Our weekly (mostly) look at media spin tactics: let’s dissect the PR and propaganda that aims to blow one’s own horn, bury one’s errors, resurrect the shambling zombie corpses of well-flogged deceased equines, and ooh look! A Big Distracting Thing!
So, what are the talking points being trotted out this week? What do they hope to distract us with? What line do they want us to buy? What have they been sitting on especially to quietly slide out during the distractions of the weekend?
Please note – this thread’s just for the analysis of media manoeuvres and their intended effects – discussion of other aspects of issues of interest belongs elsewhere. e.g. browse the archives | roundtables | open thread
Listening to ABC Newcastle where the breakfast announcer has declared that this week is going to be “all about Julia Gillard”.
Why?
Because of the “leadership crisis”, and the call for an election on the Carbon Tax, and whatever tabloid sentiment you can dream up.
Editorialising once again on my ABC.
i thought this week was going to be all about Kevin Rudd.
I thought this week was all about the US trying to get out of Afghanistan. In terms of spin, (though I tuned in late) the Rudd Gillard spat was minor, overtaken by Abbott’s demand for a plebiscite on carbon tax, I know its hard to work out sometimes if Abbott is a very clever pollie, or an opportunistic populist, but the media seems to have taken up this plebiscite thing.
Or do I just watch too much ABC Tv?
I don’t suppose that while mining companies expand their operations at a rate of knots (while they can), and wealth disparity across the globe increases at a similar rate, that our’s and the government’s focus on ‘climate change’ as the world’s biggest threat is to misprioritise our attention onto something that if in name alone is a tad abstract?
I don’t deny that climate change is real. But for ever more millions of indviduals across the world hunger and deprivation is much more real.
I heard science reporter Robin Williams talking to an eminent scientist (whose name I cannot remember) to whom Williams posed the question– did he think climate change was the biggest problem facing the world, to which the eminent scientist, answered unequivocally, no, that increasing poverty, and the alarming acceleration of wealth disparity, were the biggest moral problems the world faces.
While our attention is focused on climate change, we seem not to be noticing or paying much attention to the ground being eroded beneath our feet, sold off and the profits going to line the already luxuriously feathered nests of half a dozen companies and their executives.
Paul@3 It seems that way – I used to be a die hard ABC fan but now it seems I can go to news.com.au and get the assertions first (as ably pointed out many times recently by the purepoison lads http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/06/18/the-opposition-says-ivelostcount/ )
Link@4 I’m amused by the Lomborg consistency – first it was science denial thus do nothing, now it’s we love science but there’s other pressing things like poverty, thus do nothing. I’m sure they don’t give a rat’s arse about poverty, as demonstrated by their previous and current involvement with say NGOs that actually attempt to combat poverty. Rather it’s everything to do with their consistent line, do nothing about fossil fuel emissions.
Does anyone buy this line from ex-deniers now pro-delay when their real consistent argument (do nothing) is, at least to me, blatantly obvious?
Hark
It sems the Australian’s content is going behind a paywall very soon, as are special items in Fairfax. So all is explained. Rupert is using the ABC to get his poisonous views out to those of us too skint to buy the Oz, who won’t pay for the Oz or who are not on teh internet.
Hilarious spin from La Overington in her ‘news diary’ at the Australian:
*Usual News Ltd wording there
**LOL! Modest, ain’t they!
And Ruddy decided to have a pool party. I know which approach I prefer. But now its been called off. First time I’ve ever heard that the idea of a foreign minister and friends getting legless around a swimming pool constituted a serious challenge to a PM. Somebody is getting very very paranoid and it can’t be good for running the country.
According to Piers Ackerman on Insiders, Rupert’s mum is too old to publicly air her opinions on climate change. This was even too much for Barry and Fran!
I think I’ll send the link off to Mum – she’s a sprightly 75. As soon as she gets in from the paddock and opens up her email, she’ll go right off.
Dame Elizabeth is probably too well mannered to respond, but I know some who ain’t!
And now we have the assertion, repeated by Alison bloody Carrabine from your friggin’ ABC, that Rudd giving an interview to Peter Hartcher (in which he admitted mistakes, stated he was enjoying his present job etc etc) was an act of disloyalty and pissing off his caucus colleagues.
Is the Canberra press gallery full of lunatics?
This goes to show how out of touch I am with normal people. Rudd is interviewed. Says he isn’t going to challenge and admits to making mistakes when PM.
OMG hold the front page! According to the Sun Herald this makes him a self serving bully that needs to be sacked immediately!
So from what I can gather what the ALP needs to do to save itself from disaster is this.
-Sack Rudd.
-Tell the Greens to F*** off and let them know they’ll be last on any preference sheet.
-Hold a referendum on the carbon tax.
-Enact Liberal policy.
-Move away from the lunatic left.
In short apparently the only solution that makes sense is for the ALP to stand down. Because people like Rudd are bullies and Mr Abbott is authentic.
I give up. That’s it. Bring on an election. I’ll either vote Liberal or just abstain and maybe the media will stop bleating 24/7 that we chose the wrong government.
Seems every comment I make on a Murdoch site gets sin binned these days. I was only trying to point out that this article was a Godwin’s violation.
My giddy aunt that’s a shocker of an article you’ve linked there Helen. I think it’s fair to summarise it as Wowser=gambling addiction help=progressives=left=eugenics=NAZI aghhhhh look NAZIs and continuing NAZIs=vegitarians=The Greens=NAZIs=enfoced sterilisation and have we mentioned NAZIs yet?
Well done Greg Melleuish, associate professor in the school of history and politics at the University of Wollongong for bolstering Godwin’s Law.
I wonder. Did I get Poed as in Poe’s Law? I’m thinking even if one was to do a nutter parody on equation NAZI=anything I disapprove of, you could not beat Melleuish’s rant.
Dave I know nothing of Lomborg, but the reality is we are doing diddly squat about either problem. I’d suggest both poverty and global warming are grievous, both need to be addressed and both are tied in with each other. I believe however there is far more practical value in addressing large scale human suffering and a much better likelihood of some success than there is in the vain hope that any country is going to rein-in, in the short term, it’s economic growth for the sake of the planet which is basically what has to happen (in the short-term) for their to be any worthwhile reduction in carbon emissions.
Seems however climate cooling is of much bigger concern to those who govern us, determine our futures and for millions of people determine whether we/they get to live or die.
If you look through the topics of discussion, since the fifties, environmental sustainability is never, ever mentioned. These people do not live on planet earth they live, carefully cocooned in la la land.
Sorry, ‘global’ cooling.
The Meeuish rant seems rather like a stream of consciousness rather more than a structured argument. Greens are sympathetic to eugenics because n@zis were keen on kindness to animals? Never was a slippery slope more slippery or possessed of a steeper gradient.
@10 – I couldn’t believe what Ackerman was saying about Dame Murdoch being too old. Completely ridiculous.
Link #16
“it’s economic growth for the sake of the planet which is basically what has to happen”
That would be the economic growth that’s already using up 150% of the earth’s biological capacity, wouldn’t it?
Wow! that article on wowserism was incredible. I thoght wowsers were only against sex, drink abd gambling, back in the day. (Though I take the point that anything one migfht enjoy is definitely a “sin”. Wouldn’t be a sin otherwise.) the sweep with which wowserism has been applied to everything from eugenics to vegetarianism to live eat exportsto what ever is a case of historical generalisation gone – well, at best, wrong, at worst, mad.
calyptorhynchus – Yeah. Right. Whatever suits your purposes I s’pose. While I’d caution against making assumptions at all times, I’m assuming with a moniker like yours, you can read. Suggest you actually read what I said.
OBR said:
I could. Never get between this chap and a blow in the culture wars. As someone asked on radio later, at what point is Akerman too old to have his opinion considered?.
Or what about Akerman’s employer, who turned 80 this year? Maybe he should be forced to retire, because he is too old?
But of course, why only insult the elderly when you can take the opportunity to slag of about the disabled too: “… I think its wrong [for] people who are actually not physically able to get involved in the robust hurley burley of political issues.”
. . . and there I was thinking the Greens liked Plebicites.
with a silent s hiding in the middle.
Well OBR, the mistake that you make lies in those first 5 words…
I’ve no problem in principle with plebiscites. Of course, I would have a problem with them being cherrypicked. We’d have to have a far more literate populace, a far less dominant mass media and a proper set of protocols for working out when they were demanded.
We’ve had two elections in which the idea of a price on Co2 has been put. In 2007, both parties endorsed the principle and there was little controversy. In 2010 there was a controversy but the party associated with it was elected to govern and the party keenest on it being robustly enacted got a big swing to it. There’s no need for a further plebiscite on this now. This really is just a last gasp stunt to extend Abbott’s reach beyond the regime of July 1.
Yes, and for those of us who can walk and chew gum at the same time, these just look like yet more pallid excuses for inaction…
The inactivist mantra is so bloody predictable…
We’re not supposed to worry about the environment until global poverty is solved… right? Right.
And we’re not supposed to worry about refugees while there is a single Australian person living rough…right? Right.
And there’s no need to address equality for women and GLBTQs while Aboriginals still have it so bad…right? (or is it that were not supposed to worry about Aboriginals while there’s so much inequality faced by women? I get my inactivist priorities mixed up sometimes…)
Anyway, Link, I’m not sure you get the purpose of a ‘Spotlight The Spin’ thread. It’s to show areas where the media are distracting us from big issues that matter.
Hint: the global climate is not a “distraction”.
The whole CEO sleepout thing, which got inordinate coverage on the ABC left a very bad taste, looks like self-promotion to me. Cut your salaries by 50%, donate the remainder to charity, and then I’ll believe you are serious about adressing the causes of homelessness. Wankers.
@30, Thank you so much. That these priviledged individuals would after one night in a slightly uncomfortable but very safe situation espouse among other things their deep understanding ,not to mention their sacrifice to help the homeless really galls me also. Smacks of self promotion dressed up as charity, and given the figures from the philanthropy organisation released last week that shows that these people give sfa it is even more repugnant.
As for their abc, I do wish they would stick to reporting news rather than inventing it.
It was Quentin Dempster too, the best journo left at the ABC, he doesn’t normally waste time on non-news. This has ABC Board directive written all over it. ABC Board directors scratching a few CEO backs is my guess.
su @ 30 – Its a pretty big fund raising event – nearly 4 million dollars in one night for St Vincents which goes directly to services for homeless people. Shouldn’t really be sneered at from that point of view.
Mercurius I’m actually not convinced that endless ‘talk’ about climate change isn’t a form of distraction and an excuse for inaction. And you are completely wrong if you think I’m espousing a mantra of inaction. Simply ‘worrying’ about such things is a completely useless activity anyway.
Your effort to misrepresent me is completely wasted. I may not be right, but it’s my opinion that climate change is the one big issue designed to distract us big time. Which is not the same as saying we should do nothing. The whole phrase ‘tackling climate change’ is ridiculous, abstract and impossible. i.e, How do you catch a wave upon the sand? Protecting habitats however is something we can all do.
Link said:
Whatever you actually believe, your formulation here is from the denier/concern-troll handbook. Climate change as an issue has not been “designed” by anyone, much less for some shadowy group’s purpose. It is a real phenomenon, and resolving it in a timley and equitable way is a foundational challenge for civilisation. No other issue that humans need to act on collectively is more important.
Abstracted from the more general program of mitigatingand stabilising anthropogenic emissions and ultimately reducing atmospheric inventories of CO2e, one cannot protect any habitat or biome. They are part of an interconnected whole. These actions are not alternatives but part of something that must be done coextensively.
Remember that there are already plenty of existing threads for thrashing out the issues surrounding climate change.
This thread is just for what the media is up to.
P.S. This doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to discuss here how different perceptions of the climate change issue are presented, pandered to, played with or pontificated about by the press pundits. Just please don’t get sidetracked into going over the same old ground that we get on nearly every thread that mentions climate change in passing.
Point taken Tigtog, but let me defend my POV and then I promise I will piss off.
[SNIP off-topic content]
[you can defend your POV on a thread where this argument is more on-topic - see below and check your inbox for a copy of your content ~tt]
This view qualifies me as being some kind of troll huh? Operating from some effing handbook?
Link, I don’t want you to ‘piss off’, and I never called you a troll. I’d just like this thread to stay on-topic. Your current line of argument would fit much better on Brian’s thread on the Bonn talks, for instance.
I don’t sneer at the idea of raising money Chris, but every other news item about fundraisers that I have seen has been a) pretty short and b)heavily skewed towards showing the reason for the fundraiser. This was at least 10 minutes devoted to showing politicians and CEOs, homelessness was mentioned in passing, I found the tone nauseatingly self-congratulatory. And what Robb said about the relative proportion of fundraising sourced from the general public. Despite their huge profits, banks and the like donate relatively little. I doubt homelessness will feature in their calculations next time the CBA decides to raise interest rates above the reserve rise. How are we going with limiting the modern day piracy of CEO salaries? In the 80′s it was asset stripping, now it is salaries. Bank chiefs in Europe have just granted themselves a >1000% salary rise. Wankers and hypocrites.
su – the CEO sleepout is a still a bit novel, so not surprising it gets a bit of press. btw you won’t get an argument from me about Australia lacking a culture of philanthropy even compared to the US. Though I think in general we have a responsibility at an individual not corporate level to donate. Its kind of sad but we seem to have a belief that because here many of the services are the responsibility of the government that we don’t need to give personally or by doing so discourages the government from fulfilling their responsibilities.
Slightly shame-faced backdown from ABC TV Breakfast, very swiftly done, over their promotion of Abbott’s plebescite ob a carvon tax, after that clown had revealed he wouldn’t introduce a tax if the plebescite said ‘yes’. But not that shame-faced. Suppose it might teach them to follow the coalition/Murdoch line, but I doubt it.
I saw that backpeddling too Paul, and sadly, I’d agree with your last line. The Kudelka cartoon they showed at least twice is a beauty
http://www.kudelka.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/OZED110621.jpg
See The Failed Estate for a comment on how the spinners are winning.
http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/2011/06/empty-checkpoint.html
Mr Denmore (from your blog post)
A good rule. To which I would elaborate: if it is stating the bleeding obvious (ie the logical negation is inconceivable) or it is speculating on something that has not yet occurred, then it is not news either.
But what would be left to fill the newspaper with?
I & U @ 46 – with that sort of filter there would be hardly any political coverage at all in the news. Its extremely rare that Gillard/Abbott/Brown say anything even vaguely unexpected
I think the point is that there would still be plenty of room for political coverage that actually focuses on the issues and policies, of which there are many FFS, rather than stunts, confected outrage and speculation about nothing.
To say that if we didn’t have all this dross there would be nothing to report, is simply buying into the news as entertainment and opinion BS that the MSM is selling us at the moment.
Their ABC doing attack duties for the Coalition …
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/06/21/that-was-cathartic-now-lets-do-tony/
I finally got around to listening to the Insiders. Malcolm Farr was was on fire sticking up for Rudd in the face of non stories. really surprised me.
Adrian @48,
I agree. I was just being facetious.
Indeed, if you stripped out all of the “obvious”, think of all the “surprising” and “insightful” that might see the light of day.
I understand, for example, that Hungry Beast took as its mission avoiding the obvious and, as a result, came up with some interesting stuff.
I & U @ 51 – I see a difference between news and analysis. A lot of news reported now is not surprising (eg Bob Brown calling for stronger CO2 targets, a union call for a wage rise, business lobby group calling for lower taxes etc and so would be filtered out under the “well he would say that” filter. But I think that sort of thing still should be reported – do you really want that sort of thing just “disappeared”.
I expect a lot more filtering when it comes to analysis and opinion type programs though.
Suprised that nobody seems very concerned about the ABC’s latest exercise in balanced and serious news gathering.
It appears to have won the approval of Julie Bishop and Andrew Bolt at any rate, so the powers that be at the ABC will be pleased.
BTW, is it just me or is LP particularly quiet these days? Like half asleep?
Adrian…you should have provided the link.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/julia-gillard-first-year/
Good stuff. It’s going to save the Coalition government money in the run up to the upcoming federal election in the next two months.
They could run these as posters.
Good to see the ABC following it’s charter and being fair and balanced by representing the views of the Federal opposition and the NSW State government.
@53 – and if it had of been a glowing report with lots of lovely words then it would have been a fine piece of ABC Balanced reporting!
Talking of spin. Bob Brown has form for calling for a plebiscite but now ridicules such a call. I don’t think Nyone in the media has pulled him on.
Of course, the plebiscite Brown was calling for was one which was actually required in order for the suggested constitutional change (becoming a republic) to be validly enacted by Parliament should the polity say Yes. The plebiscite he was calling for would have been constitutionally binding, no?
There is no constitutional change required in order for Parliament to enact the carbon tax. So it’s really not at all the same sort of thing.
Actually, I’m wrong: the plebiscite proposed by Brown would not have been constitutionally binding. But at least it was asking about whether or not to change the constitution.
O(very)BR – actually, I would think the whole exercise would be an idiotic waste of time that was indicative of the barren state of ABC news values and journalistic standards, irrespective of what the response was and who was the subject.
Chris@52,
Well, it would be interesting if pollies and lobby groups had to come up with something novel and surprising before it was reported: eg “‘carbon tax will create new jobs’ say miners”.
But I don’t propose censorship. Maybe newspapers could put one page aside for the “bleeding obvious” so that the hard-of-thinking could keep up-to-date. Most readers would automatically skip that page, just like with the full page ads.
Maybe it’s not worth asking him about it because Abbot’s proposed plebiscite is so stupid.
Our ABC’s way of contributing to modern Democracy?a one word description of a politician constitutes a pseudo-election result?Abbott’s way?a cunning stunt?live cattle killing methods come to mind LOL
On reflection both clearly constitute a stunning joke!
Good to see Fairfax putting Rudd in his place.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/reborn-leader-unworkable-20110621-1gddf.html#poll
I’m with Malcom Farr on Rudd. OMG how dare Rudd answer questions from the press. How dare he undermine Julia by stating his support! If only Rudd would do the decent thing and turn on the party like Latham he could prove he wasn’t a bully!
I wonder how much more of this Rudd will take from the media before throwing it all in and giving the media the byelection they want?
Serious question. Does Australia have the worst media in the world?
Make that the developed world.
If not, why are we just about the only country still ‘debating’ the reality of climate change.
BTW the word debate is becoming one of the most debased in current usage.
And why the hell is there so much damn prejudice, fear and downright ignorance surrounding asylum seekers?
Guilt Adrian. White Australians fear getting treated like the new mob how they treated the original inhabitants.
It’s middle child syndrome writ large.
Maybe tssk, but that doesn’t explain the boneheaded ignorance fed by sections of the media.
ABC SE NSW news editor just last week described a very neccessary grant to indigenous new mums to help with mothering skills as a “handout”. Betcha if it had been a grant to middle class parents on high incomes it would not have been reported in what I consider to be a derogatory term.
The ABC has stooped to the lowest posible level in all it does and I can only hope that having scraped rock bottom it will go up. But given the management and board I very much doubt it. I might as well go to the commercials and at least know that I will be pissed off .
Someone once told me that expectation and disappointment are natural allies and I am one disappointed abc listener/viewer.
adrian @ 67 – i think the prejudice primarily comes from ignorance and fear, its fundamentally not malice which is the source of the racism. Many people who have just never really had much opportunity to be exposed to other cultures, or when they have (like Raquel from the SBS show) have simply been too afraid of the unknown.
And in those situations debate won’t get you very far – the only way to change minds is for them to have a space where they can be comfortable and they have the opportunity to make friendships with people from other cultures.
Shifting towards some purely commercial spin, simply because of the gobsmacking cynicism of the tactic used – how about this week’s Sunrise Joke of the Day manufactroversy?
They announce that the segment’s being pulled by the boss upstairs because it’s “tired”; they receive a predictable flood of outraged complaints and defences of JotD, plus lots of Twitter/facebook chatter, which they read out on air; they set up a phone poll line for folks to vote Yea/Nay for reinstatement ($tep 3 = PROFIT); when the phone poll comes back overwhelmingly positive they announce that JotD is back.
No doubt this was a PR success for them overall. *vomits*
Once again we get the all too familiar spin technique of the ABC giving the opposition air time to criticise a government initiative before it’s even been announced.
Turnbull on both ABC news and first up on AM is being allowed to set the agenda before the govt even announces the deal with Telstra.
And of course nothing from the government.
On your ABC anything the opposition says is a prime news story, particularly if it allows them to pre-empt a positive announcement from the government.
Just a heads up. The SMH in the TV guide has a critic of the Bolt Report by one of their journos.
He makes the following points and suggestions.
-It’s rating at 300,000 viewers smashing both The Insiders and Meet the Press.
-Bolt’s still a bit raw but will grow into the role.
-It provides a bit of balance against left leaning Paul B.
He goes on to say that with it’s sizable audience maybe channel ten should increase the running time to 45 mins.
Interesting to see even Fairfax taking notice.
I was going to add a snipe that maybe independent journalist Gerard Henderson might be expected to go a bit light on Bolt…but then as a leftist I would say that wouldn’t I.
See http://australianconservative.com/2011/06/the-bolt-report-consistently-attracts-larger-audiences-than-abcs-insiders-data-shows/
for the facts and figures. (Sorry, it would seem that the SMH hasn’t put the article online yet.)