BAM Media on Mediawatch (ABCTV)

[prn 31]

Here is an interesting expose on Brett "Crusher" Murray's PR company that aired on ABC's Mediawatch program tonight. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

I suppose we won't be reading about this on Speedcafe anytime soon.....

[GTRMagic]

Wonder who the inquiring team was?

The video blanked out the sender name/email address

[TWRv12]

Great stuff

[Trevor]

I watched that with great interest last night.

[Chris - Melb]

Puts a new slant on Speedcafe. Stories on HRT and GRM are thin on the ground for instance...

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

Puts a new slant on Speedcafe. Stories on HRT and GRM are thin on the ground for instance...

there never short on the v8 website though, or anything by Paul Gover

at least Speed cafe disclose their sponsors on the front page

[Chappelli]

It's the shocking expose on the behaviors that exist in every industry in every country in the world.... what a joke.

The gist of the story is that PR Company X are unhappy that PR Company Y have a better relationship with a publication than they do... and they're having a whine about it.

Speaking of transparency, interesting that Mediawatch didn't name who tipped them off or supplied them with the e-mails they quoted from.... hell, they even went so far as to blank out the senders details.... hmmm, what reason would Mediawatch have for blanking out the sender of the letter?

Wouldn't that be an interesting situation if Mediawatch are giving their source preferential treatment by allowing them to remain anonymous, while being completely non-transparent about who their sources are..... Pot/Kettle anyone?

[cptkablamo]

You don't watch Media Watch very often do you Chapelli? Standard practice, particularly with regards to privacy laws.

Anyway, This was more of an indictment on The Gold Coast Bulletin than BAM. None of this is really news to people in motorsport but, I guess it is to those outside motorsport. BAM are doing their job, and doing it rather well...

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

You don't watch Media Watch very often do you Chapelli? Standard practice, particularly with regards to privacy laws.

Anyway, This was more of an indictment on The Gold Coast Bulletin than BAM. None of this is really news to people in motorsport but, I guess it is to those outside motorsport. BAM are doing their job, and doing it rather well...

You honestly believe that someone from BAM or a concerned third party passed the e-mail on to Mediawatch?

[cptkablamo]

No, not at all...but it is not rare for Media Watch to blank the names of the complainants.

[Chappelli]

So you don't find it odd that the program demanding transparency... would appear to be far from transparent themselves?

[TWRv12]

Its also the way a lot of motorsport is reported, mostly sponsor PR and very little proper journalism.

[cptkablamo]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

So you don't find it odd that the program demanding transparency... would appear to be far from transparent themselves?

I don't find many things odd, particularly respecting privacy when it comes to an issue of whistle blowing.

Whether you find it an issue is another thing. As I said, this is not an issue for BAM but rather the GC Bulletin not following their own policies.

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

I don't find many things odd, particularly respecting privacy when it comes to an issue of whistle blowing.

Whether you find it an issue is another thing. As I said, this is not an issue for BAM but rather the GC Bulletin not following their own policies.

That's the point, it's not whistle blowing... it's a PR agency having a whinge, more than likely because they've taken a fee to get coverage at the GC round and they've failed, as a result their client has given them a bullet and asked why they didn't get any coverage.... happens every day in PR.

It's got nothing to do with privacy, the very very simple truth is that Mediawatch avoided sourcing the e-mail... It's easy to say we were sent this from the PR Company having a whinge..... I believe the truth is, they were sent the e-mail from the PR company and the minute they say that, it shows the story (and the show) up for what it is...

Just for interests sake, I'd love for you to give us a couple of examples of where they've "not followed" their own policies ....

Speaking of which, on ABC's website there seems to be a lot of positive coverage from the AFP of events in Paris... yet there's no mention that the AFP are a French State Owned News service..... quick! call Mediawatch!

[cptkablamo]

How about this - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ente...928-26poc.html

Certainly no one is perfect, but I don't see how covering the name of the PR agency involved is a bad thing. As I have said, now for the third time, BAM haven't done anything wrong, The GC Bulletin haven't followed their own charter that News Ltd has (how much they follow it is another point entirely).

If you have such an issue with them not publishing the PR company involved, have you contacted Media Watch? If not, why not?

[b195]

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

How about this - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ente...928-26poc.html

Certainly no one is perfect, but I don't see how covering the name of the PR agency involved is a bad thing. As I have said, now for the third time, BAM haven't done anything wrong, The GC Bulletin haven't followed their own charter that News Ltd has (how much they follow it is another point entirely).

If you have such an issue with them not publishing the PR company involved, have you contacted Media Watch? If not, why not?

I guess it's true regarding News in regards to the Bulletin, though IMO it makes the paper, Mr Murray and the relevant driver/sponsor look dishonest in not disclosing their relationship (even in passing eg, in the story saying "the truck driver for Jack Daniel's Racing, one of my many and varied clients"). Not all of those involved are to blame in each case, but it potentially tarnishes the reputation of them all.

If the GC600 event guide is as it was presented ie. only BAM sponsors and clients rate a mention, well... words fail me.

Speedcafe is one of the few motorsport website I visit these days. I forgave them (many) spelling mistakes (just this past weekend, the headline "Casey Stoner slams Mark Winterbottom’s 'amatuer' driving", which wasn't how Casey spelled it - though normally the errors are in Speedcafe's stories, not the headline) and sometimes lack of/delayed reporting due to a relatively small budget and resources. I forgave that they took on various sponsors to help them survive (or so I thought).

What I would like to know is how BAM and Speedcafe fit together? Is it 100% a BAM company?

If so, all the reports that say Speedcafe (C) have a lot less meaning - sure, it doesn't mean it is pure PR, but I also have no compelling reason to think otherwise either. As does the fact that from the current front page, you can't find any info about the owners or writers - the best I could do from a quick google was from here:

Speedcafe.com.au has been established to provide a daily motorsport news service to the industry and fans in Australia and internationally.

It is a free service driven by passionate people, who have the same appetite for accurate and timely news relating to their sport, hobby, industry or career.

A costly exercise, Speedcafe.com.au is made possible by our growing list of corporate partners who have made an investment in their own growth, the development of the sport and the hunger of the fans.

Make no mistake, it is these companies who bring Speedcafe.com.au to you and we ask you to support their businesses with the purchase of their products and services.

We also ask you to participate in regular competitions and surveys to ensure we keep the interest rolling and the site as fresh and as inviting as possible.

It is our commitment to keep Speedcafe.com.au a free service for you, the fan.

From what I understand, I don't know if that was true in the past or whether it is true now.

In the past, I thought those who were using names when referring to the site eg. Adcafe were being unfair. Unless someone proves otherwise, I now wonder if they were being too kind... I know sports is a business and all that, but...

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

Just for interests sake, I'd love for you to give us a couple of examples of where they've "not followed" their own policies ....

Jonathan Holmes has outlined them very neatly and succinctly within the show.

But, to help you out, the problem is that Brett Murray the journalist is providing editorial coverage to his clients without fully disclosing his business arrangement with them.

News Ltd's own rules dictate that in every instance where any of his clients get a mention in his GCB column, that should be clearly mentioned with something like: "Jack Daniels is a client of the author's media company - BAM Media".

That's rule 1 of journalism disclosure.

The second part is the complaint from a rival team PR about the coverage being exclusive to BAM Media clients.

Media Watch is really only concerned with the lack of disclosure and, in this case, the bias being so blatant.

If they're supplying the content, then it's BAM Media's discretion as to who and what they decide to cover. But, that commercial relationship needs to be made clear and obvious.

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

How about this - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ente...928-26poc.html

Not sure what you're trying to point out??? Mediawatch rapped on the knuckles for not allowing a right of reply??? Not sure how that's pertinent??

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

Certainly no one is perfect, but I don't see how covering the name of the PR agency involved is a bad thing.

Aside from the duality of demanding full disclosure, while not offering it yourself
Here's how Mediawatch present themselves:
"We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media"
It would appear that BAM are getting hammered, simply because one of their competitors had a whinge... in effect it's Mediawatch spotlighting one ligitimate business who're just doing what they're in business to do, whilst preserving the annonimity of a company who are trying to manpulate the media.... The big difference between the two? The "watchdog" has a relationship with one of them.

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

As I have said, now for the third time, BAM haven't done anything wrong, The GC Bulletin haven't followed their own charter that News Ltd has (how much they follow it is another point entirely).

Just out of interest, are you able to explain how they haven't followed the charter?
I personally don't think either party has done anything wrong. BAM has done what's right for their customers... GC Bulletin have provided their readers with insight and content that they otherwise wouldn't have had.

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

If you have such an issue with them not publishing the PR company involved, have you contacted Media Watch? If not, why not?

No and I won't. Simply because I take Mediawatch for the tripe it is...
But if someone takes it as gospel, then I'm quite happy to debate the point...... Surprisingly, if Mediawatch was decent quality journalism or actually had a point, they probably wouldn't require the use to ridiculous voice overs to cement their point (why is it the BAM text requires a ridiculous voice, yet the e-mail text is in a normal voice over)......

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by eduardo1

But, to help you out, the problem is that Brett Murray the journalist is providing editorial coverage to his clients without fully disclosing his business arrangement with them. News Ltd's own rules dictate that in every instance where any of his clients get a mention in his GCB column, that should be clearly mentioned with something like: "Jack Daniels is a client of the author's media company - BAM Media".

Found them and no they don't...
"Any association which may have a bearing, or appear to have a bearing, on a contributor's view, must be identified with the published material."

The key word being "view"... That is their opinion in relation to the story...

What it doesn't say (and this is VERY important) is "business arrangements"... It doesn't say that because there's lots of ways you can have an association and a potential conflict of interest... a team took you for a hotlap, they sent you a stubbie cooler or you just happen to get on well with the team manager.

There's a MASSIVE difference between chosing to do a feature on one team over another because you have an association with them.. and changing the content of that story because of your relationship with them....

So, with those two key points.
Do his stories contain opinion that has been influenced by BAM's business relationships? Or are his stories generally puff pieces that, generally speaking don't have any real consequence on the world?

Originally Posted by eduardo1

That's rule 1 of journalism disclosure.

The second part is the complaint from a rival team PR about the coverage being exclusive to BAM Media clients.

Media Watch is really only concerned with the lack of disclosure and, in this case, the bias being so blatant.

Disclosure as in "we got tipped off to this story by a PR firm, which is a win win, because they'll probably gain financially from us running this story and we get to look cool because we have access to leaked emails"? Or bias as in, "there's two dogs in the fight, but we'll only name one"?

Originally Posted by eduardo1

If they're supplying the content, then it's BAM Media's discretion as to who and what they decide to cover. But, that commercial relationship needs to be made clear and obvious.

So, if I log on to news.com.au now, every single business story that mentions the name of a advertiser on News.com.au will have disclosure?

[banksie]

Originally Posted by b195

What I would like to know is how BAM and Speedcafe fit together? Is it 100% a BAM company?

Yes, BAM own Speedcafe.

[b195]

Originally Posted by banksie

Yes, BAM own Speedcafe.

I see. Thanks for the confirmation... (well not really, but you know what I mean!)

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

So you don't find it odd that the program demanding transparency... would appear to be far from transparent themselves?

Chappeli, can see your point of view and much of what you say rings true but as you appear to be in NZ you need to understand that there are very strong privacy laws in Australia along with tough laws to protect whistle blowers.

In this instance, it MAY be that the whistle blower has a vested interest but that does not mean that the law protecting the whistle blower can be set aside by the ABC - only the law can do that.

Personally, I don't see BAM as being all that different from many other PR agencies - I've known Crusher quite a few years and therefore tend to allow for that when I read Speedcafe stories or his Bulletin column.

Yep, Mediawatch is a smarmy, smartarse, holier than though silly little program but it does get picked up (as it has been here) by many, no doubt about it. Crusher would be feeling the pain today I reckon. Edit: not feeling the pain too much - just found out he's in the US having a great old time.

[Downoz]

Free advertising - priceless.

[TWRv12]

Churnalism - technical term for trying to pass off press releases as journalism.

Would be interesting to have a motorsport version of churnalism.com

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Chappeli, can see your point of view and much of what you say rings true but as you appear to be in NZ you need to understand that there are very strong privacy laws in Australia along with tough laws to protect whistle blowers..

Correct, I am in New Zealand. However, I've worked in Australian media, so I'm say I've quite a good understanding of Australian privacy laws.

Originally Posted by Tourer

In this instance, it MAY be that the whistle blower has a vested interest but that does not mean that the law protecting the whistle blower can be set aside by the ABC - only the law can do that..

Assuming you can define this company as a Whistleblower rather than an activist... It's fairly clear he's from BAM Media, it's fairly easy to figure out who BAM represents. Therefore you'd be hard pressed to make a case that you were blowing any whistle... the information is esily pubicaly available.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Personally, I don't see BAM as being all that different from many other PR agencies - I've known Crusher quite a few years and therefore tend to allow for that when I read Speedcafe stories or his Bulletin column.

Correct, I fairly sure that the other PR agency likewise has "friendly media" and the ability to get things through that "Crusher" may not be able to... that's the game.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Yep, Mediawatch is a smarmy, smartarse, holier than though silly little program but it does get picked up (as it has been here) by many, no doubt about it. Crusher would be feeling the pain today I reckon. Edit: not feeling the pain too much - just found out he's in the US having a great old time.

Rather large corporates tend to be fairly risk averse creatures, so It's concievable that BAM will lose money because of this... The saddest part about that is that because it was on Mediawatch some people will think that they've been dodgy and had the whistle blown on them..... when the reality is it's the other guys who've been dirty and underhanded.