Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
media bias (Read 4609 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
media bias
Aug 8th, 2007 at 12:45pm
 
I can't seem to find the old thread about this topic.

The Australian is usually pretty subtle about it's support for the coalition. Maybe it's something to do with the situation in the polls, but they have recently taken it to an absurd extreme. The paper has been fairly supportive of federal intervention in NT aboriginal communities. Yet when they mention the Labor party support in a front page article, they refer to it as 'genocide' policy.

Labor backs 'genocide' policy

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22207932-5013404,00.html

LABOR has backed radical legislation described by Northern Territory Aboriginal leaders as "genocide" and a return to 1950s assimilation policy.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
Re: media bias
Reply #1 - Feb 21st, 2008 at 1:29pm
 
The Australian attacks justice Kirby

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1183184822/86#8



from crikey:

The Australian: 'We didn’t mean it. Really'
Clive Hamilton writes:

After serving enthusiastically as the leading organ of John Howard’s culture wars, the advent of a Labor Government has seen The Australian desperately searching for a means of retaining some credibility and influence in the new dispensation.

For those who experienced the vituperation of the newspaper’s phalanx of right-wing commentators and editorialists, the contortions and back-flips of the Murdoch flagship have provided daily entertainment. The admixture of amusement and wonder at the newspaper’s predicament peaked with Saturday’s editorial in the Weekend Australian which moved seamlessly from sinking the boot into the left to calling for more civility in public debate.

The leader laid out the new political strategy designed to rewrite eleven years of right-wing dogmatism by the paper that dubs itself “The Heart of the Nation” (and which others have taken to calling “The A-se of the Nation”).

The strategy has two contradictory elements. From the moment it became plain that Labor would win the election, The Australian began to argue that a Rudd victory is in fact a victory for Howard. Rudd is not only a fiscal conservative, the paper maintains, but a “church-going, family-values social conservative”. He has so much in common with Howard that, despite appearances, the victory of Rudd is another defeat for the left.

Rudd Labor’s dramatic early breaks from Howard over Kyoto and the apology are, in the plastic minds of The Australian ’s editors, no grounds for celebration because they are mere symbols within broader moderate policies that eschew the demands of the left. Being moderate and reasonable itself, the newspaper can endorse these sensible moves.

Of course, to endorse Kyoto and the apology, which they violently opposed under Howard, the editors have each had to swallow a forgetfulness potion. But no matter; for a paper that takes itself so seriously, The Australian ’s hypocrisy has always had a special pungency.

In their hearts, however, the newspaper’s ideological warriors do not believe the story they tell their readers, which necessitates the second element of the strategy ─ a call for a new spirit of reconciliation and the restoration of civility to the national discourse.

In this, they are reminiscent of a group of bovver boys with steel-capped boots covered in blood who, after their victim pulls a gun, say “hey, let’s be reasonable and talk it through”. After years of vilifying those they deem enemies, The Australian ’s editors now declare that they can “respect our opponents even when we disagree with their ideas”.

Among their enemies, the editors of The Australian reserve a special loathing for Robert Manne. When they talk about “the left” they are usually thinking of the former editor of Quadrant . Much of the blood on their boots is his. Manne is all the more infuriating because he has never been cowed by them. Unlike others who have understandably withered under the newspaper’s sledging, Australia’s foremost public intellectual has never mentally disintegrated.

The explanation for The Australian ’s Manne-hating is not hard to divine: his mode of public discourse is everything the newspaper’s is not – reasoned rather than dogmatic, eloquent rather than rancorous, urbane rather than cruel. In short, his moral integrity enrages the bovver boys at The Australian because it makes them feel ashamed.

After all, they were once young journalists with ideals.

Humbled by the new spirit of reconciliation, The Australian in its leader admitted, with masterful understatement, “we have not been above the odd ad hominem attack ourselves”.

Perhaps they were thinking of Mick Dodson who had dared to have a different opinion on Aboriginal housing policy. In September 2005, The Australian ran a front-page picture of his Canberra house claiming that he wanted to deny other Aborigines the chance to live the comfortable life he enjoys. Dodson said he feared for the safety of his children.

