Framing the vox pop
An advertisement presently on SourceBottle:
Families Wanted
Country: Australia
Media outlet/Publication: Major metro newspaper
Does your source need to be local? Yes
Summary: Need a family to talk about carbon taxDetails:
Do you live in Melbourne? Do you have a combined household income of $90,000? Do you also have two teenagers? We want you!We’re looking for a family who fits the above criteria to be photographed for a story about the carbon tax and the compensation that’s coming. Doesn’t matter how you feel about the tax, we just want to talk to you.
Thanks!
Why $90,000? Because you’re not interested in the (far greater numbers of) people on less than that who will receive more compensation? Because you’re framing the “average family” tale to suggest to the people who will be better off that they won’t be?
The problem with this is that the “here’s an average family” narrative implicitly asserts to readers that the subjects in question are representative of the general public. That if there’s only one of them then they were selected at random. That they were not cynically selected to push a particular view.
But if you’re ruling out vast swathes of the electorate before you even begin – even with an insincere “Doesn’t matter how you feel about the tax” – you are not providing what you are leading readers to believe you are providing.
If the story resulting from this ad (and I suspect on Thursday or Friday we’ll have a pretty good idea of which one it was) acknowledges the families surviving on less than $90,000 who will be better off with the compensation, or acknowledges that it declined to speak with such families for the story because it’s only interested in complaints about the carbon price, I’ll quit this Pure Poison gig for good.
Damn, I don’t have two teenagers. Maybe I can borrow a couple for the photo …
Doesn’t matter how you feel about the tax, we just want to talk to you.
YEAH, RIGHT!
It’s so tempting to apply. Send in a photo of a nice clean cut anglo family and when the crew rock up, bring out the “freaks”. Maybe two mummies or two daddies for starters. Add a crazy religion and watch the camera crew and reporter run a mile.
This is probably for the glum looking family that will appear on the front page of the Daily Telegraph and Murdoch tabloids in their story for July 1 – family has to give up holidays / electricity / food because of the carbon tax.
Well, I tried to get two teenagers in as part of the act. Visited the local skate park and approached a couple of lads, saying “I’ll give you $50 if you come back to my place and call me ‘Dad’.”
For some reason they backed off, slowly, maintaining eye contact the whole time …
This is the type of stuff I am going to miss.
If they don’t find a suitable “family” they can always use the PR woman recently featured on MW who posed for one story as a battler and another as lady-who-lunches-in-Prada.
I think Dave’s tenure is safe.
Whaaa…? I read this before “Moving On” – very disappointing to learn of the end of PP – the main reason, apart from FDotM, that I subscribe. And just re-upped for 2 years, wotta waste!
The murdocracy isn’t going to give the carbon tax a chance, besides some has to give the coalition and the ABC their talking points.
It will be the BER, private health insurance rebate, all over again.
The only way for the govt to sell it is the reason for it, not the compensation packages.
They may have difficulty finding anyone, I’m sure that most families fitting that description will already have given up their jobs, bought large quantities of baked beans and tinned ham and retreated to their underground shelters. My family has, and I know quite a few other families who are doing the same. We’re not coming out until Tony Abbott is PM.