Politics in the media – a Sideshow?

Written By: - Date published: 6:21 pm, May 31st, 2011 - 8 comments
Categories: democratic participation, Media, Politics - Tags:

In Melbourne last week for the Australian Fabians AGM I picked up a copy of Lindsay Tanner’s book “Sideshow”. According to the back cover,  Tanner “lays bare the relentless decline of political reporting and political behaviour that occurred during his career. Part memoir, part analysis, and part critique, Sideshow is a unique book that tackles the rot which has set in at the heart of Australian public life.”

Lindsay Tanner is a serious politician. Minister of Finance at the time, he announced his retirement from Parliament the same day that Julia Gillard ousted Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister of Australia. He says the two events were not connected, and on the evidence of his book it is easy to believe him. His basic thesis is that political discourse is no longer serious, and that he was but a member of the entertainment industry, with the media having reduced politics to what he calls the “sideshow syndrome”. For Tanner, “modern politics now resembles a Hollywood blockbuster: all special effects and no plot.” Family is more important for him than that.

I have met and talked with Lindsay Tanner on a number of occasions, and he has indeed made a serious contribution to Australian politics. Tanner’s submission to the review of the Australian Labor Party set up by Simon Crean when he was ALP leader was in my opinion easily the best, and unfortunate in that it was almost totally disregarded.

However I found this book disappointing. He says it is based on a long collection of material over several years, and it reads like that with opinion after indiscriminate opinion all pointing in the same direction of a dysfunctional media causing a dysfunctional politics. Even Tony Blair of all people is roped in to condemn manipulation in the media.

The relation between media and politics is crucial to mediating discourse in a democracy. This is even more true in New Zealand than it is in Australia, as advertising on the broadcast media to present a political view in New Zealand is strictly, and in my view rightly, restricted, so the free media are even more important here than in Australia. But in the partisan world of politics, it is all too easy to shoot the messenger.

I think the media – journalists and reporters – generally tell it like they see it. In the political media, now that they poll regularly, they tell us how most people see it as well. As mainstream channels like newspapers decline, and broadcast media diversify, serious and detailed political comment is now often found in the business pages or on the blogs as well as in the political pages. Readers or listeners take their news from a variety of sources, and as always place most reliance on personal contact.

Politicians and political parties may not like how the media see it, but in my opinion should not waste time complaining about the media, just concentrate on the best way to get their message across in a way that people understand and will respond positively to. Political communication is all about gaining conviction and acceptance of one’s point of view. After all, that is the politician’s job description.

Tanner completely lost it for me when he quotes Greg Sheridan of the Australian describing  Obama as the “first pure celebrity candidate”, and in another place says “he was well positioned to benefit from the sideshow syndrome. He navigated the new realities with great skill ..yet these circumstances are very unusual, and very specific to the United States. It is hard to see how inane slogans such as ‘change we can believe in’ and Yes, we can’ strengthen democratic engagement with substantive issues.”

In the first instance this completely overlooks the fact that Obama built his political career as a community organiser in Chicago, and learnt political communication the best way, from the ground up. Secondly, in the specific circumstances of the United States slogans such as ‘Yes we can’ are hugely effective – it certainly energised the base.

At the same time I was in Melbourne I picked up a copy of “The Monthly”, which also had a review of Tanner’s book. You can read it here. Perhaps the last word belongs to Andrew Charlton:

To widen the political debate, politicians need to convince people of the importance of the issues they are debating. If politicians only offer focus-group slogans, citizens will, of course, respond by allocating less of their time to politics.

8 comments on “Politics in the media – a Sideshow? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Graeme Edgeler 1
    31 May 2011 at 11:07 pm

    Broadcast political advertising is not so much prohibited, but rather only partisan broadcast political advertising.

  2. Charlie Parker 2
    1 June 2011 at 7:35 am

    “…To widen the political debate, politicians need to convince people of the importance of the issues they are debating. If politicians only offer focus-group slogans, citizens will, of course, respond by allocating less of their time to politics…”

    This is exactly why people allocate less time to politics: politicians invent causes that do not matter to the people and eventually the people notice they’re being asked to swallow a load of rubbish. Making somethign that is not important, important, is self-serving indulgence. It leads to policy formation in isolation/ state knows best/ stereotyping/ over reliance on stats. It is the recipe for the personification of the academic sneer that the last Labour government was turfed out for.

    Political communication from the ground up is something different. It does not mean you incubate your own party/strategy/ideas from the ground up, it means you work for and from the people. It’s not just the Left that have departed from that concept.

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 2.1
      1 June 2011 at 9:53 am

      The problem with that argument is the proposition that politicians need to be leaders not followers. Do you think if Churchill had said “foreign policy… thats not that important who cares about that but hey.. here’s a good picture of my son planking” Britain would have been better off in 1940?

      Of course not, someone has to advocate for what they see as important.. someone has to lead. And if you don’t argue for positions somebody else will set the agenda.

      Ever wonder why no-body discusses social equity, basic human rights, helping the disadvantaged much anymore. Probably because the parties of the so-called left are too busy appeasing the middle classes who elect them with bribes- rather than advocating and bringing these issues into the social conciousness.

  3. ghostwhowalksnz 3
    1 June 2011 at 8:22 am

    The high speed broadband push is an example of a policy that has fake grass roots, but is there only to support business interests who want the taxpayer to put in for the costs but not share in the profits.

    The idea that ordinary families will benefit when their wiring and home hardware is not capable of using UFB. But lo and behold small to medium businesses will have the most benefit. The very big guys all ready have the high capacity.

  4. Olwyn 4
    1 June 2011 at 10:10 am

    I myself have noticed that the group of leaders elected in and around 2008 all seem to have the look and presentation of media stars or brand representatives. This though seems to me to arise from the growing reliance on PR in politics, rather than the media per se. Cameron, Clegg and Key seem virtually interchangeable, and Obama differs only in colouring and accent. But all of them, along with Gillard and Sarkozy, romp about like the cast of some post-modern movie without a plot rather than comport themselves as national leaders. What is scary to me about this is a suspicion that the increased emphasis on brand comes with decreased power: that we are locked into a system of deals and loans, etc, that determine what actually happens, and that these people really do have a role similar to that of the Countdown family in the ad.

  5. randal 5
    1 June 2011 at 1:43 pm

    the media once hasd some sort of tradition and standards but they ar e nearly all gone now. the primary reason is the advent of the murdoch rags and other corporatisations which place a premium on profits and fire staff immediately at the threat of a lawsuit. Fax journalism has also taken over and the days of journos getting off their bum are gone. meanwhile the parties themselves are driven by focus groups and any differentiation is very hard to pick. we are all just meat in the grinder now.

  6. randal 6
    1 June 2011 at 1:45 pm

    oh and I forgot the dweebs who want a pullitzer or some other prize for reporting nonsense ideolgies and think its the big time bvecuas they obtained an interview with some eastern despot.

  7. randal 7
    2 June 2011 at 1:54 pm

    and dont forget the infantilisation that has occurred in the j schools.
    and remember Judy Bailley the mother of the nation? well none of her offspring have grown up yet.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.