The 2011 Crikeys: the best in Australian media
|
Newspapers are haemorrhaging readers, broadcast media is at the vanguard of radical change, governments are probing ethics and ownership, yet good journalism still shines through. And, for that matter, bad journalism. After awarding the best (and worst) in politics and policy, we present the 2011 Crikeys for Australian media. Drum roll please … Newspaper of the year This is a difficult one, with reasons for and against every entrant. The Crikey team would have loved to name a paper flying beneath the national radar — a rural or suburban publication serving its community with distinction, breaking yarns and stirring up trouble. Sadly, although there are many good journos working in such publications, few manage to hit the high spots consistently and well. Many are woeful, cynical adsheets that reflect no glory on the big media companies that own them. Nor is circulation alone sufficient reason for an award, or this would go to the Herald Sun or The Daily Telegraph. Yet from our point of view both those publications too often resort to sensation rather than substance, although the Herald Sun at its best is a fine tabloid. The Daily Telegraph has gone feral this year under Paul Whittaker, and is disqualified on grounds of frequent ridiculousness. None of the Sunday tabloids have performed with distinction. So that leaves The Australian Financial Review and the broadsheets. There is a strong case for giving this award to The Australian, because of its commitment to covering national affairs and policy, including areas neglected by other papers. It has often displayed proactive, and correct, news judgment. It devotes resources and space to important matters neglected by other papers. Yet The Oz’s in many ways excellent record is marred by its nutty campaigns, at times impenetrable news judgment and narcissism, including the inability to tolerate attacks on its large yet essentially fragile ego. As well, there is its bemusing air of martyrdom. Too often, all this weirdness has meant the paper has failed to play a straight bat when it matters in reporting state and national affairs. Its net impact on the nation’s health is such a mixture of dark and light that we can’t give it the award. The Sydney Morning Herald probably has the best Canberra team in Phillip Coorey, Peter Hartcher and Lenore Taylor, but too much of the rest of its coverage has been pedestrian and trivial, and the feeling of drift from its city continues. The Age’s investigative unit has produced more scoops than any other paper, and in these straitened times that is a significant achievement, reflecting honour both on the reporters and their editors. This year we have also detected an improvement in coverage of the city and the state. Yet at the same time, where is the space The Age once devoted to essays, think pieces, big issues of policy and the like? And what about the Canberra coverage, the paper’s great weakness, now about to be addressed by a new national managing editor? On a good day The Age is a good paper. On a bad day, you wonder what they are thinking about in news conference. The AFR, we suspect, may well score this award next year. There are changes afoot, many good new writers poached and signs of a more proactive attitude. But not yet. So, with all those qualifications and with less than a full heart, this year the award goes to The Age — partly on its merits, but at least as much because of the faults of its competitors. Broadcast television program of the year This award is for best consistent performance for a program, rather than for a particular episode, and we are talking about programs that deal with news and current affairs, not talent shows and the like. That means we are dealing, necessarily, with the public broadcasters. 7.30 has not yet made a convincing impact under its new format, though it is improving. Lateline continues to be good, with Tony Jones now the best interviewer on television, but seems to have lost some of its sting this year. Four Corners won a Walkley for the Indonesian abattoirs story, but in between the big scoops there was some pretty pedestrian television. Relatively new entrants such as The Drum had some good moments, but also made us want to bang our heads at times. Foreign Correspondent is a definite contender; consistently interesting and courageous. SBS, for all its budgetary woes, has strong contenders. The consistent quality achieved by Dateline is a wonder to behold. If the award was for sheer journalistic effort, then this show or Foreign Correspondent would surely get the gong. And, stretching the category, reality television program Go Back To Where You Came From managed to be truly revelatory, and bang on the SBS charter. Given the station is effectively broke, great credit to all concerned. Continuing to stretch the borders of the category, the Chaser boys hit the nail on the head often in The Hamster Wheel. Sometimes satire does a better job of politics than staged cat-and-mouse games such as the standard political interview. All in all, it has been a pretty strong year for broadcast news and current events, and it is better because of the preparedness to experiment with formats, and use formulas such as reality television in new ways. We surely need some fresh approaches. But this award should surely include an element of impact — of making a difference to the national zeitgeist. For that reason, we are going to give the award to the ABC’s Q&A, which has consistently delivered a fresh perspective on national affairs, proved that pollies can be better when let off the minders’ leash and made real inroads into viewer participation. It has had some wobbly moments and boring weeks, but overall Q&A has managed to break stories, and alter some of the ways in which politics is conducted and public affairs debated. The award is for the format, rather than the journalistic effort, perhaps. Nevertheless, Q&A has had a modest but real impact in the street and schoolyard where most citizens conduct their political discussions. That gets it the award. Editor of the year Hard. Journos tend to be nostalgic for the days of the strong, straight editor. These days if we survey those at the top of our mainstream publications, it seems the strong ones are not straight, and the straight ones are not strong. We rule out Chris Mitchell at The Australian for the same reasons that paper did not get newspaper of the year. Neither The Age nor The SMH editors are great champions for their products. Indeed, to be a Fairfax editor these days is, it seems, to disappear. Michael Stutchbury deserves honourable mention for creating a bit of buzz around the Financial Review, but the fruits of his labours are not yet ripe. Honourable mention, too, for Gay Alcorn at The Sunday Age for being prepared to take risks with innovative methods of engaging readers, such as the OurSay Climate Change Agenda exercise. If we slipped down a rank, then Fairfax’s Mark Baker, recently made managing editor (national), would get a mention for his consistent governance of The Age investigative team. Again, it would be nice to give the award to some barnstorming publish-and-be-damned local editor, flying beneath the radar. We rather like what Des Ryan is doing in Adelaide with the resource starved InDaily online independent (in which Crikey publisher Eric Beecher has an interest). In between the remorseless grind of getting the publication out each day, he has managed to proactively cover the troubles of the workers’ compensation. And for overcoming all those patronising comments about his age to make a real contribution to national debate while lifting circulation, The Monthly’s Ben Naparstek, who is now to edit Fairfax’s Good Weekend magazine, is also a contender. But the winner of the award this year goes to Naparstek’s colleague — Black Inc’s Chris Feik, who edits the Quarterly Essay series. Not only this year, but consistently over the decade Feik’s editorial judgment has seen the publication of essays that have picked elements of the national mood, enlivened national debate, won literary awards and set the agenda for other editors to follow. It’s quite an achievement for a small indy publisher. And unlike some mainstream media editors, Feik never allows it to be about him. He foregrounds the debate, the writers and the issues, while being front-footed in defence of his publication when that is called for. Again, it might be said that Feik gets the award because of the faults of other editors at least as much as his own merits. Nevertheless, the merits are real and it is time they were acknowledged. Commentator of the year The contenders are clear: Lenore Taylor, Laura Tingle, Ross Gittens and Laurie Oakes. Annabel Crabb also deserves honourable mention for managing to make politics entertaining while not (always) abandoning substance. Very hard to choose between the top four but, on balance, for rigorous serious coverage, clearly written with real bite, this award goes to Laura Tingle. She manages to perfectly balance the benefits of experience in the press gallery with the capacity to stand above its more ridiculous excesses to deliver independent and insightful analysis. Read Tingle, and you know what is really going on.The issue that should have had more coverage There is, always and sadly seemingly forever, indigenous affairs. Again The Australian deserves honourable mention for never dropping the ball on this one. Other media outlets should be ashamed. Climate change has had lots of coverage, but arguably never enough, given its implications. The state of tertiary education is largely neglected. The Qantas dispute, and quite a few other affairs of national significance, were frustratingly covered in that we heard about the conflicts and the controversy, but it was notable that we rarely obtained a clear statement of what the conflict was all actually about. We searched in vain for clear examples of explainer journalism on many issues — stories and web pages that laid out the facts and the background, or in the case of Qantas what the industrial claims actually were. Other issues that we reckon needed more attention: the dominance of our two main retailers, Coles and Woolworths, and the effect that is having on food security and sustainable farming. Perhaps the best example of these faults was the coverage of the Murray-Darling basin, together with the whole issue of what constitutes sustainable water use and food security in our nation. Certainly there was significant coverage when the various reports on water use were released, but that tended to focus on the conflict and the controversy. Citizens would have been hard put to understand why those reports had been issued, and where right and wrong lay. There were some honourable efforts, again chiefly in The Australian and at the ABC, but wouldn’t it be nice to see some comprehensive work done on this issue when it isn’t a matter of farmers burning reports, but rather on the real issues? The fact is that we will see wholesale changes in land use in our nation over the next decade. Yet how many media consumers will understand why? But for overall neglect by all players, we would nominate local government, planning and rezoning in all of our major cities. Any editor worth his or her salt should be pointing the investigative teams at these issues. Fresh skeletons are in the process of being buried, and anyone with their ear to the ground is hearing it to be so. Yet very few news stories result. Innovation of the year There is, of course, WikiLeaks, which changed journalism and governance forever. But although the big stuff happened this year, the innovation behind WikiLeaks is older than that. So who is innovating in the journalistic form? It’s a topic dear to my heart, and my nominee is also close to me (full declaration below). Indy not-for-profit start-up OurSay, run on enthusiasm and oily rags, has made a real impact with its partnerships with media outlets, including the ABC and Sunday Age. Its model relies on using the capacities of the internet and social media to advance democratic participation. I reckon this is one to watch. Declaration: I was instrumental in introducing the OurSay team to The Sunday Age, which resulted in the Climate Change Agenda exercise. I am also presently collaborating with OurSay over a large-scale research project at the Centre for Advanced Journalism at the University of Melbourne. Tomorrow: the 2011 Crikeys for business; Friday: the year’s best in culture and entertainment. |
|
|
|
43 Comments
Margaret, I was agreeing with you all the way til the end - I’m sure the award for Innovation is well meant, but it does seem a tad self-interested.
I reckon the lads and lasses of openaustraliafoundation.org.au deserved a look-in for the Innovation award. It’s stretching the boundaries of journalism too, but then again, that’s what innovation does by definition.
You’ve got a good memory - “the Herald Sun at it’s best”?
And too much tit elation in the Tele?
Q&A???? (Head smacks desk!)
Plus, in the interests of full disclosure. Who exactly constitutes “The Crikey team”?
As for “Q&A”? Any body that grants Peter Reith (after “non-core promises” and that “Ministerial Code of Conduct” Howard’s first choice for Leader of the House that is our parliament; his abuse of his “phone allowance”; the “special relationship” with Patricks/Corrigan; capped by his duplicity in “Children Overboard”; and “Iraq”) a platform and chance to reinvent himself after what he’s done (not to mention the indulgence of time devoted to letting Turnbull run off at the mouth in that episode he starred in, the August one – or the number of Murdoch employees given a chance to sell their wares) deserves to have their underlying raison d’être questioned a bit more – especially in relation to “Broadcast television program of the year”?
It says it all. The Age is the best newspaper and you give yourself a gong for innovation. Credibility: zip.
Q&A - started well but has lost the plot. The more interesting people are now playing it safe whilst it seems to be dominated by the more a bid of our public figures. And this need to include a comedian on the panel strikes me as very hit and miss.
My vote - Offsiders - rarely anything less than insightful into the business and egos of sport whilst retaining the poetry of the fan.
Best commentator - What about George Megalogenis? Writes some pretty interesting articles, comments without getting strident or unbalanced. A breath of fresh air amongst some of those he shares a masthead with.
If we don’t hear it for Ross Gittens tomorrow in the business/ economics awards, then something is wrong!
I’d vote for The Conversation for innovation.
+1 The Conversation
Sorry what about triple j’s “Hack”? Consistently interesting, feeding off the current zeitgeist yet framing it in context for young people and often following up with opinion of said youth. I listen to it (despite being in my mid forties) because I have teenagers but also because these are the up and coming generation who will be looking after me in my dotage (if I make it that far). But I digress….
Hack seems to address the issues of the day but will also devote an entire week to an issue which has been recently brought to the fore (via an event, or a report being released etc). They will call out for testimonials and will then call in experts for analysis and opinion. I think Tom Tilley has done a great job in 2011, with one of the highlights being the special on Queensland, particularly in the aftermath of the floods and focussing on the rebuilding thereof, many moons after most of the media had moved on.
‘…The Drum had some good moments…’ Agreed - with the heavy emphasis on ‘some’.
The fact that Peter Reith is now a regular commentator on the show means I cannot watch it. Has Australia forgotten his past form? Is the public memory really that short?
The audience doesn’t actually learn anything on The Drum, it’s not a source of information, merely 45 minutes of opinion. There’s already a surfeit of that in the Oz media.
I second the vote for Ross Gittens, a man who manages to decypher economics and its variations and fluctuations for the layman. Cuts through the BS & jargon!
There’s the drum - more like “45 minutes of self-indulgence of ego”?
I’ll third Ross Gittens - he has been writing clearly, incisively and comprehensibly on all aspects of finance for 20yrs, whether home mortgage & international finance, he is the go to guy.
Mega George for the political aspects of the numbers.
I’m a Gittens fan as well.
I new you would pick the Age before I read the article.
But your multitude of “honourable mentions” to the Australian makes me think you aren’t really sure about it. I know, I know, you wouldn’t want the comrades cancelling their subscriptions en mass, would you?
Duh!
I knew you would pick the Age…..
I don’t know who the much lauded Gittens is but I’d give a vote to Ross Gittins.
Clearly Australian newspapers are in close to fail mode. When it is too difficult to choose Newspaper of the Year, then you should simply skip it. That would be a worthwhile message. And honest.
I have my doubts about how much discussion of Q&A there is in schoolyards to be honest….
Agree with the earlier comment that George Megalogenis should have been a look-in for Commentator of the Year. I think we have to go outside the commentating we see in the mainstream media and consider who has really given back to journalism as a trade this year by appearing regularly in public forums e.g. Melbourne Writers Festival, the Wheeler Centre (my list will always be a bit Melbourne-centric, admittedly) and George has done that consistently. Also his commitment to refusing to report polls this year and the over-arching message delivered by that commitment, has been admirable. His Quarterly Essay (although was that late last year rather than early this year?) pre-empted what Lindsay Tanner later argued in Sideshow, which was surely the most lauded publication on political journalism this year; and that he then went on to appear with Tanner a number of times to discuss the Sideshow syndrome, continued that greater message.
“The Sydney Morning Herald probably has the best Canberra team in Phillip Coorey, Peter Hartcher and Lenore Taylor.”
I can’t agree, although I’m not that clear on who is who in the Canberra gallery.
Coorey is consistently good and insightful.
Taylor is good but seems to impress her colleagues much more than me. I can’t rate her higher than Coorey and often enough her observations are pedestrian, although I can see why her colleagues in the gallery might think that extraordinary.
But Hartcher has gone off the deep end this year. He is starting to read as reactionary and confused as Sheridan. Often his columns are filled with non-sequiturs. I’m wondering if he hasn’t gone through some life change, such has been his erratic analysis.
And no mention of the saving grace of the SMH. Ross Gittins has been the stand out economics writer for close to two decades. Michael West has been doing tremendous work, and Ian Verrender and a few others have provided stalwart support.
Leaving Gittins out leaves your credibility shot, methinks.
“…the street and schoolyard where most citizens conduct their political discussions.”
The internet, these days.
Too many bloviators all saying the same thing in all papers.
Almost everyone of the PG screamed “we must do something, we must break the law” because some asylum seekers drowned in another country.
Haven’t heard any of the same people going on about stopping the fucking wars that we started that created the asylum seekers though and a good many more have died in them than have drowned trying to come here.
I don’t know why we have to break our law though because of an accident in another country and how breaking our law will stop another accident in that country.
Hardly a mention though about the Indonesian army being involved, and how is paying the Indonesian army because that would be us.
Seems all media have failed which includes tv stations,for just about 2 months the gurus have predicted a leadership challenge by Rudd,all by unidentified sources.
Seems all the media should get better reliable sources,instead of being proved foolish, at best,or liars at worst,me I believe the media has been both.
R.I.P to Australia’s media , may it come quickly .
The complete omission of The Conversation is hugely disappointing….
Indeed Barry, we have media boffins who run off to Iraq to report lies and propaganda but we have no media willing to go against the immigration department here who act as if they are in North Korea.
Who produced this league table? Sounds like a solo M. Simons effort…
Crikey (however defined) is hardly a disinterested party in media evaluation.
Essentially an exercise in marketing. What’s next? Matron Margaret handing out kitsch trophies?
Interesting that several commenters here mention the absence of The Conversation. This may have something to do with the fact that Simons dislikes Andrew Jaspan, ex-Age editor, who runs it…
Daily we have to watch journalists interviewing each other and the squalling brats of commentators commenting on each other. An incestuous little world.
For God’s Sake. Annabel Crabb is NOT a journalist, nor is she particularly good at opinion. The poor girl struggles with the basics of Australian political theory, preferring to concentrate on Kevin Rudd’s nerdishness, Julia gillard’s red hair and Tony Abbott’s speedos. she’s not funny, she’s not smart, she’s not of any use. Much like the channel she works for (and the papers she worked for before that.)
I think this year, no paper of the year (they’re all deplorable.). No journalist of the year. No media awards. If you had any guts, margaret, that’s what you would have done.
Honestly.
The media must be working, as politicians are complaining. Being held to account for failure they hate, so they blame the messenger.
Then the lefties fall in behind like good comrades.
We say the comrades on display in North Korea today, doing as they communist masters wanted.
Suzanne Blake. Did you complain anout the left leaning media when Miranda, alan, neil, Paul and the rat of the idiots were railing against lft wing bias? I bet a million bucks you did.
