The end of integrity: A critical examination of political journalism in Australia

Australia can aspire to a media environment that fosters a more informed citizenry, robust democratic processes, and ensures fairness.

The role of journalists within the Australian media has become a subject of intense scrutiny and debate in recent times, and a troubling trend has emerged within the mainstream media landscape, one that raises fundamental questions about the core responsibilities of journalists.

This trend is characterised by a distressing habit among journalists and media outlets to uncritically amplify the statements and actions emanating from conservative interests, in business circles, and in politics, most notably from the perspective of the Liberal–National Coalition, even though they are currently not in government. Consequently, this not only shapes the news agenda but also raises serious concerns about the quality and integrity of political journalism in Australia.

Peter Dutton, as the Leader of the Opposition, stands at the forefront of this media phenomenon. It is not uncommon to witness his statements and declarations receiving extensive coverage, even when their newsworthiness is questionable, and their accuracy is in doubt or completely wrong, as it was when Dutton claimed 60 per cent of Canada’s energy requirements are powered by nuclear power plants (wrong: it’s actually 14 per cent) and this incorrect figure was then widely reported in the media.

This peculiar emphasis on opposition voices creates a stark contrast with the traditional role of the media, where journalists are expected to act as watchdogs, scrutinise the government and opposition alike. Instead, what we observe today is an unsettling shift in the balance of media coverage, with opposition Shadow Ministers often being elevated to a status nearly equivalent to that of their government counterparts.

The unbalanced treatment of opposition leaders versus government officials becomes all the more evident when we recall the media’s behaviour during the nine years between 2013–22, when the Labor Party was in opposition. In those years, the media did not place the opposition on a pedestal or grant them an undue level of attention – this is not a matter of opinion: why else would the media run with the narrative during the 2022 federal election campaign of “who is Anthony Albanese, and why do we know so little about him”? No one could ever ask “who is Peter Dutton” today, because everything he says appears in the media every single day of the week.

This striking contrast underscores a concerning shift in journalistic practices, where the Liberal–National Coalition – in opposition – has come to enjoy an unusual level of media exposure and influence.

Moreover, the failure to critically evaluate the statements and actions of the Leader of the Opposition has led to a disturbing decline in the quality of political journalism. Some mainstream journalists have rationalised their role as mere conveyors of politicians’ statements, arguing that their job is to reflect and repeat what politicians say. However, this perspective neglects the fundamental role of journalists as watchdogs, responsible for exercising judgment and discernment in determining what is truly newsworthy, notable, and relevant to the public interest.

In essence, journalists are meant to be the gatekeepers of truth and accountability, rather than passive conduits for political narratives. Their responsibility is to hold those in power accountable, seek the truth, and expose falsehoods whenever they are encountered. Unfortunately, the prevailing trend in Australian political journalism appears to be one of repetition and amplification of political rhetoric, regardless of its veracity. This raises concerns that journalists have become instruments of political manipulation, rather than the guardians of an informed and engaged citizenry.

It could be argued that the Labor government is too busy for media engagement on such a significant level, and this perhaps justifies this journalistic imbalance. While it is plausible that the government may be occupied with the numerous responsibilities of state, it is equally plausible that the media’s preference for sensationalism and controversy, often at the expense of reasoned government officials, plays a significant role in this dynamic.

The media landscape, which now includes even previously respected institutions like the ABC, prioritise the sensational over the substantive. This preference for controversy and demonstrably false claims has contributed to a disheartening media environment where reasoned members of the government struggle to gain the attention that we’d normally expect to see from a national government. Rather than challenging these figures of misinformation, the media seems content to give a platform to sensationalism, further exacerbating the deterioration of political journalism.

This situation is not unique to Australia; it reflects a broader trend in media culture, where the prevailing practice is to let political figures speak without challenge or correction. The media appears to have adopted a passive stance, allowing individuals like Peter Dutton, Sussan Ley, Michaelia Cash, James Patterson, and Barnaby Joyce to make unverified claims without rigorous follow-up questions or fact-checking. This departure from investigative journalism undermines the crucial role of the media in fostering transparency, accountability, and public discourse.

The best journalism is characterised by a commitment to questioning, scrutinising, and seeking the truth. As a widely circulated meme aptly puts it, when one party claims it’s raining while the other asserts it’s not, the journalist’s responsibility is not to quote both parties but to look out the window and ascertain the actual weather conditions. The current state of political journalism in Australia falls short of this ideal. While there are undoubtedly dedicated journalists who adhere to these principles, their voices often struggle to gain the same prominence as those who prioritise sensationalism over substance.

The deterioration of substance and context

The erosion of journalistic integrity within Australian political reporting becomes more evident when we examine recent cases that highlight the media’s penchant for amplifying sensationalism over substance. Two such cases stand out, one involving Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the other featuring Senator James Patterson.

In the first case, Scott Morrison’s briefing to an ABC journalist regarding a visit to China by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping was presented in a manner that demanded critical scrutiny. The story appeared on the ABC website, almost as a media release straight from Morrison’s PR team:

“Morrison has warned that his successor should not be too keen to accept an invitation to China”…

“One opposition MP who listened to the former leader’s speech inside Parliament House told the ABC it was generally well received by Liberal and National party members” …

“He was warning us about [President] Xi and his regime – urging us to hold the line, and not follow Labor’s approach,” the MP said.

