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.
[quote]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.[/quote]
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?
