In 15 years of observing Australian politics, I have never seen the Australian media, particularly the "quality" media, so breathtakingly partisan on a national issue as it is on the indirect-election republic.
Obviously, there are some exceptions. Frank Devine in The Australian, Alan Kohler in the Australian Financial Review (both direct electionists) and Terry McCrann in the Herald-Sun have been notably, and for each typically, independent-minded on this issue. The performance of much of the rest of the media, particularly the Canberra Press Gallery has been appalling, as McCrann points out ("Referendum is all about electing the President", August 12).
If Australia is to sever its connection with the British monarchy, the second-oldest major institution (after the Papacy) in the Western World, the symbolism of direct election of the President is obviously much more powerful than the truly dreadful symbolism of an elite-selected President dismissable by Prime Ministerial fax with, as Alan Kohler points out ("Referendum: first skirmish", August 17), the people reduced to spectators. And isn't it interesting how age is a virtue for things connected to indigenous Australians but a sign of "obvious" obsolescence in Anglo-Australian ones: one of the oldest and most successful written democratic constitutions in the world -- unlike the Swiss or US ones it did not take a civil war to "bed down" -- is "archaic", "colonial" and "horse-and-buggy".
And that is without considering the structural flaws in what is a very ill-designed constitutional amendment.
For most of the "quality" media, however, the lead-up to the November 6 referendum has been reported as if there is only one proper position -- support for a republic with an indirectly-elected President -- and only one proper outcome -- a "Yes" vote.
The breathtaking arrogance of this is best shown by the way it is apparently entirely proper for members of the media to have convictions for the indirect-election republic, but not for senior politicians to have contrary convictions. In particular, for the Prime Minister to have monarchist convictions -- or at least to act on them -- or for Peter Reith, a senior politician of much experience, to express publicly a belief that any President should be directly elected, even though that is entirely consistent with Reith's long-expressed support for citizen-initiated referenda. It is a very, very odd democratic process when a senior politician expressing views which happen to accord with those of about two-thirds of the electorate is treated as some sort of "spoiler".
This arrogance of an imperial media has been enforced with what can only be called journalistic ("intellectual" is certainly not the right word) thuggery.
This thuggery can be instanced by Laurie Oakes's commentary in the Bulletin ("The road to republicanism is littered with wreckers", August 17) on Peter Reith's declared support for a directly-elected President and (to take only one example) Michael Gordon's commentary on John Howard in The Age ("Howard needs to be more detached in the run-up to referendum", August 17).
Oakes informs us that Reith is playing a "spoiler" role in supporting direct election which is damaging his standing in the Liberal Party room. Michael Gordon informs us that John Howard will, according to the latest opinion polling, lose public standing unless he takes a non-involved role in the referendum campaign (i.e. does not follow his monarchist beliefs and campaign for a "No" vote).
Meanwhile, Peter Costello gets lauded. The message from Oakes and other senior journalists is clear: toe the line that we (the media) have set or we will punish you in our commentary by supporting your rival and/ or attack you as out-of-touch. Howard, in particular, is put in a no-win situation. If he campaigns for a "No" vote and it wins, he will clearly be subject to the fury of a defeated media. If he campaigns for a "No" vote and it loses, he will be pilloried as yesterday's man. If he does not campaign and the "No" vote wins, he will still be blamed for not doing more to support an amendment he does not agree with. If he does not campaign and the "Yes" vote wins, the pattern of John Howard being treated positively only if he acts in accord with the "vindicated" imperial media's preferences will be firmly established.
Paul Keating's alleged ability to sway opinion was a sign of his capacity as a politician. For John Howard to do so is improper.
Paul Keating's willingness to raise issues was a sign of his strength and conviction. For Peter Reith to do so is a sign of miscalculation and foolishness.
What shameless, and shameful, media bias.
British PM Stanley Baldwin once dismissed a similar abuse of media power as "power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages". In fact, the performance by much of the media is probably a slur on most sex workers, who, one presumes, don't generally dismiss the wishes of 40 to 50 per cent of their customers. Many journalists are certainly living down to their standing as one of the least-respected occupations.
Given that we are, in a few months' time, going to vote on whether Australia should become a republic with an indirectly-elected President, one wonders when Peter Reith's journalistic critics think it would be proper for Peter Reith to express support for a directly-elected President or for John Howard to express his support for the monarchy? Presumably, only when it doesn't matter.
This is, of course, complete nonsense -- particularly given that, as Oakes himself reports, polling shows that the players with the most credibility with the public on the issue are Howard and other senior politicians. That much of the media is so willing to display in their reporting a particular and common preference on this question is, in fact, a collective abuse of position. Conversely, it is entirely appropriate, in fact extremely proper, that senior politicians from all parties express what they think should be the appropriate constitutional order.
In particular, the implication that the Prime Minister, if he cannot support the "Yes" case, should be a public cypher on this issue is ludicrous. What makes this case so different from the other 42 constitutional amendments that have been put to the Australian people?
Nothing, except a breathtaking level of collective partisanship on the part of most of the media, particularly the Canberra Press Gallery. Oh, and the unique instance of a constitutional amendment being put to the people with which the Prime Minister of the day personally does not agree. This says something about John Howard's sense of fair play. The abuse he has been receiving from much of the media over it says a lot about theirs. And their sense of professionalism.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment