A plain man’s guide to an emissions trading scheme

By Ad astra

George Megalogenis has criticized the Rudd Government for not making it sufficiently clear what it has in mind for a carbon emissions trading scheme. He says: “OK, it’s a complex topic, but the job of leadership is to translate and educate. An ETS is how governments place a price on carbon pollution. It takes two steps to explain, which is why politicians can get tongue-tied. The Government sets a limit on how much carbon that industry can belch into the atmosphere, and sells permits for the right to pollute. But it leaves it to the market to sort out which firms continue emitting greenhouse gases at that higher cost, while the rest switch to cleaner energy sources.” The Weekend Australian 12-13 July. So there it is. But how many punters would get the gist of ETS from that ‘word bite’? Nicholson’s cartoon in The Weekend Australian 19-20 July captures the teething troubles in explaining the scheme.

I thought it might be interesting to fashion an uncomplicated statement for the typical voter, who eventually will have to pass judgement on the ETS. This is my first try. Respondents are invited to hack it about, improve it, or substitute their own. Let’s agree to a limit of around 1,000 words.

A plain man’s guide to an ETS

All political parties in Australia believe a carbon emissions trading scheme has become necessary to control the amount of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere. The Government’s Green Paper has now changed the name to a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Greenhouse gases

Most climate scientists are convinced that the earth is warming because of an increase in carbon in the atmosphere, which is mostly in the form of a gas, carbon dioxide. This gas traps heat close to the earth, just like a greenhouse traps heat inside. This is why it’s called a ‘greenhouse gas’. Another greenhouse gas is methane, which is generated largely in the agricultural sector.

Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide has one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen, and so is called CO2. It is produced whenever something containing carbon is burned – the carbon atom is joined to two oxygen atoms from the air. Some substances produce much more than others when burned – coal, particularly brown coal, emit large amounts of CO2, and are therefore called ‘heavy emitters’. Sometimes it’s said they have a large ‘carbon footprint’.

For centuries carbon has been emitted into the atmosphere, especially since the start of the industrial revolution. CO2 is also emitted from animals and plants, but plants also soak it up, so plants are called ‘carbon sinks’. Cutting down forests means that less CO2 can be soaked up.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has grown steadily over hundreds of years and is now around 387 parts per million (ppm). Its growth is accelerating. Climate scientists believe that there should be a limit of between 450 and 550 ppm by mid century, otherwise the earth will heat by more than 2 degrees Centigrade, and if that happened there would be severe effects that would change our way of living and reduce the chances of survival of many living things. Already we are seeing the effects of increasing temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic where ice is melting. As glacial ice melts into the sea, sea levels rise. Already some Pacific islands are being flooded; eventually coastal dwellers in Australia and other countries will suffer the same fate unless the CO2 level is controlled.

So curbing greenhouse gases is considered by all political parties in this country to be essential. The way of doing this proposed by the Government is called a ‘cap and trade’ system.

‘Cap and trade’

The term ‘cap’ means that the total amount of carbon emitted each year by Australia will be limited, or ‘capped’. As the agricultural sector is not included in the scheme at present, it is CO2 emissions that will be limited. Let’s say that the limit or cap will be a million tonnes of CO2 per year. This is not the real figure. All industries that emit CO2 will have to fit within that limit. The term ‘trade’ means that any industry that needs to emit CO2, say to produce electricity, has to buy a permit to do so. The Government will create and auction these carbon pollution permits. In the beginning it will give some away free, but eventually all will be auctioned. Those who buy a permit can sell or trade it to someone else. Suppose a coal-burning electricity generator buys from the Government a permit to emit a thousand tonnes a year, but because it was able to develop a way of producing the same amount of electricity with less CO2 emitted into the atmosphere through, let’s say, storing it underground (carbon capture and storage), that electricity company would be able to sell or trade some of its permit to another company that emits CO2. This would reduce the cost of production to the electricity company, which could make its electricity less costly, and thereby more attractive to customers. Therein is the incentive to companies to develop methods of making their products in a way that results in less CO2 being emitted.

The Government believes that rather than it trying to regulate the system, ‘market forces’ would be the best way to govern the purchase and sale of permits to emit CO2. Eventually the market would become international. The cost of the permits has not been set, but is likely to range from $20 to $100 per tonne of CO2. It will probably start low and increase slowly.

Who’s included?

All agree that the more sectors of the economy that are included in the scheme, the less the burden will be on each individual sector. The Government has proposed that apart from the agricultural sector, all other sectors will be included at the outset. Some say that fuel used by motor vehicles, which emit CO2 while their motors are running, should not be included as this would increase the cost of fuel. But if fuel is excluded, the others that emit CO2, for example coal-burning electricity generators, would have to bear a greater cost burden, and the cost of electricity would be higher. So what might be saved by excluding fuel would be made up by higher electricity costs.

Compensating those affected

Because even the poorest in the community pay the same price for fuel and electricity as the better off, the Government proposes to compensate those on lower or fixed incomes for the extra cost to them. It also proposes to support industries unintentionally affected, such as those, while not polluting much themselves, rely on heavy emitters for their electricity, such as aluminium producers.

In a nutshell

To sum up, most see the need for limiting CO2 emissions. There is less agreement about the best way of doing it and how fast it should be done. The Government shares the sense of urgency expressed by most climate scientists and therefore has decided to act sooner rather than later by introducing a ‘cap and trade’ scheme to cover as many sectors as feasible by 2010, and compensate those on lower incomes and industries unfairly affected. The aim is not just to reduce emissions while minimizing the effect on the economy, but to encourage innovation towards ‘cleaner’ energy technology, with a view to profitably exporting this technology to high emission economies.

Ad astra can be contacted at:

ad dots astra5 IatI bigpond dots com

Is adversarial politics damaging our democracy?

By Ad astra

While most readers will have their own ideas about the meaning of ‘adversarial politics’, so that we’re all on the same page, let’s use the following definitions: “Adversarial politics exists when the proposals put forward by government are routinely criticised by opposition parties. Any stance taken by government is automatically opposed, whatever its merits.” and “Adversarial politics takes place when one party (usually not in Government) takes the opposite (or at least a different) opinion to that of the other (usually the Government) even when they may personally agree with what the Government is trying to do.” It is a characteristic of the Westminster system, and if one can judge from its most flagrant manifestation, Question Time, most parliamentarians seem to revel in it. They enjoy the contest, which at times takes on gladiatorial proportions.

Because it provides a rich source of sensational copy, the media thrive on adversarial politics, and contribute powerfully to it through the press, TV and radio. Without it, life for journalists would be less lively and the preparation of material that might interest the public more demanding.

