The Age objects to Media Watch failing to seek right of reply
Updated: Newspaper questions why Media Watch did not seek a right of reply before being ripped a new one on ABC.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
If you watched Media Watch on Monday you might have seen Paul Barry’s analysis of an Age / SMH ‘Red Alert’ series on the risk of war with China.
Barry referred to the articles as ‘alarming’ and ‘scaremongering.’
Yesterday in a National Press Club address former PM Paul Keating also unleashed in a free-wheeling essay spanning media, government and assorted departments. He also gave journalists a tongue-lashing, notably from the Nine newspapers, but even SKY News.
Somewhere along the way this interview with Paul Keating has turned into a one-man roast of the entire press gallery.
— Mark Humphries (@markhumphries) March 15, 2023
That led to The Age’s Editor Patrick Elligett penning an editorial in response to Keating.
Amongst his thoughts was this directed to Media Watch:
“Next on the list were the journalism police at ABC’s Media Watch. On Monday night, the show’s host, Paul Barry, launched an eight-minute tirade about the series in which he questioned the integrity of our reporters, the expert participants and our masthead. All without seeking a response from me, my counterpart at the Herald, (journalists) Hartcher or Knott,” he said.
“The hypocrisy of having our journalism criticised by those who had not themselves followed the most basic journalistic principle of a right to reply is baffling and frustrating.
“If we did the same, we would expect to be admonished by Media Watch.”
Updated: Paul Barry tweets in response….
News sites like the @smh don't need to be quoted on @ABCmediawatch to defend their journalism. They have their own megaphone–as you can see. But we did summarise their defence and quote from the SMH editorial. Fair and reasonable IMHO. https://t.co/eRqHNX8ii8
— Paul Barry (@TheRealPBarry) March 15, 2023
Share
- Tagged with Media Watch
6 Responses
The SMH response really needed an ABC logo on a red background with Paul Barry in a fighter jet.
Sounds a bit subtle.
And that begs the question – what would their response been?
Most responses to criticism by companies take a well worn path that uses a standard template that you just have to insert a few words that addresses the: company; and issue and then follows up with the line “we take these matters seriously blah blah blah”.
Very few times do these sort of responses address the substantive issue being discussed, so what is the effectiveness of these right of reply. Of course they should have a right of reply and I would be very surprised if Media Watch didn’t give them that chance. So what is their response?
I watched the MW segment and the Keating interview and both made, in my mind, valid criticisms. The Age and SMH made a choice to select the people they did as experts. The fact that they all happened to be war mongering China hawks was, IMHO, a poor, but deliberate decision. No diplomats or no alternative defence analysis (e.g. Hugh White) were included to offset.
Propaganda isn’t journalism, Patrick.
Well said..
Probably because he knew what rubbish response he would get. Journalists are very precious & don’t take kindly to criticism especially when they are being biased or not doing their job.