Why I’m not a journalist

My university career began in 2011 as a journalism student at the Queensland University of Technology. Journalism, for me, was not a vocation: it was an accident, the outcome of a secondary schooling system that insists that children aged seventeen (or sixteen, as I was) are capable of making informed decisions about what they should do for the rest of their lives. Unwilling to turn down my scholarship offer, nervous about taking time off to work or travel, and displaced and heartbroken in the way that many school-leavers are, I decided that somewhere in my subconscious, so deeply rooted that I had never actually been aware of it, there was a desire to report the news.

A common rhetoric amongst journalists is that they chose their profession because they were told that they were ‘good at writing’. Never mind that the people telling them this – teachers, parents – are largely unqualified to make an assessment about what ‘good writing’ actually is, never mind that modern day journalism is far more about minimalism and efficiency than possession of an extensive arsenal of adverbs.

Like many aspiring journalists, I assumed that my florid adolescent vocabulary was an asset, rather than a hindrance. I assumed my job was to tell stories.

Cut to four years later, and I am studying creative writing in Bath, Somerset.

My journalism career ended in spectacular fashion with a job interview at a notorious tabloid television program, during which I abruptly realised that the newsroom was not a place I wanted to be. Seated across the desk from the Chief of Staff, my assumptions about the journalistic world crumbled.

‘I went to uni with Karl Stefanovic,’ my prospective employer informed me. ‘Captain Charisma. I got straight 7s and he got all 4s, but guess who’s making ten times more money now?’

I left the room in tears, frantically phoning my best mate. For me, the conversation was a terrifying glimpse into the future: a future where my funnier, more photogenic friend laughed his way through breakfast shows, and I was the bitter prick in the dingy office of one of Australia’s worst current affairs programs.

It was not merely this incident that made me realise that news reporting was not for me, though it’s the one that stands out in my mind. Rather, it was the culmination of two years of university training, where my lecturers insisted on the importance and integrity of the journalistic profession. It was the result of several internships, in which I experienced the manic, thankless, and egomaniacal environment of the newsroom firsthand. It was the byproduct of my own idealism, an idealism which, when faced by the practical, working world of the media, I suddenly realised was absurd.

Throughout my time at uni, reference was repeatedly made to the Journalists’ Code of Ethics, the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance manifesto that, in theory, dictates the rules of journalistic practice. Honesty, Fairness, Independence, and Respect for the Rights of Others: these are advertised as being the linchpins of a free press’s operations. And, for some journalists, I’m sure that these principles do guide their collation and distribution of data. But, for the most part, it’s a creation myth: the smoke and mirrors that provide sufficient distraction from what the business, like every other, is really about.

Journalism, as I discovered in my interview, is about money.

It’s not about the money made by journalists themselves, who, if they are lucky, will eventually work their way into the territory of $70, 000 a year. It’s not even about the money made by the Karl Stefanovics, riding the mass-market idiocy on the airwaves between six and nine in the morning. No: it’s about  the money made selling papers, in people clicking on weblinks and in dominating the ratings. It’s about money that makes the lofty ethics of a journalism student redundant.

This week in the Guardian, Katharine Murphy posed the question: what kind of journalists does Australia need?

Her article came in response to the restrictions on press freedoms recently enacted under the Abbott government. By her own admission, it also followed in the wake of a series of colossal fuck-ups by various Australian media outlets: the publication of biased, damaging and blatantly false material that marginalised Australia’s Muslim population in a delicate cultural moment.

The use of hysteria to sell papers is by no means a new, or particularly complicated, concept. The practice is so simple, so morally obvious, that JK Rowling indicts it in her series of children’s books otherwise populated by wizards, goblins, and other such manifestations of the unreal. Kids who read Harry Potter learned, over the last four books, two things more frightening than any number of magical, noseless mass murderers: do not trust your government – and do not trust the media.

As someone who devoured the books as a child, the revelations about the ugly capitalism underpinning the journalistic enterprise should not, perhaps, have been so shocking. But I was, while studying, a good journalist: I learnt quickly, was efficient in my writing, and was a favourite with most of my lecturers. I enjoyed the process, the thrill of putting a story together, of waking up early and phoning five, ten, thirty people before getting the perfect eight-second grab of media-trained bullshit. I looked good in a suit. And I do not pretend to be any more morally high-minded, or possess any more integrity, than any of the other young women and men who studied my degree, completed it, and went on to work in a newsroom.

I just decided that I couldn’t do it.

Living in the UK, observing Australia, I’ve never felt more convinced about the decision. The hyperbole that screams from the front of newspapers, on every television screen – Islam and terrorists and national security and the ludicrous oxygen thief who currently runs the country – more than vexes my mind. It terrifies me. It scares me as a white, straight, middle-class male, the least threatened demographic in our country, and more or less the world. It scares me that people will read the stuff, and will think that it is real.

Murphy argues that despite its flaws and failings, Australian journalism is needed now more than ever. A free press is necessary to make sure people are informed, educated, empowered. It is needed to ensure that people can make their own decisions.

This is not the narrative in Australia’s media landscape. Newspapers are not about knowledge, or informed decision-making. They are about fear, the fear that Australian citizens now have about a threat to their coveted, entirely abstract notion of a ‘way of life.’ They are about the fear of an entire community, demonised by a religious affiliation to a gang of extremist murderers. They are about bombings, alleged bombings, adolescent militants, attempts on the life of the Prime Minister that may or may not have actually happened. They are a fiction as convoluted as any story about JK Rowling’s teenaged magicians.

Murphy is correct in saying that Abbott’s reforms are a threat to the freedom of the press. Journalists facing jail for reporting on intelligence services is the stuff of Orwellian nightmare, the kind of dictatorial behaviour that Australians would rightly condemn if it were happening anywhere else. In a democratic society, a free press is essential to the distribution of information, and the government and its agencies must be subject to the same level of interrogation and scrutiny as any other body.

Tony Abbott’s reforms are not about keeping a rabid media in line: if he were interested in fair and accurate reporting, then the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act would not have floated around in parliament for the past year. Despite current attempts to distance himself from party radicals, it’s clear that the Prime Minister’s issue with the media is not its Islamophobia or irresponsibility: it’s the concern that, at some point, intelligence journalism will unearth something that will bite him on the arse.

The Prime Minister, therefore, takes the easy road when it comes to dealing with Australian media, much the same way as the media has with their obligation to the Australian public. Murphy understands that the media has betrayed its purpose, and is willing to concede fault, but her article should not be viewed or accepted as an apology on behalf of the entire industry. Stirring and frank though Murphy’s argument may have been, it reads along the same lines as Jerry Maguire’s ‘Mission Statement:’ idealistic, inspiring, and heartbreakingly ineffectual.

If there is to be change in Australia’s media reportage, it needs to come from something concrete. The Australian Media and Communications Authority and the Australian Press Council should view her call to action as more than just another think-piece: if we are to continue with the self-regulation that journalists value so highly, then they need to tighten their codes of practice. The alternative is too grim to contemplate: a regulatory body installed by the government, a paternal authority for misbehaving children.

Murphy is right when she says that the Australian public has deserted the media. She is right in saying that the media does not deserve their support. But that means the outlook is bleak for those young people, who (unlike myself) have a burning desire to report the news. If journalists continue to be viewed as unreliable, untrustworthy, sensationalist and amoral, then it’s disturbing to contemplate the kind of people who, in the future, will be attracted to the job.

We need to stop pretending that a journalist’s job is to be ‘good at writing.’ We need to admit that a Code of Ethics that functions as little more than a vague set of guidelines will not prevent people from publishing material that is ignorant, didactic, unfair. We need it to be clear that compiling a newspaper with the sole intention of making money by feeding the fear of the masses is unacceptable.

We need the self-regulators to regulate.

