Larvatus Prodeo

Crikey’s editorial today (reproduced over the fold with permission) picked up on the political significance of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard’s critical remarks about the conduct of News Limited papers in publishing the concocted email at the centre of the Utegate affair (and its subsequent implosion from an opposition point of view). While Media Watch did a top notch job of examining the ethical issues arising from this publication, Rudd and Gillard haven’t suddenly put on hats as media critics in some academic sense. Crikey correctly observes that it’s a recognition that the “power of the press” to shape political outcomes has become a paper tiger, though that should have been obvious from the complete lack of any discernible electoral impact of campaigns such as that of The Australian in favour of Howard in 2007, and of the Courier-Mail against Anna Bligh in this year’s Queensland election. Nor would Rudd and Gillard’s comments have been spontaneous musings – when such coordinated and complimentary comments are made, you can be 100% certain that a particular political strategy has been decided upon.

There might be a residual sense in the minds of some media players that political coverage plays a “Fourth Estate” role. But the reality is that the excesses of the media now extend to brazen partisanship and a desire to be active political players. That this desire should be completely out of alignment with public opinion should come as no news to News. And it’s right and appropriate that there be accountability for its pathologies when they’re particularly prominent. If you live by the sword, and all that…

In other news: John Hartigan responds, and takes a swipe at new media for good measure.

Continue reading ‘Rudd and Gillard attack News Limited, Hartigan punches back’