Letter from the editor: Property reporting

Our article about advertising and how far property publications go to protect their readers received a lot of angry responses, as well as some supportive ones.

Let’s have some background.

I was hired as a journalist by a property investment title as a junior and I built up my knowledge about the industry as we grew that magazine. Within our editorial meetings, our publisher, writers and, a while later in the game, a sales representative, would regularly talk about the direction and feel of the title. It was a great environment to work in, and I was never unhappy being there.

The overarching view of the approach to editorial from magazines in the property space, and beyond, appears to be something like this: "Teach them to fish, don't give them the fish"; meaning, teach them how to work out if it's a good investment property, rather than pointing out the properties.

It also means this: teach them to catch a spruiker, rather than point out who the spruikers are. My arguments against specific spokespeople in the past have easily been countered with arguments for them. None of this was done in bad faith.

Property media, and I’d imagine all three magazines as well as news outlets, have dedicated staff who work long, tireless hours, pouring a lot of care into the final product. Property slowly became an inextricable part of my life and how I view the world. But the most gratifying part of the job has always been speaking to the readers. I feel a sense of duty to the people who stumble into the property investing world wide-eyed as I once did.

Regardless of the rivalries that people imagine exist between publications, for the most part those rivalries are imaginary, and there's a huge amount of respect in this small crowd of property journalists, editors and publishers.

But there's a conversation we're not having. And it is this one: important coverage appears to be being restricted, and it shouldn’t be.

The property industry, that we all love and live within, is filled with both trustworthy and untrustworthy characters.

Teaching investors how to find a spruiker is hugely important. Provide articles about the hallmarks of a spruiker and explain to them those famous 'top ten questions to ask [insert whichever expert title here]'. By all means, tell them to undertake their due diligence.

But do not restrict coverage of who the spruikers are. It is wrong when coverage of potentially illegal activities by property industry members is non-existent, and it is wrong when the interests of advertisers get in the way of how editorial is shaped.

The pressure on journalists in any company to shape articles a certain way has the potential to be significant, and I’m not just talking about property journalism. It might make some angry, but it's time we talked about it.

What struck me about last Friday’s Today Tonight episode was firstly how few other investment titles, specifically where the subject was an advertiser, decided to run the story or follow up on it on their websites or otherwise. This wasn’t a case of it being a story that didn’t interest their readers – many of whom are likely to be our readers too. It’s also not a case of calling magazines spruikers, or saying that they don't care about their readers, which would plainly be incorrect.

What I am saying is that in the past I have definitely had conversations about sources that I did not want to be quoting, and others that I had an uncertain feeling about, and I did not always end up content.

The property industry is a minefield. It's filled with people who dislike each other; experts that some say are excellent, while others say they are wrong in every way. The one line that is widely agreed with is this: "There isn't one [property expert] who hasn't had anything bad said about them."

But it accompanies a whole host of issues: How do you know who to trust? Which sources are accurate? What is illegal versus unethical and whether you stop quoting anyone that has a certain amount said about them?

As the article indicated yesterday, for publishers there lies an added legal complexity about saying 'no' to a potential advertiser who hasn't been found guilty of anything - even if you could add "yet" to the end of that sentence.

If Property Secrets are found to be guilty of these allegations, it’s hard to doubt that the magazines and other media outlets will act appropriately. I don’t think that even needs to be questioned.

What we wanted to know, was this: What is the limit until advertising and sources do get pulled?

How were we all going to react and when?

Would it be the day after the allegations are made? After a review period? What will it be, and is there even a process?

How far does it need to go, until we can stand there and safely say we’re not using them in any capacity?

That is what we set out to find out. It wasn’t attacking the different magazines; we were not berating them for having those advertisements on the title – far from it.

Many people mentioned yesterday how much more valuable editorial is than advertising. Anyone who knows how PR works, and how they calculate their worth to the client based on editorial placements using a company's media kit, will be able to attest to this.

But what doesn’t often get a mention, again the conversation we're not having, is the pressure that comes from other departments to ignore the signals. Signals that may include what we read on forums about certain members of the industry, what other industry sources begin to say and, worst of all, to ignore what our readers start saying to us about different ‘experts’.

It's unfair to completely shun a spokesperson because of unsubstantiated comments, or a complaint from someone else in the industry who likely has a vested interest, but it's also unfair to use that same line "there isn't one who hasn't had anything bad said about them"  to ensure that they are allowed a comment. This is the dilemma facing us, particularly when we are not privy to all the information about whichever individual is being discussed, as is likely the case here.

Whether it’s magazines, online or otherwise, we all rely on our readers to speak to us, and if their comments fall on deaf ears then what are we doing?

At the same time, we can't possibly be aware of all the people who are doing the wrong thing and as someone else mentioned yesterday, there's certainly a case for innocent until proven guilty. I did have a phone call with an industry member who said how awful it would be if all the allegations do turn out to be untrue, and how much it would have potentially wrecked the livelihood of an innocent man. No one would want that.

There are certain checks that can be made, and I hope we all get better at making them. But if a publisher, if an editorial team, are truly unaware about what has occurred – then the steps they will need to take will be post-event. That is, potentially, right now.

We can call for regulation until the cows come home - certainly a conversation I have with numerous people on a regular basis - but the best thing we can do is allow open coverage of what is occurring.

While some may roll their eyes, what I can promise is the following.

I will never tell a journalist not to use an expert because I personally dislike them, or for any other reason than a concern about their appropriateness to an article or similar. I will also never force a journalist to use a source for any other reason than that they’re a knowledgeable person on that topic and it wouldn’t make sense not to include them.

I will never restrict reporting, and will never allow restrictions, on sensitive topics that might irritate anyone in the property space. I have created friendships with different property professionals, but I will not allow this, and my own opinions about property and investing, to cloud what we report.

Every case for and against using an expert will be debated on its own merit. And we will never shy away from a story about someone who has done our consumers wrong, provided we gather the evidence as is appropriate. Sometimes gathering enough evidence is harder than you might think.

While I was met with a barrage of emails yesterday, some about wrecking relationships, others thanking me for a frank and much-needed discussion, the aim was not to prompt anger or to tarnish other journalists’ work, but to ask for a simple conversation. Unfortunately, this might be a little painful, but the more important parts of life often are.

The conversation needs to start with a question about how we react in response to allegations against an expert who we use. But it should probably then turn into a bit of an analysis of how we’re currently providing content to our readers, and the way we choose the spokespeople initially.

A large part of property journalism is indisputably "teaching them to fish" and we will not stop providing this sort of information either. It's really not a bad mantra.

But it needs to be added to until the approach looks more like the following: “Teach them to fish, don't give them the fish… but let's shine the light on the sharks that swim in the same murky water.”