Transparency’s all the rage these days. And accountability. Politicians and public servants promise lots of both. “Our commitment to transparency is evidenced by our actions,” Kristina Keneally declared in parliament in November 2009.

Yes. I mean no. I mean yes.

With Kristina’s words ringing in my ears I approach a NSW government department with a request for an interview. “We value transparency”, its website declares, “the exchange of current and relevant information.”

This will be easy, I think to myself.

“Before we can consider your interview request,” writes the department’s Publicist, “we need to know what publication has agreed to run the story. Can you confirm the title of the publication, the editor you are dealing with and provide a list of questions you wish to put to (us).” 

“Does this mean,” I ask in an email “that if (your department) doesn’t like the nature of my questions that no interview will be forthcoming?”

The Publicist writes back: “As I am sure you appreciate, (our department) is approached frequently regarding interviews. Given our limited resources in terms of both time and people, we would require you to: a) Confirm that (the publication) has commissioned the story, including written confirmation from the editor and (b) Provide questions in writing. (Our department) will then respond in writing.”

The publicist already knows which publication I’m writing for. She’s written to the editor: “Can you confirm that you have agreed to run this story and your understanding of what the story is about?”

As she already knows, my article is about the Australian film industry. In the preparation of it I wanted to have a chat with a member of Screen NSW - part of the NSW Ministry for the Arts. I was particularly interested in a scriptwriting workshop that Screen NSW runs called

“Aurora”. Our film industry constantly bemoans the lack of good screenplays and, as a practicing filmmaker, I was curious to sound out Screen NSW’s thoughts about the intensive workshopping of screenplays - a process that involves lots of both money and scriptwriting ‘experts’ or ‘gurus’. (Yes, the word ‘guru’ is frequently used.) Does ‘Aurora’ produce better screenplays than those written by individual writers without the benefit of workshopping, ‘experts’ or ‘gurus’? A topic of interest to all of us in the film industry and one about which there are (as there should be) many points of view.

I write back to the Publicist: “Is Screen NSW really so overwhelmed with requests for interviews that (no member of staff) can set aside an hour to talk with a freelance journalist?” 

I get no response. “It is a dialogue I am interested in – not in the provision of a list of questions to which I get pre-digested answers. If this is the route that Screen NSW insists on the ‘interview’ might just as well take place in cyberspace. Why does Screen NSW feel the need to control the information about it and its activities in the way your emails imply?” 

Again, no response. 

The person I wished to talk with at Screen NSW about ‘Aurora’ is an experienced industry practitioner and, I suspect, has quite different views to my own about the best way to develop quality screenplays. I had anticipated a lively dialogue with him – as one would hope to be the case in an industry that seeks to provide a diverse range of films for diverse Australian and international audiences. But to have a chat with him I needed to get past the tax-payer funded government Publicist – a figure in this day and age whose primary job seems to be obstructing the free flow of information to the public.

I persevere with my emails to the non responsive Publicist. “I have always approached interviews as a dialogue,” I write, “that starts with one question or observation and then progresses as any dialogue does - in directions that cannot be predicted in advance.”

The Publicist gets back to me eventually, insisting there can be no interview unless I provide my written questions in advance. What if I think of a new question during the interview? I ask. One that I have not put in writing in advance? Can I ask it? 

It is at this point that the Publicist informs me that there will be no face to face interview. The ‘interview’ will take the form of questions submitted in writing that will be answered in writing. Fearful that I may, this past few decades, have been labouring under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the word ‘interview’, I reach for my Funk and Wagnalls and am reminded that an interview is “a conversation conducted, as by a reporter, with a person from whom information is sought…a record of such a conversation.” 

While I am at it I check on the Funk and Wagnall’s definitions of ‘transparency: “Having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance…easily understood, very clear, without guile or concealment, open, frank, candid.” 

Time is precious, however, and I did not want to get into a semantic argument with the Publicist as to whether or not written responses to written questions qualifies as an ‘interview’. If the interview must take place in cyberspace, so be it – even if this is a very cumbersome way of engaging in a dialogue. I asked my first question: How much does the Aurora scriptwriting workshop cost and how many participants are there in it? 

