Hunter S. Thompson, who’s repeatedly if repetitiously quoted in Christine Jackman’s Inside Kevin07: The People. The Plan. The Prize., would be turning in his grave.
I’m unable to think of any good reasons for parting with $34.95 for Jackman’s book, which is touted as the ultimate insider account of the Labor Party’s campaign strategy in the lead up to last year’s federal election. As noted previously at this blog, any juicy tidbits have already been extracted in the News Limited papers, and the non-story of Peter Costello’s alleged popularity is still rumbling meaninglessly on as I write. (Incidentally, the fact that quite a bit of research mentioned in the book showing Costello as electoral poison wasn’t selected for “news” stories tells a bit of a tale in itself.)
The book’s importance - insofar as it has any - lies in what is in effect an auto-critique of the standard of political journalism in contemporary Australia, in what its publication says about the strategies of university presses and particularly MUP, and in whether it actually adds fuel to the fire of the “hollowmen” narrative of colourless political apparatchiks it tries to counter. Let’s take those in reverse order.
Some context for Jackman’s aims in writing the book can be found by reading the publisher’s blurb.
Jackman begins her tale by invoking Mark Latham’s critique of the institutional sclerosis afflicting the Labor Party. Latham’s take, and indeed Paul Keating’s criticism of the faceless and conservative focus group driven apparatchiks surrounding Kevin Rudd, provides something of a leitmotif for the construction of the book’s narrative, working as a foil. Jackman seeks to demonstrate that the staffers, pollsters, and campaign strategists who supposedly overthrew the Howard government armed only with butchers paper, polling data and their Blackberries, are actually colourful, idealistic and exciting.
If this is indeed her aim, she fails spectacularly. The fact that Mike Kaiser comes across as the staffer most endowed with an actual personality among the motley assembly of Sussex Street and Queensland whiz kids such as Tim Gartrell, Alister Jordan, Mark Arbib and Cameron Milner might ring a few alarm bells. There’s no sense that this crew have any interests or lives outside politics in the most narrow sense, and only Gartrell appears to have any actual sense of policy passion.
Throughout the book, it’s starkly obvious who Jackman’s informant of the moment (or of the page) is, with everyone painted in some sort of same-y West Wing wannabe palette, aside from those who obviously didn’t talk to Jackman, whose sledging - mediated by her authorial voice - makes that plain. (Brisbane City Councillor Milton Dick wouldn’t find this a fun read, for instance, I suspect). You can instantly tell who Jackman’s been chatting to by the descriptors applied when they appear on the scene - “Labor intellectual Peter Botsman” among others I could cite…
These characters only come to life when they encounter Paul Keating, which takes me back to the irony of Jackman’s whole approach.
So much for one-sided and self-interested self-promotion. That raises the broader problems this book has. The quality of the research is in some cases abysmal, with glaring factual errors - a suggestion, for instance, that Labor’s primary vote in the 2000 Queensland election was poor. You get the sense that no sort of scrutiny whatsoever has been applied to whatever Jackman’s sources have claimed, and there’s really no attempt to contextualise or even verify any of what they have to say. The writing has its fair share of malopropisms, and it all suggests what could most charitably be interpreted as an absence of editorial work.
Why would Melbourne University Press publish this tedious tale of the genealogy of advertising slogans and the minutiae of targeting seats outside the marginal range? Luke Slattery’s recent article on the publishing strategies of university presses quotes Louise Adler on the alleged idealism of Vice-Chancellor Glyn Davis in giving MUP a remit to “contribute to public debate”. This sort of book really calls into question whether he’s showing off “intellectual generosity” or an eye for turning cost centres into a handy profit, which would be much more the modern managerialist way.
The drum beat of Newspoll sounds throughout Inside Kevin07’s narrative arc, and various News Limited journalists are praised and thanked by their colleague Jackman. But, astoundingly (or not), the failure of most of the gallery pundits to get a single poll right, and their head in the sand Howardian triumphalism are entirely absent from this “first draft of history”. Any historian worth her salt would, of course, be looking for multiple sources and a range of textual trails. Modern political journalism in this country, by contrast, is almost completely captured by “insider” leaks and briefings, and this book really is that sort of yarn writ large. It’s astoundingly partial, and more or less worthless in any analytical sense. There are heaps of examples of really good long form journalism in books on campaigns in Australia, in America, and in the UK. This manifestly isn’t one of them, and its very existence really poses some serious questions of credibility for Melbourne University Press.
Incidentally, it suggests that it’s not just blatant bias that’s the problem with Australian political journalism. Jackman’s book is just a reflection of whatever her sources think - in this case, Labor “strategists” - with almost no actual mediation, let alone critical thought. The complete inability on display to apply any sort of distance or critical frame to the subjects of the story demonstrates that in the unlikely event that The Australian adopted a left of centre editorial policy, it would be just as beneficial as a “contribution to public debate” in its political journalism as it is now.
Inside Kevin07 is a yawn as a yarn, summoning up little dramatic tension, and telling us almost nothing new and interesting about the campaign, unless you’re the sort of person as obsessed with campaigning wonkery as its cast of characters are. And I really hope that the sum total of the modern Labor Party’s parts is greater than the focus group kids who play a starring role in its pages.
It’s incredibly hard to get a good scholarly/academic book published by MUP, even where the book originates as a University of Melbourne doctorate or ARC-funded project. There’s still the handsome and subsidized Miengyah imprint, but otherwise it’s Conga Line of Suckholes (class act, that one) and now, it seems, Jackman’s tome. I don’t know whether to shhet more of the blame home to Luise Adler or Glyn Davis.
I was unaware of this book until I saw TV footage of author and subject hobnobbing at the book launch and the requisite ‘news event’ as explanation. Armed with the clear impression of this being the ‘authorised version’ and reasons that Mark has now elaborated I have little interest in reading the book - unless it pops up in my local library for free. So jaundiced have I become at these insider accounts that I hope the Hollowmen scripties can fit an authorised eves-dropper into a future episode. It could be a lot of fun.
But seriously, political biography in Australia has been hampered by decades since Menzies set the tone by favouring a close friend to do the job and she never got around to it.
I’m not surprised with your evaluation. On Q&A last Thursday, she was also less than impressive.
“It could be a lot of fun”
Since when have Working Dog done something that could be described as ‘a lot of fun’?
“I really hope that the sum total of the modern Labor Party’s parts is greater than the focus group kids who play a starring role in its pages.” …
…. and what if it’s not, that the man is right when he says:
“This is a key point for young people to understand: in becoming politically active today, you would not be joining a political party (in the conventional sense) but a political machine—an oligarchy dominated by opportunism, careerism and acts of bastardry. This is the unhappy story of Labor’s culture over the past twenty years.
As Labor’s real membership declined, it was relatively easy for a handful of factional powerbrokers to grab hold of the Party in the 1980s. They had the resources of head office and the trade unions to back them and met little resistance from the so-called rank-and-file membership (which had been gutted by ethnic branch stacking). This was a takeover hostile to democratic principles: they stripped the remaining assets of the Party, turning ALP conferences and policy committees into hand-picked, stage-managed jokes.
A few dozen Party officials and faction bosses now effectively control the organisation: who goes into Parliament, how MPs vote in Caucus and how decisions are made in national and State Party forums. Very few people progress without their say so: through Young Labor, into trade union and State ministerial offices, recruited for future factional and parliamentary service. It’s a dense network of influence—full of favours, patronage and, if anyone falls out with them, payback.” (: Another MUP book, 5 bucks more)
?
What, someone is gonna pull the sword from the stone, and grow the Greens up into a viable alternative mainstream party, minus “opportunism, careerism and acts of bastardry”?
Danny: I think the problem is that if the Greens “grew up” that the careerists and bastards would start showing up in droves.
mark, ffs, stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think
Thanks Mark
It seems obvious that Melb Uni is over-rated, over-paid and over here down here. Like thats them all over the fucking place. And then what have they done for Carlton lately?
Fucking wankers - fuck off and die.
RM: So you’re saying: suppose there was a party, and no bastard showed up?
Wow - that must have really have hit a chord Mark. I haven’t read it but now I must. Too close to the bone?
glen at 7, are you being ironic?
Me, I want to read the tell-all book from a mole inside the GG during election 07.
Now THAT would be a larf!
‘August 2 Dennis depressed about poll. ”
August 3. Dennis depressed about reception of story about poll. ‘
Incidentally, there’s only two Uni presses worth of pinch of crap, and they are, IMHO - UQP and UNSWP.
The former collects reviews and sends them to you.
The latter even has does proofing!
Wow!
UMP is going the the way of U Melb itself - vuz “sorry…. Oh yes, I was managing a university or something, then got distracted by that cool blinky flashing light. Yes, that one. Yes it is pretty.”
“The latter even has does proofing! ”
Mmm…..happily for certain authors.
Agree with wpd #3 and hollowmen comments.
Unfortunately, Greens comments,too.
One initial impression of the book, only a few pages from the end, is the astonishment of the author that the campaign worked hard to get ‘free media’ which she asides as ‘journalism’. And that there was a focus on the daily news cycle - both being proactive and reactive.
D’uh!
The other one was, as someone who worked for the Greens last year, how much bloody money they had to spend - in talking about Queensland, how they came up with a spare $4m to throw at not-so-marginals in that state.
But I agree with most of your review Mark, but would also like to highlight her one-liner about the campaign team being overwhelmingly male - there are women out there who can think and work on campaigns!
Another primary source for historians to plough through with a very critical eye in 30 years time. Just to put this into perspective, these kinds of books used to come out some years after the event, usually when the pollies/journos/staffers retired. Offhand, (because I’m too slack to look up bibliographies at the moment)I can think of only one book that came out contemporaneously, more or less, in the 1930s, -Caucus Crisis. And in WW2 I think there was only a short book by Makin, and Allen Chester’s biography of Curtin. Back then, I don’t think the pollies or their very few operators were into kiss and tell, and both pollies and journos used to wait for retirement before they put pen to paper.
The rush to judgement over the past few decades has more to do with the publishing industry and the desire of our current journos for some kind of immortality. As I said, great for future historians but increasingly dull for the rest of us.
I can’t wait for that big book Glen Milne must be planning.
I think Lefty E’s idea of a book on the ‘insiders’ at the GG would be great. And Working Dog mob should also do something on the MSM.
Mungo MacCallum’s book Poll Dancing was interesting as it was a daily diary type thing but it will be a good idea for an impartial author to sum up the 2007 election too.
Jackman was fairly woeful on Q&A so we decided not to buy the book at that point. May check it out at the local Library later but can’t imagine it would be worth the money.
I’m rather surprised everyone here has scooted over Christine Jackman’s marital relationship with Oz EIC Chris Mitchell, which began when she was a reporter and Mr Mitchell was still very much married … might go along way to explaining the yards of coverage of a fairly ho-hum book in the Weekend Oz of two Sats ago….
Interesting Mark,
By the way, would you care to nominate a few books that contrast with this one in being more analytical, more objective, more knowledgeable and better written? Say, in the last 10 years or so?
Are these books becoming more “tabloid” style? Chased downhill by the online “news” sites, gossip magazines, etc? I blame teh Big Brother. Bloody Orwell.
Actually, I’d be scratching my head to nominate any Australian examples in the last decade - all my picks would be older!
What the hell is Jackman doing quoting Hunter S? If he was around now and Australian she’d be on that breakfast show crapping on about declining standards and saying: ban him.
.
Kevvie is idealistic. Kevvie idealizes himself.
Fair enough Mark, let’s broaden it out then. Last 50 years!
I’ve found some of the political autobiographies very revealing. Certainly not objective, but telling tales and giving a whiff of the hothouse. John Button, Clyde Cameron, Gough. Even Peter Walsh - and “Memoirs of a Finance Minister” isn’t exactly a catchy title.
Not surprising that so many of the opportunistic potboiler political biographies make their way to the remainders tables so swiftly.
Does it take a historian’s eye (and research skills) to write a solid political book?
Sticking with campaigns, Ambi, books by Alan Reid, and even our friend Paul Kelly are pretty decent pieces of journalistic work going back to the 60s, 70s and 80s. The last decent biography of an Australian pollie, I think, was Don Watson’s of Keating. Blanche’s bio of Hawkey was actually pretty good too.
I’m not sure I agree with you about the memoirs, though the ones you cite are pretty readable. There are some excellent political memoirs from the US and the UK which I really don’t think have been equalled here.
On political journalism in this era generally, you could compare Tony Jones’ compilation with any of the “best of political writing” books from the US to the former’s discredit I suspect.
Oh yes, I wasn’t claiming our pollies memoirs are up to US or UK standards of writerly skill or thoughtful judgements. Not at all.
Agree wholeheartedly about Don Watson on Paul Keating: good work.
Early 60’s, a schoolteacher recommended those campaign books by a US journalist: “The Making of the President”. Theodore White? They read like a thriller. Such knowledge, such flair.
Yeah, and there’s some other excellent ones on 60s American campaigns - Norman Mailer on 68, for instance, which I think might have been a bit of an inspiration for Hunter on 72.
Thta’s the second time in 4 days that Mailer’s coverage of the ‘68 campaign been recommended.
.
Thing is in Australia, writers don’t take chances. One of the reasons could be that they’re imbedded in the process. There’s not much scope for them to make a living otherwise. Most Australian political writing is a combination of over-boring ‘reasonableness’ and self-aggrandizing doggerel.
.
Hawke’s memoir wins the World Heavyweight Championship for the last category. What a wanker!
However Latham’s was good fun.
It’s interesting how much more bold and entertaining Guy Rundle’s writing for Crikey on the U.S. election has been than anything written on the Australian scene - though he’s certainly not writing as an ‘insider’ (given the quality of most of the ABC’s ‘insiders’ you often wish they had someone a little more ‘outside’). I’m sure Rundle will get a decent book out of it in the end.
Mungo McCallum’s stuff on the campaign last year was acerbic and interesting - but didn’t work so well when turned into a book (though it’s still a good read). I wonder whether Rundle would rework his material, and whether there’s a market for a book on the American election by an Australian. There should be, but I’m not sure publishers would agree!
Artie Fadden’s They Called Me Artie isn’t too bad, especially on how he made his decision which political party - Country Party ot ALP - he would join. On the flip of a coin. He has some teasers in it though - on the Curtin Government - “If I told everything they’ll be sorry”.And he doesn’t. Published 1969. Enid Lyons’ Among Carrion Crows is also pretty good, from memory.
I liked David Marr’s Dark Victory. And there was a very strange book about Keating’s defeat I quite liked,I think it was called The Victory.
Marian Wilkinson’s The Fixer, political biography of Graham Richardson was ok, helped along no doubt by its subject’s, ahem, colourful career. Marian was also co-author with David Marr of Dark Victory.
And Richo keeps getting huge credit for a Labor victory (1990?), by helping to retain sufficient Govt. seats. So Richo was a MASTER campaigner, was he?
I’d agree that Dark Victory’s probably one of the ok-ish recent election books.
Speaking of Dark Victory - it IS extraordinary that mandatory detention has been abolished today.
You can whinge about the Ruddster, but he’s a reformer alright.
PS the surely winner is Don Watson, on the 93 and 96 elections!