AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Due to the election campaign, the final edition of my 'hedonism and happiness' series will appear at a later date.
*****
One of the most troubling developments of the 2010 election campaign has been the trend to turn political reporting into a tool for entertaining the public rather than informing them.
This was behind 60 Minutes' decision to employ Mark Latham. It was the ultimate 'Footy Show' take on the election: the ex-player acting the goose.
However, the same approach is creeping across the mainstream media. Like cheerleaders at the football, everyone from the ABC's 'colour' writer Annabel Crabb to the satirical sneer of Channel 7's Mark Riley seeks to add some 'razzle dazzle' to campaign. Even at the major dailies gossip columnists are being co-opted to spice up (read trivialize) the coverage. Quite literally the politicians are now mere backdrops to the musings of the real stars.
We are being very poorly served by the media during this campaign.
Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at New York university and a guest last week on ABC's Lateline, has a theory why.
It's not just about commercial priorities. (otherwise why is the ABC doing it too?)
A major problem, says Rosen, is "horse race journalism' that focuses exclusively on the 'sport' of politics.
The journalists are being pitched as 'insiders' who can explain the strategy and tactics of the political players.
"Horse race journalism is a reusable model for how to do campaign coverage in which you focus on who’s going to win rather than what the country needs to settle by electing a prime minister," he says.
Rosen paints an alternative model of what responsible journalism should look like:
"An alternative model might start with ‘What do the people of Australia want this campaign to be about? What are the issues they want to see the candidates discussing?’ And then to ask each day, ‘Well how did we do on advancing the discussion of the citizens’ agenda today?’ Was it ignored? Was it addressed? Was it demagogued? Was it slighted?"
With Rosen's analysis in mind, one bright spot has been the maturing of the ABC Q&A. Last week's twinning of a documentary on population by Dick Smith with the usual audience questions fired at a panel was particularly informative. Whatever you think of Dick's thesis here was an in-depth discussion of a very complicated issue close to most Australian's hearts.
As Christians, do we have anything to say about the role of the media?
We are meant to care about good government, and the media is crucial part of the health of a democratic system. So perhaps next time you pray “about the world”, spare a few words for the fourth estate.
Fred Nile criticises Anglican Media Sydney
In general, I believe the non-partisan Christian media does a good job of focussing on policy rather than personalities. We rarely worry about the ‘horse race’.
In this light, I was surprised by Christian Democrat Leader Fred Nile’s explicit criticisms of the pre-election editorial in the August edition of Southern Cross.
Now Julia Gillard wants to win the Christian vote, despite of her professed atheism and her role in ‘Emily’s List’ and the Fabians, etc.I have been amazed and very disappointed at her sympathetic treatment by important Christian organisations such as the Australian Christian Lobby and the Sydney Anglican Diocese’s Southern Cross Magazine, etc.
The leader of the ACL, Jim Wallace has produced a very soft supportive video (Click here) interview with Julia Gillard for the Churches.
The Southern Cross sought to allay fears of Anglicans by saying Julia Gillard, if elected, will only be one member of the Federal Cabinet. They reveal a great deal of ignorance about the real workings of politics.
The Prime Minister has tremendous influence over the decisions of Cabinet. Sometimes the PM announces the policy and then has the Cabinet member rubber stamp it. The PM also has an important influence over who becomes a member of Cabinet Minister. If a Cabinet Minister frequently opposes the PM, they do not last very long.
The Southern Cross editorial was carefully worded to raise important issues without directing readers how to vote. It would be highly inappropriate for the official publication of the Diocese of Sydney to direct church members to vote against Labor (or against the Liberals), in my view.
Nevertheless I also remain unconvinced by the substance on Mr Nile’s comments about the internal workings of a Labor Government. Our editorial was far from naive.
It is clear from Kevin Rudd’s demise that Prime Ministers are equally responsible to their party room and their cabinet colleagues. If they don’t listen to their colleagues their support will wane.
But more importantly Nile’s comments fails to take into account Labor’s internal structure. As wikipedia explains:
The Labor Party holds a National Conference every three years, which consists of delegates representing the state and territory branches. It is the body which approves the party’s Platform and policies.
So for example, Labor will continue to oppose gay marriage as long as Labor’s National Conference votes against it.
What do readers think? Was the Southern Cross editorial misguided?
I am one of those, the majority I suspect, who doesn't care one way or another what Julia Gillard's personal religious views are. I don't vote directly for her, anymore than I did for Kevin Rudd or John Howard, etc. We have at least been spared the conventional attacks on Tony Abbott's Catholicism.
Ian Welch, Canberra
ABC journalists are part of the same media culture as the commercials. Some journalists, but not all, see themselves as the "Fourth Estate" and the legitimate opposition to all other community leaders. You can see the ego-thing in the constant sermons preached by some prominent ABC figures before asking a question and the flow of interruptions to interviewees trying to answer their questions.
The real failure is hysterical tabloid journalism for News Ltd, the crazy, right-wing, perpetual outrage machine that is talk back radio, and the so-appalling-it's-passe "current affairs" shows that collectively all have people wrapped up in fear of everything -- boat people invading (did you see the Media Watch before last abt the INVASION front page headline?), violent gangs roaming your streets, etc. People really believe that stuff. That's the media that's failing Australia by keeping people scared and stupid. That's the "entertainment" I'd be worried about.
I only mentioned the ABC because it demonstrates that the problem isn't merely about commercialism. Nor is the problem 'entertainment' per se. My beef is not at all with comedy shows that use news as their material, but about the serious end / aims of journalism.
As you say Gruen Nation, Colbert Report, Yes we Canberra (Chaser), 7pm Project etc etc add richness to the tapestry. We need political satire.
My problem is with trends in capital 'N' News programs across the board.
Jay Rosen particularly criticised ABC's Insider's program for perpetuating the narrative that political reporting should *primarily* focus on the strategy & tactics of the parties rather than on policy.
For many newsrooms this approach is easier. Part of the issue is the speeding up of the news cycle due to continuous news deadlines thanks 24/7 news channels and the internet.
I'm a regular viewer but missed that episode
I don't find any entertainment value in the repeated misrepresentations of the asylum seeker issue and scaremongering about an "invasion" of 'boat people'.
To take another example of propaganda, Ross Gittins has demonstrated the deliberate exaggerations in reporting of the BER by "elements in the media and others with either partisan or idealogical motives" (SMH Mon 9 Aug.)
Many thoughtful people are feeling angry and helpless.
I totally endorse Luke and Jeremy's view of News Ltd reporting, although I have to admit the 'Australian", a paper I have followed since its inception, is increasingly trending to extreme anti-Labor positions. I cancelled my subscription to that paper more than a decade ago and I have no reason to renew it.
The problem in criticising the anti-Labor reporting of the Australian is, of course, that many of the criticisms offered of the ALP will be supported by many Australian readers, myself included. The disappearance of the Sussex St cabal would be a major forward step in Australian political life and perhaps a change of government in NSW will help that much desired event.
It is equally true, as Miss Gillard has publicly admitted, that the Rudd Government of which she was a key element, was performing pretty poorly. It was not their ideas but their administrative performance. The failure not to resolve a spectacularly poor performeance over pink batts set off a much tighter media examination that stimulated the present election. The media exposure of that failure was a major gain for the Australian community.
Also, all journalists have an agenda - whether that be a political or moral or aesthetical (I mean how they report and what they report). Why else does the profession produce columnists or opinion makers or editorials. When journalists say they don't have an agenda, then that's when you they've got one you might not like.
Media Monitors has produced an objective analysis of this campaign.
Despite the stereotype that The Australian is pro-right and the Sydney Morning Herald is pro-left, this was not reflected in the slanting of their news coverage. (this doesn't include opinion pieces). Media Monitors found their reporting fairly even-handed.
In contrast the Daily Telegraph was found to be biased towards the Coalition.
Listening to PM on the way home night is a case in point...almost half an hour on where the leaders were going, who they were meeting and why, with a few 'cute' sound grabs to give some colour. Virtually nothing about what the leaders said when they got to the next 'stop'.
Mind you, this type of reporting could be because neither side has had much to say other than, 'don't vote for the other side'.
How the News Makes Us Dumb is a brilliant look at the sound-bitten wasteland of 24 hours news - worth a read.
It appears they released only 2/3rds of the results rendering it somewhat meaningless.
Can we be sure this result is weighted properly? Are they intentionally treating their readers like fools?
Now we will get columns of newsprint and minutes of airtime analysing the results of a half-complete poll. What a complete joke!
As I've been arguing we need less focus on meaningless polls and more on policy.
The Chaser did a great gotcha on this point by showing footage of the C9 journalist who asked Julia Gillard just three questions on the day of the mining tax compromise: all three were about the date of the election.
Well worth a read. Takes The Australian to task, too!
I'm surprised you thought that Karin. The interview seemed to me a rather childish exercise in exposing the obvious - that politicians aren't technically trained. Partisan too, since I doubt Gillard would be able to explain the technical detail behind the NBN either even though it's her own policy (though no doubt she'd boned up now, just in case).
Abbott should have expected questions of that nature, and to that extent the interview was an interesting "gotcha" on the conduct of the Liberal campaign; but Gillard should expect questions about the Coalition's objections to the NBN, and be asked to explain the business model behind it, what current takeup rates for ADSL 2 suggests about the market for such an expensive product, the significance of current statistics suggesting Australians prefer mobile broadband, and therefore whether fixed lines could end up being a dinosaur etc. etc.
But she won't be, of course.
Infrastructure v Parental Leave
(Infrastructure covers some very big ticket items: Broadband, transport, housing, population policy and BER. There is a big philosophical difference between the parties on whether you should go into debt to pay for infrastructure.
Likewise the parental leave policies show the philosophical difference between the parties. Labor has gone for equity in a welfare approach. The Libs for workplace entitlement... for working mums only)
I'm really not sure why the ALP has allowed the campaign to be so negative given that hurts them. As Karin rightly identified in her column this week its come down to:
Pink batts v budgie smugglers
(ie Labor competence v Tony Abbott's personality)
Listening to ABC news this afternoon the headline story came down to this which reinforces the point I've tried to make here about the vacuous reporting:
1. Parties are polling 50/50 so no one is winning the "horse race"
2. Julia Gillard says "vote for me cause I'm not Tony Abbott"
3. Tony Abbott says "vote for the Coalition because we are not Labor"
The problem for the ALP in NSW is that given the stench of the State Labor Govt, Abbott's pitch actually has far more emotional substance behind it.
I'll be back for the post-mortem next week :)
What really happened was that that Australian Electoral Commission excluded from the 2PP count the (overwhelmingly Labor) votes in Batman, Grayndler and Denison where Greens and Wilkie finished ahead of the Libs. They had already done this in Greenie Melbourne and the country indie seats.
So are Labor or Libs ahead? No one really knows. Its effectively a tie.
Basically it is so close that it has become absolutely irrelevant to what really matters: who will form Govt.