Media Watch accused of campaign against Daily Telegraph

Media Watch has come under fire from News Limited columnist and Dumb, Drunk and Racist host Joe Hildebrand after it took aim at the Daily Telegraph’s campaign against social media trolls this week.

On Monday host Jonathan Holmes questioned the coverage given to the paper’s self-appointed campaign:

What’s even odder about the Tele’s campaign is that not once, in pages of outraged coverage, did it give any prominence to the admirably clear advice given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority …

Trolls – five ways to protect yourself
Ignore the troll. Don’t respond
Block the troll. Take away their power by blocking them
Report the troll. Report to site administrators. If they continue, contact the police.
— Australian Communications and Media Authority, Trolls – five ways to protect yourself

But today Hildebrand bites back:

First it suggested that we had failed to advise our readers to block trolls. This is just rubbish. Even before the launch of the campaign we ran a story whose very headline ran “Deny trolls attention and they fade away”. Two days later we said: “Social media sites advise users who are attacked online to block trolls or simply switch off” but added that some users found this difficult. The same day a page 3 article quoted a Twitter spokeswoman’s advice: “If there is something you don’t agree with, or find insulting, it’s best to block that user.”

On Saturday a story in the sports section – which perhaps nobody at Media Watch has ever read – was headlined “Sign off from abuse”. On Monday we ran a column by UTS psychologist Rachael Murrihy across almost an entire page that concluded: “Block the person and contact the ISP host to have posts removed if possible.”

Media Watch failed to mention any of this. Either it didn’t do its research (again) or it deliberately ignored it.

Hildebrand goes on to outline several other occasions as part of a column that suggests “Media Watch has an agenda against the Telegraph.”

There are some fairly pointed claims about balanced reporting and I guess readers can make up their own mind.

Frankly, I’m not really sure what the point of the paper’s campaign is. Sure it’s a great theory to say “Stop the Trolls”. It certainly makes a fresh change from “Stop the Boats.” But what is the actual target, what is it that we can measure that trolls have / haven’t been stopped? I’m confused.

I also think it would be good for News Limited to go back and see some of the reader comments it has approved on many of its own websites. I suspect that would create enormous moral dilemmas under the current campaign….. just sayin’.

And finally, can we also have a column on why The Australian has had a campaign against the ABC for the last few years? That would make equally good reading.

You can read the rest of Hildebrand’s column here.