GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 63
23 JULY 2010
IN THIS ISSUE
● Up With The Latest At The ABC News 24 Launch – Minimalism On The Public Broadcast Set
● Some Election Reflections – Julia Gillard’s Free Kick in the Sun-Herald ; Kerry O’Brien Does His Own “Red Faces” Performance at Tony Abbott’s Absence; Alexandra Kirk Flays Abbott With An Anonymous Source; Fran Kelly Finds Labor’s Talking Points
● Beat Ups of the Week – Samantha Maiden and David Marr Go On and On About Joe Hockey and Paris Hilton; Heath Aston Gets Fixated on Former MP’s Traffic Fines; John Rolfe Stars In His Own Production (Hands Up Anyone Who’s Not Convinced By Such Questioning)
● Robert Manne Write to MWD – Wacko. MWD reflects on Professor Manne’s Resignation From The “Ruddite” Movement and His (Belated) Admission That He Should Not Have Opposed the Hawke/Keating Economic Reforms
● The Cliché In the Room (Continued) – Sue Dunlevy Sees A Giant Green Monster
STOP PRESS
AUNTY’S GREAT NECKS – PITY ABOUT THE SLOW START
Nancy was somewhat underwhelmed at the launch of ABC News 24 last night. She turned on the set in the expectation of seeing ABC Chairman Maurice Newman and/or ABC Managing Director Mark Scott doing the honours – perhaps in a dinner suit, maybe even a kilt – accompanied by such a worthy ABC board member as the luvvie Julianne Schultz. But no. The ABC 7.30 Report presenter Kerry O’Brien got the gig. And News 24 was away – to a somewhat slow start.
Rather than lead with Chris Uhlmann’s story about Kevin Rudd’s prime ministerial style, Mr O’Brien commenced droning about how, once upon a time, ABC TV had covered such news events as the Moon Landing, Watergate and the Dismissal and pictured the likes of Robert Menzies and Lindy Chamberlain. Wow. [Did Mr O’Brien also refer to the public broadcaster’s coverage or the Boer War and the Protestant Reformation? – Ed].
As to the set, it was tops. Scott Bevan and Ali Moore seemed like they had been locked away on a large, well-lit, factory floor with no desks or chairs or anything really. It looked like a (vacant) set for Dancing with the (Aunty) Stars or perhaps a scene for Alice in Wonderland. Clearly there were autocues somewhere near the roof – since that is where the presenters seemed to be looking. Just as well Mr Bevan and Ms Moore have necks that look just great when the light is behind, in front, and beside them.
AN ELECTION REFLECTION
The election is underway – and the media is on its best behavior. Virtually all newspapers and electronic news outlets attempt to be fair to the major parties during the five (or six) week campaign involved in Australian elections. There are some exceptions. But the point is that a lack of professionalism – or what is sometimes termed bias – is more likely to be found in between election campaigns.
The Sun-Herald Boosts Julia Gillard
Every now and then, however, mistakes are made. Last Sunday’s The Sun-Herald is a case in point. Its cover consisted almost entirely of a photo of Prime Minister Julia Gillard alongside the caption: “It’s your choice: move Australia forward or go back”. This could have been a paid advertisement for the Labor Party – but it was presented as news. Most other papers gave coverage to Tony Abbott as well as Ms Gillard on the front page.
Kerry O’Brien’s Whinge-To-Air About Tony Abbott
The ABC takes special trouble to ensure that its election coverage is balanced. At the conclusion of each campaign, the ABC usually issues a report declaring that its coverage has been fair and balanced – or some such. Even so, slip-ups occur. Step forward 7.30 Report presenter Kerry O’Brien – the one time Gough Whitlam staffer [Is this fact still absent from Kerry O’Brien’s CV? – Ed] and the in-your-face (and everyone else’s face) critic of Peter Costello – See MWD Issue 11.
In spite of the ABC’s rules, Mr O’Brien finds it difficult to disguise his likes and dislikes – even during election campaigns.
On 5 July 2010 Kerry O’Brien interviewed Greens leader Bob Brown. Following a long introduction – which focused on the Greens’ relationship with the new Gillard Government and the party’s attempt to win the balance-of-power in the Senate along with one or more seats in the House of Representatives – O’Brien asked this first question to Senator Brown:
Bob Brown, one of your senators, Sarah Hanson-Young, has described Julia Gillard’s recent comments on asylum seekers as dog-whistling and the lowest form of politics that she’s seen played for a long time by the Labor Party. Now, that is a very strong statement. Do you agree with it?
Needless to say, Bob Brown declared that he did agree with the statement of his parliamentary colleague. How about that?
And here is how Kerry O’Brien commenced his interview with Opposition shadow treasurer Joe Hockey on the 7.30 Report on Wednesday:
Kerry O’Brien: After interviewing Julia Gillard on Monday, we were hoping Tony Abbott would be available last night or tonight to balance the scales. Mr Abbott couldn’t make it tonight. He’s on another television program called Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday with Daryl Somers on their “Red Faces” segment. So his Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, is here now to fill the breach. I understand you were complaining today about Labor trivialising this election campaign. But before we get to that, are there any Paris Hilton lines you want to share with us tonight?
Joe Hockey : No, Kerry. And I think you’re wrong also about Tony Abbott. I’m sure he’s prepared to come on your program. It’s just he hasn’t been able to fit in your timetable because of existing commitments.
Kerry O’Brien : He’s agreed to come on next week. It’s a pity he couldn’t be here for the first –
Joe Hockey : Sorry. We can’t always get what we want, Kerry.
Kerry O’Brien : Our audience is what I was thinking of. So your point about the trivialisation: what is it?
What a start. First up, O’Brien publicly complained that Abbott had not come on the 7.30 Report on Tuesday and had given preference to Channel 9’s Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday on Wednesday. Then he asked a smart-alec question about Hockey’s reference to Paris Hilton made earlier in the day. And then O’Brien went into rudeness mode by asking “So your point about the trivialisation – what is it?”
Joe Hockey did well enough during the interview. However, truly frank responses to O’Brien’s initial salvo would have gone like this:
- Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday rates more highly than the 7.30 Report and is more likely to be watched by the Opposition’s target audience – namely, potential lower socio-economic swinging voters in the outer suburbs and regional centres.
- By raising the Paris Hilton matter on the 7.30 Report, O’Brien was engaging in what had already become a media beat-up. See below.
- Since Coalition politicians rarely receive professional treatment when interviewed by O’Brien on the 7.30 Report, there is no reason why Abbott should go on this program during the first week of the election campaign. Or any other week, for that matter. The 2010 election will not be decided on the 7.30 Report.
- O’Brien is more interested in stating his own (predictable) views than asking questions or listening to anyone. As Bernard Keane depicted the scenario in Crikey yesterday, O’Brien puts himself in “the role of Inquisitor-General” as against the “interrogated”. It’s so predictable, so boring and so unimportant.
This is not a matter of O’Brien favouring Labor over the Coalition. Writing in Crikey on 26 February 2010, Bernard Keane had this to say about O’Brien’s interview with then prime minister Kevin Rudd, which focused on the home insulation scheme:
Still, the media drew blood last night with Rudd admitting, in uncharacteristically plain language, to being disappointed with himself to Kerry O’Brien. O’Brien, who was embarrassingly ill-informed about the meaning of the Minter Ellison report and convinced it was some sort of smoking gun, had spent the preceding 10 minutes demanding answers of Rudd and then, when the Prime Minister had the effrontery to actually provide them, angrily demanding different answers…
We also had an extensive display of that special O’Brien pause that Malcolm Turnbull pinged last year, where O’Brien asks a question, pauses long enough to invite his interlocutor to answer, before cutting them off mid-sentence to make a further inquiry that may or may not relate to the previous question. It’s a pause that, far from refreshing, seems designed to trip up interviewees, unless you’re Turnbull and take to asking O’Brien if he’s finished talking and you can have a go now.
The fact is that John Howard would have been better off not appearing on the “O’Brien Half Hour” during the 2007 election campaign. And Tony Abbott should not bother this time – but MWD expects that he will.
ALEXANDRA KIRK’S SOURCE WITHOUT A NAME
Nancy thought that Tony Abbott did okay on Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday. Not so Alexandra Kirk. Her coverage of the Opposition leader’s performance led AM on Thursday. Ms Kirk’s report contained no news whatsoever but consisted entirely of what she thought about the “Red Faces” acts and judges. After this, Alexandra Kirk concluded her piece with the following comment:
Alexandra Kirk: If it was seen as an opportunity to showcase another side of Tony Abbott and garner some votes, a senior colleague didn’t think it was worth it. He gave his leader four out of ten, saying it’s not something prospective prime ministers should do.
It says much for AM’’s journalistic standards that it would lead the program with a critique of the Opposition leader on a comedy show – the punch-line of which featured a quote from an anonymous source.
FRAN KELLY’S TALKING POINTS
Labor starts favourite to win the election. So much so that some Labor types must be tempted to stay in bed some mornings and leave it to some presenters to make the party’s case for them. Fran Kelly, perhaps.
On Thursday the Radio National Breakfast presenter was hard at it stating her own opinions. The interviewee was Opposition shadow finance minister Andrew Robb and discussion turned on the Coalition’s commitment to expand the education tax refund.
MWD just loved it when, in response to hostile questioning, Andrew Robb declared that the Coalition’s scheme had received a favourable review from Age economic journalist Tim Colebatch and that “the Coalition’s plan is clearly better, clearly better”. To which La Kelly responded: “Alright. Well, I guess that’s for the voters to judge.” Well, thanks for that.
Soon after discussion turned on the Rudd/Gillard Government’s decision to move the budget from surplus to deficit. Robb’s point was that Labor was complaining of the Coalition’s “black-holes” in its finances whereas Labor had created black-holes due to its financial stimulation package. To which Kelly opined that Labor’s black-hole “was caused by the Global Financial Crisis”. It was as if Labor had not taken any spending initiatives at all. Or that Kelly was reading from Labor’s talking points.
Later, when Robb insisted that the Coalition’s decision to scrap the proposed National Broadband Network would result in $18 billion of savings, La Kelly responded:
Yeah. But it’s not an $18 billion saving. Look we must move on.
In other words. You (Robb) are wrong. I (Kelly) am right. That’s the end of the discussion – so let’s move on.
Andrew Robb jumped in and defended his position. Why bother? Next time Robb should ask the questions and Kelly should give her (predictable) opinions. At least this would make for easier listening.
BEAT-UPS OF THE WEEK
Samantha Maiden and David Marr Chastise Joe Hockey On Paris Hilton
Perhaps Opposition shadow treasurer Joe Hockey erred when he declared that Wayne Swan’s attitude to budget surpluses was similar to Paris Hiltons’ attitude to celibacy – they remember it once existed but they’ll never see it again. Or something like that.
For some reason or other, the Sky News Agenda program decided to spend lotsa time analysing the Hockey quip. First up there was Samantha Maiden. Followed by David Marr. Here’s what they thought:
Samantha Maiden: Well, I think it’s pretty stupid because it looks really sleazy. I mean, at the end of the day, it’s one thing for Joe Hockey to invoke Paris Hilton’s spending – which I think has been invoked in the past. People have basically said: “You know, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, you know, they’re spending like Paris Hilton.” But to invoke her sex life, I think, crosses a line. Now what would Joe Hockey know about Paris Hilton’s sex life? Nothing. It’s a grubby remark. And Tony Abbott, over the shoulder of Joe Hockey, sort of snorting and guffawing looks like a dirty old man. I mean, they’re not coming and saying Shane Warne and celibacy or some bloke and celibacy. But some, you know, American starlet that, you know, most people would prefer not to hear about is fair game. I just think it made them look like grubs.
