BAM Media on Mediawatch (ABCTV)

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by TWRv12

So what did Mediawatch get wrong here?

Since we’re talking Journalistic standards, I would of thought it was reasonable of Mediawatch to provide a fair and balanced report.
I believe by omitting the prevalence of the behavior and omitting the relationship of the complainant to BAM Media they’ve essentially combined something that happens in virtually every publication in Australia, every day with an e-mail from a scorned competitor to whip into a drama that exists only in the minds of those willing to believe Mediawatch have presented ALL the facts….

Mediawatch claim to “keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media”. Yet, it appears there’s a VERY VERY clear example of manipulation going on that they have completely omitted from their story… That is it would appear that a PR company has successfully manipulated Mediawatch into reporting something they had no prior knowledge of by a company you’d argue is motivated more by commercial gain than altruistic motives and is ultimately common practice, as something far more sinister...

If we talk about consequence of disclosure, the end result is GC Bulletin readers would have had a disproportionate amount of information supplied to them about certain teams (remembering it was WHAT was covered, not HOW it was covered that is the issue). Should a reader have a concern (and aside from the complaint from the other PR company we have no reason to believe readers took issue with the coverage), the BAM website or Facebook pages both have fairly obvious disclosure as to the links between it and the teams receiving additional coverage. On the other hand, Mediawatch’s coverage has lead to BAM’s competitor gaining a significant competitive advantage, while Mediawatch refrain from disclosing their source or the prevalence of “branded content” in media.... both important points if the viewer is to establish the merit or lack of it in what Mediawatch is claiming….

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by sasco

Ah, but there was a significant breach. Example after example was pointed out to viewers and thoroughly convinced me. Not once did it read "subject of this story has connections to the author". Perchance, Media Watch demonstrated in its 6 minute dalliance with the issue just a smattering of instances. I have a feeling there were many, many more.

I think you and I both know if it were a "significant breach". Then the Editor of the GC Bulletin has allowed a systemic and long running breach of policy... and he'd be gone... simple as that.

Originally Posted by sasco

Media Watch http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/more.htm is critically acclaimed, and has a rare, yet highly commendable ability to be critical of itself. It publishes its corrections for the world to see - http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/corrections.htm

Publishes corrections because........

I also note that Jonathon Holmes is quite happy about Crushers axing... "Whup!" he says... very unbiased.

Originally Posted by sasco

Feasibly Holt Street's apparently swift and decisive deed in ending its association with Mr Murray is News Ltd being its own critic, therefore becoming the greatest vindication of the complainant.

Or they could be managing a situation that doesn't need to spiral out of control....

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

the BAM website or Facebook pages both have fairly obvious disclosure as to the links between it and the teams receiving additional coverage….

Not everyone has access to the internet, nor can they be bothered when they pick up a newspaper to go to a random website to look for a statement of disclosure, it should have been in the article, stop dragging irrelevant **** in.

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by Trevor

Not everyone has access to the internet, nor can they be bothered when they pick up a newspaper to go to a random website to look for a statement of disclosure, it should have been in the article, stop dragging irrelevant **** in.

It's relevant for a couple of reasons Trev.
1) ABC's own code is fairly clear that where possible sources should be named. It's also fairly clear that Mediawatch should take into consideration the motives of the source, especially if it's a company. As BAM Media disclose their clients readily and publicly, the informant ceases to be a "whistleblower"... Given that, by their own code Mediawatch should have disclosed their source to ensure the viewer had the full, fair and balanced story...

2) You could argue that attributing the content to a BAM Media is a disclosure in itself and although I know you won't agree, there's probably not the space to write every single client of BAM's that relates to V8 Supercars...

Speaking of disclosure, interesting that no one has raised the many and varied associations the V8 Supercar commentators have that aren't disclosed?

[sasco]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

It's relevant for a couple of reasons Trev.
1) ABC's own code is fairly clear that where possible sources should be named. It's also fairly clear that Mediawatch should take into consideration the motives of the source, especially if it's a company. As BAM Media disclose their clients readily and publicly, the informant ceases to be a "whistleblower"... Given that, by their own code Mediawatch should have disclosed their source to ensure the viewer had the full, fair and balanced story...

2) You could argue that attributing the content to a BAM Media is a disclosure in itself and although I know you won't agree, there's probably not the space to write every single client of BAM's that relates to V8 Supercars...

Speaking of disclosure, interesting that no one has raised the many and varied associations the V8 Supercar commentators have that aren't disclosed?

Oh Chappelli! Your spin in trying to bowl out Media Watch is but it is nowhere near as dangerous as the Sheik of Tweak’s so perhaps you should stop trying to bowl up excuse after excuse then going into bat to defend the un-defendable ball!

The source of the letter is known to both Media Watch AND the Gold Coast Bulletin (and, perhaps, by Mr Murray?).

Mr Holmes stated clearly and succinctly: “the PR company representing one of those teams sent a furious email to the editor of the Bulletin, Peter Gleeson. It complained about...



“an extremely unhealthy bias by the Gold Coast Bulletin towards the clients of its motor racing columnist, Brett Murray, and his company, BAM Media...”

It would seem any person with half intelligence can read and comprehend this blatantly obvious fact, but if you cannot, simply put they do not need to disclose what has already been disclosed!

[St00ge]

Chappelli, do you have anything to disclose in regards to this matter? you seem pretty worked up about it all

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by sasco

Oh Chappelli! Your spin in trying to bowl out Media Watch is but it is nowhere near as dangerous as the Sheik of Tweak’s so perhaps you should stop trying to bowl up excuse after excuse then going into bat to defend the un-defendable ball!

The source of the letter is known to both Media Watch AND the Gold Coast Bulletin (and, perhaps, by Mr Murray?).

QUOTE=sasco;3163959] Mr Holmes stated clearly and succinctly: “the PR company representing one of those teams sent a furious email to the editor of the Bulletin, Peter Gleeson. It complained about...



“an extremely unhealthy bias by the Gold Coast Bulletin towards the clients of its motor racing columnist, Brett Murray, and his company, BAM Media...”

It would seem any person with half intelligence can read and comprehend this blatantly obvious fact, but if you cannot, simply put they do not need to disclose what has already been disclosed!

Oh, name calling...

Just out of curiosity, where does it say that the PR Company supplied a copy of the information to Mediawatch? I must of missed the bit where Mr Holmes gorgeously and amazingly that the PR Company CC'd them in the correspondence.... which is sort of the gist of my "spin".

Just for a second put aside you belief that BAM are the devil. If the PR Company is the source of the information, then it would appear that Mediawatch have run a story from information supplied by a company who have done so primarily on the basis that they will benefit directly from Mediawatch running the story.... which in classic, text book corporate media manipulation.

If the source is the PR company, the very fact that (against ABC SOP), they've allowed their source to remain anonymous. Which I can only guess is because then it becomes obvious that the story is less about (as I've said before) SOP in the PR and Publishing world and more about a PR Company who got beat up at the Gold Coast (which isn't a sexy story that Mediawatch could run is it).

[davester]

Couple of points here.

Crusher's finally been outed giving his clients a free run under the guise of Journalism. Probably a very fair call, and one he wont lose much sleep over, he'll just have to find a new way.

This goes on all the time, more so directly by the mass media's own staff when they neglect to run critical or questionable stories about companies whom also provide significant advertising revenue. Where have been the stories about the major supermarket duopoly increasing prices elsewhere to maintain margin on their discounted products, where have been the stories on the major telco's increasing their mobile cap plans (compare to 2 yrs ago), petrol pricing still stuns, banks delaying rate cuts.

Yes, there are much larger problems in the media than Crusher's advertorials. Maybe Media Watch could focus on what IS NOT BEING REPORTED AND ASK WHY.

[Trevor]

They do do that on occasion davester

Remember Media Watch were the ones that outed that disgraceful behaviour of the Cahnnel 9 cameraman a couple of years ago, not all their work is bad

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by St00ge

Chappelli, do you have anything to disclose in regards to this matter? you seem pretty worked up about it all

The disclosure: Me and the Wife have close to 30 years between us in Media/PR in metropolitan markets in Aussie and NZ (at neither News Ltd or ABC)... I'm not aware that there's anyone I know at BAM or the GCB... I’ve never been the subject of a Mediawatch story. I did go to the same primary School as one of the SBR drivers (although they’re much younger than me and I can’t remember them from School)…

Probably the only thing material worth disclosing (which is a subtle dig at the conspiracy theorists need for everyone to declare EVERYTHING) is that I REALLY dislike the hidden motives and the veneer of “we’re just trying to keep the bu**ers honest” that media like Mediawatch put out… They are an entertainment wolf in a journalistic sheeps clothing, they exist for no other reason than to have a go at people who’re (for the most part) just going about their jobs… Sure they may occasionally run into a bad egg who’s knowingly doing something wrong, but for the same reason why there’s not a weekly “who’s cheating in V8 Supercars show” there’s probably not enough of them to run a weekly 30minute show….

For a show which proclaims itself to be dedicated to rooting out “conflicts of interest, bank backflips, deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation, plagiarism, abuse of power, technical lies and straight out fraud” is padded out with “spelling mistakes and human error” all packaged with the sorts of subtle tools you’d associate with media who’s trying to “misrepresent, manipulate and abuse their power”….

Take for example the episode that contains the BAM/GCB story, it’s padded out with the story of a sub-editor who accidentally said Barack Obama was Muslim (Barack Obama Snr was in fact raised in a Muslim Family), then there’s the journalist who had a “leave this in” note to the sub editor, accidentally left in, his agreement to leave the name of one of his interviewees sponsors in the story is second great sin in this story. Finally, there’s a the small town publisher who’s doing it tough and running local content in favor of taking News from a wire service… A clip is played from Snr Manager saying the aforementioned, before the truth comes out…. The sub 100,000 (and for those that aren’t aware… that’s TINY) circulation paper is HAMMERED for running two stories about their local, volunteer staffed Sports club because they stories were written by the clubs (probably volunteer) PR guy, who used to write for the paper.

“Mediawatch: everyone loves it until they're on it” sounds like the catch phrase of a show that revels in being a bully rather than a show altruistically watching out for out “conflicts of interest, bank backflips, deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation, plagiarism, abuse of power, technical lies and straight out fraud”.

#rantover.

[D.R.T.]

I love the notion that out of all this Media Watch is the bully

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

I love the notion that out of all this Media Watch is the bully

Media watch are a bully. But not because of this, they already are

they have a large publicy funded staff and they show bias on very rarely turning the camera on itself or its stablemates

If they make an error, they take for ever to apologies, if they even bother

they also push their political bias at the expense of other sides

[Trevor]

I watch Media Watch every week peckstar and I can tell you they out the ABC all the time, whether it be TV or Radio or Online, they show no favours to their 'stablemates' I can assure you.

And I hear many apolgies when they get it wrong

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

The disclosure: Me and the Wife have close to 30 years between us in Media/PR in metropolitan markets in Aussie and NZ (at neither News Ltd or ABC)................................................................................................ .................................. I'm not aware that there's anyone I know at BAM or the GCB... I’ve never been the subject of a Mediawatch story. I did go to the same primary School as one of the SBR drivers (although they’re much younger than me and I can’t remember them from School)… technical lies and straight out fraud”.

#rantover.

and their TV ratings are?

Probably the lowest on TV, hell even my wife goes and does other stuff while she waits for Q&A to start after 4 Corners finishes

[GTRMagic]

Awesome discussions here ladies & gents... but we are not quite across the true circumstances of what has happened to get MediaWatch onto the BAM playing pitch

My question is simple...

...how fair is it that certain teams and brands are showcased in a major newspaper publication, with upwards of 250,000 readers per issue (apparently), when those teams and brands are alleged to have a commercial contractual relationships with the writer (or the writer's other business interests) of the articles in that newspaper...

... and that those commercial contractual relationships are not spelled out to the reader, and it appears internally to News Ltd. The reader is arguably led to believe that the article they are reading about are actually for information, and as news...

... when as the disclosures may not be made fully public, which if they were, would shift the status, and perhaps the credibility of the articles from genuine news, to something of an advertorial.

There is an issue of fairness there, fairness to the reader to understand what is being presented to them as news is actually news, and not paid product placements.

Other newspapers have their authors write at the bottom if they received largesse from the subject of the article, or that they own shares in a business being discussed, or similar. So the reader can see that the author may or may not have a bias one way or another, and make the choice to read and absorb the article.

Getting hung up on who informed the Media Watch organisation isnt the point of the discussion, nor is whether Media Watch is the most credible show on the teev.

This issue is one of editorial independence, and how exactly the Gold Coast Bulletin is pitching itself to its readers.

[Trevor]

Thanks GTR, I can see that we are on the same page and thanks for bringing to the fore the real reason for the Media Watch report










(Disclosure: Trevor does not in anyway have a business relationship with GTRMagic)

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Awesome discussions here ladies & gents... but we are not quite across the true circumstances of what has happened to get MediaWatch onto the BAM playing pitch

My question is simple...

...how fair is it that certain teams and brands are showcased in a major newspaper publication, with upwards of 250,000 readers per issue (apparently), when those teams and brands are alleged to have a commercial contractual relationships with the writer (or the writer's other business interests) of the articles in that newspaper...

... and that those commercial contractual relationships are not spelled out to the reader, and it appears internally to News Ltd. The reader is arguably led to believe that the article they are reading about are actually for information, and as news...

... when as the disclosures may not be made fully public, which if they were, would shift the status, and perhaps the credibility of the articles from genuine news, to something of an advertorial.

There is an issue of fairness there, fairness to the reader to understand what is being presented to them as news is actually news, and not paid product placements.

Other newspapers have their authors write at the bottom if they received largesse from the subject of the article, or that they own shares in a business being discussed, or similar. So the reader can see that the author may or may not have a bias one way or another, and make the choice to read and absorb the article.

Getting hung up on who informed the Media Watch organisation isnt the point of the discussion, nor is whether Media Watch is the most credible show on the teev.

This issue is one of editorial independence, and how exactly the Gold Coast Bulletin is pitching itself to its readers.

Sorry. I wasnt aware the life if Ian the truck driver is news. surely its just a general interest piece, same as the other articles in the suppliment. It could have been any truck driver. does it really matter if Ian was paid or if the sponsor of a web site was possible linked.

I would assume Ian was paid for his work.

these articles help to give people an idea of whats happening in the sport, they are not news, why wouldnt a writer talk to someone they knew

and getting hung up on how biased Media watch are is just as relevant. Something drove Media watch tto report, but apparantly we dont know who. why did they hide it. just as relevant

[Trevor]

You just have to have to last word don't you peckstar?

It appears to me (and probably others as well) that you post just for the sake of the argument - IMHO










(Disclosure: Trevor does not in anyway have a business relationship with peckstar - nor do I want to)

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Trevor

You just have to have to last word don't you peckstar?

It appears to me (and probably others as well) that you post just for the sake of the argument - IMHO










(Disclosure: Trevor does not in anyway have a business relationship with peckstar - nor do I want to)

I would ask you to not make personal comments about me and stick to the topic.

Media watch made a poor case and they hid some relevant information from a rival, If it is not an issue, why did they hide it?

[sasco]

Originally Posted by peckstar

I would ask you to not make personal comments about me and stick to the topic.

Media watch made a poor case and they hid some relevant information from a rival, If it is not an issue, why did they hide it?

Cannot see the forrest for the trees. The case presented must not have been poor otherwise the long standing association with its "valued contributor" would be on going. News Limited editorial director Cambell Reid informed Media Watch's Mr Holmes it had ended the association. Crikey confirmed this yesterday with the Gold Coast Bulletin editor.

One would expect Media Watch to vigorously research the subject before airing the issue. The "rival" is known to both Media Watch and News Limited. Neither had an issue with airing a story or making a decision as a result of what has been exposed. Case closed peckstar!

[sasco]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Sorry. I wasnt aware the life if Ian the truck driver is news. surely its just a general interest piece, same as the other articles in the suppliment. It could have been any truck driver. does it really matter if Ian was paid or if the sponsor of a web site was possible linked.

I would assume Ian was paid for his work.

these articles help to give people an idea of whats happening in the sport, they are not news, why wouldnt a writer talk to someone they knew

and getting hung up on how biased Media watch are is just as relevant. Something drove Media watch tto report, but apparantly we dont know who. why did they hide it. just as relevant

But Mr Murray's article did not disclose his company is paid by Jack Daniel's for publicity.

And what IS relevant is Media Watch was seen by far more viewers than the combined Saturday and Sunday V8 telecasts on 7mate from Abu Dhabi!

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by sasco

Cannot see the forrest for the trees. The case presented must not have been poor otherwise the long standing association with its "valued contributor" would be on going. News Limited editorial director Cambell Reid informed Media Watch's Mr Holmes it had ended the association. Crikey confirmed this yesterday with the Gold Coast Bulletin editor.

One would expect Media Watch to vigorously research the subject before airing the issue. The "rival" is known to both Media Watch and News Limited. Neither had an issue with airing a story or making a decision as a result of what has been exposed. Case closed peckstar!

great so the Media watch (the real bully) got a guy sacked, thats awesome dont you think. especially as its no secret who Brett works for and who his sponsors are.

Why havent they told us who complained, its part of the story, its not good enough that it is just internally. Its a lack of disclosure by media watch (again) and doesnt give both sides of the story

[pigs fly]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Awesome discussions here ladies & gents... but we are not quite across the true circumstances of what has happened to get MediaWatch onto the BAM playing pitch

My question is simple...

...how fair is it that certain teams and brands are showcased in a major newspaper publication, with upwards of 250,000 readers per issue (apparently), when those teams and brands are alleged to have a commercial contractual relationships with the writer (or the writer's other business interests) of the articles in that newspaper...

... and that those commercial contractual relationships are not spelled out to the reader, and it appears internally to News Ltd. The reader is arguably led to believe that the article they are reading about are actually for information, and as news...

... when as the disclosures may not be made fully public, which if they were, would shift the status, and perhaps the credibility of the articles from genuine news, to something of an advertorial.

There is an issue of fairness there, fairness to the reader to understand what is being presented to them as news is actually news, and not paid product placements.

Other newspapers have their authors write at the bottom if they received largesse from the subject of the article, or that they own shares in a business being discussed, or similar. So the reader can see that the author may or may not have a bias one way or another, and make the choice to read and absorb the article.

Getting hung up on who informed the Media Watch organisation isnt the point of the discussion, nor is whether Media Watch is the most credible show on the teev.

This issue is one of editorial independence, and how exactly the Gold Coast Bulletin is pitching itself to its readers.

YOU have hit the nail on the head,pecky and chapelli can't see the tree's for the forsest.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by pigs fly

YOU have hit the nail on the head,pecky and chapelli can't see the tree's for the forsest.

Correct. We are seeing the forrest and others are just seeing the trees

and nothing wrong with focusing on the small picture as long as you dont lose sight of the bigger picture. works both ways

[sasco]

Originally Posted by peckstar

great so the Media watch (the real bully) got a guy sacked, thats awesome dont you think. especially as its no secret who Brett works for and who his sponsors are.

Why havent they told us who complained, its part of the story, its not good enough that it is just internally. Its a lack of disclosure by media watch (again) and doesnt give both sides of the story

But they don't have to tell you who complained, it's known to the Gold Coast Bulletin, the complainant wrote to them FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it may seem News Limited's Campbell Reid did not know his contributor was padding out News Limited's pages with his own clients otherwise the association would have continued.

Perhaps peckstar your friends at Nerang should have been more vigilant - wasnt the same operator engaged as event media management? Perhaps you should ask around the office?????