Reaction to, and debate on, the 2004 Tasmanian Media Awards ....
Tasmanian Media Awards
One perpetual feature of the Tasmanian Media Awards is the debate that invariably surrounds the decisions of the judges in the various categories, and in particular in the major award categories. This debate is healthy and is of course welcome but, to be of any value, it needs to be founded on accurate information, not on subjective or partisan views.
Bruce Montgomery on Tasmaniantimes.com (March 18) asserts that in naming Lindsay Tuffin “Journalist of the Year” the judges made “a serious error of judgement” and suggests that “All the traditional disciplines of the journalist investigation, truth, balance, fairness and independence [have been] thrown out the window”. In reaching this conclusion in apparent ignorance of the judging criteria and the judges’ assessment, Bruce does not appear to maintain the standards he expects of others.
The award Lindsay won is in fact the “Keith Welsh Award for Outstanding Contribution to Journalism”, not the “Journalist of the Year” award.
As the Call for Entries for the Keith Welsh Award clearly states, the Award is given:
“…in recognition of contribution and commitment to Tasmanian Journalism, and of consistently good journalism, achievement and outstanding leadership demonstrated throughout the year in any medium.”;
and that the judges of the Award consider factors including:
“…journalistic excellence, courage and creativity as well as the entrant’s contribution to the promotion of the professional interests of journalists within the industry and in the broader community.”
In making the Keith Welsh Award to Lindsay Tuffin, the judges stated that:
“Lindsay has made an outstanding contribution to Tasmanian journalism over many years - most recently as editor of the Sunday Tasmanian and sub-editor at the Mercury. He is renowned among his colleagues for his fierce commitment to “getting the news”, “telling the story” and giving people “a good read” and for his encouragement and support for younger colleagues.
Lindsay received a Peer Nomination for the Keith Welsh Award for his creation of the Tasmanian Times website. The Peer nomination said: “Since its first issue in October 2002, tasmaniantimes.com has tackled significant issues including forestry, gambling, refugees, war and more - aiming to fill in the gaps left by the general media. The e-newspaper has also spurred the general media to follow its lead on a number of stories, be they news or features. It has become a source of information for journalists - and those in powerful positions. It has also become a source of inspiration for journalists”.
Eric Beecher's publication the Reader, named tasmaniantimes in the top 10 of the "Larrikins, Ratbags and Iconoclasts" of Australian media, describing it as a "rough edged but fiery website". He also named it among the top five of Australia's current affairs websites.
Lindsay is also a stalwart of the AJA - now the MEAA - because of its defence of the interests and ethics of journalists and has used tasmaniantimes.com to promote public and industry debate about the journalistic ethics and standards.
Lindsay advocates courageous journalism and has shown much courage himself by refusing to buckle to legal threats and in continuing to publish tasmaniantimes.com at some personal risk.”
It is difficult to see any problem with either the criteria for the award, nor to see any inconsistency in its application in this case. It is certainly absurd to suggest as Bruce does that Lindsay’s award “…gives some form of official Media and Entertainment Alliance (sic) imprimatur to [the traditional disciplines of journalism] being set aside”.
In presenting his criticisms of Lindsay Tuffin’s win in this years’ awards, Bruce appears simply to have “constructed” his own award and his own criteria for this award in order to reach his conclusion. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that he might find fault with our judges’ decision. Thankfully the establishment of the judging criteria and the process of judging the Tasmanian Media Awards is done in a way that promotes transparency and objectivity.
Bruce is correct on one point - he was invited by the Alliance to be involved in the judging of the awards. Given his former standing as a journalist in Tasmania we had hoped that he would be able to remain objective and be seen to be objective in assessing the work of Journalists. Bruce indicated his involvement would be inappropriate. One can only conclude that he foresaw problems with his objectivity or at least the perception of it among journalists and/or the broader community. It is amusing that having declined the invitation to be involved in judging some of the awards, he now wishes to assume the role of a judge of the major category. Why was his involvement inappropriate then but appropriate now?
In closing, it is appropriate to comment on Bruce’s reference to his leaving the Alliance “when it amalgamated with unions representing clowns, jugglers and cinema ushers”. One can only speculate on the reasons for Bruce including this reference in his letter. It may just be a cheap shot at the Alliance - but it certainly adds nothing to the debate, nor does it enhance the credibility of his critique. It is just an exposition of the tired, elitist and ultimately rather offensive view held by a very small number of “journalists” that they are in some way superior to cinema workers and performers. As far as the Alliance is concerned, the important distinction between workers is between those who are committed to making a contribution to the improvement of working peoples’ lives, and those who happily accept the benefits others have worked for, without contributing themselves.
Andrew Muthy
Secretary - Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance - Tasmania Branch
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Short quiz for Monty
Mont,
1) What exactly is: "a journalist working in a PR role for the Government"?
2) What is the message for young journalists when they see an old hack go off to become a spin doctor?
2) What are they to make of this old hack still calling himself a journalist?
No offence, old buddy - just curious that's all.
Oh, and a tad miffed at your curious swipe at our old mate, Linz.
Mike Ward
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
PS: What the Welsh Award judges may not have been in a position to have
considered in arriving at their decision, but which you and I both know
has been required of Tuff Nuts in large measure in his brave little
enterprise, is balls - that journalistic quality without which all the
honesty, accuracy and independence in the world will count for little.
PPS: Good point about the clowns and jugglers. Am a keen juggler, myself, and hadn't until now thought of it as being perhaps a good reason for re-joining the union. Then again the circus people might have a problem with a journalist calling himself a juggler.
While I was sleeping ...
While I was sleeping Kevin Bonham (scroll down) channelled my thoughts and wrote the piece I was going to write about Bruce Montgomery's romantic lament for lost journalistic standards.
Once I worked for a newspaper under a scary looking chief of staff who wasn't all touchy-feely about community sensibilities - press releases were handballed into the bin. There was no media office and a simple phone call could persuade any passing public servant to make all sorts of admissions. Perhaps in that milieu journalistic principles had something to grab on to.
I don't think Tasmanian Times is unduly devoted to loony environmental issues. Every working journalist knows trees are always NEWS. The same applies to dolphins, whales, snails and increasingly seals. There is no real reason for it. If trees are being dealt with in any sort of negative way then naturally all media sources are going to be full of it and people are going to have strong opinions. This is just the way it is.
As far as young journalists are concerned they need to know the facts of life in the internet age. New technology means people don't like secondary people between them and the product/service/information they need. Professions like teachers, retailers, journalists and even postmen need to take a good hard look at how their professions are changing.
I don' t have time to read the newspaper or watch television news. I don't need to know what The Australian says about East Timor as I can go to an East Timorese web site and see what the East Timorese think. The same applies to almost any other issue I can think of. Google and the radio are more direct and less time consuming ways of getting information. Tasmanian Times adds local issues, opinion and some literary items. It's a great mix.
Moderating a web site like Tasmanian Times is journalism with its own standards and techniques and young journalists could find web-based journalism provides a more certain future, wider audience and less compromise than other media.
I believe the MEAA may have awarded the Journalist of the Year Award to Lindsay Tuffin because they recognised the work and commitment involved in maintaining and moderating the Tasmanian Times site.
I feel they might have asked Bruce Montgomery to judge the awards because the man writes up a storm. Hoping he contributes more often.
EDWARD GATTY
Saturday, March 20, 2004
The Old Guard is rankled ...
I enjoyed Monty's piece. The querying of your website's 'credentials' for winning the Welsh is very interesting. It seems the 'old guard' are very rankled by this but I really do think it's indicative of the changing times.
Those valuable tenets of the trade of which he speaks no longer appear that relevant - when was the last time we saw some investigative journalism in Tas? Balance, Independence in print journalism - where???? I maintain he's still jealous he didn't think of it!!!
I think others are also peeved by the fact TT breathes and grows without being a commercial enterprise. That in itself is a symbol of the changing times. You know something's working when you don't feel the need to demand payment for contribution - a point your colleagues appear too scared to admit should it at once compromise their journalistic 'integrity'.
Ironically Monty hits the nail on the head when he states it 'informs' and 'amuses' - that in itself is enough reason to read it daily. An alternative, critical and independent voice should never be silenced. Denying the Times its popularity, reach and relevance is sour grapes, envy and a reluctance to admit the times they are-a-changing and nothing more.
Having cut my teeth on sports reportage for a certain northern Tasmanian newspaper I share the passion of delivering tight copy to deadline, of the difficulties of polishing turds for general consumption, of asking often banal questions of a weary subject but overall the thrill and excitement of being able to write.
TasTimes provides me with that opportunity in an entirely new context and I believe your receipt of the Welsh is in part a recognition of this fine opportunity you afford your audience.
More power to ya Linz.
Rock on!!!!
Warren Perso
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Pull yer socks up ...
It's nice to see that there are still some willing to defend the old-school ideals of "investigation, truth, balance, fairness and independence" (Bruce Montgomery, March 18).
Yet while I would agree that a contributor-driven site lacking a great commitment to quality control is hardly even meant to fit the bill on these scores, concern about Lindsay's award for running this site overlooks an important point.
When it comes to environmentalism, virtually the entire spectrum of the media, whether private or public, sold the pass to the New Journalism decades ago. That's not to say that most environmental reporting actually qualifies as New Journalism - lacking the stylistic flair to do so, it falls more neatly in the basket best labelled simply as Shoddy.
I have to pick on someone, so the prosecution hereby tables Exhibit A, a
typical and recent piece that appeared in the Australian, concerning logging
in the Upper Duck River catchment near Smithton:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8594221%255E30417,00.html
This piece devoted multiple paragraphs to various claims about why logging
should not occur at the site, and claimed the coupe in question was "part of
a habitat that supports not only the giant crayfish, but wedge-tail eagles,
goshawks, the rare velvet worm and the keeled snail", then reported the
other side with the following token brush-off: "A Forestry Tasmania
spokeswoman said yesterday that all logging operations were in line with the
rules set down by the Forest Practices Board. Board zoologists were out in
the field yesterday and unavailable for comment." What, in this case, was
so urgent that this story had to go to print without a more serious effort
to investigate the facts surrounding it?
Had the author of this piece actually waited until the "board zoologists" returned from the field, or even bothered to find experts on all the species in question (in a world with search engines, this is certainly not difficult) she might have found out that the mention of the "keeled snail" was (on current knowledge) completely spurious, as the coupe in question is 7 km outside the species' documented range.
The "rare velvet worm" would presumably be the North-West Velvet Worm (most velvet worms aren't rare), a species that according to all scientists who have worked on it should be delisted from the Threatened Species List. Indeed that it has still not been delisted and that some scientists are boycotting the Threatened Species List as a result might, in an ideal world, make for just a little story in itself, who knows? I sent a letter to the Australian briefly pointing out the factual error concerning the keeled snail and mentioning my expertise in the species, and it was, of course, not published. So the scorecard for the Australian for this one reads a big "bzzzzt" for investigation, truth, balance and fairness, and if you're not going beyond tokenism with those four, who really cares about "independence"?
That's not to say this example I'm using was particularly bad. Nearly all the prominent media reporting of the old growth forest debate, in Tasmania and elsewhere, has been scientifically abysmal. In most of these pieces, "investigation" is the regurgitation of the opinions of lobbyists and activists and whoever else is the easiest to find and interview. (Really not so different from a website where the lobbyists and activists can write their pieces themselves, is it?) "Truth" is any factoid the journalist is told before the deadline, and you can absolutely forget about corrections unless you threaten to sue or take the paper or program to the Press Council. "Balance" is "Hey look, we got at least one quote from each side!" and "fairness" is "Look, it's not as if we regurgitated their entire press release!"
