It’s interesting to observe that The Age is promising to publish today a liftout of longer essays by “prominent Australians” (for which, read the usual suspects you’d anticipate being in such a supplement) reflecting on issues which are lost in all the campaign noise. On one hand, that’s a very welcome development, but on the other, it’s worth wondering why their standard election coverage doesn’t already do this. Not that I’m singling out Fairfax.
No Australian paper has been brave enough to try an experiment in “public journalism”. Margaret Simons describes in her recent book The Content Makers: Understanding the role of the media in Australia what the Virginian-Pilot set out to do in covering the 1995 state legislative elections. The paper eschewed reporting personal attacks, and, as Simons writes:
The paper would report politics as though it actually mattered and made a difference. There would be no talk of the ‘voters’ or ‘the public’ as though they were bodies other than the readers. There would be no talk of how things might ‘play’ in the electorate, and very little commentary based on backroom chats or the office gossip of politics. There would be some discussion of politics as strategy, but it would not be allowed to dominate. The assumption was that the audience had a stake in the news. The resolutions transformed both the newspaper and the conduct of the campaign.
I dare say I don’t need to spell out how far this style of reporting is from the coverage of this year’s Australian federal election. There are some moves in this direction from online media such as New Matilda, Crikey, YouDecide2007, this blog and others, but there certainly aren’t any major media outlets prepared to take a punt and invest the significant sums of money that it would take to make such an exercise mainstream. In many ways, even though some online media makes or aspires to make a profit and pays contributors, we’re still very much in the realm of what Simons, picking up on an anthropological motif, calls “the gift economy”. It’s not called “citizen journalism” for nothing.
I’ve been banging on over the past week or so about the fact that both parties are ignoring the real implications of the economic track we’re heading down, in what is in some ways a re-run of the 1996 election when it was in Howard’s interest to pretend he believed Keating’s claims about the budget being in surplus. Of course, reality bites, and “non core promises” resulted. These falsehoods are challenged in some opinion columns, and at times in interviews or in situations like yesterday’s Treasurers’ debate, but never make it into the headline coverage of the campaign or the tv news spots.
There, we live in an irreal world where all is what the politicians say it is, and the charges and counter-charges are reported as if they reflect what’s really at stake. Blogs are often accused of being parasitic on “the mainstream media”, but in truth the reportage of election campaigns from that self same media is parasitic on the agendas set by what we might dub the spindoctariat. It’s the horse race, stupid. And how do we know what’s happening in the horse race? We’re fed statistically ignorant narratives of polls, and invited into the hermetic circle of “political tragics”. And with the acceleration of the 24 hour media cycle to speeds hitherto unknown, there’s very little analysis even of the political strategies of the parties. What “insiders” say is taken at face value, and it’s all shaped to fit micro-narratives about who’s “won” the day or the week.
Take for instance that mad bugbear of the campaign, the evil unions. It’s very clear, after a moment’s reflection, that this negative message is also designed to neutralise WorkChoices. Had WorkChoices never been implemented, we probably never would have heard so much about the “need for balance in a Cabinet”. After all, Labor should always be prone to this sort of attack - it’s not as if “union influence” couldn’t have been argued as a negative in 2001 or 2004. But then, had WorkChoices never been implemented, Kim Beazley would probably still be leader. The “jobs” theme is also obviously designed to counter the negatives around WorkChoices - hey, if you have a job, it can’t be all bad. If you encounter one of those rare bosses who’s nasty without being a “union boss”, don’t worry. There’s another job for you in the full employment economy. You’re your own boss, effectively, but you won’t be if those thuggish union bosses stifle your initiative and seize control.
Technical education, and the rest, it’s all part of the package - all designed to win back “Howard’s battlers”. The only big difficulties with a set of messages no doubt crafted to perfection by the Graham Morrises and Crosby/Textors of the world are that John Howard is hardly a credible spokesman for them anymore (and has great difficulty making the story fit together) and that WorkChoices, frankly, stinks.
