In between the incessant ads for bicycles (amusingly, an ad featuring Lance Armstrong only claims that “we believe” his sponsor makes the “world’s best bikes” – which must be the first time ever Armstrong wasn’t sure about anything) , SBS’s tour coverage has featured a fair bit of promotion for a new documentary series – Liberal Rule. According to their program guide:
The 1996-2007 Howard government made the most determined attempt to change Australian society since the brief and revolutionary Whitlam era of the early 1970s. Was it successful? SBS presents a provocative consideration of how this country changed as a result of one man’s determination to make his particular mark.
The teaser preview (viewable on SBS’s website under “sneak peek TV”, though there’s no convenient direct link) suggests that this version will at least attempt some critical analysis, rather than just serving as a piece of extended stenography as The Howard Years did. The massive handwave about the sale of Telstra in the teaser doesn’t bode well, though.
ELSEWHERE: Joni at Blogocrats (and others in comments) have noted Gerard Henderson’s spray on the program, which he describes as a “shocker and a disgrace”. It sounds better already…
Without having seen the teaser, I’d be concerned with any analysis that begins with thinking that
Errr, Hawke/Keating, anyone? I’d put their economic reforms, their cultural shift (particularly Keating) from a Euro-centric to an Asia-focused mindset and their attempts to change the cargo cult mentality of the Australian electorate up there with anything Howard tried to do; certainly particularly Keating ‘attempted’ to do far more to change the country than Howard.
Yes Luke but the miracle of Howard was he was able to change the country back.
Not as successful as Bush was I guess and we should be gratful for that.
Well the program has already annoyed Gerard Henderson, so it must be doing something right. According to Gerard it’s a sign that the culture wars are not over or that the Liberals have lost the battle of ideas or something blah blah blah.
To me it’s probably a sign that the SBS board is not quite as reactionary as the ABC’s.
It seemd Gerard Henderson is most unimpressed. Thinks the left won the History Wars after all, and all tjis prpgramme does is mouth off at the most evil political leader this country has ever had. viz:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/liberal-history-ambushed-by-leftwing-pundits-20090720-dqq8.html?page=-1
Hope so.
I thought Gerard was soooo funny. As I said on the blogocrats, his line about the Liberals not taking their history seriously had me guffawing in public this morning.
I’d dispute that Howard changed the country back entirely…the failure of WorkChoices, the fact that Howard had to go from using rhetoric about ‘destroying Medicare’ to saying that his government was the ‘best friend Mdeicare had ever had’ (false in substance, but the need for changed messaging is telling) and the fact that issues like David Hicks and the War on Terror became millstones for his government all indicate, I think, that Howard’s purported genius for changing Australia was vastly overrated, to say the least.
Yes, he did encourage and foster resentment towards ‘the others’ (refugees, Muslims etc) but that strain was in the Australian character long before Howard. His economic ‘reforms’ were really just continuations of the Hawke/Keating years….perhaps his greatest legacy of ‘change’ was reviving the hand-out mentality in middle-class suburbia.
Id argue that Australia in 1983 was more different to Australia in 1996 than 1996 to 2007.
Howard was in politics for one reason, to crush the leftists that had had it over him for so long hence the heat applied to the unions on the water front and Workchoices. He lived, as does Gerard Henderson, for the so called history wars. Without them both men are rendered meaningless except for occasional (unintended) humor. That said, i’m a political junkie and i couldn’t possibly live without watching this series no matter what the angle.
Incidentally i enjoyed listening to Annabel Crab at Henderson’s Sydney Institute (on podcast.) She talked about how Howard, Costello and Downer (and others) are all ‘creatures of the Liberal party’ and most of the ‘class of ‘96′ are literally ordinary people, many preselected when Downer was opposition leader. What’s great is the idea that the class of ‘96, that Howard was in love with, was also a key plank in his downfall; they were a bunch of people that had next to no idea about politics, they defaulted to Howard and the result is the hole the Liberals are in now.
I thought The Howard Years was a great depiction of a bunch of witless children gleefully playing with toys they didn’t understand.
Out of their own mouths, what’s more!
Agree entirely, thewetmale.
As I said on the blogocrats, his line about the Liberals not taking their history seriously had me guffawing in public this morning.
Me too Joni, as did his comment that George Brandis is “one of the brightest Liberals”. LOL! The guy who, in the heady days of 2003, compared Greens to N*z*s. No wonder the Liberals are in trouble if he represents the brightest. (Hey, his Godwin’s violation, not mine!
)
# 1 Luke quotes Jul 21st, 2009 at 9:30 am
Spot on Luke. Going by the quote, this show gets everything about AUS societal progress and governmental process over the two decades or so all wrong and completely back to front.
Blind Freddie could see that Hawke-ALP instigated many more financial and cultural policy changes than Howard-L/NP. Hawke-ALP institutionalised “debtquity and diversity” as the key goals of govt policy. Howard-L/NP’s biggest top-down reform was the GST.
The ultra-liberal policies of the early-seventies through early-nineties tended to amplify social change to such an extent that the population got “reform fatigue”. So by the mid-nineties there was a general societal revulsion against further reform.
This conservative tendency was a bottom-up, rather than top-down, change. Hanson was only the sharp tip of this broad-based conservative ice-berg.
It was evidenced by the “relaxed and comfortable” and “white picket fences” meme. Obvious in the cocooning tendency amongst mainstream populus obsessed with rennovations, gardening, home-entertainment and kitchen cuisine.
In short, from the mid-nineties onwards the big social change was towards a preference for “no change”. Howard-L/NP did not initiate the societal preference for conservatism, they just exploited it. “The times suited me,” as Howard used to say.
Howard-L/NP’s most conservative achievement was to use govt, with strong popular political support, to arrest the ultra-liberal juggernaut in cultural policy. This was after the manifest failure of liberal cultural elites to properly settle immigrants and properly sort out indigenes.
The proof that Howard-Costello re-inforced, rather than re-constructed, societal preference for conservative policy is the performance of R-S-G. The ALP triumvirate have been “mini-me-too”’s to Howard-Costello in practically every area of policy. (Apart from the self-inflicted election loser of “work choices”. Which the L/NP have now grudgingly dumped.)
Rudd-ALP most conservative achievement is now to use govt, with mainstream popular political support, to arrest the ultra-liberal juggernaut in financial policy. This was after the manifest failure of liberal financial elites to properly administer banks and properly allocate capital.
The big picture is that ultra-liberalism is exhausted as an ideological research program. It ran out of useful, new ideas by the mid-eighties. But it took twenty years for liberal elites to final tumble to the dropped penny.
This show is just further evidence that cloistered liberal elites are out of touch with the realist social science and the word on the street.
It is a truism that when you change the government you change the country, but that doesn’t mean permanently, in an important way. Very few governments in Australia or elsewhere achieve that. Whitlam and Thatcher both changed the cultural fabric of their nations. Hawke-Keating did in economic policy but nothing else. Howard, an incrementalist and opportunist, did not in any sense. On present form, Rudd won’t either.
It is a very clever move to pass on a copy of this series to Gerry Henderson. His irritation that “the overwhelming majority of commentators heard on Liberal Rule bagged Howard, Costello and the like – all from the leftist or left-of-centre perspective” will probably draw in a crowd. Just for something different.
The memory of the John Howard, ‘the genius’, is still strong for shock jocks like Jon Faine, for instance, of Aunty. (It’s worth keeping a bucket handy, near the radio or tv, for him and most of the others that have continue to wave the Howard provided flag).
Tobias Ziegler@ P.P. is very wise to say… “but without having seen the show yet, I’m left wondering whether the commentary is truly “left-of-centre” or rather “left-of-Gerard””. Gerard, it has to remembered, still considers the ABC a hotbed of leftist thought.
On the contrary, Howard has successfully stacked both the sbs and abc boards and their slant to a conservative world view. I am betting this show will reflect that now common approach.
“On the contrary, Howard has successfully stacked both the sbs and abc boards and their slant to a conservative world view’
There’s no evidence that either organisation has been forced into a “more conservative world view” by board apointments. If this was Howard’s tactic it hasn’t worked very well.
This is the bit that made me do a doubletake
I’m trying to remember the last time an Australian journalist took an “empirical stance”.
The Howard Years was a piece of steganography? I never would have guessed! What was the secret message all those Libs were beaming out to the nation?
ELSEWHERE: Norman Abjorensen calls Liberal Rule “best effort yet at coming to grips with these extraordinary years“.
Sam@12 It’s a truism but not true that when you change the government you change the country — unless by change you mean something utterly trivial. In most countries of the OECD changed governments change little about fundamental policy –there is nearly always more continuity than change.
Changes of government tend to be more like someone changing a shirt. Sure they may look snappier, but their underlying mandates and constraints are the same and while their coping strategies may eventually morph into something else it’s unlikely they will do anything fundamentally different.
Here’s an excerpt from something I wrote in January 2008 [slightly edited]:
There are two basic threads in the parts of government policy peculiar to the period 1996-2007: US-centredness and animus to policies deemed by Howard to be associated with the ALP. Typically, both apply, and sometimes it’s not clear which is the more important factor. The nonsense over the Collins class subs combat systems is a good example.
The Collins class procurement was definitely an ALP-bashing thing, but Howard was able, in the end, to favour a US contractor. The trashing of local broadcast content parameters both took a swipe at people that Howard saw as ALP-leaning “elites” and the “creative nation” approach, while handing a windfall to US producers of cultural products.
It’s tempting to explain Howard’s motives in psychologistic terms. Here was a man who had long envisioned himself as an heir to the throne — a Gulliver amongst Lilliputians, who had for years sniped unkindly at him from the sides, stymying his efforts to achieve what was rightfully his. One can also imagine Howard as the type of chap, who, when at school, would have seen the path to social advancement as involving courting the favour of the loudest and largest boy in the room, regardless of the cost.
For years, Howard, this brooding mediocrity, would have plotted his ascent and revenge on those who had denied him. He’d have been endorsed, in the Graeme Richardson/Keating style a “whatever it takes” policy. He wasn’t going to get mad, but get even.
This doesn’t explain how he got to lead the party of course, and still less how he was able to work his way into a position to do his worst. Ambition and hatred are motivators, but you need more than that. Luckily for him, John Hewson, an essentially honest putative servant of the boss class, who had been promised two terms to refashion the party for power, fluffed his first attempt and was axed in favour of the incompetent Downer. That left just Costello and Howard to capitalise of Keating’s declining popularity. Costello had rejection issues (probably seeing Howard as the loudest and biggest boy in the room) and Howard stepped into the breach, playing Keating-lite as effectively as Rudd played Howard-lite. The parallels are fascinating, because in their last terms, both leaders, having won where they shouldn’t have, used their manchu courts to control the flow of information and enforce discipline in ways that ensured they were immune to challenge from within, but seen as arrogant and out of touch by pretty much everyone else.
History is fascinating, but in this case, it’s also still relevant. Howard was fond of repeating Keating’s dictum: change the government and you change the country. There’s some truth in it too. Howard copied and built on the style of government created by the centralising control freak Keating. Rudd is very much the same type of manager. He has also promised continuity and as far as we can tell, he may genuinely prefer it. He can probably justify (in his own mind at
least) perpetuating those practices that made Keating and Howard impregnable for so long. And one of Howard’s catspaws’ — Brendan Nelson, a man whose desire for personal aggrandizement recognises no scruple, leads the “alternative government”. Nelson was intimately involved in the political fiascoes surrounding defence procurement and the independent grants review process operated by the ARC. If Santayana is right and it’s true that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, we must learn from it.
Actually, given my oblique reference to the 18th Brumaire in Marx above, another section of that piece may be apt. In it, Marx refers to the famous dialectical idealist Hegel, noting his observation that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. Marx continues:
It would indeed be farcical, if, having emerged from the suffocating nightmare of the Howard-Keating years, we learnt nothing from it and entered a new one with Rudd in charge.
Fran
Awwww, Gerard’s so cute when he’s angry!
Brings back memories of meeting the Rodent at a function in Bennelong before 1996. I had an interesting time listening to a racist trying to pin JWH down on exactly how far he’d reduce immigration. JWH, naturally, wasn’t very specific!
FMark: heh. Unfortunately I can’t tell you what the secret message was because, well, it’s a secret!
Post corrected.
Apart from the work choices repeal, I am unable to see any major policy shifts by the current ALP Governemnt that are significantly different. Kyoto and Sorry are purely ceremonial.
Are you sure you didn’t mean hagiography?
Slightly OT – I heard the repulsive little man on RN this morning (I don’t understand Fran Kelly’s obsession with the little shit, to be honest), and it was OK (sort of) as long as he stuck to the cricket. As soon as he ventured into foreign affairs, I started throwing things. Fortunately I was in and out feeding the chooks while it was on, so I didn’t have to listen to too much of it.
Still, I was hoping he would have collapsed into alcoholism, despair and dementia by now. Maybe next year.
SBS have too often zeroed in on the Howards at the cricket and I have found myself risibly swearing. Not much chance I’ll be watching, but it has been a surprise to me how I have reacted to the pair. Anyone else?
DavidI (no rel)
You may take comfort from the fact that I played a modest part in relieving the country of his ministrations at the last election by leafletting areas I’d identified as slightly Liberal leaning booths in Bennelong (where I live) with material designed to discourage them from supporting a “dignified exit”. Those booths all became line ball or slightly ALP.
OK … I don’t know that my 5000 leaflets made a difference, but I’m taking the win.
Well done, Fran. Take a bow for helping rid us of this monster.
I wish you’d driven a stake through his heart as well, though …
David I (no rel) I believe that sunlight can do much the same job in the end.
I saw him pictured in the crowd at Sophia Gardens Cardiff (T1 of the Ashes) with the silliest of green and gold floppies on and some even less impressive Aussie supporters about him.
Not a good look.
For authoring the Liberal epistle
Ming became a Knight of the Thistle.
But through misuse of the Wedge
Johnny squandered his edge
And choked on his trusty dog whistle.
Forget about how successful at implementing economic paradigm shifts Hawke and Keating were—Howard was much, much hotter for jumping athwart history and shouting, “STOP!” He was a man who came to see himself as being the one to try and reverse the cultural and social ‘mistakes’ of his four, not three, predecessors in the lodge. (Slightly incoherent big government conservatism was a means for these ends.)
Also, before we start congratulating ourselves about our ability to identify EG Whitlam as the Good Progressive PM, remember he built about 80% of the modern party & electoral structure Bob ‘n’ PK used during their reign. Oh, and I don’t recall him ever coming out with a comprehensive narrative about the flaws of those two, unlike Fraser taking on Howard’s programme.
So I think it’s perfectly legitimate to cast Howard as the first radical prime minister since Whitlam, as Whitlam’s first three successors were not driven by the desire to correct his & others ‘revolution against our country’, regardless of how bastardly they could be in seeking and retaining office.
I ‘m tempted to watch. I don’t suppose I can help myself. Already I’ve put a bucket I can throw up in near the TV.
Pity we haven’t got the satisfaction of watching Rudd rip apart everything Howard held dear. Why on earth not, Mr. Rudd? That’s what you’re there for!
As someone who cut her political teeth during the Whitlam era Nickws and was, early on, an enthusiast I always have mixed feelings about the period. People forget that Whitlam (though not formally aligned) was largely the candidate of the right against Cairns, which was why Kerr got the job as GG …
He was in many ways, a brilliant man — almost certainly the most erudite PM we have ever had, at least until Rudd. And yet …
there was East Timor … and his campaign along with Hawke of running dead during the 1975 debacle … at the time of the dismissal, many of us expected there would be a general strike and were ready to go erect the barricades.
I realised then what the difference was between the ALP and a socialist party and never went back
It’s on, Katz.
…
The wider electorate snored
While Windy’s cold-warriors warred.
But despite his defeats,
At the hands of elites,
He’s still on the ABC Board.
Temperament — passive aggressive,
Hirsuteness gene — recessive,
Booted out of govt
By his electorate unloved
He’s still a cricket obsessive.
Turning this around onto Howard I think you’ll find that he was motivated by a desire to never lose his Rightwing. Perhaps he made a study of the way Whitlam & post-Whitlam Labor have lost many Leftwingers—that would explain his wooing of Hansonite voters, ala “better to have them in the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”
Or it could just be he likes being adored by ultraconservative nutters.
Nick@32
I favour the latter interpretation, but in his case it worked for him because the ALP shifted the centre to the right under Hawke and Keating, wedging themselves but consolidating the conservatives who could point to the ALP’s acknowledgement of the Thatcherite agenda.
Although they weren’t defeated until 1996 they probably dodged a bullet in 93. Really, from the time they started forcing down real wages through the Accord process, did banking deregulation, smashed the major unions (timing the Airline pilots to match Reagan’s Patco was cute) it was only a matter of time before the official conservatives recovered the ascendancy.
That meant Howard could become hardcore without cost.
You missed out on including “Andrew Lovett” in the next line, Katz, too bad.
…
There’s one thing that’s clear beyond doubting,
As we watch the Right puffing and pouting,
The name of the game
Is distributing blame.
It’s over—but not bar the shouting.
And Janet A stays bold,
maintaining a hold,
she’s stamping on any a lefty aggenda.
Gerry’s most merry when bashing up Kerry
but Chris Uhlmann is ranting less often.
It’s up to piers ,christian, glenn and others of kin,
To maintain, make-up and dissemble.
The futures at stake for men on the make
and hawt queens of the hyacinth insignia.
Ah – poetry all quite inventive
‘Bout an ageing anal-retentive
Once his party’s runt
He became a
Country leader argumentative
well all i have to say is BRING BACK HOWARD or a lib gov. Rudds just another let down in a long list of lab leaders. Howard did more for this country than any leader in recent history and our country is worse of without him an his front bench
Though Gerry was once Johnny’s monkey
He told his boss: look, I’m no flunky
Then I don’t think you’re for us
Said Johnny, and got Graeme Morris,
Now, the political junky is doing cold turkey
Iron Bar bestirred himself
To raise the Tone
but lowered
and glowered.
The more things change
they stay the same.
Who’s that in your Tuckey-bag?
This is the story
Of one decent Tory
A moderate, small-liberal fellow.
With his hands on the purse-strings
He made time for the small things
Like reconciliation, man, mellow.
In the Party, he fought
With his comrades’ support
(At least that’s what they told Costello).
Deflated, defeated,
Though not yet unseated,
He quit without even a bellow.
Though he envied his boss,
He’d no ticker to toss
A Liberal inverse Othello.
Pete was a timorous fellow
With a spine of marshmallow
And several other $weeties.
And despite friends’ entreaties
His resolve stayed as firm as jello.
At the risk of disrupting the joyful crearive flow of limericks etc, one of the joys of LP from time to time, I did watcg it. Lots of old footage. Howard deftly exposed as a liar (to those of the audience who hitherto were too stupid to realise it), but pretty ordinary, really. There were moments I almost three up. Can I help it if I still hate that disgusting little man?
No you can’t help it and neither can I, Paul. I had to switch channels on a couple of occasions when too much grinning Howard was definitely enough.
It was better than the ABC’s dismal effort though, and worth seeing alone for footage of Keating’s performances in parliament, particularly as he toyed with Dolly Downer.
I liked the way it focused not just on the party / parliamentary / corridors of power style political discussion, but the social and economic background too – THey picked up on the way the “miracle economy” was (is) dependent not just on our lucky-country minerals but on consumer debt. I hope they do more of this interesting background stuff in coming programs.
I agree Helen. In fact, I think we could have done with a lot more of that – really picking apart just what the Howard government was actually responsible for (not all that much, and at lots of what they did do was counterproductive for the long term) and what they weren’t responsible for (a hell of a lot that they liked to claim credit for).
For instance, the politics of the GST was picked up on, but there wasn’t any consideration on what effect it’s had on Australia (as noted here, the answer is probably “not a lot, in the end”).
There’s also an interesting debate to be had on the rights or wrongs of the minerals boom and the gradual decline of Aussie manufacturing. Costello picked up on this briefly, but it was skipped over very quickly. It’s an issue that’s popped up on LP occasionally, and there’s certainly a diversity of views.
Just as a little tangent, does anyone remember this from last year…
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2358861.htm
Basically, the ABC tried to cruel the pitch for this doco, by denying them access to ABC news footage. Nick Torrens is the co-producer/director for this series and he has a long history, 20+ years, as a political filmmaker.
This isn’t an in-house SBS series, but one commissioned from independent documentary makers. SBS probably won’t be doing anything so ambitious for a while, due to lack of funding from the Feds.
Just what one has come to expect from the ABC. Fine. How dare anyone criticise the Great God Howard. The SBS doco was infinitely better – a media comentator comparing the two described the ABC’s effort as obsequious. (A bit like their news, when it comes to the Liberal Party.)Howard wanted to make Uriah Heeps of us all.
I haven’t watched it yet – I recorded it for ‘Ron – as I was more immediately interested in Grand Designs last night, and I didn’t care to get white with rage this early in the week.
Apropos what Merkel wrote. Howard strips educational institutions of their funding in real terms; the latter have to find ways of self-funding and find that o/s students, especially from China and India will fill the gaping funding holes very nicely. Hitherto, full paying students have come from the upper income families and ruling classes of our neighbours and from Asia but now there is a scam to get the poor students to study in Australia by borrowing heavily.
It is suggested to such putative students, often by migration agents that have appeared in the wake of this “policy”, that if they study for the skills needed in Australia then they will meet criteria for a permanent residency/migration/work visa. The o/s students get into serious hock to do this. This made sense because using those newly acquired skills they would have never been able to pay back the debt had they tried to use them in their home country.
But now the government is changing the rules, and consequently many such o/s students are now up shit creek. This delayed fuse bomb is of John Howard’s making.
While this applies to vocational schools in the main many of them are actually enterprises that are allied with universities, like the International College of Hotel Management’s connection to Macquarie University in Sydney.
Last night’s brief glimpses of the devilish, clever, and laughing Paul Keating attacking the Coalition from the government benches reminded me of the heartbreak of the 1996 election. How could Australians have been persuaded to reject such brilliance for the dull mediocrity and mendacity of Howard?
I think Don Watson explained it best for me, suggesting that while Keating’s focus had moved on from fixing the economy to bigger picture issues like reconciliation and our role in Asia too many were still affected by the earlier recession and willing to buy the unrelenting and dishonest message from the right that Labour could not be trusted with the economy.
I was struck again by that contrast between Keating’s charisma and vision for the country and Howard’s lack of style. “Liberal Rule” also reminded me of the years of miserably mean minded politics during a decade of unprecedented economic boom which owed nothing to the crowing triumphalism of the Coalition which still claims credit for leaving us in such good shape.
I was also reminded of how hopelessly weak that Opposition front bench was and how lacking in talent. Were Dopey Dolly Downer and the obviously too young and untried Peter Costello really the only other potential leaders they had apart from the passe and pedestrian John Howard?
I guess there’s a message there about guarding agains complacency. The best of governments and finest leaders can be brought down by a rabble of incompetents given the opportunity of the times and the support of a powerful media machine.
Don’t forget, Patricia, that a substantial number of people hated Keating’s guts by 1996. (Much as a substantial number had grown to hate Howard by 2007.)
This is a three part series isn’t it? I liked it much more than The Howard Years on the ABC which like others have mentioned focused on the insiders where as I appreciated SBS going into things like societal ramifications a bit more.
I loved that Keating line to Downer, “He’s the salmon that jumps on the hook for you”.
Problem was of course, it turned out to be a European carp and a real dfat pestilence
David Irving @ 51, yes but not for the same sort of reasons and nor to the same extent but for Newscorp leading a media frenzy on the unpopularity of Keating. Yes, in 1996 there was his perceived arrogance and “the recession we had to have” and probably his poor reading of the resistance to his finer instincts on issues like land rights and Asia. The right establishment and his media enemies exploited these beyond morality to ensure his defeat. Had there been reasonable talent in the Coalition the “it’s time” factor together with a good campaign should have been enough. With Howard in 2007 there was widespread heartfelt loathing of the man, his government and all their acts. No matter how Newscorp tried they made no inroads on this nor on Rudd’s astonishing popularity, so at the last minute they endorsed change. There was no real shift in their opinion, just an acceptance of the inevitable.
Since November, 2007, Newscorp have embarked on a campaign to denigrate Rudd, sniping away at any slight human failing and building a caricatured persona which could be assailable in the next election campaign. I think up till now they have been frustrated and probably puzzled by their failure. It worked with Keating, why not with Rudd?
I guess I am trying to express my fear that it is possible to bring down good government and instal a poor one given a powerful and hostile media. Clearly Turnbull and others on the right think this too and are attacking the government with character assassination and sensationalising of any and every possible issue without retreating behind lines to regroup and develop sound policy strategies which could benefit them and the country.
Patricia: the media doesn’t have nearly the clout it once did.
This is for the worse in some ways, but the ability of a latter-day Packer (or the present-day Murdoch) to bring down governments is much more circumscribed today than it was 20 years ago.
While not soley responsible, The West Australian under the editorship of Paul Armstrong was one of the factors behind the defeat of the WA Labor Govt in the last State election.
Frank Calabrese@56
That, and the fact that they’d called an early poll which in a tight race cost them and the fact that they had done litle to earn the votes of people to their left, had been in a long while etc …
Robert, I think even the recent “utegate” saga suggests otherwise. Newscorp thought they had information to bring down a government, and probably would have, had it not been proven a fabrication so speedily. John Howard was helped back into power with children overboard in 2001 with no little help from press gleefully running with the stunt.
I get the feeling that things have actually become worse than they were 20 years ago.
Robert, unhappily I have to agree with Joe2 @ 58. So Turnbull was inexperienced and overdid the rhetoric on Utegate before he’d checked his facts and Julie Bishop is a dud. Still it’s the unmitigated gall and confidence with which they and Hockey et al still tackle each new issue knowing that the media will jump on any story and give credence to their point of view, not just for the sake of having a story, but because there’s a determination to give them credibility and to leave doubt with the public about the government. Witness the recent speculation about Tony Burke and the “Chinese connection”.
Looking back, about the only substantial legacy Howard left was a new tax. Not the kind of thing you’d imagine a conservative leader would want to be remembered for.
However there’s still the memoirs to look forward to. I can see ‘em now. Hardback, 400 pages, the glossy photos bit in the centre featuring him shaking hands with Presidents, posing with sporties and looking pensive at his desk (“And that lovely photo of me and the Queen”, “Of course dear”) a blue background for the cover shot and a title like “My Time”, “The Right Years” or if he’s feeling really daring, “Liberally Speaking.”
Unlike some I really am not fazed by seeing Howard’s face on TV…
The day after Obama was elected, Jon Stewart had Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News’ Sunday morning politics show as his guest. Chris gave Jon a cookie, in the shape and with a design that looked like a TV with Fox News on, that had come from Karl Rove. Chris claimed that when he got it from Rove, on the Fox News set for their election night coverage, he had given two cookies to Chris with one specifically for Jon (i have my doubts about this.) Jon
atebit into and spat out the cookie. However what i love is his justification for eating the cookie, the same justification i have for happily seeing Howard on Tv –“He can’t hurt me anymore.”
And yeah, i also enjoyed the
greaterpresence of analysis on “Liberal Rule.” I don’t have a problem with “The Howard Years,” my inclination would be to have more documentation and analysis of the period, from different perspectives, than to rely on one completely authoritative record. Also, something i had missed, my sister points out that Gerard Henderson having a go at the show is pretty silly given he was interviewed for the show. Perhaps he was just cranky that he wasn’t featured more.What’s not to love about watching Howard exhaust the credibility of the Liberal Party as a political force in a democracy in his failed attempt to recreate the country as a mirror image of his own small, resentful psyche?
Pollie p0rn at ists best.
That’s right Katz. Mediocre fearful and unimaginative little blokes with hunched shoulders and hunched minds: Howard, Morris, Henderson, Akerman….its wonderful to watch them manufacture their own media stereotype, so they will be instantly recognisable in the future…never to return. Well, we live in hope.
“Pretty silly” is more or less a complete description of Hendo these days, TWM.
“Robert, unhappily I have to agree with Joe2 @ 58.”
Jeez, agreeing with me made Patricia WA “unhappy”. Maybe I should preface my comments with a health warning…a smiley with a cross out, perhaps.
Have a nice day, you all!
Did Australia change? Lets’ see…….concentration camps in the desert, illegal war started under false pretences, torture became routine……..yeah, maybe Howard did make a few changes here and there.
Henderson has a point.
Is there really no serious right-wing viewpoint worthy of inclusion on the doco ?
Howard’s view on his ‘loyalty’ to Peacock compared with Fraser’s about Howard’s complete disloyalty to Peacock would have been worth some exploration. One of them is lying or seriously misinformed. What were Howard’s machinations against Peacock ?
Howard’s assertion that he wished to ‘project a view of Australia’ consistent with his liking should really be stated that he wished to INJECT such a view. The culture wars were a civil war, not an overseas adventure.
“Is there really no serious right-wing viewpoint worthy of inclusion on the doco ?”
Bah. He’s just shitty he didn’t get a call.
But he did. I could swear I saw his ghostly visage on the screen, but I could have imagined it.
‘Serious right-wing viewpoint’ LOL. Graham Morris and sundry other Liberal intellects were on proud display throughout.
Sorry Joe2, can’t get my head around double negatives these days. Is it worth having you explain? All I wanted to say was that I would prefer to accept Robert’s reassurance that the media aren’t so powerful these days. You begged to differ and sadly I agreed with you.
Last night’s Lateline didn’t reassure me about the Libs capacity for revival either. My bete noire, Joe Hockey, looked a sliver slimmer, and while as slimy as ever, was smilingly plausible about dear old Uncle Wilson. Iron Bar Tuckey is not a lovable rogue. He’s a bullying racist who like many before him has profited hugely from the misery of those he’s exploited and disdained for decades. I thought Leigh Sales let Hockey off very lightly on the stimulus and the economy too and he signed off mighty pleased with himself
Oxy @ 69
Yes, Morris et. al. were interviewed as participants in the Liberal Rule. Only Howard critics plus the regarded-as-impartial George Mega got to comment and analyse.
No pro-Howard analyst was considered worthy of inclusion for comment. I think that’s unbalanced.
I didn’t not our Gerald was on? When was that?
How do you slice that difference between ‘participate’ and ‘comment and analyse’, Baraholka?
But what’s dear Gerard if not a pro-Howard analyst of the highest order?
And what’s Kroger, chopped liver?
Patrick B@72, Gerard H was interviewed at the very beginning of Liberal Rule.
I am inclined to think, from the first episode, that most of his material ended up on the editor’s floor. It’s not surprising as he has already had such a free run with his opinion about Howard via various mediums. Frankly, it would have been repetitious and boring to give him even more space.
He should learn not to be so greedy as the public might like to hear other views expressed, as well. The program seems to be achieving that very well from what I have seen of it tonight, with the help of the PVR.
(no probs Patricia WA@70. I was just having an over-sensitive lunch time moment)
I ma not sure how or why Gerry has managed to weasel his way into the mainstream media as a commentator. He has very little to contribute by way of original thought or insight. It’s not because he is a right wing commentator – Paul Comrie Thompson, or Paul Sheehan of the SMH manage to be right wing and original and provide some striking insights on occasion. It’s because gerry is a limited, predictable bore.
Gerry is often billed as “one-time advisor to John Howard” He was Chief-of-Staff to John Howard between 1984 and 1986.
But Howard, not entirely stupid, chose Grahame Morris to advise him because he saw the latter as more street savvy than the academically inclined Gerry.
There is no doubt in my mind that Gerry sees Grahame Morris as his intellectual inferior so being passed over for his rival Morris, at all the important elections, has really rankled with Gerry.
This is perhaps explains Gerry’s extraordinary mouth-foaming and I might add, rather paranoiac dummy spit over the Liberal Rule[r]: “The directors could not find even one conservative or right-of-centre commentator suitable for interview who was not presented as associated with Howard or the Liberal Party in some way…”
Now, isn’t this soooo revealing about Gerry? Of course! He means it was he who was “suitable”, (though the “not associated with Howard” was not of his own doing).
Either way, you are a loser Gerry. And the Liberal Rule confirms it. That’s why you hate it, don’t you, Gezza, eh?
I think you are right, Sir Henry, hendo has a chip on his shoulder. Come to think of it, it is a family serve, 4 pieces of flake and 2 dim-sims for good measure.
Spot on Sir Henry. Ive been too distracted to enjoy this thread, but I saw some of it, and it seemed a mile better than the hastily assembled raft of self-justifying twaddle that was the ‘Howard Years’.
I say “some” as I was quite enjoying it right up till Keating lost in 96, and decided living through that once was more than enough.
Fine @73
Morris et. al were participants in Liberal Rule i.e. part of the government.
Journalists and academics are commentators. They comment on and analyse what the government does and says.
Morris’ et. al role in the doco is ‘interview subject’.
Judith Brett’s is ‘analyst’ or ‘commentator’.
Hendo says there was no right-wing commentator in Liberal Rule. He’s correct.
Kroger (unlike Malcolm Fraser) was still an insider to the government during the years of Howard’s Liberal Rule. He’s not ‘chopped liver’ (SHC in comments above) but neither is he a detached commentator as Brett is.
I think the doco could have and should have included a right-wing commentator in the interests of balance. Yes, Hendo is chucking a tantrum because he didn’t get his head on the program, but his underlying point is still correct.
So why does this doco have to be “balanced” anyway?
“Hendo says there was no right-wing commentator in Liberal Rule. He’s correct.”
So Gerard isn’t a right-wing commentator then? Maybe you could tell me what he is, apart from a crushing bore that is.
If, as Hendo claims, the left have won the culture war, why the hell is he still fighting, especially with the same play book?
Exactly, Hendo is free to put together his own documentary on the Howard years. He can criticise from the right as much as he wants and then the market for political history can rationally decide who’s right and who’s wrong. What’s the matter Hendo, not enough people reading the Sydney Institute publications?
I think we should all encourage Gerard to produce his own documentary. As another commentator said he’d complain to the ABC until they screened it.
We could have a competition for the best title for Gerard’s doco. Darryl Mason’s suggestion is a good one: John Howard : He Made This Country What It Is Today You Ungrateful Bastards
or The Howard Years: Love at First Sight.
Grace @81
Balance (providing equal commentary from all relevant perspectives insofar as practical) proves lack of bias.
Not that lack of balance (as defined above) proves bias but it behoves serious doco makers, essay writers whatever to address balance. Liberal Rule lacks balance in that it omits right-wing analysis.
HTH
Barra
It doesn’t prove lack of bias.
How do you determine what perspective is “relevant” and what perspective is not relevant? This is by definition a subjective process and therefore a product of unavoidable bias.
Also this doco aired on SBS, a part tax payer funded station. They should have at least did what the Chaser guys used to do and have a choir singing the virtues of the right for a few minutes to create balance.
Katz @86
Are you saying that Balance does not prove lack of bias because it is impossible to objectively determine which perspectives are relevant ?
While it is true that it is impossible to produce a completely unbiased documentary, it is very possible to make a documentary with major competing viewpoints discussed or at least aired.
Where Liberal Rule let itself down is that it did not provide space for right-wing commentators to argue that Howard was wonderful (assuming that thoughtful right-wingers exist who hold that opinion. I do not classify WingNuts and the cheersquad e.g Bolt amongst the thoughtful.)
Let me be clear. I greatly enjoyed Liberal Rule and thought it was light-years better than the Howard Years which was explicitly denied the opportunity to critique by demand JWH, His Imperial Thought Control-Freakness.
But Liberal Rule should have made room for the right-wing equivalents of Judth Brett. That’s merely fair.
1. The doco did not air the views of a single ALP politician. Watson was the sole spokesperson of left-of-centre activism.
2. How would a right-wing commentator differ from the supposed left-wing commentators featured in the program in his/her interpretation of, for example, the serial struggles between Howard and Peacock and the reasons for the failure of Hewson and Downer as leaders?
3. Has anyone actually produced any evidence of left-wing bias in the sentiments and arguments of Judith Brett, Mega, et al (except for Don Watson, who was paid to be biased during his political career)?
In which case Liberal Rule could be seen as a companion piece to the Howard Years.
But no, the left has to (and indeed must) always be attentive to balance.
Maybe they could have had Gerard Henderson as a consultant. If I was in his shoes I would have hen argued over and over that the cut was not balanced until either the project was aborted or it was nothing less than a hymnn to power.
Balance balance balance.
A pox on balance I say. Let the work stand or fall on it’s own merits. Or is this yet another case of “the market/voter/consumer is king” until they make a ‘wrong’ decision?
I think there’s a misunderstanding of ‘balance’ by some people. I’m speaking here as someone who makes documentaries for a living, sometimes for broadcast television. I make no effort to be balanced at all. But, I try as hard as I can be to be rigorous, well researched, accurate and fair. You can still be all these things have a strong opinion. In fact, if you don’t have a strong opinion I’d question why you are even making the doco. ‘Balance’ usually ends up being incredibly bland and vanilla. Documentaries are heavily authored texts. They’re a form of storytelling. They have characters and narrative arcs just as all stories do. If they didn’t have these things you wouldn’t be interested in watching them. They will also have a thesis and one of the first questions you’ll be asked by a broadcaster when you propose your idea is; what is your thesis in this documentary ?
Where the concept of ‘balance’ enters into to it for government funded broadcasters is that their content is meant to be balanced over the whole spectrum of their programming, so that they’re not bending to either the right or left overall. They also have a huge amount of political pressure brought to bear on them to ensure this is so.
“Morris’ et. al role in the doco is ‘interview subject’.
Judith Brett’s is ‘analyst’ or ‘commentator’.” And this is nonsense.
Just look at Insiders for balance run amok. Piers Ackerman especially, as Possum Comitatus said on twitter,
I think Liberal rule could have been better with some ‘right-wing equivalents of Judth Brett’ but i’m not fussed. As Fine said, balance can come from having the right-wing equivalent to counter ‘Liberal Rule.’
Damm link… FWIW:
http://twitter.com/Pollytics/status/2713625258
Fine @91
Balance does not mitigate against a strong thesis, nor does it necessarily make one’s documentary or essay bland.
From one’s first essay at University the tutors insist on BOTH a strong thesis AND fair attention to competing viewpoints, even in 1,000 words or less. Distinctions are awarded when one’s work is researched, accurate, balanced, strongly argued to a clear thesis and interesting to read.
If Pol 1 students can do it, so can doco makers
Katz @89
I am not arguing that Liberal Rule was biased. As I said @85
I think Liberal Rule was unbalanced but I didn’t note any unfair or inaccurate judgements.
The basic approach of the makers of Liberal Rule appears to have been:
1. Interview the Liberal subjects
2. Reality check their statements using the analysis of selected academics and journalists and occassional Liberal dissenters e.g Fraser.
Given the above, the absence of Labor politicians as noted by you is outside the self-imposed creative parameters selected by the doco makers. They seem to have decided the pro-voices will be the Libs themselves, the anti-voices will be everyone else and largely only the politicians to speak will be Coalition MPs, staff and officials
Much of the power of documentaries comes via deconstruction or validation of the subject’s claims via impartial expert testimony. In the case of Liberal Rule the ‘impartials’ are pretty much (totally?) confined to Howard critics.
All expect the Libs to be their own cheer squad. What else would they do ?
Is there really no-one, apart from themselves, who thought they were good ?
To your other point, the Howard-Peacock brawl was political treachery and backstabbing of the ugliest and most familiar kind. No-one would expect an honest account to be portrayed any differently. I do not suggest any honest commentator would, left or right.
In summary, I do not say Liberal Rule was inaccurate or biased, merely unbalanced.
But a documentary isn’t a first year uni essay, or even a Ph.D. It’s a story that needs to engage a substantial, general audience over a significant investment of their time. It needs to be a helluva lot better than ‘interesting’. That’s the adjective polite broadcasters use when they want you to go way. You still haven’t said why a documentary should pay attention to competing vewpoints. What advantage does that actually serve? I wonder if you think that a doco about the history of Christianity should pay attention to the opinions of aetheists?
Please note that I said that docos need to be fair, well-researched, rigorous and accurate, so I’m not putting forward an argument for sloppy propaganda pieces. I’m puuting forward an argument for compelling, dramatic stories that you can’t help but watch.
“Much of the power of documentaries comes via deconstruction or validation of the subject’s claims via impartial expert testimony.”
Really? Give me a few examples.
Fine @97
‘Liberal Rule’ will do to go on with.
Ok. I don’t mean to say that documentaries can only be built around impartial expert testimony. I agree that documentaries can be constructed in many other ways.
Liberal Rule, however, WAS built on impartial experts but only from the ‘Howard sucks’ team. Some input from commentators holding the other viewpoint would have been merely fair.
Ok. Substitute “compelling” for “interesting”. My points still stands. Your contention was that “balanced” is a slippery slope leading to “bland” and “vanilla”. I say that does not need to be the case.
I have. Please see me@85
Mostly they do! The Guradian generally locates Jesus’ grave, family and surviving relatives in a new location two weeks before Easter every year.
In seriousness, I have no objection to the inclusion of Atheist viewpoints in Christian docos.
…and there is no necessary contradiction in that with Balance.
In what sense were those voices “anti”?
Unless you can show that they were anti, your “unbalanced” argument falls to the ground.
I think the real issue is that the anti voices were…well…anti.
If only the anti voices could have been more balanced.
In the end though this could be a nice little earner for some. Make an answer to this doco. Make it as right leaning as possible. and the ABC or SBS will practically be forced to buy it and screen it.
After more than a decade of “pro” commentary dominating the media megaphone, I reckon we are all up for a bit more “anti”, which is precisely why most viewers are enjoying this doco immensely.
Putting the boot into Howard is such good sport, after all, and so very Australian. Bugger balance.
But hey, maybe its only old dudes and women of a certain age who can see the longer perspective in time, where the “balance” really lies.
Katz @ 99
The anti- voices were anti- in the sense that they thought that the years of Liberal Rule were not particularly good for Australia or that our economic prosperity of those years was just a matter of luck (contra Howard et. al. who put it down to good economic management), or built around Howard’s personal paranoic grip on power, or that his government was a populist give-away machine to Howard’s favoured constituencies or those he hoped to woo.
I disagree with you that my “whole argument” is predicated on the commentators used in that doco being anti-Coalition.
My argument is that Liberal Rule is unbalanced (in agreement with Henderson), not that it is biased. I say it is unbalanced because no right-wing (I would refine that to pro-Coalition) commentator (as opposed to politician or functionary) was used in the doco. Only the ‘Howard sucks’ commentariat got a guernsey.
Liberal Rule’s approach was:
1. Interview the Libs
2. Use ‘impartial experts’ (journalists, academics) to deconstruct and analyse what the Libs said.
All the impartial experts, however, said ‘Howard sucks’. This is important because it is the impartial experts who provide ‘the truth’ or at least the thesis of the documentary. According to the makers of Liberal Rule, by evidence of their product, it is not worth hearing from the opposing viewpoint or none is available. Is there really no thoughtful pro-Howard commentator available for inclusion, a kind of right-wing Judith Brett ?
Balance does not guarantee accuracy. Lack of Balance does not prove bias (contra Hendo). But Balance does prove lack of bias. In this way I say Liberal Rule could have done better.
But I very much liked the program. Much better than The Howard Years.
Howard doesn’t look like history is going to treat him kindly, does he?
ad infinitum.
And rightly so, Paul.
I finally got around to watching “Liberal Rule” and it didn’t make me as angry as I expected, although I think it was “fairer” than the little shit deserved. I’ll probably watch the rest, on the strength of it. It’s certainly not as much of a steganography (sorry, Robert) as Fran Kelly’s breathless effort. (That said, any picture of Howard is certain to be concealing a thousand lies and misrepresentations.)
Baraholka, I can’t recall any commentators suggesting that Australia enjoyed prosperity because of “Howard’s personal paranoic grip on power”.
Peter Costello, who certainly isn’t an anti-Howard commentator, stated that he did not support Howard’s surplus giveaways. Presumably, as the Treasurer, Costello believed these giveaways were not good for the health of the Australian economy.
You have misstated an important aspect of the commentators’ views and you have misidentified the source of the critique of Howard’s pork-barrelling.
Hi Katz,
I did not say that any commentator said Australia’s prosperity of the Howard tenure was due to “Howard’s personal paranoic grip on power”. What I said was that some of the anti-Howard voices of Liberal Rule said that Howard had a “personal paranoic grip on power”.
Further, as I have said several times in this thread, I say the imbalance in Liberal Rule comes from the absence of pro-Howard commentators and I distinguish commentators (journalists and academics such as Brett and George Mega) from Lib politicians and functionaries (such as Costello, referenced by you above).
So I must disagree with your contention that I have “misstated an important aspect of the commentators’ views” but I agree that the source of critique of Howard’s pork-barelling was from Liberal sources, not the commentantors as I implied.
But none of the above, Katz, deflects from my core point which is that Liberal Rule was imbalanced because it did not utilise any pro-Howard commentators (as opposed to Lib. politicians). The doco producers managed to find loads of anti-Howard commentators but no pro-Howard ones. Maybe they don’t exist. But it seems odd to me that not one could be found.
It seems to me only fair, in agreement with Henderson, that a documentary purporting to analyse the impact of many years of Liberal (primarily Howard’s) Rule should garner the views of at least one pro-Howard commentator. Otherwise why bother with the commentators at all ? The doco could just have confined itself to Lib. politicians (largely “Johnny was great”) and Labor politicians (“Johnny was horrendous”). But that would be merely interviewing the cheer squad, well, actually the opposing teams. One couldn’t expect too many surprises, original thoughts or anything much that deviated from the party line. Too predictable. So, properly, they used some detached commentators
It is the commentators who provide the ‘impartial’ views and hence provide the ‘truth’. The Liberal Rule producers decided there was only one truth to tell (“Johnny Sucks”). Now that indeed might be true, but to completely exclude impartial commentary to the contrary seems unfair.
Wouldn’t you agree ?
Baraholka, the point you’re not grasping is that ‘Liberal Rule’ is the opinion of the authors of the film. They have no responsibility to be ‘balanced’ at all. Neither does a government financed broadcaster have any responsibility to be ‘balanced’ within the space of one program, as I explained above. I think you’re confusing documentary with news and current affairs. There’s sometimes overlap between the two, but they’re different beasts.
You also seem contradictory. I asked you for an example of an ‘impartial’ documentary and you said ‘Liberal Rules’. Are you splitting hairs about the difference between ‘impartial’ and ‘balanced’?
What then does the passage I quoted above mean?
To establish your point about allegedly anti-Howard commentators, you need to detail explicitly the arguments they made in regard to Howard and how an allegedly pro-Howard commentator would have said something significantly different on each of the arguments you quote.
I don’t think you can demonstrate any major likely difference between the (real) commentators and the (allegedly) pro-Howard commentators whom you may wish to identify.
Could it also be that the lack of pro-Howard commentators on the program reflects a lack of pro-Howard commentators in general willing to go on the record these days?
Katz @108.
The passage you quoted means, in part, that some of the anti-Howard voices of Liberal Rule said that Howard had a “personal paranoic grip on power”. It was not meant to mean that the anti-Howard voices of Liberal Rule said that the prosperity of the Howard Years was due to Howard’s “personal paranoic grip on power”. i.e. the anti-Howard sentiment expressed is about Howard’s paranoia and how he sought to brutally, pragmatically (via electoral bribery) and slyly maintain his grip on power. Hope that is clearer.
Just as a correction to both yourself and myself, Katz, George Mega, a commentator, not a Lib politician, also talked about Howard’s bribery of the electorate (as did Costello). This means that anti-Howard (though unbiased) voices did critique Howard’s pork-barelling, contra you @105. This means I have not, as you asserted, “misstated an important aspect of the commentators’ views and misidentified the source of the critique of Howard’s pork-barrelling.”. Would you agree ?
I disagree that I need to detail every argument that the anti-Howard commentators made and compare them to a pro-Howard argument on the same topic in order to demonstrate imbalance. To remind you, Katz, I am arguing that Liberal Rule was imbalanced in that it did not provide space for any pro-Howard commentator, not that it was biased against Howard or incorrect in any thesis.
By “balance” I mean ’space for competing viewpoints’. Liberal Rule only gave space for one viewpoint “Howard sucks”. How about a bit of time for the opposing viewpoint “Howard is brilliant (or at least good)”. Is there really NO thoughtful commentator available who holds those views?
Wouldn’t it be merely fair to include at least one or two commentators of the competing viewpoint ? Isn’t is true that Liberal Rule demonstrates imbalance (not bias or inaccuracy) by omitting the competing viewpoint? You have so far studiously avoided these points Katz. I would be interested in your comments.
Fine @107
I agree the makers of Liberal Rule are free to make any kind of doco any way they want to. If they want to make an unbalanced doco they are completely free to do so.
You did not ask me for an example of an impartial documentary. You asked me for an example of a documentary where “Much of the power of the documentary comes via deconstruction or validation of the subject’s claims via impartial expert testimony.”. Liberal Rule is such an example.
My contention is that Liberal Rule is unbalanced.
You are saying “who cares, its a good doco”
I agree. Its a good doco. An unbalanaced good doco.
But how does a “pro-Howard commentator” identify him/herself to the makers of the program? the practicalities of that are messy and the professionalism of that are questionable.
Think about the following:
“Dear Gerry,
We wish to interview you in relation to the Howard Years. We understand that in the past you have been a pro-Howard voice.
We rely upon you not to have had any second thoughts about this question.
If you have, and you express them in your interview, then in the interests of balance we will exclude your comments from the program.
Yours faithfully,
The Docomakers.
It’s just not sensible or professional.
So, Baraholka, in what way can you consider it to be ‘impartial’ and at the same time ‘unbalanced’?
Katz @112
In order to include a pro-Howard commentator, I would sample the writings of various respected academics and commentators, see which ones supported Howard, then interview them.
Fine @113
I do not necessarily suggest Liberal Rule was impartial. I do suggest it accurately presented the basic facts about the years of Liberal Rule.
Some working definitions:
Impartial – no preference.
Biased – prepared to distort or omit facts to favour one’s own position in the face of a compelling case inicimal to one’s own.
Accurate – faithful to the facts.
I think it is possible, but I may be mistaken, that the makers of Liberal Rule were anti-Howard in the sense they thought his government was poor and that Howard was personally an objectionable person. This is also my view on Howard and also represents the LP consensus on Howard. So I think the impartiality of Liberal Rule is open to question (especially since pro-Howard voices were not included).
But I think that LIberal Rule was accurate and unbiased…and unbalanced.
Thinks the left won the History Wars after all
.
How do you win a History War? Is it, like, the professors of History who’re, like, left standing after one of ‘em does a Cho Seung-Hui or some shit like dat?
By crushing the other side so heavily that they admit defeat. If i’m ever in charge, remind me to never employ Gerard in the Defence department.
I had to chuckle when i read one of the posts which painted Howard as a vengful man on a mission to strike back at leftists from the Unions and waterfront. If anyone who is’nt a warfie has ever had to deal with one,they will tell you it is an experience they’d rather never go through again. Having to pay a number of bribes to get an item from the docks which you’ve already had to pay customs and shipping for was disgusting and stupidly reminiscent of thrid world countries. Howard legitimately tried to fix this problem and make Australia’s capacity for handling imports and exports far more efficient, and succeeded
I am a default labor voter but after 9-11 I voted Liberal twice… and I hate John Howard. It was simply from fear in feeling I had to support the incumbent in what I perceived- and still do- to be a very dangerous changing in the world order, so to speak.
I didn’t like the look of Latham and so that explains my second voting for him: then Howard mentioned Nuclear Power and that seemed odd… he was supposedly smarter than to mention that!
The point is: Howard under more ordinary circumstances would not have served as long a term and I fail to recognise his positive contribution- he simply got lucky in that people needed something stable at that time and if that meant not changing Government then that is what provided the mental comfort that the majority needed to cope with the post-traumatic stress of said aforementioned event!
…this is my excuse and I do feel better now!