The Publicist wrote back to tell me that she required all of my written questions at once. Not one at a time. There was no way I was going to be able to trick Screen NSW into a dialogue.

I decide to move further up the food chain and ask the NSW Minister for the Arts, Virginia Judge if the Keneally government has redefined ‘interview’ such that written responses to written questions now qualifies as an “interview”.

I await a reply, fearful that I may have to notify Funk and Wagnall’s that they must add a new definition to their dictionary entry.

14 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dave says:

      03:01pm | 18/03/10

      This is a Monty Python sketch isn’t it?

      Or has Max Markeson taken over publicist duties for them?

    • acker says:

      03:16pm | 18/03/10

      Didn’t someone in the media nickname one of the NSW Ministers “Sir Lunchalot” ? ....obviously he is way to busy shucking oysters and sipping fine wine at swish restaurants to do much else. Try ambushing someone at Iguana’s wink

    • Ragool says:

      04:04pm | 18/03/10

      That’s the Soft Left Faction’s Ian MacDonald MLC, now the minister for State and Regional Development, Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Central Coast, and the newly appointed Minister for Big Events. He backstabbed his faction during the whole Rees schamozzle to get back in the Ministry.
      He’s rumoured to be retiring after the next election, specifically if Verity Firth loses her seat of Balmain to the Greens- the vacancy will be hers.

    • acker says:

      05:53pm | 18/03/10

      I’m in a NSW region and I can assure everyone, there is “SFA” development, so obviously no-one out the Riverina is feeding him, or alternatively he is not accepting our entrapreneurs generous offers to grab a bite at Maccas, Subs, H-Jacs or some other similar priced lunch venue…..

    • Zeta says:

      03:36pm | 18/03/10

      You’re lucky you were obviously dealing with a Departmental media operative, and not a complete bastard like me. This is how it would have gone down if I was Screen NSW’s publicist… in screenplay format:

      Zeta: “Are you from a metro paper, an AM radio station, a television station or the ABC?” You: Obviously not. Zeta: “I’ll get back to you. I’m going through a tunnell cheeeroooghwoarrrr.” You: But I called you on your landline. Zeta: “...you think you’re so smart don’t you.” Hangs up.

      Three days later, Zeta: “Oh. You’re like, a Uni student or something? Are you from JJJ’s Hack? Because we don’t talk to them.” You: No. Something even more random. Zeta: “What kind of numbers do you guys post?” You: Don’t you even want me to send you questions? Zeta: “Nah. Send me some subscription or viewership numbers and I’ll think about putting you on my media release list.”

      A week later: You call, wondering what’s going on. Zeta: “Maaaate, I just don’t think we’re going to have time, why don’t you email me a brief of what you want to do and I’ll email you some remarks that fit.” You, annoyed because that’s not really an interview. Zeta: “Yeah, sorry mate, you know what it’s like.”

      But you clearly don’t. You’re not entitled to an interview just because you call yourself a journalist. Now if your name was Laurie Oakes I’m sure things would have been much different. You could be James bloody Cameron for all your average public service flack could care, if you don’t post big numbers, why bother pulling out any stops for you?

      As I tell junior spinners everyday - ‘If a tree falls in the woods and a broadsheet doesn’t cover it, it didn’t happen. If a tree falls in the woods and Today Tonight were chasing it, it’s a pedophile, and if a tree falls in the woods and News Ltd says it’s a Leadership spill, it’s a leadership spill. If anyone else calls, tell them we’re busy.’