The “odd ad hominem attack” has taken the form of defamatory accusations designed to destroy reputations. When Howard ruled, The Australian ’s editorial team could bray about their latest foray into character assassination. Rudd now rules but, hey, we can all forgive and forget, can’t we?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
The Age
Reply #2 - Mar 7th, 2008 at 3:37pm
 
from crikey:

Icebergs of discontent and ill-feeling float around The Age newsroom and yesterday afternoon editor Andrew Jaspan had to deal with some of the visible manifestations.

Jaspan was holding his regular meeting with staff when he was asked about this story and the accompanying novella of a clarification that was published shortly afterwards.

The story is a good one, written off a VCAT appeal and airing some uncomfortable facts about the attendance records of the Grand Prix. The Chair of the Grand Prix Corporation is, of course, Ron Walker – who is also Chair of the Fairfax Media Board and Jaspan’s main internal supporter.

The word around The Age newsroom is that after reporter Ben Doherty’s story was published, he was called in to editor Jaspan’s office to meet Grand Prix executives and answer their queries. This is extraordinary. Traditionally, editors shield their reporters from this kind of pressure, unless there is a clear case of error or misconduct. Even then, it is the editor’s role to deal with the interested parties.

Then the "clarification" – almost as long as the original story -- was published, and is still carried above the story on The Age website.

The "clarification" is breathtakingly full of bullsh-t. Catch this for starters:

In reference to the report below, the Grand Prix Corporation has pointed out that while it does count free tickets to the race in its attendance figures, these tickets are not counted as part of revenue.

Well, duh. That’s why they’d be free then?

At yesterday’s meeting Jaspan was asked about the unprecedented length of this clarification. Was there any problem with the story?

He acknowledged that the clarification was unusually long, and said that he was personally disappointed by that. He had thought it would only be a line or two. As for the story, Jaspan said there was nothing wrong with it but there were some facts that should have been included that weren’t.

Hmmm. Read for yourself and judge.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/grand-prix/truth-on-crowds-would-hurt-us-admits-gp-chief/2008/02/25/1203788246890.html

The staff meeting also covered the running sore point of Fairfax monitoring staff e-mails – apparently in an attempt to catch who is leaking to The Australian and, perhaps, to Crikey. Staff are concerned that this monitoring may compromise confidential sources.

Multimedia editor Martin Daly made a small speech, resonant in the context, about the importance of confidentiality of sources to editorial independence. He was greeted with a hearty round of applause from the assembled staff.

Jaspan said he would be getting back to staff on the issue of e-mail monitoring, and in the meantime warned them not to download p-rn. He agreed that confidentiality and editorial independence were very important.

It is a well known fact that journalists are never happy, but the discontent and serious concerns about editorial independence at The Age these days are of a different order from the norm.

As should be obvious, The Age is a very leaky ship indeed. How long can it continue to sail among these icebergs?

(In case any suspicion attaches to them, it should be said that Doherty firmly refused to talk to Crikey this morning, and Daly did not return calls.)



The Age:

Barrie Hughes writes: Re. "What Age journos did next: it's fight or flight time" (yesterday, item 20). Is it just me or does it strike others that it's hypocritical in the extreme that a committee of journalists - The Age Independence Committee - supposedly committed to public transparency gets grumpy when the media outlet airs their own leaked discussions on the machinations of how their newspaper functions? Aren't they the first to the barricades claiming the public's right to know whenever the "national treasure" of The Age is under threat?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 5:17pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Classic Liberal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 769
sydney
Gender: male
Re: media bias
Reply #3 - Mar 7th, 2008 at 4:56pm
 
dissapointing. especially form the best paper i the country.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
Re: media bias
Reply #4 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:29pm
 
from crikey:

Melbourne's morning tabloid led angrily yesterday with the "Tears and Fury" that followed Thomas Graham Towle's conviction on six charges of dangerous driving causing death. He was found not guilty of culpable driving. That was the problem.

"The families of six Mildura teens killed in a horror smash say justice has abandoned them after the driver was yesterday cleared of serious culpable driving charges." Yesterday's story ran over four pages and went on to hog Melbourne talkback and the TV news. "The verdict allows the Herald Sun to reveal the extent of Towle's prior convictions - details not known to the jury." "No justice, say families." On it went. "Mates left to suffer." "No end to dad's sorrow." The subtext? That justice abandons the victims to mollycoddle the perpetrator, a man whose true character was concealed from the jury, who had they but known...

