, The Media ever since the 1940’s has been copulating in bed with The State, as exemplified by the fake UFO broadcasts on radio in the USA, which sent many decent working class folk running for the hills, some committing suicide & many became Survivalists-Inc-Corp.
That folks is the simple root of today’s societal problems, division, tribalism & economic polarity/duality. I know which bed I would exclusively sleep in, the blonde wife of Lachlan Murdoch. When I win the lotto, I’ll give Sarah O’Hare an Indecent Proposal.
That is why I don’t watch the Today show, it was my morning ritual, therapy & release. Anyway I better be off now readers, I have to study Carl Jung & Sigmund Freud for my TAFE community health diploma. Plus I have to pop a Viagra, my 48 year old madame teacher is dropping by later tonight for an all night study session. Enjoy.
Truly yours,
JB
Michael, thank you for your article. I was going to accuse the media of wallowing in other peoples pain but most of the interviews I have not been able to elude have the victim talking about rebuilding and acknowledging that bush fires are a risk of bush living. Then they are subjected to a questioning that leads to them upset.( the how do you feel leading questions) Does the international interest have anything to do with how the fires were on Saturday and we are still getting updates on Friday? Could it be that local journos are pushing for their 15 minutes while they can?
Why are the fires worth more coverage/charity than the flood victims of Queensland? When did it become the norm for businesses to suggest where employees should spend their income.Has anybody else been advised how they could donate to this our greatest ever tragedy?
Jeff Penberthy- right from last Saturday there’s been a rumor from around the Cockatoo area that about a hundred people were wiped out in one fire-shelter. I have nothing to substantiate this rumour; nor do I know the moral aspect of withholding this sort of news. If his terrible thing has happened perhaps it was felt it best to contact relatives before going public. However, if is true. One would have expected to hear by now.
Oh, for God’s sake.
Just a short comment to add re role of meta analysis from a distance. I didn’t agree with Greg Barnes this time, but not fully agree with Jeff Penberthy quite either.
So many times it’s the arms length “helicopter” view - as Paul McGeogh refers to the Middle East saga - that helps bring light rather than noise.
So Jeff is being a bit harsh there saying self analysis of your own media sector shows you have nothing left to say. As always a question of balance - because as Jeff implies and my personal experience shows over about 15 years now, when you go in the field you always, always, always learn something new/unexpected.
The tabloids are quite good at getting ‘snapshots’. Others usually better at overall synthesis. Both are absolutely essential.
Co-operation between the two optimal. And yes I know, I would say that!