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!
The first question is always cui bono? The second question is what’s really going on?
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
The news that Senator X and Wilkie are now lodging an official complaint about Ch9’s anti-pokie tax footy commentary had me going to my bookshelf and pulling out my tatty copy of “Labor To Power, Australia’s 1972 Election” edited by Henry Mayer (one of my favorites!!) Lots of interesting stuff but my favorite chapter is the one titled “Two editorials and a modest gift: Sir Frank Packer and the election” (p.198). For those who haven’t read it it recounts how at 7pm Wed. Nov.15th 1972 Ch.9 Syd. And Melb. broadcast totally unannounced a three and a half minute editorial written by David McNicoll and read by the news director. It began “ It will not take the solid middle-of –the-road voter long to work out which policy – Mr Whitlam’s or Mr McMahon’s – is the best for Australia and best for him(??). Mr Whitlam’s speech sounded like the marijuana dreams in a utopian Disneyland where wars and threats and strikes were unknown and where man could prosper in happiness without working or worrying…”
The editorial concluded “ Mr Whitlam offered a utopia to be paid for by punitively soaking the only source of money available to governments – the taxpayer, and in particular the middle-income taxpayer. Mr McMahon with a record of two tax reductions in two years behind him, offered a realistic programme of achievable and dramatic progress, allied with a continuation of defence and an implacable opposition to those who seek to disrupt law and order and who wish to impede Australia’s onward march to greatness”.
The Labor Party complained and the chairman of the Broadcasting Control Board agreed that the ALP were entitled to a right of reply although it sounds as if only “the spirit” of of what laws existed had been breached. CH9 broadcast another editorial on Nov.22 but no ALP replies were ever broadcast. What goes comes around if you just wait long enough.
I’m not sure if this counts as spin, but it’s certainly a strange way of boosting one’s Dad, kind of creepy and sad.
Helen @ 2: that link gets the famous Peugeot page —
“404, Page Not Found”
2, 3. About 4 hours ago Caroline Overington tweeted thusly:
No details were forthcoming about what was wrong about the aforementioned story.
The Oz got a story wrong? Wow. That’s news …
No, Fran. That’s News. Heh heh.
Fox News confronts an #occupywallstreet protester and gets a taste of what speaking truth to power sounds like.
For some reason, the interview never went to air. Gosh … it must have been a concern over the accuracy of the claims made — too much of it. This is the Murdochratic definition of “free speech”.
Great link Fran- poor old Fox news guy just happened to interview someone who was ready and equipped to speak (which is probably not what he expected).
That is a great i/v Fran. Not too surprising that it never got aired, on fauxnews. We (lefities) need more people who CAN speak truth to power. I would be next to useless. I get too passionate and angry, I raise my voice etc. Would not be acceptable in public, am sure.
Greg Sheridan is a dangerous mind? Well, I spose so.
Greg Sheridan was so comprehensively out of his depth it was embarrassing, particularly as he was sitting next to the wonderful Mona Eltahawy.
Chris Mitchell’s editoral in The Australian today about “muzzling critics” has jumped the shark (again). Bizarre.
Apparently News Ltd is not going to appeal the Bolt case on “free speech” grounds. How about an apology then?
As I said elsewhere I reckon News Limited are building up to an apology. An apology from the plantiffs that is.
(Otherwise, expect to see an official apology printed in the middle of the paper in the smallest print possible somewhere.)
I’m mildly fascinated by the argument going on between Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu and just about everyone about racism in the world cup. I’m not sure if racism is the right word, but I agree with him that there’s a huge bias against the second tier teams in the tournament, and a long history of negativity towards Pacific Island rugby. I also think his willingness to speak plainly is hilarious for the spivs at the union boards.
Apparently also The Times in London has published a huge picture of the offending mouthguards of the Tuilagi brothers, thus guaranteeing the company that broke IRB rules a huge amount of free advertising. And the SMH isn’t able to report “officially” from the world cup because of the weird conditions the RWC board put on their presence there.
Professionalism may have improved rugby immeasurably, but money certainly still manages to spoil things.
@14
“(Otherwise, expect to see an official apology printed in the middle of the paper in the smallest print possible somewhere.)”
Not only have they not done that, apparently there’s a full paid ad from disgruntled right w(h)ingers supporting Bolt’s right to act like an offensive tool. This is spin of extra-ordinary magnitude.
As much as I disagree with their views I have to suppport their right to free speech.
We on the left do this sort of thing all the time don’t we?
Or do we have to stop donating to GetUp, Greenpeace or Amnesty International in order to achieve parity?
It’s fine for them to do it, tssk, but it’s also OK for us to point out how dishonest they’re being.
Friggin’ hell tssk, what’s free speech when it’s controlled by corporate media interests?
You should have seen the value of free speech on that video posted on another thread where a demonstrator calmly and eloquently told a Fox News reporter what free speech really meant in the land of the free.
Free speech is great in theory, but in practice that’s all it is – a theory to be rolled out conveniently when the interests of those that control it may be threatened.
At least we got a bit of free speech in the last Q&A. Normal service will be resumed next week though.
I loved that link adrian. Proves the point though. We all have free speech.
At the moment some of us have louder speech
Interesting story from Sociological images and Aluation, describing how a WSC report on the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations and arrests was subtly changed -in fact, only the first line of the story was changed, but it resulted in blameshifting from the police force to the demonstrators. (Cui bono? Follow the links and read on.)
[WSJ]
Greg Sheridan has a mind? Who knew?
@16, I don’t think “offensive tool” is an act. That is his personality. lol
This isn’t exactly spin but, the SMH has gone bat crazy over the death of Steve Jobs. A condolence book FFS. It’ll be interesting to see whether they have one when Mandela pushes off.Or Gates for that matter.
Voluntary tax gets an airing at Catallaxy Files. Surely I’m not the only one who sees the parallel with political donations.
@PatrickB, news with nipples points out the absurdity of both news.com.au and smh.com.au setting up *liveblog* pages for their coverage of Steve Jobs’ death.
Spotlight the Spin??
Absolutey EVERYTHING the news media says about Libya. We shouldn’t need a spotlight. Surely Blind Freddie can see that bombing the crap out of a country, rejecting about a 100 calls for a ceasefire since May, and clearing a body-strewn path for a bunch of gun-toting jihadists and CIA ‘assets’ to take possession of the country does not a democracy make.
But the news media keeps on telling us night after night after night that this is the best thing that has ever happened to Libya. For most Libyans now, the price of staying alive is to accept a return to pre-Gaddafi poverty and pre-Gaddafi subjugation of women. But, hey, every 4 years or so, they’ll be able to vote (men only, of course) for the US-backed neoliberal of their choice.
I hear that the QLD LNP are up in arms about Anna Bligh’s “We are Queenslanders” speech from January. Apparently some teachers wanted to include it in support materials for the Year 7 English syllabus.
I read it. I can see why the LNP was objecting. You don’t want to put ideas like that into the heads of children in Year 7. It was a clear attempt to toy with the impressionable minds of young kids with red ragger propaganda.
Drat. That social|st Bligh almost got away with it, only to be foiled at the last minute by the LNP. You just can’t put anything past “Can’t Do Campbell”.