Originally published at Still Life With Cat:
The ABC’s Annabel Crabb published a long, informative, entertaining piece at The Drum the other day, characteristically witty and meaty, in defence of journalists and their current behaviour and reportage on the campaign trail.
Much of what she is says is fair enough. But nothing she says can possibly excuse what I’ve just heard on the radio.
I got into the car and turned on the radio and there was Julia Gillard in Queensland, mid-speech, announcing the Government’s seniors policy, after what I imagine was a somewhat stressful morning meeting Kevin Rudd for the first time since she became Prime Minister. The seniors stuff sounded pretty good, mainly the improvements to the pension situation but also several other things. Jenny Macklin followed up. And then it was time for questions.
I listened for a total of just over half an hour, apart from the four and a half minutes it took me to duck into Dan Murphy on the way home, and I heard one, and only one, question, right at the end, about the policy announcement. Every single other question, asked mostly in an aggressive, smartarse, gotcha tone of voice by what sounded like a bunch of extremely young journalists (with the exception of — wait for it — Mark Latham, who was “working as a guest reporter for a commercial network”; is there no scrap of venomous f*ckwittery of which the man is not capable?) was about her meeting with Kevin Rudd, except for the ones about the presence of Mark Latham.
Wah wah wah shrouded in secrecy (actually, said Gillard, there was a TV camera and sound gear in the room) wah gotcha wah wah why didn’t you make eye contact (actually, said Gillard, just because you didn’t see something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen) wah wah gotcha blah are there really two leaders wah wah wah knifed blah blah assassinated wah wah doesn’t Mark Latham upset you blah not helping wah wah aren’t YOU having a hard time wah wah gotcha blah Kevin Rudd Kevin Rudd Kevin Rudd.
Gillard answered every single one of these aggressive, repetitive inanities with humour, patience and grace.
As someone with an 83-year old father and an older sister recently turned 60, I would have quite liked to hear some questions about the seniors policy. I didn’t think it was too much to ask. Perhaps the baby journalists thought Julia had spoken about it so clearly and in such detail that there were no questions left unanswered. But it seems more likely that they didn’t hear a word she said and were filling in time tweeting and texting till her mouth stopped moving and they could start yelling But we need to talk about Kevin!
Can anyone tell me what this appalling crap is all about? Has journalism become a matter of goading someone until they lose their temper or burst into tears? Exactly when did loss of control or bodily containment become the stuff that “news” is made of? Did any of them even realise that there were policy announcements being made? Is this the kind of scrum that produces the kind of rubbish we’re getting in the papers and on the news? Do journalists really think that public life is a soap opera in which the only thing that matters is emotion, personalities and gossip? How much of this is being driven by the Rupert Murdochs of the world? Can you really blame the obviously extreme youth and inexperience of some of these journalists when Kerry O’Brien is doing more or less the same thing every night on The 7.30 Report? Now that journalism is something you need a university degree for, what on earth are they spending those four years teaching them? And is the Australian public really only getting the media it deserves?
Whatever the answers to these questions may be, I am bloody glad I’m not a journalist. I would be hanging my head in shame, mortification and sorrow at the untrained flea circus this once noble profession has become.
Update: [by Mark] Via Mobius Ecko in comments, here’s a link to the transcript of the press conference in question, posted by Bernard Keane at The Stump.
The ALP is reaping what has sowed.
Biggest story of the day and the media gets treated like mushrooms – you expect them to be happy campers?
Watched a good interview on the 7:30 report a few days ago: “The Population Debate” http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2974890.htm
And my dad’s over here (in Germany) for a visit and afterwards we thought, how would this be for a new format: Firstly, the interviewer would talk to two experts (for and against,) and then, secondly, the politicians could be interviewed so that people would have some sense of the proportion of the issue. Don’t let me freak you out with my creativity!
Of course, the universities and the lecturers, after 20 years of corporatisation know who’s buttering their bread, but I think you couldn’t do much worse than having a `pro’ and `contra’ viewpoint.
The leadins that we get these days in the Aussie current affairs programs are more about cinematography then providing much background info. Some of them are cut like they’re conceived to disorient the viewer. Softening them up for the ad-break.
But, I totally agree with you PC, often it’s incredible drivel that we’re offered these days. It’s the same tired old opinions dressed up each week, tawdry and worn out from over-tracing.
Razor, how exactly do you figure the excruciating standards of journalism in this country are Labor’s fault? Other than, of course, you assumption that everything is Labor’s fault?
Pavlov’s Cat – loved your word “F*ckwittery”, it’s fabulous.
I think you’d better open your bottle of wine and drink the best part of a bottle before you watch the evening news. Mark Latham’s later news melodrama in a confrontation with Julia Gillard will be best viewed through the glow of a good wine I think. (Hope it’s a good red).
Pavlov’s Cat. You seem to be ignoring the other side of the media.
The side that asks Tony Abbott the hard questions like ‘what do you think of Kevin Rudd re-entering the arena?’ and ‘When you take over Tony…will you be awesome or really awesome!’
I’m starting to think the media is getting it’s revenge on us for voting the wrong way in 07.
I’m surprised now at only two things.
1. How the hell have Rudd and Julia not exploded in rage at the sheer stupidity of this by now?
and
2. Why hasn’t the media gone the next step and accused the government for disengaging with the meida for not having a Latham style meltdown.
(Having Latham in the room can’t be helping the media’s cause as I’m guessing any temptation to explode would be tempered with his constant presence reminding them both of what would happen to them.)
Am just watching the ABC News 24 bulletin at the moment, which on Saturdays is apparently presented by the work experience kid, and the first story focused solely on Latho, and complaints that journalists weren’t there at the meeting between Gillard and Rudd (when were campaign strategy meetings ever open to journos?)… Now we’ve got the presenter interviewing another journo who’s banging on about Rudd, Latho, body language, polls, lack of warmth between Gillard and Rudd, and observed that “we’re not talking about the seniors policy”.
Um, yes!
What I posted to Bernard Keane’s post on this appalling press conference, made appalling because of the media. There is a full transcript there as well.
The other side of the coin was that Abbott had a press conference on his party’s meeting with the president of Nauru, and every question was on policy and on song allowing Abbott to get his message across and also state some blatant mistruths that weren’t picked up.
Currently the TV News headlines are following the same line as the media at the press conference and laying the blame for that way that conference went at Julia Gillard’s feet.
Can out media get much worse in this country?
This is why the fix is in.
They managed to make Julia look defensive and Tony presidential.
Some things never change. Freedom of the press is owning one.
Thank you for this article. I agree with your points about the insolent juvenile inanities which pass for questioning of a prime minister and share your outrage at this disgraceful parformance by the media.
I’m surprised anyone here watches the MSM news(which includes the ABC) unless they are paid to or it is some sort of hobby. Even ABC-TV has been pretty much crap since David Hill, and the commercials have been crap forever. What surprises me is that Rudd did not try and break up the media conglomerates. If Labor win and do not take drastic action against the media conglomerates then one really has to wonder about their priorities
So the ALP should be against freedom of the press even if they are rank (IMHO)? Then that’s it. I can’t vote ALP.
Crap.
What strikes me when reading the transcript, apart from the sheer inanity of the questions, is the level of aggression and disrespect directed at Gillard. Meanwhile Abbott escapes any meaningful scrutiny.
The pack has really gone feral, and scum is an apt description.
@tssk – We don’t have freedomn of the press in Australia – we have a system that gives access to media control based on money. That’s scarcely ‘free’.
Adrian…there’s some indpendent reporting on Abbott here
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/the-leaders/the-charm-and-disarm-offensive-20100806-11oif.html
Come drink the Kool Aid with me.
gregh…I see media bias. Most Aussies though seem to agree so maybe it’s us that’s out of touch.
I have to assume with the surrealness of it that either the press is out to depose Julia or using Occam’s Razor as my guide the simpler solution is that all is well and my mental faculties are no longer what they used to be.
PC, I heard the whole thing too (transcript here). There was one question that was apparently beyond the pale which I didn’t catch. Whoever did the transcript didn’t either.
I’m pretty sure one of the journos was Michelle Grattan.
PC, I think the whole thing was ridiculous and I agree with what you say but I think the ALP could have handled it better. First, they did let one camera near the meeting between Gillard and Rudd. The first thing I heard was that they didn’t make eye contact. Why let any cameras near the meeting unless you know the visuals are going to be positive?
Then they must have known what the questions would be about. Why not have a session first announcing that she had a positive meeting with Rudd, take the questions and then announce the policies? If they left the room at that point they’d be shown up as the wankers they are.
As it turned out the story is that Gillard’s campaign is still derailed. This was quite a predictable outcome.
@tssk – apologies
But even if we are out of touch I don’t think that means we are wrong – or at least I don’t think so when I can get my dopamine levels right.
@15 – Brian, I doubt anything would have made any real difference. The media pack is completely off the reservation. Would she have had to hold another press conference about how she felt about bloody Latho being a “reporter”?
Ms Cat
‘the untrained flea circus this once noble profession has become…’
Surely that should be ‘the blonde (was) and now the red rodent (is) have become’, Howes that?
@3 Rebekka – I am no booster for the media and my family and I have suffered directly from their poor performance. However, in this case the ALP is reaping what has sown. Hawke and Keating hate each other. Latham hates everyone. Gillard decapitated Rudd and now says he is going to be a major player in her Cabinet. The biggest two stories of the day are the Gillard/Rudd reunion and the Latham entering the media domain – and the ALP is so crap at reading the tea leaves and managing it in a way that is transparent, honest and addresses the issues, but no they try to play the media like they came down in the last shower – it is no wonder they get a bucket of poo dumped on them.
Do you not think it is the interests of Australia to understand what is occuring inside the dysfunctional rabble that the ALP has become given that they want to be returned to power?
For godsake, they executed a first term Prime Minister without allowing him to go to the people. What can we expect next? Will there be a stable leadership team or continuing polling based crucifixions? The leaking is indicative of the dysfunction. Who is next in line? Krudd? Shorten? Combet? If we elect La Guillotine, can we expect a full term?
Policy announcements are all good and fine, but the rest of the story needs to be reported on, too.
Razor @ 20, “For godsake, they executed a first term Prime Minister without allowing him to go to the people”
For god’s sake, build a bridge.
Also, please note that discussion of the Labor leadership change is reserved for the thread of the eternal rehash.
Well said PC. I feel exactly the same way. I want to hear about the policies, not the “gotcha” moments. I don’t really give a flying one about the “gotcha” moments, actually (whether JG made eye contact with KR or whatever).
The appearance of Biffa helps make perfect sense of what the media are trying to do here—they’re trying to get a dramatic Lathamlike figure named Tony Abbott elected PM over a dead boring Julia Gillard. And they think the sudden demise of Rudd/sudden rise of Gillard is all the justification they need in the world to pursue this tendency. “They (Labor) started it,” would be the gallery’s self-justification, I believe. Not that they could ever admit this.
This isn’t brain surgery, folks.
Indeed, the changing media market demands this. New product for new retail requirements.
Well, the one bright spot this amateur Labor Kremlinologist can see in a potential government defeat is that the ALP when thrown into opposition has close to a 100% record of remaining disciplined behind a new leader in the first term.
Gillard, Rudd and I believe Swan are all gone from the frontbench if the Coalition win. The party probably isn’t ecumenical enough to appoint two Leftwing leaders in a row, so that would rule out Combet.
As much as I’ve been disappointed in the man’s recent backroom actions, I have to think Oppo leader Bill ‘Qanda’ Shorten will be able to manoeuvre quite freely against an accidental PM Tone.
Hi, I hope this isn’t too far off topic, but the turning point of this election has been, perhaps will be, the leaks, which kept coming. Who knows, they may keep coming– this issue needs to be examined and as it has materially effected the democratic process of electing the next Australian government, they need to be made public and the person who made them needs to stand by them and show himself publicly. This really is in the national interest.
As Kevin Rennie makes clear, the media is poor, but at least to some degree “t’was ever thus.” The undermining of our national democratic process, which has occurred this election by leaking is something worthy of reporting in full detail! The public should demand that this story be told and the media must ethically tell it.
Razor @ 20, there is no actual evidence that the leaking comes from within the ALP camp.
Having seen the footage of Gillard and Rudd in the planning session it is appalling beyond belief that NewsRadio led with the notion that they didn’t make eye contact. They were sitting beside each other so close that if they’d made eye contact they would have rubbed noses.
I am reminded of the story about Gough Whitlam who was complaining about negative press. He invited the throng down to Manly Beach, strolled out onto the water, turned around and walked back to the beach without getting his socks wet. Next morning the headlines were:
GOUGH WHITLAM CAN’T SWIM!
I’m fairly good at avoiding any broadcast news, but I was lying out in the back yard soaking up the sun this arvo, and was turning the radio dial ’till I landed on News Radio which was playing the BBC.
Unfortunately they interrupt the BBC to give their version of the news, which was led by the headline that Latham and Gillard had ‘clashed’ today on the campaign trail. Heavens, I thought, they ‘clashed’! I wonder what happened? Well, Latham asked why the ALP campaign office wasn’t answering his calls, and Gillard replied “I don’t know”.
An hour later, I heard the News Radio news again, but ‘clashed’ had been replaced by ‘confronted’. Perhaps accurate, since Latham doesn’t have any way of dealing with people other than to confront them – but that’s hardly news. But if you use the word ‘clashed’ you make something news. There was no clash, there was no story. But it took up as much time as anything about the seniors policy announcement.
The ABC news and current affairs unit is a complete disgrace, but if you listen to the BBC news it’s much the same. They’re all dancing to the same tune.
The question is why are they dancing to this tune?
“Manufacturing Consent-The Political Economy of the Mass Media”
Herman and Chomsky, Pub. Vintage London 1994
A golden oldy.
… and further (and easier) reading: Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman
Roger Waters liked that book Russell.
PC asks ‘Can anyone tell me what this appalling crap is all about?’ The answer is blindingly obvious but as Kim has reaffirmed @ 22, nobody is allowed to say it.
Gillard has to stop these clowns setting the agenda. She must make it plain that she’s the PM and will be treated with respect.
If they persist, she politely tells them that as they have no questions, she will leave and march off.
They can spend as much time as they like interviewing each other, but it will get them nowhere.
If all government ministers adopted this position it would help get the government’s campaign back on track, imo.
@Ken Lovell, as repeatedly stated on the Election Roundtable threads, discussing the PR implications of the Labor leadership change is one thing; endlessly rehashing and second-guessing is quite another.
I for one believe that most of LP’s regular commentors are capable of appreciating the nuance between the two positions and adjusting their contributions accordingly. Do you feel that this level of nuanced communication is in fact not possible?
Personally, I don’t care for either the Labor or Libs. I, however, am disgusted with the obvious lack of responsibility being displayed by the media in reporting this election campaign. It seems that Tony Abbot is allowed to get his message across (without scrutiny) and Julia Gillard is prevented by inane questioning by the media. There are two losers here: the public, not being given any sort of accurate or analytical portrayal of policies and secondly, the media, who are looking like party hacks, either incapable of delivering unbiased professional reporting, or unallowed to deliver unbiased professional reporting, dictated by their employer. Either way, they do not have the right to use the word ‘professional’- perhaps prostitute would be more appropriate.
Too, too right, 34, 35.
Too many blowhards with hidden agendas and personal axes to grind, at the expense of the truth and others.
Too many dogs in the manger, too many jerks who want to cripple everyone else because they cant get their own pet issues and grudges up.
As to other aspects, am surprised Pavlov’s Cat found much that could be classed as “informative” from a Crabbe article.
Must be the extra twenty IQ points.
But it is certainly true that Fairfax has been the big mover in the media race to the bottom, apart from gutless blowhard Nine cub reporter Latham today.
tssk @ 5,
“I’m starting to think the media is getting it’s revenge on us for voting the wrong way in 07.”
I agree. The media coverage of this election campaign has been appalling. The Australian has been pissed off and running hard against the government from the moment they got in. For reasons I don’t quite understand it is The Australian that runs the narrative in this country. Why is that? No one I know reads it and it has poor readership numbers too but Rupert has positioned that paper to be the dominant voice of the media that now everyone assumes it must be true.
The News Ltd way is dumbed down lowest common denominator news. Just about all the other media organisations are following their cue. They had already tried their best to turn this election campign into a circus and now Latham pops up to not just confirm it but to perhaps destroy what chances Labor had left of winning this election. Unless the ALP come up with something big it’s all over.
Look at the way the BER announcement yesterday was reported. It essentially validated the stimulus decisions the government made but we heard from commentators “when is Julia Gillard going to apologise for all the waste of tax payers money?”, “This is everything that is wrong with Labor why can’t they just admit they fucked up but no Gillard has to say she would do it all again today!”. What is this shit? Just 3% of schools complained! That means 97% success rate, right?
The ABC have been terrible during this campaign so much so I find myself watching more of Sky News for balance! I agree with others that most interviews these days (especially from the ABC) are set up as “gotchas” just desperately trying to find any sort of minor slip up no matter how relevant. It was refreshing seeing Peter van Onselen’s mature and rational interview with Anthony Albanese on Saturday Agenda this morning, none of that rubbish. Two human beings talking to each other without an obvious agenda which funnily enough didn’t cause Albo to descend into talking points mode.
IMO by aping the News Ltd model Mark Scott is hoping that whoever wins the election will privatise the ABC afterwards leading to a big pay day. This I think can be the only reason for the ABC’s swan dive into oblivion. You know the Libs will want to pay off that GreatBigLaborDebt (as a commentator said on Weekend Contrarians tonight “what a complete fraud on the public this whole paying back all the debt stuff is”) and I’d think Labor would now want to sell it off essentially being an arm of Rupert’s.
Aside from the media I think the ALP strategy clowns will look back and regret a) dumping Rudd without thinking about how to explain/justify it b) calling an election so quickly after Gillard’s elevation c) deciding not to run on their economic record for the first two weeks of the campaign and d) leaving the Labor launch until the final week of the campaign.
Lest Ken Lovell eagerly presents my inadvertant use of the word cripple as another malicious attack on Paul Burns ( why would I, of all people, have attacked Paul Burns!), we’d better say my use of the word actually applies quite pointedly at others, rather than Paul, who I’ve liked and respected but who is maybe tempted to have swallowed Lovell’s vicious line that I was somehow out to do him (Burns) harm, because I dared question rather than accept carte blanche,Lovell’s opinions on another issue, earlier.
Burns knows that my use of the word that was a bone of contention earlier was used in ignorance of Pauls own situation, altho I thought he might haveknown me well enough from the threads to realise that I wasn’t trying a personal attack on others, unlike Lovell, who exploited the situation to slander me, out of malice.
Channel 9 apologies to the Prime Minister:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/nine-boss-apologises-after-mark-lathams-julia-gillard-interview-lacked-proper-respect/story-fn5rizbk-1225902557371
Jacques, I should bloody think so!!
Jacques de Molay @37. Great summary, especially:
The current state of reporting really is hard to understand. I really need someone from the media to explain to me, why the Libs are being allowed to slander the Labor Party’s economic credentials and have completely uncosted policy positions to the tune of 6:1 more spending promises than Labor. Forget Abbott, that fact needs to be underlined by the Labor sophisticates in the coming week.
As for your conclusion Jacques, b) calling the election so soon was a serious error of judgement and d) is just carelessness.
What do you do when you prozac runs out and you feel crook?
Write.
It occurred thru the fog that it might be a fair idea to actually read Crabbe.
Yes it’s clever, witty.
Its veneer.
A sophisticated and good example, true,as to how journalists spin away from adressing concerns raised, in this case the MSM’s inevitable tory bias, crowned by that typically intrusive ACA/TDT style self promotion for nine, using scab Latham, another failed bum with a chip his shoulder.
Crabbe’s article, despite the essay length and lots of endearing anecdotes about stolen garden gnomes and young flunkys, was tighter than a fish’s date when it came to discussing the real problem as to media dumbing down, because then she might have had to mention grey emminences like her current and old SMH boss, Mark Scott, responsible for the worst damage of all to public broadcasting and the commencement of the earlier dumbing down of Fairfax.
But then, what could she have said?
That it’s the system and the news cycle and she’s as disempowered by it as any/ every one else?
“Abandon ALL hope,
ye who enter here”
“Whatever the answers to these questions may be, I am bloody glad I’m not a journalist. I would be hanging my head in shame, mortification and sorrow at the untrained flea circus this once noble profession has become.”
Well said Pavlov’s Cat. The media in this country are generally useless. Pathetic. Tabloid copycats.
This morning a Sky News correspondent assessing Gillard’s day stated that her important “Senior’s policy announcemt” was overshadowed by the Latham disruption & Rudd meeting.
Not surprisingly, he failed to mention any details of the policy.
Public interest thrown out the backdoor by “sensationalist” media.
N’
I have but one thing to say to each and every so-called ‘journalist’ present at that media conference yesterday, and I mean it quite personally and literally and without exception, not symbolically, metaphorically, or to only some of them:
Die. In. A. Fire.
The world will be a better place when you do. Also I will laugh at your personal agony because you are a moral vacuum that deserves an agonizing death, and I sure do hope the Universe delivers it to you sometime soon.
Don’t hold back PC, tell us what you really think:)
seriously tho this is reminding me of the Bush-Dukakis race in ’88. Dukakis could never get his policy out.
if AC is right about the the way the parties wrangle the media then the ALP has to change the routine, provide a media pack of policy announcements first thing in the morn, wave it around on the breakky programs, then they can answer all the guff questions with the pack in their hand, it will demonstrate the gulf between proper policy and the guff.
Perhaps just a touch over the top, TRex – it would be a waste of matches. No, fear not, as Hockey and his band of neo-con financial wizards lay waste to public spending, the economy will shrink, alarmingly in the Eastern states, ensuring that no-one will be able to afford to buy a newspaper or any of the products being advertised on FTA channels, and thereby ensuring the loss of even those few journo jobs clinging to the wreckage of the old media models being swept aside by the ‘net.
Shame none of us will have jobs but hey… doesn’t seem to be bothering most people.
My daughter passed VCE with a good result. Very good. In the 90s.
As a child growing up with a
lefty greenie watermelon femmo ratbagpolitically aware mother, her first choice was to apply for journalism.Because for some strange reason she preferred Melbourne, she didn’t get in. You need a TER of something like 98 point whatever to get into the Media course at Melbourne (which had mysteriously survived the New Melbourne Model, at least for another year, and was still a standalone course.)
My question is
If it is nearly as hard to get into Journalism as it is to get into Vet science of Medicine, what is it with the baby journalists I’m reading and their bad English, as well as the shallow thinking Pav’s described above? Most of them can’t even spell. I’m thinking of the Punch and commercial media here, but if you need ninety-eight plus TER points to get into a journalism course, dammit people, I expect better!
Vet science OR medicine
Good one, Helen..
Bernice: I’m not saying we should use matches to set them alight; I’m wishing random accidents upon them. Gas ovens left on. Blankets too near heaters. Faulty electrics. That sort of thing.
Helen, Journalism courses have always been hard to get into because they take small numbers of students and have high demand. The VCE/TER/etc score is simply a market in places vs demand, certainly not a measure of how smart you actually have to be to do the job (see the low scores needed for entry to a BSc). Now of course, you’d expect that a Melbourne Uni graduate with a VCE of 98 is a pretty smart cookie. I don’t know what happens at Melbourne exactly but I reckon a lot of the best performing students won’t end up being actual journalists. Leaving the average ones to take the low paying jobs at Fairfax. And undergrad students around the country nowadays are so very, very, average.
Tyro @ 44 you are way way out of line and I demand an apology.
There were no journalists there yesterday!
Helen
Your daughter is in luck. 2010 was the last intake for the Mebourne Bachelor of Media/Communication, which required a TER of 98. Under the new Melbourne Model, that degree has been abolished and absorbed into the BA, to which your daughter won a place. From now on Media/Communications/Journalism is just another major like History or Italian, so all students who gained a BA place can major [in that BA] in Media/Journalism.
Tyro Rex
Plane crashes are best for this sort of thing, especially during election campaigns where there could be dozens on the one plane, with the added bonus of several pollies as well.
Helen @ 47 – I think you’ll find cut off scores for journalism are much (much) lower at other universities. And there’s lots of journalists around who never went to university as it didn’t used to be required.
actually i’m a bit with razor here, but i suspect from a different angle.
The Australian media addresses politics in this country on the “disunity equals death” angle.
In part I think this is because of the ALP’s rule conceived in the early years of the twentieth century and the last years of the nineteenth century that elected ALP members couldnt be trusted and hence all would vote in accordance with the decision of caucus.
The result has been shallower political debates in this country than exist in either the UK or US where internal divisions (while certainly not desirable) are accepted. It is possible to acknowledge in those countries that a political party is a broad church which may not be completely in agreement on all matters. Anyone who has watch or participated in debates dealing with conscience votes knows how much better those debates are and how the place rises. Here what passes for political and policy debate is shallow (blah blah blah workchoices blah blah blah, super profits tax blah blah blah)
The media as a consequence do not enage with the policy issues but debate how everything plays out politically – and whether the 2% within the MOE movement in the polls signifies the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning .
So now we have a front page of the age story on fraser saying tony abbott is not ready to govern (and fraser was last in parliament in 1983 ????) and latham doing his usual I’ll intimidate anyone or rudd not making eye contact.
To get the debate about policy you must be prepared to engage in policy and political debate. But everyone has been trying to make abbott the subject of the debate for the better part of 12 months. The ALP model of attack lines for the day (what are the real tony abbott’s views) are not about policy but abbott trying to terrify everyone by making him out to be a crazy catholic lune (and fwiw that was part of the campaign tactic against jfk in 1959).
and that means journalists who understand the policy and not just get the media release of the day and the six second grab. but it is symbiotic – journalists work to tight deadlines, need to write a story, get the story from the media release, ring an opponent for a grab and move on…
I hate the media in this country but i hate it because it is so short-term and so political – it would just be helpful to engage with issues in a serious way.
This says to me that there should not be a degree in “journalism” but that journalists should be chosen from those who want to do it from within other career paths like economics, science, social science, history, arts, medicine, etc. In other words, journalists really need to have a specialization in a discipline other than just journalism.
But today’s lot should all be thrown on a pyre.
And tssk I would apologise for insulting the festering pus-oozing canker that is Australian journalism, but I did say “so-called ‘journalists’”. Not that any of them write anything of note.
My wife said to me this morning:
“The media press gallery are reactionary…not pro-active, wide thinking and prepared based on previous & forward thinking policy knowledge”
I agree w/ her.
They also have to earn their pay & help make profits & “hook-in the readers/viewers” for their corporations…
it’s these priorities over policy & the public interest everytime. Just what you would expect from a corporate aristocrat run business.
Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.
Exactly why we need “alternative media” to focus elsewhere.
And a public broadcaster w/ more depth & less “copycat to be corporate” tendencies. And BALANCE.
N’
Ossie, that’s good to know – I was kinda aware of the vague outline of the situation but hadn’t checked that out thoroughly b/c she said her enthusiasm for journalism per se was waning. Who knows what direction she’ll go in at the end of the three years!
I totes agree with this, I am sick of journalists from the ABC and elsewhere jumping on the tabloid bandwagon, I blame twitter and the rise of satire (which I adore, think’ Yes PM’ and ‘The Hollowmen” and The Chaser..) as a replacement for journalism. How can “CHIEF” online political journalist/s write joke pieces at the expense of analysis… its just sad. And how can PC’s example of ‘in depth’ interviewing earn these idiots a wage for journalism…..
Hannah’s dad’s reference to Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” is most useful. I presume most LP readers have read it. There is a difference though between Chomsky’s notion of the manufacture of consent and what is currently going on in Australia which is that here any pretence at objectivity and reportage has been abandoned altogether. A healthy democracy relies on the mass media to provide something like balanced reportage. The absence of that factor alone is enough to diagnose democracy as being in very poor health in Australia. Oh, there’ll be a vote alright but a vote based on information that is so deeply biased that the concept of bias is inadequate to describing the failure. It really does appear to be a form of brainwashing. Note to young graduate Australian journalists everywhere: get a job in a war zone real soon.
Nasking, I must say I don’t agree with the idea of ‘BALANCE’. That’s what we get now: He said, She said. Each got 5 minutes so it is ‘TEH BALANCE’. What the media need first and foremost are FACTS. Not the fact of who-said-what, the fact of X correlates to Y or A influences B.
E.g. indisputable facts such as The world is apparently warming. Carbon Dioxide causes warming. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentrations are increasing. Most of this CO2 increase is caused by human activity. “to the best of our knowledge”. That style of fact. Only once they get their facts right can we start to argue about the interpretation of the facts; which is to say every interview with every denialist crack-pot should start with the question: “Why do you deny the facts?”.
What we’ve got however is a debate about the interpretation over the signifiers of the representation of the atmospherics surrounding an analysis of a political campaign. It is so way, way, beyond merely post-modern … its relation to anything that may be described as a “really real” is completely non-existent. I’d wager even Baudrillard would be surprised (though, not, I reckon, Guy Debord, who is vindicated almost completely every day).
Tyro’s proposal only fails in its unreasonable moderation.
Kelly on police; also Liam on political journalists.
“Note to young graduate Australian journalists everywhere: get a job in a war zone real soon.”
Here’s an idea: WAR CORRESPONDENT CONSCRIPTION. Compulsory national service in a war zone for all budding reporters. 12-month rotation with only a six-week stint inside a secure base with the Army, the rest in the field. Those that live through this experience are allowed to become junior court rounds reporters.
Actually here’s an idea I’m at least semi-serious about. The banning on the ABC and SBS of any opinion-related pieces of any kind and a tribunal which oversees this.
It took me a couple of goes to realise you were talking about NED Kelly, not PAUL Kelly the journalist. You are quote Ned, there, right?
As for my moderation in demanding journalists Die In A Fire, for this, I cannot apologise; as you know I am a member of the ALP and Our Glorious Revolution of the Radical Centrist Pragmatism demands, foremost, moderation in all things.
Helen
Tell her from me that I just did a rough count, and I know either as friends, acquaintances, or family probably 40 people who work in the media in Australia and overseas in front-line positions – print journalist, radio show, TV onscreen journo/presenter.
I am pretty certain about the education background of at least 30 of those, only two of whom has a Journalism/Media degree. One from Uni of Queensland who works for News. He is a business journo who has won a Walkley. The other now works for London’s FT.
The rest have degrees in Law, Industrial Relations, Philosophy, Biochemistry, business, Pure Maths, Political Economy, Gender Studies. The most popular degree among those I know is a BA in History.
And on top of that there are a heap (another 40/50) of non “front of house” – producers, directors, writers, PR, media people I know, whose backgrounds are even more diverse.
Of those people I know/know of, I knew a few who actually recruit. The best way to get into a good program as a graduate is to get the best marks possible in whatever discipline you love, and then do a one year Masters in Journalism at one of the top US Journalism schools (such as Columbia) which are not all that hard to get into.
The other must is experience while a student. Volunteer at community radio, write for the uni paper, etc. The recruiters do not think this volunteer work is all that important training, but is a disproportionately strong signal that will instantly get your daughter’s application placed in the “Round 2 file.”
The thing about the volunteer work is that it is non-competitive to do. Any student at Uni.of Melb can write something for the uni paper and get it published; any student can rock up to a community radio station and get some gig.
The whole thing takes a little planning, but is not onerous. Your daughter is in first year, she has heaps of time.
* except for the winning of elections. in which case the motto is Lost At Sea With All Hands.
Helen, my experience (and I don’t teach Journalism, but I teach a few Journalism students, who want to learn a bit about filmmaking), is that there are some really smart ones, but they’re the ones who don’t go into journalism professionally.
I met a tv journo the other night at a party, who works for a commercial network. She was the most stupid creature I’ve met for years. She couldn’t see a skerrick of a thing wrong with how the election is being reported. She started lecturing me about even if you didn’t like Howard, at least he stood for something. I agreed that what he stood for was pork-barrelling marginal seats and making us scared of brown people. She literally started back away from me with horror and called me the worst name she could think of – ‘socialist’. She then started lecturing me about how you silly artists need capitalists to make money. The friend I was with is an accountant and runs a largish business. He stared laughing and putting her straight about a few things, but to no avail. She had totally drunk the Kool-Aid.
However, I’m also appalled at the way Labor has handled this whole campaign. It seemed to me bleeding obvious that bringing Rudd back would be reported the way it has. That all it would do was suck any oxygen out of Gillard’s campaign just as she was starting to gain some traction, put the leadership issue front and centre again and totally humiliate Gillard by treating her as the person who isn’t really the PM. Will it save some seats in Queensland? It had better, given the disaster it’s been so far.
Being ‘confronted’ by Latham is probably a plus for her, given what an obvious pig of a man he is. Although that epithet is insulting to pigs.
I’ve got to hand it to you, Razor. One cannot but admire the purity of the utterness with which you miss the point.
There. Was. No. Story.
What “story”? Gillard and Rudd, between whom there had been obvious tension for obvious reasons, met in a room. They discussed campaign tactics. Nothing else happened. A “story” is a sequence of events connected by some form of causality. If Rudd had let out a Tarzan yell and attacked Gillard with a machete, then that would indeed have been a story, and they would have been asking Rudd and the ambos questions instead of Gillard.
The press pack now think the definition of a “story” is someone getting upset, hurt, defrauded, raped, sexually harassed, arrested, murdered or dismembered. Live by the definition, die by the definition: they wanted blood and tears, and there wasn’t any. There was no story even by their definition. So they tried to make one by goading Gillard with aggressive, mindless leading questions about FEELINGS and ignoring policy announcements. Again.
No doubt you and all your conservative pals and all the journos present wish the machete scenario had unfolded. But it didn’t. No story.
Instead the best they can manage as “news”, at the expense of reporting on a policy that will immediately affect hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens (and no doubt would have won a few votes for Labor — can’t have THAT), was ‘You didn’t make eye contact’. What they meant was that there was no eye contact on the 20 seconds of footage they saw. You know what? (To coin a phrase.) I don’t care who makes eye contact with whom where, and I bet nobody else does either.
As for the journos being “shut out”, let’s look at that a different way. Perhaps the journos, very sensibly, were simply not regarded as part of what needed to happen there. Obviously it was going to be a tense meeting and the presence of a mob of teeming journalists, especially that mob, would have made it all much more tense and unstable even than it already was. Can’t you see that most contemporary media types’ goal is to make something happen so that they can report it? And when I say ‘something’ I mean ‘somebody shouts, somebody cries, somebody loses their rag and attacks somebody else with a machete.’
(Apparently Latham more or less obliged, there. And Channel Nine, who must have known exactly what he would do, then turned round and publicly dissed and disowned him with fanfares of self-righteousness. It is not Latham, a sad case being exploited for ratings, who is the biggest bastard in that story.)
All those journalists, except the one who asked about the seniors policy, should be sacked. And I’m not even going to feed the Latham thing.
Very well said Pavlov’s Cat.
The question remains why is the ABC becoming not merely a follower, but a leader in this process you describe?
The only answer that makes any kind of sense is that they are getting the broadcaster market ready for sale. It is now so indistinguishable from its commercial counterparts, so abject in its betrayal of its Charter, and so brazenly partisan that a private owner would have to make very few changes. Media Watch would have to be dispensed with or run by Andrew Bolt, but I can’t think of much else.
The sooner that it s sold the better – at least then any pretense of independence would be lost
This.
