Last year, while Sandy was on sick leave Festival News took a far different and more confrontational approach to writers, politicians and the festival. (See their article on Michelle de Krester). Festival News is not the Washington Post, which is not to say it can’t run negative articles on the Festival organisation from time to time, but predominantly its readers want to read about writers and books.

Like many other festival goers I have spoken to, I look forward to reading Festival News when it returns in 2009 under Sandy Symonds’ thoughtful stewardship.

Volunteers may have refused to cooperate, but that was their right, given that they were volunteers, not paid by the Festival, and didn’t have to help what you acknowledge is an independent publication, especially at the expense of their Festival duties. It wasn’t just about the Sartor episode - it had been building for most of the Festival, and even if Wendy Were did allow distribution the next day, she could hardly be on top of every encounter between geed-up students and volunteers, what with, the, uh, all those other events and uh, writers and audiences attending them… how many people did she have to manage, and how many did Jenna and Wendy? Should we excoriate them for every sub error or inaccuracy, or is their inclusion independent news?

Of course, UTS Journalism students never ever lie, fib, or even exaggerate a bit, thanks to their impeccable ethics. Nor confuse volunteers with Festival “officials” - of which there’d be less than 20, if you counted board members. Which is why it seems from Amelia Marshall’s email there was no need to confirm who those “officials” - who would have been wearing ID - were.

Only evil yarts administrators dissemble and misquote, huh?

Furthermore the insinuations that we were reporting inaccurately, and producing a trashy magazine, as Dr Were claimed, are beyond offensive to us, they are injurious to our reputations. To then apologise for the quality of the news reportage is to bring into question the integrity and professionalism of Wendy Bacon and Jenna Price, who oversaw the Festival News, which is totally unacceptable. Their reputation within the industry, and amongst their peers, speaks for itself. I’m certain Jenna Price would not begrudge me furthering that an attack on Wendy Bacon’s professionalism in particular would be met with disbelief by journalists and academics across the country.

She got what she wanted and still complains. And while we’re at it could someone point out to Sharon Verghis that this sort of writing:

“Wendy Were lives a life of the mind, is immersed in a world where ideas and words and abstract issues - social justice, feminism, racism, creativity - are key currency. But there’s another, private world she moves in, and it’s the kingdom of animals. Here, all things winged, furred, shelled and clawed hold sway.” (SMH 10 May 2008)

is perhaps one of the reasons newspaper circulation is in the pan (apart from changing technology eroding traditional revenue streams and gatekeeping structures). Christ, and I thought twitter was bad…

Is it genuine? Facts, truth of facts given in explaination.
First prove that human psychology is true or a fact.
While we wait , is it genuine?
Sounds like it to me as it is loaded with some right psychological signals.

However, I got a bit confused by ‘This had caused a reaction from Were.’ I thought ‘who, what ,where is ‘“Were” ‘. But I’ve found it’s actually Dr Wendy Were so Dr Were, after the first mention (as you did with
Professor ) would lessen confusion.

Also, ‘He was not prepared to discuss whether the apology he had made was in fact true’. An apology can not be true or false; it can be genuine or insincere. In this case, clearly insincere as Professor van Leeuwen admits he made the apology to try and keep the peace. How bizarre. Appeasement usually leads to more conflict, as clearly is happening in this case.

But the papers were impounded, so clearly he is not telling the truth. The journalism faculty has every right to be furious. Maybe the Professor should sit in on some of their ethics classes.

BTW it would be good to get the actual words of his ‘apology’.

However, I got a bit confused by ‘This had caused a reaction from Were.’ I thought ‘who, what ,where is ‘“Were” ‘. But I’ve found it’s actually Dr Wendy Were so Dr Were, after the first mention (as you did with
Professor ) would lessen confusion.

Also, ‘He was not prepared to discuss whether the apology he had made was in fact true’. An apology can not be true or false; it can be genuine or insincere. In this case, clearly insincere as Professor van Leeuwen admits he made the apology to try and keep the peace. How bizarre. Appeasement usually leads to more conflict, as clearly is happening in this case.

But the papers were impounded, so clearly he is not telling the truth. The journalism faculty has every right to be furious. Maybe the Professor should sit in on some of their ethics classes.

BTW it would be good to get the actual words of his ‘apology’.

There are so many talented people in Communications at UTS - in class and on staff - and that’s reflected in the regard in which the School and its degree(s) are held. And I’ve no doubt, that writing for the Oz, Matthew Knott knows all about editorial integrity and journalistic independence now. There are important battles to fight, especially over the last eleven years of political interference in publicly funded media, mainstream media bias and its failure (another reason I read Crikey) but going berserk over this was not one of them - and especially now, so long after an event most people wouldn’t remember, nor really care about. Besides, what about the ethics of decency? It wasn’t just that snippet that left a bitter taste - there were many more. Offence for its own sake is hardly the same as art for its own sake - and whatever the former editors, their students or you might say, you have to ask: what did you expect then, and what, exactly, do you expect now?

Remembering that the high horse that the idealistic young ride is often dismounted with maturity when the saddle feels uncomfortable as life’s experiences changes the structure of our pretty buts.
And that everything can be political regardless of your allergies.
Also that universities are not just ballroom’s for angels.
I think that Professor van Leeuwen is doing an unusual, unique and thankless as it is difficult job here. He has some European methodology genes in his make up.
Ideals like this, even in journalism, are practiced in non life threatening scenarios. While odd things may happen to inanimate objects like careers, all the worthwhile human creatures will learn from this and definitely grow.

Part of the problem seems to have arisen because the newspaper carried the ‘the official Sydney Writers’ Festival logo’. SWF director Wendy Were claimed on Lateline that if it had been presented under a UTS masthead, that would ‘be absolutely fine’. But one can’t help wondering if it had been published under a UTS masthead, there still would have been complaints, and ‘upset’.

Elsewhere, Dr Were claims ‘the newspaper was produced under an agreement with UTS to support the event in return for privileges’. That is, not write anything negative or controversial. Dr Were seems to have wanted a publicity brochure, for PR, not an independent newspaper by journalism students.

As for Dr Were claiming that the newspaper was full of ‘gossip and sniping’. Had to laugh at that one. Writer’s Festival are renown for gossip and sniping. So what! It’s part of the (WF) tradition, worldwide.

I’m a student at UTS, who is also an executive of the Journalism Students Society. This is our response to the apology, which we do not endorse. I’ll have to put it over a number of posts I’m sorry because it won’t fit in one.

Dr Theo van Leeuwen,

I am writing on behalf of the UTS Journalism Students Society to express our disappointment with the apology that has been given to the Sydney Writers Festival, regarding last years Festival News team.

The SFS website claims;

“Professor Theo van Leeuwen, Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, UTS, has acknowledged that, contrary to claims made by the publication at the time, Sydney Writers’ Festival had not sought to censor Festival News in 2008, or to control the editorial content of this publication in any other way. He has also acknowledged that errors of fact that appeared in several issues of Festival News had not been corrected in the next day’s issue.”

I’m sure you are well briefed on how The Festival News runs, and I understand that since the apology was published, you have heard from last year’s team, rebutting the claims of the Festival organisers. I wish to state that the position of the UTS Journalism Student’s Society, in light of these facts, is that we are unable to support any aspect of this apology, which would substantiate the claims of the Festival organisers. The apology not only undermines the reputation of our teachers and colleagues, who were directly involved with The Festival News last year, but all of us, as the paper is represented to the public as being a project of the UTS Journalism Department at large.

The UTS Journalism Department is in an enviable position within our university, because it is one of the only departments producing students who, upon graduation, are regarded within our industry as having the best possible tertiary education available in Sydney. UTS has produced and continues to produce the finest journalism students in the country.

The UTS Journalism Students Society is proud of the tradition of our University and look forward to contributing to its future. We respect the Sydney Writers Festival and look forward to continuing to provide incisive, balanced coverage of the event for many years to come, even if it requires us to do so in an unofficial capacity. However we will not stand by idly and watch our integrity and professionalism attacked. Nor can allow endorse an apology that runs counter to our teachers’ and indeed our profession’s insistence on accurate, impartial and balanced reporting.

Therefore, we, the UTS Journalism Student Society, wish to express our dissatisfaction and disappointment at the apology offered to the Sydney Writers Festival, and our support for our fellow students and teachers. We are also dismayed that you, our Dean, have not been able to stand up for our Journalism department, or at least been more transparent in your actions, which have directly questioned the reputations and integrity of our teachers and colleagues.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions about our position.

Yours sincerely

Padraic Cannon

Thanks - and sorry for taking up so much space!

1. The person who runs the Sydney Writers Centre can be very … let’s just say political. Ex NDP, grant money from Bob Carr as then Premier, located at Callan Park which is very controversial, changed her surname slightly for some curious reason. This person plays the angles big time.

2. At one function where I scored a complimentary ticket from a ezine hosting that item (not crikey) I took some pictures - as did many in the audience in fact. But I was targeted and instructed to delete the images by a corridor marshall half way out the door.

It really left a bad taste. It was supposed to be a public festival down at the Rocks stuffed with public subsidies. This particular marshall was very poised, with quick fire justifications. It was only when I mentioned the invite by the host she lost her nerve, and I was away through the crowd.

Welcome to my world of community media in the state of fear, NSW.