Good (Travel) News

I am surprised to find this morning that I might be in greater agreement with Hartigan than I first thought. I've never thought newspapers would be killed by the internet, not just yet anyway. I'm of the view it's bad editors that kill newspapers.

This week's comments at Canberra's National Press Club was a rally call to champion the worthy content of newspapers, to stake a claim to the relevance of the daily papers and outline the future for News Ltd to make them more appealing to their customers.

In his own words, "As some of you may know we are completely reinventing our features coverage with new national sections in-paper and online. One of them is travel. Up till now travel journalism has been junket journalism. The airline with the best trip, the resort with the best room, gets the cover. It’s voyeurism but it’s not value. Instead of the same old destination stories we intend to give readers information that helps them research their next holiday and the tools to book and pay for it. Just by reading the newspaper or visiting the site."

Today I read the speech again with a little distance, and it doesn't offend me quite as much as it did the first time I read it. Why? Because when I first read it my colleagues at the ASTW were up to their armpits in debate about the future of Australian travel journalism, and had been under attack from a spurious complaint that any sponsored travel editorial is tainted. In that light, Hartigan's comments look like a red rag to a bull.

Take these comments on their own, you could interpret that Hartigan is admitting his own failures rather than slapping *all* travel journos in the face.

It was his editors at ESCAPE who were running stories about which business class seats were the best, having sampled a handful in the period of a few weeks on special famils. It was his editors who sourced editorial content specifically for a particular airline to showcase their destinations. It was his editors who run the endless stream of facile Fiji resorts without balancing the presentations with other Pacific or Asian destinations where travellers can get better value for money and immerse themselves in some genuine culture.

This is my view of where News Ltd has floundered. They kicked out a couple of great travel editors a few years ago and shoved some square pegs in round holes. Sydney got a news desk man and Melbourne got, well, Melbourne got totally screwed. There's no other way to put it. (I'm told he's a nice guy, but he was a rubbish editor in every possible way) We learned a few weeks back that things were changing, that a new editorial regime would replace the current ESCAPE format. And guess what, they put a decent editor in charge of the show.

I'm going to watch this space with a cautious eye, but it almost looks as though Hartigan is doing exactly what he's saying.

The new emphasis for travel to be informative and a resource for the reader is not novel. Take a look at Vacations & Travel, a national magazine that manages to publish a sensational edition every quarter. Presented in the best of glossy paper the content is attractive, relevant and is accompanied by a cascade of options for the traveller who wants to look deeper into the destination. It's the best shopping guide for Australian travellers in the market. It's not a Lonely Planet, it wont tell you what to do when you get there. Instead it tells you about a bunch of great experiences, why you might want to go there and who in Australia can help make it happen.

Is there a relationship between the advertisers and the editorial - yes. That's the nature of advertising, you have to sell space in the mag to pay for content. The price at the newspaper stand along doesn't cover it. This applies to any travel publication - a good editor sets up a forward plan for content and the advertisers can fight over the slots. Sometimes editorial is commissioned to support advertising too - to highlight a destination that isn't otherwise getting a run.

If you look carefully at Hartigan's speech you find the smoking gun. "Give them something they can’t get anywhere else."

Fair call. I think just about every travel writer in the ASTW would like to do that. We'd much rather be wandering off the trail and reporting on travel that goes beyond the cliche and covered. If that really is the mandate that Hartigan has given to his new look ESCAPE team then we're in for some interesting years and perhaps a revival of the very things that stir our passion for travel.



PS...

This blog diverted from it's original theme, about journalism rather than travel journalism.

Hartigan has pointed on many occasions that he feels journalism is in a healthy state today, compared to decades past. Lots of competition, lots of passionate journos and lots of open debate about issues - and he has a point, the media world is far more dynamic even without some of the familiar mastheads. The trouble is that the agenda being set by editors are usually the wrong issues - the people of Australia are too often being led down the path of the sensational instead of the informative.

Just take a look at what the Herald-Sun in Melbourne puts on the front page on any given day, and compare that to the real stories of the day and ask yourself if the debate is taking place on a level playing field?

I think John Hartigan is less concerned about the influence of Rupert Murdoch than I am. Personally I am less concerned with Rupert in particular than I am with concentrated ownership of the media. It concerns me that any one man would have such a potent influence on the selection of so many editors - and hence the debates take place on the wrong issues.

That's where my views most likely differ from Hartigans.

Gutless

Members of the ASTW have been outraged by a few events in the media recently that challenge the validity of travel journalism in Australia. This comes at a time when genuine journalistic standards are under extreme financial pressure, after a decade of decay and an appalling lack of editorial integrity sweeping the media landscape.

The art of travel is being squeezed into a lowest common denominator scenario, a race to the bottom.

Two events recently brought the mood of gloom to a head. First a posting on a blog that rather naively claims that Australian travel journalists are the worst in the world because they accept free trips (link here) (yes, does rather sound like someone *didn't* get a free trip and now they've hit the bitch button). Second was the promotion of Travel + Leisure Magazine as "the travel magazine you can truly rely on because their world-class editors, writers and photographers pay their own way wherever they go."

My first reaction to that little jibe was "bollocks, ya tossers". Some of the other ASTW members were a little more wounded by this, and the reaction was potent. This seemingly innocuous piece of self-congratulatory skyting really dug at a decade of hard knocks for the professionals in the business. Having had their incomes slashed, their content shoe-horned into increasingly smaller slots, their access to sponsored travel stripped away year after year the real travel journalists (freelancers who are committed to travel and make a living selling their work) are now being slapped in the face with a wet haddock.

The suggestion is that you can't trust other travel writers because they accept sponsorship. Which is like saying a review of a sports car is tainted because the writer didn't buy the car, or similar for movie critics, culinary writers, wine editors, etc. In essence, if you didn't have industry sponsorship of critics and writers you wouldn't have much media left at all.

It especially irks the real travel journos because they live or die on the quality of their work. If you don't sell the story to an editor you don't get paid. Travel + Leisure are a little bit different of course. It's not clear how their travel gets paid for - are they earning such a substantial salary from the magazine that the cost of the travel is fully compensated, or is the magazine directly picking up the tab by way of an allowance. Either way, the point is the employer is ensuring the costs are covered, not the writer.

It means the travel is not paid for by a hotel chain with a vested interest in the outcome. That is true. Compare that to a freelance journo who accepts a limited number of famils each year and writes up the ones that are sellable were worthy of coverage. If the hotels were rubbish and the destination a bore then the writer isnt going to waste time writing them up, they go write something that's actually worth *reading*.

As one of my editors put it, why fill a travel section with stories of where NOT to travel. That's not what their audience wants.

Travel writers are people who chose a lifestyle based on sharing what is wonderful and inspiring others to broaden their horizons. Life is too short and the world too fascinating to waste too much time talking about what sucks in travel.

And here's the rub - the off-handed remarks by bloggers and well-paid staff journalists strike an off note because they call into question the motives of the freelance journalists. They drop words like freeloaders and have a laugh about snouts in the trough. One particular editor has earned himself a reputation for denigrating the very writers he buys content from - again a case of sour grapes having failed as a freelancer himself.

Such casual character assassination of freelance writers is particularly nasty because the real motives of the writers are nearly always far more noble. These are people who gave up other career opportunities and better paying jobs in order to do something worthwhile. They are humanitarians, they fund raise for charities, they actually give a damn about the inequality they see overseas and in Australia. They are the ones who have opened their minds to a bigger world and have made a decision to share that world as best they can.

Instead of being respected for giving up the security of a staff job to invest their lives in the real world, they are simply labelled as freeloaders and told their stories are lies - all because someone else picked up the bill for a hotel and an airline ticket.

That's gutless.

Let's not forget why travel is important. It broadens our appreciation for life, makes us aware that there is more to life than the narrow confines of a job, a house in the suburbs and two cars in the driveway. Without travel the scope of our appreciation for humanity is restricted to what we already know.

And for the most part we know very very little. The more you travel the more you realise how little we know. It's humbling, expanding and inspiring.

Less is More

The ancient Romans knew well the value of restraint upon the expression of man.

The literary canons under which Roman authors published were rigidly imposed, demanding exact use of rhythm and meter when delivering their message. If you can imagine trying to write an service manual for a German car using only Haiku and half the alphabet, then you're half way there. Not only was there a requirement for words to flow with song, but the Latin language itself was poorly equipped for words to convey sentiment of romance and love.

Poetic figures such as Catullus and Ovid managed to express themselves however, and perhaps their classic works were forged in part from those very constraints that countered free expression.

If so then the internet is heralding a very dire future for us all.

Video Killed the Travel Writer

Ooooh uh oh oh!

A good discussion has popped up between some members of the ASTW regarding the recent announcement by News Ltd that they'll be looking for their contributors to provide more than just words and pictures from now one, they want moving pictures to embellish their growing online presence. This has raised a few hackles and stirred up some old wounds.

I joined in with my two cents worth, because I think this time the publishers have got it wrong and will fail to achieve the stated aim. Experienced journalists need not fear that their bread and butter will be swallowed up by a younger generation who are video blog savvy - the real danger is that the big brands in media will fail to see the folly of their ways before they go broke. Falling advertising revenue and competition from the internet is not what is killing the traditional media, it's the knuckle headed management of these companies that is still searching for that elusive free lunch.


---


You know I don't disagree with your sentiments Paul, but I do think that there's a big difference between photos and video when it comes to the devaluation of our craft. Market forces have made the most of the digital revolution in still photography, and that's the reality for guys like us trying to sell images. I don't think it's as simple as just pointing the finger at editors and publishers, there is a broader context than that - If not for the current quality of compact and DLSR equipment then those magazines you refer to would not have the material they need.

But digital video is a different situation entirely. There simply isn't the same depth of quality material available out there, so publishers will have to spend money if they want publishable videos. And in all likelihood they wont or cant spend that money, and their aspirations for content will remain largely unfulfilled. As Julie suggested the skills and equipment needed to generate a presentable video are far greater than a good shot. A 30 second TV commercial in Australia requires a dozen people or more to produce, and costs more than any of us make in a whole year.

What this move does signal is an opportunity for those who have the right talent and are inspired to chase it. Graham is looking at getting some training so he can join the party. Good for you Graham, I hope it works out for you. Personally I'd love to shoot more motion video but I have my hands full processing the stills and writing notes while I travel. I have a backlog of both at present, so how on earth would I find time to start editing videos as well?

But some ASTW members will no doubt be better able to meet that challenge. My guess it wont be many however. Video is fundamentally a different challenge than stills. Writers are predisposed to making the leap to photography, by virtue of passion and knowledge of the subject - the digital revolution simply made that step more manageable for many by reducing the logistical burden of film and equipment. Video is far more demanding because it requires significant resources to edit what you shoot, and it benefits dramatically from planning and advance research of the material. Cheaper and more compact HD cameras is not going to result in competitive content flooding the online travel sections, it results in teenagers posting mindless video-blogs on Facebook.

So I think we need not worry too much about being pushed out of the market due to lack of video to upload with our stories.

And a word of caution for the publishers out there. If you think you can access quality video content at bottom of the bucket prices then you may have a serious flaw in your business model. But some of these publishers are the same people who still haven't recognised that reducing your budget for content invariably reduces the appeal of your travel section to advertisers.

They're still looking for that free lunch.