The role of journalism and of journalists in society is a vexed issue. At what point do journalists cease to be mere reporters, bystanders and observers? Is there a point at which a journalist should express a view and take a position on an issue?
Without wanting to get completely sidetracked by a discussion about the role of the media in an open and democratic society, let me say that, in essence, I believe it’s the role of journalism and of journalists to ask questions, hold accountable people in positions of power and privilege, highlight hypocrisy and deceit, and to shine a spotlight where people don’t want a spotlight shone.
Journalism should, where and when it’s appropriate, be an agent of change.
I was told by a reader of Professional Planner Online last month – and told quite forcefully – that I have no right to hold an opinion on what I write about; and if I do, I have no right to express it or to let it inform the articles that I write or publish in this magazine, and elsewhere:
“My view is you are biased. You are only a journalist – only a journalist. Journalism carries the responsibility to present all points of view – to report on the issues – not to lead the debate and influence towards one outcome. You are a journalist – only a journalist. You have no basis to lead towards one result – and you lose credibility with all of those who appreciate that there is another view.
“You are only a journalist. There is no basis for you to be anything more.”
I get the point, particularly about needing to present different sides of an argument, but I disagree with the idea that this magazine cannot lead a debate about the need for reform in financial planning.
Recently I learned about the News of the World, a newspaper in the UK that has a circulation of more than 25 million, and a campaign waged by the paper against the state of child protection laws in the UK.
Let me state very clearly that I am not equating Professional Planner with News of the World; nor am I equating the importance of restructuring the financial planning industry with the importance of protecting children. I use the News of the World simply as a compelling example of why journalism is and should be an agent for change – an example of why journalists sometimes must do more than stand on the sidelines and merely report on events dispassionately.
The newspaper’s campaign was prompted by the murder of children by a convicted sex offender who’d been released from jail. The newspaper took the view that the law must change, to give children in particular and the community generally more protection. Its campaign included publishing the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders.
It was, unsurprisingly, a wildly controversial campaign. It elicited both very strong support and very strong condemnation, from different parts of the community. And it had some unintended consequences. Doctors were attacked – some readers apparently were not sure exactly what a paediatrician is.
In the end the paper achieved significant changes. The laws governing child protection in the UK have been substantially revised and strengthened; and there’s a very real chance that the changes will prevent the kind of horrific events that led to the paper’s concerns in the first place.
The fact is that this publication – and others – can and should routinely cover issues that some would prefer we didn’t. Anyone who thinks we shouldn’t, mistakes at a very basic level why Professional Planner exists. It does not mean the value of financial planning is not recognised, nor that the calibre and quality of most people engaged in it are not understood. Good planners should be acknowledged, and the work they do should be celebrated. That’s what we do with this magazine, for example, in regular features like Planner Profile and Client Case Study. But it’s not my job to be popular by writing only what people want to hear.
I firmly believe that financial planning should aspire to be a trusted and respected profession, and that it can be exactly that. It would undoubtedly be a good thing if more people trusted and respected the industry.
I believe the vast majority of practitioners want to be regarded as professionals, and to be recognised for their qualifications, expertise and standing in their local communities.
If I’m wrong, and they don’t want any of that, then fine. We’ll abandon any pretence of financial planning being a profession, and of planners being professionals. The planning industry can continue to languish in the eyes of the public and go on scratching out a living providing a service to the two or three out of 10 Australians who really need it.
If I’m banging my head against a brick wall, then so be it. I’ll gladly stop. But we’re not going to achieve anything just by writing stories about how wonderful the industry is and by pissing in each other’s pockets.
If the financial planning industry wants to be a profession, then it must undergo some changes to justify those claims.
Those changes are difficult for many, and not popular with some sections of the industry. They mean facing up to some things that no one is proud of, and tackling them front-on. Professional Planner will continue to cover the issues that need to be addressed – right alongside the stories that focus on great businesses, great planners, great advice and great ideas.
Professionalism is a badge that has to be earned. Let’s sort out the structural issues that dog the industry. Let’s get those right, and then the rest follows. Let’s highlight the things that need to be changed.
And then let’s make damn sure that’s what we do. Anything else is a waste of time. Yours and mine.
Simon Hoyle
simon.hoyle@conexusfinancial.com.au