It's a routine tabloid cheap shot. Wallow in the grief of the victim, decry the lenience of the courts, forget that justice exists not to deliver vengeance but to mete, well, justice. What would be the alternative, what might appease the demand of the thundering headlines? Should we abandon formal sentencing and simply deliver the guilty man to a grieving mob of victims, friends and family?

Which takes us to day two and this morning's editorial, "In defence of the jury", a sober, reasoned piece that even makes the case for excluding details from a trial that might prejudice a jury's deliberations. The paper in a day has moved from "What the jury didn't hear" to "a jury would be prejudiced if it were told of previous convictions".

Which is a neat demonstration of how a newspaper's thirst for headlines and sensation can easily overwhelm its better judgment.



The Weekend Australian's hissyfit of an editorial over the objectivity of Press Gallery journalists is one of the funniest pieces I've read in nearly thirty years of abusing my eyeballs with that newspaper. That it came on the same day that Laurie Oakes carefully explained to Telegraph readers how The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald had created an entirely fictional account of the Government's intentions regarding carers and seniors made for a nice little bonus.

The Australian piously declares the need for journalistic detachment, criticises journalists for thinking they are players rather than reporters and laments that the TV program Insiders - which, despite being broadcast by the socialist propagandists at the ABC, provides a gig for many a slumming Australian hack - should be called Outsiders, because that's the only proper status for journalists.

Perhaps Coalition Senators will take up this cause at the next Estimates hearings and demand answers as to what Barrie Cassidy and his couchful of guests are "inside" of and who allowed them there.

Evidently this is a stance only recently instituted at The Oz. After all, for much of the Howard years, Dennis Shanahan and Glenn Milne appeared to file not from the Gallery but from the Prime Minister's and the Treasurer’s offices. Janet Albrechtsen was so close to senior Liberals that she felt obliged to consult with them before last year's demand for John Howard's resignation. (The fact that Albrechtsen was during that time a board member of Australia's most important independent source of political coverage yet again shows that the concept of "conflict of interest" is for conservatives something that only ever applies to their opponents).

Let's not forget Greg Sheridan, who was so deeply embedded with the previous Government that surgery will be required to remove him from Alexander Downer. Or Tom Switzer, who spat the dummy and went to work for Brendan Nelson rather than edit an op-ed page under the Rudd socialist tyranny. So, yep, detachment is critical.

And any reader suggesting that The Oz probably doesn’t have much choice but to be detached under a Labor Government should go and spend ten minutes in the Cyn Bin.

What The Australian is really whingeing about, however, is that "a significant majority of journalists nailed their flags to the Rudd mast." This is a growing complaint from conservatives, who claim that the media gave Kevin Rudd a sleigh ride all the way into the Lodge. This appears to be an attempt to console themselves that they didn't really lose the election, it was stolen from them.

But naturally the complaint wouldn't extend to The Oz itself, which editorialised in favour of Rudd on election eve, or which continues to uncritically spruik the virtues of Rudd's Gabfest '08.

When it comes to political coverage, The Oz sets a high standard. It’s just that it applies to everyone else, not to itself.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 17th, 2008 at 3:26pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
MV Pikkuw saga
Reply #5 - Mar 27th, 2008 at 3:24pm
 
from crikey:

The curious affair of The Australian, Jenny Macklin, Aurukun and the good ship MV Pikkuw drags on. It began when The Australian's reporter, Padraic Murphy, questioned why the Aboriginal Affairs minister had stayed on board the "boutique" fishing charter vessel at $680 a night instead of bedding down on dry land behind the "razor wire" perimeter of the community's $90 a night guest house.

What he didn't mention, and what the various subsequent reports from the paper have also ignored, is that the Pikkuw was built by the community as a CDEP project and is now proudly operated as a not-for-profit source of revenue and pride for all at Aurukun.

Murphy's quoted $680 a night is the daily fishing charter rack rate. Overnight accommodation on-board is available for $150 and includes breakfast and dinner. This is what the minister paid. Her guests at the Aurukun "boat barbecue" paid $20 a head for their meal. Locals say the guest house was full on the night in question.

The simple facts are that The Australian's story was an erroneous beat up. The minister never paid anything like the money quoted, and arguably did very much the right thing by patronising a community-based commercial venture. And unlike any minister before her, she actually stayed the night at Aurukun rather than scuttling off to the Hyatt at Cairns. Could it be that the thing that miffs The Australian most is that a Fairfax writer also spent the night on board?



