Politics in Australia annoys me. Most politicians annoy me. The community’s acceptance of the state of politics and the skill level of our politicians annoys me. Here is why:
When elected governments have an issue that they took to the election as a promise we will hear talk of how they have “a mandate for change”, “a mandate for action” which is fair enough given the Collins dictionary defines mandate as “the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory”. Yet when they are breaking a promise, the word mandate and all its meaning vanishes. It is my belief that political parties contesting election should publish all the issues they are seeking a “mandate” on before the election in a clear and simple format, free of spin. That list then needs to be monitored and have the outcomes recorded against each issue stating what has happened, what is planned, why nothing has happened and will anything happen. I’m tired of promises being made, forgotten, distorted and buried.
I’m tired of the 24 hour media cycle, the politics it promotes and the style of politician that thrives under it. It is an incredibly lazy system that we have allowed to develop. The cycle is promoted by the media advisors of the parties in an attempt to keep their party in the headlines, it is sold to us by the media as what we want, when in reality the reason they are on board with the 24 hour cycle is that it lets them do very little work. All a journalist needs to do these days is take the press release, throw in a few lines of padding about things that don’t matter, then add a headline and presto, you have an article. Why search for the full facts? Why do any real analysis? Why ignore the spin and self-promotion that is hidden in all the press releases, the media advisors have given you a “just add water story” so that is all they need to do. This has led to society being inundated with announcements, headlines, promises, facts and figures, all unchecked all with very little analysis and even less substance. This inundation has lead to accountability being a forgotten word. Politicians are no longer held accountable for the truth and consequence of what they say and do, as society is so confused and swamped by what they have actually said. They are only held to account by their party on whether what they have said has resulted in a positive outcome in the polls.
What this means is we are left with a system that is inundated with fame seeking politicians and sitcom sized problems, problems that create headlines, get the politicians in the spotlight and make it appear to the electorate like our elected representatives are earning their keep. This has lead to simple solutions for simple problems and no one watching what is happening to the complex problems. If we want our society to thrive, we need to remove the celebrity of politics, stop allowing politicians to appear in our nightly news bulletins and front page stories as a daily occurrence. Only put them in our papers if what they have done truly warrants the front page, only interview them if they have something of substance to say. We need to stop applauding mediocrity, start applauding them for what they are elected to do, that is, make tough decisions, act on the behalf of their electorate, and work their backsides off for the good of the country and not for the good of the next election. If you want to be a celebrity, go win a Logie, don’t become a politician.
It is not news unless it is new.
ReplyDeleteKilo your comment reminds me of the popular phrase become clique, "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" The late 19th and early 20th century phrase embodies the media’s pursuit for communicating news immediately. Newspapers of that era published daily and then may publish an extra addition for popular breaking news. The purpose is simple and has not changed; increase profits by increasing market share. To develop market share papers need not have information only of interest, but have information communicated first. The newer the news is the more circulation it receives. Just as the young paper boy of the 1920’s screaming ‘extra’ is competing for market share by boosting circulation, so to is the media when it publishes unedited press releases within newspapers and online. The recent phenomenon of raw footage, where unedited filmed images are circulated on the internet by the media follows the media’s pursuit for market share.
Kilo you present the idea that news was allowed to develop into a simple system where press releases are simply re-branded and distributed to the public. A ‘just add water story’. But when was this golden age of ruthless research and thorough analysis ever a feature of news? News seems to have always been about immediacy - a long tradition of capturing the market with breaking stories and dramatic events. After all, is presenting a thoroughly checked article days after the event news? Perhaps it is, but it has certainly lost the interest of the market. Acting against which is simply acting against consumerism.
Is there a solution to journalists re-branding press releases? Is there a solution to consumerism? (I can only think of incredibly drastic solutions) It seems that politicians will always be subject to the media. And therefore will be subject to the inconsistencies and ‘factlessness’ that the media consistently provides.
Crispy I don't believe there ever was a "golden age" but I do believe that journalists have become an extension of the marketing department of those seeking celebrity though our political system. My point wasn't so much that the media is engaging in lazy reporting (although that is part of my gripe) what concerns me is the quality of elected official that thrives under such as system, the style of policy that is then produced and the consequence this has for our society.
ReplyDeleteTake for instance the "Resource Super Profits Tax". The Henry tax review had designed a "Resource Rent Tax", now what Mr Rudd's spin doctors have done by changing the name of the tax have tried to bring into the argument that miners are making billions and are ripping the country off. This has been done to sell the tax to the electorate, paint the miners as an industry earning "super profits" and suddenly the tax is more palatable to the lay person. Mr Rudd's pride and joy, the National Broadband Network is project to return a "modest" (Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner) 7%, but for miners 6% is a super profit?
How about the federal government takeover of our health system. Hold on it is a 60/40 share of the funding, not exactly a takeover is it?
I have no doubt that our media outlets are bombarded with mountains of paper from all sides of our political system. Does this mean they should allow it to continue? why do you think our political parties are constantly issuing their marketing materials? (sorry I mean press releases). The reason they do is because they are no longer concerned with government, they are not concerned with doing what they are elected to do, the sole job of every politician has become "Make sure you get re-elected". So policy has now become marketing, with misleading titles that have been carefully crafted to gain the populist vote. The detail behind the title should be what gains the vote, not the headline!
Do I need to mention the $80-120 million about to be spent on government advertising leading into the next election?
ReplyDelete