Having your tongue firmly wedged against your molars is a common trick in the Crikey office, as demonstrated by Sophie Black. After one of the most tumultuous days in recent Australian politics she finally rang me back late this afternoon to say that she was “honoured” to be sharing her day of ascent to the leadership with Tony Abbott, aka the Mad Monk.
“It’s just the party that keeps on giving,” she said of the Liberals, while managing to suggest that the Crikey office is also a little, well, unusual at the moment.
Black has been announced as the new editor of Crikey, although her predecessor, Jonathan Green, will be around for a few days yet. We now know the name of the venture that Green will be heading up at the ABC. It is being announced on the ABC website as The Drum ‘the ABC’s new home of analysis and views”.
Black admitted that efforts were being made to weasel out of Green the details of what was planned for The Drum, which launches next Monday. It must make for interesting editorial meetings.
But in the meantime Black was focussing on her own future, and that of what she describes as the “surprising, infuriating, independent and distinctly Australian” organ of the media that it is now her job to oversee.
Black is an interesting example of a modern media career. She is one of a breed of journalists who have come to prominence through a career in online journalism, and through the Private Media Partners suite of publications in particular.
It is significant that despite advertising externally, no candidates were found for the Crikey editorship who better ticked the boxes of new media savvy, fast editorial thinking, online experience and understanding of the Crikey persona.
An alumnus of a Deakin University professional writing class, Black worked as a PA in a small television production house before travelling and having a stint as an intern on the British Guardian and Independent newspapers, where she got the taste for journalism.
On her return to Australia she worked for Rehame before being hired by Eric Beecher and Di Gribble to work on their short lived publication The Reader, which was, as Black says, news aggregation before anyone had heard of the term – but in a hard copy publication.
Hard to believe this was less than a decade ago. Not all news was online. “We actually clipped newspapers and put the clippings in manilla folders,” says Black, in a tone something like awe. Beecher was at her elbow every step of the way, and through him she was steeped in “the need to read everything, to be soaked in news”.
When Beecher and Gribble bought Crikey from its founder, Stephen Mayne, Black moved across, together with her colleague Jane Nethercote (who is, in my view, another one to watch). Black was made deputy editor of Crikey about a year ago.
So whither Crikey? Black’s appointment will be seen by many as a choice for continuity rather than change.
She wants to preserve Crikey’s personality, which she feels is well defined through the email that remains the main earner, as well as the recently relaunched website and now on Twitter.
“We have what Rupert wants,” she boasts cheekily – meaning that Crikey has a hybrid mix of free content on the web, and paid subscriber content in the email.
What she doesn’t say is that this can be problematic. What to offer for free, and what to put in the paid content is one of the issues constantly preoccupying Crikey since it launched the new website into the teeth of the global financial crisis.
The web site lifted audience share. A whole new Crikey audience, younger and livelier than the email recipients – was developed. But the advertising revenue did not follow the audience in the expected proportions. In recent times, as previously reported, there have been cuts in the “non-core” Crikey presence, and a new emphasis on that elusive thing, profitability.
Now, after a year when much of the buzz has been around the website, the focus is shifting back to the paid email, which Black says must seek a larger audience. She believes the email and the website can complement each other. She hopes to convince the web site audience that the email is “worthwhile as well”. And to this end there will be more emphasis on “creating Crikey stories”, including investigative work.
There will be more distinction between the different “levels of information” in Crikey, from original stories on the one hand to unconfirmed tips and rumours and news aggregation on the other. It is, she acknowledges, the original stories that people pay for.
The web site will be used for commentary. New blogs will only be commissioned if they are in the areas that are core concerns of Crikey’s readers.
And what about the competition, including from the ABC’s new venture The Drum, but also from newcomers like News Limited’s The Punch?
Black says that Crikey’s unique audience of “very engaged, very informed and very interested” readers, together with its ability to take risks and be cheeky and infuriating will be its strength. “I am not sure how much the public broadcaster can encroach on ratbag territory,” she said.
Meanwhile Crikey will put a new emphasis on doing big stories “in house” rather than relying too much on poorly paid contributors.
As for the shift towards profitability, Black assures me that there will be no pandering to advertisers, and no lifestyle blogs.
We’ll hold her to that.
And my conflicts in writing this piece are so bleeding obvious that I surely do not need to declare them.
9 Comments
Good to get some background on Crikey’s sparkling new editor and lovely to hear we’re not about to be overwhelmed with “lifestyle blogs”.
I suspect that would lead to a spill of subscriber resignations to rival that of the Liberal front bench.
