As with dramatists, journalists thrive on sex and conflict. We love to weave narratives around contested, err, positions. And the more passionate the partisans, the more drama we can wring out of the contest. You could say that without sleaze and conflict, there is no story. Which is why the Peter Slipper saga is heaven for hackdom.

By contrast, sleaze and conflict didn’t figure in the federal government’s $3.7 billion aged care reform package. Sold as “more choice, easier access and better care” for older Australians, the package was warmly welcomed by a broad cross section of aged care providers, consumers and unions. Policy academics also gave it the big tick. Not even the famed Tony Abbott’s “Noalition” appeared to want to put up a fight. The website of his shadow minister  makes no mention of the report.

Confronted with a major policy initiative that, while affecting millions, offered little potential for partisanship or  prurience, the media was a little flummoxed, although the Australian Financial Review had a go by intimating that the sacred “family home” was under attack. Its headline BTW contradicted The Australian’s very straight take on the story..

What the Fin Review was referring to its rather heavily spun headline was that the reforms involve dismantling the inequitable arrangements under which the wealthy can be subsidised by the taxpayer into public aged care without a proper means test. Strangely, this sort of middle-to-upper-class welfare was just what Joe Hockey was  banging on about in his now infamous London speech on our entitlement culture. But never mind, the businessman’s bible saw an opportunity to spin the class warfare line and went with it.

Ir didn’t matter anyway, because two days later, the aged care story had been shoved under the editorial bed like a used chamber pot. There was a much more colourful yarn to pun headlines out of. Instead of creaking tales about hospital beds and home care, we had one that yielded “Sex Text Scandal” and “Gay Sex Pest”. Corr! So saucy, even the perpetually randy UK tabloids picked it up.

Even better, the Tory regime changers of News Ltd could spin the Peter Slipper story into an imagined constitutional crisis and provide yet another reason to call for an ELECTION RIGHT NOW! to fix the mistake made two years ago and to “put an end to what many view as a dysfunctional government”.   The News Ltd goons had Slipper in their sights anyway, having used their ‘news’ pages recently to depict him as a rat. (That there was no manufactured outrage over Slipper in the 18 years  he served as a Coalition MP spoke volumes. A classic stitch-up, then.)

You see, what matters for our partisan press is not how many people a story affects (as in aged care, the NBN, health reform or improving disclosure around financial advice – all good reforms under this government), it is how a story can be spun to suit their chosen narrative and ideological imperative – in this case confecting a climate of permanent outrage to force regime change.

If it involves someone taking their pants off, that’s a bonus.

RECOMMENDED READING:
‘Slipper’s Media Attack Dogs – Ben Eltham, New Matilda
The Curious Timing of the Staffer Against the Speaker’ – Benjamin Thomas-Jones, Independent Australia


18 Comments

David Irving (no relation) · April 22, 2012 at 6:48 AM

The timing of the Slipper announcement is … interesting. As you say, nothing (or nothing much, anyway) about Slipper for 18 years, and then this suddenly pops up just in time to make it difficult for the government to get its Budget through the Lower House.

David Irving (no relation) · April 22, 2012 at 6:48 AM

The timing of the Slipper announcement is … interesting. As you say, nothing (or nothing much, anyway) about Slipper for 18 years, and then this suddenly pops up just in time to make it difficult for the government to get its Budget through the Lower House.

Anonymous · April 22, 2012 at 7:15 AM

after 18 years slipper should know where a few bodies are buried.this may turn into a spectacular own goal for rupert and his mates.

Anonymous · April 22, 2012 at 7:42 AM

As Steohen Mayne said, the race is on to see who goes first, the Labor Government or News Corp.

Is News down on Gillard's Labor Government or all Labor governments? Should Gillard have given the Murdoch's Australia TV broadcast rights into China. I hope that News Corp has its media licences curtailed.

Anonymous · April 22, 2012 at 7:42 AM

As Steohen Mayne said, the race is on to see who goes first, the Labor Government or News Corp.

Is News down on Gillard's Labor Government or all Labor governments? Should Gillard have given the Murdoch's Australia TV broadcast rights into China. I hope that News Corp has its media licences curtailed.

Mr D · April 22, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Actually Anon, Stephen Mayne didn't say that. I said that. But point taken.

Mr D · April 22, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Actually Anon, Stephen Mayne didn't say that. I said that. But point taken.

buffmcmenis · April 22, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Such a pertinent viewpoint, but at the same time such a sad indictment of the IQ of the lowest common denominator of Oz. Mr. D. you have brought it right to the sharp end as usual!

Malcolm · April 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Mr D, you've caught the “around” disease!

Anonymous · April 22, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Mr D, are you saying the Slipper sex sleaze saga (shock!) is not a yarn?

If it hadn't been dropped to Steve Lewis someone else would have picked it up within a couple of days and written it up.

Mr D · April 22, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Anonymous, your use of the word “yarn” rather proves my point.

Anonymous · April 22, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Completely agree with you on agenda but interested into how you would have handled allegations as a political reporter/editor of major newspaper

Mr D · April 22, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Less hysterically

Casablanca · April 23, 2012 at 4:49 AM

What do we know about James Ashby apart from the published information that he is a 33yo self- proclaimed gay man, introduced socially to Peter Slipper by friends? It has also been stated that Slipper made several job offers to Ashby before he finally accepted an appointment in November 2011.

Why did the matter go straight to the Federal Court apparently by-passing normal internal procedures in relation to workplace Sexual Harassment?

How could a 33yo be so naive as to consider that flatting with the boss was a normal and proper arrangement? Also, it is not clear from the MSM when and if Ashby moved to other accommodation. Has Ashby ever shared accommodation with other bosses?

Until these sorts of questions are answered the case appears to have all the hallmarks of entrapment.

Ms M · April 23, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Again agree on need to investigate agenda behind allegations etc, but risk of course that heat on alleged victim puts off future harassment cases for fear of heat. Issue is saturation coverage, of course, and incapacity to allow time/process to do its thing while canvassing every possible scenario.

Maza · April 27, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Great post. Pity the main stream can't pay attention long enough to make these points.

Anonymous · April 27, 2012 at 11:51 PM

I would suggest giving the complainant immunity from prosecution in return for information about any undue influence.

Anonymous · April 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I wonder why no-one else has noticed a report in the Advertiser that Tony Nutt is thinking about suing for defamation.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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