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      03:53pm | 18/03/10

      This is the model of ‘media relations’ being emulated by the Rudd Government.  From a government perspective it is very effective - it relies on media outlets being relatively short staffed and busy and government sources feeding only the information that they want, at the time of their choosing to journalists who are of course viewed with suspicion.  This approach worked early in the life of the NSW Government and it still goes on, but to less effect.  One can argue that they have spun themselves into a cocoon. 
      The practice is now de-rigeur for most of the offices in Rudds Government particularly those who employ political staff from NSW; they know no different.  Small, harmless requests for insignificant information must be ‘cleared’ by the Minister’s media adviser who refuses to take calls when travelling (which is of course why they all insist on having a Blackberry!).  The clearance process, if the adviser can be bothered, will generally fall outside the journalists deadline (usually only a couple of days late, possibly a week) but generally they can’t be bothered and the story generally goes away.  For more complex issues the media will have to rely on non-government sources, often academics.  In the past, there were rumours that some of these had been ‘verballed’ by advisors for making comments that don’t agree with government policy. 

      The government’s politically appointed media advisors don’t understand that journalists will find alternative sources of information if the government is stumm.  For people like persephone who will undoubtedly commet that things were the same under Howard - please take a cold shower and settle down.  Not all things were great under the Howard government but I worked as a communications director in a public service agency under Howard and under Rudd and I can assure you that there was a huge difference in the way media was dealt with.

    • davo says:

      09:50pm | 19/03/10

      I so totally agree with your comment…....

    • Bruce says:

      03:58pm | 18/03/10

      I worked for a large organisation that like to use buzz words like “transparent” and “work life balance”. The real meanings go something like this: “It only applys to you when it suits us”. The moment business’s and politicians start using “buzz words”  start smelling a rat, there usually a bigger agenda being played out.

    • Ragool says:

      04:08pm | 18/03/10

      I would have thought the Department of Arts would have been crying out for some media coverage, especially considering the lack of it. I’d be very surprised if you didn’t hear back from Viriginia Judge who is notorious for trying to get her name in the papers, and her head on TV.
      From what I hear Macquarie Street is in wind down mode at the moment, Labor knows they’re going next year, and many in departments will be out of a job. Most of the advisors, D-G assistants will be trying to get as many freebies and perks as possible before they’re booted out.

    • Formersnag the child protector. says:

      04:36pm | 18/03/10

      Yes we have similar laws in QLD, FOI, Whistle-blowers, Judicial Review. All the big names are there, in theory. In practice trolley loads of documents get rolled past a cabinet meeting & hey presto “confidence in cabinet”.

      The worst examples are when children with disability are abused, then “privacy” laws are used to protect the guilty & cover up any incompetence or carelessness by bureaucrats.

      Get all staff stooges or “Galahs” off the net.

    • davo says:

      04:40pm | 18/03/10

      The worst part of this story is that the NSW Government was where most of the Canberra Labor people started. The NSW Government is such a bloated closed shop its amazing that we still have a state (or do we?)
      The way the Federal Government is being operated IE within the media cycle is exactly what happened in NSW. Now that NSW has been pilaged they have moved to Federal politics.
      But, this is no surprise as I know no-one in the NSW scheme wants to be the source of a “bad story”
      Please help us all if Labor gets back in—in any election

    • Bob H says:

      08:25pm | 18/03/10

      Exactly how the Soviet Union operated, under these conditions there is no accountability to the press which is essential for a democracy to work.  The unhealthy relationship between lapdog press and dishonest government is very sad.  Australians fought and died for such freedoms - how dare politicians milk their sacrifices while at the same time laugh at them behind closed doors.

    • Jolanda says:

      04:24pm | 19/03/10

      That is the thing written responses are now considered an interview.  It is the way that companies deal with all issues.  You write a complaint or you present an issue or question, that complaint/question gets sent to the persons whom are involved and they write a written response.  Their response is considered an interview and it is put on the record as the ‘interview’ when no answers were actually able to be challenged or situations addressed.  It is the Governments way of organizing the process so that they control and cover up and many use the same process because they benefit.

      I tried to get an appointment to have a meeting with the Minister for Education in relation to serious allegations of systematic bias, bullying, victimization, vilificaiton and manipulation of students test results, school applications and state records.  I was told that the Minister was busy for the foreseeable future and therefore couldn’t see me.  They want everything in writing so that they can process it through the ‘system of cover up’ that they have designed.

      Education - Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • Rita says:

      07:42am | 25/04/12

      I’m happy to read your blog

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter