Throughout Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership, it was alleged that renovations on her home were paid for from a slush fund linked to the AWU. She helped set up a legal instrument which led to the opening of a bank account, and all before entering public life. The nation's top journalists were set onto the story and found nothing to corroborate wrongdoing on Gillard's part. On one occasion she fronted a press conference for over an hour and dared them ask anything they liked; the nation's toughest press gallery journalists asked and asked and got nothing.
Despite the absence of evidence linking Gillard to wrongdoing, Anna Patty and Paul Sheehan insinuate that she has something to hide from the Royal Commission set up to investigate this and other matters.
If the Royal Commission uncovers new information that shows Gillard received benefits improperly, then this is an indictment of journalists who kept insisting for years that Gillard had questions to answer, without their being able to uncover any information that required her response.
If the Royal Commission does not uncover any significant new information on this matter, other than that already chewed over by journalists, then this is an indictment of journalists who kept insisting for years that Gillard had questions to answer, without their being able to uncover any information that required her response.
In other words, journalists have let us down either way. In the latter instance, Patty and Sheehan are going to look stupid. They will diminish such credibility as they have in later dispatches.
They (and other journalists) could have spent their time more usefully by investigating what an Abbott government might look like, and whether there was any supporting or countervailing information on their policies beyond their press releases and their set-piece statements. What Gillard may or may not say, or what might be put to her by various lawyers, is less important - especially now that she is out of office - than the systematic failure of the fourth estate.
They are trying to present wrongdoing or negligence by Gillard as given, unproven but detectable and waiting to come to light any day now ... any day now. They would, similar to Rosen's example above, shrug off accusations of bias; but one aspect of bias is the maintenance of a position in the absence of proof. Neither Sheehan nor Patty - senior journalists - will put up evidence of Gillard's wrongdoing, but nor will they shut up about it. Theirs is the smear from nowhere.
If you can accept that Lindy Chamberlain didn't kill her daughter, or that Julie Bishop really feels for asbestos victims, or that Mark Kenny is a journalist deserving your respect - you can accept that Gillard paid for her own bathroom.
Another aspect of journalistic failure is the inability to see discussions on public policy as anything other than political conflict. The issues are lost in such coverage, which only reinforces the idea that the way the press gallery frames political conflict is the only way to do so, under the dual misapprehensions that public policy conflicts are both extraordinary and exciting in themselves.
This is a minor issue but a solid example of fundamental journalistic failure. Is this application 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate'? Do families not live in multi-dwelling units? These are important questions but Henrietta Cook cannot handle them.
Instead, she insists that Victorian Liberal State MP Elizabeth Miller "has been accused of breaking party ranks after she opposed a proposed development that sits within new state government residential zones". She does not say who has made these accusations; she even quotes the state's Planning Minister, a Liberal often mentioned as a potential leader, endorsing Miller's actions. The reference to the mother-in-law of a former Premier is clumsy.
Ms Miller denied she had defied the party line. She said she had been overwhelmed with residents opposed to the development and had simply taken up their concerns with the council.This might be a worthy piece for the Glen Eira Bugle but it hardly warrants the state and national prominence Cook and her editors are giving it.
"I believe residents' concerns are warranted, so I have written to council. It's an inappropriate development for the area," she said.
A local MP is representing her constituents' views: does Cook not understand how politics works? Does she assume her readers are equally ignorant or more so? Where are the party control freaks giving Miller a hard time about the way she does her job - or are they all in Cook's imagination - and either way, why do they set the frame through which all policy is reported? Who decided that Cook should be denying someone else - anyone, really - a job as a journalist?
Cook is implying that Miller is not being an effective member of the government. In fact, getting involved in issues like this is Miller's best chance of ensuring her continued place in parliament and government. Her use of the passive voice and avoiding quotes on the key issue of division shows Miller isn't breaking anything or defying anyone. Cook and her editors have, in short, written a bullshit article, dishonestly attempting to blow up a standard suburban planning issue into one with wider importance.
The 'view from nowhere' is an attempt by journalists to insert themselves at the heart of an issue while denying responsibility, both for the issue itself and the way they report it. Journalists should be held to account for their failure to understand issues. They should be culpable for attempting to inject hype, bullshit, or blame where the facts of the matter fail to support the thrust of their offerings to the public.
These failures are far more damaging than internet, or 24-hour news cycle, or imaginary goblins that journalists invent to explain away their professional decline. Hype and slant work against journalists, not just (or even) for them.