Just hope that Crikey’s finances can be maintained at a reasonable level, because
I’d be utterly lost without my daily fix of “Crikey madness”.
It’s certainly been a fun way to start December 2009.
A splendid decision i reckon.
I am pretty sick of ‘lifestyle blogs’ being some straw man to be attacked by champions of ‘quality journalism’. Existing Crikey blogs such as Cinetology, Croakey, The Northern Myth, Culture Mulcher, Johnny’s In The Basement and LiteraryMinded are all lifestyle blogs. Is Black thinking of abolishing them?
Personally I hope that under Black’s editorship, Crikey’s expands beyond merely seeing itself as a gadfly in Australian politics, media and business. As I’ve written elsewhere, quality journalism should be about rigorous, fair, skeptical, fearless and accurate research, interviewing and writing. It should be about original and thought-provoking story angles, and a commitment to local voices and perspectives – no matter what the story is about.
Otherwise, GO BLACKIE!
Pay? I didn’t realise contributors were paid, poorly or otherwise.
Great to see Ms Black in charge, and nothing wrong with getting the ledger “in the black” as well. Hope not to see a romance blog in future however…. the Mumbrella piece mentioned in a Trackback “ABC to relaunch opinion site Unleashed” has a worrying comment re new Crikey CEO Amanda Gome. Quite a joke, given these titles as “credentials”: A Deeper Dimension, 1983; Flashback, 1983; The Great Escape, 84; The Wall, 84; Rage, 84; A Damaged Trust, 84; Waking Up, 86; Reckless, 86; Caprice, 86; The Gift of Happiness, 86; Rose-Coloured Love, 86; Passage of the Night, 90; Cry Wolf, 92; A Solitary Heart, 93; The Winter King, 94; Perfect Chance, 96.
Once you go Black…. ok ok sorry.
I wonder if having a female Editor would (help) improve that ratio of female male readership/subscriber? I’d like to think so.
The blogs in Crikey does very nicely for me thanks. Bugger the ‘lifestyle’ blog.
Anyway, good luck Ms Black and wishing Crikey all the best in the new year. And hope things go well for you at the ABC JG.
Good luck Ms Black. I look forward to more juicy indy democracy. Thankyou Mr Green. Stay Dog, good dog, stay ….
Mel Campbell (no relation): Seems to be a confusion as to what “lifestyle” means- most Crikey blogs aren’t “lifestyle”: Croakey, Gosford, film, aviation certainly aren’t….some like Culture Mulcher I suppose are. By lifestyle most people think of travel, fashion,food, etc. This stuff is everywhere, and Crikerions seem to have little appetite for it, so I can’t imagine Crikey editors etc bothering with such pap.
Culture for consumption is “lifestyle”. Cultural critique or journalism isn’t.
“The web site lifted audience share. A whole new Crikey audience, younger and livelier than the email recipients – was developed. But the advertising revenue did not follow the audience in the expected proportions.”
As one of the older and deader crikerions-i.e. one who actually pays for the privilege of being patronised by Margaret Simons here, (not to mention being churlishly insulted by Sophie Black for winning the caption comp- but that’s Crikey), here are some thoughts on Crikey survival and, one hopes, success:
Why should anyone give a toss? Because Crikey is rude, often tasteless and relatively fearless. If we want Nice Camberwell soft-left, there’s New Matilda. If we want controlled opinion, Right or Melbourne-ALP stodge, there’s Murfax. Both opinion and style in Murfax are deeply entrenched. Murfax is myopic and complacent, but terrified of extinction. There’s a symbiotic, parasitic relationship between Murfax and their sources. Their sources are the official representatives of institutionalised society. Just like the “7.30 Report” and “Lateline”. The same journos interviewing the same handful of spokesmouths. We do need a lot of this- after all, institutional representatives control much of our lives. But society is far wider and more complex than this. The explosive anarchy of the web testifies to the sense of liberation felt by escaping the news and opinion oligopoly. Crikey tries to harness both web anarchy and conventional structure. Crikey will be the subject of future PhDs on Australian journalism and public culture. Crikey’s imitators -The Punch, National Times- must kill their stifling parents to cut any ice. To the extent they simply aggregate existing Murfax opinion, they’re irrelevant. It’s doubtful whether they can break the mould. So far, they’re as weak as piss. I occasionally look at them, but there’s rarely anything worth reading.
It’s good to see the new Crikey editor stressing investigative journalism and more original stories. Crikey is quite limited in both. Money is obviously crucial, but good writers contribute for a pittance or pro bono. Seeking out occasional specialist contributors is essential, something the mainstream media rarely do. Even less than they used to, as the money runs out. The Age pays nothing for unsolicited op-eds for instance, and not much for commissioned pieces. Originality has declined in Murfax. Editors stick to a handful of regulars. The trick is for Crikey to extract quality original op-ed and journalism from the wider world. Whistle-blowing is one key solution: given that incompetence and corruption is the permanent state of both the corporate state and corporate capitalism, there is an endless supply of shit to be turned into journalistic and op-ed gold. There should be a cacophony of whistle-blowing. Everyone who works in a govt. dept. or company knows where the filth accumulates. So where the hell are they? Anonymity can be arranged.
One trap for any media organisation is a fixed commentariat. Expecting anyone to manufacture insight and outrage on a daily or weekly basis is absurd. It is also expensive. To watch Catherine Deveny whip herself into a weekly frenzy is painful, and she’s one of the better ones. Burn-out looms. What does she do when she’s exhausted all the topics? There’s big prams, cyclists, marriage, etc etc. What does Cath do, start again at the top of the list when she reaches the bottom? The Bolts and Albrechtsens are different- they have a specifically ideological role- to extract the ideological essence from each issue du jour. But like all the fixed commentariat, they repeat themselves endlessly. The Left/Green commentariat is no different: Clive Hamilton’s diatribes consist of the same paragraphs randomly arranged. The amiable Tim Flannery recyles the same handful of cliches ad nauseam. But of course editors rely on them precisely for that predictability, and the fact they are trained to deliver 800 words on tap, 800 words which require little or no editing. If she is to expand Crikey’s horizons, the editor will have to invest time in instructing new writers how to perform efficiently.
Another crippling problem of the fixed commentariat is that they don’t know anything: they are pure generalists. Some do have specific experience in particular fields, but this rarely informs what they write. Most have never done a day’s work in their lives. They exist in an abstract world, invariably urban. For them, ideology is reality. They are disinclined to research the topics they write on. Empirical they are not. It could hardly be otherwise, since they’re churning out “opinion” daily or weekly. So much easier to rely on preferred authorities, which are never questioned.
This phenomenon leads directly to sectarianism. Each side has its mouthpieces who police the party line. Climate is the current scourge: there are three possible positions- belief, denial and scepticism. Only one is tenable from a scientific viewpoint, but each extreme is intent on crushing the centre. There is no “debate”, just absolutism amid the search for heretics. The commentariat know little about “the science” or the technology and have no intention of finding out. Guy Rundle is typical: no knowledge whatever of the empirical realities of the subject, but devoutly sectarian nonetheless (”climate lunacy”). Bernard Keane likewise.
This matters because the entire society is now dividing into sectarian camps on climate. Ridiculous, but there it is. The cinderella of the sciences has us by the balls. Editorially, Crikey is heavily AGW, though one or two “sceptic” pieces have appeared recently. This is the litmus test: I’m not convinced that the new Crikey editor can prevent Crikey sinking into climate sectarianism. She is on record as condemning the ABC for showing the anti-AGW propaganda docco “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is of course suitable ABC fare. Crikey as censor!? Both films contain lies and distortions. Both are sectarian rubbish. Both should be screened on the ABC. It is no answer to say that the climate “debate” can be played out in mere comments on articles: hundreds of insults both ways are fine, but as with any other major issue, editorial space must be given to all ten sides…
If Crikey isn’t even-handed, it will quickly end up talking to one side only. It will shrink. And possibly die. This isn’t hyperbole. The entire society is geared for revolutionary economic change. The battle will be all-consuming and go on for years.
Sectarianism shrinks the world. At the very moment Crikey (et al) should be digging into real, diverse empirical matters, it is confronted by Manichean division: everything is seen through the prism of one “problem”, “climate”. Politics, economics and the environment are reduced to mere components of this obsession. The environment on Crikey for instance is now little more than the politics of “climate change. This is disastrous. Look at Crikey’s environment blog, “Rooted.” It’s rooted all right. The environment is ignored in favour of tedious, tendentious “climate” talk. Likewise society at large, to a lesser degree. OK, Mad Monk completes the sectarian division of politics so of course commentary will revolve around that for years, but editorially Crikey will need balance in that and should encourage writing on the many areas of politics and society which will now be otherwise neglected. Without that breadth, Crikey’s appeal will decline. It’s also an opportunity, as we can expect the big media to slide further into climate obsession, boring many people witless.
One Trackback