The Press Gallery Dilemma: Rethinking Political Reporting in Canberra

In a recent episode of Media Watch, host Linton Besser raised critical questions about the state of political journalism in Canberra, particularly focusing on the controversial practice of “drops.” This term refers to the embargoed stories provided to journalists by government or opposition members, which cannot be published until a specified time. However, a troubling norm has emerged where journalists agree to publish these stories without including quotes from third parties, effectively limiting the scope of their reporting.

Understanding the Culture of “Drops”

The practice of drops has been a staple in political reporting for decades, but its implications have become increasingly contentious. Besser’s segment suggested that the culture surrounding these drops has grown more pronounced in recent years, raising the question: is it time to reconsider this practice?

The challenge lies in the collective action problem faced by the press gallery. Journalists are often caught in a bind, feeling pressured to maintain good relationships with political staffers to ensure they receive timely information. This dynamic creates an imbalance of power, where the needs of the press are overshadowed by the demands of political operatives.

A Personal Anecdote: The Cost of Compliance

To illustrate the complexities of this issue, consider a personal experience from 2018 when I was working as a political reporter for Guardian Australia. On a Sunday shift, I received a drop regarding then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s ambitious plan to position Australia among the world’s top ten weapons exporters. The story was embargoed until 8 PM, and the established norm dictated that I could not include comments from opposition MPs or other critics in my initial write-up.

However, I opted to provide context by referencing past criticisms of the plan, including a poignant statement from Tim Costello, the chief advocate for World Vision Australia. Costello had previously condemned the government’s proposal, arguing that it would lead to “exporting death” and profiting from bloodshed.

When my article went live, it included this critical context, which led to a furious phone call from a staffer in Turnbull’s office. The staffer, an ex-journalist, accused me of violating the unwritten rules of drops, despite my use of a six-month-old quote. This incident highlights the toxic environment journalists often navigate, where the pressure to conform can lead to personal attacks and a stifling of independent reporting.

The Toxic Dynamic of Political Reporting

In the world of political journalism, verbal abuse from staffers and politicians is not uncommon. Editors often overlook these incidents, focusing instead on the broader challenges of news coverage. This lack of recognition contributes to a toxic dynamic where journalists feel compelled to appease political figures, even at the cost of their integrity.

The fear of being scooped by rival news outlets exacerbates this situation. Editors are often more concerned about breaking news than the ethical implications of how that news is obtained. As a result, the press gallery finds itself in a collective action problem: if one outlet accepts drops with strings attached, others feel pressured to do the same to remain competitive.

Breaking the Cycle: A Call for Change

So, how can the press gallery break free from this cycle? In the Media Watch segment, Peter Hartcher from the Sydney Morning Herald suggested that reporters should disregard any demands from MPs that restrict their reporting. He emphasized that journalists’ primary responsibility is to their audience, not their sources. However, this idealistic approach overlooks the realities of newsroom dynamics, where individual journalists may fear for their jobs if they defy such demands.

For meaningful change to occur, editors must take a stand. They could implement policies that prohibit publishing stories based on drops that come with restrictions. By doing so, they would empower their journalists and help rebalance the power dynamic between the press and political operatives.

Moreover, editors could leverage this policy as a market advantage, publicly declaring their commitment to ethical journalism. This would not only enhance their credibility but also encourage a more transparent and accountable political discourse.

The Need for a Modern Press Gallery

The press gallery has long been an institution in Australian politics, but it must evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The norms that have governed political reporting for decades should be scrutinized and, if necessary, overhauled.

As the media landscape continues to change, the press must adapt to maintain its relevance and integrity. By fostering a culture of accountability and transparency, journalists can better serve their audiences and contribute to a healthier democratic process.

Conclusion

The issues surrounding drops and political reporting in Canberra are emblematic of broader challenges facing journalism today. As the Media Watch segment highlighted, the time has come for the press gallery to confront its collective action problem and reassess its practices. By prioritizing ethical reporting and empowering journalists, the press can reclaim its role as a vital check on power in Australian democracy. The future of political journalism depends on it.