Breaking New Ground Friday 31 December 2010

Pike River: When it happens closer to home, it's a very different story

Journalists spend their days trying to break stories. In 2010, there was a lot of ‘breaking’ going on, but almost none of it was caused by the media. In September, the ground beneath the Canterbury region shook, swelled and split. The damage: many broken vases. Perhaps, broken bones. Some business owners certainly ended up broke. But, miraculously, no deaths. But then, in November, the ground moved again. This time, beneath the Pike River Mine. It shook, it smoked, and spat out fumes. Here, the result was more devastating. Broken families, and broken trust. But the community pulled together. Yes, Greymouth and Christchurch provided the two most compelling, dramatic, moving stories of the year. But journalists had an easy job of piecing together the usual stories, in the usual order. First, the bare facts. Second, the community’s reaction. Next, the human insights. And finally, the analysis: the blame game, the hand-wringing, the inquiries – and a look at the future.

It was a strange old year for New Zealand; a country which rarely experiences an event on the scale of a national disaster. But in 2010, there was a strange sense of deja vu. Not because we had experienced a major earthquake or a mine disaster, but because we’d watched two other countries go through that hell. In January, Haiti was hit by a 7.0 magnitude quake. A quake that seems remarkably similar to Canterbury’s. A quake that killed 230,000 people. Even the Pike River Mine crisis felt familiar to begin with. In Chile in October, 33 miners were rescued. A tragedy became a triumph. Kiwis were transfixed. And while we hoped the Pike River crisis would have a similar ending, it didn’t.

It’s fair to say that most Kiwis, including myself, live comfortable lives. Yes, we’re “global citizens”, and we’re “connected” with what’s happening in many far-flung corners of the globe. And yes, we have our own share of problems. But none of those problems compare to those experienced by millions of other people around the world. If New Zealanders learn anything from 2010, I hope it is this: what we see in the media is not always the clearest version of reality, but it is a version of reality nonetheless. And reality, in many places, is brutal.

It’s too easy for Kiwis to flick on the news or flick through a newspaper. Often, we view major overseas events as if they are part of a soap opera, with plots and characters and cliffhangers. The cynic in me believes many Kiwis were only interested in the Chilean mine crisis because of the compelling twists and turns in the rescue saga. Would they live? Would they die? Did Kiwis follow that story because they cared? Or because of the drama, the tragedy and the triumph?

I can’t answer that question for all New Zealanders. But I know for sure that there was no ‘triumph’ for the 29 men who died in the depths of the Pike River Mine. It’s a story which affected all New Zealanders. It hurt because they were members of our community. The event happened on our turf, under our watch. This was not just another story or drama to play out on TV. This was reality. We mourned for 29 men who spent their last moments stuck down a mine. And yet there are millions of people living in holes around the world. Victims of conflict and poverty, many of them suffer equally tragic deaths. But for them, there is no drama, no cameras and no script. No glorious tributes, no extended news coverage, and no investigations. Sometimes I get angry at how parochial we are as a nation. But now that we’ve been reminded what it’s like to experience tragedies on a large scale, perhaps we’ll live a little bit differently in 2011.

Face The Facts Saturday 6 November 2010

Social networking: how much is too much?

I imagine a vegetarian would have a hard time trying to tell a carnivore to avoid meat. It’s even harder, however, for a Facebook non-believer to convince a Facebook believer that the social networking empire is built on shaky ground. It’s a challenge that I’ve embraced with gusto this year, in a desperate attempt to offer a critique of social networking and a reality check for the hoardes of Facebook lovers I know. I kicked off with this confessional in Canvas Magazine, and continued with this commentary in Idealog. Both stories ask whether our social media love affair is going too far, whether it’s taking the place of ‘real’ relationships and ‘real’ interaction, and whether social networking is as ‘revolutionary’ as it is made out to be. These questions are hard to answer. And they’re questions which most of us don’t want to answer. But while we watch Facebook continuing its ‘meteoric’ rise, its forerunners remain in pretty dire straits.

Murdoch-owned MySpace re-launched this month, but it’s still ad-heavy and cluttered. Bebo has lost its old school cool, and was sold earlier this year. The golden child, Twitter, is still useful for musicians, marketing gurus and media types, but is completely irrelevant to ordinary Kiwis. Facebook, it must be said, has held up admirably well over the past few years, but it has also taken many hits from critics, due to Mark Zuckerberg’s light-handed approach to privacy. Given the incredible sway that social media has, it seems remarkable that we have had so little discussion about its pitfalls, vulnerabilities and weak points. This, despite our growing reliance on social media, our willingness to trust its leaders with our data, and our willingness to dedicate time and energy to it.

The reason for our blind trust in social media is that the people who have the power to change are minds are the same people who have a vested interest in keeping social media alive. Mainstream media have embraced social media, especially social networking, with great enthusiasm. They have little choice. If newspaper and magazine publishers fail to capture the social media market, they have little hope of winning the ‘war against the web’. It is a war that has already caused many media organisations to go bust. Corporates, too, aren’t interested in challenging the validity of social media. It’s a fresh source of free advertising and free  chatter. In dollar terms? Priceless. And finally, the people we love to love, and love to loathe: celebrities. Social media lets us get closer to celebrity culture than ever before. It’s a vital tool to keep the fame flame alive.

So it’s no surprise, then, that the social media beast has risen so quickly. Of course, it’s been useful. Of course, it’s made it easier and more enjoyable to communicate, share and interact. But social networking sites are much more than just modes of communication. Facebook is an environment.  It is public. And the way we interact on social networking sites is radically different to the way we interact in real life. We need to examine it more closely. And although I’ve been harping on about this all year, it’s going to be hard to shut me up.

Beauty, Brains or Both? Wednesday 21 July 2010

More than just a pretty face?

As the experts are telling us, newsrooms are getting younger. For many, it’s cause for concern. TV reviewers lament that the quality of news reporting is under threat, because of the sheer inexperience of the fresh-faced, wide-eyed reporters who’re delivering it. It’s an interesting debate; a debate which recently hit a new low when long-time television journalist Janet Wilson claimed that today’s youngest female TV reporters are hired “because they simply look good”. Another former broadcaster, Brian Edwards, weighed in. “How you look has become more important than how much credibility you bring,” he says. The argument is that celebrity-addled news bosses are hiring beauties, rather than beasts. And we all know that good journalists need to be beasts, right?

Good journalists are defined by the depth of their stories and the thickness of their contact books. But TV is a visual medium. It’s unrealistic to demand that all reporters are hired solely on the basis of their credentials, with no regard for how they look or sound on camera. Wilson is being overly cynical when she claims that female reporters are solely hired because they’re attractive. She’s implying that there are other strong, intelligent young female journos out there, who would do well in TV, but aren’t given the chance, because they aren’t hot enough. But where are these talented, would-be TV reporters? Do they exist? Have they resorted to working in the seemingly un-sexy world of print media, because the image-obsessed TV networks won’t hire them? Or do they simply not want to parade themselves in front of half a million people every night?

Having worked in both television and print, I’m not very convinced that these intelligent-but-not-quite-attractive-enough-to-be-on-TV journalists actually exist. And even if they do exist, they’re not desperate to work in telly. Young reporters in other parts of the media are no more or less intelligent than those on TV. They will do well in any medium if they are given good opportunities to develop their skills. But in any case, TV bosses don’t have a lot of choice when hiring young reporters. Many have a broadcasting qualification, and many have another degree. But apart from a few star contenders, it’s a pretty level playing field, and the candidates’ journalistic credentials are homogeneous. So it’s only natural that those who come across best on camera will be hired. Some excel; others fail to live up to the standard expected by those who hold the remotes.

Wilson and Edwards may argue that the solution is to stop hiring fresh, young reporters. Instead, maybe news organisations should invest in senior reporters with strong track records. But as Wilson and Edwards know, many newsrooms are now operating on the smell of an oily rag. Why employ one senior journalist when you can hire two hungry graduate journalists for the same price? It’s this commercial reality which is causing newsrooms to become younger. It’s unfair and sexist for Wilson to lump the blame on young female reporters; reporters who, in many cases, have been thrown in at the deep end and are doing their very best to do the job well, and to meet the expectations of their producers. And why doesn’t Wilson doesn’t mention male reporters? Are they all serious news hounds who’re hired solely on the basis of their credentials? I think not.