| 
Yesterday I bought a copy of Lindsay Tanner’s book, Sideshow: Dumbing Down of Democracy.
The book is not a memoir, it is in fact much closer to George Megalogenis’ Quarterly Essay Trivial Pursuit, than it is some tell-all political autobiography. The book’s central thesis is that the media and politicians are locked into a dumbed-down, trivial, vicious circle, which is, for the most part, instigated by dumb, lazy journalism and the dumb media organisation that encourage such journalism. So well argued and accurate is Tanner’s thesis that I think this may actually be the first time a book’s thesis has been completely proven correct before the book has even been officially launched. The book is a complex and intelligent discussion of politics and the media. It is free of the back biting shite that usually dominates ex-politicians’ books. There’s no “Rudd was this”, “Gillard was that”, and “I would have done it all better if I had been PM”. In fact Tanner often refers to times when he was as guilty of dumbing down things for the media as he was victim of bad reporting. His book is not aimed at an audience who want gossip.
As such it is something completely outside the dumbed-down vicious cycle.
But why do I suggest he has been proven correct? Well here is Tanner on page 22:
“Deliberate DistortionsMere trivia by itself, though, is not sufficient to make political content entertaining. A rather bewildering variety of devices is used by journalists and editors to spice up what would otherwise be relatively bland content. In the process, the content is often so distorted that it bears little resemblance to the substance which notionally gave birth to it.”So let’s test that thesis. Let’s see how Tanner’s book has been covered by the media (mostly by Samantha Maiden and the News Ltd papers):
“Maiden: Minutes will define Prime Minister” “Former finance minister Lindsay Tanner savages leaders, media in new book” “Tanner sitting on ticking time bomb” “Insider lets rip on Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd governments, labelled ‘dumb democracy’” “Ex-minister unloads on Rudd govt” “Former federal minister slams govt” “Labor slogan set ‘new records for banality’: Tanner” “Tanner dumps on PM”From a look at those headlines, you’d think Sideshow was Mark Latham Diaries Part III.
Last week in Crikey, Maiden took issue with the suggestion her reporting of the book was lousy, by asserting Tanner’s publishers should be happy because of all the free publicity she gave them. Which I guess means that the corollary of any publicity is good publicity, is that any journalism is good journalism.
But let’s have a look at some of the reporting:
“Lindsay Tanner could drop a bomb on the Labor Party this week by revealing once and for all whether Julia Gillard secretly pushed for an emissions trading scheme to be dumped.”Well yeah, he “could”, except he didn’t – and, in fact, states that he won’t in the introduction! So given that is the lead of the piece, it is rather in dire need of a point.
How about this brilliant bit from the Sunday Telegraph editorial:
…A former member of inner-Cabinet’s “gang of four”, Lindsay Tanner, has pole-axed Ms Gillard….He takes veiled digs at ex-colleagues, in the guise of a critique of “shallow” media coverage: Julia Gillard dyes her hair red,This suggestion was also included in much of Maiden’s copy:
Attacking Julia Gillard’s Moving Forward election slogan and suggesting she has helped build her brand as a “ranga” by dyeing her hair…Well now, “pole-axed”, “attacking”. Geez. Tanner must be really on the warpath. How about we let the facts (i.e. the actual book) do their work. Here is the only part in the book where Tanner refers to Gillard dying her hair:
“One might think it strange that for a number of years, Julia Gillard has died her hair red. In fact, it’s perfectly sensible: it makes her more noticeable. When an ordinary voter makes disparaging references to the ‘ranga’, that’s a good thing. She has registered as an individual personality in the sideshow. The voter knows she exists.”So Tanner describing Gillard as doing something perfectly sensible within the context of how modern politics is covered by the media is now him “pole-axing” or “attacking” or “letting rip on” her?
Please.
In the desperate desire to find a story to make a splash, the Telegraph (among other News Ltd papers) and Maiden proved Tanner’s point completely – they spiced it up and distorted it to the point where it bore little resemblance to the original substance.
Nice work. Such a tactic works great for New Idea and NW, but you’d hope when it comes to the fairly important issue of Australian politics and how it is covered by the media, that there might be just a little bit more intelligence used.
But why would Maiden and the Telegraph get the coverage so wrong? Well a big clue lies in this fact: The Sunday Telegraph did not obtain an embargoed copy of the book, prior to it’s release, but was briefed on key extracts,
So eager to be in first with the scoop on what would be in the book, Maiden didn’t trouble herself with actually reading it! But that doesn’t stop her doing some in depth analysis:
“The central thesis of Tanner’s book is, however, that the media are to blame for modern politics’ problems. By retreating from their traditional role of reporting serious political issues and replacing it with infotainment, he argues the coverage “focuses more and more on trivia, gimmicks, and personalities, politicians’ behaviour”.Hang on, how does she know the central thesis if she hasn’t read the book?
“The flood of spin, ‘announceables’, slogans, and stunts that characterises modern politics is a direct result of these changing media dynamics,” claims the promotional blurb on his book’s website. “In effect, the media are turning political reporting into a sideshow driven by entertainment imperatives because of threats from intensifying competition and technological change.”Yep, she read the blurb, some extracts, and the book’s website. Outstanding work. Great reporting.
She then gives us this:
“Tanner raises some legitimate points. And it’s rare for such a political insider to write an account of his life in politics so soon after he departed the political stage. In my book, that is to be applauded for the insight it provides. But the weakness of his thesis is an attempt to blame the media almost entirely for the malaise. If the system is broken in Tanner’s eyes, like all dysfunctional relationships all the players bear some responsibility.”Well if she had actually read the book she would see that Tanner does write about politicians needing to bear some responsibility. In fact he even admits that he played the game and is quite cutting about the way the last election played out. But unfortunately for Maiden, he doesn’t give what she really wants – a tell-all, drop-a-bomb-on-the-Labor-Party bit.
Most journalists seem to think policy is the reaction of polls. They think policy is someone from the AWU saying Whyalla will be wiped off the map. They think policy is a disagreement in cabinet over a policy. They think policy is one line in an Auditor General’s Report. They think policy is someone talking tough on asylum seekers. They think policy is whether or not a website gets a lot of hits. They think policy is total number of fires, but not the proportion. They think policy is a few school principals complaining about poor quality workmanship, but not a report that finds 97 per cent are happy. They think policy is Joe Hockey saying the Govt is full of waste and mismanagement. They think policy is an ad campaign. They think policy is today, and not next year.
I don’t completely blame these journalists who struggle with writing about policy, or asking actual policy questions, because here’s a little bit of a tip on writing well about policy – it is bloody hard. It takes time to research that many in the press gallery don’t have, and it requires knowledge of issues that most completely lack.
When the issue of health comes up, I stay well clear of writing about policy, because health policy is incredibly complex and I am pretty ignorant of how the health system works. And so I rely on those who know what they are talking about – like Sue Dunlevy in The Oz, or Melissa Sweet at “Croaky” (Sweet by the way gets praise from Tanner in Sideshow as an example of bloggers who broaden the quality of commentary). I know a bit about telecommunications policy, but I always fear that an article by Bernard Keane (a bloke, I’d argue, who knows more about such policy than the press gallery combined) will show me up as an amateur.
Policy is hard, so too is analysing a book – you actually have to read it – just reading excerpts or the blurb ain’t going to cut it – not at least if you want to be taken seriously.
Lindsay Tanner has written a thought provoking book that does have faults – I agree he goes softer on politicians than would I were I the one writing the book. But to focus on that is to ignore that his criticism of the media is bloody well spot on. How do we know this? Well take this part from the introduction of his book:
“Given the sideshow syndrome, I know that most political journalists will quickly scan this book, looking for shock revelations about the inner working of the Rudd Government . … The relatively small number of journalists who read this book will search for someone to blame for the problems it reports. Somehow or other they will be looking to create a headline that begin with “Tanner attacks…””Well I guess he was wrong – they went with “Tanner savages…” Sigh.
Read the book. It doesn’t offer as many solutions as I would like, but it raises the issues clearly and well. It should be read by all who take politics and policy seriously (and I hope that includes most of the press gallery).
* * *
Greg Jericho, otherwise known as Grog’s Gamut (twitter handle: @GrogsGamut ) is a guy interested in sport, literature and politics.
The full length version of this article was originally published on his blog http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/ and reprinted here with his kind permission
+ 17 + 5 | < Prev | Next > |
|---|