@sick of it all
Not sure who Miranda etc are.
The ABC is extremely left wing / extreme Green as well. Complain about them regularily.
Miranda Devine, Alan jones, Neil Mitchell, Paul Sheehan. I might have added piers Ackerman, Andrew bolt and Janet albrechtsen.
@ sick of it all
I don’t read their articles, knowingly anyway.
I’m a fan of Annabel Crabb. Don’t mistake her humarous send up of the behaviour of leading politicians as a lack of talent. I think she has a very good political mind.
I think Sickofitall simply disagrees with her political analysis. Here in the Crikey crypt, anyone who has a different view to the commenter must be stupid.
Yawn.
I would agree with The Age being the best newspaper, although the competition as you rightly said is weak. The Murdoch-owned press is a disgrace! Right-wing nonsense. On the other hand, The Age has a much more balanced view on climate change, domestic politics (although could do better on international politics, particularly arab-spring uprising and latin american socialist revolutions).
But credit where its due, and I would also agree that SBS and ABC have set the benchmark in Australian TV for news, current affairs and politics.
Also, this website, Crikey, is excellent, and so is The Conversation. I also read the Al-Jazeera english website (some excellent journalism) The Real News is a very good independent news website that focuses on US politics.
On a sadder note, I have no hope that commercial TV will improve - I believe it will sink even lower in 2012 with crap shows, dumbed-down, imported garbage and ‘infotainment’.
Happy new year.
What about radio? RN’s Fran Kelly should at least have been mentioned, I think.
The year 2011 has taken it’s toll. The relentless negativity over the year have obviously rattled and effected the likes of Eltham at NM, Keane at Crikey and Grattan at the Age, just to name a few.
I think it is worthwhile acknowledging the contribution of SB/TTH here at providing an ongoing “reality check”. Being representative of a section of a non cognizant and non conversant insular community these types have been in the forefront of preventing Australia from realising its full potential.
Let’s hope the governments efforts come to fruition in 2012, the media enquiries expose the serious shortcomings of the OZ MSM and maybe even the NOalition by turfing out the extremist “dead wood” in their midst can finally start acting in the interest of the nation.
Happy New Year.
@ GocomSys
Are you taking off your blinkers in 2012 and leaving the commune, so your view of Australia is more expansive, than the denial, insular mode you are in now.
Wake up GocomSys, you need a “reality check” as to what the electorate are saying and what they want from their elected representatives.
Did you see ly ing Gillard Christmas message to rusted on Labor voters. I bet she need a shower after that set of further li es. Thank God she is not Catholic, she would be hogging the Priest and the confession box.
Suzanne Blake
Why does your little flag thing on your posts have a butchered Union Jack in the corner? What are you trying to say - that the old country should be torn asunder and the Welsh and Scots go the way of the Paddies and leave poor old England to tear Europe apart all on its own?
Now I’m sure that a woman of your vast knowledge and propriety wouldn’t want to be seen to be insulting to the good Queen and all her toothy offspring… so put that Union Jack back where it belongs in full - commemorating its rampant historical dominion over the place - you know, the good old days.
This hideously foreshortened flag of yours is an insult to Betty von Battenberg- Gotta and all her sniffling hangers on. Just shocking. And you a conservative.
Peter , that’s just the part of Australia that Gina owns(Union Jack ). Ps its easier to just Scroll the Troll.
@david hand. No, I disagree with most of what I read… I don’t find much of it stupid because I disagree with it. I’ve found Annabel Crabb’s analysis trite and juvenile. If you can point me to an article in which she can describe the philosophies of the liberal or the labor parties, or the greens, nationals or family first, without her hiding behind shallow comments, I’d appreciate it.
Jings Mr or Ms Fitall,
I don’t think Annabel Crabb would be Robinson Crusoe when it comes to trite and juvenile analysis.
There seem to be a couple of tiers of political reportage emerging in Australia - the political end - a fast diminishing remnant of informed, experienced and sharp eyed types - and a rising wave of bright eyed gum-chewing young things with a plethora of tweeters, smartfones and the like who seem to take their political direction from Who Weekly.
If I have to hear or read one more breathless bit of unsourced gossip about Lib or Lab leadership or yet another polling piece - including the advertorials for Essential in Crikey - I might have to throttle someone. Probably myself. Or the dog.
I am waiting for ACA, the new 7.30 Report or Today Tonite or whatever the thing’s called to appoint a design correspondent to comment on Julia’s frocks.
Looking forward to watching a further slump in standards for the New Year.