News Corp didn’t win the 2013 election for the Coalition. The Labor Party’s dysfunctional internal politics had more to do with that. But that doesn’t mean the calculated propaganda which Murdoch’s papers call news is not an issue for anyone concerned about the health of this democracy.

The influence of the Murdoch papers on the public debate is more long-term and diffuse than can be read from a single election outcome, a point that veteran Media Watch host and now Age journalist Jonathan Holmes made in an appearance on ABC Radio National’s post-election wash-up.
Holmes and fellow guest Margaret Simons noted that the Coalition did not do as well as expected in the two areas where the News Corp papers were at at either their most rabid – as in Western Sydney – or their most monopolistic, as in Queensland. But that didn’t mean the constant propagandising had no effect.

“What you do have to do is look at the long term,” Holmes said. “Why was Labor so on the nose, particularly in Western Sydney, for the last three years?  Now, of course that’s got something to do with leadership squabbles.  But the negative view that people have of that government was much greater…than the economy…seemed  to justify. And if you look at what people are being fed day by day, not just by The Daily Telegraph, but by talk back radio, (you get this) unremittingly negative view of the government.”

Holmes has it right. People’s views are shaped cumulatively, not issue by issue. They build up a gradual perception which they find reinforced by a persistent negativity in  influential media,whether it be the Tele in the train to work, the talk back screamers during smoko, or the 90-second political hit between reports on car crashes and drive-by shootings on commercial TV news.

It was revealed to me personally during a recent spat on Facebook. An old friend, a respected international economic journalist and long-time resident of Western Sydney, wrote one of his typically sober, fact-filled, non-partisan and globally-focused posts extolling the virtues of Australia’s fundamentals and asking that people keep a sense of perspective when hearing claims of a ‘debt crisis’ and Australia as s sovereign risk.

This nicest and most middle-of-the-road of men was immediately assailed by a ‘small business’ acquaintance from Campbelltown (a hairdressing salon owner no less), who proceeded in intemperate language to recite the ‘pink-batts-school-halls-weak-borders’ mantra so frequently heard on talk back radio. This seemed to me the utterance of someone who didn’t read much widely beyond the Tele or listen further than 2GB. And at that point, I stepped in to endorse my former colleague’s well-grounded perspective.

Anyway, it degenerated from there into a slanging match. And it did not appear likely that the truth was really going to resolve anything. The point being that, quite apart from legitimate concerns about Labor’s internal division, many of these people were being worked up by the tabloid media into a daily fury about the utter hopelessness of Labor on a policy front and had so much invested in the notion that the universe itself was coming apart that nothing was going to bring them around. (See Peter Martin on this propensity for the Murdoch media & talk back radio in reinforcing prejudice)

And that’s my beef with News Corp. While its newspapers are perfectly entitled to take a view, there’s a lack of respect for the old fashioned journalistic principles of responsibility to the truth, dedication to balance and fairness and a clear separation of reporting from opinion. Murdoch’s defenders say newspapers have always taken positions on issues. But that takes no account of the requirement of a strict demarcation between editorial and straight news. Neither does it recognise that whomever they work for, journalists have a professional responsibility to adhere to their craft principles.

As for the proliferation of ‘fact-checking’ sites, facts are nothing when separated from context. So any analysis of Labor’s actual policy record that leaves out mention of the deepest developed world recession since the 1930s doesn’t really deserve respect. Any analysis of carbon pricing that omits the undisputed facts of climate change risks leaving people half-informed. And any debate about asylum seekers that makes no reference to the global refugee crisis is a sham.

The consequence of the lack of context in media reporting is that people are inadequately informed or are just plain misinformed. That opens the way to shysters and flakes to peddle popular prejudice as fact, either because of their own ignorance, laziness, or their cynical need to build a business model around generating cheap outrage. Ultimately, with this standard of journalism, the population resembles the cast of that TV series where the whole town is stuck inside a dome, oblivious to the rest of the world and the challenges beyond their little corner.

This is not rocket science. And it has nothing to do with who gets your vote. It’s about journalists living up to the professional standards they demand of everyone else. And it’s about the media organisations that employ journalists not using their Fourth Estate privileges to pursue agendas unrelated to the primary role as news organisations.

