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]

This is the fourth instalment in a continuing J-Scribe series on my problematic pregnancy. See Reborn Part 1, Reborn Part 2 & Reborn Part 3.

Here I sit, on the eve of Bambina’s birth, contemplating the roller-coaster journey of this pregnancy while remembering babies lost.

For such a long time I didn’t dare believe I’d make it to the end of this pregnancy with a living, dancing baby within, ready to face the world. And yet here I am.

In act of self-preservation, I’d corked my excitement. But it was unleashed during the baby shower thrown by my sister and best friend in early June. Surrounded by fabulous women from all the stages – literal and figurative - of my life, I was reminded of both how blessed I was in friendship, and how precious this life inside of me was to so many others. It was such a time of celebration and promise.

A month later, when I reached the 30 week-mark, my obstetrician exhaled with the news “Well, this is an achievement. If she’s born now, it will be OK. We can save her” and I finally believed Bambina was going to make it!

But each time her heartbeat was checked with a stethoscope, or the ultrasound operator ran that cold implement over my belly, I still held my breath until signs of life were detected. Eventually, excited anticipation supplanted apprehension ahead of these regular visits. And bonding with Bambina began in earnest.

But the roller-coaster ride continued…



23/7/09

Dear all,

Well, the countdown has officially begun! Only 3-4 weeks to go now until Bambina’s first birth-day.

And the last stretch of the rollercoaster is proving to be just as ‘entertaining’ as the rest of the ride. I’m now being treated for a suspected case of Swine Flu (which has posed a deadly threat to pregnant women & the unborn despite its relatively benign impact on the bulk of the population). But after several days of lingering between bed & couch, I seem to be on the improve – which is a big relief!

Last week I was battling a badly infected knee – sustained during a nasty fall en route to my last pre-maternity-leave work gig – a televised debate on the latest call to ban the burka in Australia staged at ANU. Bambina made her TV debut while Mummy limped to the podium on her bloody knee!

And it was a sinus infection the week before that…

So, I’m a walking medication cocktail – and a little battle-scarred - but otherwise well. And, more importantly, Bambina continues to thrive.

Many days I still wonder if she’s real – then she dances, kicks & squirms to remind me that she’s no figment of my imagination.

One more round of tests at the Fetal Medicine Unit next week to check on her growth & determine any undiagnosed underlying problems before the final nesting phase begins in earnest. We’re still nowhere near ready for this baby girl to enter our lives - but she’ll be loved endlessly, no matter how disorganised her parents are!

Thanks, as always, for your ongoing care & well wishes…we’re looking forward to sharing the exciting, happy conclusion to this saga with you in a few short weeks! Meantime, please keep the prayers, offerings, thumb crossing/holding, love & cheer coming!

Lots of love

Julie, Tim & Bambina


As the weeks past, her tumbles and kicks became more frequent and fierce but I’ve only ever experienced them as comforting jabs of love… Even at 37 weeks pregnant - with seriously swollen ankles and feet, an aching back, a pummelled bladder and all the usual discomfort and restricted movement of the end stage of a pregnancy in a woman approaching 40 years old – I haven’t felt the slightest bit of resentment or antipathy towards Bambina. This maternal love thing is certainly powerful!

According to her final FMU scan at 36 weeks, her growth had slowed and her development had slid below average…but the specialist obstetrician in attendance declared the tiny fat rolls around her waist, which were evident on the big screen, a sign that she was just a small baby (as I was at birth), not an unhealthy nor under-nourished one.



Nevertheless, I decided to have the amniocentesis which I’d deferred in the second trimester due to the heightened miscarriage risk. I wanted to be prepared if the lingering concerns about genetics manifested at birth.

14/8/09

Dear family & friends,

Welcome to the last Bambina update this side of the womb.

It's been a long, and at times difficult, journey but we're thrilled to reveal that Bambina is finally about to greet the world!

I go into hospital to be induced or have a Caesarean on Monday, August 17th. She's 38 weeks which means she'll be born two weeks ahead of her due date but this doesn't pose a health/development risk and our obstetrician is keen to see her on the outside as soon as possible given her difficult gestation. Not surprisingly, so are we!

And more good news to end the journey... A fortnight ago I had an amniocentesis to conclusively check for the genetic disorders, which earlier tests had indicated she was at very high risk of being born with. The results? Clear! She's a balanced chromosomal work of art :) This was an enormous relief & cause for celebration...joy, I'm sure you all share!

Meantime, I'm feet up on couch again as my blood pressure heads for the stars & my lower limbs threaten to inflate to the point where levitation actually appears feasible... But the good news is: this morning I wrote what I promised the recipients would be my last work-related email before the birth. Wish me luck with the workaholism withdrawal symptoms! :)

As I type, I'm watching the sun fade against the paddock backdrop as Wally(Scottish Highland Coo) balumbers towards me. Peace. Dawn. Exhale.

So, thanks once again for your prayers, incantations, offerings, hugs, love, finger-crossing, thumb-holding etc Please keep it up as the countdown begins in earnest.

Lots of love,

Julie, Tim & Bambina

So, the day we’ve waited so long for…the one we feared would never dawn…when we get to meet our baby for the first time is only a couple of days away. My partner is painting the nursery as I type (better late than never! :) and I’m about to pack a bag of baby clothes to take to hospital for the little girl who lives inside me, who’s preparing to move out. Beautiful surreality.

A kangaroo mother, recently spotted out my kitchen window, whose joey is preparing to leave the pouch.
   [read more]

When prominent Canberra journalist and newsreader, Virginia Haussegger used her Canberra Times column to call on the Australian Government to ban the burka, she unleashed yet another divisive debate about traditional Islamic dress which had the potential to further marginalise Muslim women.

While I know Virginia is not a not a racist, nor a Right Wing reactionary, her approach has allowed her arguments to be latched onto by those who are, and dismissed as xenophobic by her detractors. She called the burka ‘un-Australian' and framed her arguments through inflammatory language which unfortunately sounded like she’d lifted it straight from the Howard playbook for ‘dog-whistling’ - although that may not have been her intention.

A feminist case for the banning of the burka and the niqab (typically a black face cover which conceals all but the eyes) can certainly be made but Virginia's strategy of conflating a privileged, Western reading of feminism with nationalism was an ideologically flawed approach and rendered her arguments weak.



The problems with her case were most potently demonstrated during a packed public debate at the Australian National University (ANU) this week where feminist Muslim scholar and writer, Dr Shakira Hussein, joined me in challenging Virginia's views on this very difficult issue. The debate was made more interesting by the relationship between the three of us: we’re firm friends who respect each others’ professionalism and enjoy arguing about ideas.

During the debate, attended by nearly 400 people, Virginia reiterated her view that the burka & niqab need to be banned on feminist and cultural grounds because they’re ‘un-Australian’ instruments of oppression imposed by men on compliant women, while indicating support for the headscarf known as the hijab. I objected to her argument on the basis of the assault that such a call represents to freedom of expression and choice for women; the Orientalist, culturally imperialistic underpinnings of the call; and the implications of a prominent journalist making such a call with regard to the consequences for Muslim women generally.

Pic. Courtesy Canberra Times

Meanwhile, Shakira (whose PhD research took her to Pakistan to investigate encounters between Muslim & non-Muslim women) argued that you can’t impose liberation on women, and pointed to the disproportionate nature of the call given the minute number of Muslim women in Australia who wear the burka or niqab, and the fact that most who do wear it make an independent choice to do so. She also counted the cost for Muslim women of being forced into a defensive position on the issue by such calls.

But it was an audience member who laid the fatal intellectual blow. Young Muslim woman Durkhanai Ayubi travelled from Melbourne to attend the debate and she was first to ask a question from the crowd after it concluded. Addressing Virginia Haussegger directly, she asked: “Do you see the irony in claiming to uphold a woman’s freedom by denying her the option to wear the burka? I think calling for a ban on the burka in a democratic country is what’s ‘un-Australian’”

While many Muslim women had hoped unsettling community debates about traditional Islamic dress had run their course in Australia, the storm that erupted in the aftermath of this burka-ban call (which was triggered by Right-Wing French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for a similar ban in France) indicated an ongoing appetite for public discussion on the issue and media coverage of it.

Pic. Courtesy Canberra Times

On ABC radio talkback and online, opinion ran at around 80% against the ban with many forceful and persuasive arguments being put via comments at Virginia's own blog. A Twitter poll (which accompanied the debate) produced similar results as did a fiery debate at the youth-oriented website Riotact. However, letters to the Canberra Times were roughly evenly divided between support for, and opposition to, the ban and the ANU audience (which was heavily female) appeared to reflect this split. Significantly, a Canberra Times journalist told me that almost all of the "loony" responses deemed unfit for publication were in support of the ban and many of those were perceived as racist.

In a post-September 11 environment where crime, terrorism, the Middle East & Islam have been frequently conflated, racists, xenophobes and Islamophobes have felt licensed to openly vilify members of Australia’s Muslim communities (as has occurred internationally). At times, this feeling has overflowed into hate crimes, largely targeting Muslim women, and it fuelled the tensions that led to the 2005 Cronulla Riots. This is one reason why extreme care needs to be taken in debating these issues and it further problematises Virginia's call for a ban on items of clothing associated with fundamentalist Islam.

You can listen to a podcast of the debate here. And it will be broadcast by ABC’s Fora program and by Sky News’ APAC channel at times yet to be scheduled.

Meantime, here’s an outline of my contribution to the debate which was moderated by international human rights law expert, the ANU's Professor Hilary Charlesworth.

* There are several accepted spellings for burka including burqua, burqa and burkha. For this post, I have adopted the spelling chosen by the Canberra Times & ANU to promote the debate.

Ban the Burka?

Julie Posetti - ANU/Canberra Times debate 15/7/09

I want to begin by publicly acknowledging my deep respect for Virginia Haussegger as a woman, a journalist and a feminist. I wholeheartedly support her democratic right to express forceful opinions and to do so without being abused by those who violently disagree.

BUT I’m afraid I can’t agree with Virginia on this issue – as a feminist, as a journalist, nor as a researcher of media coverage of Muslim women and its effects.

My objections to her call to ban the burka in Australia are essentially threefold:

1) While the principle of free speech which Australians hold dear supports Virginia’s right to make such a call, it would be undermined by a ban that so limits a woman’s self-expression and freedom of choice.

2) It smacks of Orientalism, cultural imperialism/Colonialism and, ironically, paternalism. Unfortunately, the language in which she’s couched her call also resonates with xenophobes & racists.

3) Activist journalism is a valid form of human rights advocacy but it must be cautiously practiced in the context of awareness of impacts on the subjects of such reportage. This is particularly important when the journalists involved are outsiders and the issue is highly sensitive - as it is in this case.

Freedom of Speech:

I am not a fan of the burka, nor what it symbolises in fundamentalist Islamic states. To misquote Steve Biko – the South African anti-apartheid hero who wrote while he was banned “I write what I like” – I wear what I like. And I believe the state has no place in a woman’s wardrobe – not as an enforcer of dress codes nor a prohibitor of them.

I’m about to bring a baby girl into the world & as much as I’d be disappointed if she chose to shroud her body in a burka, and I’d seek to persuade her from doing so in the Australian context, I’m pleased she’ll be born into a country where she could choose to do so and I’d defend her right to make such a choice.

I agree with Malalai Joya – the feminist Afghani politician & women’s activist whose bravely expressed views have exposed her to assassination attempts – who was quoted by Virginia today in defence of her case. Joya says “I hate that burka”. But she wears it by choice in Afghanistan for security reasons and she also says “…if, some women, they like it because of religious cause or as a part of culture, I respect them. This is a personal issue."

I also prefer Barack Obama to French President Nicolas Sarkozy whose own recent call for a Burka inspired Virginia’s. As Obama said in his landmark Cairo address: “It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear".

In addition to being an affront to Australian notions of freedom of expression and choice, and presenting a legal logistical nightmare in terms of legislating for and enforcing such a ban, in Australia banning the burka may also be unconstitutional, contravening section 116 of the Constitution which states:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..."

Prof. Hilary Charlesworth will no doubt be better able to interpret the Constitution as it would apply to such a ban, but the evidence suggests that in Australia, the very small number of women who wear a burka, choose to do so independently as a matter of conscience reflective of religious values. To dismiss them as Virginia does as being “feeble women who are afraid of modernity... complicit in their own oppression” is patronising, elitist and has the effect of denying them a voice – the same right she believes the burka suppresses.

Cultural policing

While Virginia argues it’s about freedom, banning the burka would be an oppressive act designed to enforce Western perceptions of liberation reflective of cultural imperialism. The irony is that far from defending women’s rights and freedoms, it would effectively deny them, requiring reliance on masculinist, patriarchal systems of governance & law enforcement.

According to Virginia’s feminist perspective, the Burka is a dehumanising icon of gender oppression, keeping women compliant, silent & submissive.

But Said’s theory of Orientalism posits that Western media typically impose their own intellectual and cultural superiority through reportage of Islamic people, politics & issues, reflecting perspectives that regard the Muslim world and its inhabitants as backward, barbaric and outsiders to Western society.

Said’s theory can be seen to be at play in Virginia's call for a burka-ban.

In her Canberra Times piece titled “Ban Un-Australian Burka", she wrote: “Wearing the burka - or niqab - in Australia is an aggressive way of saying 'I will not integrate into your society, and I care nothing for the cultural mores and social traditions of this country'. Instead, the woman wearing it is demonstrating that she would rather submit to gender apartheid, than embrace the social norms of this place. The burka is an arrogant display of disrespect to Australia and the Australian way of life.”

While I know she is not a racist, nor a Right Wing reactionary, Virginia’s choice of highly emotive & inflammatory language which borrows from the Howard playbook has allowed her arguments to be dismissed as such by her detractors and latched onto by xenophobes.

While in the staunchly secular French Republic there have been as many calls from the Left for such a ban as from the Right (which is the spectrum from which Sarkozy’s pitch comes); in multicultural Australia, where the spirit of egalitarianism has encouraged religious and cultural pluralism, until now calls for such a ban have been the exclusive territory of Right-Wing commentators, racists and politicians like Rev Fred Nile, who called for a burka ban in 2002, saying it could be used to disguise bombs.

When his critics pointed out that the same effect could be achieved with an overcoat & scarf or a ski mask, ABC radio’s PM reported that Rev Nile dismissed this suggestion on the basis that in summer an overcoat would appear suspicious: “Which makes you wonder how Santa will go in his big red suit and beard, posing for photographs with his fans this Christmas”. (ABC Radio PM 21/11/02)

Federal Liberal politicians Bronwen Bishop & Sophie Panopoulos similarly called for a ban on veiling in public places in 2005 with Bishop comparing claims from Muslim women that some choose to cover as an expression of free choice, to distorted perceptions of freedom reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Bishop went on to imply that women who wear the hijab are unpatriotic non-conformists ‘… it is being used by the sort of people who want to overturn our values as an iconic emblem of defiance and a point of difference’

This language was echoed by Virginia who also wrote: “Australia must not allow that radical and overt tool of fundamentalism, the burka, to be worn here. It defies our cherished values of equality and freedom.” I find this to be a deeply ironic & incongruous argument – how do you enforce equality by denying a woman freedom of choice and freedom of expression?

Responding to Fred Nile’s Burka ban call, then NSW Premier Bob Carr warned: “Stereotypes are the first step in actual full-blooded racism.”(ABC TWT 22/11/02)

Virginia’s views – and particularly the manner in which they’ve been expressed via a conflation of nationalism & feminism - are both a difficult pill to swallow &, more seriously, potentially a recipe for the inflammation of xenophobia within the community.

The perpetuation of stereotypes such as the suggestion all women who wear the burka are concurrently oppressed & threatening, in combination with fear of difference, have exposed Muslim women to racist attacks in Australia. In the aftermath of Sept 11, and the Bali & London bombings, they were spat on, their veils were ripped off…they were verbally assaulted. Debates like this can make Muslim women feel at risk, rather than liberated. And they can actually put them at risk when they overflow into violence: in Germany earlier this month, a veiled Muslim woman was stabbed to death in the courtroom she was applying to for justice by the man she accused of racially vilifying her.

The effect of burka-ban in Australia would be to further marginalise an extreme minority – and for those few who may be forced to wear the burka by violent male oppressors, it will further isolate them. I’d rather see a woman at risk emerge from her home in a burka than feel, or be, compelled to stay indoors – out of sight and out of mind - because her government banned her from wearing one.

Finally, such burka-ban calls inevitably take the focus off more significant underlying issues such as violence against women - which is far from a Muslim-exclusive problem in this country – by effectively covering it up with the distracting issue of clothing.

Media Coverage

This call for a burka-ban came from a credible, respected journalist, so the effect of media coverage of such issues on Muslim women is particularly relevant.

In our age, Muslim women are both highly visible members of one of the most marginalised groups in Western society and the most vulnerable to vilification and media stereotyping.

Based on my research in this area over the past few years – which has involved both studying coverage & speaking to Muslim women about their experiences & perceptions of it - I’ve concluded that they are concurrently pigeon-holed as terrorist threats, victims of male oppression and sexualised, exotic ‘others’, who struggle to be heard beyond the veil as the news media overwhelmingly perpetuates ignorant, shallow misrepresentations of them. In the portrayal of Muslim women, attention is frequently focused on the way they dress with their clothing seen as a sort of shorthand symbol of their threatening, alien status

As MacDonald notes:

The image of the veil continues to exercise discursive power over perceptions of Islam and Muslim women. Expressions of surprise, even in the twenty-first century, that veiled Muslim women can appear as Olympic athletes, “suicide bombers,” feminists, politicians, musicians, or even comedians, underline the tenacity of beliefs that Islamic veiling is intrinsically incompatible with women’s agency in the construction of their identities. (MacDonald 2006: 19)

Muslim women are virtually invisible in mainstream news. And when they are reported they are almost exclusively cast as the outsider – alien to Australian culture and social experience with an almost inescapable requirement to speak, when they are asked, about veiling. Aly and Walker link the Australian media obsession with veiling to the discourses of national security and social cohesion: ‘Indeed, the veil has come to represent Islam itself and the “veiled threat” has become code for the wider threat of an Islamic presence in Australia drawing explicitly on fears that Australian cultural values might collapse’.

Most recently I interviewed & surveyed 18 Muslim women from diverse cultural & professional backgrounds (including a number of journalists) about their experiences of the media's reporting of Muslim women.

Seventeen out of the 18 participants in this research were scathing in their criticism of the mainstream news media’s reporting of Muslim women. They cited rampant stereotyping as the biggest problem, highlighting the clichéd representations of women as veiled; victims of misogyny and an oppressive religion; subject to polygamous marriages; uneducated; alien; sub-human; unassertive; foreign; fundamentalist; ‘un-Australian’; distant and unapproachable as significant cause for concern. The journalists among the participants also complained about rampant stereotyping and many respondents lamented the media’s conflation of culture and religion and the ‘reductionist’ approach to coverage, describing it variously as ‘racist’; ‘rubbish’; ‘opportunistic’; ‘negative’; ‘wilfully uninformed’; ‘stupid’ and ‘docile’. Another issue highlighted was the secondary effect of such coverage, described as a silencing impact, which caused Muslim women to feel bound to defend misogynistic men against negative reportage.

One respondent summed up the general feeling of participants:

“They (the media) have invented a stereotype of blind, obedient colourless women, covered from head to toe in grey, which has nothing to do with real life. They never represent the diversity of Muslim women – our origins, professions, education, opinions, or clothes. Our voices are never heard themselves, just people speaking on our behalf, often typifying us as victims of brutal men. If we don’t fit the stereotype (and nearly no-one does) then our views are dismissed as being atypical. The image it [the media] presents of Muslim women is just nothing like me or any of the Muslim women I know. It is a fantasy of Western ignorance, which is reinforced every time it is in the press.”

So, while I’m not opposed to activist journalism as a human rights weapon – which is how I believe Virginia intends her work in this area to be perceived – the impact of such media coverage on Muslim women must be considered – both in terms of the way it has the potential to fan xenophobia and, more subtly, through the impact on their identities and sense of belonging in the Australian community.

And this is not just true of Australian women: The act of Muslim women unveiling and conforming to Western models of post-feminist beauty was also manipulated by the media as a potent, Colonial symbol of ‘liberation’ and ‘rescue’ in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghan women have complained of Western media fixations on the burka, which were deployed to justify the invasion of Afghanistan & which had the effect in the aftermath of the war of overshadowing much more serious underlying issues.

Shahira Fahmy’s content analysis of the Associated Press photo archive covering the periods immediately before and after the ‘liberation’ of Kabul found that while only 1% of AP photographs showed women with hair and faces exposed, the Western media excessively focused on the rate of unveiling (through the pictures actually published) to the detriment of reportage on underlying problems surrounding women’s employment, education and abuse. (Fahmy 2004)



Myra MacDonald further argues that the Western media used women’s 'bowed and veiled' bodies to confirm the urgency of rescuing them from their fate - without historical enquiry into the reasons for women’s poverty and misery, or the role of Western powers in enabling these conditions to prevail (2006)

Finally, the media tends to speak on behalf of or at Muslim women, instead of with them and Virginia’s call for a ban in the absence of any interactions with burka-clad women in Australia, beyond one sighting in a shopping mall, falls into this trap.

The way forward in this debate is to build opportunities for dialogue between progressive feminist Muslims and non-Muslims, and those who veil with the burka and niqab. We need to pave the way for self-empowerment and engagement, not blow up such routes through divisive and counter-productive calls for bans on burkas and niqabs which, to many Muslim women, feel just as oppressive as the shrouds themselves.

Note: for an example of effective and ethical media coverage of this issue see this report on ABC’s Stateline in response to the initial public reaction to Virginia Haussegger’s column. See also Virginia's recent 730 Report story on her travels in Afghanistan    [read more]

Top 20 Take Away Tips for Tweeting Journos*

1) Think before you tweet - you can't delete an indiscrete tweet!
2) Think carefully about what your RTing & acknowledge if it's unsubstantiated
3) Be an active twit: tweet daily if you want your followers to stick.
4) Determine your Twitter identity
5) Be human; be honest; be open; be active
6) Don't lock your account if you want to use Twitter for reporting purposes - this fosters distrust
7) Twitter is a community, not a one-way conversation or broadcast channel- actively engage
8) Check if your employer has a social media policy
9) Be cautious when tweeting about your employer/workplace/colleagues
10) Be a judicious follower - don't be stingy but avoid following everyone as your list grows.
11) If you quote a tweet, attribute it
12) Expect your competitors to steal your leads if you Tweet about them
13) Don't tweet while angry or drunk
14) Avoid racist, sexist, bigoted & otherwise offensive tweets and never abuse a follower
15) Scrutinise crowd-sourced stories closely
16) Find people to follow & foster followers by pilfering the lists of other 'twits'.
17) Twitter is a 'time vampire' (via @anne_brand) - you don't need to keep track of all tweets - dip in & out through the day.
18) Prevent information overload by using an application such as Tweetdeck
19) Set up your Internet-enabled mobile device so you can live-tweet on the road.
20) Value add your tweets with links, Twitpic and other applications for audio & video

As journalists become space invaders in the Twittersphere they're asking what are the rules of engagement for professional reporters on the platform? I've interviewed 25 Australian, South African and US journalist-tweeters as part of a research project on the issues arising out of the mainstream media's engagement with the micro-bogging platform.

One major theme to emerge has been journalists' desire for a quick reference guide to help them optimise their Twitter experience without compromising their professional and ethical standards.

So, I asked participating journos for their tips on being successful 'twits' and combined with my own experience this list of helpful hints is what emerged.

*This tips list first appeared on the PBS website Mediashiftfor which I've written a series on journalists and Twitter based on my research. You can read How Journalists are using Twitter in Australia here, How Journalists Balance Work, Personal Lives on Twitter here and Rules of Engagement for Journalists on Twitter here

   [read more]

An earlier version of this post first appeared @ the PBS website Mediashift, titled How Journalists Balance Work, Personal Lives on Twitter

Twitter is continuing to make headlines around the world as it amasses followers. But it's also making an impact on the newsmakers themselves. Journalists are invading the space at a rapid pace and learning to report live, crowdsource stories and engage with a whole new audience...in 140 characters or less.

It may not be revolutionary -- many journalists view the micro-blogging platform as just another tool in their kitbag -- but it is changing journalistic practice and raising important questions about ethics and professionalism. In fact, one of the key contemporary journalistic dilemmas -- how to define or redefine objectivity in the social media age -- is being played out live via tweets.

Part one of this investigation into tweeting journos was based on interviews with 25 journalists (mostly Australian) and informed by my own experience on the platform. In the aftermath of that article, I received many responses from journalists (and media outlets) via Twitter who also wanted to make a contribution. Their willingness to engage in debate on the issues and eagerness to participate in subsequent stories highlighted for me the significance and timeliness of this research, so I've decided to turn this two-part Mediashift series into a comprehensive trilogy.

In part two, I'll discuss the impact of Twitter on daily reporting and its challenges to traditional journalistic identity and professionalism as the private and the public spheres merge, further blurring the line between reporting and opinion.

Twitter's clash of the personal & the professional

In my view, while balance, fairness and accuracy remain important aspects of journalistic identity, definitions of objectivity that consider he said, she said news pieces to be the only valid form of journalism are narrow and anachronistic. Neither do I subscribe to the view that journalists should be didactic, colourless, un-opinionated, one-dimensional information processors.

But social media platforms encourage the merger of the private and public experiences of journalists and this is new territory for beings used to commenting on their subjects' lives rather than subjecting their own lives to scrutiny. As journalists, we now post pictures of intimate family moments on Facebook, we blog about tender and painful life experiences and respond to news posts with forceful opinions.

On Twitter -- a medium which is fleeting and frenetically paced -- we can find ourselves posting a link to a news story we've written one minute and writing a reflective Haiku poem or making a witty life observation the next...at least that's my modus operandi. (For a different approach, consider Jay Rosen's Twitter mind-casting.

Gen Robey, editor of Wotnews, says keeping the personal and professional separate is increasingly difficult when you're trying to maximise the benefits of communities like Twitter, noting that, "The overlapping of the personal and professional, and thus the emphasis on trust and meaningful relationships, is often what makes Twitter so powerful."

While this practice makes us human and much more appealing to our followers and mainstream audiences, there are professional consequences to consider.

So how do professional journalists manage the merger of the private and the public, the personal and the professional on Twitter? And how much of themselves and their opinions do they reveal in trying to build relationships with audiences and sources? Of the 25 reporters I interviewed, some choose to acknowledge both private and professional purposes of their Twitter accounts to establish dual identity. Others chose to tweet only "off-the-clock" or "on-the-clock" and a few ran separate Twitter accounts to accommodate both the private and the professional.

One Australian journalist who's been forced to reassess his use of Twitter as a public platform for his personal views is the Sydney Morning Herald's technology writer Asher Moses. Moses was recently outed by the irreverent online news magazine Crikey for sexist comments he made on his Twitter account about a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by a team of professional footballers.



Crikey mistakenly attributed other quotes, about an unrelated matter, from a fake account in Moses' name, to Moses and has since apologised for that sloppy work. But the quotes above were made by the real Asher Moses and he told me he regrets the offending tweets.

"Although I wrote the tweet in my own time on a personal Twitter account," he said. "I used two words that in hindsight were inappropriate, particularly considering I mainly used Twitter for work-related messages. I quickly deleted the post, but by then it was too late and within a day I had Crikey ...breathing down my neck. The tweet still appeared in Twitter search. It's sad in a way, but you really have to assume that whatever you write is going to be viewed by the whole world and you have to be prepared for people to link your personal views to your employer."

Ironically, Moses has report on a government communications worker who risked his job with comments he wrote on Twitter and his blog. And while Moses' job wasn't threatened by the incident, he has changed his tweeting habits as a result of the experience.

"Up until recently I used it for both tweeting links to my stories and engaging in discussions -- not always work-related," he said. "But I'm fast finding that even though I have viewed Twitter as a personal space for my personal thoughts and opinions, readers can interpret what I say as the official Fairfax (owners of the SMH) line, which creates all sorts of complications. So after recent events I've decided to use Twitter purely for work-related messages."

In the midst of the storm that followed Moses' questionable tweeting, Jason Whittaker who edits a stable of trade magazines for Australian Consolidated Press defended Moses' right as a journalist to tweet his opinions and indulge in news commentary without endorsing his views.

"Do journalists who use Twitter have to be mindful of being in the public domain and project the same perception of objectivity as they do on the clock as a journalist?" he asked. "Even if they're commenting on matters they have nothing to do with as a journalist? Are readers capable of making the distinction? Can't they accept that journos are not mindless drones and DO have opinions, but this doesn't mean they can't do the job as an objective observer when on the clock?"

Whittaker initially began tweeting anonymously as @thetowncrier but, after considering the clash of the two spheres, he has since included in his Twitter bio his real name and a link to a blog which identifies his employer.

"I was HIGHLY reluctant to put my opinions in a public space, but I made the decision that I had things I wanted to say and I was comfortable with the separation between work and personal," he said.

The ABC's Michael Turtle has a pragmatic approach to this Twitter dilemma.

"The basic rules... should be the same as when writing as a journalist," he said. "You don't want to express personal opinions on sensitive issues because, even if your reporting is completely impartial. You don't want to open yourself up to accusations of bias."

Sky News' John Bergin separates his private and work Twitter accounts in an effort to manage these dilemmas. He has this advice for balancing the personal and the professional: "Think carefully about what 'hat' you're wearing when you share personal opinions and political views -- is it clear to others that you are speaking on behalf of yourself, or your employer? If you express an opinion on a news story, think about how this will be construed if you are then required to report on 'the facts' of the same issue at a later date."

Considering Privacy & Personal Safety

There are other reasons for journalists to be cautious about what they reveal on Twitter, or any other open social media platform. In the same way journalists may choose to have unlisted home phone numbers and addresses for privacy reasons, tweeting reporters need to consider their personal safety.

"I'm careful not to reveal too much about exactly where I live, and I rarely tweet about my wife," said Dave Earley, a reporter with the Brisbane Courier Mail. "She hasn't chosen for any aspect of her private life to be revealed online, so I mainly try to keep Twitter about me, with occasional references to family."



