I’ve read a lot of posts over the past couple of weeks in which friends have reflected on 2014. For most of them it has been a pretty shitty year.
I feel somewhat guilty and very humble because the year has been good to me, particularly professionally.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in recent years it’s to be thankful for the good things in life.
And so I’d like to acknowledge 2014 as a good year, and recognise the people who made it that way. This is me, giving thanks for 2014…
If Mark Scott is able to maintain the ABC’s support through its digital presence over the next two years, while successfully laying blame for the closure of regional offices and rural programs at the Coalition’s feet, pro-ABC policies could be a deciding factor in the election, particularly among Australia’s highly contested rural electorates.
Weekly column for The Hoopla (3 free reads each month).
We don’t have to go any further than the ubiquitous fluro vest for confirmation that image is as important to Tony Abbott’s election prospects as it is to Julia Gillard’s. The Opposition Leader’s man-of-the-people persona is as strategically fabricated as Julia Gillard’s portrayal of the strong, compassionate protector.
On Monday night, in the first instalment of Lateline’s feature on political image, we saw how Labor is crafting an image for the Prime Minister that says: I am strong, I understand your needs and I will fight for you.
The Opposition’s response has been to twist that perceived strength into self-centred ruthlessness and subvert any nascent respect for Julia Gillard with doubts about her competency.
In the second instalment shown last night, Labor strategist John Utting and the Coalition’s Mark Textor put their respective spin on how voters perceive the other prime ministerial contender, Tony Abbott.
A successful opposition leader needs to be what the prime minister is not, and to demonstrate superiority in those points of differentiation. John Howard did so by styling himself as a man of the common people in contrast to PM Keating who was depicted as aloof from the broader community. Kevin Rudd similarly made ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and scrapping WorkChoices his points of divergence from PM Howard.
And so we see the Coalition carefully crafting Tony Abbott’s image to portray him as distinctly different from Julia Gillard’s Commander-in-Chief: he’s being pitched as an everyman, one of us, just another Joe who holds no airs or graces and understands the problems and concerns of the everyday voter.
This is what the endless shopfloor walks, truck drives, fish fillets and assembly-line inspections are all about. This tactic has particular resonance in western Sydney, the “crucible of modern Australia” according to Labor’s John Utting.
As political blogger Preston Towers recently wrote in a post about western Sydney, Abbott’s blokey demeanour is well received in those circles. According to Towers, Abbott is perceived as:
“…part Vladimir Putin, part Bollywood star and part tradie. Indeed, some people might well believe that Abbott used to be a tradie in a former life, he wears headwear and safety vests so much. Tradies play well amongst many in Western Sydney, because they are the lifeblood of the region… The strategy of having [Abbott] doing things, being physical, being an Alpha Male, does have resonance amongst those in the West who do similar things, or look up to people who do those things.”
Mark Textor confirmed as much last night, saying: “You need to demonstrate you are in touch with the community. The community volunteers on Clean Up Australia Day and the community goes out there and volunteers with the Nippers and the Surf Lifesavers. Tony has a history in always participating in those events even before he was Opposition Leader…”
Interestingly, Labor has not attempted to dismantle Abbott’s everyman construct, which could be said to be his strength. Instead, they’ve chosen to exploit Abbott’s weak spots: his perceived ‘woman problem’ and religious conservatism.
I wrote yesterday in the companion to this piece that our voting choice is significantly influenced by the images our political leaders project. We base our judgments about a politician’s suitability, trustworthiness or competency not only on what they say, but how they say it, how they behave, what they’re wearing (or not wearing), where they visit and who they’re with.
As a result, some voters are apprehensive about Tony Abbott and the extent to which his conservative Catholicism influences his decisions. They’re troubled by his swagger and the archaic prism through which he views women and gender issues more broadly. And they’re worried that Abbott’s emulation of Howard will extend to the reintroduction of WorkChoices.
John Utting explains it thus: “lots of women, especially younger women, are quite uncomfortable with what they perceive as [Abbott’s] white bread 1950s style social conservatism.”
The Coalition’s tactic to counter these concerns has been to stage media opportunities featuring Tony Abbott’s wife, daughters and gay sister, all of whom have heartily testified to the Opposition Leader’s late but genuine transformation into a new age guy.
While the strategy has been met with scorn from Labor voters, it is not aimed at changing the minds of those already decided against Tony Abbott. It is intended to allay the concerns of those who’ve not yet chosen which way they will vote.
Although Mark Textor was unwilling to confirm it last night, the high-profile presence of Tony Abbott’s traditional nuclear family is also a strong point of differentiation being made with the unmarried, childless Julia Gillard. This tactic is aimed at strengthening the Coalition’s base vote.
Perhaps the most telling attempt to influence voter perceptions of Tony Abbott is the recent entreaty that he “has changed”. Mark Textor says this is not necessarily a strategy to shape Tony Abbott’s image, but is more self-evident: “I think it’s the truth. We all grow.”
But on several recent occasions, Tony Abbott has effectively sought permission from voters to be able to “grow into” the prime ministership, as he did when he became health minister and, as Mark Textor mentioned last night, John Howard did when he became prime minister. This is an interesting new dimension to the construct that is Tony Abbott’s political image. It suggests there may be voter concerns the Opposition Leader is not ready, or equipped to sit in the big chair. Or it simply may be a tactic to assist the Opposition Leader’s transition from Dr No to the alternative prime minister.
Over the past two nights Labor’s John Utting and the Coalition’s Mark Textor have lifted the lid on the myriad perceptions, assumptions and biases that shape our voting decisions. They also set the scene for the real federal election battle that is yet to come.
According to the images being crafted for our political leaders, we are being given the choice between a strong, compassionate protector and an evolving man-of-the-people. Alternatively, we must choose between a ruthless incompetent and an anachronistic misogynist. Despite knowing that we are being manipulated by image-crafters like Textor and Utting into making this decision, the choice on polling day will not be any easier.
You can watch Suzanne Smith’s report – Opposition Leader’s Image – on the Lateline website.
This post first appeared at ABC’s The Drum.
Image: it’s politics’ dirty little secret. Despite protestations that our voting decisions are driven by parties’ policies, the truth is our choice is significantly influenced by the image our political leaders project.
We don’t like to admit we’re that superficial, that we could choose a government on the colour of a man’s tie or the timbre of a woman’s voice, but this is the political reality being managed, if not manipulated, by political strategists.
I’ve written before that Twitter has become an unexpected school of politics, providing a unique forum for people with less knowledge of our civic processes to learn from those with more. When those discussions are taking place, Twitter is vibrant and all-embracing democracy at its best.
Well, Wednesday night was NOT one of those times.
Over a particular 24 hour period Twitter demonstrated just how aggressively puerile it can be. And in spitting their dummies in ever-lengthening arcs, partisan tweeps missed the point altogether.
The event in question was the long-awaited interview by 730’s Leigh Sales of the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott.
The interview was long-awaited for two reasons: it had literally been quite some time since Sales had last interviewed Abbott. The Leader of the Opposition’s team had clearly been keeping him away from “hard” political interviews, choosing instead to conduct photo-opportunities with limited questions from the media, stand up press conferences from which he could stride away when the questions become unwanted and set-piece speeches and events like the recent community forum with its hand-picked audience.
The other reason the interview was long-anticipated was that on the previous occasion Abbott had been interviewed by Sales, he’d been ill-prepared and she’d made the most of it. Abbott’s poor performance that night was the main reason he’d been kept away from hard interviews ever since.
But Wednesday afternoon, Sales tweeted as she often does at that time of day to announce her interview guest would be Tony Abbott. Twitter went aflutter. The Press Gallery must have too, with Age columnist Tony Wright writing this breathless preview.
From then until the program went to air, Sales was bombarded with tweets giving gratuitous advice on what questions she should ask.
Others opined that Sales should just “do her job” which was variously interpreted as being everything from not saying anything to interrupting or … not interrupting.
When the time came, I chose to watch Twitter instead of the interview (mostly because I don’t watch tv news and current affairs, but also because I knew I could time-shift it later).
Conspiracies began to fly, principally that Abbott’s mistakes would be edited out by the ABC and/or that Sales’ questions would have been provided to Abbott before the interview. (No similar criticism was made when Sales’ recent interview with the Prime Minister was also pre-recorded.)
The Twitter meltdown was spectacular and lasted well into the evening, as well as the next day.
Having already pruned my tweetstream of most offensive tweeps I did not see the worst of it. Sales gave us a glimpse the next day.
An interesting contribution was made by Peter Clarke over at Australians for Honest Politics. As a former broadcaster and an educator, Clarke provided a critique of Sales and suggested what she should have done during the interview. He produced a similar critique for Sales’ interview of the PM. (I look forward to future analyses of Tony Jones, Emma Alberici and Barrie Cassidy’s interviewing prowess or lack thereof.)
The critique of Sales’ Abbott interview was diminished considerably by the conspiratorial allusions that followed:
Has Sales personally or the 730 program generally lost their knack to scrutinize the man (and woman) competing for the prime ministership? If so, what veiled process has brought us to this? What has happened to Sales’ previous admirable abilities to forge and ask, in context, sharp, forensic, confronting questions on our behalf? And to deploy the right tone and weight of personality and to be flexible with those choices on the run?
Where was the clear evidence of a pre-planned strategy for this interview from Sales and her team? If they had one, it went to water early on.
In short, what is actually happening behind the scenes at 730 to leech this program of its effectiveness just when we need it most to do its fourth estate job effectively without fear or favour?
While it’s fair to ponder the extent to which the ABC might pull its punches to stay onside with an incoming government, there was little evidence of this occurring in the Abbott interview (yes I have watched it). Sales was well-prepared and took Abbott up on most of his rebuttals, even though she has toned down the interviewus interruptus style that so annoyed viewers during the previous interview with the Prime Minister.
Peter Clarke criticises Sales for not pressing Abbott on several occasions when opportunities presented themselves. But with this being a pre-recorded interview and likely edited down to 13 minutes from a longer version, it’s quite possible Sales did pursue several lines of questioning. If Abbott was ultimately able to evade these questions there would have been no point leaving his manoeuvring in the final cut, particularly with so many topics vying for air time.
Even though there was no gotcha moment similar to that which brought on Abbott’s gaffe last year, Sales did elicit some interesting and newsworthy pieces of information:
- Abbott refused to put firm timing on business tax cuts and the paid parental leave scheme
- He continued to move away from promising a surplus and spoke instead about a “pathway to returning to surplus”
- He claimed the Coalition had to find much less than $70 billion in savings
- He attempted to portray commitments being made by Gillard, which dont have to be fulfilled until after the election, as ‘booby-traps’.
Most interesting was Abbott’s concession about needing to “grow into” the role of PM, as he once grew into the role of health minister. This suggests Coalition market research is finding voters think Abbott might not be PM material.
Meanwhile a heretofore unknown blogger [to me], Anthony Bieniack, made this illuminating observation in his post “Repeat after me: Leigh Sales is not the problem”:
There’s a lot of theories as to why to Tony Abbott is doing so well – with varying degrees of merit – the one I personally believe is that the ALP have a particularly bad communications team, good policies are not being heard and bad news is reverberating, but I think it goes deeper than that. I think it’s us.
It’s Twitter, its Facebook, it’s slacktivism – and it’s killing us, because while us Twitter-loving commies are sitting around patting each other on the back and pretending we’re valiantly fighting a tory threat – our opponents are recruiting and growing. While we’re writing obscure blog posts about percentages of GDP and preference-sharing and telling each other how clever we are – our opponents are telling a plumber that Julia lied to us and Abbott is our saviour.
We aren’t fighting anything – we’re preaching to the choir and wasting time doing it.
We’ve become lazy, we’ve got faith in the failed logic that policy is all that matters and that Leigh Sales will eventually be our hero – she’s not our hero, she’s not our saviour and that isn’t her job – it’s ours.
Stop Tweeting, stop blogging, stop retelling the same anti-Abbott stories to people who have already made up there mind. Simplify your message and tell it to the people who don’t care much for politics. Tell your hairdresser, tell the guy next to you on the tram. Listen to people and find out why they’re not on your side and have a succinct response. Join a political party, get some flyers, spread the word and stop blaming the media.
After all, if your friends have more faith in the Herald Sun then they have in you – you have the credibility problem.
If Abbott wins it won’t be because the ABC didn’t harass him about his education policy – it will be because when people were deciding who to vote for, we were telling each other how funny we were on Twitter.
Here’s my latest at AusVotes 2013…
Modern journalism is impoverished by the anachronistic need to be first.
Once upon a time, in the pre-internet days of the mechanical printing press and morning edition newspapers, there was real value in getting a story first. A scoop, leak or exclusive wasn’t just about journalistic cachet, it was about cold hard cash. Being first meant selling more newspapers than your competitors, by having a story they didn’t have until their next editions rolled off the presses.
As a result journalistic merit was, and often still is, measured by being first instead of best. Walkley awards have been handed out for scoops that resulted not from investigative journalism but journalists being strategically chosen by political players to be the recipient of leaked information.
This journalistic mind-set has not adapted to the digital age of instantaneity. While someone can still get a buzz from being the first to tweet an important piece of information, there is no monetary value that can be extracted from this primacy. [An increased Klout score resulting from 20,000 retweets doesn’t qualify.]
The redundant need to be first is mistakenly still equated with ‘winning’ and it sits at the heart of what is wrong with modern journalism. It drives journalists to publish half-baked stories and poorly-verifiedinformation. It encourages the substitution of analysis with opinion. In short it rewards shoddy journalism.
Click here to keep reading…
The most significant thing that emerged from the mea culpas and post mortems that littered the coup-that-wasn’t battlefield was the notion that journalists are willing to be made patsys.
What other explanation can there be for the role the media played in the Rudd camp’s most recent premature leadership tourney?
Seasoned journalists proved yet again their willingness to publicly be made to look fools in return for being able to participate in private leadership maneuverings.
Click here to read more…
You might recall I said in my rant about the #AshbyInquiryNow campaign that:
“there is much that is just plain wrong in the Slipper/Ashby saga: the Coalition turned a blind eye for many years to Slipper’s suspected abuse of entitlements; the Government chose him as Speaker despite similar knowledge; Ashby deceived and manipulated, giving little mind to the potential personal cost on others; and Brough has not yet been called to account for his involvement in Ashby’s scheme.”
Many comments followed the post, here and on Twitter, and there has been a genuine attempt to identify ways to address the latter points.
While we might disagree on some things, Margo Kingston and I do agree that the Federal Court’s judgement raises matters for which Ashby and Brough must provide explanations. While the procurement and provision of Slipper’s diary might attract legal charges, it seems unlikely that any will arise from the abuse of court processes that was identified by Justice Rares.
Margo has already challenged the Sunshine Coast Daily to tackle Brough on his involvement with Ashby’s complaint.
But where is Ashby? Is his announced appeal against Rares’ findings actually a strategy to deflect media attention until some other political drama arises? Or is the media avoiding him anyway, in the same fashion they avoided anything other than scant coverage of the Federal Court judgement?
I’ve said I’d support actions that have substance and deal with known rather than suspected protagonists. In response Margo suggested I join her in challenging journalists to find the elusive Mr Ashby and get some answers.
And so I have. Consider it the inaugural D&M Newshound Challenge.
There’s plenty that we need to know, and only one person who can tell us. Why did Ashby accept a job in December 2011 with Slipper when he was already uncomfortable with texts he’d received from the then Deputy Speaker as early as October? Why did he not use other avenues of complaint/redress rather than going straight to courts? Why turn to Brough after describing him in considerably negative terms to Slipper? Who’s paying his legal bills? And was he encouraged to turn against Slipper in January 2012 and for what incentive?
So that’s the challenge. Find Ashby and find some facts. We’d love to read, hear or watch reports from fourth and fifth estate journalists on their strategies and progress in meeting this challenge. Surely there’s someone among Australia’s many talented investigative journalists, professional and amateur, who can succeed.