Here’s a fresh thread for discussing any media commentary about the election campaign. With a Narrowing[TM] in the Newspoll and with the closest thing to a media consensus on the debate appearing to be “Abbott didn’t do as badly as expected and therefore won”, we seem set to start the second week with a narrative that the Coalition is fighting back.
Personally, I’ll be glad when we get to move beyond examining the entrails of the debate. I watched the event — I thought it was uninspiring and uninformative. I watched the ABC News 24 cross to Penrith RSL’s expert panel of six People of Lindsay — I felt depressed. I watched the partisan spin-doctors talk about what a useful debate it was and how both leaders (but particularly the leader on their side) made some strong points — and I wondered whether I had somehow missed that part after half an hour of bashing boat people drove me into a coma.
And then I heard Barrie Cassidy telling people it was a highly useful debate, and Annabel Crabb saying much the same thing. Nobody seemed to be saying what I — and, judging by the admittedly non-random sample of people I follow on Twitter, others — had thought, which is that the debate was nothing but a battle of the same talking points we’ve been hearing from both parties, just acted out live and with them both in the same room.
But I have barely heard a voice in the media echoing those sentiments, which makes me wonder whether I’m missing something or whether they are. The focus appears to be on deciding who “won”, without considering the possibilities that (i) it might have been a scoreless draw, or (ii) it doesn’t matter who “wins” unless people’s experience of the debate might actually decide their vote. I didn’t feel like anything the leaders said last night had the capacity to change opinions — it was a re-statement of what we already know they stand for.
Have I missed something? I’d welcome being talked down, because it might make me feel less like the nation’s time has been wasted.
47 Comments
Total waste of time. Tony Abbot spoke like a demasculated glove puppet, and Julia tried to add “charm” by twinkling her eyes occasionally. But none of the media questions were followed through and no-one corrected the blatant untruths of the Monk.
Laurie Oakes is right. No-one has any courage or vision any more. It’s pitiful.
It was a relief to turn to MasterChef, where at least someone produced something and there was a worthwhile prize at the end.
Couldn’t agree more – the debating was boring to the extreme – although I did enjoy the divide between elderly males and young females in the RSL.
With the Greens polling above 10% and set to take seats, why were they not invited to the debate? Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems popularity soared after the first televised debate in the UK – the conspiracy theorist in me says that some are afraid of such a scenario playing out here.
It’s a race to the bottom in an attempt to make rednecks feel warm and fuzzy about themselves…no doubt…the Coalition are going for the ‘dumbest, simplest approach’ option.
It was uninspiring and uninformative and a debate it was not.
And I don’t really care who won for I know it is the people of Australia who loose from this sham pretence of democracy.
Technology has moved on at lighting pace yet we are stuck in a 200 year old parliamentary system.
I don’t need to be silenced by having my opinion ignored by a representative of a political party I despise. Why cant we have electronic referendums for all decisions of debatable merit? Let the two sides mount their argument (as in the super profits tax for instance) and then let all who can answer three easy questions on the issue cast a vote for their opinion.
That would represent a real democracy. That would show that Australia has moved into and embraced new technology and at a blow it would devastate corrupt political motives.
That would make an invigorating electoral debate that would capture the attention of the Australian public. It would sell newspapers and make the media a lot of money to boot. So Should we expect the media to lead on an important and relevant issue like this?
Not on your nelly, it would be too dangerous for their existence if a true democracy ever broke out.
There was a comment on ABCNews Breakfast sent in by a listener that there seemed to be a big divide between what the media thought about the debate and what everyone else thought. I thought it a mostly pointless exercise, and certainly wouldn’t have changed the opinions of “Frank” of the Penrith RSL. In fact, guageing public opinion by going to an RSL seems to me a rather ludicrous exercise designed to annoy ordinary viewers by highlighting the wowser vote.
I have been away for the last week, no internet or even phone access – so I apologise if this has been said before.
Catching up over the weekend the media seems to have 2 threads either:
1) Candidates are scripted, and are so careful to avoid mistakes that the campaign is ‘boring’, or
2) What was the ‘gotcha’, stumble, or who won the debate, or day.
If it makes you feel any better, I shared your sentiments in my news bulletins this morning:
Sleepy worms reflected lack-lustre campaign with little difference between policies. Leaders dodged good questions on their sore spots and stuck resolutely to campaign scripts.
But then, my voice in the media is pretty marginal.
Actually The Age has an article today more in-tune with your thinking:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/gillard-worms-her-way-to-points-win-20100725-10qkq.html
I literally slept through it. Having said that, seeing the footage this morning – Male/Female worm? WTF?
John Clearly asked an apt question last night. If voting were voluntary, would this be an election that anyone turned up for?
You’re not talking me down, people. I’ll add one more observation about the mismatch between what I saw in the debate and what the media commentary says — any policy topic that got a mention, despite the fact that no detail was provided, is now rattled off as one of the issues Gillard or Abbott focused on. Here’s an example from Lyndal Curtis on AM:
Tony certainly did talk about PPL at some length (I suspect in an effort to try to reduce the gender gap in the polls), but the fact is that virtually half the debate was spent talking about “population”, i.e., immigration and asylum seekers. Virtually every other topic was treated superficially, getting no more than one or two questions which were then barely answered.
If you want a visual representation of what was talked about most in the debate, check out this Wordle cloud Gary Kemble made.
You’re trying to pick a fight where none exists, Tobby. That word cloud is the most meaningless bunch of non-words ever assembled, though. I think I can see a little ‘climate change’ hiding in there somewhere.
The disconnect between the MSM and the real world has been evident to me for some time. Just watch question time, see what actually happens in QT, and then see how it gets reported on the news. Or watch community cabinet meetings to see what is irking people. Nine times out of ten the issues put to the ministers are not the things the media has been
focusing onbeating up.As for the debate, what a bore. What I’d prefer to see is 3 debates, spaced throughout the campaign, but instead of being organised by the parties, organised by an independent body. Like what happens in the US.
Twobob, you mean something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics
Should add that if they want to call it a debate, then it should be a debate where each leader can question the other. Our ‘debates’ tend to be sterile, stage managed affairs.
The more I see of Barrie Cassidy, the less I think he knows. His stock in trade is the dry, inane (and worthless) comment.
The media knew in advance that the debate would be a story, regardless of what happened. The idea that “nothing happened” is not one that it can countenance. It doesn’t make sense.
Several times I heard the ABC’s risible promise that the debate “could turn the election around”. Even the most lively debate would have been long forgotten by election day. I didn’t watch it (well, not a lot of it), because it was obvious to me in advance that it would be soul-crushingly pointless.
I agree with twobob in that election debates are a sham, especially with the exclusion of minor parties. The participants make the same stilted, mind-numbing points they’ve made before and will certainly make again, ad nauseam. Just because we see them in the same room together, are we supposed to be gifted with some additional insight?
Debates aren’t about democracy, but sport, where even the most uninspiring games are guaranteed headlines in advance.
I believe Toby is referring to the last paragraph in his post LS — he’s looking for someone here to convince him that the debate was actually worthwhile, sadly I feel he’s going to be disappointed.
What’s particularly interesting about that word cloud is the words that don’t appear in it.
Can anyone find any of the following:
‘internet’, filter’, ‘equal’, ‘rights’, ‘indigenous’, ‘science’, ‘education’?
I’d love to see an #ausvotes word cloud of the same hour, but I somehow don’t think it’d be fit to print.
The contrast between the Leaders’ Debate and Masterchef Australia was rather stark. One managed to be far more representative of modern Australia than the other.
Toby I am afraid you are right, the debate was dissapointingly underwhelming and just a rehash of talking points from both leaders with no detail. I find myself begining to wonder what Gillard and Labor are moving forward from, as on some issues, in particular asylum seekers, they seem to be regressing to the Howard era. As for Two Tone and his real action contract, it might be helpful it the people could see some sort of plan instead of the “stop the boats” and “reduce the deficeit” genralisations.
The real battle last night was between Adam and Callum on Masterchef. Their struggle and the food created some substance and intrigue and at least the guava and custard apple snow egg was real.
Debate, shmbate. What a load of garbage. Both leaders disgust me, and from reading what others have said, 1/2 an hour of bashing asylum seekers would have raised by blood pressure to far. I am utterly sick to death of the racist attitudes which seem to be growing in this country, the way it’s all dressed up as somehow caring for people is appalling.
Glad I was watching a program about the Goodwood Festival of speed on ONE HD. I enjoyed Masterchef finale, although I was a little disturbed by the advertisement for Masterchef Kids, or whatever it’s called. I think Ten’s going a little far trying to cash in on the brand with that one, but that’s just MHO, for what it’s worth.
Tobias:“But I have barely heard a voice in the media echoing those sentiments, which makes me wonder whether I’m missing something or whether they are.”
Jon Faine on ABC Melbourne this morning was damning: “I can’t remember such a depleted leaders debate in any election since I’ve been watching them. I don’t remember such an absence of passion and such an absence of ideas. You can analyse leadership any way you like, but two people competing for the smaller target would hardly seem to satisfy any definition you can come up with.”
That’s just a sample. Listen here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2010/07/the-leaders-debate-bland-vs-bland-but-not-when-hawke-vs-keating-reignites.html?site=melbourne&program=melbourne_mornings
The Australian today ( don’t bother looking for a link) is a fetid froth of anti-Labor, anti-Gillard pieces, ranging from items about the miner’s tax to sneering little snipes about Gillard’s appearance, even her ear-lobes for chrissakes. Bolt sings from the same sheet today, cherrypicking a photo that he says shows she’s tired and ill-at-ease. The machine is grinding up through its rusty old gears again….
Virginia Trioli has been on about this on ABC2 breakfast. Last week she interviewed some crusty old misogynist who said because women take longer to get dressed in the morning, this is bound to accummulate over the campaign and tire her out. No mention of Abbott, who gets up at ridiculous hours of the morning to run and cycle – which I’d imagine would have more of an effect on tiredness levels across the campaign than simply getting dressed each day.
Trioli said it again a couple of days later. Total sexism, and she ought to know better.
MR @ 25,
The Oz’s current Lead Header is:
Gillard stumbles on company tax date
Yet to see a heading for Abbott or the Coalition with a negative connotation from the Coalition Chronicler.
Then we have this “opinion” piece:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration-debate-asinine/story-fn59niix-1225897215975
An economic “historian”. Economic management in hind-sight. How quaint and how convenient:
And then there’s this one from The Oz:
Shine comes off Julia Gillard as Tony Abbott rises
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/shine-comes-off-julia-gillard-as-tony-abbott-rises/story-fn59niix-1225897212977
Attributed to Peter van Onselen:
And then some friendly advice for the Coalition – thanks Pete, mate.
Go the Coalition! Go you good thing!
They do like doing the reverse of what they acccuse the ‘Labor spin machine’ of doing over at The Oz – giving pollies the gratuitous advice they so obviously need.
We should have a pundit bingo card “What Gillard Must Do” would be one square.
The visiting Harvard history professor said yesterday Australia’s budget stimulus — the third biggest in the developed world — had not been justified by the size of the global financial crisis hit to this country’s economy.
“I studied and studied and studied for my exam and what a waste of time – the exam wasn’t difficult at all!”
Oh yes, ‘right whingers’ always happy to quote an academic when it suits ‘em and the first to slag em off when it doesn’t fit the blinkers..
Fast forward to the current time and the lead headline at the Oz-pposition is:
Stimulus grants ‘favoured ALP seats’
12:49PM Nicola Berkovic JULIA Gillard will be confronted by damaging allegations of pork-barrelling following a damning audit report.
Here’s the current headlines in full on the election at the Oz-pposition:
DeanL @27
Niall Ferguson appearing at the Centre for Indepedent Studies, I suppose his next engagment will be the IPA. Why not post an opinion piece by say Paul Krugman, like this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman
But that might not be too helpful to Tones policy of cuts to infrastucture spending to reign in the deficit so I doubt we will ever see it reproduced in the OZ.
If you only need one reason not to vote for Abbott and his backward mob, it’s this one….
And just so you don’t go to bed with the wrong impression, The Australian manages to find a “damning report”.” I wonder if it’s about Labor or the Liberals”, thinks a visitor from Jupiter.
mw @36
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2010-11%20Audit%20Report%20No%203.pdf
Start on page 46 – “Distribution and announcement of funding”
I’ll let dear readers form their own conclusions. But merely by reading the relevant section of the report, you’ll all be better-informed than most journalists who report on it
The short version is that the distribution of dollars was slightly in favor of labor, while the independents took some funding that “should” (if you see things that way) have gone to coalition seats. To wit:
The figures on numbers of approved projects are more skewed, but I think the dollar values are probably more useful if you want to talk about what’s “fair”.
The big winners (IMHO) weren’t really in labor seats, they were in independent seats. But, then, my old mum always reckoned the best place to be was in a swinging seat. They get all the goodies. My old high school got practically rebuilt from the ground up when a redistribution put it in a marginal district. I don’t think there’s anything new about that.
DeanL @27
Hey – I’ve got an opinion too, and I bet I can tailor it so that the CIS likes it.
I’ll bet our reserve bank and treasury noggins against this character any day.
Just a follow-up to @37
I wonder if this is pork-barreling and rorting?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/27/2965821.htm
Cue conservative outrage … now.
Oh, and this one’s interesting too:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/27/2965878.htm
Oh REALLY? Do tell. Because the Oz would have us think this is (and I quote, via AB – who really doesn’t deserve a link when he just does this copy/paste routine)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-spin-machine-goes-into-overdrive-with-questions-for-tony-abbott/story-fn59niix-1225896933191
Of course, in that story, Matthew Franklin is criticising LABOR staffers, not Liberal, for feeding questions to journalists. He even goes as far as to claim:
But that ABC article suggests that maybe the Libs aren’t as pure as Mr Franklin would have us think.
Seriously, does anyone really think it was ever any different? Or are Oz readers just assumed to be naive?
Current Oz-pposition election coverage headlines:
Bernard Keane has a great piece addressing the gender issues at play in the media during the campaign.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/07/28/the-sisterhood-jesus-how-about-common-decency/
Dave: This post at LP is also relevent.
http://larvatusprodeo.ozblogistan.com.au/2010/07/28/medialibs-gender-campaign-against-gillard-is-filthy/
Current headlines at the Oz-pposition:
Tony’s Great Big New Company Tax Cut receives breathless puffing from The Awfullytorystrailian. Wonderful news! But the earlier version of the story told us that the company tax cut would be paid for by “future savings”. This version doesn’t even have that rubbery concept to enlighten us as to where Tone-boy is going to drag the cash up for it.
Current Oz-pposition headlines:
Opposition to appoint an Environment Commissioner. Two questions for Abbott:
1. given you’ve identified savings through a “hriring freeze” in the public service, where will the staff come from?
2. why is the proposed Commissioner not going to identify any environmental programs of its own, but only review those that others come up with?
Will the press gallery put these questions to Abbott, or will we see the usual slack dixers they usually throw up?