As our newsroom changes, our determination to fight for truth remains constant

The perception of newspaper newsrooms as stodgy, staid institutions is unwarranted in my view. In recent years they have been places of great change, forced – reluctantly in some cases – to adapt to developments in technology, audience behaviour and different commercial models.

This week we’ve been bedding down some changes in The Age newsroom designed to improve the quality of our digital and printed products. Those subscribers with a hawk eye may have noticed some of the more visible changes already, the most obvious being the changes to the Sunday Age masthead.

The new Sunday Age masthead is just one of the more obvious changes we’ve made.Credit:

In time, I hope you will notice improvements in the quality of our work more broadly.

No matter how much things change within the newsroom, there are plenty of constants in journalism that have ever been so and will always remain, such as exhortations from powerful people and organisations attempting to use their means or influence to shut down truthful reporting they see as unfavourable to their interests.

Governments of all stripes employ small armies of people for that very purpose. As do large companies. Studies have shown the extent to which these people now outnumber the journalists they are employed to liaise with – and that they are often better paid. Millions of dollars are spent on senior staff with extensive media contacts, often former journalists, communications experts and lawyers. Lots of lawyers.

Their attempts to shut down criticism manifest in a number of ways. Threatening phone calls, cajolery, banning reporters from events, boycotting or ignoring requests and, of course, legal threats and action.

This week, The Age was forced to defend its reporting about the burgeoning medicinal cannabis industry against the sector’s biggest company, Montu.

The report, by Clay Lucas, revealed allegations that the company set up a legally contentious referral scheme and a supposedly “independent” public lobby group.

Montu took umbrage at our reporting on an affidavit that accused it of unlawfully advertising medicinal cannabis on its websites and social media channels – claims that are being tested in a civil case. It also attempted to expose confidential sources with whom the affidavit had been shared.

The company threatened The Age with legal action if we did not comply. When we told Montu its requests were without legal basis, it followed through on its threats. An urgent hearing was scheduled in the Federal Court.

Montu had seven lawyers in court representing it. The Age was represented by one, our in-house counsel Larina Alick. Their lawyers were pursuing us for their costs, which might have been high enough to make an investment banker blush.

Comparing this match-up to David and Goliath requires only a small dose of hyperbole. The comparison proved apt when a lonely Alick successfully argued that the contents of the affidavit in question had been public for some time. She said, rightly, that any attempt to suppress that information would be akin to King Canute’s attempts to prevent the tide from rising.

Justice John Snaden agreed and ordered Montu to pay The Age’s comparatively modest legal costs.

We fight these cases whenever we can and feel there is a moral imperative to do so. We fight them on your behalf. It is the reason you know about some of the state’s worst criminals, the behaviour of certain companies and about the functioning of governments. We do it because we believe it is the right thing to do and because few other publications have the means to do so. They are outnumbered and outgunned by PR flacks and corporate lawyers.

I strongly encourage you to read the original report that started the fight with Montu here. If you’ve already read it, you might like to look again with new appreciation of the effort that went into keeping it.

I often thank you for supporting our journalism, as your subscription allows us to do the kind of investigative work that other publications do not have the moxie or talent to deliver. Your support also allows us to fight against vested interests with the means to employ a rugby scrum of lawyers to attempt to scrub the public record of unfavourable information.

So today, I’m saying thank you for that as well. Thank you for investing in us, so we can invest in whip-smart and tenacious people like Alick to fight the good fight in the interests of our subscribers and the general public.

I hope you’re all enjoying this beautiful time of year in Melbourne.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.