Ask/Abuse a journalist

[Sweet Jesus]

1) I've bolded what you've alluded to as how headlines are produced, however I still don't fully understand why the authors wouldn't suggest their own headlines or at least have a say in the headline, to ensure it reflected their story accurately. Nobody knows or cares who wrote the headline, but they will certainly identify the journalist who wrote the story.

Writers can suggest headlines. That's fine. And if they happen to suggest a perfect webhead, happy days. But it's rare that happens.

As for print, that's determined largely by layout. If that story appears as a 'two column drop' down the side of the page, maybe you have to write a headline which is three lines of 12 characters each. Any suggestion from the reporter, even if it's well-intentioned, is immediately useless. You have to find a way to make it fit relatively evenly.

And writing a headline for a piece that goes online isn't simply a case of accurately summarising the content that follows. A good webhead can make all the difference between people clicking on it or ignoring it. It sells the story. I don't want to make it sound like some kind of 'special knowledge' but there is a knack to writing a good webhead. It's not just a case of repeating the appropriate headline for the piece as it appears on the printed page. There's a different approach required. And honestly, writers aren't necessarily very good at it either. It takes practice. It's hard for me to demonstrate further without showing you a bad webhead vs a strong webhead on the same story. Maybe that's the next step?

But, in theory, the online minion who writes 30 webheads a day should be way more effective at it than the writer who "suggests" a webhead for their own story. The online minion should be sacked if they aren't. The problem is when the webhead doesn't match the story. And I agree, that's annoying. But it's not a solution to say the reporter should simply stipulate their own headline. That's a non-starter.

I understand that this probably doesn't persuade people.

Some context: At a newspaper, there's a division between the people who generate the content (the writers, reporters, columnists) and the production staff (subs, design, pic desk, the people who put it all together, in print and online). If you're lucky, those production staff are a bottomless reservoir of serious technical knowhow. I mean that. The content people are the "talent" but it's the production staff that do the heavy lifting and really execute on the nitty gritty. At one point I worked on a British paper and it was on the production staff that you would find guys who could remember every big football result going back 40 years – what stadium, who scored first, who gave the pass etc. It's the freaks on the back bench who are the real savants and the real obsessives – not only about factual detail, but also the way language is used. It's not the writers, who, by comparison, have been around five minutes.

So with that split between 'content' and 'production' in mind, that's how you end up with some minion writing a headline that doesn't fit the story. Because these papers that you're reading have decided that it's not worth preserving that hardcore reservoir of detailed knowledge compiled over the course of a professional lifetime. That guy who has covered sport for 40 years and spent his entirely professional life weighing and arguing the details has been replaced by a 25-year-old who'll do the job for half as much. You can't make that change and expect there will be no shortfall in quality.

Look at the decision made with some of the Fairfax regional papers – and I believe it's been reversed because it was such a disaster (I could be wrong). But they made the decision to gut the back benches from some of their regional titles – this reservoir of serious, highly focused knowledge that vastly outstripped whatever the rotating roster of 20-something reporters knew. And they decided that any douchebag could be a sub-editor. So they set up a sweatshop in New Zealand because it was cheaper and decided that their papers could be produced like that. No local subs at all. Forget the accumulated knowhow of the staff who had been working in that neighbourhood their whole lives. That counts for nothing. They could do it cheaper in New Zealand so what's the difference?

And then people come on BigFooty and complain about "bad journalism" because there's a typo in a caption on a website they (mostly) access for free.

2) I'm not sure why you compared AFL to NRL in terms of content and coverage. AFL is well ahead but still doesn't justify the media saturarion that occurs. The AFL seems to model itself off US sports, particularly NFL, so perhaps that would be a better comparison?

The saturation is the reason the AFL is way ahead. The AFL has a commercial interest in that saturation.

It's a content model. AFL generates shitloads more content than NRL, directly or indirectly. And is therefore worth more to the various outlets.

There's no point comparing AFL to NFL/NBA when we're talking about the Australian market. Sure, the AFL has adopted certain equalisation measures, maybe for roughly the same reasons – but I think US sports are less analogous than people think, purely because of the college system. Franchises over there are generally recruiting guys aged 21-22, versus AFL clubs drafting and developing teenagers. There's a whole preliminary industry in the US that revolves around preparing players for the professional league. And people just ignore that when drawing the analogy between the AFL draft and the NFL/NBA draft. Surely there is a substantive difference there.