Editorial independence fires are Stoked at The West

Margaret Simons writes:

Being right is almost always a saving grace, and very few independent observers would argue with Kerry Stokes' central points in his sledge of editorial management at The West Australian newspaper.

With his speech on Tuesday, Stokes’ move on The West has turned from being only a business story to also being a story about editorial quality and the relationship of a newspaper to its community. It is also a story about editorial independence.

No newspaper Board could be comfortable with a situation in which circulation is falling, and the elite of a city  turns on the newspaper that serves it.

It seems most of those who care want Stokes to win and rebuild the paper. Given the rabid and unreliable track record of The West , as illustrated by the several Press Council findings against it, this is hardly surprising. The present Board has failed to act on editorial quality issues and Stokes is the only solution on the horizon.

But how and to what extent should the Board have intervened? And to what extent should Stokes, if he gets his seats on the Board, interfere in editorial management? As Harold Mitchell says in his piece in The Australian today, "If I was the editor of The West Australian , I think I’d be packing my bags."

No problem with that. It is the job of the Board to appoint the editor, and the incumbent’s track record speaks for itself. But most conventions and charters of editorial independence – such as those in place at Fairfax newspapers -- then state that once the editor is in place, he or she should be left to manage staff and decide the editorial line without constant second guessing and without having to heed commercial, personal and political interests of the company, its shareholders or the Board.

Sadly, charters of editorial independence don’t work. They are a product of more naďve times. Under the Fairfax charters, editorial independence absolutely relies on the editor being independent, strong and trustworthy. One of the faults revealed in recent times is that they contain no mechanism for dealing with situations  in which the editor himself is part of the problem . The charters may lend moral force to the objections of editorial staff, but at Fairfax for some time they have stood only until they are seriously tested.

The truth is that there is no way to guarantee editorial independence if the proprietors of a company are not committed to the principle. This is why virtually all inquiries (not only those by hard line lefties) that have looked at the matter have concluded that legislation to ensure diversity of media ownership is justified in the public interest.

Perth represents a microcosm of this national issue. The West Australian is the dominant print media outlet in Western Australia. Stokes' Channel Seven is the dominant television station. True, Fairfax’s imminent launch of a news website provides a promise of some diversity, but there are still real concerns about one man controlling both the dominant news outlets in the state. Before the changes in media ownership legislation last year, this would not have been allowed.

This is not about whether Stokes is a good or bad proprietor. I happen to think he is a comparatively good one – shrewd, strong, and not intervening much in editorial decisions. There is nevertheless an issue here about concentration of power.

Among all the questions Stokes will have to answer about business issues, someone should at the very least ask him about principles of editorial independence.

The people of Perth should be thinking about whether they are really happy for one man – any man – to hold so much power in their city, and what might be done to develop some diversity and some alternatives.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 3rd, 2008 at 3:37pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
SMH going to rags?
Reply #6 - Apr 8th, 2008 at 6:09pm
 
from crikey:

Fairfax: Where Bob Irwin is more important than Bob Mugabe
Steven Johnson writes:



Yesterday, the Sydney Morning Herald’s website scored the big three: s-x, nudity and incest. Website traffic would have gone through the roof. But an experiment conducted by economists at the London School of Economics shows how Fairfax is sacrificing their upmarket brand for short term, populist stories.


After completing a survey, the economists offered the participants a snack. "What would you like: fruit or chocolate?" they asked. The students, all human, mostly chose chocolate.


The experiment was then varied a week later. This time, the economists promised to bring them a snack for their next visit, delaying the gratification (the choice was the same). "Fruit sounds nice," said the students. A week later the fruit turned up but those devilish economists offered the chocolate again: "Are you sure you wouldn't like chocolate?" Of course they would. Many duly switched.


That’s an edited excerpt from a recent ABC interview with Tim Harford, author of The Undercover Economist and, most recently, The Logic of Life. The experiment shows how the choices we make in the present differ from those we make over a longer time frame. Whether its an exercise regime, a diet program or trying to quit smoking, we’ve all been torn between satisfying our immediate desires and doing what’s best for us.


Still, many people fight the desire for immediate satisfaction and find a balance between the present and future. People do exercise, they do eat fruit and, in an effort to better themselves intellectually, they choose to read Fairfax’s SMH over Murdoch's Daily Telegraph. SMH’s high-brow reputation, built up over 177 years, is a valuable one; the readership is loyal and there are plenty of advertising dollars looking for high-brow consumers. But it is a reputation being quickly trashed.


The internet gives the paper’s editors the ability to see, instantaneously, what we read. It will come as no surprise to Tim Harford that the most popular stories are about sex, nudity and, in yesterday’s perfect example, incest – even amongst SMH’s supposedly sophisticated readers. Put chocolate in front of us and we eat it.


The executives see what’s popular and feed us more. The net result is that Bob Irwin (Steve’s father), Nicole Kidman and a hedgehog all made it onto yesterday’s SMH homepage. Robert Mugabe did not.


Not only is this disappointing, it is faulty logic. We’re all guilty of clicking on populist articles but our actions belie the reason we’re there in the first place. If I want to read trash, there are better places to get it. I go to smh.com.au for serious commentary and, if I don’t get it, I’ll go elsewhere.


Fairfax’s business is under assault from all sides. It’s most profitable source of revenue – classified ads – has been diverted to the likes of Seek and realestate.com.au. Succumbing to populism and destroying its wonderful brand names will only accelerate its decline.



Crikey publisher Eric Beecher writes:

What happens when the editor of an important newspaper loses the confidence of his journalists?

What happens when almost the entire editorial staff of a highly reputable newspaper concludes that the ethics, values, demeanor and professionalism of their editor is so incompatible with their own idea of their newspaper's journalistic standards that they are prepared to confront the editor, en masse, and effectively demand his resignation?

Well, we are about the find out. And the answer to the dilemma at The Age will reveal whether the people who run Fairfax, which used to be Australia's greatest editorial institution, care more about profits than they care about journalism.

Fairfax is in a bad way. It has no proprietor who understands media, its board works chiefly in the interests of its institutional investors, its share price is wallowing well below the levels of the sharemarket correction, its broadsheet business model has run out of growth and may be broken, its classified advertising base is eroding, it has been beaten by internet competitors in all key classified advertising categories, its editors have become marketeers, many of its journalists hold their owners and editors in contempt and its websites and in part its newspapers are being dumbed-down every day to reach a popular audience to replace a serious one.

The furore inside The Age over the performance of the editor, Andrew Jaspan, is actually about much more than a furore about poor Andrew Jaspan. It is a genuine furore about institutional conflict between journalists and management in a media company which plays a crucial role in Australian society.

If the management wins that conflict -- and it is the management who will decide who wins -- the message they will send to all their journalists and readers will be stark: at Fairfax, money matters more than journalism.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 11th, 2008 at 4:32pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
sky news ripoff
Reply #7 - Apr 23rd, 2008 at 5:42pm
 
from crikey:

The ABC's head of television has been on the front foot this morning:

April 23, 2008
ABC MEDIA RELEASE

ANZAC DAY COVERAGE

Director of ABC Television Kim Dalton has confirmed this morning the ABC will provide "live" coverage of the Gallipoli Dawn Service to all networks, and also live coverage of the Villers-Bretonneux Dawn Service.

ABC TV will broadcast the Gallipoli Dawn Service on ABC1 in each state after the coverage of the Anzac Day marches around the nation have concluded. This will be followed by coverage of the Villers-Bretonneux Dawn Service.

Coverage of the Gallipoli Dawn Service will also be available to audiences on ABC2 followed by coverage of the Villers-Bretonneux Dawn Service.

What went on? A TV insider writes:

If you ever wanted a good example of why media concentration is a bad thing, take a look at the Tele and the Herald Sun today. Their story about the ABC's Anzac Day outrage is a desperate attempt by News Ltd to win a fight for its little-watched pay TV station Sky.

Sky, as I'm sure you know, is part owned by News Ltd, Seven and Nine, so don't expect to hear this story reported fairly anywhere.

The ABC is putting up the entire cost and effort of broadcasting the dawn service live from Gallipoli. Out of respect for the diggers, whose marches are still underway in Sydney and Melbourne, they delay this to 1:30.

Sky, who don't give a stuff about these things and just want to be first, take the live feed from the ABC and run it live. They therefore boast about showing live pics, and first AND DON'T PAY A SINGLE CENT for this privilege.

And they wonder why the ABC is upset.

This is typical behaviour for Sky, which refused to join the pool (and thus didn't pay) for any of the video beamed back from the US, Europe and Asia on the PM's recent trip, but still put it to air as soon as it arrived, before the networks who paid tens of thousands of dollars for the crews and air time.

