Reporting National Politics

The Council held a public forum in Canberra in November on The Reporting of National Politics. The Council's Office Manager, Deborah Kirkman looks at the issues raised at the forum.

The speakers for the night were Ian Sinclair, former Leader of the National Party; Peter Andren, former journalist and the present Independent member for the seat of Calare; and Jack Waterford, the editor of The Canberra Times.

Times Past

Waterford, in his opening remarks, recalled when he "first began at the gallery only a few years had passed since things had very significantly changed, and I think the best example of it is some photographs of journalists sitting in Bob Menzies' office taking notes, sitting deferentially. They called him 'Sir'".

About the time Waterford arrived, "there were younger, newer journalists who didn't share all of the assumptions of some of the older journalists on the scene. This crowd of journalists was less deferential." Then "a tendency developed for much more commentary, for much more analysis, for much more background, for much more injection of the journalists' own personal ideas and prejudices into stories."

As Andren put it, "In television, the reporter...became part of the report. Politics became, to a large degree, media driven." It was the events of 1975 which were "a watershed in parliamentary reporting in Australia, and from that point on the strength of a news organisation's political reporting staff...became the measure of that organisation's success."

The relationship

Sinclair noted that the "press and politics go together" For politicians, "the press is the essential bridge between what they see as the real world and Canberra." And, "for the press of course, in Canberra that is, politics is the only game in town." However, "today the relationship between press and politicians is insidious with fundamental trust exceptional. Sadly no longer, here in Canberra, is there the stature and universal respect enjoyed by past doyens of the press galley...who everybody trusted." Waterford added another point, that "There is a problem of journalists as insiders. They are often compromised by some of their old associations."

Parliament

The coverage of parliament was criticised by the speakers. Waterford contends that "There is a very strong tendency in politics, and I am afraid in Canberra journalism, to think that economics is the main game these days and that everything else is almost secondary." He would like to see a "lot more attention given to policy and public policy debate rather than politics."

Andren believes that question time "is the cause of much of our negative public attitude to parliamentarians and the media. The ministers, shadows and the media have all become players in a piece of theatre that does little to raise the esteem of parliament in the public mind." Moreover, "There's a terribly predictable media-government-opposition-media cycle in all of this, each feeding off the other." He wishes the media would try to force the process into a "format where legitimate questions by representatives on behalf of constituents" are asked.

Sinclair contrasted parliamentary reportage with what he views as the "success of the Constitutional Convention", the "exceptional media coverage...complemented by excellent presentations of the debates." Waterford agreed, stating that the chief justification of neglect of parliament is that it "has become much much less important, and I think that this a terrible thing." "Australians generally", Waterford recalled, "were very interested in the constitutional convention. But if you ask why was that covered well, why is parliament no longer covered so well, the answer is what was being said actually mattered, that the contributions that the people made were actually being listened to and addressed by speakers on the other side."

Sensationalism

Over-the-top reports were scorned. Sinclair asserted that "Sensationalism, not sensitive analysis of the issues and personalities of the day, characterises press reporting of parliamentary proceedings." He added, "McCarthyism whatever its form is a significant threat to the democratic process and achieving a fair balance between the proper exposure of abuse of process, and the irrevocable muddying of a person's reputation is a prime challenge if national politics are to be fairly and accurately reported."

The press' blood lust was noted by Andren, "The gallery, it would seem, enjoys getting scalps almost as much as the government or opposition. When a wound appears there is a tendency to go in for the kill, as with Mal Colston, Carmen Lawrence, Ros Kelly."

Pack Mentality

All three speakers rejected the notion of a media pack mentality. Said Sinclair, "There is certainly a tendency by many [in the] media to follow a lead set by those who are the present doyens of the gallery. They do have social interaction and as a result there is the concept by many that the media pack together, gang together and react together. I think that is unfair." Nor does he believe the national media is under control of a 'politically correct' elite: "In my experience, whatever the personal prejudice of the press, if the story is worth reporting it will be pursued regardless of the politics."

Andren rejects "any suggestion that the highly individual members of the gallery..are part of a pack." And Waterford points out that "It is a familiar charge against political journalists that they write more for each other than for their public. Of course, when journalists get it wrong they are much more likely to be severely criticised" by their peers.

The Bush

In answering a question on whether the bush is treated fairly, or is the press biased towards the cities, Sinclair replied that the problem "lies not in the press itself so much as the relatively different approach of people in country Australia. Bushies like to know what is happening in the communities to which they belong and they are often frustrated that these stories...are often seen as not relating to the particular area from which they come."

On the bush theme, Andren emphasised how the "media waited impatiently for 5 months until the member for Oxley made her maiden speech. And when she did, it was almost as if the pieces had been written in anticipation of something that was expected in the speech but really wasn't there. The coverage of the speech and the subsequent Hanson mania was a total overkill." He asserts that, "As the Hanson wagon picked up pace it was fuelled by the very exposure it was receiving, and ... One Nation assumed a regional and rural agenda it didn't deserve." "Not often enough" Andren argued, "did the media question what it was doing, and what anxieties it was fuelling, and what damage it was causing by allowing One Nation to be the sole mouthpiece of these rural and regional and, in fact, often suburban frustrations."

The Difficulties

Andren: "If the One Nation episode has taught us anything, it highlighted the need for people in the bush to find a vehicle to express their frustrations that haven't been adequately dealt with by the media or government."

Sinclair: "Public syndicated news, television and radio networks and inter-related press outlets have destroyed much of the vitality and individuality of the press of the past."

Waterford "An increase in the flow of information, I think, is putting an awful lot more focus on the role of the journalist. A role that I am not sure yet that we are doing very well, but of being the person who sifts through and acts as a gatekeeper to this, and who decides which of these facts are relatively important."

Last Words

Ian Sinclair summed up his thoughts as follows: "For the public, the question remains: Is the basis of our democracy secure with elected members, when they so often are unable to have their voices heard because of other priorities given by those who comment on them, mainly the press?"

DEBORAH KIRKMAN

Return to APC News 1999 Index

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.