Who do we congratulate on the ability of Mr Norris of the Commonwealth bank on achieving his increase to $16 million salary, besides the board of CBA, the Labor party and their de facto partners, the Liberal/National parties? This seems such a wonderful achievement of their remarkable campaign, considering the condition of the economy and the fact that so many workers are struggling to make ends meet and many have been delegated to the status of paupers. This partnership does seem to work well on many things, doesn't it, it's a pity that it isn't used to regain the prosperous economy we used to have, isn't it, but that's what modern politics is, isn't it, no integrity, no allegiance to their country, just plain bastardry?

This is an odd article. It is either riddled with bitter sarcasm, or written entirely tongue-in-cheek.

I still can't decide which is the more likely.

The only certainty (I hope) is that it cannot possibly be serious.

"The 1972 campaign and the 2010 campaign were peculiar for their Australian-ness. It would have been very difficult to observe them from a distance and to be confident of knowing exactly what was going on."

'Scuse me? What is "Australian" about not knowing, from a distance, what is going on? Is the author suggesting that elections in Italy, for example, are an open book to Australians? Or does their perennial opacity somehow make them peculiar for their Italian-ness?

"Global instruments such as Twitter played a role but... it would have been difficult for a follower in say, Charlotte North Carolina, or Belgrade Serbia, to get a real fix on what was going on."

Errr, what role did Twitter play, exactly? And what would the Twitterverse tell a follower in, say, Camden, about elections in Belgrade?

Fatuous.

But here's the giveaway:

"There was no hint of elite-ism or snobbery from candidates not any attempt to elevate the campaign above discussion of budgie smugglers, sausage sizzles and rangas. The peculiarly local was what made the campaign so exciting."

No-one who lived through one drab and predictable day after another could possibly describe the campaign as "exciting". In which case, the previous sentence can only be satirical.

Or deeply cynical.

"The 2010 campaign was therefore remarkable for its balance between seriousness of policy delivery by the government and the opposition and the flippancy and humour of many of the candidates - all of it reported by the news media."

Serious policy? Where?

In a campaign where the incumbents saw fit to produce a manifesto only days before the election itself, "serious policy" is a descriptor that completely misses the mark.

Or perhaps, simply encapsulates the "Australian-ness" of it all.

Appalling article, appalling campaign.
The media were blatantly self-serving and seemed to take great pains to avoid any semblance of journalism.

Didn't think the media coverage of the election was all that different from its coverage of any other election campaign. It is true that the media often does not say what those in the political space want it to say, but that may be a good thing. The aim of any publication or program is to have people read/listen/watch them, and to communicate to those media consumers at large, not to please those in the political space with endless "serious" stories on politics..

It was far too superficial. Journalists are still excited about new technology. That is why Malcolm Farr of the Australian liked making little videos posted online about Abbott's laugh and others made news article videos on Gillard's way of saying "Mr Rabbitt".

You had to look real hard for any real in-depth commentary on the competing policies of both sides. There was a lack of analysis on everything. If the media could not see a $11 billion hole in the Coalition's costings then what exactly were the economic reporters in the media looking at?

The politicians could get away with having about 7 or 8 broad policies because all the media wanted to ask them about was 1) What do you think of Mark Latham? 2) Where are you going next and can I come? and 3) Julia, how exactly did you knife Kevin? tell us, tell us, it sounds exciting!

Why would anyone read a "limited" News Limited newspaper, just who does any more, maybe for sport results? They are nothing but extreme right wing propaganda, you know what will be written before you turn a page. If James Joyce or Tokyo Rose were alive today they would sue for plagiarism! And with Sky news interviewing "limited" News Limited commentariat you get the same. Even the insiders have "limited" News Limited commentariat, its all just a waste of oxygen. When will Australia get a John Stewart Daily show or Colbert report so we can have comedians report current events with far more trust than the so called journalist. The Fairfax press, the ABC and SBS News, Q and A and 7.30 report are the only source of real news and current affairs left in the country! Bring on the comedians to Deal with the Mad Monks puppet masters the faceless right wing Liberal party media sponsors!