Leigh Sales is one tweeting Australian journalist who has managed to blend the personal and professional very well -- maintaining her credibility as the anchor of a respected ABC nightly news program while endearing herself to her audience by revealing a multi-dimensional character. She does this by largely restricting her tweets to news- or issues-oriented subject matter but employing wit and humour as short storytelling devices. What results is a very effective blend of serious observations with a news stand-up routine -- Twiticism. And humour is a humanising quality which Sales says helps "make the medicine go down" -- the medicine being the serious news she's tweeting about or linking to.

"If you can be interesting and engaging, then people will follow you more readily than if you're dry," she said. "If you're those things, people RT you or recommend you to their friends."

How is Twitter Changing Journalism

Twitter is both a venue for discussion about the future of journalism and a feature of the discussion. Some see it as a symptom of the demise of the fourth estate, others see it as part of the plan for professional journalism's salvation in an age of rapid technological, economic and industrial change. It's certainly one way to merge news dissemination and increasingly necessary audience engagement. It's also a natural online home for inherently inquisitive and dialogue-oriented journalists like Caroline Overington, a writer with Rupert Murdoch's national daily The Australian.

"I find Twitter to be a more friendly media site than the blogs, which tend to be full of bile," she said. "That may be because it's real people. It's a kind spot on the web."

At a practical level, Twitter is changing how journalism is practiced. Tweeting is fast becoming necessary for journalists and even compulsory in some news organisations. Some journalists interviewed highlighted the ability of ‘retweets’ (RTs) – the practice of citing and re-distributing a tweet – to indicate the appeal of a story to a particular audience and guide the extent of coverage an issue gets, similar to the effect of talkback radio and news focus groups. And a few talked about Twitter’s ability to make news-gathering processes more transparent through journalists publicly processing reporting techniques and practices in real time. But the role of Twitter in breaking news was most frequently mentioned.

Breaking News on Twitter - Headlines on Speed

And it's not just a platform to cover already-broken news in easily digestible bites. It's also emerging as a zone in which to break news, as I highlighted in part one of this series.

An ABC case study neatly illustrates these points in the Australian context. Wildfires and an earth tremor near Melbourne, storms in Brisbane and a widespread blackout in Sydney put Twitter to the test this year as a breaking news device.



In early February, when Australia's deadliest ever bushfires raged around Victoria (they would ultimately claim 173 lives), Wolf Cocklin, a digital media developer with the ABC, shifted the network's Twitter accounts into high gear. As the ABC's Melbourne radio station commenced emergency 24 hour broadcasts, Mr Cocklin used the @774melbourne Twitter account to disseminate warnings and news alerts while monitoring the Twittersphere for eyewitness accounts and other information which could be checked and verified with officials before being broadcast.

"I never tweeted callers through to the radio station unless they were an attributable source," he said. This is a more strict approach than that adopted for talkback callers who are regularly put to air to describe their experiences and observations of disaster zones without their stories being properly checked. But Mr Cocklin says this approach may change as Twitter becomes more established as a feature of such broadcasts.

ABC Brisbane's Amanda Dell believes that Twitter is particularly pertinent to radio coverage of events.

"I find Twitter to be the best source of breaking news," she said. "When there was a minor earthquake in Melbourne recently, I knew about it seconds after it happened. It was at least 20 to 30 minutes before any of the online news sites had the information. In radio, that immediacy is a huge advantage."

Wolf Cocklin is adamant that journalists need to be on Twitter because of its role in breaking news coverage; he cites Twitter's role in reporting a recent large scale blackout in Sydney as an example.

"I was able to crowdsource the size and approximate location of the affected area in 5 minutes, faster than calling 100 people to ask them if their power was out," he said.

ABC Online's Gary Kemble agrees, saying Twitter is invaluable for alerting media outlets to breaking stories and that the ABC has decided to break news first on Twitter ahead of its own website: "We use the @abcnews service to post 'breaking news' alerts. It's faster than our CMS, so we can get the info out there faster, in the first instance, by using Twitter."

Fact-Check First, Tweet Second

Twitter is news headlines on speed. But despite the pressure of an unrelenting 24/7 news cycle, most of the journalists I interviewed expressed caution about blind reliance on Twitter for crowdsourcing coverage during breaking news events. Paramount -- particularly during disasters -- was concern about accuracy and public safety, as John Bergin of Sky News noted.

"Twitter may have accelerated the means by which we can source information, but that doesn't mean that Sky News, or any other news outlet, should incorporate crowdsourced versions of events or comments without holding them up to careful scrutiny first," he said.

Nevertheless, Sky has incorporated Twitter into disaster coverage.

"In the case of the Melbourne tremor we used Twitter, along with viewer emails and phone calls, to inform viewers of what was happening prior to the release of any formal information from Geosciences Australia," said Bergin.

ACP's Jason Whittaker agrees, saying traditional reporting principles still need to be applied to Twitter.

"An account from a witness on Twitter is little different to interviewing someone over the phone or at the scene of an event and using this account to build a story," he said. Such information must be scrutinised just as much as traditionally sourced material. "It must be verified, checked against other sources, and treated with a degree of scepticism. Too many journalists are being caught out online by not doing enough checking of the facts, and Twitter is no different," he said.

While the old rules of fact checking prior to publication and awareness about the public and professional consequences of private actions remain good guidelines for tweeting journalists, Twitter has raised a new set of professional and ethical questions. For example: What's fair game for reporters on the platform? Is everything said in this public space reportable and on the record? Do you need to get permission from a tweeter to quote one of their tweets in a piece of traditional journalism? How much of an additional burden is daily tweeting on already overloaded journalists? And what's the impact of constant tweeting on their capacity to produce considered, original journalism?

I'll attempt to answer some of these questions in part three of this series which will focus on an examination of the "rules of engagement" for tweeting journalists as media outlets begin to establish guidelines and codes of conduct applicable to the platform. I'll also canvas the ways in which journalists are self-regulating their tweeting and provide practical tips for those just starting out on Twitter -- along with those more experienced tweeters who are still grappling with some of the issues discussed here.    [read more]

Pic: Reuters


I’ve been stunned at how easily the national media has adopted the KRUDD line on the controversial ‘gift’ he received from his car-dealer neighbour – a fully registered and insured vehicle used for electioneering purposes.

The ABC’s National Political Editor, Chris Uhlmann, declared in his 7pm political wrap last night that there was "nothing improper" about the PM’s decision to keep the car as he had declared it on the Pecuniary Interests Register – the list designed make political donations transparent.

Technically, Uhlmann is correct: while there are caps on donations to political parties, there are currently no regulations preventing or capping ‘gifts’ to individual politicians and Rudd has denied doing favours on behalf of his buddy, the used car salesman. However, what journalists of his calibre should be asking (in addition to "Did the dealer receive any benefits in recognition of his gift?") is, ethically, how appropriate was this act and is it time for a review of standards? (Sidebar: They should probably also analyse the strategic mistake made by the Opposition in dumping the ute-controversy on the media in the midst of such a news day. "Bugger".)

Significantly, a similar scandal recently erupted in South Africa when it was revealed the Transport Minister in the newly installed Zuma government was ‘gifted’ a Mercedes Benz. While he was also technically in the clear, he elected to return the car in the wake of a public outcry. If this was the approach adopted in a country scandalised by political corruption, under the leadership of a President pilloried by the international media for questionable conduct, how can Australia justify such a passive stance on a related issue?

I raised these concerns on Twitter yesterday, suggesting journalists were being too easily diverted from the story by the (very effective) PR tactics of the Rudd spin machine that went like this: Bombshell – “Look, Fitzgibbon!” - and comedic sidebar – “Those naughty Chaser boys!”

Speaking from experience as a former ABC press gallery journalist, I know it’s very hard to find the time and resources to properly follow leads and alternative angles when you’re being thrown curve-balls on a very big news day. But it must be done - you need to take five minutes to remove the blinkers and think outside the spin, to consider the bigger implications of issues like this. And that’s what remote editorial supervisors are for: to offer perspective outside the hothouse and assign other reporters to the issues as required, to ensure comprehensive coverage.

As I asked on Twitter – why are there no caps on donations or gifts to individual politicians? Where is the line? What’s to stop a politician receiving a fat account from a bank in the name of his or her child’s education? Could he or she accept a house built by a construction company to use for personal or political purposes? And what are the implications of such policy absences?

Kevin Rudd's neighbour: Car dealer, John grant who 'gifted' an electric ute to the PM. (Pic. courtesy Brisbane Times)

My proposal in response to Rudd's donated ute – three parts serious and one part wit: suggest the Prime Minister might consider donating his ‘gift' to the Starlight Foundation. That’s a suggestion now being peddled by Greens leader Bob Brown: "It's a terrible look," Senator Brown told AAP "I think the prime minister would have been very wise to give that car to charity years ago."

He’s also proposing a cap on donations to individual MPs of a few hundred dollars. “But when it comes to gifts worth thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars, they should be unavailable to individual MPs, let alone MPs who then become prime ministers,” Senator Brown said.

I’d go even further and suggest that to avoid the appearance of impropriety in an age where political cynicism already sees the community rating politicians' integrity very poorly, it would be wise to recommend against receiving any personal gifts from constituents or lobby groups. These are the protocols guiding the public servants working under Rudd and the journalists who report his government. For bureaucrats and reporters the implication of favours expected in return for gifts makes receipt of them verboten according to ethical codes of conduct and established protocols.

I’d also suggest journalists investigate this issue further – it’s much broader than a second hand ute being donated to the PM. How many politicians on both sides of parliament have profited from such questionable ‘gifting’? And what favours have been done or implied in return?

Politically, this is indeed a very bad look for Rudd – particularly coming, as it does, hot on the heels of his lame defence of the policy which allows his ministers AND their staffers to fly first class on the tax-payer’s purse. His argument? “John Howard did it”. Hardly the stuff of social-justice oriented politics for one elected on the wave of a backlash against the self-centredness of ‘Howardism’.

The car dealer at the centre of the controversy clearly doesn’t get it but Kevin Rudd and his strategists should be able to see through their own spin to the potential damage of ongoing perceptions of conflicts of interest and vested interests. They have an opportunity to take the moral high ground and institute genuine reform to help restore public confidence in political institutions. It’s time to “back up the truck”, Kev. And it's time the rest of us started more closely scrutinising what falls off the backs of trucks into our elected representatives laps.    [read more]