• Margaret Simons

29 January 2008A party in Narre Warren has exposed the limitations of an industry that plays only to mass audiences, writes MARGARET SIMONS

SOMETIMESyou need to take your eye off the ball in order to see what is happening. The silly season is traditionally a time when serious journalism rests, but this year the summer story of the year, about a 16-year-old kid and his out-of-control party, has revealed a great deal about how journalism works in the new media world and the need for some new thought and new approaches.

The kid, from outer suburban Kath and Kim territory in Melbourne?s Narre Warren, held a party without his parents? knowledge. Thanks to his placing an invitation on his Myspace page, together with a flurry of text messaging on the night, he got more guests than he bargained for. About 500 people turned up. When they spilled into the street, upsetting a neighbour?s bird bath and causing a ruckus, dozens of police came to the scene backed up by a helicopter and the drug squad.

Too much has already been written about whether the kid is a cool dude or a spoilt brat, and the extent to which the parents are or are not to blame. That?s not my interest. I want to look at this story as a twenty-first century phenomenon. This kid is from McMansion territory, where every bedroom has a computer capable of publishing material to the world. His story shows us the way in which new media can both create and report on a story, and the ways in which journalism is groping towards ways to cope.

Tabloid television has doled out its predictable doses of moral outrage ? which has done nothing but help the development of the kid as a media phenomenon. Under cross examination by Channel Nine?s A Current Affair, he stood bare chested, nipple ring on show and apparently completely comfortable. Over several minutes he coolly refused to be either shamed or reduced to a formula. The reporter repeatedly urged him to take off his trademark cheap plastic sunglasses, look the audience in the eye and apologise. He replied: ?I?ll say sorry but I?m not taking off my glasses? Asked what he would say to other young teenagers thinking of partying without their parents? knowledge, he said ?Get me to do it for you?.

As a result it is possible on the internet to buy t-shirts emblazoned with the words ?I?ll say sorry but I?m not taking off my sunglasses.? Meanwhile the kid has reportedly been offered big money to become an event organiser.

The day after the A Current Affair interview screened, the kid wrote to his Facebook fans:
?:take it:BREAKIT ^luvin dis shit^
Ur all Tha GOOD type !!!~~~
Every1 HiT up tha ||Cnut||
Fkn (maKe) me a groUp Offica!
Sik.?
If I may interpret: he was clearly having a good time. Meanwhile he posted a clip of the interview to his Myspace profile page, and changed his image on Facebook to the one that appeared in the media the morning after the party ? semi-naked and wrapped in a pink doona.
Compare this to the fate of the Paxton family in 1996. The Paxtons were emblematic of the relationship between media and the powerless at that time. The Paxtons were easy meat for tabloid moral outrage ? not media savvy enough to realise what was being done to them, let alone undermine it. Today Shane Paxton is virtually middle aged and instead we have this new kid in the lens. He is a media adept, with the ability to turn the formulas of traditional media to his own ends, and parlay the attention into a kind of commentary on media, while creating his own celebrity. I am not suggesting he is doing this consciously, nor that he is a hero or to be admired. It just happens. This generation does media, rather than only consuming it or being its subject.

The mainstream media, meanwhile, has been largely left to report on what is happening on the internet in much the same way as it would report on other public spaces, such as parliaments and the courts. The language of the stories gives the game away. Journalists are reporting on the kid for the benefit of those who are not themselves denizens of Facebook (or Facepage, as the Herald-Sun mis-named it) or Myspace.

Thus journalists define not only themselves but also their audiences as spectators, rather than participants in the process. The kid and his friends are doing media, the audiences of traditional media are expected just to watch. There is a generational issue as well. Much of the reporting has implicitly assumed that the audience is older than the participants in the story. A fair assumption, but hardly a healthy one for traditional media wanting to engage young readers.

At some levels traditional media it isn?t coping at all. At the time of writing, this kid is facing charges, which means that because he is a child, it is against the law to name him.

Nevertheless, you can look at this Myspace page or this Facebook site or simply Google ?Narre Warren? and ?teenager? and ?party? and find out his name in an instant ? together with his address, his mobile phone number and his family history.

Partly this is because mainstream media reports written weeks ago live on in the online world, but it is also because the kid and his friends are creating their own media content, including by cutting and pasting stuff the mainstream media has done. The internet is awash with pictures of the kid, his nipple ring, his bleached blonde hair and his sunglasses.

The bloggers and social networkers are naming the kid every day, with no apparent care or awareness that they are breaking the law. The authorities are hardly likely to pursue dozens of ordinary citizens and children for contempt, yet journalists are in the strange position of having to toe the line, since it it is likely action would be taken if they didn?t.

This makes the law look foolish, of course, but also highlights the challenge of he new media age. Journalists, because of their institutional affiliations ? their place at the heart of the establishment ? are less able to inform the public than ordinary citizens. The citizens are providing the information for themselves.

Of course, big business is adept at cashing in. The internet classified site realestate.com.au was quick to cash in on the kid?s ?brand? by using an image of a teenager very similar to the one in question ? complete with blonde hair and yellow rimmed sunglasses ? to encourage people to look for a new house.

The advertising trade magazine B&T reported a spokesperson for the site as saying: ?We have been following the story closely and thought about what it would be like to have 500 people at a party near to where you live, and what would motivate the neighbours to move. The marketing department came up with the idea and we had it checked by our lawyers so decided to run with it.?

So is the kid a victim after all ? his image stolen and made into a commodity? Not really, or not entirely.

The kid?s supporters ? or perhaps the kid himself ? hit back with a spoof ad on the rival Domain site. Interested buyers were invited to snap up the $20,000 bargain boasting a host of features including ?NO RentS, NO oLDieZ? a ?massif outdoor entertaining area!? a garden with ?trashed flowerbeds? and "FREE security provided by Copz N Dawg Squad.?

Meanwhile a debate has broken out on the discussions page of the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia about whether this kid (who is of course freely named) merits an entry under the sites ?notability? policy, or whether this is a case of ?recentism,? meaning that his star will fade within the month. This discussion includes reflections on whether the international community that is Wikipedia has the right, or the ability, to comment on what is significant in Australian culture.

In other words, there is enough in this saga to fuel media studies and sociology classes for at least a semester. Even the nature of the charges the kid is facing tells a new media tale. One of them is making child pornography. This reportedly relates to pictures he took of girls at the party with his mobile phone.

It would be wrong to say the traditional media has completely failed to cope. Google the boy?s name and you will find that although the mainstream media cannot name him, News Limited has bought Google ads activated by his name, and is promoting this site with the words ?everything (boy?s name), news here? The site aggregates all the news, including an open letter to the public from the kid?s parents, and the latest news that he and his folks have agreed to ?give each other some space? until the furor dies down. They may be waiting a while.

So what does this tell us about how journalists, need to change? How might the job of reporting by professional journalists be done better, in a more relevant way? Indeed, is there any role at all for journalists in a saga like this one?

One of the lessons we should take away is about audiences. Mass media is no longer the only, nor even necessarily the main, game in town. The kid?s party was a media event long before it was reported by journalists. The kid had already informed a niche audience about it through his Myspace page. One of the things that has hobbled the mainstream media in its reporting is that it plays only to mass audiences. No professional journalist serves or works with the kid and his peers, or reports to them, or researches stories for them.

Yet wouldn?t these kids be well served by a journalists? traditional skills? Wouldn?t they gain from, say, a Freedom of Information request to the Victorian Police to reveal the mechanisms behind the calling out of the dog squad? Or a tough interview with police commissioner Christine Nixon?

On the other hand, wouldn?t they be challenged by a series of up close interviews with the neighbours, addressed directly at them, about how frightened they were on the night of the party?

Historically, journalism has served to link communities and build common interests. We might not all think the same way, but since the printing press led to the growth of modern media it is likely that we have been thinking about the same sorts of things. We have had a common ?front page? of concerns.

This can no longer be taken for granted. Surely, though, the job of the journalist needs to continue in the new media age. The kid and his friends need to be brought into the tent, engaged with the broader society. Or perhaps we need to be brought into their tent. We need to be connected.

There are several intersecting communities involved in this story. The kid and his guests. The neighbours. The community of Narre Warren. The people of Victoria. The police. The community of Wikipedia. Isn?t part of the job of journalism to serve, create and engage these communities ? to get them talking to each other?

The problem is obvious, though. At present there is no business model to support this kind of journalism. Niche audiences don?t draw enough advertisers or pay enough to support professional journalists.

The story of this kid, continuing all over the place even as I write, tells us that new ways will have to be found. Meanwhile, I gather from Facebook that the kid is planning another party, in ?Narre,? in a few weeks? time. The media are bound to be there, but they will be confronted by dozens of mobile phone cameras, digicams and so forth ? wielded by the guests. ?

Margaret Simons?s latest book, The Content Makers: Understanding the Media in Australia, is published by Penguin.

Photo: Valeria Titova/iStockphoto.com