Election analysis unfair

DAVID FAGAN, editor of The Courier-Mail, responds to the analysis of his newspaper's election coverage in the 2007 Supplement to the State of the News Print Media in Australia 2006.

Overview

The purpose of the investigation is stated as "obtaining more evidence on this question of bias in election coverage". In summary, it answers this question under the heading "Findings".

Both researchers are unequivocal in their conclusion that in terms of coverage, balance and fairness, in neither the tabloid nor the broadsheet did they find any evidence of systemic bias towards one political party.

The conclusion, from the Victorian report is representative of both studies. "As a result, regular readers of The Age were presented with a comprehensive and generally balanced coverage of issues, policies, parties and personalities."

So, having answered the primary question, the Press Council executive secretary, Jack Herman, and the report's author, Harry Dillon, discuss a series of issues and conclusions relating to the election coverage which appear to be not supported either by the limited data presented, or by the facts and circumstances surrounding the campaign itself.

A clear failing in drawing these conclusions is relying solely on the interpretation of the data, and not taking into account an accurate summary of the events and political realities of the time. How indeed can a story be judged for content, accuracy, or indeed bias, if there is no context considered?

We would argue to conduct such a research project using only the 34 days of the campaign is shortsighted, and necessarily incomplete. By not taking into account the considerable amount of political and issues based reporting conducted by The Courier-Mail in the year leading up to the election, the broader conclusions drawn from the data cannot be accurate or conclusive.

It is not clear the mandate the Council has to stray from answering its original question, ie, the bias question, and venturing into an area of speculative opinion, based on a reading of the articles in the survey with no consideration of the broader context of the events of the time.

An example of these unsubstantiated opinions is contained in Herman's introduction, where he introduces the "other conclusions about election reporting likely to be of interest to the Council, the press and the public."

He notes there is a trend towards presidential style campaigning. Few scholars of media and politics would disagree. However, as the point is expanded in the report by Harry Dillon, it is seen as a failing of The Courier-Mail that the campaign is reported as such. There is no evidence presented to support this.

To most reasonable people it would be noteworthy if there was a lack of reporting of the presidential style of campaigning in The Courier-Mail, given this was the nature of the campaign itself. Not to report it would be to deny readers the information they were entitled to. To present this in some way as a shortcoming of the newspapers coverage, without any supporting data, is unfair and irresponsible. Every other media outlet covers campaigns in a similar way because that is the way they are run.

There are numerous examples in both the introduction and the report itself where the authors stray far from reporting the findings of their data, and attempt to draw broader conclusions, conclusions which, upon even a quick reading, are found to be ill-informed and on occasion, just plain wrong.

After Herman raises the issue of the style of campaigning being leader-driven and presidential, he then makes a comment on the way that centralising campaigning in the hands of the leaders means Ministers and their shadows are "frequently" not made available to "explain or respond to questions on the impact of the proposed policies". Again, there is no evidence presented to support this. And whilst it is an interesting point to note, the report does not progress the point further. It could be considered that a newspaper's ability to publish information independently of the party machines, as The Courier-Mail so clearly did during the election campaign, is a valuable contribution to the public debate.

The analysis

Data coding

It is difficult to comment on the data-coding process, without seeing the raw data. Whether or not the articles were coded correctly, how detailed the criteria for the different codes were, are matters which need to be taken into account.

Trend analysis

The weakness in the interpretation of the data appears to be in the process of trend analysis. This is where "general observations on the way the newspaper handled the election institutionally" were assessed. Given there is no supporting evidence presented to support the conclusions drawn, it appears the author may have relied in part on pre-determined views about the characteristics of a tabloid newspaper. The derogatory and loaded language used in the report clearly supports this position. For example, "within the constraints of a populist tabloid approach."

In addition, any successful trend analysis would require a clear understanding of context and the events which led up to the election being called.

A number of the comments by the author about the political context show his understanding is not comprehensive.

For example, his conclusions from the way the coalition leaders were covered during the campaign shows no understanding of the coalition agreement, or the history of coalition politics in Queensland.

A refusal to reference in qualitative terms, the importance of policy issues raised by The Courier-Mail in the lead-up to the campaign is another example of a lack of understanding of the broader political context. With such inadequate basic understanding of the history and the facts, it is difficult to have confidence in the trend analysis.

Close reading of stories

Whilst a close reading of stories can add substance to trends emerging from the data, without knowing how the stories are selected for the close reading component of the research, it is difficult to judge the integrity of the findings. Were they news or features? Were they policy or process? How was the mix determined? How many were looked at? Answers to such questions will have a significant bearing on the result.

Newspaper vested interest in the campaign process

On page 35, Dillon discusses his interpretation of the way the media and political parties interact during an election campaign, with reference to a set of "rules". These again are subjective assumptions the merits of which could be debated long and hard. There is not the space to do this here. The point is simply, the author's interpretation of the political game appears to be based more on preconceived notions of outdated political theory than the reality of political change in the 21st century.

Dillon talks about the newspaper's "vested interest" in the campaign process. This is presented as a negative, ie that the newspaper has somehow something to gain that is not transparent or above board. There is no evidence presented to support this.

Indeed the explanation that "the campaign is driven by a confluence of interests between the paper and other media, as well as political parties and other interest groups" implies some kind of collusion which is not supported by the facts.

Dillon then goes on to castigate the newspaper for becoming an "active'' participant in the campaign.

He bases this on the conclusion that much of the material run during the campaign was generated by the newspaper itself, rather than simply reporting what happened.

This, Dillon refers to as "invented'' content. The fact that the newspaper was generating much of the material run is indicative of a newspaper breaking stories in a campaign environment, serving readers well by having an independent agenda, rather than one dictated by the party organisations and the set piece media launches.

Rather than applauding the journalistic skills and integrity required to pursue this path, Dillon dismisses the material as "invented''. His use of the term "invented" content ahead of the equally acceptable "agenda-setting" displays his bias and demonstrates an extraordinary assumption, which must discredit the quality of "analysis and conclusions" he presents.

The sports analogy

Dillon states: "In common with many other media outlets, The Courier-Mail coverage continually portrayed the election campaign as a type of sporting contest in which the winner's prize was a shot at government."

He then continues to make the point that "it is doubtful that it does much to foster rational consideration of policy alternatives or the personal merits of candidates. There is little doubt the obsessive focus upon winners and losers cheapens and trivialises the election process, but this is not only an issue for the media."

Whilst again, this view represents an opinion of the author, it doesn't appear to be supported by examples or evidence, or to add significantly to the debate. It is equally arguable the sporting analogy is a successful one to use with election campaigns, and that the concentration on winners and losers may actually be appropriate, because that is the ultimate result of the contest. Further, the suggestion that the concentration on a sporting analogy is at the expense of serious consideration of the issues simply doesn't make sense. Both can, and did co exist during the course of the campaign.

In concluding this section, Dillon then uses his own sporting analogy to note that in all probability, the ALP

proved itself more fit to govern than the Coalition, which undeniably had an inferior game plan and fumbled badly in its execution. However, the case is inconclusive because it is difficult to establish any direct correlation between election campaigning - which is chiefly about perceptions and impressions - and the actual business of government, which involves the complex business of making policy decisions that actually work in the real world.

Taking aside the assumption that election campaigning is about perceptions and impressions, which is a surprisingly simplistic definition, the concept of linking the campaign with the complex business of government is one which has been a priority of The Courier-Mail over a long period of time.

This is why we would argue analysis of the election campaign has to take into account coverage of the issues over the preceding year. If Dillon has more than a passing familiarisation with Queensland political and media life, he would understand how The Courier-Mail has consistently covered issues like health care, education, child safety, growth pressures, the environment, water security, etc, in an extensive way for the years leading up to the election campaign. (copies can be provided if required)

Leaders leading role

This conclusion is particularly noteworthy, especially given the current federal election campaign. Dillon notes:

There is little doubt the media's emphasis upon leadership is a distortion that bears little real connection with the realities of government but this trend is so deeply entrenched within t he political-media complex that it would be naive to assume it could easily be turned around. Needless to say it does little to inspire confidence that careful consideration of issues and policies is central to the media agenda or that of voters in general.

Again, it could be argued that even leaving aside the election campaign, there is already an added emphasis within government on the authority of the leader. This is not an invention of the media. The media should and does, continue to explore issues and policies.

But to ignore the changing face of politics in Australia would be to let readers down.

Dillon seems to be implying the emphasis on leadership issues is a negative in the overall coverage. This is curious, especially given the trend towards leader based politics. It is also curious that it is considered to have negative implications since Dillon states that "parties and policies are relentlessly discussed in terms of leaders, especially the big three, Peter Beattie, Robert (sic) Springborg and Bruce Flegg." Aside from getting one of the leaders names wrong, Dillon doesn't really explain the negative implication of discussing parties and polices through the leadership prism. One would have thought this is an accepted and common practice both in modern campaign, and general political reporting.

The advantages of government

In this section, Dillon describes Premier Peter Beattie's dominance of the campaign and of politics in Queensland. He then points to the difficulties the Coalition had in running its campaign, which seems to lead him to the following startling conclusion:

In the absence of a strong opposition able to pin the government down on issues and policy, The Courier-Mail allowed Team Beattie to dominate the campaign by focusing attention on the perceived failings of the Coalition.

Dillon appears to suggest that the Beattie Government manipulated The Courier-Mail to over emphasise the Coalition's problems in the campaign. This is an absurd and insulting suggestion, presented with no proof to back it up. Is Dillon suggesting that the Government's failings were not discussed in detail in the campaign? Such a comment would be refuted by any observer of Queensland politics, not to mention members of the Premier's press office.

And finally, Dillon concludes

it seems unfortunate that the active media involvement in the campaign discussed above did not put more pressure on Labor to prove its real worth and justify its record in office.

It is difficult to see how this conclusion was reached. It is possible, if required, to provide Dillon and the Press Council with examples of numerous articles, news reporting, opinion and analysis, where pressure was put on the Beattie government to prove its worth and justify its record in office. The newspaper has not been offered this opportunity.

Real news, in depth: not the top priority

Introducing this topic, Dillon writes:

It is fair to say that deep exploration of election issues and competing policies was not a major preoccupation for The Courier-Mail, given its populist, tabloid, tlght and bright style.

I have already referred to the use of loaded language in terms of indicating a previously held position. Further, we would argue that deep explorations of election issues are a key priority of The Courier-Mail, both for the state election referred to, and indeed now. Again we are happy to furnish the researchers with any number of examples should they require them. The assumption that a "populist'' and "tight and bright'' style, (whatever that means) is incompatible with a serious exploration of election issues does not necessarily hold true.

It is difficult to comment on the breakdown of the story sources without having the raw data to examine. However, the conclusions in the report appear incompatible with the finding in the table that 91 per cent of all stories quoted two or more sources.

In conclusion, I would assert that this is a grossly unfair exercise which denudes the Press Council of its credibility. It portrays a view of newspapers developed by a single under-informed academic who has failed to accept the most basic rigour of asking questions about the subject he is writing. It is damaging to this newspaper and all newspaper and should not be published in its current form.

David Fagan

see also
The State of the News Print Media in Australia 2006
The 2007 Supplement