Apropos of nothing in particular, I just wanted to have a quick discussion here on the subject of the power imbalance between journalists and ordinary readers.
I’m going to describe a scenario which I believe is inappropriate and wrong, and you can let us know what you think.
Say a journalist is unhappy with what a critic has written about him or her online. That journalist then tracks down the critic’s employer and contacts them.
Factors to consider:
- If to find the person’s employer the journalist just uses Google, or if the journalist has to use more specialised tools available as a result of his or her job to find them.
- If the person has said something really hurtful and damaging. But just how damaging would it have to be for you to consider the journalist justified in tracking down that person’s employer?
- If the journalist says nothing more to the employer than “hey, here’s a link to your employee’s twitter feed, have a look at what they’re saying”.
- If the person has been making these comments during business hours or not.
- If the person’s social media account in question mentions their employer at all.
My personal view is that I don’t think any of these factors make it okay. The journalist is working from a position where their job, their livelihood, is not at risk just because they participate in public discussion. Other people have jobs that have nothing to do with public discussion and employers who may not understand the importance of that person having the personal freedom to engage in public discussion.
To me, it smacks of bullying, of using a significant power imbalance to silence criticism. What do you think?
UPDATE: Coincidentally, Crikey journalist Andrew Crook today reports on Pure Poison favourite, Age writer Jim Schembri, contacting critics’ employers.
12 Comments
“of using a significant power imbalance to silence criticism. What do you think?”
I agree – next thing you know we’ll have the government trying to muzzle anyone that dares to criticise them ! Oh…………
Yes, it does smack of bullying.
I would describe someone who did that as a {Snip}, glass-jawed bully.
Hi Jeremy,
Agree with you totally. The article on Crikey.com.au today regarding Mr Schembri was very interesting to say the least.
Surely the critic (Mr Schembri) writing as a critic must expect commentary from other critics about their work.
Oh….WHAT?
There’s NO evidence for the very cowardly insinuation you make Bob – that the government has been muzzling anyone about criticism
The precise opposite is true :
We are awash in very loud and stupid loud mouth right wing ‘commentators’ and their legion of zombie followers.
You want to feel relaxed and comfortable about pandering to corporate interests, flat earthers, religious kooks and racists then you’re a teabag away from officially being the definition of a textbook idiot.
Oh hang on, you’re the one who comes here dribbling ‘Juliar’ like a sooky infant…
The way right whingers ‘stick to the script’ makes them sound like a very whiney Borg.
Only less attractive.
To be honest I wouldn’t want to work for anybody who’s reaction wasn’t to tell the journalist to go F…k themselves. So they’d be doing me a favour.
Holy crap. I had a look at the link to Andrew Crook’s piece and the first thing that leapt off the page was Schembri’s admonition that Taylor “…is obliged as a journalist to check his facts“. wtf?
Secondly, having discovered and included Taylor’s bosses in on the first salvo, he then tries to invoke “private & confidential” for his next response. And on and on it goes.
My view, as someone who is self-employed (and if Mr Schembri is reading this and wants to contact my employer, please do go right ahead), is that even if Schembri could, on any reasonable interpretation of the conditions laid out above, claim he had been on the principled side of the line, he completely scuppers himself by his wholly inconsistent application of the principle of confidentiality.
My view FWIW is that rights entail responsibilities. If a hypothetical person – a journalist say – enjoys certain rights that include access to information that would otherwise be confidential, then they have a responsibility to use that right with discretion. In my opinion {EDIT – we can’t say that} in this case.
This hypothetical exercise argues for a much more rigorous (and rigorously adjudicated) set of guidelines for journalists, not to mention those organisations that employ them. I idly wonder what a major media outlet (Fairfax for example) might say if it were to discover that one of its salaried or contracted journalists had {EDIT – we can’t say that} the privileges of their position within the organisation.
You mean like Howard did with the ABC?
I don’t think the Libs will feel the need to do that again. The present ABC is remarkably good at following News Ltd lines.
Yar, Uhlman is tops.
Maybe Bob is referring to Howard’s clever work with the CSIRO, where he reduced “Chief Scientist” to a part time job and gave it to somebody who worked the rest of the week at Rio Tinto. You know, around the same time he employed part time consultant for Pfizer Donna “nicotine isn’t addictive” Staunton as full time “Communications Director”.
Maybe he was thinking more abstractly and referring to Free Trade developments aligning bodies like the Australian TGA with multinational corporate interests or even the agreement to show more American shows on our television.
Maybe he was referring to Conroy’s half baked (and ill-fated) attempt to appeal to wingnut conservaloons that Howard would’ve been mighty proud or maybe it was Brendan O’Connor’s similar appeal to wingnut conservaloons with his proposal to ban thousands of plants (including natives) because of teh drugs.
Because Howard managed to Get Shit Done or because Tony will save us from said rabid wingnut conservaloons that ignorantly (and otherwise) barrack for corporate interests.
Err..
I wonder if someone should contact The Age and point out the harm a certain employee is doing to their image?
Don’t knock Jimbo.
If I’m looking for something worthwhile, he’s my go to man. His seal of approval is a cast iron guarantee that the show will be crap. Conversely, if he pans a film, it’s probably OK.
Oh, and if perchance you’re reading this, Jim, don’t bother looking for my employer, I’m happily retired.
Is Schembri trying out a new business model for the msm?
Very disturbing in any case. Who do these people think they are?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/drama-over-fairfax-film-critic/story-e6frg996-1226290632351
They can’t help themselves. Digging up the Catherine Deveny story. They could have mentioned Miranda’s fun with twitter.