Dear Lee,
I read with interest your comments in this morning’s Age and thought the best way to deal with them was as openly and transparently as possible, especially as the sub-text of today’s article was that On Line Opinion was being less than open and transparent.
The way I intend to conduct this interview is to post a series of questions here. I’ll expect you to email the answer back to me and I will post your answers under the questions. I’m sure you wouldn’t wish any damage to OLO (which has published you and your co-author Norman Thompson a total of 14 times, and never, that we can see, ever rejected an article by either of you before) to be unnecessarily prolonged so would appreciate your response by close of business this evening.
- In the article you are quoted as saying:
Failing to publish this article keeps the lid on an unflattering story about how Malcolm Turnbull conducts his fund-raising affairs,” she said. “If our article was rejected on the basis it was poor quality I welcome that feedback. If On Line Opinion pulled the article because it doesn’t suit a particular political agenda, this is very worrying for media freedom in Australia.
Have you been accurately quoted, is it in context and does it fairly represent your views?
- Is our recollection correct, that you and Norman have only been rejected once from 15 articles? If not, please correct the record. Please tell us how this compares with your success/rejection ratio from other pulbications.
- When you came to us with the story part of your pitch was that The Age intended to run with the story. It has now formed the basis of three newspaper stories – two in The Age and one in the Sydney Morning Herald. The document you sent us was also published yesterday on New Matilda. How can it be said that our refusal to publish “keeps the lid on an unflattering story”.
- You are quoted as saying “If our article was rejected on the basis it was poor quality I welcome that feedback…” My telephone number is 07 32521470, I can be reached by email at editor@onlineopinion.com.au and someone even managed to get my mobile phone number from the Internet the other day. If you “welcome” the feedback why haven’t you picked-up the phone or sent me an email?
- You also are quoted as saying “If On Line Opinion pulled the article because it doesn’t suit a particular political agenda, this is very worrying for media freedom in Australia.” That’s a big “if”. As you haven’t spoken to me, or Susan (our editor) or any of our board members about this, what tangible information is available to you to support this point of view? BTW, I welcome the Greens recognition implicit in this comment of just how important OLO is as a media site.
- When Norman, your co-author, approached us to publish he said “Online Opinion (sic) appears to have readers
across the entire political spectrum. We would like for those who don’t agree with us to read our work, so believe your journal is best for this article. ” Is that your position too? And do you accept that two of the reasons that On Line Opinion OLO has this audience is its inclusive nature, and that it is discriminating in what it publishes?
LR: Yes. It is disappointing that in this online interview you fail to answer the central question – why did the board reject the article after your editor initially accepted it? The email from your editor to my co-author Dr Norman Thompson said:
“I sent this to the board of OLO for final approval and it has just been decided that we will not be going ahead with it.”
Can you please explain if there is any connection between this decision and the composition of the National Forum, which includes:
Yourself – former Queensland Liberal Party campaign chairmen
Former Liberal adviser Greg Barns
Lucy Turnbull, wife of Mr Turnbull
Former Queensland Liberal MP Kathy Sullivan?
LR: Yes. Of course our articles have been occasionally rejected by outlets, for example by the opinion pages of the Sydney Morning Herald. But in respect of other online outfits, like New Matilda, our publication rate is extremely high.
LR: Not everyone reads the major newspapers. It was published in New Matilda after On Line Opinion rejected it.
LR :We were given various reasons by your editor for why the article was rejected: the board was worried by potential legal threats by Mr Turnbull and the board believed the Wentworth Forum was doing nothing illegal and therefore the article was a non-story (even though both the Age and SMH ran it as a page 1 story). Now your blog says the article was rejected because ‘this was not an op-ed piece’ when it clearly is.
LR: My quotes recognise that I cannot be sure of the board’s motivation. I welcome your reply here as to what the board’s motivation was.
I have no reason to doubt that On Line Opinion has readers across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, your readers have lost the opportunity to read our article on your site about the Opposition Leader’s fundraising activities.
I look forward to your responses. And please be assured, On Line Opinion will always be open to approaches from you and any other Greens to publish suitable material. We don’t play political or personal favourites.
Regards,
Graham Young
Chief Editor and Founder
I’m glad I stumbled on this site and was able to read the above conversation. As one who sometimes visits the Online Opinion site I was concerned at the implication that there had been editorial interference. I’m still not sure that this has not been the case, but at least I have had the opportunity to see a conversation conducted by both sides. How grown up – and how different to many other sites.
Comment by annabel — July 16, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
OLO has been reasonably balanced in what it publishes in my experience and I’m pleased to see the commitment to transparency. I find the Murdoch press for example decides it doesn’t like a point of view and stops publishing it. I used to get a very high hit rate in letters to The Australian until I started tackling green issues and suddenly my success rate dropped dramatically.
The worst example I’ve seen of editorial bias was a decision by the Courier Mail to refuse to carry an advertisement for the movie Outfoxed if it hinted at criticism of Rupert Murdoch (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1214538.htm). I used to live in South Africa where the press fought a hard battle for freedom of speech and takes criticism by readers positively. I find the culture of the major papers here (and even the ABC at times) cloying and unadventurous by contrast. Anything that rocks the boat (especially their boat) is tied down and not allowed to move.
By that standard OLO is not too bad. That said, I hope OLO is careful not to create the appearance of bias in the case of articles critical of anyone close to its management. We have more than enough of that in the print media.
Comment by Philip Machanick — July 16, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Some years ago journalists at the Canberra times decided to test the claims of editorial independence by then-owner Kerry Stokes. I don’t even remember the nature of the scandal or beat-up, only his careful nonchalance as they did their best to rub his nose in his own front page. The affair made him look dignified and the journalists a bit childish. I hope the presence of a Turnbull on the forum of OLO would not be taken as a red rag to test them with any old anti-Turnbull claptrap in an attempt to embarrass them. That would be crass.
Comment by James — July 17, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 17, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 20, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 21, 2009 @ 7:26 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 23, 2009 @ 7:56 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 23, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 25, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 27, 2009 @ 7:39 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 27, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 29, 2009 @ 7:44 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 29, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 30, 2009 @ 8:21 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 30, 2009 @ 9:05 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — July 30, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 1, 2009 @ 7:01 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 2, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 3, 2009 @ 7:45 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 3, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 4, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 4, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 6, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 6, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 6, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 6, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 7, 2009 @ 7:34 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 7, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 7, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 10, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 12, 2009 @ 7:21 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 12, 2009 @ 7:33 am
Old media vs new media: This time it’s personal
We’ve had plenty of coverage in recent weeks of traditional media bosses and commentators criticising online “new media” sites, including Crikey as well as independent bloggers. Today, it looks like a more specific stoush between trad…
Comment by Pure Poison — August 13, 2009 @ 7:45 am