Very good article in the SMH today from one of my Sydney mates, James Arvanitakis:
There are two seemingly disconnected yet closely related political debates that highlight the quagmire of Australian politics and a lack of leadership in our country: the Bill Henson debate and the cost of petrol.
“Petrol prices and photos of children, how so?” I hear you ask. “It is elementary, my dear,” as they say in the classics. They highlight how our political leaders are caught in the trap of pandering to powerful interests and sound-bite politics, and are lacking the courage - or maybe the ability - to articulate substantive arguments.
To begin with, both examples show a lack of political vision in our country.
I’m glad to see that some questioning of the deeper meanings of the two issues which have dominated political debate over the last fortnight. You could make a good case that by voting against a government which was obsessed with winning the media cycle and short term soundbite policy, a majority of us cast a verdict on this style of politics in last year’s election. But it seems that we’re still being badly let down by both sides of politics - and the media.
Update: A similar theme in Shaun Carney’s column:
Rudd should recall just what got him into government. The superficial media analysis this week that Labor won office by promising to bring down grocery and fuel prices is wrong. Pressures on household incomes was an element in its pitch but it was nothing compared with WorkChoices and Rudd’s argument that Australia was adrift, wasting opportunities on productivity, the development of industry, education, climate change and water. This week, with Nelson engaging in psychotropic imaginings of 500-metre-long service queues, Rudd could have revisited those themes. If voters were willing to listen to them last year, they’ll listen even more intently now. That’s why they made him Prime Minister.
And in the ultimate irony, Dennis Shanahan takes Rudd to task for being populist. As if it has nothing to do with the punditariat and the press.
I come home and find my flat is empty(finished a late shift, my second job) I decide to go on the internet… my lover has left the laptop on without logging off(unusual)… he always logs off…
Check my 13yr daughter, she’s asleep. too beautiful to wake, it’s late
Get a drink, change clothes and light a ciggie, grab laptop but before I change logins on the lap I notice a folder called (13yr old naked.art) photo’s on his desktop. young girls @ 13 in the nude, dark lighting but always naked… this is fine I think…cos it’s not my daughter
and it’s art
What’s Arvanitakis got against drum machines and 80s pop music then? (he says as Human League is playing on the stereo!).
No, seriously an excellent article - for the past two weeks I’ve been stupified by the totally retarded nature of the media debate around “petrol prices” and the inability for the Ruddster to see past the glib fabrications of the opposition and the commentariat in the media. By playing their stupid little game he’s just playing into their hands, i.e. privileging their retarded position which in reality could have been brushed aside with as easy a sound-bite as “don’t you know that demand for petrol has outstripped supply?” or somesuch.
Classified at #1
You nailed it.
Is the focus on sound-bite politics any worse than in the past? (that’s a genuine question by the way, not a rhetorical one)
And while I don’t think the mainstream media as a whole is particularly interested in examining substantive arguments and issues, can they really be blamed for the the farcical petrol ‘debate’ over the last couple of weeks? It seems to me to have consciously been taken very strongly down this path by the leadership of both major parties without any particular help from the media.
Not quite, Andrew. It’s more as if the two major parties are stuck in a co-dependent triangle with the media - who play the role of enabler and escalation.
Riders on a Storm,unto this World we are born! How was the temperature everywhere Rudd went!?Beanie time here tonight!
I, personally, was hoping for much more from the new govt. Jumping in with the ‘disgusting’ comment re the Henson photos was silly. And as far as petrol prices go, on both sides, the pollies treat us as if we are stupid. ‘It has absolutely nothing to do with demand or the profits being made by the oil companies, it’s the govts fault’.
I think television news simply doesn’t produce socio-political knowledge in the same way as text. It doesn’t allow exposition or argumentation and rests on the iterative image as its ultimate mechanism of legitimization. When you see something on tv, then you know that you know it. Television news is very dominant but it is judged against, and conflated with, the epistemological standards of text, in which it will always be inadequate (i.e. “the politics of soundbite populism”) when politics needs the kind of elaboration that tv news can’t do.
But other media can also be powerful and effective, like newspapers and blogs, in terms of the rational exposition of political argumentation (if that is what we want politics to be) so perhaps we need to distinguish more sharply where our politics is happening.
