The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Mandate to change Canberra Press Gallery > Comments

Mandate to change Canberra Press Gallery : Comments

By Brian Arnell, published 25/10/2007

The election of a new government with a mandate for change would give the Canberra Press Gallery an unprecedented opportunity to reform itself.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Kind of true Brian and kind of not.

As a former media stalker of Gallery journos on the red carpet, I can see your argument. Some journos are simply better than others. Probably need to keep in mind that they have to file something as that's their job. So they're always on the lookout for new angles.

If it's a low tide news day they'll have a shot at the Democrats or the Greens. Such is life.

You'd probably know that there are opinion leaders in the Gallery and other reporters watch what they do. Lewis, Gratten, Oates are a few. They can be agenda setters and in fact, I have a personal theory that Howard hasn't done much wrong, it's simply a fact that the media king makers turned against him late last year.

There is a pack mentality up there which doesn't always make for good, balanced journalism - but that's part of being a journo. I'd rather have a pack of 'dogs' snapping at the heels of lying pollies, than have them fawning at their feet.

You're right that they do have a privileged place being 'in Parliament' but they can also be victims of human foibles such as group think, spin, ego stroking or simply writing for each other.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 25 October 2007 9:56:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are talking about the mixture of fact and opinion which is common in political reporting. I guess it only matters because we suspect that some members of the electorate are so gullible that they don't realise that what they take as fact is actually opinion.
Two solutions exist. Firsly - beef up the relevant component in media studies courses at schools and universities so that students will be mroe sensitive to it. Given the left of centre bias of many teachers and academics, this may be a complicated matter.
Secondly - extend the labelling of political 'stories' with the word OPINION if any opinion is expressed or even hinted.
As the author knows, Canberra is a goldfish bowl. Journalists are usually expected to file a story every day. If someone picks their nose it is news. But does the rest of Australia care?
Posted by analyst, Thursday, 25 October 2007 10:35:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
what a pompous little man you are, Brian - you complain about a number of sporting analogies that political reporters around the world use! Such analogies make politics interesting and accessible for us "regular folk" not so fortunate as to have been in the gallery or Labor stooges like you
Posted by pondering, Thursday, 25 October 2007 10:41:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must admit, as I was reading the critique, I did think "what the hell?" when he complained about the sporting analogy.

Analogies are handy. Get over it. The author may feel that there needs to be weighty consideration given to every political tidbit, but that's the kind of ivory tower crap that tends to exclude everyday folk from being involved - a point made by another poster.

There's really not much analysis here, rather than some pretty petty swipes at journalists. It really reads as being a tad juvenile.
Sure, Shanahan loves pollwatching and is a little infatuated with Howard. Then again, Phillip Adams hates Howard's guts, so it balances out in the end.

Except when Piers Akerman is involved. If you really want to critique some unbalanced work, start with that festering heap of bloated Rudd-loathing.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 25 October 2007 1:09:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is on the money. The press gallery, because of its proximity to those it reports on and its minute attention span, is more concerned about day-to-day tactics than the real issues.

For the vast majority of people, how Rudd or Howard fared in the daily game of political chess is irrelevant, which is why most people pay little or no attention to the gallery's scribblings.

The gallery also neglects to provide context, as the author points out in the shallow reporting of the McCelland capital punishment story. Where DO both major parties stand on capital punishment? This is what the media is for.
Posted by Mr Denmore, Thursday, 25 October 2007 2:00:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The media in this country is doing the community a great disservice. It has reported uncritically on the alternative PM. It has excused his moral lapses. It excuses his blatant errors. It hides his deceiptfulness. It is the supporter of one person for PM and it hunts as a pack.

What are they going to be like when they finally get their man across the line?

They will carry on in the same vein as they have during this election. They will report uncritically just like they do currently in the failling states. Unfortunately they will be at a loss as they won't have anyone left to blame. Oh for a year or so they will blame the former Government but that won't curry much favour with their readers and viewers as things plunge into absolute chaos as the Labor Federal Government implements and endorses policies it didn't present at the election and turns into a do nothing organisation as is the track record of all current state labor governments.

I'm going sailing to seek some tranquility and you can all suffer the looming dysfunction without me.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 25 October 2007 7:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
good solution keith- i am often inclined to just say the hell with it myself. you're one of the reasons..

ozzies cannot seem to grasp that public affairs are none of their business. not that they don't try to pretend they are grown-ups: like every adolescent they are filled with opinions and share them whenever they can. but they don't grasp, or are unwilling to admit, that they have no actual role in managing australia.

politics in australia is a guild craft practised by about 1000 people. nobody not in parliament has any official role in directing the nation. australia is an oligarchy, masquerading as a monarchy pretending to be a democracy. because of thought-control propaganda built in to oz culture, no one seems to notice that a society calling itself 'democratic' has no popular input to national policy, much less control. orwell coined 'doublethink' and 'newspeak' to describe this phenomenon.

so in future, would you please stop saying 'soandso must do this'? unless of course you can also explain how you are going to compel them..

pollies, and journos, will go on going what they think best to further their careers. this will include lieing to you, selling out the nation to special interests, and not giving any thought to long term planning for the nation. they discovered long ago this maximizes their profit.

mate, find out what democracy really means and force yourself to say: "we ain't got it". only then can you make any sense of public affairs.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 25 October 2007 8:25:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Demos

It is your attitude that is truely sad. Here's why.

I regularly contribute to media by way of article and letters. I have made many approaches to government agencies and politicians to change laws and regulations that have had adverse effect on myself and others. I have cordial relations with many politicians on all sides and have found most all to be decent people trying their very best. Rudd is one of a very few, in my opinion, I have found to have a deeply flawed character. I lived in Griffith for many years and moved only this year.

I have had some small successful influence on changing some things that are fairly mundane but which can have dramatic effects on some peoples lives. I haven't had the need to seek publicity at all and have not indulged our flawed media in any of my little 'campaigns'. Indeed their presence would probably have limited the actions I eventually elicited from the 'lawmakers'.
I once for a brief period joined a political party. In hindsight it was an error as I found the operation of such so constricting and domineering it just didn't suit my 'can do' personality.

So my point is I haven't gone about launching attacks on the governmental system, nor the people in the system but I have attacked the 'third estate' for not being a 'third estate'. I think you've justifiably done that too. But I have also operated on what others see as the verges or as I prefer to think the very heart of our system in an endeavour to make some changes. That's the aspect that appears to be missing from your understanding and has lead to a lack in input that would in all likelihood have moderated your tirade against us and our imperfect system.

'Let me just say this', from my view your criticism is at times very much a self-criticism.

Kindest commiserations Keith.

ps can you please quote where I have said "'soandso must do this'"?
Posted by keith, Friday, 26 October 2007 7:22:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bulldust keith. It's all well and good to moan and say the media haven't put Rudd up to much scrutiny, but quite frankly, I think that's crap.

Those on the far left point to The Australian, Murdoch and Alan Jones, and say we have a conservative, unreasonable media.
Those on the far right point to the ABC and The Age and say it's all a Liberal media conspiracy.

As far as Rudd goes, go visit the Herald Sun's website and read the apocalyptic rantings of Piers Akerman. 99 per cent of his articles are along the lines of 'Rudd's an evil dictator who will murder your family' or something along those lines.
Albrechtsen, Bolt et al, all hammer him. There was the striptease fiasco in new york, the brian burker sage, there was the false dawn service and there were numerous others.

The media is going with what people are interested in, and the public aren't responding to the negative aspects of Rudd.
He received a bounce after the stripper issue in New York.

You can claim it's about the media representation all you like, but that's just shooting the messenger, and quite frankly, it's the copout answer every arts undergraduate loves to spout.
The truth is, the public really seem to dislike Howard, so they're not listening to the attacks on Rudd any more.
Plus, Rudd is doing his damnedest to minimise any negative exposure. This too has been commented upon, but the public isn't interested.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 26 October 2007 8:56:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't stop there, TRTL. At the Australian alone there's Frank DeVine, Caroline Overington, and Malcolm Colless who, since joining the paper, has produced a steady stream of columns critically dissecting Rudd.

Then there's the occasional writers who all get their share of ink: business reps who have an investment in Liberal power, government politicians, conservative uni lecturers, and the various right-wing "think tanks" which exist to provide de facto campaign material under the guise of balanced research.

Rudd gets as much scrutiny and vilification as Howard. The difference is that Howard has had eleven years to demonstrate his callousness and greed. After a decade of Labor government Rudd will get pulled up on his past performance, too.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 26 October 2007 10:33:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my life experience there are three genders, male/female and journalists. So I just can't see the need for these parasites ( press gallery) when more and more people are turning to the internet for information on matters that concern them from a variety of sources.

Just look at the internet I can get my e- mails and find out what is happening in other countries live without commercials, so listerning to the opinions of a bunch of fossils in Canberra seems like a waste of my time that could been used to run my business.
Posted by Yindin, Friday, 26 October 2007 10:34:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who thinks the media in this country at present are not overwhelmingly biased in favour of Kevin Rudd is living in a fantasy world.

There are a few classic examples of the bias.

1. Did Theresa Rein's alleged mistreatment of her workers receive the same critical treatment as the alleged mistreatment by John Howard's brother of his workers?

2. The media did not mention that at Brian Burke's infamous dinner in Perth the majority of attendees were W.A. Union heavyweights, including MacDonald; however they did highlight the attendance of 'Businessmen'. They never pressed Rudd when in not one of his 'explanations' he ever mentioned the attendance of his union masters. I'd go so far to say he was deliberately avoiding that becoming general public knowledge. One wonders why the media didn't pursue that aspect. Would any coalition politician have been given such leeway from scrutiny?

3. Would any coalition leader or any coalition politician have received the same uncritical treatment if they had been found pissed at a lap dancing club while representing this country overseas?

4. The debate overwhelmingly was awarded by the media to Rudd. I watched pay TV and the all the media reps discussing the debate claimed John Howard won ... but no-one dissented when Glen Milne said Rudd won on presentation but Howard won on substance. That was largely ignored and an obvious pack mentality was on display.
A viewer’s survey rated Rudd at 48, a draw 2, and Howard the winner at 50. That was consistent over two days but receive no attention and the media continued in it's claims Rudd had won.

5.Everytime Rudd has made an obvious blooper or suffered some sort of public humiliation the media consistently try to 'balance' such events with vaguely similar events during Howard's campaign. (eg. Rudd's specific dressing down by the pensioner in Tasmanian is attempted to be 'balanced' by the foul mouthed general abuse Howard from a passer-by.) The reverse is not always the case. (Eg. Remember Howard slipping on those steps... headlines galore.)
Posted by keith, Saturday, 27 October 2007 1:43:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
6.The way the polls are reported are continually slanted to present Rudd as on the ascendency even when there are numerical reverses that have show the coalition gaining. In such cases his positives are highlighted in reports rather than the coalition positives.

7. Just listen to the difference in styles applied to interviews with Liberal and National politicians to the styles applied to Labour and Greens politicians. If you can't see bias you are blind and deaf.

The bias it is much more widespread than the eight journalists mentioned, who btw consistently write balanced articles. It is constant in just about every media item or article being present to the voters in this country.

Rudd is getting a free run and the country will pay if he's elected. Just as it paid under Whitlam and Keating. Will they never learn?

And all this without swearing or denigrating other contributors
Posted by keith, Saturday, 27 October 2007 1:44:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Basically,

1. Rein defused the situation by relinquishing the company. In contrast, Howard bailed his brother's company out while refusing to do the same for any others, then insisted that there was nothing untoward about it.

2. The Coalition gets constant "leeway from scrutiny". If the media reported on all the Coalition's meetings with businessmen, fundraisers, smurfed donations and de facto campaigns by ostensibly non-partisan groups, we'd need a seperate daily newspaper to cover it all.

3. Probably not, because Rudd said he regretted it, it wasn't appropriate, and the club owner said Rudd had turned and walked out almost as soon as he arrived. Case closed.

If it had been a Coalition minister, he would have first denied it, then said it was appropriate under the circumstances, then gone in for savage personal attacks on anyone who mentioned it.
Posted by Sancho, Saturday, 27 October 2007 3:17:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
4. So, you're saying that commentators selected by a multinational television corporation, including a Packer journalist who has shamelessly barracked for Howard for 11 years, were the final word on the debate, but the plurality of other journalists and the Australian public got it wrong?

5. No surprise at all. Rudd's new on the scene, so each gaffe seems like a momentary lapse. Howard's got a huge backlog of them which portrays a man who is ageing and losing control, which is true.

6. More to the point, why is it that when the Coalition cracks a points gain which doesn't even exceed the stated margin for error on the poll, we get a week's worth of front page news claiming the Coalition is resurgent and Labor is doomed?

7. I agree. It's much easier to ask current goverment ministers why we should believe them now, when they've got a decade-long history of deceit and scurrilous opportunism behind them, than it is to take a potential government to task over things it hasn't had a chance to do yet.
Posted by Sancho, Saturday, 27 October 2007 3:19:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blogging about journalists' faults is interesting and useful. Outside of the Press Council and ABC Media Watch it is also about the only way we consumers have of influencing 'the game' to choose a 'brissendom'.
To illustrate the point has any OLO reader ever got anywhere criticising a journalist by a letter to the editor of his/her publication? I certainly have not and as a former scribe I often find plenty to fault.
Perhaps if the press gallery folk were prepared to concede their occasional failure in print/on air it would redress the balance. For example I would love to know why Brissendom and his two fellow 'conspirators' agreed poste haste to Costello's second thoughts on his 'on-the-record' restaurant getogether. I have seen the pack mentality in action and it ain't pretty.
Posted by jup, Sunday, 28 October 2007 12:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho

I think you've just proved my point.

Btw...interest rates are about to rise...or so the biased media proclaim daily... but have you looked to see on who's opinions the gulible idiots base that claim.

Yep you got it... economists...bank employed economists. And the banks wouldn't want to see a rates rise... now would thay?

Just how silly have people become?
Posted by keith, Sunday, 28 October 2007 1:51:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well keith, we're agreed on one thing - people are getting silly.

Everything you say has been soft-on-Rudd reporting, has been reported in a pretty straightforward manner, or in many cases, has been criticised.
You neglect to mention in the stripper affair, that certain journalists also came out with unsubstantiated claims Rudd had harassed the dancers.

The fact of the matter is, the public just didn't bite. I suspect it's more of an issue of disliking Howard than any real affection for Rudd, though I think your impression that it's all the media's fault is the typical view of people who don't like the way the wind is blowing. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of blaming the media, though I tend to view that as a copout.
I'm not saying we have fantastic media in this country, quite frankly we don't have the population to sustain sufficient outlets and there is a dearth of proper ownership and competition.
Though I reject your assertions they're being kind to Rudd.

You keep shooting the media as the messenger. It's the public who aren't biting, though I suppose it's harder to blame them.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 29 October 2007 11:10:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy