Peter FitzSimons delivers for progressives with Andrew Olle Lecture

Columnist and author Peter FitzSimons is a passionate supporter of advocacy journalism. Picture: Jane Dempster

When Sydney Morning Herald columnist and author Peter FitzSimons delivered the annual Andrew Olle Lecture last Friday night, he likened journalism to a “shimmering thing on high”, a profession “elevated by precious principles forged in liberal democratic nations over the centuries, and throwing out light in dozens of directions at once”.

So does a Ferris wheel you could say, but let’s not go there. We get the point, shining a light in dark corners, sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that. Paying tribute to the late Olle, FitzSimons spoke of his “total even-handedness, the complete effacement of his own opinions on something, with the sole goal of getting to the heart of the matter”. And then he came to what was the crux of his own journalistic ethos: “As much as I admired that quality … I have come to love the journalism of advocacy, of using the precious platform to advance causes I do passionately believe in, citing incontrovertible facts to push those causes”.

MORE MOCKER: An open letter to Peter FitzSimons | Pronoun plods cross line | ‘War a result of climate change’ | Extinction Rebellion hardly ordinary | Keneally deceiving herself

That FitzSimons believes passionately in advocacy journalism — an oxymoron — is no surprise. Anyone who has read and seen the bandana-clad pontificator knows well his love of being seen at the vanguard of whatever progressive cause is in vogue. Complementing this is his outright contempt of differing views, his hectoring others through sanctimonious open letters, his pompous moralising in the name of “the people”, and his targeting of prominent conservative Christians such as tennis great Margaret Court and former Wallabies player Israel Folau for their opposition to same sex marriage.

His regarding this as journalism is one thing. That the ABC saw fit for him to deliver the Olle Lecture — the subject of which is the role and future of media — is another. It is not so much as a tacit endorsement of the Fitz-philosophy, for he is your follower, not instigator, of activist movements. Rather it was the organisation using a devotee to signal its interpretation of the ABC Charter. It was also the occasion to make public what the ABC considers to be typical feedback.

And what a beautiful paean it was. The ABC, FitzSimons declared, was “the unassailable rock that will help see us through,” adding it helps “sustain our democracy” and “nourish the national soul around the country’s campfire”.

“We need the federal government and the people to get behind the core notion that the stronger the national broadcaster is, the more informed the population, the stronger is our democracy and the stronger our national fabric — and that the ABC is worth the cost,” he said.

Indeed, that is just what viewers must have been thinking when they watched the ABC flagship program Q&A on Monday, which featured an all-female panel that enthusiastically condoned political violence, murder, destruction of property and the disbanding of police institutions as a means of furthering their cause against patriarchy and so-called colonists. I could only think of how much better informed we are as a result, and how essential this taxpayer-funded program is in strengthening our democracy and reinforcing our national cohesion.

Can the ‘politically woke’ be successful in effecting real change through the use of social media? #QandA pic.twitter.com/8FSiTRRlwe

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) November 5, 2019

But the richest part of FitzSimons’s oration was his observations about the media’s failings. “All too often we play on deep-seated fears as we strain to whip up the mob,” he lamented. Much could be said in response, but one example will suffice. Speaking in June on the subject of Folau’s successful appeal for fundraising to pursue Rugby Australia for unfair dismissal, FitzSimons tweeted: “We the people need to harness our rage at #Folau and do something useful with it …”

Is that an example of what he meant in his oration when he said the media should prefer “the complex, positive, generous and more nuanced” over “the simplistic, the negative and the mean-spirited”?

This is a good point. We the people need to harness our rage at #Folau and do something useful with it. Why don't we get behind something like this, so they can surge on our collective grunt? RT if you agree. And donate! https://t.co/JQqLlmjCGQ

— Peter FitzSimons (@Peter_Fitz) June 21, 2019

Let’s reword FitzSimons’ speech to recognise the faults of Australian journalism:

All of you here would have the heard the journalist’s creed “It’s never about you, it’s always about the story”. Those of us who observe that principle, however, are few, to the detriment of our profession.

I refer to what you might call ‘moi’ journalism, a phenomenon aggravated by social media and the incessant need to seek affirmation. This is what our profession has become. The story and analysis take second place to our feelings, our preening, our desire to be seen on what is nonsensically labelled as “the right side of history”. But it is a mistake to imagine the number of likes or sad emojis on social media is a reliable reflection of public opinion. To do so will make you look foolish and superficial.

Ok, in this case. Tony Abbott batting a little better than the PM.
In this case, fairly benign tweet, with 109 responses.
Of that 109, about 100 are versions "F&*(* OFF" while 9 are more or less positive.
Overall though, the mood of the Australian twitterati very negative to LNP https://t.co/kqYgqAUnhr

— Peter FitzSimons (@Peter_Fitz) January 21, 2019

Instead of championing free speech as journalists should, we resort to weasel words and even self-censor so as not to cause offence. Here’s a tip: if you frequently use terms such as hate speech, toxic masculinity, white privilege, safe space, inappropriate, offensive, cultural appropriation, decolonisation, shock jocks, unconscious bias, etc, chances are you are writing drivel.

To be given a public platform is an honour and you should respect your audience accordingly. They want to hear an appraisal backed up by facts. They do not want to hear you plug your books, name-drop, or listen to you self-indulge while you talk of glory days in another life. Respect the adage “A little learning is a dangerous thing”. A favourable transformation in size does not make you an expert in weight loss; a few knocks to the melon during your rugby days does not make you an expert on concussion.

To my ABC colleagues here, I suppose you want me to harp on about our magnificent national broadcaster and how it is worthy of the one billion plus per year it receives in taxpayer funding. I also suppose you would like me to deplore the fact that this mean-spirited government deprives you of further money and to stress that, in your words, there is “no more fat to cut”.

Let me just provide just a few examples from “ABC Life” to show how cash-strapped you apparently are. First, “What we do with our armpit hair is a choice, so why don’t we treat it like one?” Second, “Am I being unfaithful if I fantasise about other people or scenarios during sex?” And third, “More orgasms for women: It’s time to close the masturbation gap”. Shall I go on or have I made my point?

You talk of cohesion, yet you encourage tribalism. You criticise governments for lack of openness and transparency, yet you refuse even to disclose the taxpayer-funded salaries of your senior presenters. You speak reverently of foreign peoples and their ancient traditions, yet you disparage Western civilisation and all its institutions. You urge the public to respect science, yet you regard belief in climate change as an article of faith, and any questioning of it as heresy. You loudly espouse egalitarianism, yet you favour elitism.

You have a skewed view of the ABC Charter, particularly the statutory obligation to broadcast obligations that reflect the cultural diversity of Australia. In your mind, the ABC culture is proof that progressive utopia is attainable, but you ignore its financial dependence on the despised bourgeoise. To you, anything conservative is anathema. Apart from your regional colleagues, you are indifferent to the perspectives of those in suburbia. Your panels are the personification of groupthink. Your idea of tapping into mainstream Australia is a two-day workshop in Bankstown.

To all journalists, I must emphasise that our profession is about exposing hypocrisy, not espousing it. Our job is to report the facts objectively, not take partisan positions. If your preference is for advocacy journalism, then you have no business in this industry and no right to be taken seriously. To run with the pack is the antithesis of good journalism, as well as the trait of those easily led.

Lastly, journalism is a noble profession, but not an esoteric one. It requires tenacity, objectivity, intuition, thoroughness and people skills. Regard it as a calling or some “shimmering thing” akin to a holy grail, and you will be blinded by the light of moi journalism. To quote former cricket captain Ian Chappell : “Peter, where is it, I can’t see it — the spotlight that you’re always searching for.”