I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t believe I’ve seen any attempt to articulate what the coalition’s strategy is, or why the union scare is being run and to what end that goes beyond the trite from the punditariat. That goes to the two points I’m trying to develop here - even at the level of the horse race, there’s little analysis that goes beyond the fleeting and the superficial, and the truth or otherwise of the assertions that dominate the campaign themes of both parties is rarely tested, no matter how much Paul Kelly might vow on Insiders (so aptly named) that scrutiny needs to be applied to the contenders for office (strangely, it’s always assumed that such a light only needs to be shone on Labor). Whoever wins the election, the country as a whole would be far better served if there were more of a spirit of public journalism afoot, and the comfortable pieties and campaign strategies of both major parties were subjected to much more rigorous, long term - and realistic - scrutiny.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Yes, far too much attention on ‘politics’ and too little on ‘the political’.
One of my friends at uni kept talking about how disappointed he was that Costello and Swan didn’t ask the big questions about services rather than tax cuts. This is why we need, in my eyes, more than two people talking in any given debate. Be it Family First, the Greens or the Democrats (hell, even the Nationals), the minor parties can bring something fresh to the debate by asking tough questions of the major parties and setting out an alternative agenda.
All we heard from Rudd and Howard were the same old talking points, each candidate delivering a speech from notes and dodging questions from journalists. Put someone like Bob Brown or Andrew Bartlett up there and you’re going to get some serious questions asked that will make the questionees look weak when they refuse to answer it. Everyone knows politicians dodge journo questions, we expect it of them. A politician dodging another politician’s question on national television? Well, we know who just lost a few votes to who.
The two debates so far have been a perfect opportunity to include the minor parties in the debate. All parties have a vision for the future and their leaders are there to elucidate on it. Costello vs Swan, what about Bob Brown as Treasury spokesperson for the Greens? Get Brown to ask Costello about services and the inflationary effect of tax cuts and he’ll either attempt to verbally abuse Brown or dodge the question with a smirk. Swan’s probably in a better position because Labor have pledged to commit to the “education revolution” *hand gesture*.
Imagine the Democrats and Greens at the Downer-McClelland debate. These two parties have a stellar record on human rights and sane foreign policy whereas the Liberals want wars and death sentences for terrorists and the ALP are more than happy to go along with the Liberals on issues like Haneef. It’d be a perfect way to hold the big parties’ feet to the fire and for this reason it won’t happen.
Heh!
Around the lefty elitist mathematicians at QUT it’s being referred to as the “Rudd Tiger Claw”, the ultimate symbol of symbolism.
The ABC’s analysis (of the Treasurer’s debate) last night was pathetic. Not any real commentary on the arguments, just endless stupid observations about the worm. Fawgh!
To be fair, I watched the Treasurer’s debate, and there was not much worth reporting in any meaningful way. It was interesting only for the fact that Swan didn’t come across too badly, and Costello made a conscious effort not to savage him.
Meaningful analysis of climate change could help inform the punter to no end, but has been an unfortunate victim of the culture wars.
Just quietly, do you think it might be time to drop the ‘-tariat’ tags?
James Valentine, an afternoon ABC radio host in Sydney, has a slot called Rant, where people ring up and rant for a minute about (usually) silly things. Yesterday a man rang up to rant about politicians being allowed to get away with repeating their ‘mantras’ ad nauseum, with no journalists interrupting or asking more searching questions. In conversation with this caller, Valentine defended this journalistic style - he said that merely asking a politician a question and leaving their answer out there for viewers to decipher was okay, even if the answer was a slogan. I was disappointed to hear someone like Valentine defending this style of non-journalism which is so ubiquitous in Australia. Yesterday’s ‘controversy’ about Labor’s supposed ‘backflip’ on climate change was a classic example of most of the news media being more concerned about the backflip rather than with the substance and implications of the policy.
I think,at this stage of the election, the general human being out in the electorate,wether they have made up their minds or not, will be wondering as I do,even if as I listen read or watch, and remember being part of a mass delivered process, how the Candidates if they are observable, still do not seem to communicate in a manner that is either as one.. being part of a crowd ,or personally.Neither the medias problem or the individual, but a process that is hard to keep cool to and warm as well. Senator Bartlett has commented on this,and the difficulty for both Candidates and MSM is well,isnt a sign of intelligence being easily bored sometimes? The good Candidates try to ensure the media is as less in that state as possible,even if they,the media, decide, that is not in any range of words totally useful for the media or the populace. Unfortunately this observation could start a trend of gimmick classifications,even if the gimmick did feel like it had something that set their minds alight again and the populace. A bit of magic doesnt go astray does it!? Nor appreciating the matter of honesty!? Even as a instructional moment… as lie.
