Wild, wild West Australian
Its combative stance against and critical reporting on government has made one Australian paper make people sit up and take notice - but is the West Australian attracting the wrong kind of attention? Pieter Wessels reports. Can a gung-ho young editor dead set on saving the declining figures of his newspaper, destroy the paper as easily as save it? In Australia the editor of the West Australian, the only local daily in the boomtown of Perth, capital of the state of West Australia, is about to find out. The editor is Paul Armstrong, 36, and the newspaper is the West Australian. It is one of the few independent newspapers left in Australia, is not part of the national chains and was once dearly loved by the people of its state. Armstrong has been trying hard to pick up the West Australian's declining readership figures, dropping advertising, and poor sales by an aggressive campaign of local stories and a savage scrutiny of the state government and government services. His campaign is so strong that even other journalists are accusing him of going too far and the state government was driven to retaliate with threats of withdrawing advertising, and no longer warning it of press conferences. The government has also collected and distributed a so-called "dirt file" on Armstrong and his paper. Such action against one paper is rare in Australia. It all began when Armstrong was brought in to head the paper five years ago. He was seen as enthusiastic, focused and obsessed with bypassing stories written from boring media releases and government spin in favour of bright, engaging and tightly-written copy that confronted and entertained. He was known as being right of centre and immediately began attacks on the Labor government and its ministers. The stories grabbed readers as did exposures on poor quality government services and corruption at all levels of government. The government says a robust, inquiring and demanding media is a good thing. But it accuses the West Australian of dishonesty, unethical reporting and the manufacturing of stories that are untrue. It cities one recent story about poor hospital services in Perth with a picture said to be an aged female patient with a neurological condition forced to wait endlessly for treatment in a casualty department. The problem was the woman was not aged, did not have a neurological condition, was offered a bed but chose to sit in the waiting room, and had nothing but praise for her treatment. Similar stories the government says are "just untrue" or "a beat-up" were referred to the Australian Press Commission, which has ruled against the West Australian and Armstrong six times. The state Attorney General, Jim McGinty, warned he might not pass new laws designed to protect journalists because of the West Australian. The federal government has an agreement with all states to press ahead with so-called shield laws aimed at improving press freedom by protecting journalist's sources. McGinty said he would be reluctant to support the legislation in his state because he did not believe in extending protection to a monopoly media outlet behaving in a way that is neither honest nor ethical. While under attack on so many fronts the paper now finds it is also being attacked by senior journalism academics who claim dubious reporting is costing the community's trust. Seven academics, two of whom are in charge of journalism schools in Perth universities, told the West Australian its reports had "increasingly crossed the line into beat-up and misrepresentation" and the newspaper "is losing its authority". The comments came when the West Australian asked Murdoch University's head of journalism, Chris Smyth, to comment on McGinty's decision to exclude the newspaper's reporters from mobile phone media alerts. But Smyth and colleagues at Murdoch and Edith Cowan University accused the newspaper of risking confidence in journalism in general. "Mr. McGinty is unwise to deny media conference alerts to the West Australian newspaper, but many people would understand the frustration that has led to this imprudent action," they wrote in a statement. "Decisions in recent years against the newspaper by the industry's own regulator, the Australian Press Council, demonstrate the paper's style has increasingly crossed the line into beat-up and misrepresentation." "This type of reporting has reduced the paper's authority... when a major news organisation loses community confidence, we risk a loss of confidence in journalism generally." Armstrong had said little in his own defence, relying on editorials in which he repeatedly defends the paper and its stories. He "agrees to disagree" with the Press Council and continues to push his reporters to produce new stories that dig deep. So far his board of directors has stood behind Armstrong, particularly after the personal attacks by government ministers and government restrictions on the whole paper gave it little choice. However that may change soon. The owner of the Seven TV Network in Australia, Kerry Stokes, is taking advantage of the changed media ownership laws to buy up to a good share of the West Australian's controlling company. Stokes is working to take control of the board sometime soon when the confrontation is likely to stop.
Its combative stance against and critical reporting on government has made one Australian paper make people sit up and take notice - but is the West Australian attracting the wrong kind of attention? Pieter Wessels reports. Can a gung-ho young editor dead set on saving the declining figures of his newspaper, destroy the paper as easily as save it? In Australia the editor of the West Australian, the only local daily in the boomtown of Perth, capital of the state of West Australia, is about to find out. The editor is Paul Armstrong, 36, and the newspaper is the West Australian. It is one of the few independent newspapers left in Australia, is not part of the national chains and was once dearly loved by the people of its state. Armstrong has been trying hard to pick up the West Australian's declining readership figures, dropping advertising, and poor sales by an aggressive campaign of local stories and a savage scrutiny of the state government and government services. His campaign is so strong that even other journalists are accusing him of going too far and the state government was driven to retaliate with threats of withdrawing advertising, and no longer warning it of press conferences. The government has also collected and distributed a so-called "dirt file" on Armstrong and his paper. Such action against one paper is rare in Australia. It all began when Armstrong was brought in to head the paper five years ago. He was seen as enthusiastic, focused and obsessed with bypassing stories written from boring media releases and government spin in favour of bright, engaging and tightly-written copy that confronted and entertained. He was known as being right of centre and immediately began attacks on the Labor government and its ministers. The stories grabbed readers as did exposures on poor quality government services and corruption at all levels of government. The government says a robust, inquiring and demanding media is a good thing. But it accuses the West Australian of dishonesty, unethical reporting and the manufacturing of stories that are untrue. It cities one recent story about poor hospital services in Perth with a picture said to be an aged female patient with a neurological condition forced to wait endlessly for treatment in a casualty department. The problem was the woman was not aged, did not have a neurological condition, was offered a bed but chose to sit in the waiting room, and had nothing but praise for her treatment. Similar stories the government says are "just untrue" or "a beat-up" were referred to the Australian Press Commission, which has ruled against the West Australian and Armstrong six times. The state Attorney General, Jim McGinty, warned he might not pass new laws designed to protect journalists because of the West Australian. The federal government has an agreement with all states to press ahead with so-called shield laws aimed at improving press freedom by protecting journalist's sources. McGinty said he would be reluctant to support the legislation in his state because he did not believe in extending protection to a monopoly media outlet behaving in a way that is neither honest nor ethical. While under attack on so many fronts the paper now finds it is also being attacked by senior journalism academics who claim dubious reporting is costing the community's trust. Seven academics, two of whom are in charge of journalism schools in Perth universities, told the West Australian its reports had "increasingly crossed the line into beat-up and misrepresentation" and the newspaper "is losing its authority". The comments came when the West Australian asked Murdoch University's head of journalism, Chris Smyth, to comment on McGinty's decision to exclude the newspaper's reporters from mobile phone media alerts. But Smyth and colleagues at Murdoch and Edith Cowan University accused the newspaper of risking confidence in journalism in general. "Mr. McGinty is unwise to deny media conference alerts to the West Australian newspaper, but many people would understand the frustration that has led to this imprudent action," they wrote in a statement. "Decisions in recent years against the newspaper by the industry's own regulator, the Australian Press Council, demonstrate the paper's style has increasingly crossed the line into beat-up and misrepresentation." "This type of reporting has reduced the paper's authority... when a major news organisation loses community confidence, we risk a loss of confidence in journalism generally." Armstrong had said little in his own defence, relying on editorials in which he repeatedly defends the paper and its stories. He "agrees to disagree" with the Press Council and continues to push his reporters to produce new stories that dig deep. So far his board of directors has stood behind Armstrong, particularly after the personal attacks by government ministers and government restrictions on the whole paper gave it little choice. However that may change soon. The owner of the Seven TV Network in Australia, Kerry Stokes, is taking advantage of the changed media ownership laws to buy up to a good share of the West Australian's controlling company. Stokes is working to take control of the board sometime soon when the confrontation is likely to stop.
