,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Ok, one more thread and then I’m going back to work marking papers. There are specific reasons why journos don’t tend to criticise other journos from competitor organisations. A thread👇🏻
The first reason is there does seem to be a policy of professional collegiality, or a professional code if you like. Journalists back each other in almost all cases and defend against criticism, viewing themselves as an ‘us’ against the non-journalist ‘them’.
This means that you don’t read about Murdoch bias and propagandising, and the impact this has on media reputation generally in other outlets. That’s not to say some journalists don’t criticise Murdoch - some do. But on the whole, this story is not a mainstream news story.
The other reason is that journalists entire professional standing is based on the idea that their work is legitimate. This legitimacy has its basis in professional norms of objectivity, impartiality and a lack of bias. Without these norms, why would anyone buy the ‘news’?
Legitimacy is as important to the whole industry as it is to a single journalist. Remember journalists think ‘partisan’ is a dirty word. They therefore worry that if they point to the illegitimacy of one journalist, to bias, they’re going to expose the whole group.
It is a house of cards dilemma for journalists - their legitimacy depends on the legitimacy of others. It’s very possible many individual journalists are aghast at Murdoch media, but can’t criticise as it will dent their own standing as a ‘professional’ in a once respected role.
This is why you tend to see the blue ticks on twitter jumping in to defend each other when us tweeps criticise them. They circle the wagons and defend their ‘friends’ in the profession, as a proxy for defending the profession as a whole.
Every now and then a journalist breaks ranks and criticises blatantly bad journalism. That’s great. But on the whole, the culture of journalism is to depict themselves as victims of outsider abuse, rather than looking in to see if criticism is valid.
Everyone knows in their heart of hearts - journalists, audience, even the Murdoch journalists themselves - that Murdoch media is damaging the social fabric and trust in journalism generally. But, it’s too risky for most journalists to call this out.
Often tweeps will say ‘journalists at the ABC won’t criticise Murdoch media and invite Murdoch journalists onto panel shows because one day they might want to work for Murdoch’. This criticism simplifies a much bigger reason for the in-group defence of the profession.
Journos also get along - travel together and drink together and are actually mates - they might have gone to uni together, worked previously in same outlet and admired each other’s work. It’s totally natural for in-group cultures to look out for each other and to back each other.
The issue is, while this in-group mentality exists and while non-Murdoch outlets defend the legitimacy of Murdoch news, what happens is that the same news narratives seep into non-Murdoch outlets, including the ABC.
What also happens is that Murdoch media doesn’t get scrutinised as it should because the survival of the industry depends on legitimacy and trust. If the group who own half of newspapers is called out as illegitimate, the house of cards crumble.
So, there we have the elephant in the room. This is the big picture reasoning behind the journo pile-on over audience criticism. We want to trust journos, but when we see you all acting in a similar way and defending the indefensible, we call it out. As we should. End.