Mark, I guess you’re right that the media play the enabling and escalating role, but my impression was that this was a conscious choice of the major party leadership to go down this path, with the media following (and escalating and adding the drama and horse race stuff, but they’d do that no matter what path you take). I also think a fair few of them on this occasion were still inserting a fair degree of ‘WTF?!’ into their commentary about the absurdity of such heated squabbling over a few cents a litre.
Andrew, probably as MH suggests, I’ve been using a bit of shorthand to refer to “the media” as such. There’s obviously a bit of a distinction between different media, and different parts of the print media - ie obviously the more business and policy oriented journos and commentators have a different take on these issues, but it’s always open to those who see themselves as players to pivot between fueling the populism and loudly denouncing it. They win either way.
I think theres a misuse of the term populism in the entire mediadrome now. Populism is a discourse which supports “the people” versus “the elites”. As such there is nothing wrong essentially with it that is not wrong with democracy itself.
I think whats being described in these 2 debates is pandering to loud braying ignorant mobs that may or may not be popular at all. So fake-populism or mob-rule would be more accurate terms imo. Also minority rights are our vital civil and human rights. The onus is on those who would restrict or diminish these to explain and justify themselves in depth and over time.
Shanahan has developed a wonderful conspiracy theory, no doubt made up out of thin air. He got one thing right though. This is too damned close to the way Howard operated, a point completely missed on today’s Insiders, btw.
Rudd will extricate himself from the petrol tax scmozzle, but, the Henson comment could backfire if Henson is charged, convicted and jailed, as I’ve said before, though its porobale his defence of artistic intewnt will see him get off.
I think the leaks rattled the government and that’s how they lost control of the agenda. FDor the dirst time they took their eye of the ball. Lets hope it doesn’t happen too often. Otherwise Bumbles or the Untanned Peacock will be PM sooner than we think.
And wasn’t it a giggle to see Andrew Bolt on Insiders tut-tutting about the sins of political short term spin over trivia rather than dealing with substantial and long-term issues.
Unfortunately (and unusually) he was right!
So, anyone know the when/where of Bolt’s “Road to Damascus” event?
“I think the leaks rattled the government and that’s how they lost control of the agenda.”
I found it most strange that after Laurie Oakes had clearly identified a public servant/s role in the leaks of cabinet considerations, the story moved to an excuse for the behaviour. No government can run effectively, without confidentiality at cabinet level and nobody in the media seemed prepared to admit it or showed any understanding of its most basic importance.
No surprise Dave. People criticise strongly in others what they’re most worried about being criticised for. Faulty way of trying to achieve distance from what you don’t like about yourself/how you think others perceive you - ‘I don’t have the problem, (because) he has the problem see’.
What’s that corny saying - ‘when you point your finger at somebody, there’s three fingers pointing back at yourself’
It’s Opposition party line, but (this is just search results of Bolt blog titles, not contents which numbers 100+) obsess much?
“The essence of spin” 30.5.2008
“Calculating ABC spin” 22.5.2008
“Spinning out of control” 21.5.2008
“How Rudd’s spiders spin” 17.5.2008
“Spin, spin, spin that Budget” 14.5.2008
“Morgan: Rudd’s spin lacks traction” 13.5.2008
“Spinning techniques exposed” 8.5.2008
“Spin, spin, bash-the-rich spin” 8.5.2008
“New spin needed” 7.5.2008
“Spin confirmed: “Working families” includes workless singles” 5.5.2008
“Summit of spin” 8.4.2008
“The art of Rudd-spin” 4.4.2008
“Thank God for spin” 3.4.2008
“Rudd gets 1000 to help him spin” 4.2.2008
“Spin, spin, spin” 25.10.2007
Personally, I think when most people hear the word spin they think of Shane Warne. It’s an insider’s word, and pollies should refrain from using it. Cover story is probably a term that would cut further.
I saw Rudd on Today with the Wooden Man, and I think he those were his genuine feelings. He gave an honest opinion. He doesn’t like pictures of naked 13 year olds. Fair enough.
I would prefer it if substantive issues were discussed at more length, and therefore I don’t get my political information from the nightly news.
“No government can run effectively, without confidentiality at cabinet level and nobody in the media seemed prepared to admit it or showed any understanding of its most basic importance.”
A letter in the SMH pointed out that this convention of cabinet confidentiality was just that - a self imposed convention.
There is no requirement for it under the constitution or other regulation so as the letter writer asked when and from where did this imposition evolve?