But to some who closely follow events in the political arena, it is a source of irritation because inherently it involves dishonesty and at times downright deceit. The main game seems to be winning or scoring political points even if that requires taking an opposing position that is inconsistent with previous positions or policy, and in the process demeaning or humiliating the other person or party. All observers of the political process applaud informed and vigorous debate that teases out the issues and ensures sound decisions are made. But is an adversarial approach required to achieve this? Some might argue that it is, but most would disagree. The purpose of this piece is to offer illustrative examples, make a case for a less adversarial approach, and suggest what ordinary citizens might do to effect change.

Because adversarial positions inherently are more often taken by parties in opposition, many of the illustrations offered in this piece are derived from Opposition comments and positions. However, the Government is not immune, as some examples demonstrate.

Adversarial politics in Parliament

A recent instance is the contrary position on an emissions trading scheme taken by the Federal Opposition in Question Time, casting doubts about whether petrol should be included, whereas in Government they said it should. Although the Opposition’s position was confused and has since changed, it was clearly different from the one it held previously. Although this change of position has been ‘justified’ by Malcolm Turnbull on the grounds that “things have changed” since being in Government, it looked like an attempt to wedge the Government for political advantage.

The Government too uses Question Time to score political points, via ‘Dorothy Dixers’. As backbenchers read, often in a stumbling manner, a question written elsewhere and designed to give the responder an opening to attack the Opposition, the object is transparently clear.

The NT intervention initially had bipartisan support. But by springing on Brendan Nelson during the Apology an announcement of a bipartisan ‘war cabinet’, Kevin Rudd quietly wedged him, and when Nelson nominated Mal Brough to that group, and Rudd rejected that nomination, a pattern of adversarial conflict over this important initiative began, which may destroy what promised to be unique and valuable bipartisanship.

Adversarial press conferences and doorstops

It’s not just Question Time that provides an opportunity for adversarial politics. The day after the Federal Parliament rose, it was announced that head of Treasury Ken Henry was taking five weeks leave during which he intended to spend time in a Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat sanctuary in Queensland. In a press conference Wayne Swan said that Henry had worked day and night since the election, right through the Christmas period, and that anyone working at such intensity, with a busy schedule ahead, needed a restorative break. Did Brendan Nelson, who had roundly criticized Rudd for placing the public service under work pressure, commend him for granting Henry leave? No. Determined to score a political point he queried the wisdom of granting leave at what he considered to be a busy time, and using a clever quip continued: “I’m concerned about who is going to look after the ‘muddle-headed’ Treasurer.” And he wasn’t joking. Malcolm Turnbull did likewise. This exhibition of ‘adversarial-speak’ is another example why many despair of our political system. Always being contrary, consistently taking the opposite position no matter what, brings politicians into disrepute. Voters are smart enough to see the hypocrisy of this sort of behaviour, yet politicians persist with it as if they somehow live in a bubble into which ordinary folk cannot critically gaze.

No wonder the electorate has become so cynical.

In an arranged doorstop we saw Greg Hunt fabricate a scary scenario from insubstantial data and suspect assumptions about the effect on petrol prices of a Rudd Government emissions trading scheme. He insisted prices could rise by 10, 20, even 30 cents a litre. Having concocted this tragic scene, he then demanded the Government ‘guarantee’ that compensation would ensure that no one would be worse off with such a scheme. The fact that this adversarial line was based on a flimsy proposition that was not in accord with the facts was of no importance. Its purpose was to provide a launching pad for an adversarial attack. It llustrated the time-honoured axiom of political life that truth is irrelevant, perception is all that counts.

Adversarial probing

Journalists at doorstops and press conferences, and particularly radio talkback hosts and TV interviewers have become patently combative and at times downright aggressive and rude in interviewing politicians. While we all want probing interviewers, with the courage to challenge politicians, their stated policies and their utterances, why do journalists persist ad nauseam in asking questions that no prudent politician would or should answer. Recently Fairfax Media’s Neil Mitchell tried to push the PM into answering what petrol would cost after the introduction of an emissions trading scheme despite being told by Rudd that until the Garnaut report was public and the Government’s green paper on the subject published, no details could or would be given. General comments by Rudd about making the scheme as wide as possible were not sufficient for Mitchell. He aggressively insisted the PM answer his unrealistic question. Adversarial politics – talkback style.

Perhaps as a reaction to adversarial probing, there are two words that are seldom used by politicians: ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Peter Costello managed to avoid using them for years, instead preferring “let me make this point”. Frustrated interviewers yearn for those blessed, unequivocal words, yet seldom hear them. Instead they so often get a long and convoluted response that doesn’t answer the question, and when it occasionally does, a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would have saved everyone a lot of time and irritation. Less adversarial probing might evoke a more forthcoming response.

ABC’s 774 radio host Jon Faine, and ABC TV’s Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones are devotees of the ‘will you guarantee’ or ‘will you rule out’ syndromes, hoping for a ‘Gotcha’ moment. Sometimes it’s justified, but at times it’s sheer harassment in an effort to get a scoop. While this approach may appeal to viewers when a politician of their ‘non-preferred party’ is being besieged, it is still adversarial politics media-style, does our political discourse no favours, and unnecessarily belittles our politicians; that they put up with such verbal assaults is to their enduring credit.

Adversarial journalism

News bulletins can subtly engage in adversarial journalism with the words they choose. A recent instance followed ABC’s Lateline on 27 June where Rod Cameron said that given the current popularity of Kevin Rudd and his high level of public support, he had about a year to promote his vision of an emissions trading scheme, after which it would be much more difficult. It was reported the next day on ABC 774 morning news as “Time is running out for PM Rudd to introduce an emissions trading scheme.” This impression of urgency is not what Cameron portrayed. A news-writer’s inaccurate take on the Lateline piece cast Cameron’s comment in a different and erroneous light. Is this just careless reporting, or does it reflect adversarial journalism? Countless examples of this type of reporting occur every day.

For an illustration of the difference between adversarial journalism and abalanced orientation to writing, glimpse at four articles from The Weekend Australian of June 28-29. For balanced un-emotive pieces that eschew pejorative comments, see Paul Kelly’s “The Rudd Alliance“, Lenore Taylor’s “Taxpayers mugged through their children“, and Mike Steketee’s “They will be missed.“Contrast these articles, free of adversarial language, with Dennis Shanahan’s page one piece “Climate change splinters Kevin Rudd cabinet“. You don’t have to go beyond the headlines and the first two paragraphs to see phrases like “Split on carbon costs”, “…deepest divisions over policy and politics since the election of the Rudd Government.”, “Concerns are being aired…”. There may be some truth in these adversarial statements, but little supporting evidence is offered; readers just have to take Dennis at his word.

