There were numerous examples of the “exciting excerpt from new book on politics” thing around in the weekend papers, a phenomenon noted earlier here with regard to Peter Van Onselen and Phillip Senior’s Howard’s End. The Courier-Mail ran some underwhelming excerpts from that tome – the thrust of which appeared to be that Kevin Rudd sometimes reacted badly to some of the bombs lobbed at him last year (as in the Burke “affair”). That doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t know at the time, and it’s probably unfair to judge the book as a whole on the basis of these excerpts. The marketing ploy seems to be to run a bit of copy which can be spun into something contemporary – another brick in the wall of the prevailing “media narrative”.
We also saw some similarly underwhelming excerpts in The Australian from Christine Jackman’s Inside Kevin07, which were then spun into news stories. Or rather, the bit about ALP polling on Peter Costello was. No one seemed to find it particularly stunning a revelation that ALP wonks were playing around with butchers paper when workshopping campaign themes.
The Costello story, of course, has played into current speculation about the Liberal leadership, and a campaign by certain commentators to tout his leadership credentials. But it actually highlights something very problematic both about the interpretation of polling by the media and the political class and these sorts of “first draft of history” journalistic books. The polling in question was a report of a focus group, on what was essentially a counter-factual – that Costello might take over the leadership in the lead up to the 2007 election.
The negative comments about Costello from the focus group participants have been downplayed, and the context almost entirely ignored – the fact that Costello replacing a deeply unpopular Prime Minister was what was being proposed as a possibility. It doesn’t actually trump the quantitative findings about Costello’s unpopularity from the AES, because it’s a snapshot of a certain moment in time, and of a political dynamic that has passed. Nor are the commentators running with it apparently noticing the conditionality of the findings – that Costello would distinguish himself from Howard. Not only is there not much evidence that Costello ever had much of an idea about where he wanted to take the country – based on his musings when he vowed to “speak out” or for that matter, on the risibile “co-leadership” theme from the beginning of last year’s campaign, but the context for the elevation of Costello now is supposed to be that he’d be a more effective defender of the Howard era.
So the irony is that one of the biggest stories of 2007 – the complete misinterpretation of polling results by pundits with an agenda out of step with reality – is repeating itself – as an isolated piece of evidence that may or may not have had some validity when the research was conducted is now touted as some eternal truth in a completely changed political arena.
One of the criticisms of the slew of quickie election 07 books that came out just before Christmas was that they read very much like a cut and paste of daily press reports and commentary. Again, it’s fair to reserve judgement on Jackman’s book, but it may well be the same sort of effort. Without any serious reflection or deeper analysis, these sorts of journalistic narratives aren’t really the “first draft of history”, but just a convenient reference to what happened and when. Perhaps what they tell us most about is the poverty of serious writing on politics in this country.
Elsewhere: More from Tim Dunlop.
Thanks Mark,
I looked at Mr Milne’s column. Didn’t like what I saw. First, in the printed version (today’s Oz) he refers to parts of Canberra as “the beltway”. This is a term related to Washington DC is it not? Let that pass.
He refers to some private polling by Nationals during the Gippsland byekection campaign. ALP was on track to win it, then their vote plummeted. Nationals volunteers outnumbered ALP volunteers at the booths. He attributes all this (and the strong result for Darren Chester) to an anti-Rudd sentiment. I think he’s wrong.
As noted on LP during the by-election
a) the ALP candidate was not strong [a town cryer FFS, mayor of Sale]
b) Labor candidate had joined ALP a day before nominations, hence
c) resentment by many local branches (including negative public comments by prominenbt members including a well-respected former ALP State Govt Minister), so
d) not surprising that Labor supporters and ALP members might have stayed away from personning booths, and
e) the comments in c) were used in very stark TV ads knocking the ALP candidate, which
f) was part of a very well-funded Nationals TV campaign, along with the ute man n0-tax-on-alcopops ads, Liberal ads, etc
I think that the combination of a) to f) are adequate to explain the swing away from the ALP in Gippsland. As you noted at the time, there was also a Liberal candidate (unlike in Nov 2007) so some drift across to Lib from Nat and ALP was to be expected also.
Mr Milne’s “grand narrative” of voter disaffection with the PM finds no supporting evidence either in the Gippsland result, or in the Nationals’ polling, imo.
cheerio
Ambi,
Milne used the beltway phrase the lasr time he was on Insiders. Is this guy a journalist or poseur?
These kind of books will have some value for historians in the future, some more than others, by providing a framewotk to start with, and give some ideas o how the participants were seen at the time. Books by actual participants (eg Costello)are of course far more valuable, even if they’re little more than self-justification, compared with books by wannabes (eg Milne). The real work begins 30 years in the future when the Government archives, oral/video histories and personal papers of the participants are open, supplemented by interviews with survivors,if any.
“There were numerous examples of the “exciting excerpt from new book on politics” thing around in the weekend papers, a phenomenon noted earlier here with regard to Peter Van Onselen and Phillip Senior’s Howard’s End.”
Mark, I can’t wait for the movie. I’ll buy heaps of popcorn to throw at King John’s image. And go “yay!” every time Kevin Rudd goes berserker on the media.
Yes, Paul
But we shouldn’t wait for 30 years, n’est-ce pas? Got to get those interviews with participants on tape now, even if the participant stipulates that it can’t be released during their lifetime, whateva…. I understand that Jenny Hocking’s biography of the Venerable Gough is due out [vol.1 of two] circa October 2008. Let’s hope Gough lives to see it appear.
It’ll stir up many old memories. I hope it’s not pure hagiography. Meanwhile, he’s had his say in a number of his own books and the odd speech or two over the years
“Is this guy a journalist or poseur?”
You would have thought Stephen Mayne was correct in predicting the end of his career , generally, some time back. Looks likely there is still a Niche market, at Newscorp, for making up stuff about Rudd and unrestrained promotion of Costello.
Talking of history, some of this blokes best work is still available on “You Tube” as a primary source/saused document.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9v5OsC6GdU&eurl=http://wow-factor.com/index.php/glenn_milne_off_the_stage_again
a journalist or a poseur – can’t a bloke be both?
“a journalist or a poseur – can’t a bloke be both?”
The latter seems more and more to be a job prerequisite for the former.
Mr Milne is a definite winner on the second score.
well yes, joe2, for the columnists
That raises the additional question of the exact referent of the post’s title!
There was some talk recently, I think, of relaxing archive restrictions to 10 years, but the idea may have dissipated.I don’t know.
Personally, I prefer the 30 year rule, irritating though it may be at times. I think one needs that period to get some historical perspective on a period. And let political passions cool.
Nevertheless, whetrher its now or 30 years time, I don’t think JWH will come out of it well, on his tardiness on global warming alone, let alone all the morally questionable stances his government took on so many things. But then again, neither will the Labor Opposition or, probably, the Democrats under Meg Lee.
Just throwing it out there…but I’m pretty sure Christine Jackman is the wife of the editor of The Australia, Chris Mitchell. I figured that was part of the reason why it got so much play in that paper over the weekend (there were pages and pages of excerpts and reprints and rehashes of the book’s findings).
Interesting analysis Mark, but I think you are underselling Costello. At the least, the election would’ve been a closer contest if he had been leader. It would’ve undercut the age issue that Rudd played so well.
Yes she is, Tom.
It’s very hard to say how Costello would have gone. Perhaps better than Howard, but he was more than capable of doing himself damage, and the reality would have been huge instability in the government if Howard had gone close to the election – even if “voluntarily”. But the important thing with this research is not just that it was done at a time when the political stars where very differently aligned, but also that it was a hypothetical then too.