If you want to have the benefit of presenting a “united front” on all decisions it makes perfect sense but I would be comfortable knowing that some members of the cabinet offered alternative ideas and that the majority view was responsible for the decisions made.
A dissenting minority isn’t necessarily destabilising or destructive and I hope this government moves beyond staid and what could be described as an oppressive
strictures on the public knowing how decisions are made .
The public also has a right to know which decisions are supported by which politicians.
I found it most strange that after Laurie Oakes had clearly identified a public servant/s role in the leaks of cabinet considerations, the story moved to an excuse for the behaviour. No government can run effectively, without confidentiality at cabinet level and nobody in the media seemed prepared to admit it or showed any understanding of its most basic importance.
Yes, I’m quite appalled at how this is being shrugged off. I’m in the mood for some serious condemnin’. Its the kind of issue that makes instant hypocrites out of many people. No one cares because no one gives a shit whether FuelWatch lives or dies and it doesn’t seem like much is at stake. What if there were conflicting Cabinet/departmental advice on, say, crime rates among Sudanese immigrants and that was front page news for days ’cause some anonymous random wanted to strong arm the govt for shadowy personal reasons? Very unimpressed with SMH coverage today, muddying the waters with talk of FOI and whistleblowers which have nothing to do with this. Of course, the media isn’t going to speak up about the abuse of power with zero accountability because they all hope to be the beneficiaries of it someday.
That’s what it is about: power without accountability. Bad from politicians, bad from the media, bad from public servants.
The public’s right to know was the motive for these leaks? How noble! Will the leaker make themselves known so a grateful nation can shower them with garlands thanks and bouquets of adulation for such selflessness.
And what an opportune time to strike such a bold blow for democracy! After a decade of trivial matters like invasions, alleged illegal industrial conspiracies, culture wars, various collapsing Pacific states, controversial immigration and and Indigenous and refugee and foreign policies I’m glad they kept their public truth-telling powder dry the better to strike on the one all important issue of the millennium, a website listing petrol prices.
I still don’t understand why both the Government and the Opposition are prepared to go to the mattresses over a couple of cents off petrol prices.
Well said, Amanda - hypocrisy on such a grand scale is not a pretty sight.
“I still don’t understand why both the Government and the Opposition are prepared to go to the mattresses over a couple of cents off petrol prices.”
It’s a pissing competition to see who is perceived as the battler’s mate. “We feel your pain … and we’re prepared to make pointless demonstrations and take pointless actions to prove it.”
As T.S. Elliot had it: “Between the idea and the reality, between the conception and the creation, falls the shadow.” Populist politics takes place in this ’shadow’ realm.
Amanda , if you are replying to me I think we are at cross purposes.
I am talking only about politicians in cabinet being able to discuss their positions.
The public servants aren’t interested in informing the public - on that point I agree with you - they are using their power without accountability.
Heh, sorry. I got on a bit of a roll.
I agree, I’m quite relaxed about cabinet having lots of different position but I don’t know how practical it would be to have it constantly aired. If for no other reason than the commentariat would talk about nothing else. On one hand the media get so snide about “following the party line”, but then also get hysterical every time there is a whiff of people thinking for themselves. The recent Malcolm Tunrbull email a case in point, and then I heard various commentators blame him for putting it in writing! We want our leaders to be afraid of putting their views in an email now? Yeah, that’s the way we’re gonna get sensible long term policy thinking. Leaks like this surely make it less likely MPs/Ministers will robustly argue their case because they don’t want the risk of front page damage. Also encouraging people to put things in writing less than they do surely just drives things the public do need to know underground too. Thanks for nothing, media.
Well hopefully one distant for off day we will have an informed and considerate electorate and politicians who aren’t constantly media playing themselves.
But hey I think proportional representation is a superior way to select our pollies and while the 2 major parties are stuck in this for/against mind set we will be stuck with analysis and thinking that is always focused on the winning campaign rather than the best long term strategy.
MH -
I don’t think either media produces knowledge really but I guess that’s arguable. Text is different from TV but they both have their advantages. I suggest next time you watch TV News, ignore what’s being said and and look at the eyes of people on TV. It’s quite illuminating.
Only if you’re a blockhead.
>
You can produce quality or rubbish with either medium. I read the Herald-Sun cover to cover the other day. Finding hard news therein was a needle/haystack game. It was mostly celeb gossip and empty self-righteous verbatim courtesy of the columnists. I really wish they’d sack the lot of those twists and get someone interesting.