A bit of a defence of the Australian’s book in… wait for it… The Australian today, in response to criticisms that it will be an unbalanced polemic - from its publisher:
I know for a fact that Leak would not be the only contributor to The Howard Factor who would feel distinctly uncomfortable about being tarred with a right-wing brush.
What disappointed me most about Adler’s observation, as I told her in no uncertain terms from the canned-fruit aisle of Coles where she found me on my mobile, was that The Howard Factor could be interpreted as a polemic work.
God forfend!
No, it’ll be a calm and sober analysis demonstrating in a reasonable and empirical way that:
the Prime Minister has proved himself as the most skilful political player of his generation
Against expectation, Howard has been a moderniser who built on and expanded the work of his predecessor to fundamentally change the nation and reframe the national debate.
The Howard Factor charts how, in the course of a decade, the conservatives have stolen the mantle of reform and the progressives have become the new reactionaries.
Apparently balance is served by the fact that there are, um, stacks of published books on Latho. But has The Australian’s team ever asked itself why David Barnett’s previous hagiography hit the remainder bins after about a week? And why publishers (more likely to be in the game for a buck than “Howard hating”) are wary of tomes on Howard and Howardianism? Could it be that the free market has spoken?
At least Latho’s book was interestingly unbalanced. I can’t see why anyone would fork out for the Oz’ effort - unless they’ve got a desperate desire to see the longer versions of all the teaser columns.
Howard deserves a decent biography to be written about him.
He was a mediocre minister and a very poor Opposition leader who has become a quite reasonable PM particularly given the lack of quality in cabinet.
Yes he is boring but he nearly strangled poor Jim Carlton in 1987 because of the numbers blunder in their proposed tax cuts.
And everybody thought Iron Mark was violent!
It was the right wing phil adams Michael Duffy of Duffy and Snell who said one of the reasons that sort of publishing didnt work in Oz (or perhaps anywhere i’m not sure) was that only books on left wingers sold or were interesting. He was talking straight business not snarking. I forget where the interview was - no doubt the ABC radio. Might be a transcription somewhere.
Yeah, I remember that too, FXH, but couldn’t remember where it was said.
I was going to post on one aspect of this Mark, and that was today’s contribution by George Megalogenis.
But let me first say you’re spot on, and it just goes to show that if you give a thousand News Limited monkeys word processors and a tousand years, you’ll still end up with crappola. It’s obvious that they’re defensive about their man ahead of the launch.
But anyway, back to Megalogenis’ contribution today and the gist of my non-post.
Howard:
In reply there’s this from the Senate Select Committee on the Mike Scarfton claims.
So, no children were thrown overboard, and while there was sabotage of the boat, it sunk the next day while under tow by the navy.
It’s always about being loose with the facts, and when those fail you, there’s always this…the motto of Howard’s decade.
Yep, we know….no one told you. But this really made me laugh.
Maybe it’s just me but releasing something ambiguous also serves the purpose of muddying the waters and confusing any sober assessment - especially prior to the political heat of a poll.
But in the end my heart was warmed by this reminder of Howard’s sociopathic personality.
Which is of course, nonsense.
Thanks, Phil.
Yeah, right, solely in the interests of truth.
Christian Kerr, in today’s Crikey subscriber email, points out that “the damn boat” is a very strong phrase coming from John Howard — a man who refused to ask, “Where the bloody hell are you?” even while defending its propriety. This issue clearly touches a nerve.
That Nick Cater piece (Mark’s second link) is a bloody disgrace — apart from the smug tone and misleading content, why on earth would anybody give, or take, that amount of space in the only national daily to puff his, and its, own book? How insecure about it can they be and still be walking around?
Louise Adler as publisher has got to take her share of responsibilty for its content. Either she knew exactly what Cater was likely to include and was just covering her own back in order to keep her lefty cred intact (in which case she was being disingenuous in her complaint), or she didn’t — in which case she should have been keeping a closer eye on her authors.
I think FXH’s and Mark’s memory as desribed early in this thread might actually refer to something a bit different — wasn’t it Duffy who said that it’s only left-wingers who BUY books, ie, only left-wingers who read? (Which of course is going to affect the number of copies that a Howard hagiography will sell. Hah.)
Does anybody know whether Professor Judith Brett, the best Howard commentator in the country, was invited to contribute? Seems unlikely. Can’t imagine Cater having any disinterested interest in contributions of depth and substance from actual political-science scholars.
I doubt it, Pavlov’s Cat. I think it’s clear that the contributors were to be “journos” or “columnists”. And pretty obviously from what Adler said, ones associated with the Oz as she queried Adams and Michael Costello’s ommission, according to Crikey.
I heard or saw on TV or something that the main problem with a Howard biography is it is currently lacking an ending. It is probably being a bit insensitive to point that out here given your stirling but unsuccessful efforts to rememdy this.
I’ll buy the hagio.
Who’ll buy the bloody thing? (Apart from C.L.)
Who’s benefited from Howard’s ten years? Those who have been disconnected from politics and those who ask “what’s in it for me?”. Each of those groups cancel themselves out.
Business? Nope.
Those with a genuine interest in politics? Nope.
Youth? Nope.
What’s left? Young Libs? Shaky maybe.
It obviously had to have been cheap to produce. A token? Something to refer to in the months ahead? Something which had to be done, to be more conspicuous by its absence??? Rewriting history?
The Latham Diaries sales were quoted in various media. Let’s see them quote sales of this thing.
Have to wonder if it might do News a bit of damage, as time goes on. Punditry newspaper articles written in the moment are one thing, to wrap that up and place it on the bookshelves is another.
don’t be so small-minded.
He has been PM for ten years.
He hasn’t been a dud.
He deserves a lot better than one poor hagiography.
don’t but it James it is poor.
Apparently a better one is coming out soon
I usually despise pre-judging things, but the stuff already in the public domain about “The Howard Factor” is enough to make some serious alarm bells ring, even before the book has hit the stores:
(1) The book’s contributors are all staff writers at The Australian, the paper that has been most vigorously and consistently pro-Howard and pro-conservative over the last decade
(2) The book’s editor is Nick Cater - another Australian staff writer who made no attempt to disguise his conservative and anti-Howard-critics bias in two recent articles.
(3) The range of writers selected, even among the notoriously slanted group at the Oz, take the breath away. None of the few very very soft left voices (eg Mike Steketee, Ross Fitzgerald, Michael Costello) were included. If Margaret Simons is to be believed in Crikey.com.au, Editor of MUP Louise Adler raised this concern with Nick Cater, but it was dismissed out of hand as symptomatic of the anti-Howard bias in the book industry.
(4) The book is being consciously and vigorously marketed as a counterweight to the alleged anti-Howard bias in the publishing industry. It is seen as ‘filling a gap’.
(5) The book is not being fully published independently by MUP. News Ltd (or the Australian alone) are joint publishers. Which hardly gives the book an independent or impartial look. Note also that Paul Kelly is on the board of MUP, so they’re not quite at arm’s length either.
And that’s all before a single page has been opened. Don’t get me started on the ‘extracts’ we’ve seen to date in the Oz. How about that Caroline Overington piece on Howard’s South Park pals? Firstly, how on earth South PArk humour could be characterised as squarely right-wing is funnier than anything Matt Stone or Trey Parker ever dreamed up. This regurgitation of Andrew Sullivan’s ideas of three years ago boggles the mind. Has she not seen any of the boys’ other work?
Secondly, there is the small issue of Overington apparently seeing the appalling redneck kids on South Park as serious role models, and not possible send-ups. And the Right with this stuff? I think this article - as a start - needs a bit of picking apart done on it. Any volunteers?
OK, Mike Steketee is in there. I made one slight error. But it changes little.
Done, Martin.