I first heard about the Telegraph’s front page on ABC (Sydney) radio this morning. Virginia Trioli came on at 8.30am and used the screaming headline – How could she?, aimed at the woman who left a newborn baby girl on the doorstep of a Victorian hospital on Sunday – as a discussion starter. And discussion it did start. The very first caller, a woman, was as appalled as Trioli at the lack of compassion in the headline but went even further, raising the possibility that such a newspaper attack could possibly nudge a vulnerable girl towards self-harm. Suicide, in other words.
Maybe it’s only other mothers or health professionals who would be aware of the ‘three-day blues’ – the big drop in hormones three days after giving birth which leaves many new mothers in tears. The mother of baby Catherine was probably going through that today, perhaps in secret, unable to share her experience with anyone. How much less likely is she to come forward or open up about her feelings with the press targeting her in this way?
That was the last I heard of the story until tonight’s ABC television news. Juanita Phillips announced that the next news item would be about the impact of the Telegraph headline. And on came well-known mother-and-baby expert John Howard.
I object to having Howard appear on my screen to opine about every subject under the sun. Why does the ABC – indeed, the mainstream media in general – constantly give him this role of ‘voice of authority on every aspect of Australian life’?
Then there’s what he actually had to say on this issue: “Fair go to the Tele.
“After all, that is the natural reaction. You go out in the street and talk to ordinary people – that’s what they would say, ‘How could you abandon a little baby?’”
Ordinary [Telegraph-reading] people as opposed to [broadsheet readers, cultural elites, bleeding heart feminists, ABC radio callers-in, health activists]?
And Jeff Kennett, as it turns out. But Jeff didn’t get a look-in on the Sydney news. John Howard was the only – the only! – commentator given time on this story.
He was there to speak for the so-called “ordinary” people but really, as so often with Howard, he was defending less-than-ordinary prejudices (and I am far from convinced that most people would share this reaction.) And he was there to defend the Telegraph, curry a bit of favour with Murdoch’s rep, David Penberthy.
What excuse can the ABC have for using Howard in this item instead of the far more relevant (by any journalistic standard) Kennett?
Ha! I’m sure Melbourne readers will appreciate the irony of Kennett coming down hard on a Murdoch tabloid.
As with the Alan Jones/Cronulla affair, Howard seems comfortable attributing his own prejudices to the ‘ordinary people’. And whilst I realise that Kennett may have a slightly softer image now, (as a consequence of his involvement with depression group Beyond Blue, denunciations of One Nation, etc), it is staggering that, compared to Howard, even Kennett seems slightly enlightened.
Howard is now officially lower that the proverbial snakes belly.
Howard was not attacking the mother, he was defending the Telegraph’s coverage of the story.
Howard concluded, correctly in my opinion, that moral outrage from a position of complacent ignorance is the reflex sentiment of marginal seat swing voters.
Howard’s self-appointed task was to woo these folk by flattering their prejudices.
Howard is in a desperate fight for his historical legacy. What role could empathetic compassion possibly play in that struggle?
I caught snatches of the Triloli interview with David Penberthy. Ratty just stole all of Penberthy’s lines – talk about class warfare – he was going off his head about “normal” people & mums who work in his office……and that Kennett was an old liberal hack who just wanted the limelight….and ABC listeners were people who “over-analysed” everything…..it was actually worse than this…..
Thankfully, the first talk back caller – after Murdoch’s No.1 Sydney arse licker had hung up – was a women who had suffered post natal psychosis (which effects about 1-2 per 1000 women) & how for two weeks after the birth of her first baby she was completely na-na, and it was only thanks to her family and the hospital for getting her through it.
(Interestingly, just before Kennett’s ignominious political demise – on the nightly news Kennett was being asked his opinion on freaking anything – so you’d have Kennett on taxi drivers uniforms, Kennett on vanilla slices, Kennett on dog grooming…..)
So do I.
As Katz said, it’s a deliberate political tactic on his part – it’s the major way he constructs his image and fights his culture wars.
However, I doubt it’s working as well as it used to. Guy Rundle was quite prescient a few years ago in his Quarterly Essay piece (though in my opinion backing the wrong horse to modernise the Liberals’ social agenda in Costello) by pointing out that with every passing year, fewer and fewer people accept the values according to Howard agenda. I doubt the Hanson phenomenon could get anywhere near as much traction now – if she’d come along in 06 instead of 96. People are increasingly social liberal, and it’s not just the much hyped “luvvies” and “cultural elites” as any perusal either of social attitudes research or indeed shifting demographics in terms of household size, age of fertility and career pattern could tell you. His “education” stuff is in many ways harking back to an authoritarian dreaming – Queensland parents – many of whom haven’t themselves gone through high school with either external exams (abolished here in 74) or having parts of speech and Latin roots dunned into their brain will not accept an agenda which proposes to replace continuous assessment with the sort of high pressure, high stress HSC thing that exists in NSW and Victoria. Similarly, with every passing year, those who respond to his moralistic dog whistles become a smaller group of people.
Politically, at the moment, I think he’d be very wise to shut up, and only surface occasionally when he actually has something to say. But it won’t happen.
Hopefully in a couple of years we will look back on a prime minister making comments like this the way Queenslanders see Bjelke-Petersen. As something firmly in the past.
We wish, swio. His ghost still haunts the joint in my humble opinion.
Ken on this story at Surfdom:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/05/15/looking-out-for-the-little-guy/
Ok, lets take bets. One more bounceless fortnight, and Howard will:
* bungee jump
* wear sunnies for a Rolling Stone shoot
* Bowl offies in public ….again
* trot out a musical instrument
* Talk about hoons as a federal issue
Catherine’s mother should come out now. Checkbook journalism is gonna make her rich. Why didn’t anything think of doing this earlier? The Capitalist in me makes an appearance in the most inappropriate of times.
You might just be onto something there Lefty, after all it’s a well-worn staple of state politics. We could have HFGs like Gerro penning treatises on how The Left Has Always Been Soft On Hoons.
And the Crodent should get stuck into the Bodgies and Widgies plaguing our schools while he’s at it.
Nats up here had an inspirational policy that hoons would have their cars confiscated for dragging. Beattie stole it.
Well Mark, the impound policy is also in place in Bracksy’s desert kingdom!
(Actually, its raining now…)
Soft on hoons! I like it CK, and I reckon the federal libs will too.
After all, how much circlework are ordinary voters expected to endure?! State governments have consistently failed to curb the fishtailing pandemic in our suburbs. We want the full suite of bogan control powers referred from the states!
‘I am pleased to announce today that the federal government will in future tie all roads funding to effective action by the states to assess and curb the bogan menace …’
Ahh, the mention of Joh made me all nostalgic.
Bob’s right, if she doesn’t do herself harm first she should come out and sell her story. It’d make a good weepy tale.
Of course, she’d be forever known as the mum as dumped her kid (not unlike the Paxtons who are forever known as “dole bludgers”). As for Howard, he’s the, cough cough, father of the nation like the aformentioned Joh was the father of the State.
I’m a bit confused about any opposition to confiscating the cars of hoons.
Depends whether you drive a Ford or Holden
Who said anything about opposition?
I wonder how Howard squares this headline with his Australian values of ‘a fair go’ and ‘mateship’? (Of course, I’ve known all along that mateship’s only for men.)
That’s easy suz, David Pendlebury is the mate.
Ah yes! Silly me.
Story in The Age today:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-at-pms-defence-of-tabloid/2007/05/15/1178995158671.html
I thought that there was an inference of opposition in the way it was being discussed in a jokey manner, but if I’m wrong apologies.
There’s an obvious question which nobody seems to be asking. How does anyone (other than the person/s responsible) know that the baby was dumped by her mother?
you know I never thought I’d see the day when I’d say this, but good on you Jeff Kennett. His parrying attack on the Tele and Howard on this issue has been unapologetic, commonsense and thoroughly inspiring.
It makes you realise just how low Howard has sunk when former Liberal leaders like Fraser and Kennet look like doyens of ethical behaviour and compassionate, intelligent insight.
ninemsn readers response
Paul Norton, that’s a very good question. I think that everyone is presuming that says a lot. The bub couldn’t be dumped by a disgruntled father or something. Mmm, wise to wait and see.
Interesting poll, Suz.
The Daily Telegraph is not fit to sit at the bottom of my kitty’s (see avatar, which I am only using today to be self-indulgent) litter tray.
It’s worse than The Courier-Mail.
I wondered the same thing yesterday, Paul and Darlene. Unwilling fathers or disapproving relatives have been known to separate mothers and infants in the past, after all.
Could’ve been dumped by a disgruntled father, that is. Lunch time, methinks.
while freely admitting to all the gross generalisations inherent in what I’m about to say –
I think the fact that the baby was left outside a hospital suggests a caring but terribly distressed mother rather than a father / relative.
Not that this excuses the equally inherent bias in the media/commentary, in assuming the ‘dumping’ must have been done by the mother, who therefore must feel the full weight of societal displeasure.
I posted my “how do we know” comment to LP at 11:29am today (16 May 2007). Immediately afterwards I posted the same question, with slightly different wording, to the Herald-Sun’s blog on the issue.
Not only has my comment not been published by the Hun, but there are no comments more recent than 11:28am today on the thread. Funny that.
LeftyE, I think the delivery he served up in Afghanistan was more of a leggie. It pitched about a quarter of the way down, was heading about 3 yards outside off, hit a pebble, and headed off towards deep extra cover. Yep, definitely a leggie. Warnie woulda been proud of it.
It’s all Ratty’s fault. The baby was probably abandoned because the poor mother could not cope with paying the horrendous child-care fees.
‘Howard is in a desperate fight for his historical legacy. What role could empathetic compassion possibly play in that struggle?’
Empathy has plenty to do with it Katz. ‘I feel for the mother…’ Ratty was saying, while at the same time ‘understanding’ why the the redneck Hanson hordes say politically incorrect things. Ratty seemed to be positioning himself as the touchy-feely sort who understands and empathises with everybody at the moment including marginal voters. And, it’s an effective way of kissing all those babies during an election campaign.
Sad to report that yet another callous deranged parent has today left their child abandoned and alone on the local tip.
Christened ‘WorkChoices’ by council staff, the child is said to be doing well and is expected to make a full recovery. Police remain hopeful that the parent, who may be exhibiting signs of depression, will step forward and reclaim the child.
Darlene:
Possible, but unlikely as the mother would have been at the copshop in double-quick time …
unless …
the mother had severe post-natal problems which “crossed over” to the father. This is known to happen. I think the rule-of-thumb is that the father gets 30% as depressed as the mother.
This was recognized long after my wrestle with this problem, the then newlly-formed PANDA (Post and Ante-Natal Depression Association) started looking at services to fathers.
I’m not saying this is the probable scenario, but a possible one.