Real journalism needed now more than ever 

There’s a bit of a brouhaha at the moment, a contrived brouhaha I would suggest, about the proliferation of journalists or former journalists who have ended up as advisers to our top politicians and government ministers. What qualifications they might have to assume such roles is beyond me though it is not unreasonable to conclude that in some cases the former journalist could well be a lot more intelligent and insightful than the minister(s) they serve.

It is no surprise that the concern has been raised by everyday working journalists who, it could be argued, might be envious of the generous pay packet, terms and conditions that their former colleagues have managed to secure. When the taxpayer is footing the bill there is no end to what a lady or lad would be able to demand, and get. One of the concerns expressed by the workaday journalists is how come so many of their colleagues accept the role of adviser when journalists by their nature and calling are, or so we are led to believe, neutral, detached, balanced and impartial. And more importantly they have integrity…. not suggesting that politicians don’t.

These former journalists take a risk moving from journalism to politics. The major risk is that their job is not very secure. A minister can, subject to the whim of his boss (An Taoiseach) suddenly be left without a portfolio and his/her successor might bring their own adviser(s) with them, leaving the person in situ, looking to horizons new.

Or, God forbid, a government might lose a vote of confidence or a Taoiseach might get a sudden rush of blood to the head and go to the country leaving all advisers and hangers-on clearing out their desks. But, going with every risk there is also reward and the simple fact of the matter is that journalists nowadays are relatively poorly paid and the attraction of a major increase in income cannot be ignored. In fairness, in some cases, it might not all be about the money. There are people in journalism who would be guided by the higher ideal of making a contribution to the progress of the nation. And there have been journalists who have made that contribution. Can’t think of any offhand, but there must be some.

There is genuine reason to be concerned about the use of journalists as part of a minister’s entourage. A journalist turned adviser may have “friends” from his journalism days and those friends may be given tips or insights that are not available to all. That’s not good. By and large journalism is a very civil dispensation but when push comes to shove and when the opportunity for an exclusive story arises it is a case of dog eat dog and ministerial advisers walk a very thin line if they decide to favour one journalist over another.

For quite some time now I have been concerned about the incessant use of “a spokesman” (I’m surprised some of the female journalists have not picked up on this and demanded spokeswoman) attaching to the reporting of some political story or other. It might occasionally be a “person close to the minister” confirmed this or that element of a story. And it might be a story of no significance or even a kite-flying exercise raising the prospect of better days to come but whatever the intent, the use of the ubiquitous spokesperson is anathema.

In the old-fashioned days of true journalism when truth and facts were the staple diet and conjecture and prophesy were verboten, the adviser who insisted on the use of a spokesperson to stand up a story would be quickly told to get stuffed. Either the minister/politician or businessman or professional would add their name to the story, very often nothing more than an advertorial, or the story would remain unpublished. It is fair to say, in the absence of publication, the public would not be at any great loss.

There was a time when journalism was a relatively well paid job by comparison with roles requiring similar skills in both the private and public sector. Those of us of a certain vintage can recall the days when newspaper publication in the provinces was largely the preserve of families like the Deveres, Gillespies and Doris' in Mayo, the Nerneys in Roscommon, the Crosbies in Cork, John, Jarlath and David Burke in Tuam, the O’Hanlons at the Anglo Celt, et al. The local newspapers was where it was at while the Skibbereen Eagle kept an eye of the Czar of Russia.

Those days are long gone and perhaps it is distance that lends enchantment to the memory. Thinking back, money or reward was always an issue.

Today, outside of RTÉ and the higher echelons of the print media, journalists’ pay has failed to keep up. Newspapers have gone to the wall. They have folded or have been snapped up by business people with no ink in their veins and who see the media as a means to making megabucks by lowering standards and flogging advertising. And they can get away with it because, nowadays, almost everyone is a journalist. The advent of social media has facilitated the rise of citizen journalism. It is largely unregulated and is not subject to controls.

That’s not too bad if the citizen journalist who has a view to express has been honest enough to put his/her name to his/her post. Unfortunately, that very often is not the case and there is any amount of people out there pedalling views that may be libellous or damaging or completely bonkers but there is no easy way of finding out what credence if any should be given to such posts.

If your neighbour tells you to your face that you are an asshole, well you know your neighbour and you can decide he may have a point or you may feel he is a bit over the top or indeed you may feel he is talking through his earhole. But at least you have the comfort of knowing your neighbour, knowing where he is coming from and knowing how to deal with the view expressed. That’s not the case with social media.

The social media companies are not interested in whether users are who they claim to be or in whether views expressed are damaging to others. The social media companies, if they wished, could guarantee that the identities provided by users are genuine but they have no desire to do so.

At the stroke of an app they could clean up social media but that would mean losing millions of users and billions of dollars. And, yes, you have guessed it, the social media companies are no better than those without ink in their veins who snap up ailing newspapers with a view to making money by lowering standards, reducing overheads (usually by cutting journalists’ pay or getting rid of them) and increasing advertising content and cost.

There is an argument to be made that the media’s standards have been slipping in the face of this assault emanating from elements in social media. I have expressed the view here previously that the role of the media tends to be overhyped, mainly by the media itself, but it remains a bulwark against the corruption, tyranny and exploitation that may take root in the absence of media scrutiny. It would not be a good idea to allow citizen journalists and social media to usurp the role, admittedly not flawless, of the practitioners of real journalism.

Thought for the Day 

Confucius say: Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.