This has been a most extraordinary week in Australian Federal politics. A week in which the future of the Liberal Party looked as uncertain as Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership appears untenable. A week in which hard right ideologues seemed determined to make the Coalition unelectable in an environmentally aware world. A week in which reformation of Conservative politics in Australia along new ideological lines began to seem plausible. A week in which political journalists and politicians made Twitter and text messaging centre-stage in news-breaking, story telling and media management. A week in which political hyperbole reached new heights of absurdity.

It started on Tuesday afternoon with renewed leadership speculation surrounding Malcolm Turnbull as he attempted to ram climate change legislation (in the form of an Emissions Trading Scheme) through both the party room and the parliament in a rare show of bipartisanship in Australian federal politics.

During question time that day, it became apparent that the ideological fault lines within the Federal Opposition were starting to tremor.

TWEET

TWEET

It emerged that, according to some of his internal political enemies, Turnbull had enforced Party Room ‘unity’ on the ETS legislation (timetabled to pass ahead of the Copenhagen summit) despite majority opposition, telling his detractors he was leader and would set policy before storming out of the meeting.

Ahead of widespread speculation about a leadership spill, I predicted Turnbull would be ousted within 24 hours.

TWEET

It was an audacious (some might charge 'reckless') call, but I could smell the blood and hear the wolves baying.

That evening, after a marathon eight hour Party Room meeting punctuated by interruptions which provided opportunities for dissidents to text message details of the negotiations to journalists, only the Liberal Party’s loony right, personified by the ranting Wilson Tuckey, was publicly talking of a leadership spill.

But the Canberra Press Gallery and the political junkies (me included) following and participating in the story’s dramatic twists & turns via Twitter were breathlessly posting #spill #spill #spill.

TWEET

TWEET

TWEET

TWEET

As the backroom dealing and the brinkmanship continued, Turnbull went on the ABC’s influential AM program on Wednesday morning, ruling out any facilitation on his part of a leadership spill motion. And party rules require the leader’s ascent for such a showdown.

But by 11am, journalists were tweeting the news that a 1pm Coalition Party Room meeting had been called, at which a spill motion would be put. The stalking horse named Kevin Andrews, an arch conservative who applies religious zeal to climate change denial, was the lone challenger. The motion to allow a vote on the leadership was defeated by a less than convincing margin and Turnbull fronted the media continuing his “I am the leader” riff.

And although the ructions continued to bubble below the surface, even Press Gallery veterans with whom I shared dinner on Wednesday night gave Turnbull a 50/50 chance of political survival…at least until after Christmas.

During Question Time on Thursday, it still seemed likely that the ETS would ultimately pass the Senate, in accordance with an agreement reached between the Opposition and the Rudd Government, by Friday afternoon. But almost as soon as the session was over, the leadership speculation resumed and the spill became a flood as Shadow Minister Tony Abbott began the front bench exodus.

The body pile continued to mount throughout the afternoon and journalists were tweeting the news faster than they could write it. Senator Eric Abetz gone. Senator Minchin going. This one gone. That one gone. Another one bites the dust. By the time Turnbull finally called a press conference for 7pm, he’d lost 10 front benchers, at the end of a day unprecedented in Australian Federal politics according to veteran Press Gallery journalists and even seasoned Coalition politicians!

I wondered aloud about the prospect of a split within the Coalition, invoking the spectre of the 1955 split within the Australian Labor Party which birthed the socially conservative Democratic Labor Party and the 1970s formation of the now virtually defunct Australian Democrats.

TWEET

TWEET

I envisaged a Coalition divided along new ideological lines – with social progressives in one camp (the New Democrats or the Progressive Liberals?) and the conservatives (melding National Party representatives with socially conservative Liberals) in the other. This could present a redesigned four-party Australian political landscape: Labor, Greens, Progressive Liberals and National Conservatives.

When he fronted the media pack in a press conference broadcast live into ABC nightly news last night, Turnbull surprised us all with a refusal to entertain the prospect of resignation, giving the impression of an impassioned, unflappable leader of enormous strength and admirable ideals. One thing was clear: here was a leader for a new generation. For a repositioned, socially progressive Australian Liberal Party. A leader who was prepared to bury Howard’s ghost.

TWEET

TWEET

TWEET

But it was also clear from within the party imploding behind him – which was now leaking like a rusty sieve - that he was a member of the political walking dead.

And in that context, the hyperbole reached fever pitch. After political journalist Samantha Maiden appeared on Sky News describing Turnbull as a victim of “political terrorism” the network’s political editor David Speers read a text message live to air from a Liberal Party opponent of Turnbull’s who said his leader was “behaving like Hitler in his Berlin bunker”.

The flaring language in the midst of a major political crisis is familiar. The speed with which it’s being transmitted – in real time via social media like text messaging and Twitter – is new. And in that process – as these platforms invade the traditional media space, and both feature in and facilitate coverage and conversation, they’re changing the rules of political reporting.

TWEET

Journalists are interacting with one another and citizen commentators as they report the news instantaneously via Twitter – interchanges which are influencing the framing of the news and laying bare the processes of story construction.

TWEET

TWEET

TWEET

It’s fascinating viewing for a journalism academic and invigorating for active citizens of all persuasions to watch the upheaval unfold moment by moment on Twitter.

TWEET

But it would be excruciating viewing for the politician who first tweeted from his own press conference when Twitter was little more than a novelty: Malcolm Turnbull.

Enter Joe Hockey: former Turnbull backer and one of the socially progressive New Guard within the Liberal Party who helped negotiate the planned passage of the ETS. He's now canvassing for public reaction to his own leadership ambitions, belatedly testing public support for the passage of the ETS legislation via Twitter.

TWEET

The subtext reads: will you have me as your leader tweeps? That’s a subtext being interpreted by veteran political journalist Michelle Grattan (a recent Twitter entrant) as a leadership nomination.

TWEET

And it’s a subtext given force today by Tony “The Mad Monk” Abbott who's signed Turnbull’s leadership death warrant, saying he’ll move a #spill motion on Monday unless the ETS legislation is delayed this afternoon.

So, as former staunch Turnbull supporter Joe Hockey firms as the prime candidate for a successful leadership challenge on Monday, the coalition of climate change deniers and leadership change opportunists prepare to filibuster on the ETS legislation to ensure it isn’t passed before the baton is.

And the 3.45pm deadline laid out in the bi-partisan agreement for the passage of the legislation in the Senate looks as shot as Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the Australian Opposition.

All the while, the Twitter backchannel is chanting "It's Climate Change, stupid".

TWEET    [read more]

I started my professional life as a radio news journalist – with skills honed inside the walls of the Media 140 conference venue - the ABC Centre in Sydney. I was taught that Accuracy, Brevity & Clarity were the A, B & C of good news writing. Twitter is a perfect platform for testing those principles of good practice.

Twitter is one of the new tools I now use in my journalism classes at the University of Canberra to teach my students that pithiness can pack real punch. In September 2008, I took them on a political reporting exercise using the platform: they tweeted the ACT election & some of the journalists in the tally-room came to see what they were up to…most had never heard of Twitter. In the past year, though, it’s made headlines around the world – first in Mumbai…then through reporting of the Hudson River plane crash. In Australia, the ABC led the way with coverage of the Victoria bushfires.

There’s also been the opening up of the Australian houses of parliament to live reporting, with journalists now interactively tweeting Question Time – a reporting practice which is attracting new audiences to the discourses of Australian democracy – headlined by the uber-witty Sydney Morning Herald writer (and newly appointed chief online correspondent for ABC) Annabel Crabb.

And then there’s the iinet trial before the Federal Court. In early May, I tweeted:

“What's the difference between a journo Tweeting or live blogging a court case & a reporter txt messaging a judgement from the courtroom?”

Last month, the Federal Court overturned a decades'-long bar on reporting from within a court-room & accommodated Twitter, afterwards acknowledging its potential value. Meantime, The Australian barred one of the pioneering Journo-Twits, Andrew Colley, from live-tweeting the case while they assessed the legal & business implications. How very myopic & unadventurous.

Of course, Twitter isn’t journalistic utopia…there are a number of significant challenges. In the course of my research, I’ve identified the potential conflict between the personal and the professional created by a medium that encourages private reflections in a public space. As much as many journalists – including me – struggle with this perceived conflict, I’ve concluded that the humanising effect of removing the professional mask and revealing aspects of personality and private experiences is valuable. It’s also valued by online audiences where authentic voices are highly rated. And through this process, journalists are forging online relationships with media consumers, creating individual brands that draw new audiences to their work.

The biggest test for journalism & Twitter to date came during the Iran Uprising where Citizen-Journalism, crowd-sourcing and the speed imperative combined in the absence of a professional media presence to produce a seismic shift in reporting practice… publish first & check the facts later. Content from protesters & observers on the ground was published ahead of verification …on the websites of some of the world’s most reputable mastheads, including the New York Times. It was a watershed foreign reporting moment which highlights the challenges posed by Twitter and other real-time medium to the essential journalistic values of truth and accuracy. While embracing exciting new publication platforms & information-oriented communities, we need to remember that accuracy & verification are the antidotes to an overdose on speed (A panel & discussion on the implications of Iran for Social Media Journalism was held during the conference, featuring ABC's PM presenter, Mark Colvin & Al Jazeera's Head of Social Media, Riyaad Minty. View it here)

But if there’s one case study globally that proves the value of Twitter to journalists and journalism it’s Trafigura: a tale worthy of John Grisham.

As Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian’s Editor put it: “A mix of old media and the Twittersphere blew away conventional efforts to buy silence”

The story revolved around an attempted cover-up by the Trafigura trading company which was the subject of a mass litigation for injury to 30,000 citizens of Ivory Coast, following a toxic sludge-dumping incident. At first, the company succeeded in obtaining a gag order on The Guardian to stop it revealing a leaked report associated with the case…but when the company succeeded in obtaining a super-injunction from the British Courts to prevent The Guardian from reporting an MP’s question to parliament about the case - effectively over-turning 300 years of media freedom – Rusbridger saw red…and turned to Twitter, posting this tweet:

"Now Guardian prevented from reporting parliament for unreportable reasons. Did John Wilkes live in vain?"

Rusbridger wrote of the experience: “By the time I got home, after stopping off for a meal with friends, the Twittersphere had gone into meltdown. Twitterers had sleuthed down Farrelly's question, published the relevant links and were now seriously on the case. By midday on Tuesday "Trafigura" was one of the most searched terms in Europe, helped along by re-tweets by Stephen Fry and his 830,000-odd followers.

Many tweeters were just registering support or outrage. Others were beavering away to see if they could find suppressed information on the far reaches of the web. One or two legal experts uncovered the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, wondering if that would help? Common #hashtags were quickly developed, making the material easily discoverable.

By lunchtime – an hour before we were due in court – Trafigura threw in the towel…blown away by a newspaper, together with the mass collaboration of total strangers on the web. Trafigura thought it was buying silence. A combination of old media – the Guardian – and new – Twitter – turned attempted obscurity into mass notoriety.”

As Rusbridger observed in the aftermath:

“Twitter's detractors are used to sneering that nothing of value can be said in 140 characters. My 104 characters did just fine.”

This case demonstrated the capacity for journalists to use Twitter as a massive human search engine – to sift the tonnes of information available online in a collective effort, for the benefit of both excellent journalism & democracy. It also revealed the capacity for Twitter mobs to effect change through the application of tweet-heat – a process by which protesters uttering disgust & dismay, caused a topic to trend as they united through aggregating hashtags.

In the aftermath, the British parliament began debating the implications for free speech and there are suggestions of an overhaul of legislation that enabled the offending judgement. This was not just a victory for Twitter and The Guardian. It was a victory for democracy and media freedom. Activist journalism in the Social Media Age involves mobilising online communities and Twitter is currently the most effective of these.

So, let Trafigura put to rest the notion that Twitter is just a fad, full of narcissistic banality, which can afford to be ignored by newsrooms and individual journalists alike. There is currently real journalistic value in Twitter. And that value is not best extracted by dropping into others’ sites as a non-user, but in creating a journalistic identity for yourself on the platform; by making new connections outside your professional and personal silos; by genuninely engaging with followers – not just using the medium as another broadcast device. Don’t expect to have your followers feeding you exclusives & helping you with research if you’re a selfish tweeter Building genuine relationships with audiences & involving them in journalistic processes will help build interest in the quality journalism you produce & it will help mitigate the widespread distrust of mainstream media.

Twitter is entrenching the new news order: where the top-down model of information delivery presided over by an elite few is being swapped for peer-to-peer delivery on online social networking sites …the story-tellers are among us and they’re setting their own news agenda – at a cracking pace. Professional journalists need to figure out how to be distinctive and trusted information purveyors in these spaces.

Central to navigating this new territory will be responses from employers, Journalism academics, professional organisations like Australia's Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance & employers. While I believe it’s now essential for journalists and media outlets to be involved on Twitter, the industrial implications of an ever-increasing workload on reporters need to be addressed along with the ethical & professional implications.

Updating guidelines & editorial codes in response to the Social Media phenomenon is a good idea. Writing restrictive, anti-free speech codes – like the one the Australian Financial Review recently instituted, which prevents journalists from tweeting professionally - is not. But the AFR isn’t alone in its controlling approach.

The Washington Post also sought to tighten the reins on its reporters and editors, banning all commentary on Twitter that could be construed as opinion. Before he was gagged and issued a public mea culpa, one of the paper’s managing editors, Raju Narisetti, tweeted:

“For flagbearers of free speech, some newsroom execs have the weirdest double standards when it comes to censoring personal views.”

The constant framing of Social Media & the Future of Journalism debates through dystopian & utopian lenses conjures conflict, rather than progress. It’s time to move on & make the news…new.

Is social media the death or salvation of professional journalism? It’s neither – but it IS part of the revolutionary armoury in the struggle to reinvent journalism. And engagement is the heroine of the revolution    [read more]

This is part 2 of a speech I gave to Media 140 Sydney on Nov 5th. Read part 1 here

Let’s look more closely @ Twitter. It’s the fastest growing communications platform in the world. Last week, The Guardian reported that it was expected to reach 25 million users by year’s end and one of the site’s prolific tweeters reported this week that Twitter management had revealed there were 45 million unique visitors to Twitter during June – coinciding with the Iran Uprising. These are the sorts of numbers which prompted one of the most popular tweeters, Stephen Fry, to ask recently: is Twitter the new fifth estate?


The Guardian also reported last week that a leaked document from within Twitter indicated the company hoped to hit a billion users by 2013…at which point they’d consider the platform to be ‘the pulse of the planet’. Even with the capacity for penetrative mobile phone-driven tweeting, chances are it will be, at best, the pulse of the technologically privileged in developed countries, but that’s nothing to be sniffed at by journalists or traditional media outlets.

In preparing for this presentation, I considered giving a talk based solely on my recent research into Twitter & journalism - the academic’s approach. But while organising this conference, engaging in online debates & participating in mainstream media interviews about this event, I became increasingly frustrated with the level of ignorance & poor research that accompanied cynical journalists’ lines of questioning. I was asked more than once: “How could you possibly have a meaningful exchange in 140 characters on Twitter?” And I’d politely answer: It’s not limited to 140 characters…each tweet is measured that way, but just like a real conversation, it can go back and forth with multiple questions and answers of that length.

I lost count of the number of times this statement masquerading as a question was put to me: “Isn’t Twitter just a platform for narcissism & banality?” No, it’s certainly not.

And if one more journalist says to me “But Twitter isn’t journalism!” I may be tempted to stab myself in the eye with a fork. It'd be less painful. Let’s get this straight at the outset: of course it’s not journalism…it’s a publication platform, but a journalist who tweets live from the scene of an event is surely doing journalism…and one who finds & interviews a source using Twitter, or crowd-sources case studies via the medium, is certainly reporting. And what is it with the “You can’t say anything meaningful in 140 characters” line?

Isn’t writing a headline – usually much shorter than 140 characters – a powerful journalistic act? Is Haiku, poetry? If 17 syllables can be poetic, why can’t 140 characters be journalistic? Twitter could be journalism’s Haiku

And remember, a world religion was built on this sentence: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That’s how the Bible, the best selling book of all time, begins…powerfully, succinctly, in 55 characters. Yes, God would make an excellent tweeter.

But – to come directly to the question posed by this panel’s theme – no, Twitter is not journalism’s saviour. But neither is it journalism’s Satan. However, the language used to bag Twitter by some resistors & detractors is almost apocalyptic. The subtext is: the interweb is evil!

The (otherwise) brilliant Sydney Morning Herald Chief Correspondent, Paul McGeough, whose work I admire immensely, pursued this line at an ANU conference on war & new media at which we both spoke last month. He told the audience – physical and online: “Remember all the talk of how the internet would democratise news & information…I don’t buy it. The reverse is true. It’s a tool for ignorance, for robbing society of valuable pillars of democracy…”

He went on to say that while he’d opened a Twitter account, he hadn’t uttered a single tweet…he felt he couldn’t say anything of value in 140 characters. And, tellingly, he said he didn’t need Twitter because he had ample platforms…radio, TV, newsprint…the Herald’s website. That was a point which resonated with those following the conference on Twitter…their platform didn’t matter. Why should the only valid platforms be the ones controlled by journalists, they asked? But Paul did confess he was an “Old Fart”. I was keen to extend the conversation and invited Paul to speak on this panel…unfortunately, though, he is on assignment…but he wishes us well in these debates. Maybe he’ll watch the coverage unfold on Twitter?

Despite my disagreement with Paul’s views about Twitter, he had at least made an effort to open an account, and acknowledged the value in journalists' monitoring what goes on in the space. Many of the journalists who’ve interviewed me about Twitter & journalism seem to feel entitled to draw conclusions based on the most random and shallow research…and the biggest detractors admit they’ve never used Twitter. To me, that’s not good journalism. And it’s certainly not good research.

So, yes, I’m a fan of what Twitter offers, but I don’t suggest it will displace traditional media…nor is it a replacement for long-form investigative reporting or features – rather, it’s an adjunct to it; it can be an enhancement and it has the potential to amplify such work through mass-distribution to new audiences.

After surveying 25 tweeting journalists this year, and devoting many hours to active research as a tweeter, I concluded that it is one of the new essential tools in a journo’s kitbag: as a platform to aid research; report breaking the news; distribute stories & engage with audiences. To some, Twitter is like a favourite journos’ watering hole – a ‘public’ pub-debriefing zone. To others’, it’s a public notepad - which exposes the practices & processes of journalism to audiences, enhancing the craft’s transparency - and a live contact book rolled into one. I therefore believe journalists need to be space-invaders in the Twittersphere.

As one of my interviewees said “Journos need to be everywhere where info is being traded and news and ideas are being exchanged” (@jonancer)

Journalism is a conversation and, believe it or not (crusty curmudgeons in the back row) intelligent informed conversation IS happening on Twitter – between journalists; between journalists; experts & sources; between journalists and their audiences. While using Twitter to circumvent spin & identify angles & contacts outside the pack – or at least in contest with the press release - Journalists are making profitable connections with people they may otherwise never have encountered – across cultural barriers & national borders. They’re broadening their horizons….140 characters at a time.    [read more]

This is part 1 of a speech I gave @ the Media 140 conference "The Future of Journalism in the Social Media Age"* held in Sydney this week.

The Fall of Rome is a rich metaphor tapped recently by Mark Scott to powerfully evoke images of the collapse of traditional media – especially anachronistic print barons like Rupert Murdoch.

What worries me, beyond the inevitable end of the traditional print model of journalism (at least in developed Western democracies) is the Nero-like behaviour of some of the most respected journalists and editors in the so-called ‘legacy media’ - here & abroad…there is much fiddling while Rome burns. And part of the problem, to further mix my Roman history metaphors, is the failure of some media outlets & journalists to lend the masses their ears.



Within some journalistic circles, there is a continuing arrogance towards media consumers and users – ‘the people formerly known as the audience’, to quote NYU Professor, Jay Rosen (who delivered a keynote address @ the conference). This arrogance is well demonstrated by the sneering derision & cynicism directed towards the phenomenally popular micro-blogging platform Twitter (& those who tweet) by the defenders of old, unsustainable models of publication & an inflexible attitude towards definitions of journalism.

To begin to talk about the future of journalism we must start by agreeing that the struggle should not be focussed on saving print…nor does it simply revolve around identifying alternative business models. Those who say the concurrent crises confronting journalism are ONLY technological and economic are kidding themselves. There is also the loss of public trust in mainstream journalism – fuelled by tabloidization: the product of a decline which reflects the misidentification of the need for engagement with the need for sensationalism. It’s a loss of faith magnified within online communities where mainstream media are often viewed cynically as bent on controlling an agenda skewed in favour of the powerful, or vested corporate interests. Such distrust escalated in the face of the sloppy journalism, bordering on propaganda, that accompanied the Weapons of Mass Destruction Debate - to name but one example.

In the Social Media Age, it may be true that anyone can call themselves a journalist if they have the skills to gather, synthesise, analyse & distribute information with a captivating narrative. But it is also true that pro- journalists have never had their professional practice so closely scrutinised – there are millions of online fact-checkers, bias police and critics. And credibility within online communities, built on active engagement, will be crucial to the sustainability of any professional journalism model into the future.

So, I argue that the only struggle critical to the Future of Journalism is one designed to ensure the continuation of the core of our professional practice: shining a light in dark places; speaking truth to power & doing so without fear or favour, but with a commitment to accuracy, truth & fairness.

Of course, in order to do that, we need to identify sustainable funding models – opinion is cheap, but quality reporting costs money – and sustainable new audiences, in new spaces, for our work.

And in considering how we should achieve that, we need to accept that journalism is not simply narrowly defined as news reporting and be prepared to part with that increasingly unworkable & misunderstood sacred cow of 19th Century Western models of journalism: objectivity. Social media platforms like Twitter, Youtube & Facebook, are changing the way we do journalism and affecting our professional & ethical constructs in the process, while allowing the people who sustain us – our increasingly interactive audiences – greater access to us and more power to independently set news agendas and frame news values.

All of this makes for very challenging times for professional journalists & it’s tempting to take up arms & dig in. There are livelihoods at stake, not just empires, traditions & ideals, of course. But it’s vital to accept that this is a revolution, not a war. A time for transformation, revitalisation…reinvention.

Continuation of the sort of mindset that replicates a form of trench warfare where the Imperialist generals entrench us in rotting surrounds & force us into futile, deadly battles will just lead to body piles in journalistic No Man’s Land.

The alternative – a revolutionary mindset - involves a passionate embrace of change –change for good. Change for a new media world order. A world where information gathering and distribution is more equitable & representative. We don’t embark on such a campaign uncritically, of course - we must be aware of the pitfalls. But neither can we be hamstrung by fear or reluctance; intransigence or arrogance. Yes, some battles will be lost and the transition may involve bloodshed but the end result doesn’t have to be the displacement of our core value as journalists AND citizens. And, in the Social Media Age, the nexus between the two is critical.

Debates about the Future of Journalism in Australia have crossed over onto Twitter in recent months. On this very newsworthy new, news-medium, journalists are openly discussing ethics & professional practice – both as they apply to traditional media and social media – with other users. They’re crowd-sourcing solutions to the dilemmas posed, by constructively & profitably reaching across the walls of their own media organisations - to colleagues in other camps, freelance journalists, Citizen Journalists, bloggers, academics and active citizens of all persuasions.

This vibrant forum has emerged on the back of what I identified in April as a veritable explosion of Australian journalists in the Twitterverse. And as Twitter has become a zone for publishing breaking news & aiding reporting, it’s also become a hot news item…indeed in the eight months since I began formally researching Twitter & journalism, it’s gone from a news curiosity to a virtual media cliché.

*I was the Editorial Director of Media 140 Sydney    [read more]