Even with its highly green-skewed contributor base (and the webmaster's obvious interest in particular issues), tasmaniantimes.com is one site where (at present) the editorial policy does allow for the kind of debate where the truth can come out in debate over a realistic timeframe, and where the balance and fairness can be there if enough people from different movements want to use the forum for that purpose.
If there were environmental reporters out there doing a superlative job of upholding the old-school journalism standards the issue could so desperately do with, I too would be shaking my head in disbelief that a mere homemade subjective discussion website was not only winning its creator awards for "journalism" but also getting quoted so often in the mainstream media.
Since there are not, I can only say "well done Lindsay" and to the rest of you, pull yer socks up.
Kevin Bonham
South Hobart
Friday, March19, 2004
Love that passion ...
Doncha just love the passion? Bear your cross, Tasmaniantimes.com, as you carry it to Calvary and allow such romans (lower case 'r' is OK) as Bruce Montgomery to hammer in their nails and feel that little bit greater as they die, also, on their own sword. Be assured that even if we don't know how to pull the nails, the rest of our race shall not stroll so easily at some future time into gas chambers.
Montgomery reckons your site throws out the window "All the traditional disciplines of the journalist - investigation, truth, balance, fairness and independence" but he provides no hint (even though he asks us to bow to his credentials as "a journalist working in a public relations role with the Tasmanian Government and the forest industry") of where we may find the traditions of investigation, truth, balance, fairness and independence . So, then, are the alternatives even worse?
His missive contains just one cheap shot in its criticism of tasmaniatimes.com - resorting to upper case ("BUT JOURNALISM IT IS NOT") to emphasise hysteria. You have wisely allowed that exclamatory to expose the weakness that words clearly fail him.
The field marshall (lower case OK) talks pretentiously of concern for the new generation of journalists, while admitting he has personally abandoned the union "of clowns" that has their professional interests most at heart. Monty, you need a counsellor.
Stand proud, tasmanian.times.com. The romans seem to be coming from anywhere for the great PASSION (my caps!) that seems to lie ahead. I cannot wait for the biblical-style judgment.
By the way, that thing about your shared biological and journalistic puberty, well ... heh, heh... do you think Bruce might, underneath all this, be seeking to have himself nailed on to the cross with you?
Oh, Lord, bring on the hammer!
Guy Parsons
Friday, March 19, 2004
Swayed by the moment (2) ...
Dear Tony Palmer,
I am most sorry - I forgot about "our linz" tendencies towards
difficulty while being restrained. Good job on the pic; still laughing here.
Brill
Monday, March 22, 2004
Swayed by the moment (1) ...
Reply to letter from The Brill Dated March 16th (scroll down).
In defence of myself the photographer [Tony Palmer] who had the unenviable task of photographing the said winner of the Keith Welsh Awards.
I was required to use all my skills and experince to both hold the drunked and swaying Lindsay Tuffin still with one hand and the camera with the other to achieve any type of picture; under these circumstances it was trying; let alone achieving a flattering one.
tp
Friday, March 19, 2004
Onya! ...
THE House Committee, and I'm sure all members of the editorial department, are delighted with the success of Mercury MEAA members at the recent Tasmanian Media Awards night.
We heartily congratulate Lindsay Tuffin for bagging the major gong, the Keith Welsh Award for outstanding contribution to journalism.
The win, we agree, reinforces Lindsay's belief in presenting an alternative forum for healthy debate and discussion outside the constraints of mainstream media in this state.
His bold step to create a platform for dissenting and divergent views on his website _ all without the reliance on sex and sensation _ deserves high praise indeed.
