This week’s Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s lead down to 58.5-41.5 from 63-37 last week, its weakest Morgan face-to-face showing since the election of the Rudd government. It seems Morgan also conducted a phone poll between June 4-9 which put the score at 56-44, compared with the government’s previous weakest result of 58-42 at the phone poll of May 7-11.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Morgan: 58.5-41.5
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
256 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 » Show All
I think the problem stemmed back before the election. The media had their collective nickers in a not by the way they were being “handled”. Just to illustrate one instance I recall an outcry by journalists because Rudd would “control” news conferences bu pointing to the next interrogator. Now, I’m not suggesting a bit of “get back” here, no bugger it, I am.
Make “not” Knot.
Having just heard Belinda Neals comments to Sophie Mirabella on the Insiders the question has to be: What on earth was Neal trying to gain by this? It was just extremely dumb, particular as she was caught out.
Current betting markets. (Will someone please tell G Milne):
Centrebet
Labor $1.19
Any Other Party $4.50
IASBet
Labor $1.25
Any Other Party $4.00
Sportingbet
Labor $1.18
Coaltion $4.50
.. and out of interest, the US election
Sportsacumen
Obama $1.55
McCain $2.80
I like the fact that it is Any Other Party; Suggests that the odds of the Liberal Party surviving in its current form is not good.
As Rudd has correctly said she needs help. Anyone carrying on the way she has is not thinking straight. Should she be thrown on the scrap heap and forgotten? Does a person deserve to be helped and given a second chance? We’ll see what “Just Call Me” has to say this week. Boy, has he been quiet on this since Rudd intervened.
153 Rx – you know that Glenn doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Gary Bruce, I don’t know a lot about this Milne. Was he one of the chorus of “Honeymoon is over” prophets proven wrong again and again? If so, his credibility as analyst/forecaster must be in question.
The betting markets, as they stand at the moment, also hint at the dubiousness of his salivating “one-term-Rudd” predictions
There’s absolutely no evidence of this being a one term government and any speculation that it could be is fantasy.
Sure, the Government hasn’t been stunningly brilliant in any way… but we’re used to that after 11 years of Coalition Government.
In other, non-pseph political news… I’m not sure whether anyone has raised it but this week the Canadian Conservative Government apologised to Canada’s indigenous population. They, however, had the guts to include a $2 billion compensation fund.
According to the Poisoned Dwarf on Insiders, Julia Gillard has shown more leadership than Rudd for being the first to act on the Belinda Neale debacle.
Hello, you FLY that’s just been sprayed by mortein, the Prime Minister is showing real leadership representing our country in Japan, instead of participating in cheap media garbage that is dished out by the likes of you.
The Coalition parrots have begun reciting the Milne ‘piece’ …
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.politics/browse_thread/thread/6c0ac60242af66d5#
LTEP, the Rudd Labor government being attacked from the left – hysterical.
The right wing commentators are now pushing the line that Gillard is out performing Rudd. Bolt suggested as much too in a recent article apparently, having been told about it and not read it. These are the same people who were warning us about Gillard before the last election. Boy they sprout BS.
Milne is now a Gillard supporter? This bloke is a joke, as he proved that night of the Walkey Awards LOL
Typo: Walkley Awards
Those comments from Neal in parliament were very very bad.
I’m still a bit shocked actually, which is unusual, It was probably the way she repeated them
It puts big dent in the whole sisterhood argument doesn’t it? You know the one, men wouldn’t cop this in the media, Mark Latham didn’t, so why a does a woman etc etc.
Yes Gary, that is their tactics now. How desperate have they become. Not only have we proudly exposed their media bias, this is now war! A war we are not going lose.
165 – Yes, repeating the comments would suggest it was not an off the cuff remark but some sort of nasty tactic. Plus they were rather coldly delivered, where as if they were delivered in a fit of anger it would have been more understandable.
It is amazing that if people knew Neal’s b1tchiness would be an issue that she was pre-selected. But then again is very like the NSW Right to preselect someone on the grounds of relationship and not talent.
If we are going to change government in this country, it should be based on performance and not MSM preference.
If the conservatives are serious about becoming a force again in politics, they should immediately transfer Joe Hockey to lead the state liberal party. The first step would be to win a state election and then go from there.
Mumble seems to be doing his own impression of anti -Rudd politics. I think he’s spending too much time in Canberra.
136
Doug Says:
The PD right on cue in preparation for Nelson’s attack on Rudd next week!
And the ABC report regarding the whaling sounds like it was based on a Liberal handout. At the very least poor process.
137
Frank Calabrese Says:
Yep, his Modus Operandi is to write an attack article on Rudd to appear just in time to be fed by the Insiders and the Sunday TV news and continued in Parliament by Brenda.
I said basically the same thing at #44 and was told off by A Green for being a knucklehead who didn’t know what she was talking about.
Is he the site referee, was I given a red card? Should I be in the sin bin?
LOL Vera, I have been called a lot worse.
We are in the early processes of exposing the power of the media and the way they really operate, which is great for our democracy.
You only need to compare political reporting when Howard was in government and labor in opposition to the current situation.
So why the MSM bias in favour of the coalition???
Simple, because their is more money in it for the top-end-of-town with them in power and therefore weak journos lick their @rse.
The Member for Burnett had better be right about his story of Beattie and Rose having had a relationship. With each passing day it is looking more unlikely to have been the case.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23866553-601,00.html
On journalism…
Back in the dark ages, when I trained as a journalist (the last generation before Journalism switched to university “training” -and the last before Spellchecking and computer-based subediting) the two most important lessons I learned were:
1. Check your facts, and verify them if possible through another source.
2. Quote other sources for balance.
Reading one’s own copy before submitting it was also highly recommended. Too many errors in copy might result in banishment for months to writing weather reports, or proof-reading other journos’ copy.
I probably sound like a tired old fart lamenting the long-lost golden days, but I really think the cadet system was so much better at producing quality journalists than the current university system. Stories -particularly of a political nature- were better researched -and certainly better written- than they are now. And there was far less ‘editorialising’ in news stories. Furthermore, only the most senior journalists would have their stories credited with a byline, and even they would write according to the House Style -a concept which seems to have gone the way of hot-metal lynotype and sheet-fed presses.
Journalists seem now to put more emphasis on establishing and mantaining ‘leaks’ -or more properly ‘leakers’- than contacts. The trouble with this is the journalist becomes dependent on the drip-feed, and is loath to write anything that may offend the leaker and so threaten his/her supply of easy copy. Ergo: bias becomes entrenched. The Poison Dwarf is only the most glaring example of this dysfunction.
The digitisation of journalism hasn’t helped standards either. A reporter can now file copy directly to the page, with sub-editors reduced to the role of desktop publishers. A quick spellcheck is a poor substitute for thorough, professional proof-reading.
I dunno, maybe there just isn’t time anymore to get things right, given the pressure just to get things out.
According to Antony Green, the Member for Burnett has a nominal margin after the redistribution of 7.4% which is not huge if the local member has shot himself in the foot. It also will be a devastating blow for the new Pineapple Party if this is the standard being set by it’s Shadow Ministers.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/861
I sent our friend Piers a copy of the following excellent posting by Ad astra on Possum’s blog.
http://thepossumbox.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/is-the-media-in-australia-suffering-from-groupthink/
This is his reply.
“That’s pretty funny. When every other journalist was panting after Rudd I believe I said he was a fraud. Now that others are saying it, am I meant to switch?
I don’t think you’d find many to support the proposition that I am a member of a “groupthink”.
It is more often found in among those cited by your sourc e – Marr etc.
Best wishes”
What a tool. At least he replies I suppose.
Vera 170
No Vera – you say and think what you believe. That is your right.
Don’t let name calling put you off.
I am glad you said what you did as it sparked a discussion which helped a good number of us.
Rudd is taking on the AMA. No love lost there.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-says-govt-will-simply-replace-ama/2008/06/15/1213468219286.html
Has Piers come out with any “revelations” about the Heiner affair in recent times?
Few things in life would give me greater pleasure than to see the AMA cut down to size. They do not speak for all doctors and do not always have the patients’ best interests at heart.
I really agree with the various previously posted comments about media bias but I suspect there is a very simple reason for it…selling copy!
The foment from right-wing commentators means that the neo-cons will read it because they approve and the true believers will read it because they disapprove!!
RX 138
“Maybe the government needs to re-evaluate their media management? If the Coalition can get their spokesmen’s soundbites published (uncritically, as fact) with jaw-dropping unanimity, the government needs to aggressively seek airtime for its Ministers’ statements.
Given the biased coverage against them they might understandably be loath to enter the lion’s den. But it is either that or an uncontested anti-Labor onslaught.”
I am concerned that over time the Gov’t’s credibility may get undermined, although not sure to what extent. But this I do know if the Liberals happen to win government by such strategies they will owe the media bigtime. That plastic man Nelson may be then the PM(Heaven forbid) but the media will be very influential in running the country – far more than they are now. Very bad for Ausralia.
Kina 138
“There is no bias because people only see what they want to see, there is no such thing as fact. I wonder how many evils are excused on that basis,”
There is no moral standard generally recognised these days and one person’s opinion seems to be as good as another’s. I believe we have lost something. Now everyone has bias and if that was used as a reason to have no discussion no one would talk to anyone else about anything important. That is plainly ridiculous. Also it is used too much as a cop out to anyone who either cannot be bothered, or if they have nothing real to contribute.
I think there are two issues: one is bias and the other is lack of standards.
The ABC tries overly hard to avoid any suspicion of bias. This has let to it being an emasculated mouthpiece of both major parties.
Lots of you have pointed out the decline in standards at the ABC. Does anyone remember the pitiful performance of the ABC on Election Night 2007? It exemplified the sad decline of a formerly great Aussie institution. They shot all their credibility in one night. They couldn’t even work out which party was winning for most of the night and they didn’t even seem to care.
I am getting very angry with the posters on this site alleging that Piers is associated with ‘groupthink’. I think they need a good hard look at themselves for making such baseless allegations. I happen to know that Piers is not associated with any such thing. Further to that, I beleive that Piers is not associated in any way to the word ‘think’ either. I beleive the correct words are ‘groupfink’ and ‘fink’. :p
Tom.
Doug @109. I don’t see the sort of bias that gets people in this channel frothing at the mouth, though some outlets and some journalists have a tendency to lean one way or the other.
On insiders this morning, they were discussing the list of past government statements on whaling issued by the opposition, which confirms my suscpicion that one existed. As I said, it is standard practice in politics when launching an attack to include reference to past statements, which is why I said in the first place that journalists couldn’t just dismiss Nelson’s statement as BS and refuse to report it. It may be mindlessly epistemological of me to say so, but a few people here tend to use the word ‘know’ when they actually mean ‘believe’. There is a difference.
In the hour after the press conference, it is unlikely that any journalist would have been able to verify the list, they would generally be reported as an Opposition claim. By now, the government would have gone through the Opposition list with a fine tooth comb, so if there were lies or distortions we would know about them by now. No doubt the government is issuing its own list of its position on whaling. And some poor mug journalist has to try and do a report with a whole pile of overlapping and contradictory statements from both sides and try to work out some picture of the truth.
Oppositions and governments put out stories that have certain spins, but they don’t lie or blatantly distort. I can think of one or two opposition spokesmen in my years of covering politics who have distributed stories that turned out to be completely wrong and left journalists looking like gooses. Let’s just say, those frontbenchers found it much harder to get journalists to take their stories in future. Journalists will put up with spin, but they won’t put up with lies or misrepresentations.
Milne deserves an email for his ridiculous one-term stuff, with recent poll result attached
What amazing is that this Liberal spin doctor is actually called a political reporter/commentator. Easier to just get his copy from the Liberal party/ Crosby-Textor handbook, I guess. Its bad enough that the Japan stuff has been peddled without the SLIGHTEST best of evidence. The narrative about the public getting tired of Rudd isnt just wishful thinking, its plain delusional?? Milne really cares about the polls when they shift the Liberals way, but I think he has forgotten to read the 2PP results
Email to Milne:
Mr Milne,
It was difficult to read your latest diatribe straight out of the Liberal party handbook. You talk about the so-called problems Rudd is facing without a shred of evidence. The latest Morgan is 58.5/41.5, the latest Newspoll 57/43. They predict obliteration for the opposition. Rudd has had record PPM ratings. I appreciate that your piece is a bit of fanciful wishful thinking, but dont you think you owe it to readers to back what you say with evidence, and balance it with what the polls are saying?
Milnes address for others. I’ll go now not much fun here on youre own!!
milneg@theaustralian.com.au
Andrew: will Milne reply to your email? I wonder………………..
Vera – chin up knucklehead and to all knuckleheads
For what it’s worth, I’m reading Mungo MacCallum’s Poll Dancing (covering the 2007 election) – have you read it?
There’s more, a whoe lot more but LOL tho, Mungo couldn’t have foreseen the Scores fiasco when he wrote that, but hey, gives us a clue who is on the right track on the media.
Antony 185
I understand more of where you are coming from now.
No, I don’t expect the Opposition or Gov’t to put out outright lies or bad distortions as this will be counter productive re their credibility. But there would be heavy spin and from both sides.
But the problem still remains – The outcome is not satisfactory and therefore the process is not right. The whaling example report by the ABC shows how just slight spin on one sentence can change the whole slant of the report. This is what has been happening in other reports and possibly far worse. I would be far more comfortable if the reporter did verify the facts rather than depending on the opposing party to do so. Then the ABC could get back to being independent like it used to, rather than the resulting story in a case like this being a compromise between the two conflicting versions. I understand that time is a factor but this should not excuse anybody.
There is some attrocious bias in the commercial media and names mentioned in this blog come to mind. There are also some good journalists in the commercial and ABC and also names in this blog come to mind.
If the Board of the ABC were truly Independent and did not consist of a number of well known right wingers it would do much to put to rest suspicions that a some people have now of the ABC. I am not saying the right should not be represented but they should be balanced by people from the centre and the left. But I would not expect you to comment on that for obvious reasons.
I’ve watched that pre-mixed drink ad twice now and still can’t work out if it is for real and therefore I’m just out of touch, or whether it’s a spoof.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=B610gp0IKZE
Doug, I’ve worked at the ABC for 18 years and never met a member of the board, so I very much doubt the people writing on-line news copy have or are influenced directly by them. And to be honest, I don’t even know the sentence you’re referring, but if you think it is wrong, I suggest you take it up with the ABC. But I was just getting a little sick of people latching on to wire-copy stories that do little more than report what someone said, in this case Brendan Nelson, and then fly off with accusations of bias.
On Wednesday week, I’m one of the guest speakers at a forum in Canberra on the internet and politics. I normally wouldn’t participate in a debate on reporting as I’ve done in the last day or two, but I thought I’d see what sensible response people could give about why Nelson’s remarks on whaling shouldn’t be reported. And in my view, most of what I got back was a lot of opinion. A few people like yourself responded having done some research, but most didn’t.
I’m cynical about the internet becoming a new wonderful forum for politics. It still strikes me as being the new talk-back radio and not nearly as influential in politics as it keeps being made out to be. It might have more power in America, where it can dominate primary elections, but I really think it is not as influential in Australia because compulsory voting means that the active people who surf for news are greatly outweighed by the passive majority who use the more traditional media outlets.
Now that Doug mentions the Board, I’d like to see Antony or any other ABC journalist defend the position of Janet Albrechtsen as a Board member.
To be in a position of responsibility over an organization that she has accused of being biased is bad enough. To be so blatantly biased herself, in the opposite direction to that which she accuses the ABC of being biased, in such a public forum as Australia’s only national newspaper, is true hypocrisy of the highest order.
She has her right to her personal opinions. She has no right to be BOTH an ABC Board member and to so stridently express those opinions in public.
She should choose and choose fast.
MartTwain @134. That vast numbers of people read, watch and listen to absolute pap, is for me a source of concern more than anything, that vast swathes of people can be manipulated by propaganda is always in the back of my mind. Now you can call me paranoid, but there are still Holocaust survivors alive, there are people here from across the planet, who bear terrible physical and psychological scars from regimes who manipulated their populations to make possible such actions. While I appreciate what Antony and others have to say about the difficulties and vagaries of life reporting in a hothouse environment, I think the public broadcaster has a particular responsibility to ensure balanced reporting. Others have given many examples of where this seems to come adrift by the ABC. I certainly have sought to understand what may be going on and why. To suggest that most people complaining here just hate journalists is just silly.
Antony @ 193. The problem for me is that what gets reported in what I understand to be the rolling news format, then gets reported in the bulletins, sometimes without attribution, and that that is the news. I literally heard a broadcaster on an arts program, prior to the election, censor herself on air about a politically sensitive subject because “We might get into trouble”. I don’t think anyone on the Board would dare to touch you, Antony, due to your reputation, however, there are cultures created within organisations that can become problematic. Do you seriously think anyone who works for Murdoch doesn’t understand exactly what is required without being told?
The organisation I work within has relatively recently had a new CEO appointed, who is a micromanager, par excellence. She’s obsessive and has changed the culture. I think what other commenters have been trying to point to, is that process determines outcomes, and what I’m trying to understand and point to, is changing culture, shifting process, and therefore, outcomes.
Bushy @ 194. I don’t think Antony or any other employee of the ABC should be expected to defend the lovely Janet’s appointment to the Board. They didn’t make the appointment, therefore, they don’t bear responsibility. Do be sensible and go get a glass of wine.
I honestly believe the internet will kill off the print media one day. It might take a decade or two but it will happen.
Is the media biased – probably not.
Is the media lazy – most definately.
Journalists have forgotten what journalism means – they seem to want to be opinion leaders – they aspire to be Milnes or Pies or Ulhmans.
Why research a story if AAP says its true? Why not reproduce a press release verbatim? Surely the authors would have verified the “facts”?
I had this discussion with marktwain before the election – she defends her profession of course.
But with possible changes to defamation law being mooted they may have to get their collective lazy backsides back into shape.
I have not only worked for the ABC but SBS and Channels 7,9 and 10.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 » Show All