Sky refused to pay on the grounds that the ABC wasn't paying double -- once for itself and once for its satellite TV service. This is not only sour grapes at losing that contract, but a bullsh-t argument and recognition that users should pay.

In short, Sky, owned by the biggest media companies in the nation, wants to scrounge off the ABC, and when it doesn't get its way, uses one of its owners to go into bat for it.


Meanwhile, out west:

Kalgoorlie Miner editor Michael Gorey sent via email to journalists:

When writing Anzac Day reports the usual journalistic rules apply. There's a tendency for some people to write mushy rubbish. Anyone who includes two or more adjectives in a sentence will be shot (metaphorically) and can start looking for work at the Golden Mail .
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
Fairfax freelance deal an "unenforceable" joke
Reply #8 - May 1st, 2008 at 5:21pm
 
Fairfax freelance deal an "unenforceable" joke
Jonathan Green writes:

It looks like being a lean year for the Fairfax stable of contributor journalists. Apparently tiring of seeing freelance bylines appearing in various titles (a tactic pursued by self-employed writers presumably in the interests of Making A Living), Fairfax has proposed a new contributor agreement, one which severely restricts any writer’s ability to work between Fairfax titles and any other of a pretty comprehensive range of Australian publishers.

Do more than three stories in any given six month period for Fairfax, and that money will have to see you through.

According to one lawyer in the field, the agreement "is almost nonsensical", in particular, the section relating to "Other Work" is "a restraint of trade and almost entirely unenforceable".

Then there are the rights to republication also demanded.

According to one outraged and soon to be impoverished freelancer: "The gist of it is that Fairfax gets a worldwide irrevocable exclusive licence to reproduce the story (i.e: no restriction on which publication they reproduce it in), the contributor can only licence reproduction of story to a third party outside of Australia and New Zealand."

"Within Australia, we can't licence a story to a long list of major media organisations, without Fairfax permission, even after it has been published or rejected by Fairfax. (List includes Newscorp, Telstra, PBL, ninemsn, Seven Network, Yahoo, WAN, ACP, APN and Time Inc) and most disturbingly, anyone who writes more than three pieces for a Fairfax publication in SIX months, is not allowed to submit other stories to the same long list of companies in point two."

Here’s the nitty gritty from the document:

1. FAIRFAX WORK
1.1 By accepting this agreement or otherwise submitting content (referred to below as Fairfax Work) to Fairfax for publication, You agree to be bound by these terms and conditions.
1.2 You retain ownership of copyright in all Fairfax Works.
1.3 Subject to clauses 1.4 and 1.5, You grant to Fairfax a worldwide, irrevocable, exclusive licence to reproduce and deal with Fairfax Work by all means whatsoever.
1.4 Subject to clause 1.5, Fairfax agrees that You may license Fairfax Work (on a non-exclusive basis) for publication by a Third Party only if:
(a) the Fairfax Work has already been published in at least one Fairfax publication; or
(b) the Fairfax Work has been rejected by Fairfax.
1.5 You may only license Fairfax Work in accordance with clause 1.4 to a Third Party publication published substantially:
(a) outside Australia and New Zealand; or
(b) within Australia and New Zealand, but only if the publication is NOT published by any of the following Third Parties or their Related Bodies Corporate:
(i) News Corporation Limited;
(ii) Telstra Corporation Limited;
(iii) PBL Media Limited;
(iv) Publishing & Broadcasting Limited;
(v) ninemsn Pty Ltd;
(vi) Seven Network Limited;
(vii) Seven Media Group Pty Limited;
(viii) Yahoo!7 Pty Ltd;
(ix) West Australian Newspapers Limited;
(x) Australian Consolidated Press Limited;
(xi) APN News & Media Limited; or
(xii) Time Inc,
unless otherwise approved by Fairfax in writing (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld).
1.6 Any Fairfax Work published in a Fairfax publication will be attributed to You or, where applicable, the Author as agreed with Fairfax.
1.7 Fairfax, at its sole discretion, may determine whether and when it wishes to Publish Fairfax Works.