The language of adversarial politics

Language fashions and changes perceptions. In adversarial politics exaggerated language is used to embarrass, put down, demean or diminish. It is designed to give the user a ‘win’ or an advantage over the other. There are many examples: ‘Back-flip’ and its colourful variants, ‘back flip with double pike’, ‘back-down’, ‘about-face’, or the more benign ‘about turn’ or ‘U-turn’ are terms used to indicate a change of mind or a different approach. Politicians are entitled to change their minds in the face of new evidence, different thinking or changed circumstances; the opposite, sticking stubbornly to an outdated or untenable position, is foolish. So why not use terms such as ‘change of mind’ or ‘different approach’, or ‘new tactic’ or ‘changed attitude’ or ‘revised position’? I expect journalists would see that as too wimpy.

Adversarial columnists enjoy describing ideas, proposals or political structures with which they disagree as being in ‘tatters’, in ‘disarray’, even ‘a shambles’, or in ‘chaos’. Dennis Shanahan often uses such terms to portray Rudd initiatives that he considers faulty or failures. These terms imply a disastrous turn of events, yet usually nothing catastrophic has occurred. So why not use less confronting terms? Parliamentarians making submissions to cabinet are sometimes unsuccessful – the proposal is declined or deferred. The individual is then described by journalists as having been ‘rolled’ or ‘humiliated’, or has ‘rolled over’, and painted as a loser.

The inelegant terms ‘me-too’ and ‘me-too-ism’, used throughout the 2007 campaign, have a pejorative nuance, implying a ‘copy-cat’ approach, the product of a paucity of original ideas. The words are applied by journalists when politicians indicate ‘this is our policy and so we agree’, or ‘we agree with that policy’ or ‘that sounds like a good idea, we’ll adopt it’. No one has exclusive access to good ideas. So why use uncomplimentary terms to describe those who adopt the good ideas of others? More ‘me-too-ism’ would be an agreeable antidote to unrelenting adversarial politics.

Slogans and mantras.

Slogans are part and parcel of the language of adversarial politics. ‘Stunts’, ‘gimmicks’, ‘symbolism’, ‘all style and no substance’, are frequently used. ‘Control freak’ is another that has been applied to Kevin Rudd. Julie Bishop used this slogan with gusto in trying to implicate Rudd in the so-called cover-up of the Belinda Neal affair. On the ABC’s Lateline on 27 June, John Hewson, who is no longer in politics and who usually gives a balanced commentary, mouthed ‘control freak’ time and again. The slogan had firmly stuck in his mind, and he worked it relentlessly. Yet what evidence has been proffered to support the ‘control freak’ mantra? It seems that all that can be gleaned so far is that written statements for distribution to the public are cleared through Rudd’s office.

Is that unreasonable, is it a serious restriction? Or is it a sensible approach to transmitting consistent messages to the public? Alternatives to ‘control freak’ could have been ‘having his finger on the pulse’, or ‘aware of everything that is going on’, or ‘directing traffic’, but they would not have had the desired affect that pejorative labelling achieves. Slogans and mantras are used because they work. Start a catchy slogan and soon many will be mindlessly repeating it. It doesn’t have to have much or even any substance, so long as it sounds believable. Look out for the latest Nelson quip: “Mr Rudd is all backswing, no follow through.”

Is adversarial politics damaging our democracy?

Those who despise adversarial politics find it to be contemptible, a damaging affliction on our political system. They resent the stifling impediments it places on governing, on governments carrying out what they promised the electorate they would do. They see it as focused on ‘winning’, on gaining a political advantage, rather than telling or establishing the truth, or contributing usefully to the discourse. It sets the teeth of the electorate on edge, which ‘turns off’ in despair. Voters would prefer politicians to be open and upfront, more focussed on the good of the nation, less willing to corrupt the usually-worthy principles that brought them into politics in the first place. Adversarial politics may be an important reason the public has turned away from politics and has become cynical about the motivation and behaviour of politicians.

Is there an antidote?

One would hope there might be. In the new series on ABC TV, Q&A, opposing politicians have shown that free from their party’s line they can discuss all manner of topics sensibly and sensitively. Although they lapse occasionally into party slogans and indulge in point scoring, most of the time they show how productively they are able to work together. What a joy  it is to hear politicians of different persuasions agreeing with one another, or giving credit. We are told that this is often the case when they are off-camera in parliament in routine debate. Why could this not be the norm? Political discourse would be so much more productive and creative if deliberations were more collaborative, more mutually cooperative, more accommodating; if the good ideas from all sides were accepted, acknowledged and pooled.

What can we ordinary citizens do? We might be able to bring about change if we, who pay our politicians’ wages via taxes, raise our voices against the use of exaggerated, depreciatory, derogatory and dishonest language by politicians, commentators and columnists. While the media might miss the theatre and the good copy adversarial politics provides, the public would applaud a more measured approach, free from the burden of adversarial behaviour – so wasteful, so unproductive, so distasteful. We could write to our parliamentarians individually. Or GetUp could get up a petition – it might attract strong support. Responders to this piece may have other suggestions. Sadly though, if history tells us anything, any change for the better is probably a vain hope.

Ad astra can be contacted at:

ad dots astra5 IatI bigpond dots com

Is Australia’s Dead Centre About To Turn Green?

BY GHANDI

The latest embarrassing shennanigans in NSW politics perfectly illustrate how the Left in Australia has now moved so far to the “centre” (i.e. centre right) that the Right can barely distinguish itself. The Right has only itself to blame, of course, having moved so far towards the Ultra Right over the past decade that there is nowhere left for them to go but Pauline Hanson country.

So now we have weak Liberal and National oppositions in the states and at the federal level. That’s not a good look for a democracy, is it? It creates the strong impression of a virtual one-party state. But this is what 21st Century Western democracy looks like: it’s the same thing in Britain and the USA. The corporate elite pull the levers, the lobbyists push the deals, the media hypes the message, and the politicians face the cameras to catapult the propaganda. Voters get to choose between Big Business or Big Business Lite, and any other option is ridiculed.

Of course the whole country has moved a long way to the right since John Howard first took power. And of course Howard’s friends in the media had a lot to do with engineering that social change. Just look how Alan Jones cheered on the Cronulla beach race riots, for example, or how Big Media (yes, it’s globalised now) hyped the illegal invasion of Iraq. We Australians have embraced the privatisation of everything that used to be publicly owned, including the rocks and minerals beneath our feet. Nobody asks why we still pay just as much (or more) tax, despite the government off-loading all these responsibilities. It’s not politically correct nowadays to make such observations, or to ask why tertiary eduction is now unaffordable to so many, etc. etc.

