Australian journalism prizes 'objectivity' over truth

The dispute between Chris Hedges and David Marr reveals much about the state of our press

Following the announcement of Donald Trump’s ‘peace’ deal and the resulting ‘ceasefire’ there has been a lot of quiet commentary in legacy media circles about the future of the fifth estate.

“What are all these single-issue media critics going to do now that the issue is solved?” is the question being asked in newsrooms, as if now that the bombs have officially stopped dropping over civilians in Gaza (never mind that they haven’t), audiences will return to the legacy fold.

This question isn’t based in malice but a fundamental misunderstanding of what caused the schism in trust between audiences and media. It’s also not new. There has always been a level of distrust within newsrooms of people who undertake journalism away from the fold. It’s easy to dismiss renegades, even as the mainstream is forced to follow them.

Who gets to be a journalist — and who doesn't

Who ‘gets’ to be a journalist has always been set by the mainstream – you must work for a masthead, a network or an established broadcaster to be counted as a ‘proper’ journalist. With one of those behind you, then it follows that everything you do is ‘journalism’.

Without the overhang of an established brand, then you are not a journalist. You’re something else. An activist. A ‘citizen’ journalist. A blogger. A podcaster. An influencer. A content creator. Someone ‘masquerading’ as a journalist. It doesn’t matter if you once worked for an established media outlet. You left. Whatever you’re doing now obviously can’t be considered ‘journalism’.

You can understand why. Anything outside is a threat, and threats always have to be greeted with hostility, or manufactured indifference.

But the shift to the fifth estate (which has existed, in some form or other, since we started counting institutional ‘estates’) is not and has never been about a single issue. And that is what many have missed.

The idea that a ‘peace’ deal (that everyone knows is bupkis) is going to suddenly reverse people’s skepticism and cynicism in the media and return people to legacy sources also reveals the institutionalism at the heart of much of Australian media.

It has never just been one issue which has turned people away. It is legacy media’s inability to see how issues are connected — and indeed, how the bigger picture matters, which is what had people looking for different sources of information in the first place.

So much of what counts as ‘news’ now is the incremental, the horse race. XY said this followed by XX responds to what XY said. There is no analysis, no context. No acknowledgement that what they are reporting they know to be misleading or a lie, just that something has been said. And then, if someone else says something different, well then, we’ll report that too.

But they know a lie is halfway around the world before the truth leaves the starting blocks and they are relying on the same polarised emotions social media algorithms encourage to prompt someone to click on a headline, or stay on a clip.

Much of legacy media relies on the ‘debate’ itself. It’s not the substance of the debate or even the tangible damage the debate causes in the real world that matters — it is the debate itself that counts.

That’s how you get people arguing with someone who literally doesn’t believe some humans have the right to exist and ending on ‘well, we have to hear out all sides’ as if there is any legitimacy to someone who denies a genocide, or is advocating for trans people to be stripped of their rights. The ‘debate me bro’ culture that people like Charlie Kirk mined like an ideas cesspit and came up with grifter’s gold is treated seriously by members of the media who legitimise it because it legitimises their own role.

Chris Hedges, David Marr and ‘debate’ over substance

Most journalists will adopt the contrarian position not because of principle or evidence, but because it exists. They then become caught by their own trap — they play the ‘objective’ role of contrarian, receive backlash because of their lack of good faith arguments and deliberate obfuscation of the bigger picture, get defensive and then double down. Because in this form of journalistic analysis or endeavour, it is not the substance of the discussion, but the debate itself that matters.

We saw that most recently on Monday night, when David Marr ‘sparred’ with Chris Hedges on ABC Radio’s Late Night Live.

Marr has a long history as a champion of journalism, and causes, in Australia. His history as The National Times editor and host of ABC’s Media Watch, where he played a key role in exposing the Cash for Comment affair, as well as his demolition of anything Gerard Henderson has ever had to say, has made him a legend in Australian media circles.

Hedges is an international legend, whose reporting has won Pulitzer prizes and been a feature of almost every single modern war since the 1991 Gulf invasion, where he refused to take part in the sanitised military reporting pools. He was in Australia to deliver the Edward Said Lecture, along with additional speaking engagements, including at the National Press Club.

The Press Club cancelled his appearance, then tried to claim it had never been confirmed (easily disproven by emails to Hedges and a screenshot from the club’s own webpage) setting off a firestorm largely ignored by the mainstream media.

Marr had Hedges on his show to discuss the cancellation. But from the get-go it became obvious it was a debate. Journalists have let down their Gaza colleagues: Hedges, you are affirmative, Marr, the negative. Debate.

Hedges wasn’t there to debate what to him, and to those who have followed his reporting, was obvious. Marr seemed captured by the forum, rather than the substance. Hedges aptly made his case, but he shouldn’t have had to.

You can’t be ‘objective’ about fascism

At the same time, the ‘straight’ news adopts such a hands-off position from nuance and context that it can end up a parody of itself.

Trump’s AI-generated middle finger to the No Kings protests, which has attracted one of the largest groups of protesters in modern US political memory was described by The New York Times as “President Trump shared what appeared to be an A.I.-generated video on social media. It shows Mr. Trump wearing a crown and flying a jet that dumps brown liquid on demonstrators”.

You can imagine the discussion in the newsroom. “Well, we don’t know for sure that he gave the AI a prompt to drop shit on protesters from a fighter jet, it could have just been coffee. Better just say ‘brown liquid’ to be safe.”

Mainstream media seems incapable of calling out fascist behaviour or, indeed, fascists among Trump’s cabinet — one can only assume because geographical indicators mean that you can only be a fascist if you were grown in the National Fascist Party region in 1922.

But they will work overtime in telling you why someone isn’t technically a fascist using a definitional debate that would have killed it at the University of Sydney debating society. Just as it isn’t technically a genocide until the genociders agree, apparently. Or that it’s not technically shipping weapons to Israel because it’s just the parts that open the door for the weapons to fall. Or that it’s not technically unlawful to have automated cancelled welfare payments because a court hasn’t explicitly spelt it out yet. Or it’s not technically police brutality because it was against protesters.

The discussion in the mainstream media around Albanese’s meeting with Trump has largely centered on just how far Albanese should have prostrated himself in front of the US president, just how much of our national interests he should have signed over. “How far up Trump’s arse should the Australian prime minister have climbed? Our experts discuss.”

At the same time Queensland’s rainforests became the first carbon sink to turn into a carbon emitter (meaning they are no longer absorbing carbon, but now emitting it, which is a problem given their place as part of the earth’s lungs), media is focussed on whether one of the biggest climate wreckers in Australian politics has a point about Net Zero.

We could go on. Because it’s never been about one issue. It’s about moral clarity. You can’t be ‘objective’ about fascism. You can’t be ‘objective’ about genocide. You can’t be ‘objective’ about whether people have the right to live. You can’t be ‘objective’ about the climate crisis.

You can tell the truth. If existing media sources won’t or can’t do that, audiences will find those who do. And they aren’t going back.