Propaganda, like the news, is a complex and multifaceted concept. During World War II, for example, British propaganda, both domestically and in the United States, was widely accepted as a legitimate part of the war effort. The temporary cessation of freedom of the press justified because of extraordinary circumstances.
Propaganda, in its original sense, did not necessarily imply deceit or falsehoods, but rather a concerted effort to mobilise or change popular beliefs through the propagation of ideas. It was a campaign for the hearts and minds of the populace, a battle for moral victory. During war, whether real or imagined, there is always a strong element of propaganda. Both sides seek to solidify support through the selective presentation of facts, and in many cases, fiction.
During last year's so-called waterfront war between Patrick Stevedores and the Maritime Union of Australia, both sides waged a war of propaganda in an effort to win popular support.
Patrick, with the backing of the Coalition Government, argued that the MUA had been on an aggressive campaign to drive the stevedoring company out of business. Patrick had no other rational choice than to lock out the union.
The MUA, in turn, argued that Patrick and the Government were simply interested in union-busting. Economic arguments about crane rates, rorts and inefficiencies were smokescreens.
The truth, as with most wars, was dependent on one's perspective. Elements of truth were present in both side's propaganda campaigns: Patrick and the Coalition were intent on breaking the MUA's monopoly and the Union, understandably, was fighting back.
As more and more "ordinary" Australians joined the pickets on docks throughout Australia, it begged the question -- why the apparent upsurge in support? Was unionism making a comeback? Or was the MUA's propaganda campaign simply more effective?
At the time, the ABC was accused of having biased and prejudiced coverage, most notably by the minister responsible for the broadcaster, Richard Alston.
In response, ABC commissioned Professor Philip Bell of the University of New South Wales to investigate the charges. The Bell Report, having examined ABC-TV news (Sydney) and the 7:30 Report, concluded that the ABC's coverage of the waterfront dispute had been professional, fair and balanced.
I, however, have conducted a study of the same ABC news reports, and has concluded that the coverage favoured the MUA through a selective presentation of the facts.
Journalists' natural inclination when reporting any war is to identify which side is the aggressor, the baddie, the evil-doer. On ABC news, the mass sackings, as the lockout was often called, was framed as "Day One" of the waterfront war. Neither the MUA's strike actions preceding the lock-out nor its intransigence with regard to improving dockside productivity were reported by ABC News' journalists in the four weeks after the lock-out.
By framing 7 April as "Day One" and not reporting these important aspects of the story, Patrick was cast as a villain that had, without provocation, locked out its entire work force days before the Easter break.
ABC journalists' commentary throughout this period, such as "Patrick chief Chris Corrigan seemed to have few regrets about getting rid of his entire work force," or "Chris Corrigan says his conscience isn't troubled", suggested they did not approve -- at a moral level -- of Patrick's actions.
ABC journalists provided MUA-friendly sources one-third more air time than Patrick and its supporters and reported the MUA's legal arguments more than twice as often as Patrick's.
ABC news was also more inclined to comment on Patrick's publicity tactics. When Patrick began to successfully unload ships with non-union labour, for example, the event was referred to as a well stage-managed picture of productivity. But when the MUA set up an aquatic picket, no reference was made to the obvious photo-op.
A successful propaganda campaign cannot be carried out without the complicity of the media. In the case of the waterfront dispute, the MUA had a clear advantage over Patrick: unions are overtly political, firms are not.
Therefore, unions are more likely to be the better propagandists. This does not, however, get ABC news off the hook: its lack of historical context enabled the MUA to characterise Patrick as the aggressor and the wharfies as victims.
In effect, MUA boss John Coombs won the propaganda war with such comments as "All these people want is a job so they can keep their families. That's all they want." ABC news reported little that undermined that image.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment