A truly bizarre editorial decision from Ben Naparstek, who occupies the chair at The Monthly, has resulted in the publication of a review of Jacqueline Kent’s biography of Julia Gillard by Christine Wallace, who is writing a rival biography of the Deputy Prime Minister for Allen & Unwin.
Wallace, in her review, describes the Kent book, The Making of Julia Gillard, as a “political quickie”. I’ve read it, and that’s fair comment, though Kent does cast a fair bit of light on aspects of Gillard’s rise through Labor ranks which are not well known, such as the effects of her long term rivalry with Lindsay Tanner and Kim Carr.
In his defence, Naparstek points to a similar review by Michelle Grattan.
However, Michelle Grattan has not written a book which is in direct commercial competition with one she is reviewing.
Naparstek also claims Wallace is best qualified to review Kent’s book – by virtue of being the author of a rival biography of Gillard. Bizarre.
There’s a fair bit of obfuscation in Naparstek’s defence of his editorial decision. Continue reading ‘Ben Naparstek, The Monthly and the Julia Gillard “biography wars”’
Do the polls support the political narrative? Or; how to build a commentariat-bot
I’ve previously highlighted Dennis Shanahan and Malcolm Colless as barometers of the new new political narrative (‘Rudd in trouble! Gloss comes off! Action Man Tony Off To Vigorous Start!’). Michelle Grattan provided another twist on the mechanics of constructing such a story on the weekend.
There’s lots, lots, more, and in fact the whole piece is something of a mind dump rather than a considered analysis. But what’s worth highlighting is the elision between “the public” (referenced anecdotally), the polls (alluded to) and “people”. The story is largely written in the passive voice beloved of such authoritative pronouncements – stuff just happens, and it’s unclear who thinks that it has, and who has been doing the doing. Who is doing the viewing of Rudd in the para I’ve excerpted? What is this destiny?
What it really adds up to is a picture of the commentariat-bot at work.
Not everyone is as artless as Alexander Downer, claiming to detect a sea-change in public opinion on the basis of random airport encounters, quickly morphed into “people think”, and “people say”, but the underlying illogic is the same. Public opinion has changed because the commentariat says it has. The absence of much hard data, or even reference to such data as exists, only serves to highlight the constructedness of the narrative.
For a corrective, one might try Possum.
Continue reading ‘Do the polls support the political narrative? Or; how to build a commentariat-bot’