This is either the most well timed book on politics of recent times or the worst. In her meticulously detailed volume of the caustic three years of Julia Gillard’s prime ministership,  Kerry-Anne Walsh ends the narrative tantalisingly short of the final scene – the long-canvassed ‘Ruddstoration’.

It seems churlish to fail the book on events overtaking it, but this is always the danger with seeking to tell history on the run. Indeed, one wonders, after reading it, whether Walsh’s punchy news diary-style treatment might have worked better as a live blog than as a paperback.

Even so, this book will be welcomed by all those, including this blogger, who see the last three years as a colossal failure in political journalism and the wider media; a failure evidenced by glory-seeking journos riding anonymous sources to become players in the political game, of splenetic old broadcasters
unleashing misogynistic tirades and of an unashamedly partisan tabloid trash media telling outright lies to further the ideological and commercial interests of their proprietor.

In detailing the methodical white-anting of Gillard by Rudd and the complicity of many media figures in it, Walsh echoes many of the points made on this blog and elsewhere about an incestuous political-media complex that seems all about serving insiders and keeping the public in the dark.

But Walsh’s views on these issues carry additional weight, given her 25-year history in the press gallery, working for both the popular (Daily Telegraph and the Sun Herald) and high-brow (The Bulletin and Radio National) news outlets. She also knows how the dark arts of spin doctoring work, having started her career as a press secretary in the Hawke government.

So it is notable that someone with so much right to be world-weary and jaded is as gobsmacked as the rest of us by the absence of balance by so many journalists, by the reliance on one or two highly compromised sources, by the ritual overlooking of the substantial and far more consequential legislative achievements of the minority government that Gillard led and, most of all, by the corrosive influence of polls in the news process.

“Journalists who habitually play statistics to promote the case that a government or its leader is terminal when there are months, even years, before an election are engaging in fraudulent misrepresentation,” Walsh writes. “Paul Keating was a goner six months out from the 1993 election, the polls predicted; Beazley was supposed to be a winner in 2001; Mark Latham looked like he could get there in 2004, according to the polls eight months out; and in 2010 Labor’s lead seemed healthy.”

Despite the clear evidence that polls distort the political process in unhealthy ways, it seems the dying media’s demand for the fix of the instant sensation and the voracity of the appetite of the news machine demands the beating up of every survey. And when your employer pays for the number crunching, you had better get in there and make a story out of it.

While there are legitimate complaints to make about the strategic nous of the Gillard office, a picture emerges through this book of a press corps that has lost all perspective, that is more focused on writing for each other and the other insiders in their limited orbit than for the general public.

“The press gallery can be a beast that feeds on itself,” Walsh writes. “Gallery journalists are shackled to their desks. Their company is each other; their sounding boards are each other; their judgements about the political angle of the day are formed out of exchanges with each other. But the competition is fierce for the headline story – to be the agenda-setting pundit or to be the first to report a whisper.”

And, of course, all this is happening as resources dwindle and the competition for eyeballs from alternative information sources increases. It’s no surprise then, to anyone with a degree of distance from Canberra, that so much of what is written is, to use Ms Gillard’s apt description, “crap”.

In the preamble to the book, Walsh says she does not intend it to be a defence of Gillard, although it certainly reads that way. Perhaps, her passion can be seen as an attempt to restore some much needed balance to the partisan junk we have seen. The author, like most people who have seen him up close, clearly despises Rudd – depicting him as self-deluding sociopath and egomaniac.

Looking at social media, there is still much bitterness in the community about the media treatment of Gillard and corresponding revulsion at Rudd’s mealy-mouthed hypocrisy in calling for an end to the politics of negativity. And it’s hard to argue with that assessment of things.

My own view – and it is just my mere unschooled opinion – is that there is nothing inconsistent about on the one hand being appalled at the sexist treatment of Gillard, recognising her great character and significant policy achievements and arguing on the other that she was a poor communicator, tactically inept or least very badly advised.

Likewise, there is nothing inconsistent in recognising on the one hand that Rudd is an egomaniac, a control freak and an over-promiser, while on the other accepting that he at least has social democratic instincts and seems better able to communicate and cut through with the many people parking their votes with Abbott. He may come undone, but he at least for now appears to have wrong-footed a man that many of us dread far more than his own egomania.

But anyway, to quote JG one last time, we are now moving forward.

POSTSCRIPT: Lest we forget, a compilation by John Jay Smith of some of the sexist, loathsome language directed against the former prime minister by mostly stupid, ignorant old men (and the odd supposed feminist) over the past three years.



The Stalking of Julia Gillard: How the media and Team Rudd contrived to bring down the Prime Minister’ – Kerry Anne Walsh, Allen and Unwin


13 Comments

Anonymous · July 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Thanks for another good post. I believe PM Gillard was an excellent communicator however old media did not do their jobs.

Anonymous · July 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Mr Denmore much I have read about Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott attest to their personal warmth, wit and serious minded ness. Why then did their advisors put them in straitjackets? People yearn for authenticity. They think they have found it in Kevin Rudd, a man whom people seem to dislike when seen at close quarters. It is a puzzle. I look forward to the definitive book which pieces together the last three years: turmoil within the ALP, Tony Abbott's successful undermining of the legitimacy of the Gillard government and demonization of Gillard personally, the gender specific attacks on Australia's first female PM, Kevin Rudd's undermining campaign, the media's bias against Gillard, Gillard's failure to cut-through in the face of all that.

Anonymous · July 9, 2013 at 8:52 PM

…the dying media's demand for the fix of the instant sensation and the voracity of the appetite of the news machine demands the beating up of every survey

______
This is only the case when polls are good for the Liberals. Polls that are good for Labor are routinely “overlooked” by the MSM-ABC, including the current Morgan Poll which shows Labor clearly ahead. Move along, nothing to see there.

Dan · July 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM

“Gallery journalists are shackled to their desks. Their company is each other; their sounding boards are each other; their judgements about the political angle of the day are formed out of exchanges with each other”.

It was like that when I first joined the press gallery in the Hawke years. It had not changed when I left 20 years ago. With a few honourable exceptions, still nothing has changed. We continue to be very poorly served by our political reporting.

Anonymous · July 9, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Yeah I'll second that.

I reckon its just another media meme that PM Gillard was not a good communicator, especially when compared to …who?
Rudd, with his “programmed specificity” stuff?
OK I'll happily grant that his Sorry Day speech was great, but generally his communication skills are about par for a pollie, maybe a bit below.
Abbott perhaps?
Er, not really.
3 word slogans that are unquestioned by the professional questioners does not make the grade as good communication.
And lets not forget the catatonic stare when interviewed on “Shit happens”. Was it for 28 seconds only or a minute plus? Or the death stares when caught out by interviewers on the rare occasions he got asked the questions he deserved.
Remove 'um','ah', 'er' and 'no' from his vocab and there are a lot of silences.

Gillard on the other hand has frequently raised her communication performance to levels way above those two and the bulk of the pollie class.
Not only the amazing misogyny speech but also:
-the sorry for forced adoption speech
-the hour or so performance, twice I believe, facing silly questions from the pros on her alleged naughtiness of decades ago. Calm, measured, dignified, facts at her fingertips.

C'mon, by any measure, except that of course of a hostile media, Gillard is a polished performer who has frequently risen to heights way above those of her media preferred rivals.

The charge that she is not a good communicator is yet another fabrication of the media, its a self serving excuse them for creating noise rather than transmitting the messages.

fred

Mr D · July 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Anonymous, from what I read, Ms Gillard is an excellent, warm and engaging communicator one-on-one. But that never transferred to the public stage. Certainly, the media had something to do with that, but as she herself said, it's not the whole story.

Mr D · July 9, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Fred,

Communication is not just about talking. It is also about being listened to. She wasn't be listened to. Now you can blame the media for that. And I do, partly. But it wasn't all the media.

My professional role is as a communications adviser. She was being very, very badly advised. If you don't agree, that's OK. But I think some of the most rusted-on Gillard supporters are not quite as objective about this as they think they are.

Anonymous · July 9, 2013 at 11:12 PM

I'm not a rusty supporter of Gillard Mr D.
Quite the contrary.

But I do recognize that Gillard's communication skills are above average for Oz pollies and I do blame the media for the perception that such is not so.
I've sen and heard far too frequently that she has a 'drone', 'screeches', 'can't cut through'.
Nup.
Apply the same standards as Rudd/Abbott/Bishop x 2, Albo and others are judged by and she is at least as good.

More examples to illustrate my point:
-the press club presentation where she spoke and the only thing the media heard was …election date and spectacles.
-the abortion and blue ties comment, a couple of sentences from a half hour speech the bulk of which the media didn't bother reporting.
-the take down, very nicely and diplomatically done complete with smile, of Barry Cassidy over the alleged Utegate affair where she sidestepped his self serving leading questions, got to the essence of the issue and left him floundering.
-How would other pollies have coped if they faced Sattler, Jones, Uhlmann et al treating them as they treated Gillard?
-umpteen presentations in Parliament which end up on the cutting floor [do such still exist?] when relayed from House to TV image bite on the News.

That should be sufficient.

Its just a media meme, please don't buy it, you don't usually do so which is why I respect this site but I reckon you've fallen for this one..

fred

Mr D · July 9, 2013 at 11:21 PM

Fred, she communicated to me. She communicated to you. But that's not what this is about. She didn't communicate effectively to the people she needed to reach. We could debate this all day. And I haven't fallen for anything. I'm about as cynical as they come. The fact is she wasn't be listened to by the people who will decide the election outcome.

And that's not entirely the fault of the media.

Anyway, the party decided to change leaders, so presumably they share my opinion.

Anonymous · July 10, 2013 at 12:35 AM

And lets not forget the catatonic stare when interviewed on “Shit happens”. Was it for 28 seconds only or a minute plus?

_________________
It was 72 seconds, according the The Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/libs-turn-on-abbott-over-tv-silence/story-fn59niix-1226003268898

Note paragraphs 5 and 6.

Anonymous · July 10, 2013 at 1:20 AM

Mmm, surely even the best communicator cannot be heard above the din of a press-pack intent on 'making the news'and bringing you down. The main take-away for me from Walsh's book was that the press seemed mighty pissed they missed the mark on 24 June 2010, and so they determined to use all their influence, manipulate, and aid and abet Rudd with his relentless campaign to bring down Gillard – and, hey presto!

Helen · July 16, 2013 at 1:06 AM

An American view, but still…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222031/-Journalism-Summer-Camp

Anonymous · July 19, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Mr Denmore, I tend to agree with Anonymous, above wrt Gillard's ability to communicate.

When the Christmas break finished & Gillard wore glasses, the media went into a frenzy because she was wearing glasses!

They interviewed the opposition about it, for God's sake! Reams were written about the glasses with cretins in all walks of life pronouncing her wearing them was a stunt!

Then after all that, she was accused of being a poor communicator, unable to get her point across.

To give weight to what we've been saying, was there a media frenzy when Liealot and the Liars decided to change ties? Or wear a different suit or when Hockey returned to the fray half his previous size because he had his stomach banded?

Maybe people had stopped listening because the media had told them time and again that they had and that whatever they heard was a lie or inconsequential.

Did the msm once enumerate the minority government's successful legislative program? No.

But we sure heard about Gillard's earlobes, or her jackets or the size of her bum, or her necklace or outrage from the likes of Gai Waterhouse because Gillard didn't behave like a show pony while visiting Japan after the tsunami.

Gillard was a good communicator; she just couldn't turn the microphone up enough to be heard over all the white noise from Rupert's mob of incompetents and the white ants in her own party.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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