How bad journalism happens: an example
A point I made in my Drum piece this week was that bias in journalism is merely a species of a wider problem: bad journalism. A lot of political journalism is just bad.
For me, it was a bit of an Emperor-has-no-clothes moment as I don't think I've said that quite so clearly before. (Judging by the comments and the emails the piece generated, it hit a bit of a chord too.)
Anyway, on the subject of bad journalism, go check Matt Cowgill's latest post in which he points out the problems with an article from the AFR.
The interesting thing about the piece he takes apart is that it not only embodies a number of unexamined prejudices -- it is almost by definition anti-Labor and anti-union, or at least, hostile to both organisations -- but it also, inevitably I guess, presumes a certain economic program as the only correct way to understand the figures it discusses. As Matt says:
What I take issue with is the Fin’s shallow analysis, based on one survey, that seeks to whip up unjustified consternation about moderate wage rises and imply that unions are somehow behaving irresponsibly. As usual, the real story here is subtle, one of slightly improved conditions in the labour market, with the potential for moderate impacts on inflation over the medium term. The problem is that that doesn’t make for very appealing front-page copy, so instead we get the typical hyperbole.
The bottom line is this (and going back to the point my Drum piece was making): it is simply farcical to argue that opinion doesn't leak into news stories. The AFR article ends up giving a distorted view of the facts simply by effortlessly passing them through the filter of the journalist's (and the paper's) own world view.
The net effect is bad journalism.
Despite all that, I would warrant that most journalists would defend the AFR piece as perfectly acceptable. Indeed, few people would give it a second thought.
It's what we might call the banality of badness.
And please, go read Matt's entire piece.