If journalists are to remain the valuable and necessary part of our democracy that Murphy, and many others, believe they are, then our media narrative needs to change. We do not want people to tell stories; we do not want 24/7 coverage if it’s all just white noise. And for the journalists who can’t cop that, who think thoroughness and truth telling is simply too much effort, then it’s time to get out of the game.

They can always have a crack at creative writing.

Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places.

If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate.

Myles McGuire is a Brisbane-based writer and student at QUT. He has been published in Voiceworks and shortlisted for the QUT, Monash and Questions Writing prizes.

More by


  1. The Guardian requires money to operate as well, so I’m not sure why you’re putting Katherine Murphy up on a pedastool.

  2. She may have had a road to Damascus moment now but Murphy is just as responsible as all the rest of them – the Mungo McCallums (he ran a one man campaign against Gillard that had to be read to be believed – not that I believed a word he wrote) and the Barrie Cassidys and the Katherine Murphys. These stupid bastards put Abbott in power and now he’s come for them. The old story of ‘They came for the unionists, they came for Rudd, they came for Gillard and I did and said nothing and now they’ve come for me and there’s not one journalist left to say anything.’ Mike Carlton sacked for complaining about Israel’s genocide in Gaza and Kerry O’Brien sent to ABC Siberia as a talking head hosting Four Corners for getting Tony Abbott to say he lied constantly and you couldn’t believe a word he said. The only true thing Abbott is on record as ever saying to a journalist. They thought he would only ever pick on other people not JOURNALISTS because he used to be one himself. I can only remind them of the Russian story about the axeman going in to the forest to fell trees and then the trees see the wooden handle of the axe and shriek ‘The handle’s one of us!’ Exactly.

  3. Great piece !

    Nothing nobody didn’t already know, but still a good wake up call for any naive neophytes.

    We live in a profoundly wicked time.

    They have occured throughout history and we wondered how they could have been allowed to develop.

    Now we know.

  4. “Journalism, as I discovered in my interview, is about money.”……GADZEEKS!!!!!what took you so long?!Perhaps reading Harry Potter was not the best way to get a political education.

    • I agree, Damien, the author’s political education is obviously based solely on one children’s book, and the use of allegories in fiction has absolutely no value. *


  5. Where has the author been living? It took him how long to figure out the media and news industries are driven by revenue?

    The idea that journalistic content should be moderated by a regulatory commission is appalling.

    If the author can find a business model where only ‘good’ journalism is published, and the writers and site operators can be paid a reasonable wage, then why not start that business himself? Better than calling on a regulatory commission to interfere with the practices of private businesses.

  6. Well, I must make a confession and say that, like Mr McGuire, I was not jaded and world-weary by the time I stopped using nappies. After all, apparently, there’s nothing worse than actually daring to have an ideal, or a desire to actually believe in an ethical code, and there’s nothing more shameful than admitting that maybe (after all) we don’t know it all.

    Of course, my point is this: we don’t all come into this world knowing all the wrongs and rights of it, so one of the things we need to actually do, each year perhaps, each generation at least, is actually inform people. Educate people. Get the word out. Say something. Actually get off our butts and do some old-fashioned consciousness raising.

    Because that’s one way of getting positive changes started.

  7. “If journalists are to remain the valuable and necessary part of our democracy…”

    Democracy? Where? When?

    “They (read journo’s) can always have a crack at creative writing.”

    I thought all writing should be creative, and often is with journalism, but in all the wrong ways, usually.

  8. Thanks for pointing out the sarcasm Greg.I might not have picked it up otherwise.Been busy lately poring over Harry Potter to attempt to understand how the world really works.Also,planning a whole lot of blog entries for Overland Literary Journal about the disappointments that result from growing up in class society.

  9. Fair bit of rubbish in this piece. Gillard was a much against media reporting as anyone. Mind you most pollies dont want to be taken to task. Pretty one-sided against Abbott. Labor were just as bad on Media reform as Abbott might want to be. Internet filters and the like. So try and remember a little of what happened in the six years before the Libs took over 12 months ago

Leave a Reply to damien Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>