Regular LP commenter, Mr Denmore, is contributing a series of posts about shifts in the media and journospheres in the context of this year’s federal election. Mr Denmore has extensive professional experience in the media, and we trust you will find his perspective valuable and informative. This is the third in the series.
If you want an indication of how insular political journalism has become in Australia, keep a track of how many times you see one journalist interviewing another. Whether it is Barrie Cassidy with Paul Kelly on ‘Insiders’ or Michelle Grattan with Fran Kelly on Radio National or Peter Hartcher with Leigh Sales on ‘Lateline’, things are clearly cosy in Canberra.
Formerly, what constituted political ‘analysis’ was the stuff that didn’t fit into the bare bones structures of straight news reporting out of the capital. But now, there is no such thing as straight. And the analysis IS the news. It is someone’s version of reality, usually fashioned from passing, anonymous remarks in the political corridors, pubs and cafes of Canberra.
What any editor wants out of politics is the appearance of a contest – even if it is an illusion – because the fear is that otherwise no-one might watch. So it is reported as a virtual sporting contest, with the key question being who is winning the tactical battle this year/this month/this week/today/this hour.
It should be clear by now that tactics and strategy are more important than policy; the latter requiring too much explaining that might confuse the audience. In any case, the guts of it can be gleaned fairly easy by talking to a political operative. Trouble is these operatives view everything from a positioning sense. It’s marketing. And because that’s how the spinners see the world, that’s how the political journalists see it too. They are slaves to it.
The outcome of this insularity is the construction of an alternative reality that the public is led to believe constitutes ‘politics’ in Australia. This reality is about scoring points in a manufactured conflict framed around the needs of the nightly television news. The public is asked to care about who won today – Pepsi or Coke?
Reality, of course, is much more complex. Consequently, it’s harder to report. It involves getting out of the office and talking to people. It involves something more than crunching the numbers in the latest Newspoll to see who’s winning this week. It involves asking what is actually going on out there.
But the journos really don’t know. They are too busy interviewing each other.
Bloggers and those that comment on blogs also seem more interested in the competition than the policy. Politics remains very tribal in all spheres. I wish policy mattered more.
Bloggers and those that comment on blogs also seem more interested in the competition than the policy. Politics remains very tribal in all spheres. I wish policy mattered more.
The aphorism that we get the politician’s that we deserve probably also applies to journalists. We keep reading the columns as if they are fact and allow journalists to get away with opinions unsupported by analysis.
So called gotcha journalism is what passes for reporting these days. If journalists did their job thoroughly then there would be little need for the sort of advertising campaign that the Government has just launched in respect of the RSPT. Journalism has been over-run by the PR and Spin-doctoring juggernaut.
Once upon a time the ABC used to recruit the best and brightest from the universities. They seem to have changed this policy. Also, the ABC is now becoming more like the commercial channels in pitching their tune to that of the lowest common denominator or to some populist sentiment.
Journalism has debased itself by reducing everything to some sort of sporting contest or warfare between opposing forces. As in any war, truth becomes the first casualty.
The aphorism that we get the politician’s that we deserve probably also applies to journalists. We keep reading the columns as if they are fact and allow journalists to get away with opinions unsupported by analysis.
So called gotcha journalism is what passes for reporting these days. If journalists did their job thoroughly then there would be little need for the sort of advertising campaign that the Government has just launched in respect of the RSPT. Journalism has been over-run by the PR and Spin-doctoring juggernaut.
Once upon a time the ABC used to recruit the best and brightest from the universities. They seem to have changed this policy. Also, the ABC is now becoming more like the commercial channels in pitching their tune to that of the lowest common denominator or to some populist sentiment.
Journalism has debased itself by reducing everything to some sort of sporting contest or warfare between opposing forces. As in any war, truth becomes the first casualty.
Politicians will never change so long as their incentives are thus. They will be tribal so long as party determines electoral success more than personal performance. They will be popularist so long as elections are used to appoint them. We really ought to have on of the two houses filled using the more representative but less popularist means of sortition. I say sortition for the upper house.
Politicians will never change so long as their incentives are thus. They will be tribal so long as party determines electoral success more than personal performance. They will be popularist so long as elections are used to appoint them. We really ought to have on of the two houses filled using the more representative but less popularist means of sortition. I say sortition for the upper house.
Mr Denmore I have enjoyed posts II and III but I missed post I, can you provide a link to it.
IMHO, one of the last good analysts is Kenneth Davidson who left full time employment at The Age last year. He is still writing about the future costs of Victorian Water policy for Melbourne households.
I also like Ross Gittins whose analysis seems sensible and meshes with my own world view.
To a casual observer the daily News each night looks like the next instalment of a soapy like Neighbours.
Mr Denmore I have enjoyed posts II and III but I missed post I, can you provide a link to it.
IMHO, one of the last good analysts is Kenneth Davidson who left full time employment at The Age last year. He is still writing about the future costs of Victorian Water policy for Melbourne households.
I also like Ross Gittins whose analysis seems sensible and meshes with my own world view.
To a casual observer the daily News each night looks like the next instalment of a soapy like Neighbours.
It’s funny, the old world of journalism as seen even through the lens of comics must look really odd now.
Back in the old days Spiderman and Superman could get away with their double lives because it was expected that most of the time journo’s would actually leave the office.
If Spiderman and Superman were redone using today’s current journo standard Clark Kent and Peter Parker would be getting grilled by their editors for spending too much time on the loo rather than at their desk copy-pasting wire services and analysing their own opinions.
It’s funny, the old world of journalism as seen even through the lens of comics must look really odd now.
Back in the old days Spiderman and Superman could get away with their double lives because it was expected that most of the time journo’s would actually leave the office.
If Spiderman and Superman were redone using today’s current journo standard Clark Kent and Peter Parker would be getting grilled by their editors for spending too much time on the loo rather than at their desk copy-pasting wire services and analysing their own opinions.
tssk,
I imagine Superman would be be fingered by Tony Abbott’s red arrows for being an illegal alien from Krypton. Peter Parker would be outed by Channel Seven as a cross-dresser.
billie @4, the first of these series is here
tssk,
I imagine Superman would be be fingered by Tony Abbott’s red arrows for being an illegal alien from Krypton. Peter Parker would be outed by Channel Seven as a cross-dresser.
billie @4, the first of these series is here
TerjeP@3 Sortition could prove workable at the pre-selection stage of the political process but is no longer practicable at the election stage because of the shear numbers who would be eligible to stand.
TerjeP@3 Sortition could prove workable at the pre-selection stage of the political process but is no longer practicable at the election stage because of the shear numbers who would be eligible to stand.
Tosca – large numbers are not a problem. Say there are just under one million candidates that nominate and only 76 senate spots to fill. Each would get a unique six digit number and the full list would be published. Then on a given day there would be a public event to draw balls marked with digits from a barrel. As each digit is determined the ball goes back in the barrel so there are always 10 digits in play. We draw balls publicly like this already to decide the order in which candidates appear on ballots so the mechanism isn’t new. We would need to draw six balls for each of the 76 senate spots. Although I’d replace one senator ever month so they would each sit for about six years.
Tosca – large numbers are not a problem. Say there are just under one million candidates that nominate and only 76 senate spots to fill. Each would get a unique six digit number and the full list would be published. Then on a given day there would be a public event to draw balls marked with digits from a barrel. As each digit is determined the ball goes back in the barrel so there are always 10 digits in play. We draw balls publicly like this already to decide the order in which candidates appear on ballots so the mechanism isn’t new. We would need to draw six balls for each of the 76 senate spots. Although I’d replace one senator ever month so they would each sit for about six years.
p.s. There are several mechanism to cull unmotivated candidates. A modest fee. A requirement to collect a number of nominations. A requirement to attend a basic training course that outlines the responsibilities of a senator. Some combination of the above.
p.s. There are several mechanism to cull unmotivated candidates. A modest fee. A requirement to collect a number of nominations. A requirement to attend a basic training course that outlines the responsibilities of a senator. Some combination of the above.
p.p.s. Sortition can be thought of as a gigantic form of jury duty with better pay. Instead of judging criminal cases the jury would in this case judge legislation.
p.p.s. Sortition can be thought of as a gigantic form of jury duty with better pay. Instead of judging criminal cases the jury would in this case judge legislation.
TerjeP,
I’m not sure what’s worse. A bunch of uninformed fools choosing who runs the country, or a bunch of uninformed fools running the country themselves.
TerjeP,
I’m not sure what’s worse. A bunch of uninformed fools choosing who runs the country, or a bunch of uninformed fools running the country themselves.
Can I just point out that the discussion Terje has initiated on this post appears to be off topic? Please do Mr Denmore the courtesy of discussing the issues he has raised, and take any extraneous conversation to the Saturday Salon open thread.
Can I just point out that the discussion Terje has initiated on this post appears to be off topic? Please do Mr Denmore the courtesy of discussing the issues he has raised, and take any extraneous conversation to the Saturday Salon open thread.
Sorry Mark.
Sorry Mark.
One point I meant to make in the post above in respect to journalists interviewing each other about politics is that it is clearly in the interests of the participants to play up the significance of the daily noise in Canberra because their jobs depend upon it.
It’s like the police talking up the threat of violent crime. The answer is always more policemen.
One point I meant to make in the post above in respect to journalists interviewing each other about politics is that it is clearly in the interests of the participants to play up the significance of the daily noise in Canberra because their jobs depend upon it.
It’s like the police talking up the threat of violent crime. The answer is always more policemen.
The way things are going records of newspapers, TV and radio are going to be absolutely useless to future historians. (One should alway treat news copy with caution anyway. Its a sad satate of affairs that if you really want to know what’s going on with our politicians the best thing you can do is wait for the archives to open in thirty years time.
The way things are going records of newspapers, TV and radio are going to be absolutely useless to future historians. (One should alway treat news copy with caution anyway. Its a sad satate of affairs that if you really want to know what’s going on with our politicians the best thing you can do is wait for the archives to open in thirty years time.
It would be great if Terje P only wrote when he had something meaningful to say. That is not the case with his contributions here.
It would be great if Terje P only wrote when he had something meaningful to say. That is not the case with his contributions here.
I have long suspected the ABC to be using media-monitor services, to “go fishing” for news of a certain slant.
During the later years of the Howard reign the ABC had an uncanny knack for getting Beazley-bashing comments from obscure Labor backbenchers, in obscure places. All of which was fuel to the ‘Beazley not fit to lead’ meme.
You can see this heightened scrutiny of all things Labor almost in real-time on Insiders. Things said by Ministers only minutes ago, on other TV networks, are added forthwith to the “discussion”.
I have long suspected the ABC to be using media-monitor services, to “go fishing” for news of a certain slant.
During the later years of the Howard reign the ABC had an uncanny knack for getting Beazley-bashing comments from obscure Labor backbenchers, in obscure places. All of which was fuel to the ‘Beazley not fit to lead’ meme.
You can see this heightened scrutiny of all things Labor almost in real-time on Insiders. Things said by Ministers only minutes ago, on other TV networks, are added forthwith to the “discussion”.
Lol, Mr Denmore @6. I couldn’t agree more.
Lol, Mr Denmore @6. I couldn’t agree more.
it is clearly in the interests of the participants to play up the significance of the daily noise in Canberra because their jobs depend upon it
And not just the significance of the supposed contest, but the gravitas of the participants. You get this a lot from people like Paul “The Duchess” Kelly, the notion that at heart politicians are statemanlike worthies striving for a better world, because, if they are in fact just a pack of spivs and chancers, there’d be no reflected glory in writing books about them.
it is clearly in the interests of the participants to play up the significance of the daily noise in Canberra because their jobs depend upon it
And not just the significance of the supposed contest, but the gravitas of the participants. You get this a lot from people like Paul “The Duchess” Kelly, the notion that at heart politicians are statemanlike worthies striving for a better world, because, if they are in fact just a pack of spivs and chancers, there’d be no reflected glory in writing books about them.
“It would be great if Terje P only wrote when he had something meaningful to say. That is not the case with his contributions here.”
A criterion by which your own contribution would fail.
“It would be great if Terje P only wrote when he had something meaningful to say. That is not the case with his contributions here.”
A criterion by which your own contribution would fail.
@16 and @20 – Discussion of moderation decisions is also contrary to the comments policy *and* off topic.
@16 and @20 – Discussion of moderation decisions is also contrary to the comments policy *and* off topic.
I’ve always thought the title ‘Insiders’ gave the game away. It’s a name full of hubris and arrogance. Shouldn’t they be ‘Outsiders’, determinedly staying out of the game?
You’ll often find the best political television coming from independent documentary makers, trying to negotiate working both inside and outside the political game, usually with few resources. Occasionally, the broadcasters will then purchase the doco for a fraction of its production cost.
I’ve always thought the title ‘Insiders’ gave the game away. It’s a name full of hubris and arrogance. Shouldn’t they be ‘Outsiders’, determinedly staying out of the game?
You’ll often find the best political television coming from independent documentary makers, trying to negotiate working both inside and outside the political game, usually with few resources. Occasionally, the broadcasters will then purchase the doco for a fraction of its production cost.
The increase in the “insider” inward-looking chit-chat is also a reflection of the increasing number of platforms for political commentary at a time of reducing resources. It is so often just too easy for the guest-booking producers on these shows to call in the usual suspects.
I can see what they’re attempting to do. It’s supposed to be about putting the audience outside Canberra on a barstool alongside the “insiders” listening to their expert observations of the back and forth. But this supposes that the “insiders” have got better judgement about what’s going on than the people who don’t pay much attention to the daily flim flam.
If anything it’s around the other way. But the media restricts its reporting of the perception of politics from the world OUTSIDE Canberra purely in terms of opinion polls and the occasional condescending and token set-up piece where a “typical” family, sitting in its lounge room, gives its opinion of the budget.
Personally, I think the media needs to start thinking less about ‘politics’ as something that happens within the confines of parliament house in Canberra and focus instead on how the country itself is thinking and changing. But that requires money and resources. And they don’t have much of that.
The increase in the “insider” inward-looking chit-chat is also a reflection of the increasing number of platforms for political commentary at a time of reducing resources. It is so often just too easy for the guest-booking producers on these shows to call in the usual suspects.
I can see what they’re attempting to do. It’s supposed to be about putting the audience outside Canberra on a barstool alongside the “insiders” listening to their expert observations of the back and forth. But this supposes that the “insiders” have got better judgement about what’s going on than the people who don’t pay much attention to the daily flim flam.
If anything it’s around the other way. But the media restricts its reporting of the perception of politics from the world OUTSIDE Canberra purely in terms of opinion polls and the occasional condescending and token set-up piece where a “typical” family, sitting in its lounge room, gives its opinion of the budget.
Personally, I think the media needs to start thinking less about ‘politics’ as something that happens within the confines of parliament house in Canberra and focus instead on how the country itself is thinking and changing. But that requires money and resources. And they don’t have much of that.
I wonder a little whether the poor state of journalism that Mr Denmore highlights in his post is just another symptom of the hyper-partisan political process initiated by New Gingrich (among others – neither side has clean hands but I think Gingrichs style epitomises the movement).
It now seems almost impossible to interpret any major event without some decision about which side your tribe should be on. When you see the reporting about Obama and the gulf oil spill (which strikes me as in and of itself not necessarily party political) or Bush and Katrina, the sheer idiocy of everybody lining up either side of the room to point fingers while people die and habitats are destroyed is nonsensical. Yet our journalists, wanting to fill the 15 minutes between google news refreshes with “fresh takes” throw in commentary from all sorts of partisan windbags in an attempt to create news out of thin air. I mean, who the hell cares what Karl Rove says about “Obamas Katrina” or that Bush hates black people and let N’awlins sink.
There must be some way to stop this pointless circle jerk – I remember one travelling comedian coming to Australia and commenting that we only have 5 celebrities – it seems like much of the time we only have 3 active journalists and they spend most of their time talking to each other or letting the incoherent ravings of un-journalists like Andrew Bolt retch up their bile.
So, which came first? The politics of absolute opposition or the descent of journalism? Or are they twirling each other in an unedifying waltz while the rest of us wonder who pissed in the punch bowl?
I wonder a little whether the poor state of journalism that Mr Denmore highlights in his post is just another symptom of the hyper-partisan political process initiated by New Gingrich (among others – neither side has clean hands but I think Gingrichs style epitomises the movement).
It now seems almost impossible to interpret any major event without some decision about which side your tribe should be on. When you see the reporting about Obama and the gulf oil spill (which strikes me as in and of itself not necessarily party political) or Bush and Katrina, the sheer idiocy of everybody lining up either side of the room to point fingers while people die and habitats are destroyed is nonsensical. Yet our journalists, wanting to fill the 15 minutes between google news refreshes with “fresh takes” throw in commentary from all sorts of partisan windbags in an attempt to create news out of thin air. I mean, who the hell cares what Karl Rove says about “Obamas Katrina” or that Bush hates black people and let N’awlins sink.
There must be some way to stop this pointless circle jerk – I remember one travelling comedian coming to Australia and commenting that we only have 5 celebrities – it seems like much of the time we only have 3 active journalists and they spend most of their time talking to each other or letting the incoherent ravings of un-journalists like Andrew Bolt retch up their bile.
So, which came first? The politics of absolute opposition or the descent of journalism? Or are they twirling each other in an unedifying waltz while the rest of us wonder who pissed in the punch bowl?
UT, precisely what I was thinking. Flag-waving has now become a media institution, and it’s difficult for any political tragic to avoid. The ‘Canberra peanut gallery’ has long been a truism anyway (particularly if you speak to anyone from outside a capital city); well-meaning chatterfests like Insiders and a lot of Twitter aren’t having as much effect as perhaps we imagine.
But in answer to your question, I believe it was the politics of absolute opposition, stemming from the problem of differentiation between the major parties, which goes back practically to the formation of the Liberal Party itself. A party which defines itself on being not the ALP was surely going to run to absolute opposition at some time. But the ALP have had the same problem, particularly in their last stint in opposition; the difference being no Sarah Palin or Tony Abbott. When that happens, the circle of damnation will be complete.
UT, precisely what I was thinking. Flag-waving has now become a media institution, and it’s difficult for any political tragic to avoid. The ‘Canberra peanut gallery’ has long been a truism anyway (particularly if you speak to anyone from outside a capital city); well-meaning chatterfests like Insiders and a lot of Twitter aren’t having as much effect as perhaps we imagine.
But in answer to your question, I believe it was the politics of absolute opposition, stemming from the problem of differentiation between the major parties, which goes back practically to the formation of the Liberal Party itself. A party which defines itself on being not the ALP was surely going to run to absolute opposition at some time. But the ALP have had the same problem, particularly in their last stint in opposition; the difference being no Sarah Palin or Tony Abbott. When that happens, the circle of damnation will be complete.
A case in point being Julie Bishop’s ridiculously clumsy attempt last week to point-score over the expulsion of the Israeli “diplomat”.
There is a production line of these confected controversies that keep the Canberra media occupied for a day or so chasing up where everyone stands on something that no-one else cares about.
A rule of thumb is the bigger the noise, the less significant it is. And this will get worse in the coming two or three months as we get closer to the election.
I sometimes wonder whether we need to supplement ‘Earth Hour’ with ‘Media Silence Day’ when everyone ignores their facebook and twitter accounts, turns off their radio and television and leaves the newspapers on the front door step.
Chances are we will all wake up the next day and feel better about things.
A case in point being Julie Bishop’s ridiculously clumsy attempt last week to point-score over the expulsion of the Israeli “diplomat”.
There is a production line of these confected controversies that keep the Canberra media occupied for a day or so chasing up where everyone stands on something that no-one else cares about.
A rule of thumb is the bigger the noise, the less significant it is. And this will get worse in the coming two or three months as we get closer to the election.
I sometimes wonder whether we need to supplement ‘Earth Hour’ with ‘Media Silence Day’ when everyone ignores their facebook and twitter accounts, turns off their radio and television and leaves the newspapers on the front door step.
Chances are we will all wake up the next day and feel better about things.
Mr Denmore wrote:
That’s every day at my house lately. I used to buy the Saturday paper to catch up a little on the news, but the big wordy pieces in the middle of the SMH are now useless for detailed analysis. The Australian has been useless as a source of news most of my adult life. I think I’m at the point where I am just overwhelmed with information, the vast majority of which is completely useless partisan commentary.
I need some kind of filter, like google news, that has a list of hack journos, ex-political talking heads and corrupted media outlets and automatically ditches stories from those sources – a clean feed that was (say) moderated by a user driven rating system, so that consistently stupid reportage was voted down to oblivion.
Mr Denmore wrote:
That’s every day at my house lately. I used to buy the Saturday paper to catch up a little on the news, but the big wordy pieces in the middle of the SMH are now useless for detailed analysis. The Australian has been useless as a source of news most of my adult life. I think I’m at the point where I am just overwhelmed with information, the vast majority of which is completely useless partisan commentary.
I need some kind of filter, like google news, that has a list of hack journos, ex-political talking heads and corrupted media outlets and automatically ditches stories from those sources – a clean feed that was (say) moderated by a user driven rating system, so that consistently stupid reportage was voted down to oblivion.