2. OTHER WORK
2.1 Unless You are an Occasional Contributor, in which case You will not in any way be restrained from providing Other Work to a Third Party, You must not provide any Other Work for publication in any publication published by any of the following entities or their Related Bodies Corporate:
(a) News Corporation Limited;
(b) Telstra Corporation Limited;
(c) PBL Media Limited;
(d) Publishing & Broadcasting Limited;
(e) ninemsn Pty Ltd;
(e) Seven Network Limited;
(f) Seven Media Group Pty Limited;
(g) Yahoo!7 Pty Ltd; or
(h) West Australian Newspapers Limited;
(i) Australian Consolidated Press Limited;
(j) APN News & Media Limited; or
(k) Time Inc,
unless otherwise approved by Fairfax in writing (such approval will not be unreasonably withheld).

You have to wonder just what they expect for $350-per-1000 words. As one multi-title freelancer put it, "the real absurdity is that as everyone knows, the modern newspaper is entirely dependent on the work of freelance writers. They’re cheaper." It would seem Fairfax is intent on making its cake redundant and then eating it too.

The one point of consolation in all of this is that Crikey doesn't feature on the forbidden publications list. We therefore extend a cordial welcome to all aspiring Fairfax contributors.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47053
At my desk.
Re: media bias
Reply #9 - May 6th, 2008 at 3:06pm
 
Britain's media guru on journalism's future (and Andrew Jaspan)
Margaret Simons writes:

Part of my role at the Future of Journalism Conference in Sydney yesterday was to be “in conversation” with the respected British media commentator, Roy Greenslade.

No-one knows the British journalism scene better. And of course, he knows British journalism’s exports.

We spent most of our time talking about the future of newspapers and journalism, but given that he is in the forefront of proclaiming the importance of maintaining journalistic integrity in the new media age, I thought it fair to ask him if he had any comment on the dispute over editorial independence at The Age currently embroiling his former colleague, editor Andrew Jaspan.

It was an open question, and Greenslade could easily have batted it away. Indeed, he said he didn’t know enough to comment on the particulars of the dispute. But he went on to say that Jaspan was a friend, but he had nevertheless watched his career with interest and wondered: “how a man of limited talent had risen so high”.

Greenslade also revealed that after he made this reference to the dispute on his blog a couple of weeks ago, he received a cross e-mail from Jaspan who protested that it was merely a “rump of left wing journalists” behind the fuss.

Greenslade commented to the conference that he understood that there had been a unanimous vote of about 230 journalists and that he would have thought that this was more than a rump.

Clearly thinking better of his remarks, he joked that he hoped there were no journalists in the audience noting down what he said – but the ABC cameras were trained on him. (Sadly the footage, while streamed live on the ABC site, is not yet available for download.)

Greenslade is planning to meet Jaspan in Melbourne this weekend. If the meet still goes ahead it would be great to be a fly on the wall.

Greenslade has a special place in media debates. His 44-year career has included stints as editor of the Daily Mirror and senior positions at most other British newspapers that matter. His blog at the Guardian is read by media professionals all over the world.

Meanwhile, for all those wondering what is going on at The Age, the journalists are keeping their heads down and staying quiet in the hope of engaging management in sensible discussions on the issues. Strategically, outside media interest is very much a double edged sword, with management still using the leak of the Age tapes as an excuse not to talk.

But I understand that behind the scenes, serious work is being done by the Independence Committee on a protocol to manage the various conflicts of interest of the newspaper, its board and its commercial entanglements. In this, the committee has the help of senior outside advisers. We can expect to hear more before too long.

For Greenslade’s own take on the Future of Journalism conference, including a mention of your very own “iconoclastic” Crikey and an interesting debate with American journalism pioneer Jay Rosen, see his blog here.

Greenslade has been debating the future of journalism for many years – long before terms like citizen journalism and audience fragmentation entered the lexicon. Recently, he has pronounced the mass circulation newspaper as dying, if not dead. See this piece from the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday for the drift.

In other comments yesterday of particular relevance to the current Australian scene, he said that it was important that a newspaper’s presence online was of a similar character to their hard copy editions. “If there is a disconnect between your publication on the web and in print then it will fail,” he said. It was a mistake to think that online serious newspapers could “get away with” a bit of tabloid gossip. This just trashed the brand.

Advertisers like to know who they are advertising to.

Greenslade wasn’t consciously commenting on Fairfax, but it was clear the audience understood the relevance to the way those mastheads are managing their online presence.

Meanwhile it was much commented on among attending journalists that while Sky News, Channel Nine and News Limited were sponsors of the conference, Fairfax Media was not.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print