Anyone notice how the media dubbed the proposed flood levy the “controversial” flood levy almost immediately as it was announced? Given a controversial issue is normally defined as a public matter in which there are strongly entrenched opposing opinions, the instant nature of this controversy raises suspicion.

A clue was given in in the AFR this weekend, where Geoff  Kitney quoted a senior government minister as saying the initial “partisan noise” over the levy did not reflect true public opinion. Kitney noted a surprisingly hostile initial reaction, as measured by calls to talkback radio and “conversation on the internet”.

Anecdotally, there was also evidence of orchestrated blowback over the announcement. A work colleague, not known for being politically engaged, complained of a deluge of Facebook posts from “friends” calling for organised opposition to the levy.

Why this issue should raise such instant passion is not entirely clear, particularly given the modest nature of the imposition, the public sympathy for the flood victims and the previous government’s frequent recourse to levies to deal with large and sudden calls on the budget (Timor, guns, Ansett etc;).

There was a rational argument against the levy from some economists, who said the resulting squeeze on household budgets might not be what the economy needs with consumers already struggling with increased energy bills, rising education and mortgage costs and soaring fresh food prices. However, at $1.8 billion (about 0.2 percent of GDP), and imposed progressively (with low income earners absolved from paying it), this is hardly the most onerous tax ever applied.

The better argument is that the government should just junk its promise to return the budget to surplus within three years. The bond market frankly does not care and no rational economist thinks this makes any sense given the minuscule nature of our public liabilities. It is purely a political millstone the government have chosen to sling around their own necks to make an unnecessary point about their fiscal rectitude – when the numbers being talked about are not significant.

But these arguments are not those being cited by the shrill opponents on talkback radio. There, we are hearing boilerplate accusations against the Gillard government of not being worthy of the people’s trust in spending the funds raised or, more incredulously, using the dead hand of the nanny state to asphyxiate the free market-driven spirit of Aussie mateship.

One is forced to conclude that the impetus for this “controversy” is an alliance of convenience between the Liberal Party noise machine – staffed by the frantically facebooking and twittering haters of the Young Liberal fraternity – and popular talkback radio. The demi-gods of that medium, with their audiences of angry oldies who have never voted Labor in their lives, live for moments like this – an excuse to paint the progressive side of politics as social engineers and wasters; in other words, to continue the narrative of 2010  – the lazy narrative of pink batts, school halls etc;

Indeed, the speed with which the “bitter” opposition to the flood levy appeared – and the amost immediate and aggressive media response – has all the hallmarks of “astro-turfing” – the US-derived propaganda method in which minority groups (sometimes funded by corporate interests) use digital technology to create the illusion for gullible media people and politicians that they are a broad-based grassroots movement.

Essentially, what is happening is that the noise of the partisan few, channeled through the echo chamber of talkback radio and current affairs TV, is feeding back on itself. The government suddenly finds itself referred to in ABC headlines as being “forced to defend” the levy (there goes that passive voice thing again). The prime minister has the “fight of her political life”, we are told, purely because that self-aggrandising over-paid self-appointed pooh-bah of Melbourne talkback Neil Mitchell says so.

A few questions arise out of all this. Firstly, why do Gillard and Swan  and other key ministers bother granting interviews to Neil Mitchell or Alan Jones or any of the other shock jocks? The audiences of these people are overwhelmingly Liberal voters – perennially angry, asset rich and over-funded old people who have lived their lives on the public tit – particularly under Howard – and who now hypocritically rant about public waste.  There is nothing to be gained by talking to these people; they’ll never vote for you anyway. This was Howard’s constituency – people who spend their lives hiding behind the hydrangeas with their fridge magnets.

Secondly, why does the government continue to make such a fetish out of the surplus? We know they fear they will be trashed in the media as economic vandals if they dump the promise. But exactly what do they think is happening now? It seems they are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. My advice would be ‘do what’s right; do what’s sensible and damn the media reaction’.

Thirdly, stop buying into manufactured controversies. What happens over and over again is that this government assumes the validity of a talking point generated by the opposition and its agents in the early days of an issue being aired and before the vast majority of people have had a chance to absorb it. It thus steers the issue straight into the direction the oppose-everything opposition wants to take it.

Piping Shrike, in his post today, nails what’s going on here: “The problem is that Labor continually understands that problem of authority in whatever terms Abbott and the Coalition choose to describe it. So if Abbott and The Australian say that there is “furore” or “backlash” over the schools program or the flood levy, Labor power brokers will immediately go out and poll western Sydney to find it.”

Instead of jumping at media shadows, the government should speak less, say more. Get the facts out there early. Ignore the noise. Tell people they are getting on with the business of governing and are not interested in playing word games or filling newspapers with material to keep the ads apart or to stroke the egos of steam radio dinosaurs. Simply don’t engage with the opposition or their opportunistic media mouthpieces. Stand fast and get on with the job.

Oh, and sack your media advisers. They’re hopeless.

(Postscript: Gillard’s chief of staff Amanda Lampe has quit).

See Also:


19 Comments

Andrew Elder · January 30, 2011 at 3:18 AM

It is not news that a government has made an announcement which others (particularly the Opposition and vested interests) have criticised. It's standard practice, and no amount of hype and bullshit can make such standard fare more interesting. It certainly does nothing to push up ratings/sales/respectability for that organisation. How sad that experienced journos can't find poetry and human interest in public policy, while trying to flog the dead horse of Capital Hill clichés.

Paul C · January 30, 2011 at 3:25 AM

Seems to me that the public backlash has come about because too many people have bought into the Howard-era myth that those on less than $80K a year are “battlers”. Actually, they might be, now, thanks to the rampant materialism perpetuated during those years which has driven up personal debt to an obscene level.

Pip · January 30, 2011 at 8:01 AM

There is some very serious money behind these “grassroots” campaigns. One which was mentioned on [I think] Cafe Whispers today is

ANDEV, Australians For Northern Development and Economic Vision.
Sounds alright?
http://www.andev-project.org/

At the head of the very long list of “industry voices” is Hancock Prospecting Pty.Ltd.
Gina Rinehart. Chairman of the above.
One wonders what her expectations of Channel 10 are.
If it wasn't so awful it would be funny, but all I can think of is all the victims of asbestos and mesothelioma.

Victoria · January 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Pip,
Plus Gina Rhinehart also has designs on Fairfax media now. She has tasted blood, after her success with the Anti-RSPT campaign, and quite likes the idea of having government at her beck and call.
All we can hope for is that Stephen Conroy's Media Convergence Inquiry puts these individuals' evil designs back in their box, like the Medusas they are.

Anonymous · January 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I believe the truth is that there is no real backlash. What back lash there is will peter out very quickly.

Those making fools of them selves because they did not take a moment to think, will slower to jump in next time.

Once bitten, twice shy will apply for many.

Anonymous · January 30, 2011 at 1:38 PM

“can think of is all the victims of asbestos and mesothelioma. “

Something that has struck with me is Gina's father saying he had no responsibility for the harm his blue asbestos mine cause because someone had to get it out of the ground. I might have the actual words wrong but this is the gist of what he said, What is more terrifying is that he meant it. Gina is a chip off the old block and just as hard.

Anonymous · January 30, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Bravo, nicely put.

I really think talkback influence is bigger than many realise. The shock-jocks take a pretty well tried and tested route of inflaming a minor point and working their audience into a frenzy over it.
You can say that's business it works.
After all, on 2UE John Stanley tried to present an issue by saying: these guys are saying x, the other guys are saying y, make up your own mind. Well that failed miserably.
Compare to say a Hadley and if you actually make it on to put forward a point that may differ to his current rant you might get cuckoo clock sound effect played over the top of you.
The issue I now have is it is having too much influence. I know plenty of 30 something's that live off what these guys say, its not just the Hydrangea brigade. And as you say it's feeding back on itself through other networks.
What are partisan opinions, often created with an ulterior motive such as ratings, quickly can become delivered as a mainstream stance. It's just dangerous.
I think the Levy demonstrates it perfectly. Imagine if the LNP came out first and said you must have a levy, that's how we did it. And Labor did something sensible and said, no we now re-forecast the surplus target (which after all is really just a marketing strategy they have been sucked into). What would the shock-jocks be saying then…

Mr D · January 30, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Anonymous, this is where reliable media is so important. If people are basing their opinions on talkback radio and television current affairs shows, we get bad government and poor policy outcomes.

I think it's time we gave broadcasting authorities some teeth and started revoking licences when demagogues deliberately spread misinformation and lies so they can create flame wars for ratings points.

Kit · January 30, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Very, very well said Mr Denham. I think there's definitely three major interrelated problems that Gillard faces:

1) you've identified above – a very clear case of a bad media strategy where the Opposition is always allowed to set and shape the agenda;

2) a hostile media which desperately tries to find fault, internal division and/or signs of of incompetence with every move Gillard makes; and

3) finally, the elephant in the room – Gillard is female. While I didn't think it possible, I am increasingly of the view that a women will never achieve a level of credibility or gravitas with the general public (and media) in this country that a man (of even half her talent) would receive. Shrill, bitchy, weak, too soft, too hard, barren, incompetent, superficial etc… etc… Bligh faces it, Keneally faces it, Gillard faces it and so too will Giddings.

The most 'heard' opinion writers/broadcasters in this country are Conservatives, and whether they are male or female have a instinctive aversion to female power.

So, (like women in the workplace more generally) because Gillard is up against such unprecedented and systemic hostility, she must have a governing and media strategy second to none. Unfortunately, her current advisers are not up to it – they are political operative who care more about the daily fight with Abbott than truly connecting with the Australian people with a clear agenda.

Forester · January 31, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Great stuff, keep on these demi-gods, someone has to.

I recall reading in Jonestown that the LNP put fax machines into peoples houses so that they could be sent a list of comments to sprout on talkback.

Are we seeing the modern equivalent now on social media?

Mr D · January 31, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Thanks, Kit, it's true that the media bar is set higher for female politicians in Australia -indeed for any woman in public life.

I have never seen such a hostile media, almost willing the government to stuff up so they can feast on more flesh.

But as you say, it's probably not being helped by internal leaking and a advisor team that thinks it's all about winning the daily media war and has no concept of the big picture.

Kit · January 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Mr D, maybe a shift is on

[JG's Chief of Staff Amanda Lampe has quit. Latika Bourke]

Mr D · January 31, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Thanks Kit. See also Piping Shrike today.

murph the surf. · January 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Mr D -Your last paragraph is an interesting observation.
“But as you say, it's probably not being helped by internal leaking and a advisor team that thinks it's all about winning the daily media war and has no concept of the big picture.”

Is there any discussion about policy in the PM's office or has the PM's role become purely a media based position where the incumbent takes orders from others??

Mr D · January 31, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Murph, I'm not in the gallery so I don't know. But it is true to say the COS position has been increasingly about mnanaging the news cycle to the point where that's all they really do.

The Hollow Men on the ABC sent this up well. These people live in a bubble inside parliament house (as do the press gallery) and frequently misjudge noise for signal.

That Lampe quit only proves my point. They hopeless misjudge the public mood, because they're plugged into the wrong sources. I guess that''s what happens when you base your communication strategy on Bob Carr's Keep Western Sydney Happy strategy of 10 years ago.

murph the surf. · January 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Is that last comment a sort of acknowledgement of the pernicious effects of the now fading NSW right?

Mr D · January 31, 2011 at 2:39 AM

I think everyone can see they are dead.

Dan · February 3, 2011 at 3:27 AM

Interesting that your friend said an anti-government campaign started in his Facebook fraternity. In my Facebook world, it was all pro-government. I guess it proves the point that viral campaigns can start from any point and spread anywhere. By the way, couldn't agree more with your call to ignore the media and get on with governing. Australians would thank Gillard for that.

Stop Murdoch · February 5, 2011 at 4:59 AM

Nice work, but…

As usual, I can't accept the “gullible” label. They can't NOT know what they're doing unless they have no perception at all, and that isn't possible.

The real problem is neo-conservatism/neo-liberalism etc.. call it what you will. Rudd seemed bad but apparently wasn't enough of an adherent and therefore had to be rolled for Gillard.

I believe it is a trap to view everything as Labor vs LNP vs News Ltd and pals. They are all engaged in the neo-con project together, the push and shove is simply an unimportant side-show.

The only way our political class (ie: media and politicians) can be so consistently cynical is through holding this ideology, in my view.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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