Part Three: Marr’s Grand Prix crash

On its 20 May 2002 program, Media Watch launched an attack on The Australian for "blurring that line ... between editorial and advertising".

Then-presenter David Marr offered two examples to back what he described as a "shabby" look. "It gives the impression that advertisers can buy the news they want", he said. The idea is that News Ltd newspapers will easily drop their journalistic pants if offered a buck by advertisers - unlike of course, the commercial-free ABC or Marr's favoured comrades at his employer, The Sydney Morning Herald. Don't believe what you read in The Australian, and so on.

But Media Watch soon had to face the fact that its primary exhibit did not show what it claimed. The admission unfolded like a slow-motion car crash.

Marr pointed to the 1 March 2002 front page of The Australian, showing a picture story on racing driver Michael Schumacher in Melbourne for the Formula One Grand Prix. In the bottom right corner was an advertisement for Omega Watches featuring a picture of ... Michael Schumacher.

Anyone who has worked for a reasonable time on daily newspaper production will have come across a clash between articles placed by editors and advertisements placed by the advertising department. Editors typically don't even see the advertisements on their production screens until well into the process of putting articles and photographs onto the page. It happens.

Editors usually dislike such clashes. For instance, having two photographs of the same person on two items - in two separate articles or an article and an advertisement - on the same page can divert the sense of the page away from what the articles are attempting to convey. Or clashes can be in bad taste, such as a page which carries articles about a terrorist attack on a tourist destination accompanied by an advertisement promoting travel to the same destination. Sometimes, the clashes can be undone during the production process. Sometimes, editors live with the clash. It happens.

But, in the Schumacher case in The Australian, Marr maintained: "This is not an accident. The Australian's advertising department told Media Watch they contacted the advertiser once the story was written and sold them that ad".

That was false, as Media Watch later grudgingly admitted. Media Watch in fact spoke to a junior member of The Australian's advertising sales team who disputes what Media Watch claimed she said. Contrary to basic journalistic standards, the program did not contact the editor or editor-in-chief of The Australian before making its unfounded on-air slur against the newspaper.

If contacted, the editors would have made this point. Advertising departments work their schedules weeks and months in advance, particularly for placing page one advertisements. In contrast, editors work on a purely daily schedule according to the news of the day, particularly for page one. On this and other days, The Australian's page one articles and pictures weren't chosen by the editors until after 6.30pm. By this time, all the advertisements for the day's paper had been bedded down hours before. By this time, most of the advertising staff had left work. What's more, the editors often change the page one editorial content through the night, especially if big news breaks overseas, in time for a 12.30am final edition deadline. Logistics alone rules out this conspiracy theory.

After the offending item went to air, The Australian put this reasoning to Media Watch. The program refused to accept this, instead revving up its charge. It argued on its website that The Australian could have organised and planned the Schumacher page one picture days in advance, giving the advertising department enough time to sell its Schumacher advertisement. That embarrassing argument was later removed from its website.

Then, on the 3 June 2002 Media Watch program, Marr fessed up to the error: "A fortnight ago Media Watch alleged that The Australian was selling ads to match its stories. That's a serious accusation and it still stands. Media Watch was wrong to cite this paring of a story and ad featuring Michael Schumacher as an example."

Why did Media Watch suddenly admit its mistake? For viewers to find this out they had to go to the Media Watch website and click on to the transcript of the 20 May program and notice an asterisk part way through its accusation against The Australian. Viewers who scrolled to the subsequent asterisk at the bottom of the transcript discovered that Media Watch admitted its mistake because the advertiser had told it of the error! "The company that placed the Schumacher ad assures us they were not contacted by The Australian ..."

To find out more, viewers had to click through again to an exchange between Media Watch and The Australian. There the following explanation was offered.

"David Bryden, the Marketing Manager for Watches of Switzerland, who placed the Schumacher ad but not the Thorpe ad, insists that ad and the story on March 1 were a coincidence. He has supplied Media Watch with records that show the company booked the space on the front page in December because, as they told Media Watch, they were aware of the timing of the Grand Prix and also aware that 'watch companies like Omega usually have endorsements by F1 drivers'. Mr Bryden says the Schumacher ad was finalised about two weeks before the ad appeared. Media Watch accepts Mr Bryden's explanation and apologies for any embarrassment our story may have caused him or Watches of Switzerland."

But, as Marr made clear on the 3 June 2002 program, Media Watch refused to back down on its claim that The Australian was blurring the line between editorial and advertising even though it's exhibit A had been blown out of the water.

The Australian submits that this is bad journalistic corrections policy. When a media outlet corrects an error, it should simply and cleanly correct the error, not mix it in with assertions that it was right on another claim that proves its overall point. That is particularly the case, as in this instance, when the other cited claim is also contested.

This other claim concerned the second, less substantial, instance put forward by Media Watch on the original 20 May program. Marr pointed to an article on Ian Thorpe's promotion of pearl jewellry for men published on The Australian's 10 May fashion page, previewing a major fashion event he was due to host that evening. The page also carried an advertisement for Omega Watches - the same product featured in Media Watch's embarrassing Schumacher example - featuring Ian Thorpe.

On its 20 May program, Media Watch quoted the same junior member of The Australian's advertising team it used to support its Schumacher claim. It quoted her saying of the Thorpe page: "It looks good". With the Schumacher claim dead, that was the extent of its on-air evidence to support its claim that The Australian was blurring the line between editorial and advertising.

Media Watch later claimed on its website that its Thorpe claim remained "unchallenged". That is false. The Australian does not place articles in the newspaper and then seek to sell matching advertisements.