Is it too much to ask that journalists rediscover their principles or is that hopelessly naive?

See also: Professor Brian McNair, QUT: ‘Election 2013: The Role of the Media’


19 Comments

David Doe · September 8, 2013 at 12:23 PM

If anything can be taken from the events of this weekend, it's this :

This election is a tribute to the abject failure of the fourth estate and its devastating betrayal of the public.

There are no doubt many excellent journalists in Australia toiling to inform the public on matters of importance, but the work of those few is utterly swamped by the endless tsunami of drivel, misinformation, and outright fabrication relentlessly pumped out by vested interests and their mouthpieces across print, radio, television, and the internet.

Long live the fifth estate. We need you now, more than ever.

Anonymous · September 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Dear Mr Denmore,

You have failed to mention the constant nauseating unbelievable Liberal bias and puerile coverage of politics from Aunty and Fairfax's unrelenting campaign against PM Gillard. Now that is context.

calyptorhynchus · September 8, 2013 at 11:06 PM

I have to disagree. There is no reason why anyone who voted labor in 2010 should have shifted their vote, especially as the second term of the labor government delivered more than the first.
The only reason I can think is the constant feed of misinformation from almost all media outlets. Even labor's leadership tussles need not have been a distraction if they had have been reported dispassionately. The labor party is no worse in this regard that the liberals, whose current leader won power by one vote and would not have won at all if an absentee vote had been allowed. The leadership struggles in the average large business are far worse.

Anonymous · September 8, 2013 at 11:20 PM

The chap behind me in the voting queue said he'd been a staunch Labor man all his life but was voting Liberal “because these illegal boat people are getting way more money than we are on the pension or on the dole”.

Says it all, really

VoterBentleigh · September 8, 2013 at 11:30 PM

There are principled, professional journalists, but they appear to be a dying breed and the rot set into the mainstream media some time ago. It is one of the reasons many electors feel dis-empowered and dis-engaged, because they see little of the issues which affect their lives being dealt with adequately in the media. The only way there will be any change is for the public to drain the MSM of profits, just as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was starved of funds. It is the only language that News Corporation and the other media corporations understand.

It is indeed a cumulative effect. Even the change in non-political programming has been conducive to the current malaise. Even with the change to digital and more channels, the choice in quality programmes on free-to-air television is minuscule. Mostly, the ABC leads the field with innovative and informative programming. The guide for pay-TV does not offer not value for money either.

Anonymous · September 9, 2013 at 12:13 AM

Most journalists, for whatever reasons, have traded in their credibility over the last three years. Journalists are now seen as on par with used-car salesmen.

We need to give credit where credit is due, and highlight the journalists who are out there, ethics and morals intact, continuing to serve the public. By moving these people further into the public arena, the contrast of quality will be seen more clearly.

Inspired · September 9, 2013 at 4:02 AM

Hi Mr D,

I half agree with you, but I think Labor's divisions have more to do with Murdoch than you argue. I don't think it's quite accurate any more to see the two major parties and the mainstream media as separate entities. The media and the parties are too entangled with each other.

Why was Rudd leader in the first place? Because he and his policies were acceptable to News Corpse. He came undone partly because of his relentless focus on pleasing journalists and feeding the 24-hour media cycle (part of Australia's debased political culture, which Murdoch is a big part of). And Gillard was only able to unseat him because the party's obsession with polling and the media's responses to it allowed her to.

True, Labor also has the added complication of right wing power brokers like Paul Howes enforcing policies that give the lie to the pretence that Labor is in any way a progressive party.

But the idea that Rudd just appeared out of nowhere is wrong – Murdoch made him, and Murdoch had a big hand in dumping him.

Don't forget also that the Murdoch press has had a huge influence on the appalling drop in news values at the ABC under Mark Scott, and this also contributed to Labor's demise.

The Greens are the only party who refuse to form their policies based on how the Murdoch press will receive them, so everything they do is reported in a misleading way by the Murdoch newspapers. I think it's a miracle that so far News Corpse hasn't managed to 'destroy them at the ballot box', but no doubt Murdoch's minions will keep trying.

Mike H · September 9, 2013 at 9:08 AM

All true. I think you can go wider again, and say that whenever a 'left' government (or should I say 'perceived left government') is elected in Australia, the right immediately and sincerely believes the government is illegitimate and that it should do whatever it can to destabilise and oppose everything the government does. I was not in Australia at the time of the dismissal of Whitlam, but wasn't that the extreme example? Murdoch is just part of that whole 'born to rule' belief, which is also maybe represented by the way that people will vote for the likes of Clive Palmer. Howard used to allude to something along those lines when he used to refer to Australians as being naturally Conservative. And as someone else said, its not just Murdoch – I expect the ABC Radio news will immediate switch from constantly leading with “the opposition says…” to now lead with “the government says…”

Anonymous · September 9, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Today 2 foreign journos. came on a refugee boat to Christmas Island, our media are too scared of DIAC to even enter Christmas Island by stealth so they all stay in Canberra and make up stories or publish press releases and call it news.

Anonymous · September 9, 2013 at 10:19 AM

As Goebbels was reputed to have said, 'say a lie long enough and people will believe it to be the truth'. And that has been the right wing media's modus operandi for at least the last 3 years. And you don't have to worry about journalists having conniptions about reporting the 'truth' as long as they have been hired because their inherent biases fit the proprietor's needs. Just have a look at those on Fox (Oz version), all of whom appear to be in love with their ideology (themselves), not the search for balance or the truth. In fact they remind me of the non stop stream of Maoists, Trots, Leninists, Stalinists etc of my youth (pardon me for forgetting any). Those who don't fit this profile are either unemployed or hanging in there hating themselves but have to remain in the job so as to support their family I expect.

Nice post but must disagree.

Brad Nichol · September 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Increasingly over the past four years through literally thousands of conversations with mates in coffee shops, pubs and clubs I progressively came to the conclusion that all was lost. Almost all of them seemed to loose grip on reality with respect to economics, global warming, international financial situations, immigration issues and importantly the governments response to the GFC. Julia Gillard was a witch, corrupt and far worse and unfit to lead.

Almost all of them were apparently far worse off than in the past, unions and wages were out of control and we had somehow created an enormous new pool of bludgers who were sucking the life out of their tax dollars.

Oh and of course, all of this correlated to them being hit far too hard on taxes and being raped by the carbon tax for good measure.

No amount of reasoned argument, facts, figures, official reports to the contrary on virtually every issue could convince any of them that their now held beliefs were actually not supported by the hard data and facts.

One even maintained that all the reports and stats that contradicted his belief were clearly made up by the government as part of some deep commie conspiracy.

Strangely almost all maintained that they held these beliefs because they had analysed the situation and made their minds up from “the evidence”. When I asked where that (“evidence”) information came from and was usually told Ray Hadley, Alan Jones, the Tele, The Oz, well I think you can say I figured out what had gone wrong.

Naturally they all maintain they are not influenced by the media, they work it out themselves. Realistically none of these mates are social media devotees so they can't claim any insight from that media option. None are suffering from real first hand experiences of being overrun by refugees, job loss, financial stress etc yet strangely virtually all of them think they are “doing it tough”. So if they are not being influenced by the media then who pray tell is doing the influencing, these beliefs cannot be created on mass in a vacuum.

I doubt the last few weeks of the campaign despite the ridiculous and shameful bias made any difference, it simply served to reinforce the positions that people like my mates had already taken. These positions i feel were arrived at as a result of nearly four years of “murdoganda” and they were not going to shift, reality had left the building long ago.

Newscorpse can of course stand with hand on heart and say “we are just giving the people what they want”. I agree, because for over four years they have carefully and deliberately created that “want”. Only a stupid company would not provide the customer with the desired product once they have worked so hard to create the market for that product in the first place. And Newscorpse is not run by stupid Rupert.

Ultimately the Labour Party stupidly allowed themselves to be railroaded by shonky polls, misinformation, media aggression and their own centre left insecurities.

