Given the recent rants about journalism and journalistic standards [mine and Jonathan Este's], Anna Warwick’s current blog entry at news.com.au is particularly apropos.
In her post Lost my designer sunnies, Ms Warwick (pictured) relates how she acted when she had to pay $14 for a glass of wine at an up-market city bar.
“I’m a journalist, I can’t afford this!” I said, hoping they might become afraid of bad publicity and offer me a freebie. Obviously I wasn’t at all scary. Joe ushered me out as soon as we’d finished our round.
As commenter Nikky of Sydney pointed out:
And they wonder why journalists in traditional media think blogging isn’t journalism… Saying that you’re a “journalist” and hoping to get a freebie at a bar is just disgraceful. Check the code of ethics, Anna. If you can’t afford a $14 glass of wine, then you might need to drink where all the other journos drink on their own dime, or invite yourself shamelessly along to a publicity event, instead of trying to pressure poor bar staff into giving you free hospitality.
Now there are only two alternatives here. Either Ms Warwick is a journalist — and her butterfly-infested personal website mentions roles such as “managing editor” — so using that status to scam a freebie is unethical. Or she’s not a journalist, which means she was lying.
Actually, there’s a third possibility: that the incident never actually happened. But that puts us back at “liar”.
What also intrigues me are the two commenters who responded the Nikki, telling her to “lighten up” and “take a chill pill”. In my opinion, there’s no such thing as “a little bit corrupt”, same as you can’t be “a little bit pregnant”.
[Thanks for the tip, @Mediamum!]
5 Random Semi-Related Posts
Tags: anna warwick, corruption, ethics, jonathan este, journalism, the ivy, wine
29 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://stilgherrian.com/media/anna-warwick-liar-or-just-unethical/trackback/
22 July 2008 at 7:47 am
Pingback from Stilgherrian · Which are the best Australian political blogs?
20 July 2008 at 1:15 pm
Mediamum
Great post. Thanks to @paccadoodle for bringing this instance to my attention!
The problem with many traditional journos using blogs is that they don’t get the fact they need to recognise their code of ethics when creating content in the online format under their masthead. They think blog means they’re free of their responsibility and accountability.
And I’ve seen it in so many blogs written by traditional journos. The writing is poor, biased, opinionated stuff they’d never spend the money to put on paper — that their editors would never approve of in the print medium.
The fact remains that this blog is still under the news.com.au masthead. And there’s an accountability and responsibility that should go with that.
I think it’s a good thing that new media bloggers call these journalists to account.
20 July 2008 at 1:24 pm
Stuart
It’s sad that she doesn’t recognise that her actions did constitute unethical behaviour. It’s also sad that she’s prepared to try and bludge an overpriced glass of wine.
20 July 2008 at 6:36 pm
Stilgherrian
@Mediamum: I suspect there’s four key reasons why traditional journalists often make such poor bloggers:
@Stuart: Given that the bar in question was The Ivy, decidedly at the upper end of expensive, $14 doesn’t sound all that OTT for a glass of pinot. After all, flaunting your wealth is part of the point of going in the first place. Whingeing about the drink prices seems… ignorant.
20 July 2008 at 7:04 pm
Duncan | Syrup&Tang
I hadn’t had the displeasure of reading Ms Warwick’s guff before. If she hadn’t mentioned her birthday I would have thought it was more like a 21yo’s dummyspit.
Many journos aren’t great at editing their own copy, so their blog presence can readily be a reflection of their un-subbed self. Add to that their frequent naivety about the medium and it easily becomes embarrassing dross.
21 July 2008 at 9:39 am
Nikki Fontaine
Whether unethical or a liar, if you can’t afford to buy the food at an upscale restaurant or bar, you shouldn’t go there and try to intidimate the place into giving you freebies. That just makes you a cheap jerk.
21 July 2008 at 10:11 am
Stephen Stockwell
In the context of the current journalism debate, I can see how the squealings of this
high-heeled glass of water and her ilk are momentarily relevant to your blog. But for the sake of morale and your own peace of mind, I’m sure you understand the need for them to be kept to a minimum.
Just remember to put her and the Ken doll back in the toy box when the fun is over, so no one trips over them.
21 July 2008 at 11:01 am
Stilgherrian
@Duncan: Agree wholeheartedly about the role of sub-editors. In almost every creative endeavour a second pair of eyes can dramatically improve the results.
@Nikki Fontaine: Chances are Ms Warwick isn’t a “cheap jerk”. But you wouldn’t know that from this article, eh?
@Stephen Stockwell: While Ms Warwick may be lightweight and, yes, my energy could be saved for higher-value targets, I’m not really interested in her but the “journalistic values” this represents.
Is the news.com.au brand’s authority enhanced by someone behaving this way? I think not. And yet the traditional news brands keep banging on about their authority compared with “those bloggers”. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Over the weekend this journalists vs bloggers discussion has rippled across the US too, with heavyweights like Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis rolling up their sleeves. I’m currently compiling a summary.
21 July 2008 at 11:13 am
Stephen Stockwell
@Stilgherrian: I’ve never ever thought of gossip columnists as actual ‘journalists’ compelled to follow a code of ethics. Perhaps I ought? Up ’til now, I genuinely believed they were two distinct species. It’s been easy to disregard them that way.
21 July 2008 at 11:19 am
Stilgherrian
@Stephen Stockwell: Except that Ms Warwick claimed to be a journalist. And that’s the nub of my article. If she is a journalist, then her behaviour is unethical. If she’s not, she’s a liar. Either way, she doesn’t enhance the media brand.
21 July 2008 at 12:01 pm
Stephen Stockwell
@Stilgherrian: I’ll agree to that. But if you challenged her personally on that point, I ponder the likelihood of her saying something like, “Well no, I am actually a gossip columnist. But as such, I’m not really ethically compelled to be particularly accurate when telling ritzy bar staff what I do for a living. Scabbing drinks, getting on door lists and talking bullshit while I get my nails done is my job. My readers adore me.”
21 July 2008 at 12:28 pm
Stephen Stockwell
And as for your point about the brand of News Limited and other news networks, I agree that having these socialite writers on their roster probably doesn’t enhance their brand — but I question whether it does much damage either.
In response to the shaky future they’re facing, the big mastheads these days are doing everything they can think of to have something in their pages for everyone — including the many gossip tragics currently keeping glossies like Women’s Day and New Idea in publication into their umpteenth decade. You don’t have to like it, but there is still a very substantial market for press that’s everything ‘proper, serious’ journalism isn’t. And that includes journalistic principles like honesty, integrity, objectivity and fact checking that folks like these don’t give a shit about. And never will.
21 July 2008 at 12:29 pm
Stilgherrian
@Stephen Stockwell: Actually, it looks like “gossip columnist” isn’t quite right. Her Squanderlust blog is about saving money rather than being a spendaholic, and there’s some good tips in the back articles — though the cheesy Meet our spendaholic video is, erm, less than impressive.
Still, whatever kind of columnist, aren’t there some ethical minimums for everyone, just because we’re fellow humans in a civilised society? (Well, fair-go Australians, anyway.) Personally, I think either misrepresenting yourself or making veiled threats to scab a drink isn’t on.
I accept that Ms Warwick and I are from different sub-cultures. Your mileage may vary. If pain persists, seek medical advice.
21 July 2008 at 12:41 pm
Stephen Stockwell
(Spendaholic / gossipist / socialite / over-dressed idiot — in written form, it’s apples and apples isn’t it?)
21 July 2008 at 3:10 pm
skeptical
dude…there ya go again. In a couple of posts you bemoan these journo types for turning their back on blogging, yet in another post you basically do the same because some poor woman, a gossip columnist for God’s sake, gets something wrong.
I mean, can you be more high and mighty oh-so-clever Mr Blogger? Get off your horse man!
Once again, let me ask: what great breaking news have you broken? Where are the bloggers on the front lines in Iraq or Kabul? Show me the outstanding writing on, say, Aussie politics by a blogger.
21 July 2008 at 4:46 pm
Stephen Stockwell
@skeptical: Um…who are you talking to?
21 July 2008 at 5:15 pm
Stephen Stockwell
Never mind. You don’t make much sense.
Just for starters: How is Ms Warwick a “poor woman”, when she acts offended at being called for scabbing drinks at some top-end bar, and bullshitting about her job? Give a girl a break, per-LEASE!
I won’t bother with the rest.
I don’t have time.
21 July 2008 at 5:19 pm
Stephen Stockwell
*Clarification:
Trying to scab drinks.
Thank you.
21 July 2008 at 7:28 pm
skeptical
i’m talking to our host blogger, alright. Not you!
21 July 2008 at 9:26 pm
Papa Latty
I am going to have to go with Liar!
22 July 2008 at 1:45 am
Cheryl Beckham
As someone who has worked at a Kiosk at the local mall selling designer sunglasses, if a person can afford $100 - $400 for a pair of designer sunglasses, then they should not be complaining about a $14 glass of wine. Just my thoughts on the matter!
Sincerely,
Cheryl Beckham
22 July 2008 at 7:27 am
Stilgherrian
@skeptical: I think you’re confusing the general with the specific. My gripe with some (many?) traditionalists is that they assume anything done by anyone who wasn’t trained their way is automatically wrong, and they assert that journalism is all fact-checked etc. All I’m saying is that both journalistic and non-journalistic writing about current events covers the spectrum from very good to very bad. And that the continuation of these stereotyped debates is tedious.
I’m not a big fan of hypocrisy, although like all humans I’m occasionally guilty of it. If that put me on a high horse, so be it.
What stories have I broken? Lately? Nil. That’s not my job. However when I worked with ABC Radio I did occasionally break stories — though not many, because at the ABC that’s the newsroom’s job, not the program producers’, and the demarcation was made quite clear. That, perhaps, is part the problem: some journalists seem to think that only they have the right to break stories.
Where are the bloggers on the front line in Iraq? They’re called “soldiers” and Red Crescent workers, and have been writing interesting stuff. And there’s plenty of good Australian political writing in blogs — I’ll do a list some time. It’s written in the style of news writing — but that’s the point. We’re talking about new forms here.
22 July 2008 at 3:49 pm
matt
‘real journalists’ are much more subtle: wallet open on the table, oops is that my press card.
22 July 2008 at 8:05 pm
Snarky Platypus
Anna Warwick, two words:
Boxed wine
27 July 2008 at 8:44 am
Anastasia
Maybe it’s just me but ‘published author and seasoned performer’ don’t blend well. What does she perform? But the ‘perform’ is an apt word in relation to the bar swindle. She satisfies my creepy list: butterflies. There’s something weird about being a female adult and covering a site with butterflies, but that’s second on my list. The creepiest thing: adult women with boudoirs filled with cutesy stuffed animals on their beds.
Journalists (for mass media) can’t really break free and become bloggers (in the sense of being at liberty to express how they feel about a subject) due to the editorial control in the newspapers. I remember when the Tom Cruise/YouTube video came out and one Sydney journalist couldn’t write about it in his newspaper blog because it was deemed too controversial, so he did the next best thing, sent it out via email. Then again, like newspapers, blogs can be biased, and bloggers can censor others’ comments. It happens. My pet hate on the web at this moment is radical feminist blogging, where any view contrary to theirs isn’t published. It’s ironic: feminists censoring other women.
27 July 2008 at 10:42 am
Stephen Stockwell
@Anastasia: Just out of interest, could you please put me onto a few of these radical feminist blogs you speak of?
Many thanks,
Stephen
27 July 2008 at 3:55 pm
Anastasia
“I hate the patriarchy” is one blog: http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com
27 July 2008 at 5:14 pm
Stephen Stockwell
Wow! She’s really intractably hostile! A Texan running a blog with her shotgun pointed at anyone who dares to contribute. “No one’s as smart as me, fuck the rest o’yuz.”
What was that about not conforming to male ideals, again?
29 July 2008 at 10:23 pm
palabreria
It’s fairly clear who the audience is that News.com is aiming for here. A quick read of the comments pretty much sums up the level of readership.
Most, in fact, all, of the readers who came to this blog foolishly believing they were going to get advice on managing their money have abandoned it in disgust leaving mostly a band of (undoubtedly butterfly loving) “chicks” who are impressed by Ms Warwick’s name dropping and waffling on about how fabulous she and her friends are http://blogs.news.com.au/squanderlust/index.php/news/comments/when_i_grow_up_i_want_to_be/ and a few guys who want to impress her with their self-assessed financial know how.
The thing is it obviously gets hits, regardless of the quality of the writing and the content; the last post has over 100 comments. What worried me more than this hard-hitting piece on the tragedy of losing a pair of designer sunnies were the entries where she failed to do enough research to even realise she was spruiking “wraps” a kind of real estate loan sharking http://blogs.news.com.au/squanderlust/index.php/news/comments/money_secrets_of_the_rich/ Not that News Limited felt any responsibility to remove the post or even distance themselves from her irresponsible comments.