Tag: Public Interest Journalism

Essential Media Tools for Community Groups

Media can give you the edge you need. This guide shows you how to use it well.

For community groups seeking impact, clarity and control, these principles are non negotiable.

These tools give you influence. They sharpen your message, protect your credibility and keep you in control of your story, even when power sits on the other side of the table.

This is the same thorough list you would be taught in an intensive media training course, adapted for community groups who are dealing with Council, navigating power imbalances or trying to communicate clearly under pressure. u.

The five principles every community group needs to understand

(Each point is explained fully in the sections below.)

1. Power imbalance and what it does to communities

When Council holds all the information and controls the process, communities can feel powerless, dismissed or silenced.
People sense the imbalance long before they can name it.
This is the foundation for every other challenge they face.
See below for full explanation.

2. The empowerment path – what you can control

When formal pathways fail, the only things people can rely on are their principles:
• how they act
• how they respond
• their character
• how they treat others
This shifts people out of the victim triangle and into agency.
See below for full explanation.

Source 

3. The danger of negative framing

If you slip into the trap of using negative framing this gives Council an escape route, weakens your credibility, and frightens supporters who prefer to stay unseen.
It is one of the fastest ways a community can lose control of its message.
See below for full explanation.

4. The 10-second and 30-second grabs

Prepare, Prepare, Prepare

If you don’t prepare them, journalists will pull whatever you say and compress it for you.
This is how groups lose control of their story.
Short, calm, factual grabs are your protection.
See below for full explanation.

5. The risk of reinforcing someone else’s frame

Correcting a claim by repeating it – even with “not” – strengthens it.
If the media are listening, that negative phrase can become your 10-second grab.
This is why reframing is essential.
See below for full explanation.

Full article with explanations and example

Why this matters now

This statement shows, in real time, the dangers of negative framing (a frame is the automatic story people’s minds jump to when they hear specific words)  and the risk of repeating someone else’s message.

Hope is not soft, it is strategic, and positive framing is the doorway that lets people walk toward it.


So when Council responded with a lengthy statement accusing the article of containing “numerous false facts and misleading information,” the very first thing they did was repeat the headline and repeat the claims they wanted people to forget.

This is the first mistake in crisis communication.
And it’s the perfect example to help community groups understand the key principles that will protect them when dealing with a powerful organisation.

Positive framing:. “Everything I wrote in my original article on developer contributions involved six months of research. I stand by every word.”

Below is what the Council statement teaches us, and what communities can learn from it.

1. Power imbalance and what it does to communities

See key point above.

A power imbalance exists when one side controls:
• the information
• the process
• the timeline
• the definition of what “counts”

Council’s statement is a textbook illustration. It speaks inwards, to its team, its acronyms, its internal processes, not to the community. It positions the organisation as the sole interpreter of truth.

When people feel that dynamic, even if they can’t articulate it, they experience:
• frustration
• confusion
• fatigue
• self-doubt

Understanding the imbalance is the first step in shifting it.

2. The empowerment path – what you can control

See key point above.

Communities do not control Council’s behaviour.
But they do control:
• how they act
• how they respond
• their character
• how they treat others

The Council example shows why this matters. Their reaction was defensive, rigid and power-protective.
Make the pathway is different. Be grounded, factual and principled.
This is how communities shift themselves out of the victim triangle.
Agency comes from calm, deliberate choices, not from emotion or escalation.

3. The danger of negative framing

As George Lakoff explains with “Don’t think of an elephant,” the moment you answer inside someone else’s mental picture – their frame –  you strengthen it. Once the frame is activated, even denial reinforces it. That is exactly what happened here.

See key point above.

Council’s response is built almost entirely on negative framing:
“false facts”, “misleading”, “incorrect”, repeated over and over.
The result is predictable:
• they sound combative
• they appear threatened
• they close off community empathy

Negative framing repels the very people who might otherwise support them.
For community groups, the lesson is simple:
negative language might feel satisfying in the moment, but it weakens your long-term position.

The safer choice is principled framing:
• “We followed every step of the process and still have no explanation.”
• “We want clarity, fairness and transparency.”
This invites the public into the story rather than pushing them away.

4. The 10-second and 30-second grabs

See key point above.

If a journalist needed a quote from Council’s statement, the most likely 10-second grab would have been:

“The Bugle claims Council failed to renew its developer contribution plans on time.”

That one sentence would have become the public message.

This is why community groups must prepare their own:
• 10-second grab: the one clear sentence that sums up the issue
• 30-second grab: the calm, factual explanation that adds context

If you do not prepare them, the media will pull whatever stands out.
And often the loudest or most emotional line becomes the quote – even if it is not what you wanted to emphasise.

Practice, Practice Practice

5. The risk of reinforcing someone else’s frame

See key point above.

The most important lesson from Council’s statement is this:
they repeated the issue they wanted to erase.

By restating the concerns in the article, line by line, they cemented the association in the public mind:
Council + governance failures + developer contributions + missed renewal deadlines.

Repeating a criticism strengthens it.
Especially when you say “incorrect.”

Communities must avoid this trap at all costs.
Do not repeat the negative claim.
Step into your own frame (a frame is the mental picture people form the moment certain words are used):

• “Here is what happened, what should have happened, and what it means for the community.”
• “Our concern is transparency and process.”
• “We want clear answers and fair treatment.”

This protects you.
It prevents the negative claim becoming your quote.
And it keeps your voice grounded and credible

Rider on choosing the right spokesperson

I have had extensive media training and I can recognise strong communication as easily as I can spot poor media practice. That does not mean I should be the voice of any organisation. Every group needs to choose the person best suited to speak on its behalf, and that choice should be intentional.

A good spokesperson is someone who:
• stays calm under pressure, even when the questions are sharp
• can hold the key messages without drifting into emotion or frustration
• speaks clearly, briefly and without jargon
• understands the issue well enough to answer safely, but not so personally that they sound defensive
• sounds grounded, respectful and consistent across every interview
• remembers they are representing the group, not themselves

This person might be:
• someone with a calm, measured voice who doesn’t get rattled
• a committee member who is trusted internally and externally
• a community advocate who can explain complex issues in simple language
• a member who isn’t directly harmed by visibility, unlike others who may rely on Council approvals or services
• someone who naturally projects confidence without aggression

This spokesperson does not need to be the most senior person, the person with the most knowledge or the person who did the most work. They simply need to be the person who helps the group’s message land in a clear, credible and constructive way.

#Kiama #KiamaCouncil #CouncilAccountability #CommunityAdvocacy #MediaSkills #Framing #PublicCommunication #CommunityVoice #GovernanceMatters #Transparency #MessagingMatters #MediaTraining #OLG #CommunityRights #SpeakUpSafe

The best journalism isn’t national – it’s local, and it’s written by people who live the story

I subscribe to The Guardian and the Sydney Morning Herald, and like many Australians I also read The Conversation and ABC online content . On paper, that should feel like a rich, informed mix. Instead, these days, it feels like hard work.

I am worn down by the relentless presence of Donald Trump. What a dreadful individual. Why does the world keep giving him so much oxygen. There are real crises unfolding across the globe, yet the headlines keep circling back to the same man as if nothing else deserves attention. It is exhausting, and it has very little to do with journalism and everything to do with spectacle.

Then there is the cost of living. Every day brings another headline about strain, pressure, hardship. We know. We live it. What is missing are the solutions. Journalism should help us understand the world, and understanding has to include ideas worth trying, not a daily loop of despair.

And what can Australians say about the Liberal Party and the National Party. They have become the comic relief in their own narrative. The Sydney Morning Herald faithfully reminds us of this almost every day, sometimes in pieces so long  (TL:DR) that you lose the argument halfway through and wonder why none of it lands anymore.

It does not have to be like this. Jenna Price manages to write with impact and precision, without burying her message beneath unnecessary weight. Clarity is still possible. Good journalism is still possible.

And here is the moment of honesty. When I log into my Guardian subscription now, I often log out again almost immediately. It feels tired. It feels like a lecture I did not ask for. In contrast, every time I open The Conversation, I feel grateful. The arguments are grounded in science. The writing respects we want the science presented in a language we all understand.  The tone respects its readers. It gives you space to think. It remembers why journalism matters.

Maybe this is the moment to ask for better. Journalism that expands the world instead of shrinking it. Journalism that tells the truth without drowning us in noise. Journalism that treats readers as citizens, not consumers.

#Media #AusPol #Journalism #NewsFatigue #QualityMedia #GuardianAus #SMH #ABCNews #TheConversation #MediaReform #NewsCulture #AustralianPolitics #PublicInterest #MediaAccountability #TLDR

Kiama Council Reads the Blog… and Sends a Warning Letter

After publishing my recent blog post about Kiama Council’s handling of community-raised concerns, the following is part of an email I received  from Council’s Public Officer. It relates to the inclusion of links to two Council emails. One from the Director of Infrastructure and Operations, the other from the Acting Manager of Engineering and Technical Services. Both responding to the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association.

“The unauthorised publication of these emails constitutes a breach of copyright. Further, these emails were not addressed to you and Council has not authorised the publication of them on your blog. The original recipients of the emails, the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association, have also been placed on notice.”

“Accordingly, you are requested to immediately remove the published emails in full from all public and private facing platforms and notify me once this has occurred. In addition, please confirm you will not publish, quote or otherwise distribute any Council email, or part thereof, without obtaining prior written consent. Failure to comply with this request may result in legal action.”

