Spotlight on media credibility

Anna Wallis PHOTO/FILE

In five days we will know how much effect Nicky Hager's book Dirty Politics, or the big reveal from Kim Dotcom had on the election.

The effect on politicians of Hager's book will take time to reveal itself, if it ever does.

Hopefully, the effect on journalists will be evident sooner.

Both Hager and The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald are well-regarded journalists, the latter having earned a joint Pulitzer. Hager is used by many journalism schools to teach the craft. If Dirty Politics has shown anything, it's how easily the job can be corrupted.

A website that wins a journalism award turns out to be a clearing house for propaganda, with stories published for paying clients. Journalists are used to fight internecine political battles, particularly over candidate selection. And commentators used as talking heads in the media are not so open about who they work for, leaving the public unaware what their job actually is.

The lines between journalism and PR are blurring like never before. And it won't get any easier, with native advertising and other paid content on the increase on the web.

No media is immune.

We all use press releases from organisations and business. They can go in papers or on websites with no journalistic input. Those who write them argue no reporter is needed and block requests to talk to the subjects. There are valid arguments for such insistence, such as the need to get information correct; there are semi-valid arguments for using them - smaller newsrooms.

Yet readers expect the story was written by a reporter and not a communications department. Perhaps it should be labelled as such.

That brings us back to the issue of transparency. We need to know where a story is coming from and the reporting is balanced. More vigilance is required if the media is to retain credibility.