It was legendary US newscaster Walter Cronkite who is reported to have said of the media in Australia: “too many reporters, not enough news”.

That quote came to mind when an excited Seven News wet its pants over Opposition leader Tony Abbott using the phrase “shit happens” when discussing with a US commander in Afghanistan a firefight in which an Australian soldier died.
On first hearing of the incident on twitter (the dangers of not having all the facts), the temptation was to conclude that this was typically insensitive of Abbott and that he had some explaining to do. But on seeing the clip the facts were clearer. This was a classic Seven beat-up and that’s saying something for the network that produced that creative piece of current affairs, ‘Barcelona Tonight’.

To this former journalist, Abbott was clearly taken out of context, as he himself complained to the reporter in an interview in which he appeared to be struck dumb by the implication that he had made light out an Australian fatality. To any sensible person and whatever their opinion of the Opposition leader, it was clear the offending words were used in relation to the awful circumstances of the battle itself. He might have chosen a more appropriate phrase, but it was certainly not evident that he was in any way downplaying the loss of the soldier.
Of course, that doesn’t matter now. The outrage machine has been cranked up and we will have a couple of days of wall-to-wall blather about an issue that really is no issue at all (and when there are plenty of real ones to go around).  In the meantime, surprise surprise, we are told that Abbott has been “forced to defend”… Yes, it’s that passive media voice of God again.

Incidentally, there’s a view about that Abbott’s more troubling behaviour was his mute and seemingly malevolent stare-off with Seven reporter Mark Riley when confronted with the footage. Of course, one could conclude from this that Abbott, a former journalist himself, knew he was being reeled into a “gotcha” moment, and  his long silence was a sign he was struggling to find the right words to explain the context of the original comment without digging himself in deeper. He might have been advised to have just said “my comments were not about the soldier, but about the circumstances of war. You’re clearly interested in making more of it than that, but I’ve said all I have to say.” And walked away.
Also entering the monstrous media mixmaster is mischievious and idle musing about whether Prime Minister Julia Gillard was shedding crocodile tears when she broke down in parliament about the loss of lives in the Queensland floods. A visit to the Herald Sun’s comments section reveals a segment of the Australian electorate (admittedly many of them Liberal trolls) are depressingly cynical about what surely to most rational observers was a genuine display of emotion.

But rest assured, the usual media suspects will seek to analyse this display of humanity by the PM as confected or an attempt at dealing with criticisms of her public demeanour as cold or wooden. Already, the expertly duplicitous Andrew Bolt has managed, in his infinitely twisted way, to somehow suggest there was something wrong with Gillard’s response:

“I do not say Julia Gillard’s tears….were anything but genuine,” Bolt says to avert accusations of cynicism. “But I do say the tears follow much damaging criticism about Gillard being ‘wooden’ in responding to the disasters. I do fear that to suddenly go from one extreme to the other will jar with many.”

“Fear”, Andrew? Or do you mean “hope”?

These episodes suggest Cronkite was half right. Too many of the WRONG reporters. Too little REAL news.
Recommended reading on this issue:


22 Comments

anthonybaxter · February 8, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Since when is Bolt a reporter?

Slim · February 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

The more pertinent question missed by all commentators is the fundamentally political nature of Abbott's choice to visit Afghanistan every time a digger is killed. More Mr Action Man photo ops. These visits are an unnecessary distraction and expense for the AIF – as if if takes a visit by Abbott to determine the circumstances of the death. If you play with fire you'll get burned soon enough. No sympathy.

Anonymous · February 8, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Even when given the 'context' (which abbot should have declared when presented with the footage), it is still highly insensitive for an aspiring national leader to make whilst pretending to be a soldier at the front. WHile it is just cheap journalism, abbot has blown this up himself to the point it is at, first, by saying something so callous to begin with, and second, for not addressing it when confronted.
And, apparently, it is now all the journos fault? For what, asking a question? I would say that for fighting an FOI order on the tapes for threee months, questions needed to be asked. Why no answer. Its not as if it came out of left field?

Mr D · February 8, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Anonymous, I think Slim makes the better point. It would be better if the media took politicians to task in the first place for seeking to exploit patriotism and nationalist sentiment – rather than jumping all over a comment taken way out of context. Abbott loves the action man image and was clearly hamming it up in Afghanistan firing guns and swaggering with the boys. It's the focus on the irrelevant and silly “gotcha” moments and the failure to see the big picture of the manipulation of public opinion that is so galling by the media.

Anonymous · February 8, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Mr D

So, you are happy with a potential leader of our nation 'hamming it up' while discussing the death of a soldier?

Tom R (you're wordpress thing doesn't appear to work for me)

Mr D · February 8, 2011 at 11:26 PM

No, I'm not happy with politicians hamming it up in a warzone, whoever they might be. I'm just saying the “shit happens” reference was taken out of context and beaten up.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Abbott as a potential leader (calling climate change “crap” being one of them), but I think the focus on this particular episode is a waste of media oxygen.

Anonymous · February 8, 2011 at 11:33 PM

'but I think the focus on this particular episode is a waste of media oxygen.'

But if he had addressed the issue, and not tried to keep it secret for 3 months, would there have been this media interest. That is the story here, imo, not the initial, course statement. It his evasiveness on the statement that is more telling to me.

Tom R

Mr D · February 8, 2011 at 11:46 PM

That he kept it secret Tom is more a criticism of how the media focuses on irrelevancies than it is on Abbott's paranoia.

Anonymous · February 8, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Funny, to me, that he kept it secret appeared to show he had something to hide. While acknowledging that the media focuses on irrelevancie, it is also his stock in trade, which he played up to big time recently (leaks during the election, Gillard appearing 'wooden', GBNT). That doesn't change the fact that he tried to keep it secret.

Tom R

tredlgt · February 9, 2011 at 12:24 AM

It is not important if this is a beat up or not .It does not matter what he said . There are more pressing stories to be told . But why is abbott off limits .
The Govt and PM are subjected to bullshit journalism constantly. One example BER. A review gave a favourable verdict but still MSM including the ABC refer to it as mismanaged and a waste of money at the instigation of abbott . The media never questions this assertion . Yet when abbott's ineptitude is shown by being unable to answer a question ,trivial or not ,the inference is he being subjected to inappropriate and irrelevant attention. This is supposedly a huge waste of time and effort. abbott believes he should be PM . This interview shows he is out of his depth . That is surely good journalism.

Anonymous · February 9, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Bolt is so discredited by partisan boosting that he cannot be taken seriously by anyone with even half a gram of discernment.

Mr D · February 9, 2011 at 1:29 AM

tredlgt, I think if we are going to insist on greater standards from the media – and I agree with you – our case will be stronger if we are critical of “bullshit journalism” as you call it whomever the target might be.

The Worst of Perth · February 9, 2011 at 2:04 AM

Gillard forced to defend tear ducts.

tredlgt · February 9, 2011 at 6:51 AM

Mr D
Fair enough ,you are correct.
Unfortunatly that's the way journalism is practised in Australia at the moment and at least this shows a bit of balance. Kick both sides.
Hopefully one day the laziness will stop and we will once again be able to obtain useful information from journalists .
Thanks for a enjoyable Blog

Anonymous · February 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Its the same old bullshit journalism we have come to expect and loathe, just an unusual target.
I think that was half Abbotts problem incidentally, being roughly handled by one of his (usually) dancing bears.

MJC

Anonymous · February 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Sorry Mr D but I don't think Riley was anywhere near as bad following this as made out. He says himself during the interview that he was not implying Abbott was treating lightly the death of the soldier. It was Abbott himself that made that connection. Riley quite clearly noted the context that he was looking at the comment in ie. Abbott had seen and participated in a demonstration of the firepower available to the soldiers on the day and the context of the leaked email which Abbott and his defence spokesman had been using to imply the government was failing the soldiers. Riley also explicitly states that this criticism had upset the Australian commander. Riley's point was clearly and stated to be regarding Abbott's comment in relation to this context.

How can that not be valid? The leader of the opposition had politicized the death of the soldier, had attacked the government and made a song and dance about not going to Afghanistan with the PM. Once he gets there the soldiers in the field put his disgusting politicking in it's place and he has to admit that “sometimes shit happens”. Yes Tony it does, but he wasn't exactly in a rush to come home and offer a mea culpa over his earlier remarks was he? We got some meally mouthed platitudes and a hope his earlier criticisms would be forgotten so he could move onto another line of attack without breaking stride.

It was a long long way from the most beaten up story in recent times. Now I will admit Bath opens regarding “insensitive remarks” and that is the bit that seems to have grown legs, but as I said it was Abbott himself that made this statement, not Riley who had a reasonably justifiable objective noting the full context and considering all of the effort on behalf of the opposition to suppress the vision.

That said Riley's story would have been a blip if Abbott had any ability at all. The real reason this thing has legs is because of Abbott's completely bizarre reaction. No wonder the Right wing nutters are screaming ambush and smearing Riley. The real Tony Abbott was on display and it does not make a pretty sight.

Mr D · February 9, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Yes, Anonymous, but Seven didn't frame it that way, did they? The story was 'Abbott makes light of soldier's death'.

I wouldn't worry about the right-wing nutters. They're always frothing at the mouth. The most important point, if you're reasonably progressive(sane), is that Labor has quite sensibly not sought to exploit this.

I still think it's a beat-up. I don't have a lot of respect for Mark Riley. And I have to tell you that Seven are hardly the repository of quality journalism.

Anonymous · February 9, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Mr D,

I don't have any love for our nations so called journalists either. I usually agree with most of the criticisms you make of them and the industry they work in. Riley I hold in even less esteem than most. The claims that he is some sort of Labor-loving lefty come straight from Bizarro-world.

But in this instance I believe any claims of a 'gotcha' or beat up on Riley's part are wide of the mark. As I said the context made the comment at least a demonstration of inconsistency from Abbott when viewed against his public remark so a reasonable subject for a political journalist to follow. He also gave Abbott plenty of time to prepare for the interview and it was Abbott's staff that set the time and place. He has clearly played this all by the book. It was a reasonable but minor story that Abbott should have been able to swat away. The fact he had a brain snap in itself becomes the major story though. Do you really think a journalist should drop this display of bizarre malfunction from a man who is a by election away from the Prime Ministership?

The lead off from Bath is certainly talking about the 'insensitive remark' as I acknowledged and agree is rubbish, but that should not be held against Riley anymore than it's any journo's fault if a screamer of a headline has next to nothing to do with his/her actual story. Now if the 'insensitive remark' was all this had going for it then it's definitely a beat up, but I think here we just have a case of whoever writes the presenter's lines being too dumb stupid to see the real story here. The fact almost all other media outlets focussed on the 'insensitive remark' angle rather than the real story just shows that Seven is far from on it's own as not being a repository of quality journalism. (Where did we leave that repository of quality journalism by the way?)

I'm not sure I agree about not worrying about the nutjobs and Labor not exploiting this either. The nutjobs have a malignant and seemingly growing influence on our national debate and I don't think they are a problem that will just go away if we ignore them. A head on attack won't work, but more needs to be done to refute the filth that floods from these ratbags.

Equally whilst I agree with the statements made by Smith and other's that Abbott did not seek to offend with his remarks, the context of his admission that sometimes things happen that aren't anyone's fault is a lot different to his statements for public consumption and his freeze are both subjects that Labor should quite rightly seek to exploit. I will agree though that to do so successfully would require a lightness of touch probably far beyond the present government's capacity.

So yes Seven with their lead off failed us, but there was still a minor but worthwhile story to be told by Riley and once Abbott lost it he had a significant story. If the lead had been 'Opposition Leader has bizarre meld down when faced with mild questioning' then no one would have any reasonable grounds for complaint. Yes Seven and the rest of the media that focused on the “shit” are ripe for criticism, but I feel Riley in this instance shares no culpability.

Tim Dick in the SMH gives a reasonable analysis I feel @ http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/silence-speaks-louder-than-words-in-this-story-20110209-1an2a.html

Mr D · February 9, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Anonymous, thanks for your considered and well articulated response. You make a lot of good points and I'm the first to admit the story is more nuanced than I have described.

There seems almost universal agreement that Seven's framing of the story as Abbott being insensitive was a beat-up. But there are two other elements to this.

As you say, the first is his bizarre head-nodding quiet fury when asked to elaborate on the true context of the remark. A view seems to be growing that this was disquieting and a “Latham” moment for the Opposition leader, proving his unfitness for high office.

I agree it was odd. But did anyone really find it surprising knowing what we have discovered about Abbott over several years? To many people, me included, it was a wonder that Abbott remained so disciplined through the election campaign last year, given his previous brain farts like the Banton remark, the climate change is crap quote and the interview on 7.30 Reportland early last year when he admitted he sometimes just made stuff up.

So I'm perplexed that members of the commentariat might find it shocking or confronting to see Abbott – like a punch drunk boxer in a bar at midnight – staring in mute fury at a reporter. He's ALWAYS been like this. That's Tony Abbott!

The other element of the story – and the one that would have been effective last year when Abbott made the trip – was that his “shitstorm” comment demolished his own party's dog-whistling suggestion at the time that the troops were under-resourced. That would have been a real news story. Unfortunately, the moment had passed.

So, yes, you are right. There was a story here. Problem is it's not the one that Seven thought it was. So, again, I stand by my criticism that the media is often guilty of not knowing how to frame the news correctly. They frequently under-estimate the intelligence of their audience and fail to capture nuance.

The story about Abbott's unfitness for office should have been explored in greater depth and with greater force last year. That might have saved the country a whole heap of trouble.

Anonymous · February 10, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Now most of that I can agree with. To you and I Abbott's brain farts come as no surprise, unfortunately to an inconceivably large number of our countrymen Abbott is a genuine PM candidate. Any exposure of what as you say he has ALWAYS been like is a service to the nation.

But sadly yes, our media wouldn't recognise a real story if bit them.

Anonymous · February 13, 2011 at 10:26 PM

'his “shitstorm” comment demolished his own party's dog-whistling suggestion at the time that the troops were under-resourced. '

That is something that I completely overlooked, as I think many people did. I disagree that the 'moment has passed'. It is just that I think journos are too afraid to go near it. The rabid outcry against the channel 7 journo has been extreme, and I think that most journos just don't want to go there. For hypocrisy like that, there is no statute of limitations. If its a story, they should follow it. The only reason it has passed is because they have told themselves it has.

But, as you say, it is a pity the focus wasn't there. Thanks for highlighting it for those of us who were looking elsewhere.

Tom R

Anonymous · February 14, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Mr Denmore, I agree that the “shit happens” remark is insignificant in itself, but what the Riley interview reveals, more than Smuggles' angry nastiness and born to rule complex, is his arrogance, laziness and complete inability to think on his feet.

For anyone to claim he was ambushed is patently ridiculous; he had three months not three seconds, to prepare a short, succinct response.

That he couldn't be bothered, speaks volumes about his own character and his confidence that the lazy, compliant MSM will not only unquestioningly excuse any and all of his apparent character flaws, but will make no attempt whatever to hold him to account for his lies, obfuscations and complete unfitness for office.

Would anyone of sound mind let him even run a chook raffle for the local kindy, let alone gets his paws on the the government piggy bank.

There's been a beat up alright, but not by channel 7.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *