Journalism before spin doctoring

IF YOU want to read an abject surrender from the role of journalism, you need look no further than the editorial in the Launceston Examiner on Monday.

That newspaper has taken umbrage at the Mercury’s decision to identify the man responsible (pictured), for the threeday lockdown of Southern Tasmania.

“Yes, this person did the wrong thing, but there was process in place to deal with his actions,” it wrote.

There’s an old adage: News is the stuff someone wants to keep out of the paper. The rest is advertising.

It is a rare thing indeed for a newspaper to fight so vehemently to keep the public in the dark. On Sunday, Director of Public Health Mark Veitch explained why he would not release the details of a case. Dr Veitch is acting in accordance with the law and the ethics of his profession. They’re great rules for doctors, not so much for newspapers.

This case is not like that of someone in New Town with a sniffle. This is a man with a highly contagious disease who had deliberately concealed his movements from contact-tracers.

His actions put nearly 300,000 people into a three-day lockdown.

Revealing his identity has helped the public report where he had been. That is a newspaper acting in the public interest.

If the editorial writer at the Examiner wants to repeat what the folk in authority say without question, there are plenty of openings for spin doctors. A newspaper performing its role properly questions those in power – and doesn’t just meekly adopt what the man at the podium says.

Ask some hard questions, take a stand, fight for your readers, tell them something important that they don’t know. Worry about being right, not being popular. Someone has to do it.