Karen Middleton (I think) asked a question about this in regard to polling in Eden Monaro and elsewhere that indicated people would prefer investment in services to tax cuts. Neither Swan or Costello could be persuaded to engage with that question. It really was thoroughly disappointing.
… Followed by five extensive paragraphs full of anti-Liberal Party propaganda.
Yes, Middleton and Karen Tingle both put very good questions which were answered by neither Swan nor Costello, as I observed in my write up of the debate:
[link]
But Middleton just does the usual “who’s winning”, “backflip”, bleh in her spot on SBS news. I should perhaps have mentioned that the Fin Review has by far the best coverage of politics - particularly in columns from Tingle and Lenore Taylor. It’s worth the $2.70!
At yesterday’s Treasurers’ debate the Age’s Tim Colebatch asked Co$tello about the infamous 1996 election Coalition Debt Truck (signifying the ALP’s failure to contain foreign debt) - did Costello have any concerns about the level of foreign debt which was now something like 5 times what it was then?
Costello’s basic answer was no: his government had cleared ‘net’ debt; state government debt was a crime against economic growth and private debt was commensurate with an investment surge ( a good thing, apparently) which was being borrowed in a prudential manner.
Swan talked of the growth in foreign debt as a problem caused by the lack of Fed government investment in productivity. He also talked about the former ALP Government’s superannuation scheme as a central shock absorber cushioning the dangers of the financial tremors of the late 1990s and early 2000s.
I read Colebatch’s columns often and this focus on the dangers of a ballooning foreign debt is a consistent theme. While the ALP during the 1980s was fixated on the Current Account (sparking Keating’s 1985 Banana republic storm warning)rather than inflation, the current fixation on inflation might have been at the expense of the dangers in an accelerating foreign debt.
In the spirit of Mark’s post about the hyper-dramatised 24 hour spin-cycle of the election’s media reporting and comment, I’d like to know where this ‘investment surge’ of foreign borrowings is going? Who will be left holding the papers if the ‘markets’ call more and more of debts in?
On Mark’s point about the AFR’s superior analysis of politics, this results from their not having to give over much space to the horse race view of politics. As a financial paper, they are not concerned with the daily ‘backflip-gaffe’ stakes.
That in turn frees up their columnists to separate themselves from the irrelevant noise that consumes most of their bretheren in the press gallery and say something interesting.
While we’re on the subject of the increasing succumbment of the MSM to Stockholm Syndrome in politics, has anyone noticed how hostage the ABC has become to the daily spin? Echoing the beat-up from The Australian, the national broadcaster led their bulletin the other night with Garrett’s “gaffe” on Kyoto.
In my day, that story would have been spiked by a sub-editor on the basis of the WGAFF (Who Gives a Flying F**k) principle.
This is where the media is really failing to serve its audience. It is forgetting one of the first rules of journalism: Write about what concerns your readers and viewers, not what concerns the people you are reporting on.
The answer is that most of our $500+ billion in net foreign debt comes from Mr and Mrs Average borrowing to “invest” in property. The banks have been happy to make money in recent years borrowing at much lower rates in the US and Japanese wholesale markets and onlending it to Aussie mums and dads at much higher rates. That appetite among householders has in turn been inflamed by the overly generous capital gains tax concessions on investment property that have turned hundreds of thousands of Australians into property speculators.
(1) Tim Colebatch’s essay was excellent, and we must wonder why Rudd/Swann don’t put the observations and thinking of the debt-bears to the public.
(2) The essay from Glyn Davis lamenting free information on the bottom line of his
company/market sectoruniversity was particularly enlightening. He didn’t mention the role of university facilities (except libraries wanted by dusty historians) that are necessary for science. I think he actually gave many good reasons for abolishing all university courses (and government subsidies) that are not science-based, or lead to research (including history and economics), with this role being taken up by post-secondary business courses. An added benefit of this is that maybe the lack of the kudos of a university course would encourage more people into courses that we not in the interest of the individual or the companies (often overseas) that employ/sponsor them.(I note Davis mentioned MIT’s publication of all course materials at [link], but he didn’t give the URL: heh heh).
Thanks, Dave. I was out at Ipswich most of the day on Wednesday and the Age doesn’t make it to the newsagents there so I missed it unfortunately.
Yes, but doesn’t this imply that we get something in return??
Yeah, where’s the dosh? There’s a PayPal button you know!