There are many things I could say in response. But let’s start with this:

These emails were sent in response to public concerns, to a community advocacy group, about public infrastructure.

They were shared with the community in good faith, as part of a transparent effort to keep residents informed about the issues affecting our community. It is standard practice for organisations like JVRRA to share “correspondence in and out” with their members. That includes responses from Council.

It is not private. It is not confidential. And it is not a breach of copyright.

What it is, frankly, is overreach and and a telling one.

Council’s objection appears to be more about controlling public narrative. And in that context, the threat of “legal action” reads like a small-town SLAPP  – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,  where the goal is not to win, but to silence.

This is what abuse of power looks like.
This is why unions matter.
Because to hold power to account, you need powerful supporters.
Not because you’re weak – but because they expect you to be alone.

And yes. As you would expect from any formal reply to a residents’ group, the names and contact information of the staff responding were included in their email signatures, the same contact details publicly available on the Kiama Council website.

Their inclusion does not render the correspondence confidential. If anything, it reinforces that these were professional communications, sent in an official capacity, on matters of public interest.

My response to Council is this:

Thank you for reading the blog. I hope it marks the beginning of more open, engaged, and respectful communication between Council and the communities it serves.

But I will not be removing the links.
I will not be retracting the quotes.
And I will not be intimidated into silence.

Because transparency is not the problem here.
The problem is a system that seems to find public scrutiny more threatening than poor process.

 The attempt to suppress, intimidate, or discredit those who ask legitimate questions is part of a broader pattern that needs to be called out. If a council is confident in its processes and decisions, it should welcome scrutiny, not fear it. I won’t be stepping back into silence, and I’m not alone. Every time one person speaks up, others find the courage to do the same. That’s how change begins.

📝 Footnote:

If you’re new here, welcome. What you’ve just read is not an isolated incident, it’s part of a broader pattern.

This Council has demonstrated time and again how far it is willing to go to silence dissent. From formal complaints against journalists, takedown demands, and Press Council,  ICAC and Code of Conduct referrals  to copyright threats and legal warnings over publicly shared emails, the message is clear: scrutiny is not welcome.

But here’s the thing. Communities don’t function when only the quiet voices are tolerated. Local democracy relies on people asking questions, challenging power, and expecting answers, not repercussions.

You don’t have to stand for Council to stand up. You don’t have to publish a blog to care about how decisions are made. And you don’t have to accept a culture of intimidation dressed up as process.

The deeper question isn’t how much pressure one person can withstand. It’s how much silence a community is willing to accept.

#LocalDemocracy #CivicCourage #CommunityAdvocacy #SLAPPResistance #PressFreedom #TransparencyMatters #CouncilAccountability #PublicInterestJournalism #DemocracyInAction #PowerOfMany

Local democracy shouldn’t feel like defiance

Why did it have to come to this

That’s the question I keep circling back to.

 Why was it necessary to write a blog post in the first place?

Why did councillors feel they couldn’t speak freely?

Why was silence the safest option for so many, when the real damage was being done out in the open?

 If local democracy was working as it should, none of this would’ve been needed. There would have been transparency from the beginning. There would have been open dialogue between council and community. And there would have been clear lines between power and accountability—not blurred ones.

But the moment I stepped into a role that involved naming what I saw and asking questions about how power operates, it became clear what kind of culture I was stepping into.

I’m not brave. I’m persistent.

And I’m someone who understands the value of truth, even when it’s inconvenient.

 Anyone stepping into a civic reporting role, especially in a small town, should expect to be met with pushback. But what they shouldn’t expect is silence from those with the power to make things better.

I wrote because I believe in democratic process.

Because I believe a community has a right to know how decisions are made, who is making them, and whether the process is fair.

 This shouldn’t require courage. It should be normal.

It should be part of how our systems work.

Instead, we have a system where saying something out loud feels like an act of defiance.

 I spoke up because I care too much to pretend nothing is wrong.

 And here’s the thing: if someone is willing to put in the hours, do the reading, follow the trail of decisions and connect the dots – why would anyone think they’re going to give up now?

#Kiama #RegionalMedia #CivicVoice #CommunityAdvocacy #LocalDemocracy #IndependentJournalism #GrassrootsLeadership #DoDemocracyDifferently

Navigating Moral Uncoupling in Education and Society

This post is part of a series I’m doing on Moral Uncoupling, a topic that I often ruminate on: how we can flip the social norm by uncovering the magic sauce that drives meaningful change. Articulating the ethical equations behind decisions might risk oversimplifying complex matters, but the greater risk lies in forgetting these calculations altogether. By bringing these sacrifices to light, we can honestly assess the decisions being made and work toward a more ethically grounded society.

As adults, we must be the role models who walk the talk we teach in schools, embodying the values we want our children to carry forward. Our actions, more than our words, will shape the ethical landscape of the next generation.

This post has been inspired  by an article in the SMH “The price of a life? Don’t tell me, at all costs” by Sean Kelly, published on 12th August 2024,

Recent discussions, such as those highlighted in the Sydney Morning Herald article on the real cost of societal choices, underscore the concept of “moral uncoupling”—justifying harmful actions for perceived greater goods. Whether it’s speed limits set at the expense of lives, prioritising economic benefits over human lives, or media companies relying on gambling ads, these compromises raise ethical concerns.

The concept of moral compromise is evident in both societal decisions and the media’s practices. Speed limits are a clear example of how society often prioritises convenience over safety, leading to a normalization of harm. Politicians and media companies, like those relying on gambling ads, often justify harm by arguing it supports a greater good, such as journalism. This conflation of issues masks the ethical implications, raising important questions about how we quantify the value of life and the moral consequences of these decisions. Both society and policymakers must challenge these compromises and demand accountability for the sacrifices made.

In education, particularly within the High Potential and Gifted Education (HPGE) Policy, we see a push to integrate ethics into the curriculum. Yet, teachers are struggling to incorporate these principles effectively, as ethics hasn’t traditionally been part of their training.

The HPGE Policy promotes the development of intellectual, creative, social-emotional, and physical potential, with a significant focus on social-emotional learning—where ethical decision-making comes into play.

To bridge this gap, schools are increasingly involving parents to help teach these ethical principles, ensuring students are not only intellectually challenged but also morally grounded. By addressing the challenges of teaching ethics, we can better prepare students to resist the pressures of moral uncoupling and navigate a complex world with integrity.

As adults, we must be the role models who walk the talk we teach in schools, embodying the values we want our children to carry forward. Our actions, more than our words, will shape the ethical landscape of the next generation.

#MoralCompromise #MediaEthics #PublicInterestJournalism #GamblingAds #SocialImpact #Accountability #EthicsInSociety #ValueOfLife

 

Moral Uncoupling and the Gamble Media Companies Are Willing to Take

This blog post has been inspired by an article in Crikey by Bernard Keane. “The Gambling Ad Ban Isn’t About Gambling. It’s About the Future of the Media.” Crikey, 6 Aug. 2024.

In the ongoing debate about gambling advertisement regulations, what is often overlooked is the deeper ethical dilemma facing Australia’s corporate media. While it’s easy to focus on the evident harms of gambling, the real issue lies in how media companies justify their dependence on gambling ad revenue—despite its clear social costs.

This phenomenon, often referred to as “moral uncoupling,” is when an entity rationalises harmful actions by highlighting a perceived greater good. In this case, media companies argue that the revenue from gambling ads, which they claim is crucial for their survival, ultimately supports public interest journalism. But this raises a critical question: can we truly justify societal harm in the name of sustaining a business model that is, by its very nature, in decline?

Poker machines provide a stark example of moral uncoupling in practice. The devastating impact of these machines on individuals and communities is well-documented. Yet, they continue to be a significant source of revenue for many venues, just as gambling ads are for media companies. The harm is acknowledged, but it is conveniently set aside because the financial benefits are seen as necessary for survival.

This selective morality—where the damage caused is ignored as long as it pays the bills—highlights a troubling trend in how we weigh corporate profit against social responsibility.

Interestingly, not all gambling companies oppose a ban on gambling ads. Some, like Tabcorp, have even advocated for tighter restrictions, seeing it as a way to protect their market dominance. This isn’t about doing what’s right; it’s about securing their position in the market. Meanwhile, venues relying on poker machines remain largely indifferent, as their business model depends on the physical presence of gamblers—a different kind of exploitation, but exploitation nonetheless.

The government faces a complex challenge. Should it intervene to support public interest journalism through expanded funding models? Should it impose a digital media tax to replace the diminishing ad revenue? These are the real issues that need addressing, far beyond the surface debate over gambling ads.

Ultimately, the practice of moral uncoupling by media companies is a dangerous precedent. Justifying harm in one area to support a supposed good in another is a slippery slope that risks eroding public trust. The government must take a clear-eyed approach: address the root causes of media’s financial woes and tackle the social harm of gambling with equal urgency. Only then can we move beyond the illusion that a little harm can be balanced by a greater good.

#MoralUncoupling #GamblingAds #MediaEthics #PublicInterestJournalism #SocialResponsibility #PokerMachines #AustraliaMedia #GamblingReform #CorporateEthics #PublicTrust

References:

Keane, Bernard. “The Gambling Ad Ban Isn’t About Gambling. It’s About the Future of the Media.” Crikey, 6 Aug. 2024.

Further reading from The Conversation

The gambling industry is pulling out all the stops to prevent an ad ban, but the evidence is against it. Published: August 13, 2024 4.50pm AEST

Does free-to-air TV really need gambling ads to survive? Published: August 14, 2024 6.30am AEST