Menu lock

Subscriptions

Dec 16, 2014

Keane: the day the Australian media lost its credibility

Yesterday's events in Sydney showed the media, for the most part, isn't up to the task of calm, well-informed coverage of terrorism events.

There’s one phrase that guarantees anyone who uses it in relation to a tragic event is either a fool or the most vilely cynical manipulator: “the day Australia lost its innocence” — or yesterday’s variant, “the day Sydney lost its innocence”. The people inclined to use that phrase regularly deploy it in association with tragedies. The Bali bombings were, according to politicians and the media, “the day Australia lost its innocence”. But then, so was the Hilton bombing, and it was used about the string of gun massacres in the 1980s and 1990s that John Howard brought to an end with his gun laws. Australia losing its innocence has thus become a constantly repeated process, as if somehow we regain it between tragedies, only to be deprived of it next time.

That the media would be able to resist its use proved a forlorn hope, although the first mainstream media offender turned out to be Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News; Murdoch’s Sydney rag, in its repulsive “afternoon edition”, complete with commemorative wraparound (something to show the grandkids!), settled for the variant “the instant we changed forever”. But having erroneously described a mentally ill violent criminal, who had been a Shia for almost his entire life, as “IS takes 13 hostages” — a statement wrong in every possible way — the Telegraph had already set a new low, at least until its geriatric reactionary owner tweeted his delight at his employees’ caperings this morning.

Meantime, Fairfax, where the Financial Review also went with an Islamic State connection despite having longer to realise it didn’t exist, was today running the absurd typing of an American journalist who insisted yesterday was Australia’s “9/11 moment” — and 9/11 of course was famously the day America lost its innocence, a description that requires almost complete historical ignorance, or at least a healthy sense of sarcasm, for use.

The assumptions loaded into such “lost its innocence” statements merit entire theses; indeed, many have doubtless already been written. That Australia, established as a prison colony and forged in dispossession, genocide and gleeful participation in the long wars of imperialism throughout the 20th century, could be “innocent”; that it is such a fragile culture that a single moment of violence, however atypical, could comprehensively alter its very nature. There’s almost a sense of pride in it, the sort of pride that welcomed the casualties of Gallipoli as a proper “blooding” of the young nation, pride that Australia has now joined the big league of nations targeted by terrorists. It’s a sentiment that underpins the visible, fawning delight of much of the media that events in Sydney have merited global media coverage. The cultural cringe may have long been replaced with reflexive nationalism, but we still love it when them sophisticated furreners pay us attention.

“Terrorism experts were hastily summoned to explain what was happening, or not happening … Blatant inaccuracies were peddled. Sydney airspace had been shut down, outlets reported, when it hadn’t.”

But that was merely one of the cliches that journalists, hosts and commentators reached for yesterday. With a dearth of information from police about such basics as how many gunmen or hostages there were and nothing happening across the day, the rolling media coverage quickly surrendered to hackneyed phrases, rampant, ill-informed speculation and rumour-spreading, exactly like social media. Terrorism experts were hastily summoned to explain what was happening, or not happening, that this was a lone wolf or part of a bigger attack, that this had been carefully planned or badly bungled. Blatant inaccuracies were peddled. Sydney airspace had been shut down, outlets reported, when it hadn’t. A precautionary evacuation of the Opera House became an “incident” there, with suspicious packages being reported. The “National Art Gallery” had been evacuated, one journalist tweeted, possibly alarming the staff of Canberra’s National Gallery of Australia, the gallery with the nearest name to the apparently deserted, but fictional, institution.

And above all, there was the hysterical tone, the claim of a “city under siege”, as if Sydney had never witnessed such things before — events like the Hilton bombing (thank you, ASIO) or 1984’s bank hostage drama, in which Hakki Atahan emerged from a George Street bank surrounded by hostages, walking in close formation to a getaway car to begin a pursuit that ended in a shoot-out on the Spit Bridge.

Not all of the coverage was irresponsible, certainly. The Guardian’s live blog was sensibly circumspect and avoided the trap of recycling what other outlets were claiming as “unconfirmed reports”. Most outlets, including News Corporation, refused to disclose information communicated to them from the perpetrator via hostages, although that led to some bizarre tweets, in which journalists declared they knew information but would not be disclosing it at the request of police, and they hoped others wouldn’t either. The much-maligned Ray Hadley wisely rejected efforts by the perpetrator to go on air. But the identity of interests between the mass media and terrorists (assuming for a moment Man Monis was engaged in terrorism, despite having no explicit ideological agenda in his acts of violence yesterday) was on vivid display throughout the hours and hours of “rolling coverage” that sought to keep viewers and readers glued to their screens despite the lack of anything happening or new information.

In contrast, both Prime Minister Tony Abbott and NSW Premier Mike Baird conducted themselves entirely appropriately — calm, unwilling to engage in speculation, leader-like. Abbott correctly judged the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook release should proceed — having urged Australians to go about business as normal, the best way to encourage that was to show that the business of government would go on. It’s rare that the Prime Minister can provide a lesson in communication to the media, but he did so yesterday, in spades.

It wasn’t the day Australia lost its innocence, or changed forever. It was a day that much of Australia’s media again demonstrated it’s not up to the challenge of providing mature coverage of terrorism.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

54 comments

Leave a comment

54 thoughts on “Keane: the day the Australian media lost its credibility

  1. Raaraa

    I was disturbed that some media outlets see this event as the “perfect storm”. Something they must be the first to report and be proud of that fact.

    Rupert tweeted:

    AUST gets wake-call with Sydney terror. Only Daily Telegraph caught the bloody outcome at 2.00 am. Congrats.

    Source: https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/544587566297522176

  2. Bill Hilliger

    According to MSM a criminal act becomes a terrorist act when a person of Muslim persuasion is involved. The 24 hour MSM, including the ABC it seemed could hardly contain their glee when to so called terrorist / non terrorist was going on. An excerpt from the Guardian made a pointed reference on how everyone is /was cashing in on the unfortunate event:

    A stampede of politicians, State and federal, took to the airwaves to tell us how to feel. The incident was “horrifying” said Bill Shorten. Attempting a Churchillian gravitas, the opposition leader declared that “Australians are shocked, but won’t be shaken.”

    But it was the State premiers who most clearly illustrated the paradox that governed political reaction: The further from the incident, the greater the distress.

    Victoria’s Daniel Andrews declared that it was a “terrifying incident”. He gravely assured Victorians that the gunman in Martin Place posed no known threat to the people of Victoria.

    Queensland’s Premier Campbell Newman ordered “all available police out there” to “protect Queenslanders”.

    The reaction of most media for most of the day was to cheerlead the hype and to provide a ready platform to any politician who wanted to insert himself into the event.

  3. Russell

    Not sure why Crikey felt the need to use this to bash Murdoch again. Really, you are starting to sound just as nutty and obsessive as Gerard Henderson’s banging on about the ABC constantly… Or why we have to point the finger (yawn) at the meeja – or at least the dead tree lot. Many of us in Sydney are feeling a bit raw today, and point scoring like this seems unnecessary. Naturally the Guardian was exemplary (as it always is!)

    Like most people in Sydney I was riveted by the events yesterday. As well as listening to the radio all day I clicked on several websites – but the SMH’s didn’t respond on several occasions, apparently unable to cope. The Tele’s was better.

    This morning when I instinctively purchased my dead tree, I got my usual Herald, and (very rare, this) a Tele as well. They had at least got another edition (front page plate change only) out, but the poor old Herald hadn’t managed. The Tele’s coverage concentrated on the human angle with personal stories of those involved. It was deeply moving. I had to stop and blow my nose several times.

    Re: Ray Hadley’s role. You correctly praise his conduct. But I was haunted a bit by the similarities to I am a bit haunted by how similar some was to the plot of a recent Korean B-movie action thriller called The Terror, Live where a terrorist demands to speak to the Korean PM and go on air live to convey his demand via a radio shock jock. The radioman sees it as rating and career boost, and agrees (He dies in the end! Fortunately Ray Hadley took a wiser course of action)

  4. Mark Duffett

    “No explicit ideological agenda”? How do you square that with the display of a flag apparently chosen to ape as closely as possible those used by militant Islamism, and with what one of the hostages was quoted as saying:

    “I’m at the Lindt Café at Martin Place being held hostage by a member of the IS….The man wants the world to know that Australia is under attack by the Islamic State.”

    For all that Man Monis may turn out to have been unhinged, how could the ideological agenda apparent at the time have been any more explicit?

  5. zut alors

    Quite right, Bernard. Your final sentence sums it up.

    Why ABC1 chose to wipe most of its scheduled programming to provide identical coverage to ABC24 remains a mystery.

  6. David Camfield

    special mention to Ray Hadley also

  7. Miowarra Tomokatu

    What credibility, Bernard?

  8. James O'Neill

    Well said Bernard. The rush to over dramatise the events is indicative of many serious failings in the media. I noted the early references to “Arabic” writing on the notices held up to the window by the hostages. Nobody seemed to notice that as the deranged idiot inside was Iranian and not Arab and would therefore in all likelihood not be putting up a sign in Arabic. No doubt the politicians will use this as an excuse for yet more restrictions on our liberties. As the historical examples you give show, we seem incapable of learning from history.

  9. Patrick Brosnan

    Excellent work Bernard. I’ve been worn down to the point of resignation by the stupid utterings of supposedly educated and credible people who are paid salaries. Anyone who takes an interest in events, both contemporary and historical (a requirement for a journalist you would think), cannot but nod in furious agreement with your assessment of the media’s efforts as bland, asinine and bereft of any scepticism. The fact that the media wore their compliance with police instructions like a badge of courage confirms that they are bereft of credibility.

Leave a comment