It’s pile on Kevin Rudd day in The Opposition Organ this weekend.
We’ve been treated to solemn pontificating about the “chaos” that reportedly envelops Rudd’s office - there’s no proper waiting room! Important people have been kept waiting and had to have coffee in the corridor! The next high commissioner to the UK hasn’t been appointed yet - and the decision should have been made in February! The PM’s press secretary didn’t wear a tie for a meeting with George W. Bush!
Whatever can be going on? Are these revelations the product of fearless journalists engaged in defending the public interest against an arrogant administation? Or…?
IT is extraordinary how quickly the Government of Kevin Rudd has lost the goodwill of the Canberra press gallery.
Let me just pose one question. Is it really so surprising that any government might want to shape its media coverage? Really? Is that so shocking? Did the Howard government never do spin? Laurie Oakes quoted in one of today’s three stories:
Unlike some media operations he has encountered, he says, they don’t seem to get resentful if he rejects their spin. “Of course there is spin, but that’s hardly unique to this press office or this government.”
Rod Cameron has it about right:
Another Labor loyalist, pollster Rod Cameron, says: “Rudd’s emerging problems lie with the more cerebral end of the voting public, with some disappointment evident about the extent to which intractable problems are being tackled and the distinctly Calvinistic nature of the PM’s outlook.” But Cameron adds: “In the suburbs and provincial towns Rudd is seen in very much a favourable light and admired, not condemned for his work ethic, his intelligence and his commitment to keeping his election promises.”The commentators, for their part, are increasingly seeing a problem.
Quelle surprise!
Peter Martin also gets it about right:
I can say that I know of nothing that suggests Lyons is wrong, and several things that confirm what he is saying.
I’ll also say that Rudd is a clever man, more than capable of getting everything working smoothly. I am sure that he will, in plenty of time.
Elsewhere: More from Ken Parish at Troppo:
It’s too early to begin predicting a one term Labor government, especially with the inept Nelson as alternative PM. However, with difficult issues surrounding oil prices, inflation and unduly raised expectations, and a micro-managing PM who seemingly can’t see the wood for the trees or learn to delegate, I suspect either Turnbull or Costello could well and truly give Rudd a run for his money much sooner than anyone imagined in the light of Labor’s decisive election victory and still stratospheric poll ratings.
I doubt that somehow.
</
The vacuousness of the story is summed up perfectly at that end, with the tale of Queensland. After the Fitzgerald inquiry exposed wall to wall corruption, Labor won in 1989, should have been in power for 10 years, according to the story, but lost in 1996, thanks to Rudd (as Goss’ chief of staff) pissing everybody off.
But Labor won again in 1998 and has been in power since. Pre Goss/Rudd, Labor in Queensland was a running joke, a bunch of boofy amateurs who you wouldn’t trust to run a pie stall. This, as much as much as the gerrymander, was why they were perpetually in opposition. Goss/Rudd professionalised the labor Party, and cleaned the National party gool old boys out of the public service. Labor is now the natural party of government in Queensland, while the Liberal and National parties are the running joke.
Kim, perhaps all that press gallery goodwill was based on the hope (desire?) that Rudd would be different from Howard. Utterly predictably, he treats the press with the same contempt that Howard did, to some apparent consternation (for example, see the “Look over there! Asian governments pushing up your petrol prices!” angle for a nasty piece of Howardesque politics). You’re right that there is nothing shocking about this government being based on deception and spin, but then we already had a government like that, didn’t we? Didn’t we vote for change? Sigh.
BBB
I’d agree with Ken Parish. If, after the jolts of the last couple of months the Rudd family still can’t get it, then the guy must be just utterly anal.
Yes, I said “family”
Doesn’t even Therese have any influence over him, or does she live in a outer suburb of a new devlopment on Planet Janet in a parallel universe as against common humanity here, also?
And not a peep from the famous heroine of teh left. Kummon Julia, once more to the breach, dear friend.
Oh, and talk about an immature headline. No, it is not “all about the media”, but the way a government treats the press, whether better or worse than the former government, is absolutely a legitimate topic of public debate, and of journalism. You’re much better than this, Kim.
BBB
Two 29 year olds! Presumably as a devout Xtan Rudd knows little or nothing about astrology. These guys are entering their Saturn Return - which usually means li9fe changing bad sh*t that will also bring down all about them. Including Rudd.
Or maybe they’re just no good at their jobs and Rudd’s so anally retentive he hasn’t notice?
Surprised Ghandi hasn’t made his usual threats whenever a MSM article is linked to. I also doubt it Kim. Springborg will be Premier before the Federal Government goes back to Liberal hands. And don’t assume I mean the next state election.
I may just be being taken for a stooge by the loathsome Opp.Org., but it does strike me that there’s some substance to take note of in the story, even if it’s being pushed too hard. Sure, Lyons runs it as a media gripe, but it seems to me there’s an argument to be made that more experienced folks should be doing those jobs.
Well, maybe so. Perhaps Harris is a twit. But so what? Do a few wounded egos in the press gallery really mean all that much? I think a lot of the tone of this sort of thing is - frankly - to adopt BBB’s term - immature. The great pundits and pontificators of the press gallery declare the “honeymoon over” and then decide to go about electing themselves another public when the public doesn’t follow suit. Aside from internal machinations of incredibly “inside the beltway” style, the only thing of substance reported in any of these stories is dissent within the government on energy and petrol. That’s actually a story - but it’s played as rumour and dressed up in a lot of whinging and whining - why not chase the substance instead of reporting on teh evil spin?
I think a lot of this crap is full of disguised contempt for the electorate - we’ve been conned by spin when the press gallery knows better!
Spiros is on the money. You’d draw links between the internal organisation of government staff and electoral outcomes at your peril. Goss lost because of bad policy, and a lack of responsiveness to public opinion, not because Kevin Rudd was some sort of control freak. He was. So what? Unless it materially affects the sorts of things that people vote on, it’s going to be a datum of interest only to political tragics.
This “one term” narrative that’s emerging is complete nonsense. Christopher Pearson’s stuff today sets it in its proper context - the same dynamic as win 1973 when the right wing press went all out to smear and defeat the Whitlam government. Well, Labor governments learned from that episode, but it appears that the media have not. Anyone who takes the “government in disarray” story seriously really needs to think again. At any given time, with any given government, you could collect enough quotes from disgruntled folks to write a story like that. Particularly when most of it comes from interviewing other “commentators” and press gallery journos. Oakes has a point. What’s different? Why is it a “shock! horror!” story that a government might try to influence its coverage in the press? Every government does it.
And where’s the reflexivity? The media themselves have no part to play in the dynamic that’s allegedly emerged?
It’s pure piffle.
Honestly, I dont even follow the MSM commentariat anymore. As far as I can see, they have nothing to add; and no special insights.
Mark, I agree with you that the media management angle of the story’s a red herring. The part that’s of more concern is the description of the approach to control and delegation, and the ineffectiveness of the inner circle. If ministers are paralysed in their portfolios, it strikes me that problems will start to arise in policy development in the medium term. I’m perfectly willing to accept that the story’s been spun for all it’s worth by the Oz, but these sorts of questions deserve investigation, rather than being dismissed out of hand - for the sake of good governance, rather than electoral fortune.
Mark;s post has me in mind of how crook the ABC has become, how much a part of the rubbish production apparatus it is. Am in mind of the so-called interview by Trioli with Brough last night on the NT intervention.The latest episode is a continuation of another sordid beat up the ABC was roped into that they once would have avoided like the plague. .
Death of broadsheet.
Well, maybe so, Nick, but I don’t see that there’s any justification on the public record for believing that to be the case. The stories we’ve read show Rudd’s office micro-managing on media stuff, but tell us nothing really about how much discretion Ministers themselves have over policy. Again, some reference to cabinet meetings being “rambling” or whatever proves nothing much - other than someone having an axe to grind.
Remember as well that the flipside of the media critique is that the government is doing too much. If you have a look at any area of policy you’re interested in, you can normally find a lot of signs of activity - which of course are then dismissed as “reviews” or “committees”. I’m starting to think that we should be highlighting that more here - because the media either don’t do it, or can only do it with their own unimaginative and highly predictable spin obscuring what’s actually happening.
I agree Mark. This PM is seen as the media’s darling. Evidence for such atm is not what you’d call strong. He defeated an 11 year old government. Think he deserves a bit of a run on the news. And it will be a cold day in a town in the USA I shall call hell before I criticise him for work ethic.
Yes, agreed, there’s really not much in the story to support the idea; it’s more of an aspersion that’s thrown into the mix for good measure.
I’m working on the assumption that all of the anonymous quotes are from Shanahan and Milne, grinding their teeth behind closed doors and waiting for someone to give them something, anything, substantive to report (nb. I don’t include Coalition backbiting under the heading of ’substantive’).
May I tentatively and humbly suggest that there is somewhat of an obsession with the MSM-generated ‘issues’ here?
That this is to the detriment of a consideration of more important things? Real issues.
That this site gives, even when criticising and negating the MSM agenda, too much oxygen to a mob best ignored, or at least better ignored far more than is the case?
I come to this place for its wider range of issues and better informed and valid discussion of those issues. Its my preferred news site. Far better than the MSM, Murdoch’s mob in particular [although sadly, Fairfax and the ABC seemed to have joined in the race to the bottom].
Don’t jump on me too heavily, I’m just suggesting the balance of attention paid to the rantings of the MSM could be decreased a little.
Less of the personality pollie trivia and more on the real issues usually ignored by Rupert’s gang.
I’m not sure why we’re supposed to be sympathetic to the pain of senior civil servants. Aren’t the Sir Nigels of the world the very definition of the latte-sipping elite?
I wonder how much of this is resentment from the organs of the Organ at being given short shrift by a group of ministers who would have got heartily sick of their pre-election antics. Maybe Rudd just doesn’t want to pander to the stuck-up demands of a press gallery that is so clearly partisan and so clearly very very very stupid.
Hannah’s dad - I’ve been thinking about that myself - see my comment at 12. We’d need to do a bit of crowdsourcing, of course, since we don’t have the time ourselves to analyse everything the government’s doing. But I’m tossing around a few ideas for a sort of “Policy Watch” thing - watch this space! Any suggestions welcome too.
My impression following the 1996 election was that the media decided to ‘get’ Keating because he’d won when he wasn’t supposed to.
Pre the election, there had been a fairly sympathetic approach, a ‘you mightn’t like him but you must respect him’ vibe, a sort of almost nostalgic, sentimental approach based on the assumption that he was on a hiding to nothing.
And then he won. An election that noone in the msm had tipped he would win.
From then on, he could do no right.
I believe much the same is happening with Rudd. He never was (despite the right’s spin) the darling of the msm but there was a bit of a ‘give him some slack, he’s got the guts to take on a political genius like Howard, even though it’s totally hopeless’ attitude.
And then he won. Junking the whole media narrative - that Howard was unbeatable, that he’d pull a rabbit out of a hat, that Rudd was too ‘me too’ and people would end up taking the original ahead of the copy.
And then he did all those things which we had been told Howard couldn’t do because they were too difficult - sign Kyoto, apologise to the Aborigines, pull troops out of Iraq etc etc.
Add to that the numerous ‘honeymoon is over’ predictions, dating back to December 2006, and the msm has so much egg on its face it’s swimming in custard.
What do you do in these circumstances? Do you say, “Oh shucks, I was wrong. Howard wasn’t that great after all. These problems weren’t really insoluble, or the solutions really unpopular. This guy’s doing a good job, and the people appreciate that. Now let’s look at whether he could be doing it better.”
Or do you say, “This guy is making me and my peers look like fools. If we can pull him down, it’ll prove we were right all along.”
People (and journalists) will go to extreme lengths rather than utter the ‘wr’ word.
I see ministers interviewed and they all give a confident, intelligent and flexible interview. eg Gillard, Swan, Tanner, Roxon, and others as need be. None look brow beaten or worried. They perform well in QT, different to the Opposition. The claims do not stack up against what can be seen as regards the inner circle operating as the Cabinet.
Joe Lyon’s piece was bitchy and gossipy, the only glimpse of real reporting was Laurie Oaks comment.
The Public Servants in question must have some access to media. There is sommething wrong there. Perhaps Rudd should have got rid of the high level PS’s who had allegiance to the old Gov’t.
Saying that, I think that there seems to be a problem with the Gov’t relationship with the medis. The beat - up stories, the bitchy articles are too one sided. Perhaps it is that or is actually an organised attempt to undermine the Gov’t. Or it might be just a phase.
I don’t know about the supposedly chaotic office but we seem to have only the reporter’s view for this.
Good point McKenzie - it is worth remembering that key sections of the MSM got it all wrong in 07; and ended up looking like amateurs. There’s no doubt some bad blood - especially as they’re making the lazy media do actual work for a change (eg develop a working relationship with an entirely new group of people).
I suspect this may all represent nothing more than the end of a comfy ride for some key players.
The thing about the tie at the White House is actually an important matter.
Because the president is directly elected, foreigners often forget that the president is not just a politician, he is the symbolic head of the American people, and there are certain customs and etiquette to follow when meeting him. Wearing a jacket and tie is one of them (a very simple custom might I add, and not much to ask). When meeting the Queen of England or the Emperor of Japan, there are far more arduous customs to be aware of.
You’ll find that although it isn’t publicised, Rudd would have had to ‘present his credentials’ to Bush because the president, as head of state, is senior to Rudd. Even Winston Churchill had to present his credentials to FDR the first time they met.
This stuff is diplomacy 101 and that noone pulled the 28 year-old punk aside and told him he has to wear a tie is quite remiss.
Given Governments lose elections rather than Opps winning, what exactly has this Government done to have a voting population want to take such drastic action as to throw them out? Or, what exactly is it about this Government that projects forward to that?
At present, a one term call (or even question) is just ridiculous.
The MSM’ll be criticising Rudd’s dress sense soon and linking it to global warming and 3rd world famine - its unconscionable to them that they actually try a reasoned critique of policy because then all sorts of notions might get floated that the press couldn’t control. There might be debate!
And Gough is a good example - the idea of sacking a PM via the GG was dicussed for months by the media before chief justice Barwick salved Kerr’s alcohol addled conscience to take that step.
You can’t expect the Daily Fascist to give a Labor government a fair go, and they haven’t.
That said, though, I’ve got concerns about Rudd’s style. They’re all tactics and no strategy. Hawke, Keating and Howard all had a pretty clear idea of where they wanted their government to be in 2 or 3 years (not that their plans always worked out). But this lot do seem to be obsessed with the nightly TV news, at the expense of getting political and policy strategy right.
And like Keating they desperately need to hire a good office manager (Keating’s office was known as “the Black Hole” in the public service, and Rudd’s is likely to get the same name unless things improve). I reckon this is a problem that they could quite easily fix, but if they don’t it’s likely to bite them in the bum at some stage.
If too much focus is on media manipulation, less time will be spent by the inner circle on important issues. The cancelling of an afternoon’s worth of work because of Opposition criticism of the ‘education revolution’ is a prime example. For Rudd, Gillard, Swan and their advisors to spend an afternoon planning a response to a cheap shot by a weak opposition is ridiculous. Do the PM, Treasurer and Minister for Education and Industrial Relations have nothing better to do?
The worst aspect of government’s current operation is that it will probably never have such high approval ratings again. What has the Rudd government done? Nothing of substance. If they do not have the political nerve to make a politically unpopular decision with an inept opposition and record approval ratings, when will they?
hannah’s dad- I come here for that too. But we aren’t the only people that exist. I also come here to engage in some healthy teasing of Mark because I met him at uni once (me a student, him an academic) and I actually did an assignment on blogging because of it.
The meeja aren’t trying to bring Rudd down. At least, not directly. At least, not yet.
The Oz article had one purpose and one purpose only: Get Harris.
Harris may very well be as big of a turd as the article portrays him to be (in fact, I suspect he probably is), but so what? Oooh, a brusque and dismissive press secretary who’s hard to deal with. Well I never! And the poor journos are crying tiny, tiny, tears because Harris whispered at them. As Janet Albrechtsen might say - “dry your eyes, princess”.
They’re not after Harris because he’s unpleasant to deal with or he doesn’t wear a tie. They’re after him because he’s been precociously and extraordinarily successful as part of the team that built brand Rudd into The Most Popular PM In Like, 4EverTM. He reminds them how total is their failure to report meaningfully on the activities of this government. So they have only one option - tear Harris down (reporting meaningful stories isn’t on the radar, of course).
Harris is the one standing between them and the PM. They were used to being on Howard’s drip-feed, and now they’re having withdrawals. Never stand between a junkie and their fix.
Here’s a hint, guys: there’s $40 *billion* of our money ear-marked into various future funds - can’t any of you pick up the phone and start finding out what the heck this government plans to do with that money? What the priorities would be? How it’s to be invested? There’s a month of headlines in that story alone - so come on, chop, chop. Stop giving us this garbage about the press secretary’s tie and start finding out something that actually matters to Australians.
I’m with hannah’s dad in that I don’t quite understand the deep fascination with the MSM. Would anyone bother reading a guy like Shanahan except diehard Libs and lefty’s trying to trip him up? He’s irrelevant. He’s proven he doesn’t know what he is going on about/refuses to see reality so I don’t understand the need to catch him out.
Also by linking to these people they just get more hits which continues to justify their positions. No one at The Oz could care if Shanahan etc. is a lunatic or not just that he’s bringing eyeballs to them. It’s always “how is Shanahan going to spin this Newspoll?”. You’re doing exactly what they want you to do, talking about him/the article and visiting their site. That’s Bolt’s whole game. To me he comes across as a bit of a fool and out of his depth but he knows what he’s doing in that he gets his regular band of right wingers who love his “climate change/stolen generation doesn’t exist” stuff and quite a few lefty’s who want to shoot him down when it’s quite obvious that in that forum he can’t be and won’t be. Piers wouldn’t exist if not for all this.
I don’t know if I’m just not political enough or something but I don’t think the vast majority of people in the MSM are even worth reading let alone getting worked up over and doing what they want by linking to them. I see a few of these people on Insiders/Agenda etc and I think they spend more time not knowing what they’re talking about (and patting each other on the back about this) than knowing what’s going on e.g. “Nelson killed Rudd in parliament on petrol, honeymoon is over get ready for a whack in the polls”. They’re irrelevant and most of them know it.
Thanks Kim, Mark, and Mercurius, for this thread. I came here to see what others thought of John Lyons’ amazingly petulant, smelly and superficial “article” on Rudd’s office.
The Lyons piece had a banner headline on The Australian’s front page “Anger builds around Rudd as chaos reigns at the top”, followed by another banner headline in the Inquirer, “Inner Circle: Lohn Lyons reveals the inner workings of Kevin’s office and asks: is the PM becoming Captain Chaos?”, and continued on page 27 with “Captain Chaos and the workings of inner circle”, and of course, rounded off nicely with an editoral entitled “Office of PM is more than a one-man band”. All guns blazing.
Ullo ullo I thought. The Australian has decided there is only one big story this weekend. Wonder what they have got?
And then, just for fun, I started underlining Lyon’s various sources, such as: “A growing number of people who deal with the Government”, “One Labor figure who worked with Rudd in Queensland”, “One senior public service figure in Canberra”, “Some of Rudd’s colleagues”, and so on.
After wading through the pitiful attempts to smear Rudd’s office as sexist, reading about how very very young Harris is (27 or 28, this is incredibly important you know), and discovering finally that the only person willing to put his name to this load of rubbish was, guess who, Chris Uhlmann of the ABC, I came away no wiser, and shaking my head at how low a national newspaper can sink.
I hope that anyone teaching journalism will consider analysing this article as an primo example of what Guy Rundle over on Crikey calls, “the systematic manipulation of public opinion”.
Hannah’s dad, Benji and Jacques,
I tried to come up with a more coherent response to your ideas, but unfortunately I have a nasty case of Swirling ChaosTM that has enveloped my office and forced me to defer vital decisions such as whether to wear the stripes or the plaid.
Sources close to me have confirmed that this is due to a combination of procras, surl and nark which have jeopardised the smooth operation of the study, kitchen and living areas of my portfolio.
Others unnamed sources have suggested that the 33-year old in charge of my operation needs to “get his s*** together” and “stop all this nonsense”, however these are not firm policy positions at the time of publication.
Once the chaos recedes, I hope to get back to you with something more illuminating.
Jacques: agreed, and point well made.
Still think there’s some kind of conspiracy in the Murdoch papers to get Rudd, the same way they went after Whitlam. But this article is just Oz journos cut off at the knees for being too far up Howard’s arse, so the only thing they’ve got to write about is press gallery gossip.
Incodentally, I doubt very much that the Tudd Government will be a one term government. Since 1916, the only one term government we’ve had federally was the Scullin Government, and that occurred in the special circumstances of the onset of the Gteat Depression AND a Labor Party Split. While Rudd might be facing a worls economic crisis, the party’s in fine shape. He’ll be there for at least rwo terms, probably more, since the Libs, to follow another analogy from history, are in the same state they were after the deasth of Menzies (more or less) and definitely in the same state they were after the Hawke victory. I predict 12-15 years of Federal Labor (but probably disaster in the States.)
Paul Burns
Your last little quip about “disaster in the States” is exactly why Rudd may end up a 1 termer. For a long time now both Federal and State, Lab and Lib have been blurring the line on State/Fed responsabilities.
I might add with the active collusion of most major newspapers.
Lab was partialy successful in the last election by being able to present State problems as the Feds problems to solve (I might add I believe the centralist tendencies of Howard were a huge mistake). So water issues became Fed, Schools became Fed, Hospitals became Fed.
Unless Rudd is lucky enough to lose a lot of the State governments to the Libs in the next few years he may find that blurring of lines biting him extremely hard.
They really do make you wonder, over at The Australian. Yesterday’s edition of a round table hatchet job could hardly be more blunt. Whatever that particular agenda we could surely expect it to continue, but for the singular notion it does look like a slow news week otherwise.
Yet The Australian has (albeit on rare occasion) put an incisive boot more strongly into the previous Government than other papers. And what then of the arts and literature section it gives each Saturday? Intelligent, thoughtful, sensitive work of a quality such that you couldn’t really expect for more, week after week from a newspaper. It is a wonder that its commonly crass and often pathetic political section would target the same readers as its arts and literature segment given they’re bundled together [talking about quality here].
Surely they don’t expect readers of the Review section, for instance (with an excellent piece this week by David Malouf) to not read the politics, as though solely to gain an added arts or ‘cultural’ readership?
Or do they? It’s hard to guess at their approach. Is it simply a case of editorial expectation that readers are not so committed to politics, thereby dumbing it down; that to switch to excellence would tax readers in time?
Appreciated that a focus on MSM can be tiresome, but it’s perplexing nonetheless. And as it’s a major, it does throw up a question about how its editors regard the Australian public, and what this public has done to get it. Answers such as “their writers are lazy; incompetent” etc don’t make a complete fit. They’re making considered choices here.
Re yesterday’s political copy - as remarked it’s obviously a slow news week. But that is very interesting. At a positive and hopeful guess, Rudd is laying a foundation early to capitalise later. He’s not facing the ballot and can afford to lose immediate political consumable daily ground. And the question of style has been raised. Contrast Rudd’s with Howard’s, when the latter grabbed a contemporary occurrence to make instant opportunism of it. Great copy. Early: hello gun control. One seeks to recall these types of occurrences in Rudd’s term. Of course, Howard went on to manufacture these, but none of that is Rudd’s style. So what is Rudd really about? Is the answer to that unpalatable to readers? Has Rudd been asked and fudged, waiting to use the answer for political gain when he’s ready? Has he deemed it inconsumable just now? “I”m laying the foundation” - imagine that (if it’s the case) to a busy and cynical public.
This is leading to perhaps a contentious point, in that, notwithstanding The Australian’s crappola, a positive purpose may be served by what that paper is doing. Its agenda is slowly screwing Rudd to the ground. In amongst the rubbish we may yet be delivered crucial aspects of Government Rudd by that account, and not obtained elsewhere.
Correction -resignation of Menzies.
Mole,
The Rudd Government might be blurring the edges, but the voters aren’t. They can still tell the difference between a State and Federal issue and vote accordingly in the appropriate elections.
To what extent this will change if Rudd takes responsibility for hospitals; or does nothing about the Murray Darling until its too late; or dithers on takong the hard decisions on climate change the electorate expect of him (I think Insiders was right on that this morning) its hard to say. He’s saved not only by the historical tradition of two terms for each Government but by a deep distrust of the Liberal party in the electorate generally. I think we’ve a few years before that subsides on a federal, and in some cases even on a state level.
MSM minnows nibbling around the unavoidable loose ends of government.
Both loose ends and MSM minnows are an unavoidable fact of political life.
Only a deeply yearning Coalition claqueur could possibly parlay these odds and ends into a “one term” narrative.
But of course the Volkischer Beobachter, frothing on as usual about November Criminals, is jam-packed full of Coalition claqueurs.
Business as usual in Murdochworld.
That said, Rudd’s spinmeisters ought to address Rudd’s slightly obsessional, scholarship lad, arriviste loquacity. When you wield actual power, less is more.
I reckon Rupert’s pressing Kevvie into something. I don’t know what. Maybe he’s pissed off about
the OilIraq but I doubt it.“That said, Rudd’s spinmeisters ought to address Rudd’s slightly obsessional, scholarship lad, arriviste loquacity.”
The Oz piece identified Rudd’s spinmeisters as the slightly obsessional, scholarship lad, loquacious arriviste nub of the problem, Katz.
Media spinners do what they do and on the opposite side journalists do what they do. Who can blame a government for wanting to control the messages that get out and who can blame the press for wanting to find the real story? It’s like two warriors accusing each other of using unfair weapons when all they want to do is kill each other. It’s just a tactic.
Besides, now that the number of people working in PR and spin has surpassed the number working as journalists (there are real numbers somewhere apparently) why should we expect anything different? That’s why (political) bloggers are so important, to keep both sides in check.
“When you wield actual power, less is more”.
Interesting proposition. With global warming approaching catastrophic proportions after three decades of blind-eye turning by the political class, I suspect we might soon be crying out for some serious political power-wielding, if only to save our lives.
The big question for me is who is up for this? (And I don’t mean strutting around in costume on the deck of a warship, or hugging soldiers’ wives.)
I think Rudd might just be our man (bloodless, driven, intensely focussed, and administratively skilled), when things get really crazy.
Paul Burns
I wish I had your confidence. I have spoken to quite a few people here in mining who have no idea who controls what, just its the “gubbinments fault”.
We only have one paper here in WA and they seem right in on the blurring game.
Better educated people (the sort that read papers in general) mostly know the boundaries. Its the passive news/politics consumer that 99% of the spin is directed at, convince 5% of them to change their vote and your out..
Mole@42,
I don’t know what to say. Most political elites, regaddless of ideology, think the masses are stupid and ill-informed. I know this could be right, but I shudder to think it is.
You could tell your mares in the mining industry its not really the ‘gummints’ ‘ fault. Its capitalism’s fault - all the bad stuff, anyway.
DD @ 26:
The “no narrative” narrative!
Two points:
(1) They don’t actually need to do a lot of political strategy at the moment because they’re in an extremely enviable position - the Opposition are in a worse place than Labor under Simon Crean was at the same time;
(2) I think they do have a narrative and a direction - it’s basically what they were saying in the campaign last year - supply side measures to maintain global competitiveness “beyond the resources boom”, long term solutions, and social inclusion.
Me, I’d be very happy if they just did this, with a particular emphasis on responding to global warming.
Maybe Rudd needs to get out and give a few speeches or something, but I’m nonplussed by the claims they don’t know where they’re going.
And like Peter Martin said, if the office organisation is a problem, I’m sure they’ll figure a way out to fix it. They’re a first term government who’s been in office seven months with only two Ministers who’ve served in that role before. What do we expect?
It’s also worth reiterating the point I made earlier about learning from prior Labor governments - Keating’s second term wasn’t exactly a shining success because he kept touting “the big picture”, was it?
As to the MSM-criticisin’, I think we need to do it, because this stuff needs countering. That’s not exclusive of a bigger focus on what’s actually going on with policy, which as I’ve said, is something I’d like to see us do more of, and something I’ve been thinking about.
Back on the meejah, Bolt ways in, and predictably calls for Harris to be sacked. But he gets something basic wrong:
Actually, the government’s communications efforts shouldn’t be primarily directed to keeping people like him sweet (and he complains again that Rudd hasn’t been on “Insiders” - so what?) but to, well, communicating with the public. They’ve found a way to do that that doesn’t involve filtering what they’re trying to say through the media. That’s also no doubt what a lot of this confected angst is about.
Nah, Mark, they talk the talk on long term stuff but they don’t really walk the walk. And anyway I wasn’t thinking so much about their vision of Australia in 2020 as their vision of the Rudd government in 2010.
What they’ll find is that giving in to lobby-inspired media tizzies - such as the salary packaging rort for non-profit workers - just leads to more, not less, such media tizzies as lobby groups scent blood.
As for the office disorganisation, my point was precisely that it is very fixable - but it does have to be fixed.
Sure, DD, but I think a lot of this assessment is a tad premature.
Picking up the oft-context of Rudd going from Qld [at times that’s relayed as pejorative, as it the next:] bureaucrat in but a hop jump to Prime Minister, and framing it altogether differently, one could also argue that ‘Rudd’ is full of surprises. He may achieve as PM beyond what political cynicism easily suggests.
(Taking the line of political cynicism, Rudd would never have become PM).
On the one hand you have people saying he’s a one hit wonder: that’s easy and a given (that it would be said).
Noting in context also, his win was not in a drover’s dog election. To work the media rationale backwards: how could this unknown, heat-affected ‘expat’ actually take command of the nation? Looking to the other hand, in that light, the argument stands that he is in command now.
What then is the suggestion? That half a year in government has brought him undone?
That would be a silly suggestion, as I’ve been saying, Robert.
It’s also worth pointing out that Rudd didn’t go straight from being a Qld bureaucrat to being PM. He learnt a fair bit from his electoral defeat in Griffith in 1996, and from being an opposition parliamentarian and then front bencher. He’s very clearly a person who’s very able to change tack and grow, and if the media don’t understand that, more fool them.
Cheers Mark; I attempted to say something similar, in missing the ’skip’ in the hop jump.
Here’s a wild thought. Is it possible Rudd is also starving writers like Bolt of oxygen? Back onto style, Howard’s fed into that. It was clever while it lasted and having claimed that ground as the terms of reference, anything above or beyond it was rendered irrelevent, non-Australian, non what the public want.
On this quote
:
Rudd’s style is not playing to the Bolt thing. An argument could be made that Rudd’s early term so far might be recreating the way politics is written up. Bit by bit. Put it this way: if the leading political figure were to attempt such a thing, starving the Boltishoids would be first on the list, while of course not being limited to that. It’s early, yet the case could be made that instead Bolt’s time has come.
Given the way Rudd has operated to get where he has, using timing and media and much else - including shutting his mouth and letting things happen: times we weren’t overtly privy to, and which would have occurred more often (than his ‘talkative’ nature would intimate - trying to stuff his early term into a limited box of opinionist design is not of itself a good fit.
Quick additions- the seemingly swift move for Rudd to PM as described above is related to ‘perceptions’, and how these are continually worked in media. (Folks, here we are in this great nation, and not a word from MSM about an alternative view on Rudd’s achievement: an alternative equally valid given the short term by which it’s denounced).
In addition, one might add this. If you were heading up a body of influence and responsibility, of any sort, or in singular, and you were seeking a person to assist by way of representation, would you discard the resume from someone who has achieved beyond the norm?
[”an alternative view” should be “a particular alternative view” in that the criticised Rudd may also be in command of the problems raised, in the frame of a wider agenda which can’t yet be relayed; an alternative backed up by the nature of his rise to power]. This might be for nought, but none of us except Rudd really knows, and the disparity is worth pursuing.
Hmmm…like we said last week, journos for News Ltd are just trying to paint the picture for the public to swallow that Rudd & his team are “arrogant, misogynistic, chaotic, knee-jerkish & unexperienced”…it’s typical divide & conquer stuff…& I agree w/ much that Mark, spiros & others have to say.
However, being a suspicious-natured fella, I’m trying to work out if this is the Murdoch media trying to pretend they don’t get access to Rudd & co…a bit of a fog tactic, magic trick…look over there & you won’t see me doing this…
Or, perhaps the Bolts & such have been kept at a distance & are turning beetroot in the face & huffing & hawing like a unwelcome guest seated at the children’s table.
We know the Australian has been receiving leaks & other info. Where are they coming from? Ministers, public servants, the team? Hopefully all will be revealed soon enuff.
All this hype about Harris brings to mind Blair’s right-hand man, Alastair Campbell. How the media were tightly managed. Yet, it seems that some saw Murdoch as part of the cabinet considering how often he got access to Blair & co. I’m hoping this is not the case w/ Rudd. But Murdoch’s lot can be quite wily in how they cover-up their bosses access to polies these days. I’d still like to know what Rudd & Murdoch had to say to each other in NY…& why Rudd was playing pool in Ackermann’s basement a while back.
Still, hopefully none of Rudd’s team will be foolish enuff to take us down this road:
Alistair Campbell: Iraq War
In February 2003 he was a central figure in the alleged “dodgy dossier” controversy. A dossier on Iraqi concealment of Weapons of mass destruction and human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein was published on 3 February. The dossier purported to be based on intelligence but a large section had been taken (unacknowledged) from an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi available on the internet. The article was the basis of chapter two of his University of Oxford doctoral thesis, which was unfinished at that time.
A few months later he became embroiled in further controversy after the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan broadcast claims that the government had included evidence it knew to be false (famously described as “sexed up” by another BBC journalist) in an earlier dossier (about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction). In a later newspaper article Gilligan said that his source had specifically identified Campbell himself as responsible for the alleged exaggerations. Campbell demanded a retraction and apology from the BBC, but none was forthcoming.
The BBC’s source, Dr David Kelly, identified himself to his employers at the Ministry of Defence. The government released this news and under questioning from newspapers desperate to identify the source gave sufficient hints for his identity to become public. Kelly committed suicide shortly afterward and the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances of his death pushed Campbell further into the limelight. The inquiry showed that Campbell had been working closely with the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), in which the different sections of the intelligence services meet, and made suggestions about the wording of the dossier. He had also been keen that Kelly’s identity be made public writing in his diary, “It would fuck Gilligan if that were his source”. However, Lord Hutton cleared Campbell of acting improperly, as JIC had taken all editorial decisions.
(wiki pedia)
—————
Anyway, going by the vitriol coming out of much of the corporate media, I’m beginning to think that Rudd & his lot are not going down the path well trodden by those in the good books of certain media moguls & their gatekeepers & shareholder allies.
That’s a positive I reckon. But we’ll see. I worry tho when some Laborites refer to Blair & Singleton & such as cases to be emulated. I’m tired of hearing justifications for profiteering at other’s expense. Tho I guess most individuals have positive attributes & achievements that can be learnt from…& of course, avoiding the same pitfalls & their less than ethical moments helps too. None of us are perfect.
But it would be more heartening to hear Labor refer to a few more positive, less profit-oriented characters in the future. But I guess they have an upcoming, potentially sooner than some may realise, election to win? And we know how poisonous & celebrity-driven & money-oriented the atmosphere is still out there…tho it’s gradually shifting. Wouldn’t it be nice if Federal Labor could win by promoting the good in people?…& not feeling the need to promote those who have caused mega-problems…regardless of their positive philanthropic & welfare mentality changing efforts.
“unexperienced” should be “inexperienced”.
In the end, the Tories have problems with a nasty poll gap sitting where it was at the time of last election.
Can they play about with supply and not risk a snap poll trigger?
What about those by-elections coming up? Have the Shanahan smear campaigns worked or not?
Then there is a long term wedge to be developed out in the mortgage belt, where there might be many marginals for the taking in a couple of years.
I just wish something could be done about public broadcasting to get it back to broad sheet journalism; also Fairfax.
Building on John Lyon’s tripe from The Weekend Australian, Christian Kerr tells us this morning, on the front page, that “concern over Kevin Rudd’s media management has gone global…”.
Whoa, this must be serious. It seems “japanese diplomats” are disappointed and surprised about Rudd snapping at a snarky japanese journalist over a week ago.
Really? They are still mad? Do tell.
This is getting sillier and sillier every day.
“Concern… has gone global”? It didn’t even make it to Insiders, let alone Global!
My favourite was the bit about Kevin text messaging - he’s such a control freak he needs to text!
Case closed, my friends.
There does seem to be this urge in the Media (esp in the Press Gallery) to write up retrospectives of the Rudd Government - too cautious, too obessessed with spin, no concrete achievements….
But FFS! They’ve only been in for 7 months - what do people think could have been achieved in that time? I don’t see how you can seriously judge the worth of any government until they’ve been in for a few years - Glenn, Denis, Laurie - we’ll get back to you in 2011. The overwhelming mass of these arguments are by people inside the Beltway (as the Americans say - what’s the Canberra equivalent?) for people inside the Beltway. Meanwhile, real people are getting on with more important things, like family, footie and food.
grace pettigrew@55, I always thought Christian Kerr would turn out a perfect Opposition Organ tag team player, as the article you refer to proves.
“The news follows reports in The Weekend Australian of disquiet in the top ranks of the Government and bureaucracy at the conduct of the Prime Minister’s senior advisers.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23906366-2702,00.html
“Our paper creates the news and we comment on it”… must be the mission statement that he has fully endorsed.
Crikey has some interesting background on the journo at the centre of the weekend “anti-Rudd tirade”:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080623-The-Australians-incredible-anti-Rudd-tirade.html
[Crikey has some interesting background on the journo at the centre of the weekend “anti-Rudd tirade”:]
Kim,
Unfortatly, it is only for subscribers atm
Meanwhile in WA,Howard Sattler is whinging about being blacklisted by the Premier, but fortunately, Howie isn’t getting any sympathy
http://blogs.watoday.com.au/madashell/2008/06/carpenters_blac.html
Kim , what if you do not want…… “a free trial to Crikey”, where C.K. made his name and would be still interested in reading that story you mention?
Try this, joe2 (story is by Alex Mitchell):
Yes joe 2; Grace, the Magic Christian is a classic yuppie neolib organ, to me also. Is it the same vacant supercilliousness that has proven a major irritation for this writer for so long?
You see it with twats like Milne and Bolt, also, to me- a sort of preppie under grad thing.
Oddly enough, his bro used to post quite sensible stuff to Margo Kingston’s Web Diary (by contrast).
Thanks Kim.
Alex Mitchell intially shows some capacity for reporting.
His opinion piece footnote seems ordinary.
Agreed, joe2.
The thing is, Murdoch hacks in particular seem to come out of a narrow caste in deed. They are not of the community so much as above it. They don’t talk or share with you, but patronise down to, readers with the voice of the born to rule.
The advent of the internet has meant these people have become anomolous- the rest of us have discovered blogs and find the real information needed by us in our daily lives that the media and press withold.
What’s more there is that encouraging sympathetic vibe from others who have a like experience of the system, that has you perservere in digging a bit, despite the “keep off the grass” signs from the system.
It is understandable therefore, that Blair and the like sneer to distract from their own fears of disempowerment, about socalled blogger “comfort posts”, because the internet is precisely about rebuilding the sense of community these people have smashed. In their attempted atomisation of society, in quest of making people isolated consumers dependent on them and their consumerism, they created enough alienated people desperate enough to sek an alternativeand this is their (the Moorlocks) undoing.
Yes joe2@58, never doubted it for a moment, even back when he was Hilary Bray. The nom de plume said it all really.