Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Chequebook journalism reaches record high
On Channel 10 trading last week, chequebook journalism hit a record high at over $400,000 per story.

Douglas Wood was an Australian hostage recently released from captivity in Iraq, after either:

a) protracted negotiation with local warlords;

b) a daring raid after sufficient military intelligence had been gathered; or

c) a spot of luck when a chance raid on local militia revealed Wood hidden out the back.

The truth is most likely to be option c), a balance of a good fortune and no doubt some derring-do and quick thinking. The ‘truth’ is of course relative, and at the moment, according to those who own the information, the truth is option b): good intelligence, local allies on the ground, excellent planning and precision military execution.

To keep people motivated and on a war footing, it is important for governments to put out ‘positive-stories’, which it says ‘balance’ all the constant sniping from a left-wing media bent on undermining George Bush’s efforts to democratise the Middle East.

A similar positive story was the daring rescue of a female (surely no coincidence) US Marine, who had been captured in the early part of the war, after the official hostilities had been declared over. It turned out that the rescue had all the authenticity of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie – and indeed was probably scripted and produced by him.

Whatever the truth, Douglas Wood, a civilian contractor who chose to go and work in Iraq, was liberated from captivity and has returned to Australia to sell his story.

Channel 10, of the NewsCorp stable, has paid a record sum for his services: $400,000. This is largest amount of money ever officially paid for exclusive rights to a story.

This deal stops him recounting his story to any other media outlet for 2 months, after which his story will no longer be valuable. His obligations to NewsCorp have included a few puff-pieces in The Australian (national daily) and an interview on Channel 10 so hard hitting, it probably would have failed to make an impression on a sponge.

But what most demonstrates the general lack of standards in the media, is that the editorial team at The Australian (think broadsheet Daily Mail, but a little to the right) is endorsing Woods’ personal line on the war in Iraq, trumpeting Woods’ agreement with Bush-Blair-Howard policy as a total justification of its own pro-war editorial stance.

Self-serving is the phrase that springs to mind. It’s like trying to find an objective opinion on the band The Cure, by just asking teenagers dressed head to toe in black.

The rival (more centrist) Fairfax Press (The Melbourne Age and The Sydney Morning Herald) have got a little precious about the whole affair and undoubtedly feel irked of the ‘exclusive’ deal that Woods has signed. The editor of the Melbourne Age took offence that The Australian had endorsed Mr Woods view that his captors were arseholes and that there was no evidence that he had been mistreated. That Mr Woods had been held captive for six weeks, against his wishes and probably tied up, didn’t really matter, just as long as he had been given three square meals per day.

Does this matter? Does the average Australian read or notice the editorial slant? Do they appreciate the nuance in the journalism, which betrays a clear opinion? Probably not. But when chequebook journalism begins to gag whole sections of the press, especially when they may have a different view the truth is sold to the highest bidder.

The truth of Douglas Wood’s rescue will now not be known. That he was rescued was no doubt ‘good news’ and really nobody would have cared one iota had he simply wandered aimlessly into the Australian army’s barracks. But now that smoke and mirrors (or as politicians seeking to hide something call it, ‘the fog of war’) have been deployed to mask the true nature of his rescue, the integrity of his story suddenly becomes important. Wood’s and the government’s claims now need a more rigorous level of scrutiny than the pathetic excuse for an interview shown on Channel 10.

This scrutiny will not be provided by a NewsCorp outlet (ie Channel 10), as the organisation has openly professed its support of the war and good news stories. But now, due to Woods’ deal with Channel 10, his story and the integrity of Channel 10’s journalism – and for that matter, the government - is now never likely to face up to the scrutiny of a more questioning public.

---