So I compare the AFL to the NRL because they are swimming in the same soup. They are competing in the same market. And yes, the AFL has prospered by adopting some of those equalisation measures from overseas. But the NRL could do the same if they wanted. And, ultimately, it's by looking at the way the AFL has smashed the NRL in broadcast deals that you truly gauge the value of these media strategies.

3) I'm still not going to comment on how terrible a journalist Mark Robinson is...

I think he's better than you think.

I think if you met him in a pub and challenged him politely about his work, he'd make a decent case. Journalists tend to be pretty good at that.

Robinson has ended up on TV and everyone thinks he's a joke but I promise you he shovelled some s**t to get there. These guys aren't guessing. They're not making s**t up for the sake of it.

They're thinking: 'What can I tell people that they don't already know?'

Granted, that approach can lead to some shoddy, reckless reporting. But that central, animating question is worth defending. What is the alternative?

 

[Sassafras]

Industry-wide there is now a demand to generate vastly more content because outlets know it has a built-in audience. But the reality is that it's a real stretch to justify this relentless intensity of coverage. The game simply doesn't generate enough real news to support that volume of content.

Very good observation.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Thanks for all your previous insights Sweet Jesus.
I now understand the headline process a lot clearer. I wasn't necessarily looking for a justification or persuasion, more an explanation, which you've provided. Fascinating insight into 'content' versus 'production' teams. Ideally you'd expect that they operate together seamlessly, but clearly with differing budgets, experience, knowledge and maybe even personalities, there are bound to be inconsistencies.
Accept your points on the AFL media saturation too.
Don't really have anything further to add at this time, so thanks again.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I now understand the headline process a lot clearer. I wasn't necessarily looking for a justification or persuasion, more an explanation, which you've provided. Fascinating insight into 'content' versus 'production' teams. Ideally you'd expect that they operate together seamlessly, but clearly with differing budgets, experience, knowledge and maybe even personalities, there are bound to be inconsistencies.

Yeah, ideally.

But you'd be shocked by some of the instances of rank ineptitude if you saw the sausages getting made.

One of the things that surprises me most about the media workforce is how much competence, work ethic and sound judgement can vary from one employee to the next. You could get one person who is absolutely switched on, well-rounded and a total pro. And they could be working alongside someone who honestly has NFI, even though they're at the same outlet, doing a similar job and have comparable experience/seniority.

I am continually shocked by this phenomenon whenever I encounter it, even to this day. Honestly, the s**t I see. It would be like working in a restaurant kitchen and finding out the chef next to you can't boil an egg. And that really is the main obstacle to things operating ideally.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Yeah, ideally.

But you'd be shocked by some of the instances of rank ineptitude if you saw the sausages getting made.

One of the things that surprises me most about the media workforce is how much competence, work ethic and sound judgement can vary from one employee to the next. You could get one person who is absolutely switched on, well-rounded and a total pro. And they could be working alongside someone who honestly has NFI, even though they're at the same outlet, doing a similar job and have comparable experience/seniority.

I am continually shocked by this phenomenon whenever I encounter it, even to this day. Honestly, the s**t I see. It would be like working in a restaurant kitchen and finding out the chef next to you can't boil an egg. And that really is the main obstacle to things operating ideally.

Sure, but you would think, or at least hope, that there was some sort of entry-level training required to enter the media workforce - we're not talking work experience kids here. Particularly in a position of relative responsibility (whether content or production), where the product is published for widespread consumption and scrutiny, the media organisation must have stringent proofreading and fact-checking to prevent (or at least minimise) the chance of errors occurring. Ideally.

In whatever format, once the publication is released, it can't be retracted. I'd expect the editorial and legal teams must get worked pretty hard to ensure the veracity of the published content, particularly in the haste to break a news story first. I can't imagine media organisations like printing retractions or apologies, nor shifting the blame onto content/production staff, when things go awry.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sure, but you would think, or at least hope, that there was some sort of entry-level training required to enter the media workforce - we're not talking work experience kids here. Particularly in a position of relative responsibility (whether content or production), where the product is published for widespread consumption and scrutiny, the media organisation must have stringent proofreading and fact-checking to prevent (or at least minimise) the chance of errors occurring. Ideally.

In whatever format, once the publication is released, it can't be retracted. I'd expect the editorial and legal teams must get worked pretty hard to ensure the veracity of the published content, particularly in the haste to break a news story first. I can't imagine media organisations like printing retractions or apologies, nor shifting the blame onto content/production staff, when things go awry.

Yeah. Stringent. Sure.

Like I said, it's pretty sobering when you see the sausage getting made.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Yeah. Stringent. Sure.

Like I said, it's pretty sobering when you see the sausage getting made.

Yeah, stringent... Ideally!
Particularly in light of what I referred to in my second paragraph about the possible consequences of errors. Any thoughts on that, or was I being optimistic.
Remember I'm not in this industry so I'll rely on your insights here.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Particularly in light of what I referred to in my second paragraph about the possible consequences of errors. Any thoughts on that, or was I being optimistic.

For certain kinds of stories, there's an extra layer of legal arse-covering. But overall, the quality control probably isn't as stringent as you'd hope. It's a production line.

Remember I'm not in this industry so I'll rely on your insights here.

Yeah, I didn't mean to condescend. If anything, you're giving the media in general too much credit.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Yeah, I didn't mean to condescend. If anything, you're giving the media in general too much credit.

No condescension here, I'm just interested to learn from someone who has the expertise.
Maybe I am giving the media too much credit - thinking the consequences of mistakes would motivate them to produce a higher standard.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Maybe I am giving the media too much credit - thinking the consequences of mistakes would motivate them to produce a higher standard.

Sure, if those consequences involve legal trouble. But for other run-of-the-mill stuff, standards have fallen.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Sure, if those consequences involve legal trouble. But for other run-of-the-mill stuff, standards have fallen.

What a disappointment.

 

[Zephiisdaman]

Yeah, ideally.

But you'd be shocked by some of the instances of rank ineptitude if you saw the sausages getting made.

One of the things that surprises me most about the media workforce is how much competence, work ethic and sound judgement can vary from one employee to the next. You could get one person who is absolutely switched on, well-rounded and a total pro. And they could be working alongside someone who honestly has NFI, even though they're at the same outlet, doing a similar job and have comparable experience/seniority.

I am continually shocked by this phenomenon whenever I encounter it, even to this day. Honestly, the s**t I see. It would be like working in a restaurant kitchen and finding out the chef next to you can't boil an egg. And that really is the main obstacle to things operating ideally.

Thanks for the insights Sweet Jesus. I have learned plenty reading your explanation of the machinations of journalism. I guess we all have our favoured journos and disliked journos.
I like Robbo, he is passionate. As you have suggested he does a good job with Gerard on 360, he makes the show by being a footy boofhead. I'm not insulting his intelligence but he deliberately comes across as everyman talking about the game. Unfortunately when he gets embroiled in political sagas like the Eddie/Caro scenario he doesn't come across greatly IMO.
The journo that irks me is Jon Ralph, not sure what he actually brings to the table.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thanks for the insights Sweet Jesus. I have learned plenty reading your explanation of the machinations of journalism. I guess we all have our favoured journos and disliked journos.

Damn straight.

I like Robbo, he is passionate. As you have suggested he does a good job with Gerard on 360, he makes the show by being a footy boofhead. I'm not insulting his intelligence but he deliberately comes across as everyman talking about the game. Unfortunately when he gets embroiled in political sagas like the Eddie/Caro scenario he doesn't come across greatly IMO.

He's not great at nuance or complexity.

I reckon he would, however, be pretty good at getting people to talk off the record.

 

[Zephiisdaman]

Damn straight.

He's not great at nuance or complexity.

I reckon he would, however, be pretty good at getting people to talk off the record.

I reckon he would be an interesting bloke to have a few beers with. He would have a few great stories I bet.

 

[leeloo]

Sweet Jesus what do you think about the AFL journos that are becoming the news rather than reporting it? Bickering with each other on social media? Is it bringing down the credibility of the profession?

I have always thought that journalists were supposed to write stories based on the facts that they know. Opinion pieces were clearly marked. There doesn't seem to be much distinction anymore in the way pieces are written. There seems to be a fair bit of blurring.