We also offer our congratulations to 10 other Mercury MEAA members _ Sue Bailey, Margaretta Pos, Jane Lovibond, Eddie Safarik, Ellen Whinnett, Kane Young, Guy Parsons, Elizabeth Delaney, Elaine Reeves and Angus Hohenboken _ for their awards success in other categories.
The grand tally of 11 awards to Mercury journalists unquestionably demonstrates the high regard in which our members are held among their peers.
Again, congratulations all round!
JOHN LAWLER
House Committee secretary
Friday, March 19, 2004
Journalism it is not ...
Heavens knows I love you as a brother.
As I have written before, we both went through our biological and journalistic puberty together in the lush hinterland of Burnie, then in the newsrooms of the business and government capitals of Tasmania.
I am an avid reader of, and occasional contributor to, your website. I find it informative, entertaining and amusing, BUT JOURNALISM IT IS NOT. You make no pretence to investigation, truth, balance, fairness or independence.
According to one's view, tasmaniantimes.com is an e-mail turnaround outlet for the loony Left or the rabid Right, depending where on the political spectrum you place environmentalism.
My concern is that the outside perception of you being named Journalist of the Year is that people may believe that this is the New Journalism. All the traditional disciplines of the journalist investigation, truth, balance, fairness and independence should be thrown out the window.
And what message does it send to young journalists, on whom we shall depend for our source of news in the future? Your award gives some form of official Media and Entertainment Alliance imprimatur to those rules being set aside.
I chose to leave the Alliance when the Australian Journalists' Association amalgamated with unions representing clowns, jugglers and cinema ushers. Still, the Alliance asked me to judge this year's media awards. I told them I was flattered but said it was inappropriate for a journalist working in a public relations role with the Tasmanian Government and the forest industry to sit on judgment on the efforts of working journalists. It had not dawned on them, they said, but they took my advice and withdrew the invitation.
I know that you stand, and have always stood, for the highest standards of journalism and you are dedicated to the highest ideals of the craft, but, as webmaster of tasmaniantimes.com, you are not a current practitioner of those ideals and you would not pretend to be. It's fun.
I believe this has been a serious error of judgment by the judges. It sends all the wrong messages to those who would aspire to journalism, in what I thought was the orthodox sense of the word.
But I still love you.
Bruce Montgomery
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Crook chook ...
Well done Linz, in the award aimed at Tas Times, but shoot the bloody photographer - made you look a rather crook chook.
The Brill
xxoo
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Definitely no Chickenman ...
Take a bow fearless white-winged media warrior (or, more correctly, that should be media warrior of the black-clad bikie gear)!
After the trials and tribulations, just recognition for Lindsay Tuffin and his tasmaniantimes.com by being awarded the Keith Welsh Award in the annual Tasmania media awards.
Yes it does take courage and determination to continue producing such an open comment forum such as yours, publishing in the now seemingly forgotten spirit of journalism - that is to print without fear or favour.
Seems to me this is something that has disappeared out the back door of our local media establishments. Too eager for the quick, splashy grab while ignoring the bigger picture.
Opting for the sensational instead of delving into the substance of many community issues. Strange that, when I read recently the Mercury’s editor Garry Bailey saying: “Local is king here, more than anywhere else.”
Okay, if that’s so let’s have a full in-depth investigative probe of the big issue that has polarised Tasmanians - the forestry debate. If there ever was a local king issue this is it. The 10,000 people (and I was one of them) who turned out at last Saturday’s rally underlined that.
Both sides in the forestry debate keep firing “I’m right, you’re wrong” shells and sending the journalistic troops into the trenches of investigation is long overdue. Let loose the dogs of digging so they can uncover the truth, and without any senior editorial officers trying to influence the outcome.
Be a Braveheart, Garry Bailey.
Has anybody from the Merc been watching that great series on ABC Sunday nights, State Of Play? Can you imagine anybody locally going for the jugular like those news guys? A wish would be a fine thing.