“Scott told us he continued to be proud at how his government stood up to China and that other countries followed our lead” …

“His comments on Russia were made with reference to the contemporary actions of Chinese banks in supporting the Russian economy, effectively undermining Western sanctions,” one Liberal MP said.

There are “unnamed sources” – which is journalism code for “I made this up”, and for all we know, the unnamed Liberal MP could actually be Scott Morrison himself.

This showed a complete lack of discernment on the part of the journalist and the subsequent editorial decision to present the story without adequate context or verification. Morrison’s statements were relayed without the necessary probing questions: Why was he sharing this story now? What were his motives? Could these claims be corroborated independently?

It is essential to emphasise that while the former prime minister’s words may carry inherent newsworthiness due to his position, the manner in which they were reported left much to be desired. The absence of these critical questions, coupled with the prominent coverage, suggested a failure in journalistic discernment. The story appeared more as a vehicle for self-promotion by Morrison and a means to embarrass the Albanese government on an issue where bipartisan support should have been paramount. This episode underscores the pressing need for journalists to exercise a more vigilant and probing approach to their reporting, focusing not just on the what but also the why and the how behind political narratives.

In the second case involving Senator James Paterson, the media’s treatment of his statements exemplifies another concerning trend. Paterson’s suggestion that parliamentary staff should undergo security vetting was presented as headline news without sufficient context or counterarguments. This might be a good idea but shouldn’t we hear from the government first? The absence of a government response or expert analysis further contributed to the distortion of the story. The mere fact that Paterson is a member of the opposition should have prompted a more critical examination of his proposal, rather than presenting it uncritically.

This unfiltered amplification of opposition voices by the media perpetuates a distorted perception of the political landscape. An uninformed observer could easily mistake the opposition’s statements for government policy or perceive Senator Paterson as a key government figure when, in reality, he holds a different role. This failure to provide adequate context and balance in political reporting contributes to a skewed public perception of the political discourse, further undermining the media’s role as an impartial and informative watchdog.

These cases underscore a deeper issue within Australian political journalism—one characterised by a conservative framing of news that requires reform. The culture of journalism and political reporting appears to be in need of a significant shift. While politicians and their behaviour are often scrutinised for necessary change, the same level of introspection and transformation must extend to the realm of media and journalism.

It is essential to acknowledge that the Australian media landscape has seldom seen the emergence of a newspaper with the stature and influence of renowned international publications like the New York Times or The Times of London. Despite the dedication and hard work of journalists, the Australian media has often been marred by a tendency to intersperse excellent stories with trivial content, celebrity gossip, or seemingly inconsequential articles.

This trend is not unique to a particular publication but rather seems endemic to the broader media culture. While journalists may wholeheartedly believe in the significance of their work, the prevailing environment occasionally demands a balance between substantive journalism and more commercially appealing content.

The current state of Australian political journalism raises profound concerns about the role of the media in a thriving democracy. Recent cases demonstrate the media’s failure to provide adequate context, discernment, and balance in its reporting, with a clear tendency to prioritise sensationalism over substance and provide favour to conservative interests.

To address these issues, it is imperative that not only politicians but also journalists and media outlets undertake a critical evaluation of their practices and embrace a more informed, responsible, and balanced approach to political reporting.

The imperative for media reform in Australia

In examining the state of political journalism in Australia, it becomes evident that the challenges facing the media landscape are multifaceted and deeply entrenched. The cases discussed in this essay underscore the pressing need for reform and a renewed commitment to journalistic integrity and professionalism. While the Labor government has emerged victorious in the 2022 federal election, it is clear that they face a different kind of challenge when it comes to managing the media landscape.

One of the key issues confronting the Labor government is the relentless onslaught of opposition narratives that often drown out their message to the electorate. The opposition’s dominance of the airwaves and the media landscape with what can only be described as “meaningless garbage” presents a significant obstacle to effective communication. This predicament is not novel; history attests that Labor governments have long contended with a media environment that tends to disadvantage them.

The call for media reform in Australia is not a new one, and it resonates with increasing urgency. The goal is not for the government to exert control over the media, mirroring authoritarian regimes such as China, North Korea and China, but rather to foster a fairer, more professional, and equitable media environment. Such reforms would serve the public interest by ensuring that citizens have access to accurate, well-balanced, and informative reporting.

The failure to address media reform perpetuates an environment where centre-left governments struggle to gain a fair hearing, where two or three positive stories are overwhelmed by a deluge of negative coverage. It is incumbent upon the Labor government to recognise that striving for faux balance in an inherently imbalanced media landscape may not be the most effective approach. Instead, confronting the systemic issues and pursuing meaningful reforms would not only benefit the current government but also pave the way for a more transparent and informed political discourse for future governments of all persuasions.

Media reform, long overdue, should be a priority, and the Labor government’s reluctance to address this issue remains perplexing. By advocating for and implementing comprehensive media reforms, Australia can aspire to a media environment that fosters a more informed citizenry, supports robust democratic processes, and ensures a fair and equitable platform for all political voices.