Verdicts on the debate in today’s papers divide neatly along organisational lines, with News Limited observers saying it was close and Fairfax giving a clear win to Rudd. The commentator who comes closest to calling it for Howard is Sid Marris: speaking with colleague Dennis Shanahan on a video at The Australian’s website, he judges that “John Howard was stronger, but Kevin Rudd didn’t suffer a loss”. Shanahan decries the “Rudd-centric” worm, and says only that the Opposition Leader “won because he didn’t lose”. Also on the video are Paul Kelly, who says Howard was “very much on top at the start but I think Rudd finished better”, and Sky News man-of-the-hour David Speers who gives the debate to Rudd “on points”. In the newspaper itself, Matthew Franklin gives Kevin Rudd a “narrow victory” in the face of a “well above par” performance by the Prime Minister. Doug Conway of the Courier-Mail calls it a draw, offering the wearily familiar assessment that “neither Mr Howard nor Mr Rudd made a disastrous blunder, nor did they land a lethal body blow on their opponent”. Only Mark Kenny of The Advertiser breaks ranks, saying Rudd “unquestionably had the better of it”, while echoing the customary caution that “the longer term political significance is unlikely to be great”.
By contrast, the headline in The Age tells us of “Rudd’s decisive win”. Michelle Grattan declares Rudd “the clear winner”, “sounding confident and convincing against an opponent whose energy flagged and temper flared”, while Tony Wright rates it “Rudd’s night on most fronts”. Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hartcher reckons Rudd the “clear winner”, and says he has “cemented his claim as frontrunner”. The assessment of the Canberra Times is that Rudd won “because he didn’t debate. He had a plan to sell and he came, he saw and he sold”. In the other non-News Limited paper available to hand, The West Australian, a report by Chris Johnson and Shane Wright talks of Rudd “clearly getting the better of the Prime Minister”. Political editor Andrew Probyn also gives it to Rudd, saying the Prime Minister was “on the back foot … over WorkChoices, climate change, leadership and interest rates”.
834 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 17 » Show All
Mr Denomore 2 188
Thanks for that. I imagine by day’s end somebody will come out with relatively concrete evidence to explain the position a bit better. The question does need to be asked though… if nine did NOT agree to show a ‘clean feed’ then what grounds does the NP club have for cutting the feed? What exactly was entailed in the informal agreement?
My head is starting to spin. Bloody contract law.
ShowsOn @ 189
So… are you suggesting Ch9 should have a crack at the Liberal Party?
The Liberal Party simply stated their preference as to how the debate should be run. Granted, the NP Club may have been very influenced by this. But the fact was… they didn’t have to follow the preference of the Libs…. and they did. Yes, it is perhaps concerning that so much influence is present, but that’s not a matter of implied political communication. The ABC also ran coverage without the worm. The Libs could, if they wanted to, tell Channel seven to run only positive stories on the Liberal Party, and devote 15 minutes of each news bulletin to how evil unions are. Doesn’t mean this will be followed.
While I agree with your point, my argument is that it is not grounds for legal review.
I must also ask if anyone knows what percentage of ALP members are former lawyers? While perhaps not as high as the Libs, I imagine it would still be a hefty number.
Off to grab brain food, back a bit later.
And the lead story on news.com.au is… the worm.
Amazing – is this the only country that can get itself so worked up over a television invertebrate?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22626644-2,00.html
“When Nine walked away from that agreement and used the worm it breached an agreement it had with the parties — not with the National Press Club,” Mr Milne told ABC Radio this morning.”
Notice how he says AGREEMENT not CONTRACT.
Moreover:
“[Ray] Martin later told the ABC that the network’s contract to broadcast the debate did not stipulate conditions on the use of the worm.
“The deal was that we would take the coverage and we would have the worm, we didn’t say when we’d run the worm,” Martin told ABC Radio.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/libs-sabotaged-worm/2007/10/22/1192940939107.html
ShowsOn @ 203,
If Nine walked away from the agreement, how could there be an agreement in the first place?
Richard (no 190). ’sprightly’? More Americanisation!
Howard is ’spritely’ but only because of his apparent lack of height and mercurial and possibly diabolical ability to win elections.
196 Misty
That is fairly childish stuff from News Ltd – it only heightens the case against any Labor supporter ever buying a murdoch paper.
They seem to think democracy is good thing only if it favors John Howard. They are part of the problem.
They already have:
“The ABC, in cahoots with the National Press Club, pulled the Nine Network’s election debate feed _on behalf of the Liberal Party_ in an “outrageous act of censorship”, Nine’s news chief John Westacott says.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/libs-sabotaged-worm/2007/10/22/1192940939107.html
They didn’t just state a preference. They tried to force TV stations to broadcast the debate in a particular way, which is an abuse of press freedom.
Fortunately Channel 9 stood up to them, and based use of the worm on an editorial decision, which is exaclty what it is. We don’t live in a country where the government determines what can and can’t be broadcast on TV. The TV broadcasters regulate themselves, which is how it should be.
There is no chance for legal review, there was no contract stipulating what could or could not be broadcast. Glenn Milne and Ray Martin have both made that clear.
Thanks Adam,
Do you have an e-mail for the national secretariat? I have to admit I’m not too familiar with the various layers of ALP authority.
all we are saying
is give the worm a chance
Re 109,
“1)
What do we make of Mr Rudd’s small slip when he called his opponent Mr Coward?”
I didn’t catch that but I reckon that it was intentional
. Rudd was way too well prepared to make a mistake like that accidentally 
I hate to but into conspiracy theories but how bad was the sound coming off Rudd’s mikes? I’ve worked in the industry a while back and am astounded at the terrible sound quality of Rudd’s audio. There was a noticeable echo at numerous times and there was also obvious feedback at others. Anyone else notice this?
This did not occur for Howard.
I fail to see how this could have occured nor how it is acceptable. small things but sound and image are everything in these things
I think Rudd kept bumping his mikes…. Howard did it once or twice at the start too.
Kina at 181
You’ve fallen foul of some mis-reporting. It is a trail of confusion over names that began with an interview between Ray Martin and Fran Kelly. The broadcast was hosted by the National Press Club, and it was Maurice Reilly from the Press Club who argued. Ray Martin mistakenly said Mark Reilly this morning, who is the Channel Seven Canberra Correspondent, and Fran thought he meant Mark Scott and AAP picked it up from there. Mark Scott was at actually at home watching the debate on television as far as I understand.
Last night’s debate was watched by about 700,000 more people than the 2004 debate, but a few thousand less than the 2001 debate:
“the average audience figure reached nearly 2.4 million in five cities. The last election debate in 2004 pulled in 1.77 million on Nine and the ABC, while in 2001, average audiences on Nine, Seven and the ABC totalled 2.44 million.”
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22626881-5005962,00.html
So Antony,
Who do you think won the debate?
Another question. Can someone who knows a thing or two about debating protocol explain the gaffe about who should have went first in the final statements. Ruddy was obviously of the belief that it should be Howard as he (Rudd) had the openeing statement. Was Ruddy right? Is this normally the case?
Rudd’s closing statement suffered for the first 15 secs or so becuase we wasn’t prepared.
Spears indicated that it was definately Ruddy’s turn to go and these things had been agreed before with the Party head honcho’s. is this correct and if so did Rudd forget or has someone in the back room stuffed up and forgotten to tel Kev?
Swing Lowe at 202, it might seem trivial (this debate about ‘the worm’), but this is a ripping story that really exposes how the Howard government has deformed our democratic institutions to prolong its hold on power.
The disturbing acquiscence of the ABC, led by Liberal Party appointee Mark Scott, to the Liberal Party’s terms for broadcasting the debate is the most damning indictment yet of Howard’s successful nobbling of the media.
These are judgements for journalists, for godness sake. It is not up the Liberal Party how the media covers politics. But such is the party’s reach into every corner of our lives that it is seen as unremarkable that Liberal Party heavies, with the support of a screeching ABC CEO, would pull the plug on a broadcast in this way.
Let’s be clear about this. This expectation that the media should without question do the government’s bidding is the sort of thing you would expect out of Burma or Zimbabwe or North Korea – not from a first world, rich country governed by a “liberal” party.
Shameless in his use of every institution of our democracy for his own electoral advantage, Howard already has politicised the bureaucracy, the armed forces and the federal police. He has sidelined the governor general and made himself defacto head of state. Now he is dictating how the media represents him. Think about it.
I think he just forgot.
“So much for free speech in Australia”, says Ray Martin to one and a bit million people.
Ouch.
Antony @ 213
Thanks for clearing that up.
and:
this
What I don’t get is why pull the feed and run the risk that the vast Channel Nine audience will have nothing to view?
Imagine if Channel Nine did not have a back-up plans B & C for alternative streams and just got dead air?
Actually, regardless of the silly comments from the commentariat, positive headlines for Rudd in Brisbane and Sydney are more indicative of how people will judge the debate.Besides which, 2.4 million tuned in. That’s got to be some kind of record.
Very, very positive for Rudd. Much more so than for Latham or Beazley. Remember, the game is different this time. Rudd is reinforcing already-held positive views of himself, whereas Latham in particular already had the cloud of flakiness swirling around him, and all the debate did was to buy him a bit more credibility.
It’s also why the negative campaign has not bitten with Rudd. The attack ads for Latham only consolidated in people’s minds what a tool he was. Rudd is not perceived to be a tool, so the same ads don’t work. In fact, there is plenty to suggest they are counterproductive.
Re 153,
Pi Says:
I have dreamed of this unlikely outcome since 1996 when Keating was booted out. I lived through 96/98/01/04 elections from abroad in the USA. Seeing them from afar hurts more as you can’t get the 24/7 coverage that you would get if you were home in Oz. Being in the northern US state of Michigan, we were right next door to Canada. I remember that Canadian election well. While Labor will win next month here, if the election were of the magnitude that is mentioned, that will go a long way towards erasing the pain of the last 4 elections for me. I can’t believe (after hearing the Redfern speech last week through YouTube) that the majority of the electorate thought that Howard the Coward was honestly a better man for the job than Keating in 1996
:(:(
What’s happened to all the right-wing trolls that came out of the woodwork in the last week or so?
I was looking forward to their assertions that the Rodent won the debate in a landslide. Actually, that was what David Speers and Glen Milne inferred on Sky News after the debate last night when one of them said the Rodent won the debate on “substance”. Speaking of substance, it looked like to me that the Rodent must’ve taken some sort of substance – doddery one minute than flaring into an aggressive mood the next. Hyacinth must’ve put something in his tea to psyche him up for the debate.
Well Howard, by an objective analysis, didn’t even come close to winning and I’d rather trust Britney Spears than David Speers on political analysis any day.
I wonder how pissed channel 9 is about this?
I wonder if ABC heads will allow K O’Brien to run the issue tonight?
Does this lead to a fresh debate in the media about FOI and freedom of speech?
Will Rudd bring up a bill of rights policy especially noting freedom of political expression and FOI?
Will the Howard govt’s record on FOI and freedom of speech now get a run in the papers and Lateline, difference of opinion?
Charlie
http://www.alp.org.au/action/contact.php
I would advise you to phone, non-urgent emails won’t get much attention in the middle of a campaign.
150 ND Virginia was a Melbourne presenter. I used to love her show. Now we have this totally bland show on in the afternoon. I keep tuning in to see if it improved, to no avail. The tripe they put on in the afternoon show is shocking. I would have though Sydney could do with a bit of spice instead of red neck radio.
I really don’t understand how the NPC or the Liberal Party would be surprised by the worm when Channel 9 had actually been ADVERTISING FOR DAYS BEFORE that they were going to use it.
They really do live on another planet…
Mr Denmore
It wasn’t Mark Scott. I agree he’s a lib appointee, but have yet to see the colour of his stripes. Fair’s fair.
Charlie, with an election around the corner, you would be surprised at what your local MP could turn up for you to help you out? Why not give him/her a call? Mind you, if the sitting member isn’t of your party, you can just feign interest
….. If they don’t know, they sure ought to be able to know whom to ask at national HQ 
I can sort of see the Press Club’s dilemma. From their view, the terms of the debate had been agreed by the two parties and it was their job to run the debate according to those terms. That puts them in a hard position when Nine completely disregards one of those terms. On the other hand, if Brian Loughnane asked them not to cut the feed, that should have settled the matter. Certainly Tim Gartrell wasn’t going to object to the worm.
When Speers and Milne say that Howard won the debate on “substanceâ€, they just mean “I agree with what he said.” That of course is also true of me and many other people here in relation to Rudd. Of course all ALP supporters think Rudd won on substance and all Liberals think Howard did. The point however is who won the debate as a piece of political theatre, which is what will count with the floaters, both those who watched and those who hear about it around the office water-cooler. Everyone whose judgement I trust says that Rudd did.
Caroline Overington’s blog at the GG defends the worm:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php/theaustralian/comments/democracy_cannot_exclude_the_worm/
This all just reinforces why the terms of the debate should be set out years in advance by an independent comission, say the AEC or the like.
However, they still shouldn’t be able to determine how TV stations broadcast the event. If they want to use the worm, or cut to commercials then that is their perogative. That has nothing to do with the debate itself.
Wow, this is turning into a bigger issue than I thought (I didn’t pull worm, says PM):
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22626918-29277,00.html
Howard had no more substance in the debate than Rudd. Where do people imagine this ’substance’ came from? All he did was spout the standard Liberal Party lines, much as Rudd spouted the same Labor lines. However, Rudd framed his words slightly better to give a more positive outlook for Australia.
The only time I thought Howard was on the right track was at the very beginning, talking up the aspirational nationalism. The rest was just a mess, he had no clear message (I thought it’d be unions, but it ended up with the culture wars) and nothing much to really say at all.
There was no substance in anything he had to say. But of course if we get spin doctors saying he had substance after the debate people might think… yeah… he did didn’t he?
The debate will be all but forgotten tomorrow when the next newspoll comes out.
It’s a pretty critical poll — if it is bad for Howard it will be difficult for him to come back.
You would think the next Newspoll would show an improvement for Howard, considering it was taken before the debate (and when Howard had the momentum).
People will now be interested in the first poll taken after the debate (probably AC Nielsen or Galaxy).
The Andrew Robb school of political theory says that if you accuse your opponent of lacking substance, then this automatically means you have more substance than your opponent. It’s just a way to define your opponent, it doesn’t actually mean you are proposing more than your opposition.
That’s all it is, another political slogan.
Did he use the term “aspirational nationalism”? I don’t think so, I haven’t heard that term for months.
from first phone call to when it gets released, what’s the turnaround time on a newspoll? Is there great divergence between companies in this respect?
Yes, I said some time ago that tomorrow’s Newspoll is the most important of the whole campaign except the one on election eve. If it’s better than 55 for Labor, the Coalition is dead. If it’s between 53 and 55, they are alive, just. If it’s below 53, they are on the comeback trial.
This is a great leg pull. But, worm pull… They should stop it or they’ll go blind.
I’m expecting a Newspoll tomorrow. Maybe it will just be of people called last night and today. But more likely they will have voting intention from Friday to Sunday, and a leaders debate question from Sunday night and today. (i.e. two seperate samples).
Did Hewson beat Keating in 1993?
Swing Lowe
“I didn’t pull worm, says PM.”
Er, no. Certain dysfunction here methinks. That’s the Walkley headline. Good work, subbie!
ShowsOn surely newspoll doesn’t call after 7:00pm?
John of Melbourne, yes.
I like W Bowes point about the OZ video and other news outlets all could not give a win to Rudd except one from SA
Sounds like the time when all News papers in the world save the PNG one said what a great idea Iraq would be
Like Farr who distainfully calls average Ozies Punters All news workers are droneful hacks.
YAY! The Diminishing Sphere of Extensive Influence has weighed in:
“Nine journalist Laurie Oakes, who was on the question panel for the debate, was angry about the club’s decision.
“With a name like National Press Club, you’d think it would be out there defending the free press and the rights of the media.
“Instead, it rolled over supinely when John Howard said you’ve got to ban the worm. That was the problem last night.
“The Press Club was started by journalists but it’s become a haven for PR people, log-rollers (and) real estate agents. [ LOL!
]
“It’s forgotten what it’s supposed to stand for. They should be condemned,” he said.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22626644-5012863,00.html
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 17 » Show All