Finally, to Lindsay Tuffin from those, like me, who have appreciated the opportunity to air views through this website, our thanks. It really does make the effort all worthwhile when we see you getting such a reward.
PS: Sorry if the reference to Chickenman leaves the younger generation scratching their heads. Ask some of the grey hairs if they recall this once popular commercial radio offering. I certainly do.
THE ROVING EYE
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Quite right, Governor Butler ...
I read with interest from The Mercury online of the Tasmanian Media Awards held in Hobart last night and the guest speaker, Richard Butler’s comments regarding the ethical dilemma now posed by the modern media machine.
With so many vested and powerful interests poised ready to strike down a dissenter or someone who does not toe the company or government line, it takes a brave individual to speak out and give oxygen to those interests that really matter - such as the destruction of one of Tasmania’s, nay the World's greatest assets, ‘Old Growth Forrest’s’ which have huge potential to be richly mined by the ecotourism trade now and into the future.
Well done Lindsay Tuffin for picking up this year's award.
And finally to quote Richard Butler, “Journalists had to be very careful their opinions did not masquerade as facts, which led to triviality and mediocrity. Any intelligent person knows that people have interests, passions, prejudices that can lead to distortion and that is the pure truth of the matter”
A Brightonian,
Vic
Monday, March 15, 2004
Commitment and belief ... and yes, buy the Hag a beer!
All congratulations to Tasmaniatimes.com,, without any reservation, on peer recognition in winning the Keith Welsh Award, Tasmania's premier media accolade.
It doesn't take brains or too much time to set up a website, but it does take commitment and belief in principles to keep something as worthwhile as this going beyond the start-up stage.
Tasmaniatimes.com has established and maintained a great forum of opinion and knowledge that otherwise usually dies too quickly in the daily newspaper, the talkback, and, oddly, seems to be completely beyond the abilities of television.
What a leap forward in thought the site offers us all in little Tassie. How can we recompense with something to go along with that big gong? Can we buy The Hag a beer; the privilege of insight into the workings of our own strange minds perhaps? Or is it time now to talk in cold, hard terms of some cash support?
Or does Tasmaniatimes.com wish to keep the prerogative of one day, at any time, disappearing at its whim?
Signed,
Worried
Monday, March 15, 2004
Here's my picks ....
On the eve of the 2004 Tasmanian Media Ball, Warren Perso tipped who would snare the gongs for some of the more popular categories.
Most Dubious Newsreading Performance from Journalists who aren't
Journalists.
Penny Tame [WIN]
Jo Cornish [Southern Cross]
Most Credible Newsreading By a Netball Commentator
Peter Gee [ABC]
Most Inept Newsreading from a Newsreader who used to be a Good Newsreader
John Remess [WIN]
Best Impression of a Tasmanian Reporter Steeped in Local Knowledge, History
and Political Acumen
Andrew Probyn [ABC]
Best Tedious Broadcast under the Guise of Entertainment and Information
Annie Warburton [ABC]
Louise Saunders [ABC]
Peter Gilligan [WIN]
Lifetime Achievement Award for Consistently Irrelevant Opinion Wide of the
Mark
Wayne Crawford [The Mercury]
Encouragement Award for Best Consistently Irrelevant Opinion Wide of the
Mark
Greg Barns [The Mercury]
Media Starlet Award
Margaret Dekker [WIN]
Quality in Wheel Reinvention for Sports Reportage Award
Alistair Nicholson [WIN]
David Stockdale [The Mercury]
Irrelevant News Source Award
Rod Scott & The Examiner
SEA FM Live and Local News
Most Outstanding Contribution to Current Affairs Broadcasting and or Print
Journalism
Tim Cox [ABC]
Rodney Delta-Post [Tasmanian Times]
Hall of Fame
Judy Tierney [ABC]
Warren Perso
Monday, March 15, 2004