 

[Sassafras]

Sweet Jesus do you think it's common for journalists to dumb down their vocabulary skills in certain sports articles to suit the demographic they are aiming for?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sweet Jesus what do you think about the AFL journos that are becoming the news rather than reporting it? Bickering with each other on social media? Is it bringing down the credibility of the profession?

I don't think it affects credibility necessarily but it really depends what they have to say. What's the example that you have in mind?

If a journalist has something interesting to add about another piece of coverage, then I think there could be value in that. But if they're just navel-gazing then that doesn't add much.

This is part of what happens on social media – I don't think it's great but it's all part of this preoccupation with 'engagement'. Journalists are certainly encouraged to use social media but I'm not sure their tweets are a news story in their own right.

I have always thought that journalists were supposed to write stories based on the facts that they know. Opinion pieces were clearly marked. There doesn't seem to be much distinction anymore in the way pieces are written. There seems to be a fair bit of blurring.

I think there's still a fair bit of hard news out there. The reality is that comment pieces probably do better online.

What kind of coverage do you think blurs the line?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sweet Jesus do you think it's common for journalists to dumb down their vocabulary skills in certain sports articles to suit the demographic they are aiming for?

Yeah, I imagine that happens. But it depends on the outlet.

That said, I don't think that it's as deliberate as you suggest. It's more a case of a tabloid reporter absorbing that house style because that's the soup they swim in and then doing it almost subconsciously. In my experience, if a writer has to sit down and force themselves to adopt a certain vernacular, that's going to be harder and harder over the long run.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Sweet Jesus, how much do particular newspapers lean on their writers to contribute articles that have certain points of view?

Or is it more likely that journalists with inherent biases will choose to work for publications with those same views?

 

[Zephiisdaman]

Sweet Jesus Social media is the greatest thing ever for these journalists. They complain they get bombarded but someone like Rohan Connolly who I cannot stand uses it to perfection.
He is such a bleeding heart leftie, supporting political agendas, hard core music, other sports.....football. Like him or loathe him he has built a brand on social media and with that amount of positive and negative viewers will always be in demand for far ranging opinions on radio or in papers.
He has sold his brand very well. Most of the successful journalists are doing it but aren't as advanced as Rohan.
Do you agree with this?
The really divisive journalists like Caro and Patrick Smith don't or rarely use social media because I guess of the probable feedback they would receive.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sweet Jesus, how much do particular newspapers lean on their writers to contribute articles that have certain points of view?

Or is it more likely that journalists with inherent biases will choose to work for publications with those same views?

A bit of both.

If we're talking about opinion pieces that appear on the op-ed pages, then newspapers will generally know what they're getting when they retain certain columnists. And vice versa. It's unlikely that a screed denying climate change is going to get a run in The Guardian. That said, an accomplished opinion editor should be able to find ways to include dissenting voices and not just go back to the usual suspects banging the same drum. It's the editor's job to curate those opinion pages and I think a break from the party line can be really effective when done properly. On the other hand, if you have a right-wing paper roll out a token leftie to offer a caricature of left-wing arguments, that's shoddy and insulting. Just as when a left-leaning paper commissions some rabid right-winger purely for shock value.

Generally speaking, though, I have no problem with newspapers favouring certain points-of-view on their opinion pages. There's no rule against The Guardian having a point-of-view or The Daily Mail having a point-of-view. That's not to say there aren't dishonest or irrational or badly researched opinion pieces that warrant specific criticism. Of course there are. But broadly speaking, I think newspapers are entitled to fill their opinion pages with whatever they like - and then it's up to the audience to decide. Within reason.

Where I think there is a problem is when this editorial bias creeps into what's meant to be straight news coverage and you have certain stories emphasised or ignored or spun accordingly. Sometimes you have the front page becoming an extension of the opinion page and I think that does a disservice to intelligent readers.

Of course, there's also a distinction that goes beyond left and right - it's the distinction between a populist/tabloid tone vs more traditional, sober coverage. And, by and large, tabloid outlets tend to have less respect for that traditional norm of opinion and news being kept separate. For example, The Australian is determinedly right-wing in its opinion pages, but I can't imagine it doing the kind of naked editorialising on its front page that you might see in The Daily Telegraph. That doesn't make The Australian's point-of-view less right-wing - just less populist and more respectful of that traditional distinction between opinion and news. You could make the same analogy on the left with something like The Guardian and The Daily Mirror in the UK.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sweet Jesus Social media is the greatest thing ever for these journalists. They complain they get bombarded but someone like Rohan Connolly who I cannot stand uses it to perfection.
He is such a bleeding heart leftie, supporting political agendas, hard core music, other sports.....football. Like him or loathe him he has built a brand on social media and with that amount of positive and negative viewers will always be in demand for far ranging opinions on radio or in papers.
He has sold his brand very well. Most of the successful journalists are doing it but aren't as advanced as Rohan.
Do you agree with this?

Yeah, social media is great for journalists who have figured out how to make it work for them. The stand-out example is Piers Morgan.

The degree to which journalists embrace social media is still, I think, very much a generational thing - with some exceptions. But we'll arrive very soon at the point where journalists going for job interviews include their number of Twitter followers on their CV. Again, look at Piers Morgan. Any job he gets and every paycheck he collects henceforth will in some way be linked to him having 5 million Twitter followers.

That said, I do think social media demands and incubates a kind of real-time, hyper-immediate reaction to everything. And I'm not sure that's always the best approach. Sometimes it's OK to keep your powder dry for a few hours instead of trying to constantly update or reshape narratives according to whatever happened 30 seconds ago. I'm not a huge fan of that kind of instant punditry.

 

[The Dr]

Great thread Sweet Jesus. As a long-time sports journo myself, I sometimes tear my hair out at the lack of understanding about what actually happens in the media - so good on you for creating a thread to give people an insight.

I wonder whether this would be better on the main board though? I doubt many people come to the FFE board and I'm sure there's more out there that would appreciate a better understanding of the media.

Top work.

 

[david addison]

Ask a journalist? OK, shed some light on this:

I was at Victoria Park in the late nineties for a reserves game. This particular game was well publicised because a very famous (and notorious) player Craig Kelly had been relegated to the reserves for the first time. Channel 7 turned up. I guess they were expecting him to be petulant, or act out in frustration. I don't know. Anyway, they put their camera and microphone on the fence in the forward pocket down the train station end. And by chance, right next 7 was a spectator from hell. Think the most obnoxious person you've ever seen at the footy, and multiply it by ten. This guy was relentless. He abused players of both teams, abused the umps, abused other fans. Seemingly had no allegiance to either team. A cynical person might suggest that he was a 7 plant. Anyway, after a while the ball rolls over the boundary line right in front of this guy, and right in front of 7, and as fate would have it, none other than Mr. Kelly collects the ball for the boundary umpire, looks up, and tells this guy to keep his mouth shut. Personally, I'd never been so proud of him. As a senior player he took the initiative, and on behalf of all the players and spectators, put this guy in his place. OK. Fast forward to 6.20pm, and I'm back at home watching 7, and wouldn't you know it, they're reporting this 'altercation'. They proclaim 'Kelly abuses spectator', and in case the story wasn't salacious enough, they unnecessarily beep out his voice. I was right there on the fence at Vic Park, and it's a fact that he never swore. 'Give it a rest, mate' is pretty much all he said.

So, what do you make of it? I reckon 7 went to the ground hoping Kelly would belt somebody (as was his want), but went back to the studio after the game with nothing and thought sh*t, what do we do now? Personally, I love this anecdote. I've relayed it a hundred times. Whenever someone suggests to me that journos couldn't possibly falsify a story.

 

[david addison]

Here's something you could probably write a thesis on, but I'd like to know your opinion of a collective media choosing to cover one story but ignore another. Here's the best example of it I can recall in recent times:

In 2007 there were a couple of people that could have been accused of having a 'conflict of interest'. One was Eddie Maguire, who was president of the magpies, and also commentating magpie games on channel 9. Personally I thought it was insignificant, yet it caused a furore, and was reported ad nauseam.

At the same time, the chairman of the AFL, Mike Fitzpatrick was busy helping his former club Carlton poach the magpies CEO Greg Swan. This I reckon was egregious, yet it wasn't reported until four years after the fact, and even then, it was buried deep in an unrelated article.

What do you reckon? Is the press just too scared to hold the heavy hitters like Fitzy accountable?