Blindspot: How Media Masked Their Failures With Political Headlines

While the media reports on government advertising revealed by us small outlets, what slides under the carpet is it’s failure to address the very problems within it’s own Industry.

When we dug deep into RTIs and connected the dots, the media remained silent and stepped back. When discovering historical patterns, tracing relationships and receiving tip offs the media cherry picked information reporting on what suits their narrative, and avoiding responsibility for their failures. 

Only when data was revealed did the industry get pressured to cover part of the story, scooping up the work that independent publishers forked out, without contextualisation of the issue at hand. While we pushed forward the industry was playing catch up relying on us to do their job. 

When independent outlets exposed government advertising, they avoided the deeper questions. What structural incentives allowed this spend to happen unnoticed? Did media themselves fail in reporting the buildup earlier? why didn’t larger outlets investigate the issue themselves?

Media Games?

When TDMG raised awareness concerning close relations with journalists and politicians the media did nothing. When we discovered active conflicts of interests with the state’s largest newspaper they did nothing. When we revealed troubling behaviour and alleged political connections with the state’s largest ‘independent’ outlet, they did nothing.

While a industry-wide media scandal was emerging, the media covered it up a related, but seperate scandal of government advertising. This created the illusion that media had held power to account, even though much of the work was reactive and secondary. When they reported on part of the issue, they gave the public a sense of transparency, when in fact the story remains incomplete, leaving the industry responsible masked.

When we tipped off big media on our investigation early this month they ignored it. Information received from an anonymous industry insider confirms that the ABC was the outlet behind the initial RTI revelations exposing the government’s $35,000 digital ad blitz—but ultimately decided not to run the story. Why?

The industry also pretended to hold other outlets to account, with the Mercury’s first piece on Pulse punching down a competitor, creating the illusion of impact.

What all of this confirms in our investigation is that the media is reactive rather than proactive, with a reliance on being fed information rather than uncovering it. giving the illusion of scrutiny while avoiding systemic accountability.

What all this behaviour proves is that the mainstream media acted out of self preservation only following political pressure from Labor and the Greens. when we uncovered thing, big media gatekept, deciding what the public sees, often privileging safe narratives or reactive coverage over investigative depth.

While the mainstream might broadcast it’s transparency and willingness to hold power to account, it does not hold itself to account and as we’ve seen, dissuades others from doing the same.

While it is understood these large outlets did not want to open themselves up to legal threats, that does not counter the various opportunities they still had to cover this.

Even without publishing a full exposé, the media could have:

• Reported the facts carefully, with context and caveats.
• Asked probing questions of government and contractors, creating public accountability without assuming liability.
• Provided analysis or commentary on patterns, without naming individuals if necessary.
• Flagged conflicts of interest or ethical concerns in a measured way.
• Used qualifying language and provided rights of reply to mitigate legal issues.

While the failure wasn’t necessarily that they ignored risk, it’s that they chose complete inaction or superficial reporting rather than finding a safe, responsible way to inform the public.

And what this leads to is a reinforcement for a cycle of inaction and damages the effectiveness of their own news rooms to “do things”. It shows their hand to the public on what topics they are not willing to cover.

This selective coverage of stories and culture of “reactive, spoonfed culture” can also be observed broadly, one anonymous individual working for community organizations raised concerns over this recently to us.

‘I recall one media event where there were the presidents and executive officers of 20+ peak community organizations during the campaign…[REDACTED] didn’t even send a reporter, got spoon fed copy and photos but didn’t run anything’ – Anonymous

‘I jokingly said to one of the [REDACTED] that if we held our presser out the front of Macquarie point and asked for an [REDACTED] they wouldn’t know what to do’ – Anonymous

This person, who we will call “William” is just one witness to a multitude of cases where stories were missed, and never followed up on.

While these outlets might accuse TDMG of undermining public trust in institutions, it is the these outlets themselves who erode their own public confidence through their actions.

If the mainstream media does not hold itself to account, who will?

Certain sources in this investigation are anonymous. Their identities have been deliberately withheld to protect them from professional or personal risk. We have verified the credibility of these sources and the information they provided to the best of our ability.