In this political environment, there is only one Australian party which retains the socialist ideals of “the Left” and that is the Greens. So why haven’t the Greens been getting more public support, particularly given the growing prominence of climate issues? Aside from some valid criticism of internal Greens politics over the years, I think there is only one clear explanation – the Australian corporate media has marginalised and ridiculed the Greens for so long that most people still do not take them seriously. That could be about to change.

In all the widespread applause for Kevin Rudd’s decision to embrace the Garnaut findings, nobody has noticed that our new PM had little choice. The Greens now share the balance of power in the Upper House, and any failure by Rudd to set ambitious targets for reducing our carbon footprint would have created a major stumbling block. It’s an issue the Greens would gladly use to force another election, because they know the weight of public opinion is behind them. Bob Brown is still threatening to force changes to legislation if Rudd does not commit to deep cuts.

Will the media recognise the important contribution the Greens have made, and continue to make, to our nation? Don’t hold your breath. But people can judge the facts for themselves, and the media will not be able to ignore the important role the Greens are going to play in coming months.

This is from Bob Brown’s speech to the National Press club today (pdf here):

“While the worst polluters clamour about the costs of addressing climate, the Greens, like the population at large, know the enormous benefits of early action. Besides the new industries and long-term jobs that will be created in the sunrise businesses of the future, climate change remediation generates deep satisfaction in people’s hearts. They know that we are re-creating our society and economy in a way that will protect the planet and its wildlife and provide a secure lifestyle for future generations…

Last year Australian voters changed the government and prime minister and, logically, ended the Coalition’s majority in the Senate.

So, when the Senate resumes next month it will have neither Labor nor Coalition nor Greens control. No party has the necessary 39 seats for a majority.

There are 76 seats in the Senate. Half plus one – 39 – is required for legislation to pass.

The Coalition, with 37 seats, will need two extra votes to pass its own measures or will need just one extra vote to have 38 – that’s enough to block government bills.

Labor, which has 32 Senate seats, will need an extra seven votes to get its way.

There are five Greens and two independents. That makes seven. Bingo! Mr Rudd.

After the election last October I wrote to our new Prime Minister, not just to say ‘Bingo!’, but to congratulate him.

Being a restrained fellow, I did not mention that Greens preferences had made sure Labor won 10 seats, including Bennelong, and helped Labor win in another 15.
With the fine exception of the Member for Solomon, Damian Hale, no Labor bouquets have ever come our way in recognition of this fact. Labor’s love was lost. Or maybe it never existed.

Mr Rudd replied to my letter, saying, and I quote “We have a great job of work ahead of us, and I am looking forward so much to seizing the great opportunities that Australia has. I will greatly value your continued support as the work now begins.”

Well, steady on a minute, mate.

The Greens Senate vote was 1.17 million people.

We are Australia’s third political party. The Greens have more than 100 local government representatives, 15 state parliamentarians and now, with five Senators, we qualify as an official party in the national parliament.

With true democracy, that is, proportional representation, Australian voters would have elected ten Greens to the House of Representatives in 2007. Far from being the unrepresentative swill in the Senate, the Greens are the unrepresented will of Australian voters in the House of Representatives.

So we too share the claim of a modest mandate. We Greens look forward to Labor’s support for our policy initiatives in the Senate, as we move to make it a house of innovation…

Labor and the Coalition, products of the 20th century, have more in common with each other than either has with the Greens, who are the innovative thinkers for this 21st century…

Australians will back leaders who, explaining themselves well, appeal to the decency we all harbour to change direction and to ensure that our children, and theirs, inherit a safer, saner, happier world…

As Labor was the right party to emerge at the start of the past century, the Greens are the right party now.

In a world where indifference to the challenges confronting humanity edges towards political culpability, I am honoured and deeply privileged to lead this new and, for these unprecedented times, most responsible of parties in our Australian Parliament.

Bravo.

——————–

This article was first published at Riding the Juggernaut. Ghandi can be contacted through that site.

Awaiting the awakening-The Media and Kevin Rudd

By Ad astra

All of us see the world through the lenses of our own unique spectacles, finely honed over time by our background, beliefs and biases. How we view the world affects our judgements. Thus we should not be surprised that what journalists write reflects their unique biases. But could it be that it is not only the lenses through which they view the world that are giving them a biased reading, but also that their unfamiliarity with the new political order is distorting their view? In a piece dated 16 June: The rats’ problem with Rudd, The Piping Shrike says: “… it is pretty evident that the press does not understand what Rudd is about.” The article is well worth reading.

Most columnists have worked through the Howard era, some from the beginning. They witnessed a politician emerge from a political bloodbath to lead his party to four election victories. They saw him mature and gradually settle into a style of leadership and pattern of behaviour, which although not necessarily applauded, became the accepted paradigm. His actions became predictable, his style familiar, and his way of doing things accepted as the norm. Along comes Kevin Rudd. From his first day as leader he slipped into election mode. Conscious of the daily and weekly news cycles, already familiar with breakfast TV, and experienced in the workings of the public service, he set about fashioning messages for the media throughout its cycles. This was sustained throughout the official election campaign period and continues to this day. So much so that one journalist recently caustically commented that Kevin Rudd was still acting like the Leader of the Opposition, which sounds like code for ‘Kevin Rudd is still in election mode.’ John Howard, the norm by which journalists have been accustomed to judging events, would not be behaving like this. So Kevin Rudd must be ‘abnormal’. Could it be that Kevin Rudd’s media modus operandi is now the norm, and that this will continue to the next election? If so, columnists need to get used to it and adjust their perceptions and judgements to the new reality, instead of indulging in what The Piping Shrike terms ‘analysis-by-history’, or what Marshall McLuhan would have termed ‘driving while looking in the rear-view mirror’.

Many commentators have ridiculed what they see as Kevin Rudd’s focus on process, when after all, ‘it’s outcomes that count’. Educators and businessmen know that the outcomes they desire are the product of sound process. So they get the process right in order to achieve their outcomes. Political processes include enquiries, committee deliberations, reviews, assessments and such events as the 2020 Summit where opportunities to ‘think outside the square’ are provided, where new ideas provide the basis for debate. Could it be that for Rudd such processes ARE the message? Are journalists who criticize ‘process’ as familiar as they ought to be with the importance of sound process in rational decision making, and how it influences political outcomes, or are they still in Howard-era mode where there was less emphasis on process? The 10 billion water plan and the NT intervention were two initiatives characterized by minimal process – little consultation and short preparation time for what were major undertakings with far reaching effects. John Howard was lauded by some as ‘action man’. By way of contrast, examples of process-intensive initiatives of the Rudd Government are the Ken Henry review of the tax system and the Ross Garnaut report on climate change. These processes address complex issues that take time to digest. Columnists need to adjust to this level of complexity and the time frame needed for satisfactory completion of such projects instead of rashly applying to Rudd the pejorative slogan ‘all talk but no action’. Process IS action.

In the same breath they disparage Rudd’s ‘lack of long term planning’. If the following are not long-term planning, what are they? The Henry tax review, the Garnaut report, the review of Federal and State health services, the so-called digital education revolution, Infrastructure Australia that met this month, the NT one year progress report just out, the push to tackle obesity as well as excessive drinking, and a response by year-end to the outcomes of the 2020 Summit, and so on the long list goes. So many in the media either don’t see this as long term planning, or chose deliberately to ignore it so as not to undermine their ‘no long term plan’ mantra. They seem unable to comprehend that a government can have a short term agenda to match the daily and weekly media cycles AND simultaneously have a comprehensive set of long terms plans that unfold over time. The media has habitually looked to the May Budget as the prime indicator of the Government’s agenda, but after the first Rudd/Swan budget they seemed to be left wondering. They need seriously to also look elsewhere.

Not satisfied with criticizing the Rudd focus on process, they also criticize what they see as a LACK of process. Greg Sheridan in his June 12 piece in The Australian titled The new Mad Hatter scathingly described Kevin Rudd’s recent foreign policy initiatives as “…utterly amorphous content on the run, half baked, with no detail and no credible prospect of success.” The tenor of the article was cringing, expressing as it did discomfort with a PM who is not afraid to state his views on the world stage, is willing to take the initiative as a middle power leader, is prepared to express his vision for international diplomacy, and has the courage of his convictions. Notwithstanding Sheridan’s predictions of failure, Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda said he was “deeply impressed” by Rudd’s remarks in his Kyoto speech about regional cooperation and security, and Indonesian President Yudhoyono expressed similar sentiments. Clearly Kevin Rudd has a different approach to foreign affairs than did John Howard. In initiatives where other nations are involved, he seemingly prefers to promote ideas rather than offer a detailed plan, and then seek a response, in this instance via an envoy, Richard Woolcott. If much detail had been woven around the proposal before it was promulgated, would columnists have then been writing condemnatory pieces accusing Rudd of pre-empting proper debate among the nation states affected?

Those who have sneeringly referred to Rudd’s foreign policy announcements as ‘thought bubbles’ need to realize that in international affairs Rudd’s focus is to initiate a process and await the outcomes. While it’s reasonable to critique Rudd’s approach, journalists should view it not against the Howard approach, but instead adjust to the reality of a new paradigm for foreign policy.

Rudd’s comment that the G8 nations should apply the blow torch to OPEC to produce more oil evoked ridicule from the media and the Opposition, but by so doing he successfully reinforced his internationalization of the oil crisis in the eyes of his domestic audience, and underscored the relative impotence of individual governments to do much about it. Most of the media seemed to miss this. Many journalists are critical of Rudd’s ‘failure’ to tell the public unequivocally that petrol prices will continue to rise, and accuse him in advance of cowardice and lack of resolve to bite the bullet on the cost to voters of emissions trading. They seem not to ask themselves why he would do that ahead of the receipt of the Garnaut report. To oblige journalists digging for a dramatic headline? One can imagine it: ‘Rudd admits petrol costs will skyrocket when his Government introduces emissions trading’. Any prudent politician would want to handle this potentially explosive issue thoughtfully, and prepare the public incrementally for the unpleasant news so that successful adaptation can occur. As an aside, George Megalogenus believes the public may be more aware of this than is acknowledged by many journalists; adaptation may be achieved more readily than imagined.

To sum up, this piece suggests that some, but not all of the media have failed to recognize the modus operandi of the Rudd Government, and even when they have, feel uncomfortable with it after almost 12 years of the Howard Government and are therefore unwilling to acknowledge or accept it. They live in a past age when everything was different and easier to understand. Moreover, they may resent Rudd calling the media tune when they have done that for so long. So we should not be surprised at the top-of-the-front-page story in The Weekend Australian on 21 June: Anger builds around Rudd as chaos reigns at the top, a story replicated in several other papers. Forget the content, which is insubstantial and in places confected, the real message is that a large and influential section of the Fourth Estate has targeted Kevin Rudd’s character, style and behaviour, painting it as deeply flawed. It is hard to see any motive for this other than to diminish him and thereby erode his popularity with the people. Expect more of this.

Finally, a 19 June article in The Possum Box by Changa’s Boots, Australian attack bloggers and the Overton Window , suggests a more sinister process may be at work, at least among journalists who take extreme positions. In the Overton Window, what might look like unintentional bias is a deliberate attempt to make less extreme positions seem ‘middle ground’ and therefore more acceptable – a cynical mind-game, undertaken for covert political purposes. If this is the tactic of Australia’s ‘extreme’ writers, we have in our midst a menacing, calculated process to influence public thinking, almost in the manner of mass indoctrination, George Orwell style. This would be much more damaging to democracy than uninformed or biased journalism, about which we protest so much.

Ad astra can be contacted at:

ad dots astra5 IatI bigpond dots com

A Gambler’s Take on the US Election

By The Political Tipster

One of the benefits of living in the UK and commentating on the US Election is that I am actually able to back up my views with hard cash. In my case I have already made a decent return of 24% on my model portfolio since September and won over £1,000 (with £500 of that already hedged) on other accounts. Now, I’ll admit that most of that comes from buying McCain in early September when he was around 20/1 to win the Republican nomination. However, I believe that my take on the election is better than the ‘conventional wisdom’ of the punditry or the so-called ‘wisdom of crowds’ that the betting markets like to kid themselves that they have. Although my belief, expressed on my web-log (www.politicaltipster.com) immediately after ‘Wrightgate’ that Obama only had a 10% chance of winning this year’s election was probably too extreme, I believe that McCain has about a 70% chance of winning with the plausible outcomes, excluding some scandal or tragedy, ranging from a McCain landslide to a narrow Obama victory.

Now Obama does have several advantages. The American economy is in extremely poor shape while in the longer term the American education system is mediocre and America’s competitive advantage is being sapped by wasteful spending in some areas and underinvestment in others. Although the thirty year period of global economic re-adjustment that has led to stagnant wages, as an unfortunate by-product of lower inflation, may have reached its peak there is a sense that the idea of ‘drowning government in a bathtub’, as advocated by the tax activist Grover Norquist, is over. Indeed, the conservative journal National Review Online railed against what it termed as ‘no government anarchism’ after one Republican Presidential debate last year. Obama has youth, the groundbreaking nature of his candidacy and an active bottom up organisation on his side. In contrast McCain’s organisation is pathetic and his staff have neither strategy, vision or organisation. Indeed, McCain’s staff seem to be trying him to get him to act like the dog in James Thurber’s short story, afraid to attack Obama because of a perceived backlash, afraid to move to the centre because that would offend the ‘base’ and most importantly afraid of mentioning the war in Iraq, even though McCain actually leads on this issue in the polls. There is also Bush’s desperate unpopularity to contend with as well.

On the other hand you could argue that on any objective reading on the contest McCain is the better candidate. While Obama trundled around in Chicago and Illinois local politics, getting his hands dirty and achieving little, few would dispute that McCain has a record of achievement, both as a War Hero and as someone who has been involved with many huge events, such as his support for the war in Kosovo, campaign finance reform, the compromise on judges that enabled the Senate to function and most famously the ‘surge’ strategy in Iraq. He has a large following among independents and some conservative minded Democrats, as evidenced by the endorsement of Joe Lieberman last December. In contrast, not only is Obama inexperienced but he also seems to have a worldview that is fundamentally at odds with the majority of Americans. His has made repeated number of gaffes such as; his assertion  that Iran does not post a threat, that people are ‘clinging to guns and religion’ and his longstanding association with characters such as William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and others raise serious questions about the type of foreign policy an Obama administration would pursue.

In my mind this election could either go one of two ways; firstly it could be a repeat of 1972 where Richard Nixon won a landslide victory over George McGovern or it could be a repeat of 1976 where Gerald Ford managed to pull back from a thirty point deficit to nearly shock the nation by beating Jimmy Carter. At the moment the majority of the parallels seem to be with the Ford-Carter contest of ’76. However, when one factors in the idea that Bush isn’t quite as unpopular as Nixon (at least not yet), the fact that the experience of the Carter administration is still fresh in people’s minds and that McCain still has time to return to the centre on domestic issues, go on the offensive over Iraq, reorganise his campaign staff or to surprise everyone by picking Joe Lieberman as his running mate (available at a generous 20/1 from Ladbrokes), an outcome that is closer to the Nixon landslide is definitely possible. This makes a McCain victory a value bet.

The Political Tipster can be contacted through his site:

www.politicaltipster.com

Australian attack bloggers and the Overton Window

By Changa’s Boots

One concept that’s been picked up by US left of centre bloggers in the last little while is the Overton Window. I want to talk about it on the Possum Box because I think we can use it to think about the strategies of some of Australia’s right wing attack bloggers and columnists.

Ever since it was raised in a post on Daily Kos (which in turn was picking up on a post from a Libertarian think-tank) it’s been provoking discussion among the netroots. The basic proposition on Kos was this: while the Democrats are still playing to the essentially 1990s strategy of triangulation for the centre, Republicans and their fellow-travellers are constantly working to shift that centre by articulating extreme views that expand and change the limits of political acceptability.

Kos puts it like this:  “[The GOP] know that by playing to their base in very well-crafted ways, they can shift the very definition of what the middle is. By introducing radicalism into the public discourse (and taking initial heat for it), whatever used to be radical within this context becomes moderate by comparison.” Except, as some of Kos’s correspondents point out, the GOP don’t even need to take any heat – that’s what Fox News, shock jocks, and wingnut bloggers are for. It’s a no-risk, all benefits strategy for all concerned – not least because radical positions for the “opinion leaders” of the right can be career-building, and can help to nurture a niche (albeit crackpot) audience.  It’s a long-term strategy for committed political actors who are not seeking election, wherein the electorally focused GOP become beneficiaries/patsies of their more extended, focussed policy advocacy. (Obviously, the strategy depends on policy advocacy working on the GOP, too.)

The strategy is named for one Joseph Overton, who was vice president of a conservative think-tank called the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He was quite systematic in setting it out – his primary concern was education policy (taking down public schools and arguing for home schooling yada yada yada), but he rightly thought it was applicable to a range of issues. The continuum on which you can place any particular policy proposal, according to Overton, goes a little something like this:

* Unthinkable

* Radical

* Acceptable

* Sensible

* Popular

* Policy

By shouting long and hard enough on behalf of radical proposals, you can alter their position in the public mind. Even by proposing unacceptable proposals persistently enough, you can make slightly less extreme proposals seem moderate by comparison. Intuitively it makes sense, and it’s a useful explanatory device for the shrillness of much of the discourse in the right-wing blogosphere in the US. Voila: the culture wars in a nutshell.

How does it apply in Australia? Well, our right-wing think-tanks may be slower of wit and less weighty in terms of policy development than their US colleagues, but who needs them when you can work the Overton window in the Murdoch papers and the blogosphere? Let’s take the Bolt/Blair/Albrechtsen axis, for example. On issues like the stolen generations, climate change, feminism and the “war on terror” they articulate positions that are pretty far removed from mainstream opinion (if election results and polling are any indication). But their rhetorical style and the prominent platforms they enjoy mean that they can run lines that make slightly less OTT positions from the Liberals seem like the soul of reason.

In a variation on the Overton, they also work hard at simplifying complex debates and shift the ground in a debate. “Name just ten”, “global cooling?” and “Rudd is spin not substance” are lines they all run in various forms that aren’t just out-there death-beastery, but active distortions of the topics under discussion. They also selectively misrepresent whole categories of their opponents – academics, artists, bureaucrats, the “guilt industry”, Greens, Left-wing journalists, NGOs – by presenting radical positions taken by misguided individuals as the norm, or taking isolated remarks out of context and treating them as the core of the opposing argument.

The aim is not really to win any substantive policy debate (think of Blair’s blogging style, and you’ll realize it’s simply not geared for that purpose). Rather, the focus is smearing and discrediting opponents, throwing doubt on established premises in policy debates, shifting the goalposts through simplification, and most importantly of all, keeping the conservative base on-message. Want some examples? How about Blair’s concerted attacks on Tim Flannery? What about the daily red herrings of Bolt and Blair on climate change? Witness Bolt’s constant, simplistic demand that opponents produce people who were stolen “because they were black”. And then there’s Blair’s deployment of groupthink to whip up the “winged monkeys” into regular attacks across the blogosphere, often on bloggers who have not sought any kind of engagement with him.

The beauty of this kind of advocacy is that the columnists themselves never have to fight an election, and aren’t accountable to anyone except their employer. The consistency of their lines of attack suggests that, if there isn’t actual orchestration going on between them, their common master certainly approves of and values their lock-stepped views. Win, lose or draw for the Liberals, they can take comfort in the knowledge that there will be righties on big soap-boxes spruiking for them, and furthering their own careers in the process.

If all this is true, what should the left do?

For the Rudd government, the advice on this basis of the right’s Overton strategy would be: be bold. Seek not the centre, because it isn’t a stable target any more. Spend some political capital in an effort to seize the agenda, and benefit by isolating these people. Make the culture wars no longer worth fighting by depriving them of relevance. Do not fight on their chosen ground.

For the rest of us, perhaps the best strategy is to ignore them. Bullying tactics aside (naming anonymous bloggers, trying to make trouble for people at work, or directing the monkeys at people struggling with drug addiction), it’s all sticks and stones. I really enjoy reading blogs like The Blairboltwatch Project, but I wonder whether it institutionalizes Blair and Bolt as blogospheric voices, and risks misrepresenting their Overton-ing for serious invitations to debate. And I’m sure all of Planet Janet’s Christmases came at once when Paul Keating had a shot at her in the Oz recently. Maybe we all need to get better at practicing an aikido debating style: jump out of the maddies’ way when they attack and watch them go arse up on the other side of the room.

Seriously, though, the lesson here might be not only that we can’t win back the right-wing base through reasoned discussion, but that some right-wing commentators just aren’t seeking debate in good faith, and are just running lines in the hope that less extreme (but no less sympathetic) positions are adopted. Which side of politics heeds them probably doesn’t matter too much to them at the end of the day, but continuing apparent relevance does. The proper response is not to pander to a shifting centre, but to inspire it with good policy, clever advocacy and straight talking.

Changa’s Boots can be contacted at:

changa IatI hushmail dots com

VALE: The Queensland Liberal Party 2008

By QLDNATHATER

The QLD Nationals are poised to get their biggest break since Luke Shaw was awarded jury duty.

No matter what the outcome or even the form of the proposed merger of the National and Liberal Parties in Queensland the Liberal Party loses big-time.

There is little doubt that the Liberal Party will merge with the National Party in Queensland. However, this marriage of convenience will leave a legacy of devastation, fragmentation and recrimination that has Labor supporters salivating and really that is no change from where the QLD Liberal Party currently are right now.

The Liberals in Queensland have always been the National’s horse-trading mates, but frankly the Nationals are far better at it. From a National Party perspective the merger is the corollary of the Liberals’ situation; for the Queensland Nationals any form of merger is a no lose situation because at worst it neutralises a huge threat and at best it harnesses a stronger urban brand that resonates with inter-state migrants.

With the increased education and urbanisation of Queensland, the traditional demographics of the National Party have receded to the point that winning the 1983 election in their own right, through a helpful Gerrymander, can now be seen as their political high-water mark. Since that time Queensland Liberals have drifted to the further to the right, re-forming the coalition on National Party terms and performing a support role during the short-lived Borbidge/Sheldon government 1996-1998.

Since Queensland has adopted an optional preference electoral system, divided conservatives have discovered that the fragmentation of non-Labor vote combined with high preference exhaust rates have hurt them at the ballot box. The simplistic solution has been for the conservatives to form One Big Party (the Pineapple Party) to challenge Labor. The gorilla in the room is that philosophically the Liberals and the Nationals represent entirely different constituencies. Deep down the National Party thinks its everyone’s god-given right to chain-clear land with D11 Bulldozers, that sits very awkwardly with urbane, educated blue-blooded Liberals. A coalition left wriggle-room, a single party forms one big target either way.

Many Liberals have already formed a silent merger with the Queensland Labor Party. This may sound impossible, yet populist moderate Labor leaders, Beattie and now Rudd and Bligh have attracted the moderate, small “l” liberals in Queensland for over a decade. Votes and political donations have flowed freely, even if formal party membership hasn’t. The official Liberal Party remnant in Queensland is bankrupt financially and electorally gutted (8 out of 89 seats). That it is acquiescing to merge with the Queensland National Party shows that it really is just the equivalent of the NSW-right faction of the Liberal Party led by David Clarke. Liberals in other states simply would not recognise the Queensland distortion of a party that has purged internally to the point that it only has two neo-National Party factions anyway.

Winning state government is academic to the current Queensland conservatives. The motivations here are about securing opposition positions and status for at least the next 5 – 8 years (current, plus 1-2 more terms). Troy Buswell in the WA gets a deservedly hard time for sniffing seats, but at least he shows an interest in them! The Queensland Liberals aspire at their most optimistic to winning back blue-ribbon metropolitan seats such as Clayfield (think Vaucluse, Toorak, Cottesloe) that really are amazingly and consistently Labor held.

The so-called Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane City, Cr Campbell Newman, this week introduced a Tax and Spend Budget that any old-school Keynesian would be delighted with. Cr Newman won re-election in March this year under a personality brand of “Can Do” Campbell that treated the Queensland Liberal Party with the anonymity it deserves. For a Queensland conservative, or any of the national Liberal oppositions for that matter, he did have the novelty of actually having some policies.

It is the abject laze of the Queensland Liberals to formulate policy combined with the sustained, most appalling electoral performance of any Liberal Party (okay, Kim Campbell Canada 1993 was a star, but that was just the one time) that has left them formally abandoning Liberal Party principles and joining the National Party. This will create a vacuum of moderate conservatives in Queensland the equivalent of the DLP to the ALP through the 60s and 70s. On that basis, we are not even halfway through this cycle of Labor dominance. Minor right-of-centre fringe parties and independents as well as the Labor Government will be the beneficiaries of this looming merger disaster. Bring it on!

QLDNATHATER can be contacted at

qldnathater IatI gmail dots com

Is the media in Australia suffering from groupthink?

By Ad astra

‘Groupthink’ is described by Irving Janis as “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

Recurrent themes in the Australian media suggest that groupthink is alive and well among political journalists. Here are some examples.

‘Narrative’ has become a buzz word. When Glen Milne first used the word some time ago on Insiders, he seemed very pleased that he’d discovered a fashionable new word he could use. Now many columnists accuse the Government of not having, or not stating a narrative or story that portrays its plans and aspirations. No one has defined what such a ‘narrative’ should look like, or what it might contain. The plans and fiscal policies detailed in the recent budget seemingly do not count as ‘narrative’ although they describe short, medium and long terms plans and how they are to be processed and funded. What the columnists have in mind is a mystery, but they enjoy using the word in a pseudo-authoritative way. Perhaps one day mere mortals will discover their meaning, if indeed they have any common understanding of the word. Is the widespread use of ‘narrative’ a manifestation of groupthink?

Another idea that has gained currency is that Kevin Rudd and his Government manifest “more symbolism than substance”. This has been purveyed by the Opposition and has been taken up by many journalists. Where is the supporting evidence? There has been symbolism, important symbolism, for example in signing Kyoto and saying ‘Sorry’, but that has been accompanied by substance in the form of numerous announcements and parliamentary bills, so much so that the Opposition is protesting that there are too many bills to pass in the time provided. It’s hard to see how it can be argued that there is little substance, yet complain in this way. So is it media groupthink that perpetuates what appears to be a myth? Is it a handy catchphrase without much substance itself?

A related term is ‘stunt’. The Opposition has often accused Kevin Rudd and his Government of stunts. The term is now frequently used in the media. Alexander Downer proclaimed the call for an Asia Pacific Community a stunt, although in the same breath, he said it was a good idea. Already this is being echoed in the media. Greg Sheridan uses the less offensive term ‘half-baked’ to describe this and other recent foreign policy initiatives. ‘Policy on the run’ is a similar phrase used by politicians, now the stock in trade of almost every journalist.

Possum Comitatus points out the frequency with which ‘political crisis’ is used in political commentaries. ‘Crisis’ means ‘a time of intense difficulty or danger’, ‘a turning point that defines recovery or death’. ‘Disaster’ is a commonly used alternative. But why not use ‘problem’, ‘predicament’, ‘difficulty’ ‘dilemma’ or ‘quandary’? Not dramatic enough, I expect. Groupthink demands no deviation from a common position, but a more extreme manifestation of it is acceptable. Columnists do not enjoy being outdone, so exaggerated language is the norm.

‘Honeymoon’ is another word that flows from many a columnist. Dennis Shanahan looks longingly for its disappearance in almost every column he writes. He has many fellow-travellers. They believe that newly-elected governments enjoy a period when the members of the public have honeymooners’ stardust in their eyes and can see no fault, but that disenchantment soon sets in and appeal fades. This distorts the metaphor. How many honeymoons quickly deteriorate into disillusionment? Some do, but most settle into a comfortable relationship that lasts for years, sometimes a lifetime. After only six months, do they expect a surge of those who voted Labor to believe they’ve made a terrible mistake and reflect their disillusionment starkly in the opinion polls? That hasn’t happened; few marriages evolve that way. So why do so many journalists persist with the concept of a ‘honeymoon’? Is this another example of groupthink?

‘Control freak’ is a term used to describe Kevin Rudd. Andrew Bolt labours this term incessantly. ‘Kevin24/7’ is an accompanying term used to describe a manic approach to work. These terms have been picked up by many journalists and joined to stories of overworking the public service, undervaluing their advice, and exercising power plays over them. No doubt there is some truth in this, but the manner in which these sentiments have been slavishly replicated by many journalists suggest groupthink is operating.

The appraisal by journalists of the performance of Government members in parliament seems too to be another example of groupthink. Peter Costello was classed by many commentators as ‘a stellar performer’ in Parliament. They saw his sarcastic, voluble, and at times raucous utterances that ridiculed the Opposition as humorous and politically telling, performances that many ordinary citizens found repugnant. The new Government is said to be unable to match him. Groupthink has many columnists now riding along with this, asserting that the Government is not ‘cutting through’.

Journalistic responses to the June 3 Newspoll provide another example of groupthink. Although the two party preferred figures were the same as in the two previous polls, much more was made by Dennis Shanahan of changes in the preferred PM and satisfaction/dissatisfaction figures. Several columnists, and radio and TV news bulletins picked up on this aspect, hardly mentioning the static 2PP figures.

Thanks to groupthink, the ‘can you guarantee’ syndrome has taken hold. Tony Jones is the master of this approach, which seeks to corner politicians into saying something most sensibly refuse to do. There are few iron-clad guarantees in politics, yet although Tony knows this he persists ad nauseam hoping the interviewee will break. Kerry O’Brien, Laurie Oakes and John Faine too are connoisseurs of this technique.

Media groupthink now seems to be moving towards belittling Kevin Rudd and his Government, reinforcing the approach of the Opposition. Perhaps this is a manifestation of the ‘tall poppy syndrome’; Kevin Rudd has had it so good for so long, it’s time to cut him and his Government down to size. Journalist after journalist now insist ‘the wheels are falling off’. What value do they see in demeaning a Government that has two and a half years to run, elected convincingly by the people just six-months ago? What value is it to the Australian public to thwart the Government’s agenda? Do they do this because groupthink is inherently unthinking?

The ‘news’ for newspapers, TV and radio furnished by ‘video news release suppliers’, a phenomenon labelled ‘churnalism’, sounds like marketed groupthink. Rather than passing from journalist to journalist, material passes pre-packaged with little journalistic input.

Possum Comitatus points to groupthink when he describes a “…world of the Opinionatas – a sort of deafening echo chamber of electoral ignorance and lemming like commentary.” We saw a classic example of that recently over the subsidy to Toyota to build a hybrid car. A piece in The Age was changed in a matter of hours to bring it into line with a contrary piece that appeared in The Australian which confidently asserted that the car would have been built without a subsidy. Now of course The Australian has recanted this in a page four ‘correction’.

Groupthink is usually seen in cohesive groups. It could be argued that members of the media, and in particular the Press Gallery, do not constitute a cohesive group, as they come from a variety of media outlets. Yet they work together, they read or watch each other’s work, they appear together on programs such as Insiders and Meet the Press, and they socialize together. Few of them seem to be willing to be the ‘odd man out’. Even journalists that are generally considered fair-minded are sometimes induced to join the pack on contentious issues. Very few are willing to express a view that differs substantially from the mainstream. David Marr, George Megalogenus, Brian Toohey and Laura Tingle are examples of such fiercely independent journalists that spring to mind. Most of the rest prefer to fall in with the crowd.

The result is media of indifferent quality, which generally follows the leader in promulgating facts that are often inaccurate or distorted, embraces fashionable concepts and buzz words, and indulges in ‘copy-cat’ commentary that does little to inform or enlighten. Perhaps the only reassuring aspect of this lamentable state of affairs is that so many of the voting public let most media offerings pass harmlessly over their heads.

Many in the media abuse the power inherent in the journalistic pen. Where have objective, informed, balanced reporting and commenting gone? Often the two are confused as journalists seek to promulgate their views rather than the facts. It’s a pity that the small coterie of good quality journalists is diluted by such a motley collection of writers of indifferent, and in many instances, low standard. Groupthink seems to be the genesis of much of the pathology they exhibit.

Ad astra can be contacted at:

ad dots astra5 IatI bigpond dots com