David Speers reminded his panel that Hockey’s quip was certainly meant to be a joke. But then David Marr weighed in:
David Marr: Jokes are meant to be funny. And let’s get to the heart of this issue here. It’s the amazing expectation of Joe Hockey that Paris Hilton should be celibate. Celibate! I mean perhaps chaste but celibate. I mean priests are supposed to be celibate. This poor girl has been misused by Joe, it just isn’t funny. It’s just not funny.
What a beat-up. Joe Hockey was not saying that he knows anything about Ms Hilton’s personal life which is not available through any media outlet. And Joe Hockey never proposed that Paris Hilton “should be celibate”. It was just an attempted joke that didn’t work very well. That’s all.
Speed And The Vanishing Liberal MP
While on the subject of beat-ups consider Heath Aston’s exclusive in last Sunday’s Sun-Herald under the heading: “Speeding MP may put Labor in driving seat”, Heath Aston reported:
The Liberal Party’s attempt to hold on to the key southern Sydney seat of Hughes has hit an early speed bump: the outgoing MP Danna Vale is in trouble with the law over repeated speeding offences. Ms Vale, 65, has lost her driver’s licence after being hit with a string of speeding fines.
For the record, Danna Vale is not re-contesting the seat of Hughes. Craig Kelly, the Liberal Party’s candidate for Hughes, is not related to Ms Vale. Whatever Kelly’s political fate, it is unlikely that Hughes electors will vote in accordance with their assessment of the former MP’s driving record.
John Rolfe “Star” – Or Just Insensitive?
This is how John Rolfe, the Daily Telegraph consumer affairs reporter, covered his very own LOOK AT ME appearance at the Australian Business Economists function which was held in Sydney on 21 July 2010 and addressed by Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens:
Famed playwright, George Bernard Shaw once quipped that if all the economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion. Until now. When a ballroom of 370 people – mostly leading economists – was asked by The Daily Telegraph yesterday if one side of politics would apply more downward pressure on interest rates than the other, the audience was of one mind. Anyone promising they can lessen mortgage stress is having you on.
As Shaw suggested, economists rarely agree. So the unanimity displayed at the Australian Business Economists function may have put paid to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s campaign commitment to “take the pressure off interest rates”.
What a load of tripe. Here is what happened. Before asking Glenn Stevens a question, John Rolfe asked the captive audience to raise their hand if they believe that any government could implement policies which put downward pressure on interest rates.
Quite correctly, the audience declined to respond to Mr Rolfe’s rude showmanship. Consequently, in apparent narcissistic mode, Rolfe concluded that everyone in the room agreed with him. He even took Mr Stevens’ “no comment” response as implied agreement.
Still, didn’t John Rolfe look just great, photographed in colour on Page 2 of the Daily Telegraph the following day asking his question? It sure beats reporting on the quality and price of spuds at Coles or Woolworths.
CORRESPONDENCE
LET’S HEAR FROM ROBERT MANNE – TENURED PROFESSOR
MWD is a busy working canine. So it’s always a relief to receive correspondence – especially from someone who wants their view published.
Last week, when questioning ABC reports that the ostensibly pro-Labor organisation Per Capita is really “an independent think tank”, MWD referred to a “Josh Burnside” as a member of Per Capita’s Board. This should have read Josh Bornstein – and has now been corrected. Professor Robert Manne was first with the correction as the following correspondence demonstrates:
Email from Robert Manne to Gerard Henderson – Sunday 18 July 2010 – 7.49 am
Who is Josh Burnside?
Email from Gerard Henderson to Robert Manne – Monday 19 July 2010 – 9.22 am
Robert
Good to hear from you again.
I would like to say that this was a John Laws style “deliberate mistake” – but, alas, it was a just a mistake. MWD is written early on Friday morning against a tight deadline and some typos invariably occur. That’s why I’m grateful to conscientious MWD readers, like you, to drawing my attention to typos. Someone else drew my attention to “affiliated” which, alas, came out as “afflicted”. Corrections have now been made.
Best wishes in your now post “Ruddite” phase.
Gerard
Email from Robert Manne to Gerard Henderson – Monday 19 July 2010 – 9.44 am
Dear Gerard,
Thanks for your as ever sincere good wishes. I am now looking forward eagerly to the Howlers section of the next Media Watch. Or perhaps you’d like to print this email exchange,
Best wishes, Robert
Email from Gerard Henderson to Robert Manne – Monday 19 July 2010 – 12 pm
Dear Robert
I am always willing to correct my errors. I even publish correspondence from critics in the Institute’s journals. I have even published you in the past.
I note, for the record, that for years – as publisher of The Monthly – you refused to publish correspondence in The Monthly’s print edition and you refused to publish corrections.
Since MWD is typed from my handwritten copy against a tight deadline, the occasional typo is inevitable – but soon corrected. As you should be aware, this is common practice with blogs.
Keep morale high.
Gerard
* * * *
When honouring Professor Manne’s request to have his views published, MWD reflected that your man Robert has had a difficult year. So far.
In a letter which he wrote for The Weekend Australian on 15-16 May 2010 – which was directed at Henry Ergas as an artificial means to engage debate – Professor Manne conceded that he had “mistakenly opposed parts of the Hawke-Keating reforms”. This is some admission since Professor Manne opposed virtually all of the Hawke/Keating economic reforms in the 1980s and early 1990s and argued that Australia should learn from the Japanese economy – which proceeded to go into a two-decade long recession. Professor Manne survives as a commentator today because no one implemented his economic policies during the past quarter century. If the Manne view had been implemented, he would have been discredited by the resultant economic failure. The late B.A. Santamaria escaped a similar fate for similar reasons.
Then in The Weekend Australian on 26-27 June 2010 – just after Julia Gillard became prime minister – Robert Manne wrote about Kevin Rudd’s “hyperactive, controlling, hectoring and interfering” temperament. Manne also claimed that Rudd lacks a “native political instinct”, exhibited a “manic work ethic” and lacked “political touch”. Fancy that. In the November 2008 issue of The Monthly Robert Manne proudly declared that he had “become a Ruddite”. So, in less than two years, Manne has gone from being a Ruddite to depicting the former prime minister as a hectoring, manic, control freak without political skills.
But Mr Rudd should not be too upset by the Professor’s most recent metamorphosis. In the early 1970s Robert Manne was an enthusiastic supporter of Labor’s Gough Whitlam, then he embraced the Catholic anti-communist B.A. Santamaria, then he became a fan of Paul Keating, then he voted against Keating in 1996 and proudly supported John Howard, then he became the leading Howard-hater in the land, then he became a Ruddite, then he junked Rudd, then…[please stop – Ed].
THE CLICHÉ IN THE ROOM (CONTINUED)
The Adelaide Advertiser’s Mark Kenny gave the “elephant in the room” reference a run on Sky News last Wednesday. He was referring to something or other – it doesn’t really matter much.
But Mr Kenny’s effort has been out-flanked by the Daily Telegraph’s Sue Dunlevy who super-sized the cliché to reflect the possible emerging role of the Greens. On the Daily Telegraph website today, Ms Dunlevy opined:
It’s the giant green monster in the room that no one wants to talk about: what will happen if the Greens win the balance of power in the Senate and just how would a Labor government repay the party’s preference deal?
* * * * *
Until next time then. In the meantime look out for invisible giant monsters who inhabit rooms.