“The sooner that it s sold the better – at least then any pretense of independence would be lost”
Jane @ 33 I wanted to respond to your comment yesterday that
The more I thought about it the more my blood ran cold with how they might respond to the ‘marching off’ bit – the revenge they might wreak. Watching her with Barry Cassidy today I decided she was doing as good a job as anyone could in appalling circumstances. I can see now why Labor insiders thought she might be able to rescue them from their likely defeat with Kevin at the helm and struggling with the media. They, of course, had underestimated the task they were setting her and had not factored in the extra complexities and story line opportunities of the challenge itself.
I thought she was magnificent – calm, sane and able to think on her feet under attack. Cassidy, while posturing otherwise, was as keen to push the ‘soap opera’ angle as any of those ‘young’ journalists PC is complaining about here. A bit less today of the ‘humor, patience and grace’ than before, I think PC, but steely determination to get her message across clearly without distraction while remaining dignified and to the point. If there’s ever a national emergency looming I know who I’d trust to make vital decisions for us and to carry the nation with her.
Go Julia!
PS What did people make of Fran Kelly’s rationale for the quality of reporting at the moment? All the ‘senior’ and more experienced journos and commentators are tied up back at the paper! So what’s her excuse for her own loaded questions in interviews on the radio? How, even after that comment from her, does it explain Cassidy’s inane pre-occupation with ‘pop psychologising’ over policy analysis?
Fine
While I agree there are a lot of dunderheads in journalism, the business itself really does encourage group-think of one type or another, depending on the organisation.
But what many seem to forget is that nowadays journalism is seen as a ‘profession’ – like lawyers, bankers, etc. – rather than a ‘craft.’ Unfortunately this implies all the greasy-pole careerism that goes with other professions.
While Keating was PM, a good friend of mine was one of Australia’s top political journos with the AFR. S/he [no names no pack drill] was very left-wing and gay. It was at that time when those rumours about Keating being gay were being spread. One night after about 234 drinks I asked my friend what s/he would do if conclusive evidence fell into his/her lap confirming those rumours as true. S/he said “well I wouldn’t wait to finish this drink to make sure it made page 1 tomorrow with my byline!
The best we can do at this point is to start formulating post election demands of whicherver party wins amingst which one of the foremost would have to be:
Thanks Tyro Rex. Informed opinion from people with specific expertise. Journalists whose job it is to elicit the informed opinion of others but who understand that, as journalists, their only valid area of expertise would be the relations of production in the industry that employs them.
BTW: I’m quite alarmed by repeated suggestions that somehow Australian democracy might be better served y selling off the public broadcasters. This smacks to me of the idea that excoriating poverty and powerlessness somehow makes the oppressed more willing to adopt revolutionary aims. So, without even the semblance of reportage from the public broadcaster the Australian public will somehow wake up to the absence of objective reporting and … what? Develop a US style PBS? I don’t think so. Better to defend the ideal of a public broadcaster while pointing to current defecits with the ABC/SBS networks because once the principle is abandoned it is gone.
Tyro Rex @63: conscription service in a war zone. Good idea. Add or 12 months in a refugee camp because they are basically the same thing.
Indeed, Tyro.
It’s interesting that the Jerilderie letter, written as it was by a semi-literate murderous bandit on the run from the authorities, excusing himself for a number of vicious, violent, cold-blooded crimes, stands up well against many of today’s political features written by contemporary editorialists for clarity, transparency, research and insight.
If only the Paul Kelly Gang could be gunned down by the Victoria Police, with all survivors tried, condemned, and hanged.
When is someone going to ask Mr. Abboot what he means by “guided democracy”?
akn, I agree with you in principle, but the reality is the ABC is a public broadcaster in name and finances only. It’s no coincidence that you rarely hear of the ABC Charter anymore.
Better, if the ALP is elected to start again from scratch. Most of the current crop of journalists do not belong in a public broadcaster, obviously having no idea of the responsibilities that this entails. The idea of defending the concept of public broadcasting by using the current ABC as a foundation is laughable.
“Nasking, I must say I don’t agree with the idea of ‘BALANCE’. That’s what we get now: He said, She said. Each got 5 minutes so it is ‘TEH BALANCE’. What the media need first and foremost are FACTS. Not the fact of who-said-what, the fact of X correlates to Y or A influences B.
E.g. indisputable facts such as The world is apparently warming.”
Tyro Rex, you make a good point. Perhaps I should’ve said “less bias” and “sensationalism”.
N’
We deserve the politicians we have.
We deserve the media we have.
They all reflect us.
They are like us.
We are responsible for our choices.
Helen @47, My daughter wanted to be a journalist from an early age. I just couldn’t convince her that having a journalist in the family as opposed to a dentist or doctor was a betrayal of her mother’s future health needs.
So she got the required TER, good enough for the more desired professions and off she went in 2000.
5 weeks from completion she had lost the passion for journalism and now works in real estate. She did graduate and has the piece of paper or she would reside in the local cemetary.
I suspect the entry requirements were much the same in the rest of the country. My question is how can people who are obviously intelligent (or good at passing exams) who have a compulsory ethics component of their degree, prostitute themselves in the way they have?
ossie @53, Libtard pollies, I trust, with the Rodent accompanying them?
PC @68, I agree with you. Latham was supposed to provoke Gillard into a defensive response which would have provoked a frenzy lasting for the rest of the campaign.
I think her response was perfect. He ends up with egg on his face, she looks gracious and in control. I think Latham’s career as a reporter for the appalling 60 minutes could be still born. Pity the program doesn’t go the way of its erstwhile reporter.
Patricia, perhaps march is too strong a word. Having seen her response to Latham, I expect that is how I envision it. There would be bugger all for the mongrels to latch onto.
We’ve seen her give them a serve about gossip mongering over the security briefings. She was brilliant and they scuttled off with their tails between their legs. It was delightful to watch and that’s what I want to see more of from her
Any journalist/s who ask her about her policies could be rewarded with a detailed briefing. The rest would be left with their noses pressed against the door.
Imagine the headlines; PM refuses to answer questions about her earlobes!
Would it be untoward to suggest that pointing various and sundry ABC journalist types to the ABC Charter (http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/charter.htm ) particularly Section 6a that refers to informing and educating people might be what they are supposed to be doing instead of playing ‘suck up to the playground bully’?
Or would expectation that occasional reference to founding principles mark me as being completely naive? In which case, come 21 August I think I am going to have to be among the first against the wall as I will surely be shot for not wanting to kowtow to the bullies again…
Gillard has ripped into Latham. It’s a pity she didn’t say
Mark, I’d shake your hand, but I am scared you would break my arm. I suppose you’ll be calling me a skanky ho next. So long comrade
and walked off.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-attacks-mark-latham-over-inappropriate-ambush/story-fn59niix-1225902607150
What a difference a few years make.
Latham bullys Howard during a handshake (and how we on the left cheered.) It loses the ALP the election.
Latham bullys Julia during a handshake. (And suddenly we’re not cheering despite it being the same thing.) It loses the ALP the election.
Not wanting to (again) be erroneously accused of Liberal cheerleading; but isn’t the media’s behaviour just a symptom of the wider ineptitude and intellectual reductionism that ALL participants in this campaign are guilty of? And Labor, sad to say, are the guiltiest of them all in that department.
@82 I’m fascinated by the image on that link. Mr Latham looks so pugnacious, angry and offended by it all, while Ms Gillard so calm and gracious (though neither is photographed at a particularly flattering angle).
I wonder if a ‘setup’ was contemplated in the hiring of him? Or would that be unduly cynical?
Speak for yourself. Many, perhaps most, women on the left disliked and distrusted Latham from the outset, and for many of us, certainly for me, the handshake moment simply confirmed all our worst fears. I was horrified and disgusted by that moment of incipient violence and so was every woman I’ve ever talked to about it.
PC: agreed. Latham’s unsavoury reputation is not limited to public handshakes. His physicality towards Howard was disgraceful and not what any reasonable person ever wants from someone in public office.
It’s ancient history in blogging terms, but those who’ve been around a long time would recall later to be LP people like me and Kim expressing great scepticism about Latho in the ’04 campaign at Troppo and Back Pages – which was then probably the most discussy Oz political blog (sadly I think the archives have disappeared).
I was horrified by the Howard latham handshake. I knew immediately the stupid sod had lost Labor the election and we were condemned to 3 years more of Howard.
@89 – Paul, I’ve been saying for years John Howard had actually worn out his welcome by 2004, and that election was eminently winnable for Labor. The problem was Latham.
I’m in despair at the moment. If I wasn’t reasonably sane, I’d be believing in a media conspiracy to tear down Labor, and Gillard in particular. Next time Julia has a press coference announcing policy she should refuse to answer any questions except those on policy. And tell the puerile journos who are too ill-informed to ask questions on policy to piss off. Just lock the bastards out.
fehowarth@76: you mean this?
Those who think they stand to gain will not ask.
But what an incredible, shameless admission of what Abbott is really about.
adrian @ 70 and T Rex @ 71: re. the ABC. No, this is our public broadcaster. In principle, it is invaluable, although in practice it has strayed well off-charter and has become a public menace. It needs considerable decapitation and repopulation, but not selling off.
Well, if Abbott’s guided democracy is a euphemism for right wing totalitarianism (unsurprising as that was Santamaria’s big thing – they had it in Spain and elsewhere in the 1930s but I ain’t gonna use the word as I don’t want to be temporarily moderated), isn’t it about time some-one here who has the contacts alerted the MSM? Please!
Paul, since Santa was Abbott’s mentor, that sounds all too depressingly consistent.
Mr Abbott made his “Guided democracy “quip to a foreign head of state within the earshot of journalist and camera men. This occurred at a dubious political stunt of Mr. Abbott. We can only imagine what the headlines would be if some Labor MP done the same thing.
Oh, you were going so well up until then vis-à-vis the modes of traditional disciple in the old Oz political tribes and how they continue to influence the politics of today.
Then you had to spoil your worthwhile analysis by going and sprouting a complete lie.
A complete and utter lie.
What surprises me is that Rudd did not try and break up the media conglomerates.
To credit where it’s due, I actually think he believes in democracy. Do you?
Peter TB @ 98, what sort of democracy do you believe in? Guided?
I thought she was magnificent – calm, sane and able to think on her feet under attack. Cassidy, while posturing otherwise, was as keen to push the ‘soap opera’ angle as any of those ‘young’ journalists PC is complaining about here. A bit less today of the ‘humor, patience and grace’ than before, I think PC, but steely determination to get her message across clearly without distraction while remaining dignified and to the point.
You could be describing John Howard in 2007. Totally unable to get traction.
Fiona Reynolds says:
August 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Peter TB @ 98, what sort of democracy do you believe in? Guided?
Fiona, one of the lovable things about Tony is his reaxed turn of phrase. Unless you rely solely on the Australian for your news and views, his “guided democracy” comment was an amusing throw away line with meaning for his immediate audience.
I know this is tangential to the thread but following on from @98 and others – I thought at the time that Rudd really needed to get on the front foot and purge the ABC and other public bodies of significance of Rodent appointees. Sending that silly drag act wotshisname overseas on a plum posting and not purging wasn’t perceived as a commitment to old fashioned notions of reward for public service and democratic values. It was seen as weakness and political feebleness. A mistake. I haven’t seen the media as totally toxic to Labor since the ’75 post sacking election. Maybe Labor needed to use the old “address to the nation” capacity a lot more before now. Climate change consensus would have been a good time to do it.
Back on track. I’m going to take a personal interest in keeping track of just one of Abbott’s policies and the case will be the “Green Army”. I’ll be amazed if it doesn’t turn into a nightmare of abused, younger disadvantaged people being further abused by rural employers seeking to have tree planting and gully erosion fixed by forced labour. But we’ll see. It’s got deep roots in Santa Maria’s ideology.
” PeterTB says: ”
There is no such thing as a throw away line in during an election campaign. It is poor form to make such a comment to a foreign head of state. It is an example of Mr. Abbott not being able to control what comes out of his mouth. It shows bad judgement on his part.
“…bad judgement on his part” – as was meeting a foreign head of state during an election campaign, especially given the purpose of the meeting.
Not cricket, you see.
Paul, it’s unfair and innacurate to compare Abbott to Franco. It also detracts from the fact that as a leftie you can get much, much more rhetorical leverage out of comparing Abbott to the Nixons and the Thatchers… and the John Howards.
And, as for Santamaria—let me deviate from the educated progressive consensus that he was either some kind of a medievalist-reenactor or a Falangist or both (despite them arguably being contradictory impulses).
He was a militant Rightwing Christian Democrat. Influenced by socialism and Marxism. Socialism. Marxism. A Rightwing Christian Democratic Socialist. Did I mention he owed a lot to those precious doctrines of socialism and Marxism before he owed anything to Franco?
Sorry, supposedly educated Austalian progressives. (Though I imagine the purely Leftliberal won’t care that I’ve besmirched the virtuous name of socialism.)
That first paragraph is all Pauls.
[mod note: fixed]
Oh, PeterTB, that is one of the most magnificent Freudian-slip typos I’ve ver seen. And you are so right. His turn of phrase is indeed axed not just once, but re-axed, over and over again, just in case anybody missed it the first time. “No, erm, doesn’t mean, erm, no. When it’s, ah, Julia. Like, when it’s Julia, does it mean no? Erm, no. Julia. Means. Aahh, um, erm. Ha ha ha.”
Not quite so with you re “lovable”, however.
It’s hard to believe there could be an upside to that appalling media conference, but I thought there was.
Gillard stayed entirely on message while coping with the most inane and trivial questions. It confirms what PatriciaWA was saying. She is a very cool customer, dignified and respectful.
The other half of this real life drama (Razor does have a point, in fairness), Kevin, in his comeback presser adopted an excellent strategy in simply refusing to take questions.
And think about it, people. He doesn’t have to – he’s not leader. I’m very sure he’ll pretty much retain that position for the campaign (unless he has another ‘friendly’ with Philip Adams). He’ll still be pressed and pursued, but I’m sure he’ll go on not taking questions and only talking about Labor policy and Abbott’s unfitness for office. (And he’s strong and credible on both.)
I’d bet money this was the strategy worked out at that closed-door meeting, and it’s pretty good. Rudd will be pursued by the pack and whenever he does, he’ll just rattle off that position and take no other questions.
Julia will still cop all that trivia, but she’s handling it just fine and still coming back to message. If any of it is telecast she’ll get a lot of sympathy/support from the way she’s being harassed. The Latham confrontation and the way she handled it is proving she’s got class.
I reckon they’ve found a way of getting through. I’m fairly confident of a win, but whether with a much-reduced majority, a reduced majority, about the same, or an increased majority I don’t know. I’d like to see the next couple of Newspolls and Nielsens.
Indeed, PC. The other thing that I took from Peter TB’s comment – “an amusing throw away line with meaning for his immediate audience” – had more than a touch of the “nudge nudge wink wink” about it.
In my opinion, what people say when unguarded – whether swearing at Nicola Roxon back in 2007, or sharing an “amusing throwaway line” with intimates – is more revealing of what people truly believe than almost anything else.
Yeah, I’m with Don Wigan and Patricia, we’ve bottomed out now and the ALP is back on track and in the nick of time.
As for the media, hope they school 180 degrees and start on a Julia is presidential arc soon. It’s impossible to predict in which direction the shoal will swarm but you can depend on them to shift quickly and in unison.
A Rudd or Gillard is worth a thousand journos.
Helen way up thread, re the exam score required to get into a journalism degree: you’d be horrified (as I was) to find out how low the score required is for Mathematics. Maths is hard, and you need to be fairly bright to succeed at it, but they’ll take anyone.
PC@68
The fact is the ALP could have made this a non-story. Have a hugs and kisses Kev and Julia re-union even if it ate their guts out. Kev does a Shermaesque statement. Happy families – media has ‘no’ story. Rest of day moves on.
Joh might have been a daft old codger, but sometimes you gotta feed the chooks.
Fiona @ 109 – you can’t tell an ALP politician that they are speaking bullshit? Now, that was a non-story.
You wouldn’t want to be re-axed- once is enough.
That’s the answer the late King Charles 1 of England would give and Anne Boleyn, no doubt.
But need go no further, surely this is axiomatic for all,if we remain beween two axes, we will surely be pole (rel )axed..
Oh all right. Can’t argue with that, not really. Even if you do sound like the horrid little boy in the Medicare Private ad with the crocodile.
I’ll have to find the ad to see what you mean.
Yes, well, it’d help if I got my health insurance companies right. Try HBA.
Razor @ 113: “you can’t tell an ALP politician that they are speaking bullshit? Now, that was a non-story.”
Sorry, I know it’s late and all that, but you have completely lost me.
*puts on nitpicking hat* Anne Boleyn was famously beheaded by a specially imported swordsman from Calais, actually.
DINR: it’s supply/demand and thus markets at work. Whether they work at giving anything of value in the tertiary education sector … that’s another question.
Confirming my theory at #108:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/mr-rudd-wont-be-taking-questions-but-will-sign-autographs-20100808-11qfh.html
I think it’s a brilliant move. Rudd has no obligation since he’s not a or the Leader. The media can hardly complain after the trivialisation of Labor’s entire campaign.
And Abbott’s side certainly cannot (though I’m sure they will) since they’ve spent the entire campaign ducking scrutiny, even running a launch on rhetoric.
Gillard is poised, dignified and intelligent. I’m glad that’s coming thorugh and would hope that some LP posters might give that bit more recognition. I think the Latham stoush is a plus for her, as well.
I voted for Latham with deep reservations in 2004. This was confirmed when I read his diaries. Although much of what he wrote about Labor was instructive, it was filled with such self-pity, self-aggrandisment and general tantrum throwing selfishness, that I wanted to hurl the book across the room.
Re: Guided Democracy Throwaway Line
Garrett’s we’ll change it all when we get in became a central meme of the rest of the campaign.
Abbott’s guided democracy sinks without a trace.
Is it just that explaining what Guided Democracy means would take more than 15 seconds and hence explode the attention span of the typical audience ? Should rate a query from Tony Jones query at some stage though.
Re: Gillard Press Conference
The do you still love Kevvie soap opera is a problem of the ALP’s own making. If you knife the boss four weeks before an election then have a leak war during the actual campaign, well full marks for being blockheads.
But, yes, I watched the interview and the 1% question rate on the actual policy was tedious in the extreme with the Latham (and Keating/Hawke !!)gear being objectively irrelevant. As JG said let me know when Abbott/Fraser/Nelson/Howard/Hewson are having a dinner party together. She should have added Costello/Peacock.
The double standard from the media is inexcusable.
It was Lady Margaret Pole who was reaxed. /off topic
Fantastic post PC. Lets hope the journos who read LP take some note.
Nickws @ 105,
I don’t want to get into an extended debate over the attitude of the Catholic community in Australia towards the various parties in the Spanish civil War.At best its a very murky debate, and the nature of the contending sides has probably been most clearly elucidated by Beaver’s magisterial study, recently revised after, I think, time in the Russian archives. However, Robin Gollan in his 1975 study Reformists and Revolutionaries, if I remember rightly, makes quite clear Santamaria’s role in the conservative Catholic pro-Franco movement in Australia. Since I read a library copy, I don’t have the book on my shelves to quote chapter and verse, and I recognise the scholarship on Australian attitudes and involvement with the Spanish Civil War is quite sparse. (Unless there’s some recent writing I’ve missed, which is quite possible as I haven’t studied Australia in the 1930s in depth for quite some time and haven’t kept up with it, though at one stage it was one of my specialities.)
Reference to Beaver is about the situation in Spain, not Oz. Apologies for the sloppy writing.
Yes, throwaway lines are for the privacy of a certified unbugged WC, not in front of journalists and foreign dignatories.
It’s not a “lovable” trait it’s a sign of complete unfitness for any public office, let alone an aspirant to the highest political office in the country.
Who’s going to tell “lovable” Smuggles anything at all when he could be throwing it about God knows where, when or to whom. Makes sense of sending a staffer to national security briefings.
Paul, did Robin Gollan ever review Santa’s memoirs written in the eighties and revised, considerably, in the nineties?
Santamaria’s mid nineties autobiography makes it clear the man believed in a kind of dialectical, anti-capitalistic view of history. Maybe that is compatible with what the civilised GK Chesterton Catholic Right types were saying in the early part of last century, but I don’t think that genuine fascists or near-fascists would come anywhere near such crypto-Marxianism. They were all obsessed with will to power and stuff. Economics was secondary to blood as far as they were concerned.
And since when did Gollan claim to be an historian of non-Left factions or parties? IMO his ’75 book is all about trying to fuse the pre-split (Sino Soviet, that is) CPA and it’s fellow travellers with the intellectual mainstream of the ALP Left. (Interesting that the resident CPA expert on this site apparently has never referenced any of Gollan’s work. I take that as a sign Gollan failed in his project.)
BTW, when I read ‘Revolutionaries and Reformers’ I found it a badly aged work. Even ignoring my take on that book (a strangely anachronistic popular history that reads like it was published during the Evatt era, not the year Whitlam was thrown out of office) and the fact the Groupers et al only make a fleeting appearance in it, there are newer, more rigorous sources to rely on for this subject.
Ross Fitzgerald’s book is a genuine contemporary, 21st century work about the DLP supremo.
(Yes, Santamaria was objectively pro-nationalist during the thirties—right at the exact time he became a disciple/employee of Mannix. Dr Mannix endorsed these views of young BA, IIRC. Nobody who is sane argues the archbishop was a fascist.)