Bobalot · September 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Mr Denmore, I love your blog but I have to say this. You are massively naive if you actually believe that journalists should hold to some code just because they are supposed to.

As an engineer, if I lie, misrepresent or not even take enough due diligence, I can end up in jail if my actions end up killing or injuring somebody.

There is nothing remotely comparable in journalism. Nothing. Unless journalists can be held to account by some sort of law for the adverse consequences of their actions, nothing will change. It will keep getting worse.

Your appeals for professionalism in journalism solve nothing. You might as well howl at the moon.

Anonymous · September 9, 2013 at 8:55 PM

I cannot quibble with a word written here Mr D. Thankyou very much for an excellent summation.

What struck me though in listening to Jonathan Holmes, Margaret Simon and reading your piece here is that cool, calm logic is drowned out by banshee wails. You encountered that yourself on the shopping strip when your learned friend was assailed with war whoops of 'Pink Batts' and 'School Halls'.

TA's slogans were delivered to the masses by propaganda. I am amazed at how effective that propaganda was in a rich, stable country like Australia. That said I was heartened by the fact that Western Sydney did not become a strong hold for the Libs as predicted.

I am concerned that Abbott's govt will be given an easy ride by the same sections of the media which supported him in Opposition.

Notus · September 10, 2013 at 11:21 PM

The success of Abbott has proved that politicians no longer need to do the hard work of developing policy or bother with tedious financial planning. Just wave a glossy brochure and keep saying we have a plan and the other mob are baaaaa..d.

The fourth estate struggling to stay afloat in a collapsing market have to write what they are told or go without a job.

I welcome the election of an Abbott government as Australians need to experience poor government so they will learn to pay attention next time.

SimsonMc · September 11, 2013 at 3:30 AM

Mr D – I would love to discuss this believe that both you and others in the media that somehow News Ltd and others have a right to take sides. Most surveys point to a public expectation that media should report without fear or favour and should report the truth. As soon as people accept that a media organisation can take sides you lose that impartiality. If they write an opinion then they have taken a side. The two things are mutually exclusive. You could have a situation where media could take sides if there was open and free access to the press gallery but that is not the case. Therefore since there is restricted access to the press gallery then democracy grants a special privilege upon journalists which is based on trust and for them to meet society’s expectations. Survey after survey highlights that journalists are not even close in meeting those expectations. I think in years gone by, journalist understood the privilege that was bestowed upon them and they treated it with respect. I equate this expectation to the one that Doctors have granted to them, which is that they will act in the interest of others above their own.

Anonymous · September 11, 2013 at 4:16 AM

Murdoch supported Rudd to victory in 2007 and opposed him to defeat in 2013.
Murdoch supported Whitlam to victory in 1972 and opposed him to defeat in 1975.

Nothing much has changed on that front in over 40 years.

Anonymous · September 12, 2013 at 3:47 AM

Eden-Monaro often quoted as the bellwether of Australian politics whichever party is chosen there is the party of government. Methinks a nasty little old American, (a disliked persona non grata in the UK) is the bellwether of Australian politics. In the last 20 years whatever party this nasty old man had decided whom should be in government has come to pass by way of his large sway in the media. The little old American has many Australians going baaaa, baaaa, and fulfil his wishes. Given latest change in government – let the fun begin as many of the baaa, baaa lot will be most affected by the venal people that will run this country in the next three years. There will be a lot of disappointment out there, you betcha.

Newsgirl · September 16, 2013 at 5:18 AM

If you tell someone often enough that they look sick and should see a doctor they will eventually believe you…and even if the doctor tells them they're fine, they will think something is wrong.
That's the tac TA and his team, in cahoots with the tabloids, have taken with the electorate.

Keep telling someone that something is on the nose, and they'll believe you, no matter how well off they are

David Irving (no relation) · September 17, 2013 at 3:33 AM

Anonymous, Murdoch only supported Rudd in 2007 after it became obvious he would win. I don't believe Murdoch influenced that result (most of his papers had been supporting Howard until pretty late in the game), but he needed to look like he had the power to affect elections.

In 2010, and 2013, however, he certainly did influence the outcome.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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