The Walkley Foundation an Alliance Initiative

Last year's Gold Walkley winner delivered the following speech to the Australian media's heavy hitters at today's Walkley Luncheon for Editors and Producers:

We've got a problem. Those of us involved in journalism, I mean. A big problem. The News of the World phone hacking scandal has focused attention on it, although it's been there for quite a while, slowly getting worse.

I'm talking about a declining trust in what we do and the way we do it. I know trust in other occupations and institutions has headed south as well. Contempt for politicians has reached a new level, judging by the way the prime minister is treated. And there are a lot more jokes about lawyers than about journalists.

But we need to worry about our craft. If people lose trust in what we do there's not a lot of point doing it. 

We can say: "Phone hacking doesn't happen here." But that misses the point.       

Last time I spoke at this function, in 2008, I'd just come back from a visit to Washington DC with a souvenir from the Newseum - a coffee mug bearing the words, "Trust me. I’m a reporter."

Even the big new museum in the American capital devoted entirely to the business of news, and honouring those who gather and explain it, had accepted that the conjunction of "trust" and "journalism" would cause great amusement.

And it was happy to cash in on it.

Early this year Lindsay Tanner, the former finance minister, published a book called Sideshow – Dumbing Down Democracy.

His theme was one we've been hearing quite a bit. That the media increasingly focuses on trivia. That the balance between informing and entertaining has shifted. That the media distorts.

That "editors, producers and journalists, just like politicians, craft stories around their audiences' desires. They mine the deepest prejudices and fears of a particular demographic group, and regurgitate them dressed up as news."

I'll tell you what. When politicians start comparing journalists to politicians, things are serious.

Anyway, you get the picture.

It's not just one ex-politician. I've been reading a lot of this sort of thing lately.

I read a learned article from a university academic about the McDonaldisation of journalism.  It claimed  junk journalism is taking over like junk food, and quoted the BBC's chief political reporter, Andrew Marr, bemoaning the trend to "bite-sized McNugget journalism".

I read a lecture in which a respected former executive of The Guardian in Britain said a description that could be applied to a lot of today's journalism is: "Make it juicy, make it brief, and make it up."

I read an article by my old mate Mark Latham in which he wrote: "The serious scrutiny of the 1970s and '80s has been replaced by the frivolity of breakfast TV and the shallowness of Sky News."

(Mark would know, of course. His employment in a journalistic role in last year's federal election went a fair way to proving his point.

Somebody – I can't remember who – once said that people may expect too much of journalism. Not only do they expect it to be entertaining, they also expect it to be true.

I think the media in this country don't do a bad job of meeting both those expectations. But that's certainly not a widely shared belief at the moment.

I took heart from the fact that, in the end, the News of the World scandal was exposed largely as a result of brilliant investigative journalism by The Guardian's Nick Davies.

So I read his book, Flat Earth News, only to find he'd written there: "I work in a corrupted profession."

As I said, as a craft, as an industry, we've got a problem.

We need to try to rebuild the public's faith in journalism. And that is a key reason I think the Walkley Awards are important.

The Walkley Awards – and the other activities of the Walkley Foundation – are about trying to uphold and improve standards in journalism. That's fundamental to the task of improving the way journalism and those who practise it are regarded.

The awards are also a way of focusing attention on the best journalism so that readers, listeners, and viewers see that there is good journalism, quality journalism, being produced. A great deal of it, in fact.

But if the Walkleys are going to perform these functions, the best work needs to be entered. And we need you – editors and producers – to encourage your teams to submit their best work.

People do need encouragement.

There should be no shortage of great work this year. It's been a heck of a year for news. Just think about some of the things that have happened.

The Walkley year began with widespread flooding across Victoria – the first of a series of natural disasters.

In October, a tsunami hit the coast of Sumatra, killing 400 people and leaving hundreds missing.

In January and February around 200,000 people in 22 cities and towns across Queensland were affected by the most disastrous and widespread floods in the state's history.

Tropical Cyclone Anthony hit near Bowen in Queensland's north in January. The following month, Cyclone Yasi began a trail of destruction at Mission Beach.

The devastation and loss of life in the floods and cyclones, by the way, is one reason we're pleased to be taking the Walkleys back to Queensland on November 27 for the first time since 1999.

We want to shine a light on a community that has been through so much this year, as well as honour the journalists who covered those extraordinary and tragic events.

Also in February came a 6.5 magnitude earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand that killed 181 people. Nature wasn't letting up.

In March a 9.1 magnitude earthquake and massive tsunami hit Japan, killing more than 15,000 people and leaving another 8000 missing.

And, as if that wasn't enough, there was the nuclear emergency at four power stations, but particularly Fukushima.

Stories don't get much bigger than this.

But there were plenty of other major stories during the 12 months.

In Australia we've had the drama and the comedy – and, some would say, the tragedy – of a hung federal parliament. Broken election promises, the carbon tax fight, plummeting polls, rioting asylum seekers, the tragic deaths of asylum seekers in the boat disaster at Christmas Island, and now the Malaysian swap solution, given added drama and suspense by the High Court.

At the state level, we've had Labor swept from office like so much unwanted rubbish in NSW, the resignation of a premier in Tasmania, and the ousting of Mike Rann by ALP factional bosses in South Australia. Plus the strange elevation of Campbell Newman to the position of Queensland Opposition Leader, even though he's not in Parliament.

What else? The Americans embarked on a secret and successful mission into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. That wasn't a bad story. There was the awful bombing and mass shooting by a fanatic in Norway.

We've had rolling economic crises in the United States and Europe. The US losing its triple A rating. Stocks crashing as gloom and doom spread around the world.  Rioting in Greece. Mobs burning and looting all over London.

There's been a royal wedding, of course. In sport, the FIFA corruption scandals, England's Ashes victory and the first sixfor in Twenty20.

And of course, the News of the World scandal and the humbling of Rupert Murdoch before a House of Commons Committee.

Which is where we came in.

I've only scratched the surface. It's been a hell of a news year. I hope—I'm sure—that this year's Walkley entries are going to reflect that.

Let me talk briefly about the judging process. Last year there were around 1300 entries. The first round of judging will start in mid-September.

Walkley finalists are chosen by more than 100 judges representing news outlets across Australia. Some of the best names in the industry make up those national judging panels.

They come from tabloid and broadsheet newspapers, commercial radio and television, the ABC, SBS, and independent freelance media.

And then the selection of winners from the finalists in each field is made by the Walkley Advisory Board, which operates on a rolling tenure basis. Which is to say, some of us are replaced each year, so that there's constant turnover.

The Walkley Board also selects the winner of the Gold Walkley from across the category winners, and it determines who should receive the Walkley Award for Journalistic Leadership.

It's a massive exercise, and a lot of people contribute to it. For which we thank them.      
But let me emphasise again: if the Walkleys are to do what they should do—that is, showcase the best journalism across all areas—we need people like you to help, too.

What we hope you'll do is encourage people in your organisations, in your teams, to submit their best work.

People sometimes need a nudge. Maybe they don't realise how good their stuff is. Maybe they don't recognise its significance. Maybe they're just modest. That's possible, even in this business. I happen to know that last year’s Gold Walkley winner was not going to enter and had to be leaned on by his news director.

The thing I've found most gratifying since I joined the Walkley Board is the quality of the entries. I didn't realise just how much reason we have to be proud of journalism in this country until I got to look at the news stories, the features, the sports writing, the television and radio reports, the photography, the camera work, the cartoons and so on—all the work that ends up being short-listed.

I'm not just talking about the stuff in the big metropolitan dailies or the major networks, either. I also have in mind the work in regional and suburban newspapers, in regional radio and television, in publications I would not normally get to read.

It's an eye-opener.

That being said, though, when we go through the judging process, I've been conscious from time to time – and I assume others on the Board have had the same experience – I've been conscious that some outstanding stories I'd read or seen during the year, some exceptional pieces of writing or reporting, are not there.

They haven't been entered.

It's frustrating when you know that there've been really exceptional examples of journalism during the year but they can't be considered for an award because they're not in front of the judges.

It's not just big scoops that are worthy of entry – though we now have a special category for best scoop.

In news reports, for example, the qualities judges take into account include writing excellence, accuracy, story-telling, ethics, research, impact and public benefit – all the things our critics claim are neglected.

If you look at the criteria, you'll see they're also looking for "courageous journalism".

That doesn't necessarily mean risking your life – although there are plenty of our colleagues who do that.

As everyone here well knows, it can also require courage to go against popular opinion, to offend powerful politicians, to take on important interest groups, to criticise sacred cows, to expose corruption and other wrong-doing.

In the newspaper and magazine feature writing categories, the judges look for writing flair and originality. And they look for creativity.

A couple of final points. Don’t just think in terms of "print news report", "television reporting", "radio current affairs" and so on.

There are also the all-media awards. They recognise all forms of media—including photography, print news and features, radio and television news and documentaries.

There's no reason the same piece of work can't be entered in one of these all-media sections as well as in the relevant print, photography, radio or television categories.

The deadline for entries is rushing up on us. Entries close at 5pm sharp on Friday, September 2.

As I said, we've got a problem. We need to defend what we do, and to demonstrate that things are not nearly as bad as critics claim.

The way to do that is to encourage, recognise and reward good journalism. And to put the best on display.

The Walkleys do that.

 

Heed Laurie's call. Enter your best work in the Walkley Awards today. Entries close September 2, 2011.