The media – a question of ethics and accuracy.

By and large, there are not many things that “get my goat”, as they say. However there is one thing that has been raising my ire of late and that, somewhat surprisingly, is the media.  The way some journalists have been reporting on events, particularly of late, have been bordering on farcical. Inaccuracies, woeful predictions and a lack of attention to detail has led to situations, like this morning, where the media gets left looking rather foolish.

Today Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced her new Cabinet in the wake of her leadership contest victory over former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd. It was her second in the last three months, although this was somewhat enforced following Rudd’s move to the backbench and the resignation of Sports Minister Senator Mark Arbib. As with all reshuffles, the changes and possible ramifications of those changes are widely speculated upon in the press.

The most widely speculated upon change was the possible move of former NSW Premier Bob Carr into the Senate, replacing Mr Arbib.  Also mooted was that Mr Carr was to take up the role as Foreign Minister vacated by Mr Rudd. Now this was a big story, so it was understandable the journalists were in a rush to get their story in first, particularly after it was revealed the Ms Gillard had been in conversation with Mr Carr as early as last Monday.

But it was this haste that led to errors and assumptions that grew, as it turned out, more and more inaccurate as the week went on. Much like Chinese whispers. The first assumption, that when Ms Gillard and Mr Carr conversed it was to offer him the foreign ministry, was understandable. However the error of assuming that Ms Gillard was lying (as so often seems to be the case in some circles) when she claimed she was “looking at all options” was much less so.  Unperturbed, various news sources then reported as fact that the reason there was no announcement of Carr as the new foreign minister was that Ms Gillard had been stymied by the infamous ALP “faceless men”, thus further undermining her “credibility” and according to the Opposition, who seemed to be viewed as the authority on the inner workings of the Cabinet re-shuffle, was “symptomatic of a government in crisis.”

It was at this point that Ms Gillard made a succinct, yet ultimately prophetic statement. When the topic was raised, with particular mention made to an article on the front page of The Australian newspaper she glibly replied, “Don’t believe everything you read.” Indeed, considering the number of “it’s widely reported”s, “it’s believed that”s and “much speculated”s that were peppering each news report and opinion piece, I find it hard to believe that anyone was convinced by the tenuous links and flimsy claims being made by the journalists, even those as experienced as Michelle Grattan.

So you can imagine the surprise on Friday morning when Ms Gillard strode onto the dais to announce her new Cabinet, flanked by none other than former New South Wales premier Bob Carr. Journalists who had been lamenting and eulogising the failed Gillard-Carr deal were now compelled to describe their “shock” at his appointment. It turned out that their unsubstantiated facts reported as gospel truths turned out to be, well, unsubstantiated.  Not that you’ll find any in the media industry (of which I must now include myself) prepared to admit to that.

While this was hardly a difficult moral or legal situation, there are some ethical questions that could be asked, particularly of the reporters.  To put it simply, to ask if something is ethical is to ask, “What is the right thing to do?” Therefore, was it right to construct articles based on hearsay and unconfirmed reports? Was it right draw conclusions without some, or in some cases any, of the facts? And perhaps the question that needs most to be asked is how the journalists could possibly have known what was occurring between Ms Gillard and Mr Carr without having spoken to them. Information and direct quotation from either Ms Gillard or Mr Carr was conspicuously absent from many of the articles written over the past week. In fact, one of the only time Mr Carr’s views were mentioned was when one journalist claimed that Mr Carr was “disappointed” at being passed over for the foreign ministry. Surprisingly enough, there was no record of Mr Carr ever saying that.

Of course this was not a particularly major flouting of ethical standards by the media (I’ll direct you to Alan Jones and the Cronulla riots, or even David Koche and Eddie McGuire in Beaconsfield for that), but that doesn’t make it any less important.  It is a hackneyed and clichéd phrase, but journalists do wield power, and with that power comes responsibility a responsibility to be as thorough and accurate as possible, so they can best inform the public. Perhaps journalists should take a leaf out of the late Marvin Gaye’s book, “believe half of what you see… and none of what you hear.”