Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

'The Age' and 'On Line Opinion'

By Graham Young - posted Wednesday, 29 July 2009


The same day I received a phone call from Baker. He asked me a few questions about why the article had not run and who was on the company board and the editorial advisory board. I gave him full details, including the roles that various individuals played.

He didn’t ring back to put allegations to me that the decision was politically motivated, but that was the purport of the article that he ran the following day.

The AJA Code of Ethics says that a journalist must “Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts … not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do [their] utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.”

Advertisement

The article Baker wrote gave the clear impression that our refusal to publish was the result of political influence.

He did that by:

  • quoting Rhiannon with her allegations, but never putting them to me so they could be answered;
  • mentioning that Greg Barns and I are board members and have in the past played roles in the Liberal Party, without mentioning that I had been expelled and Barns had resigned from the party;
  • claiming that I was chair of the board when it had been made clear to him that Nicholas Gruen, who heads the federal government’s inquiry into Web 2.0, is the chair;
  • failing to mention the other board members until the end of the article, and then making no statements about their political leanings;
  • only mentioning the three members of the Editorial Advisory Board who have some non-Labor affiliations, including Lucy Turnbull, and omitting all of the others, such as former ABC Managing Director Brian Johns, whose political affiliations are quite different; and
  • claiming that the board was concerned about legal threats from Malcolm Turnbull when no such threats had been made.

If you read the article without any contextual knowledge you could easily get the impression that On Line Opinion is run by some sort of Liberal Party cabal headed by me and that we bowed to either legal pressure from Malcolm Turnbull or personal pressure from Lucy Turnbull to stop information reaching the public.

Instead of that OLO is a journal where for 10 years we have been at pains to provide political balance through our choice of articles and our choice of management. Fairfax Media might be chaired by a former Liberal Party Federal Treasurer, but the paper’s staff apparently believes that if the management of any other organisation has former Liberal Party attachments that is evidence of bias.

To some readers this may appear to be a storm in a teacup. On Line Opinion has a strong audience base because it does provide a broad range of articles from a broad range of perspectives. We are also remarkably open and transparent with our critics. Charges of bias ring hollow.

Advertisement

Which is exactly the point - why would The Age take a swipe at a journal like ours? I can think of a number of reasons, none of which are to the credit of The Age, and some of which point to problems across the newspaper industry.

Criticising us was an easy story. With the loss of classified advertising revenue and the migration of increasing amounts of advertising to the Internet, journalists are under pressure to be more productive, which means produce more copy in the same time. Little work went into the first story which was passed-off as investigative journalism. The Greens’ bias claim against us stretched the story into two for very little additional effort.

Newspapers are stuck in a financial paradigm where their cover price doesn’t cover their production costs and so they are reliant on advertisers to make a profit. Their strategy has been to try to grow readership. The only way you can do this when you already have the upper socio-demographic audience is to go down market and make your “news” more tabloid.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

47 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 47 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy