Goodbye, Grattan


I wasn’t going to write about Michelle Grattan’s departure from The Age. Cyber feelings were unusually wired, and I happen to write for her old ‘paper. Best to stay out of the fray, I thought. Don’t get zapped.

But the media was on my mind. I’d written a strange and jagged analysis of our fourth estate this week—jammed with invective and frustration—while Grattan’s ghost had appeared unnamed in previous columns and blog posts of mine. What did all this mean?

On Grattan there was a discernible split of sentiment on Twitter: fond remembrances and warm tributes from colleagues; contemptuous jeers from a younger generation of activists, bloggers, wonks and news junkies.

Before I look at these sentiments, it’s worth pointing out that Twitter’s a shonky barometer of public sentiment. Estimates suggest 1.8 to 2 million active Australian accounts—impressive, but not representative. What’s more, my feed—and probably yours—is overwhelmingly stuffed with journos, academics, writers, pollies and staffers. As per every other aspect of life, the distortions, rehearsed responses, and bien-pensant of tribalism abounds.

We all know this.

Which is why Peter Brent’s tweet interested me. Today he wrote: “Much bagging of ‘MSM’ by countless self-appointed online critics in essence boils down to: does journo writes nice things about Julia?”

I think there’s truth to this, borne of my 18 months or so playing in, and learning from, this vulgar neurosis. But what does this have to do with Michelle Grattan? Well, the tweeted criticism of her often used this acronym, citing Grattan as a powerful emblem of its flaws, its pathologies, its institutionalised myopia.

I have duelling opinions on the “MSM”—many of them critical, and I’ll riff honestly on them shortly—but I also have some thoughts on the casual use of that acronym. This shorthand can’t meaningfully signify a landscape that’s home to Four Corners and ABC24; Ross Gittins and Michael Stuchtbury; Laura Tingle and Andrew Bolt. Often it’s used as a pejorative by the spectacularly embittered.

But I also say to Brent—though I’m sure he’s aware of this—that amongst some adopters of this acronym there’s also a sophisticated frustration, and that frustration is often constructively transposed into structural analyses of the media.

And so we arrive at the lady of the moment. Michelle Grattan, doyen of the press gallery.

For the years I lived in Canberra, Grattan’s slot on Radio National’s Breakfast was a focal point of muted rage and boredom. Each morning another solemn and perfunctory reiteration of “he said, she said”. Each morning a cursory mud-map of the banal agitations on the Hill. Each morning more dreary calculus of “X was leaked, which makes Y look bad.” It was often obvious, often useless and always colourless. There was no wit, no daring, no depth. No eloquence. Worse, there was no sense that anyone outside our invented capital should give a fuck. Grattan’s spot gave the impression of losing the forest for the ring-barked trees, analysis hermetically sealed off from The People that this whole game is ostensibly about.

But for me, the gravest sin was that it was dull. This isn’t a superficial concern. My boredom won’t be undone with gossip or innuendo. I don’t need hyper-articulate, gin-soaked raconteurs to liven things up. I don’t need the jangled rhythms of a gonzo freak. Rather, my boredom might be staved off with substantive and curious examinations of policy. I want things ripened with illumination, humour and eloquence. I want things to be conjoined thoughtfully to all of the people lucky enough not to live in Canberra. A dependence on “the drip” or on polls might provide objective copy, but it can quickly become a substitute for meaning, muscularity, discernment and flair.

Now let me complicate things.

First, Grattan’s sobriety is impressive. Her copy was shorn of hyperbole, soldered by corroboration. While I think higher things were ignored in place of a particular form of diligence, the unfashionable devotion was impressive. As Grattan’s stature grew, and she was no longer dependent upon the drip, she did not transmogrify into an ego-beast, a purveyor of cheap thoughts and activism. Her sobriety remained.

But that’s just half the story. Grattan never leveraged her stature into things of interest, pieces that might endure. Grattan’s name may echo, but few of her pieces of the last few years will. I agree here with Andrew Elder, even though I felt his piece ungenerous, snide, top-heavy.

Second, and more generally, there are plenty of “mainstream” journalists doing terrific work, whether it be economic analysis, investigations or intelligent sports. It’s an unexciting observation, but it’s important to underscore the uselessness of the acronym “MSM” if your media criticism is comprised solely of its flippant use.

Final complication: sometimes buried amongst the petty plotting, the planted stories and strategic leaks are the outlines of a genuinely Big Story—Labor’s leadership vote last February, for instance, that was initially dismissed by some bloggers and independent journalists as a beat-up. It’s a big ask—and much more complicated than we think—to demand journalists ignore the things that might presage a major story.

All of which is preface to this useless platitude: sometimes our frustrations with journalists are sound, sometimes they’re not. And sometimes they’re in between.

So these are some of the complications, some of the mitigating factors. Some of them, anyway.

A useful example of the contingencies and priorities that shape journalism comes, I think, in the story of Watergate. I’ve banged on about those two chaps before and, yes, it borders on obsession. Filter my words as you see fit.

But I have a theory that the success of Woodward and Bernstein—and I’ve said this before—resulted from them being young. From being outsiders. They weren’t senior enough to wander in the slipstream, which at the time was the campaign buses of the Presidential candidates. That’s where conventional wisdom decided where The Story was, but really it was at home, right under their noses in Washington DC. Woodward and Bernstein, relegated to junior desks, saw things from a very different angle, they privileged very different things. As for Woodward the elder statesman, well…  [paywall].

Maybe—and it’s just a loose hunch—maybe something similar can apply to Obeid’s long and odious influence in NSW. A thought, and only that.

I’m currently working on a very long bit of journalism. A book on a murder, its thick, concentric ripples of grief and how they intersect with police, lawyers, psychiatrists and prison officers. The whole point, as I see it, is to examine institutions—their biases, their preferences—and how they make, shape and intersect with individuals.

There’s no narrative here. No cute way of tying things together. There’s just life. There’s just the work of meeting strangers and listening to them, and examining how they fit in the constellation of the justice system. It’s heavy work, but it’s satisfying.

In Grattan’s Radio National spot, I didn’t recognise the same work of tying the life of a political or government institution to the lives of voters. I didn’t see much analysis of how government departments work, or don’t work. I didn’t detect any sense of the absurd that comes from examining these things, in all of their inglorious complications and ironies. No sense of humour, no sense of wonder, no sense of the ridiculous. There was little bathos, but pathos was impossible. Instead, there were portentous accounts of individual ambition and “optics”—most of it rendered irrelevant by bloodlessness.

So, as George Megalogenis once said, over to you…

12 Responses to Goodbye, Grattan

  1. peter mott says:

    Thoughtful post. I think the bagging of the msm is much deeper than “being nice to Julia”, though that plays a role. Your post conveys beautifully the sense of frustration at how Michelle Grattan essentially wastes those precious moments on Radio National: it is, it isn’t yet it might be.

    I also think much of the frustration directed at Michelle Grattan is the belief that perhaps she is capable of so much more. We will see this with the switch to the Conversation.

    As your article noted the other day, there is much to bemoan with political discourse & it needs to improve rapidly.

  2. Noely says:

    I am not sure that the MSM term is only for those that “don’t write nice things about Julia”, though admit a lot of it is. Personally I despise the term as you can’t lump a whole profession into one basket and tar everyone with the same brush that is wrong. For me, I get disapointed reading exactly the same ‘take’ on the same few issues that have been picked to be ‘newsworthy’ each day. Surely, in this day & age of 24/7 media, higher education and communication, there are a hell of a lot more news stories out there to impart & opine about, that would serve the public much better that the same old same old. It is almost at the stage where all the TV Stations (free to air & paid for) and Newspapers reporting could be ‘interchangble’ you are hearing & reading the same, just different background 🙁

    Thanks for a different view of Ms Grattan, as a punter I still find it astonishing that a Journalist, regardless of how good or how long her career was, would announce a retirement/move in a press conference? I particularly like your referring to the bubble that Canberra is…

    Just an idea… Maybe reporting from Canberra could be improved if it was not so disconnected from real life? How about Press Gallery do 2 weeks work experience out in the Suburbs & regions every year (like the TAFE teachers), would not forget who & why they are reporting then?

  3. Pingback: No Crap App: w/b 4 Feb 2013 « No Crap App

  4. Gillian says:

    Yes, you nail it. I have been bemused by the awe and deference bestowed on Michelle Grattan because I’ve never seen anything that justified the saintly image the woman seems to have garnered.

    She did modest things quite well. Competent and pleasant, but as you say, dull.

    She deserves some polite hand-clapping, not the pedestal that too many people seem to have at the ready for her.

    Thanks for mentioning Ross Gittins – there’s a journalist worthy of a pedestal!

    Your points about MSM ring true too. I’d just add that the MSM can be bundled into one lump when it comes to issues that they all ignore, deny or downplay. Climate change would be one example, except that SMH/Age seems to be on the ball these days.

  5. Julie says:

    Thoughtful but I do agree with Peter Mott that the antipathy toward the MSN goes much deeper. It’s the poor and thoughtless rubbish that passes as journalism that I find offensive.
    I’ve just finished reading a book called ‘This Age We’re Living In’ – never a bestseller. But every journo in the country would benefit from reading pp283-4 on what will make readers come back to reading newspapers!

  6. pk says:

    Great read.

    Grattan’s first piece for the Conversation is up here, Apart from a real clanger – talking up horse race journalism – there are real signs that Grattan’s new role will set her free from an austere print style. When Grattan left The Age, a lot of journos believed she was retiring and praised her as such. Actually she is joining one of the best publications in Australia.

    Whether you love her or hate her, Grattan said she wants to analyse policy in the election ahead and I think that’s laudable.

  7. Ben Eltham says:

    bwa ha ha ha yep I got that wrong

  8. I agree that “cyber feelings were unusually wired” on Michelle Grattan’s departure, and I’m not going to address her particular articles here as I admit I’ve stopped reading them. However I disagreed a great deal with the idea that her work was out of date due to her generation, as instanced by the @pollytics post on Twitter, “No offence to Michelle Grattan – but I hope she is the first of many of that gen to leave. The time is right – that prism no longer works”.

    Good journalists whose writing demonstrates “illumination, humour and eloquence” can come from any generation. To dismiss the older generation is the prerogative of the young-er. My teenage kids won’t give you all long before they’re also calling for this year’s in-crowd to budge over.

    And don’t forget that if Grattan and her fellow embedded political reporters have a “dependence on ‘the drip’” then so too did Woodward. Without ‘Deep Throat’ where would Woodward have been in chasing the endgame? Again, I don’t think it was because he and Bernstein were young that they succeeded, although it did make them better looking in the movie.

    I think there is a point to #MSM coverage of politics and that it needn’t be just “he said, she said” journalism. Just as the best international newsgathering is found through a combination of embedded reporters, unilateral reporters and local reporters, so should the coverage of politics benefit from having everyone conversing and exchanging ideas. It is great that lots of people are prodding the numbers, testing the polls and questioning people’s authority to deem things so. As Greg Jericho argues in his recent book, the main difference between #MSM journalists and bloggers is that the former have access and proximity to politicians. They should represent people and ask the questions that people want them to ask. If they retain a “fourth estate” role, then they should wield it to check on power. As these are great jobs to have, these jobs should be open to contest, and not be given out by papers as prizes for having served time. This is where fresh blood – you might argue more “muscular” reporting – should be able to get in and make a difference.

  9. Lisa Hill says:

    Well, I liked this. I thought it was just me, bored out of my brain by (a) Grattan on RN and (b) the same-old, same-old…

    What I’d like to know is, how come RN Breakfast can’t tell the difference between real current affairs and analysis and what they’re dishing up? It’s easy to blame Fran Kelly and her inane preference for sport, celebrity gossip and baaaaad music, but presumably there’s some management behind her that thinks it’s ok too…

    If anyone out there is still listening to the program, it might matter in an election year.

  10. Stan Ivanov says:

    Well said Marty.
    And isn’t Peter Brent as predictable as ever? Why would anyone pay attention to what he said/wrote?
    “The Australian” is a foreign publication anyway one looks at it.

  11. I had emailed RN late last year suggesting that it was time for Breakfast to move on from Grattan, I had suggested Megalogenis but I’m happy with Paul Bongiorno.

  12. Pingback: Choose your friends carefully | AusVotes 2013

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *