B Sides

Islands of sanity in the ocean of madness that is our media

Watching the beginnings of the batshit crazy period I predicted would unfold if the independents supported Labor, I thought it might be therapeutic to isolate some voices of reasons and stick them in my back pocket (or my B side) as a kind talisman against the avalanche of nonsense that is, even as we speak, tumbling down Mount Media.

Any doubt that the media would not be up to the job demanded by the changed circumstances of our politics was dismissed entirely as they sat like impatient and disrespectful schoolchildren listening to Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor announce their decisions yesterday.  Oakeshott in particular came in for abuse because he dared to explain his reasons for backing Labor.  (See this piece of trash of an article to get the general idea of how our glorious media saw the historic moment.)

Then there was the wilful misinterpretation of Tony Windsor's comment about going to a new election.  Take your pick of this or this for the most craven take on the matter.

And so to the first island.  Ben Eltham nicely lays both phoney narratives to rest:

The way in which Oakeshott explained his decision has been much criticised today, which shows you the narrowness and immaturity of our political media. Throughout the interregnum, many in the Canberra press gallery appear to have struggled with the new reality of careful deliberation and consensual decision making. Here was an elected representative of the Parliament carefully explaining the reasoning behind the most important decision of his political life - and journalists sneered at him as they impatiently waited to find out the all-important result. Nothing could better illustrate the impatient fury with which the media greets thoughtful political reasoning, and the barriers the media puts in front of a richer political debate. 

Interestingly, both Windsor and Oakeshott said that an important consideration in their decision was that the Coalition would seek to take the country to the polls quickly. "If neither side really want to be there, one of the options was to call the thing off and let the people decide ... We picked up the background noise from some members of the Coalition that this one might be a good one not to be involved in," Windsor said in response to a question from Fran Kelly at the press conference.

Somehow, this statement has been twisted by some commentators into the argument that Windsor is denying the electoral will of the Australian people. This is nonsense. The make-up of the Australian Parliament has been decided - by an election held only three weeks ago. It is the task of parliamentarians to represent their constituents, by giving or withholding their support to whoe ver seeks to form a government. Windsor reiterated his point last night on Lateline: he will get the best deal for his constituents in the current Parliament, and may lose this leverage after a new election. This statement is hardly undemocratic, and it is certainly constitutional. So ignore the ranting of those who take issue with the workings of democracy simply because they disagree with the result.

Of course, this won't lay anything to rest as it is against the law for a journalist to admit they were wrong.  Oakeshott's alleged long-windedness and Windsor's alleged claim about Abbott being more likely to win the election will persist as fact with the media, no matter how patiently people explain things to them.

There is also this lovely observation from Kerryn Goldsworthy on Oakeshott's announcement:

Listening to first Tony Windsor and then Rob Oakeshott deliver their verdicts in this afternoon's press conference was a really interesting experience. I was driving home, so heard it on the radio rather than watching the teeve, of which I'm now glad, because I gather from various online commentary thus far that the media pack behaved like a bunch of hyenas: restless, noisy and disrespectful. And like them, and like, I'm sure, the rest of the country, I spent the first two or three minutes of Tony Windsor's speech champing at the bit thinking Oh for God's sake get on with it already.

Then it dawned on me slowly that this really was a fairly historic moment in the history of Australian parliamentary democracy; it deserved its little bit of theatre. More, the Independents deserved to be allowed to explain themselves in detail -- not least because they know they will be carved up by the Murdoch-dominated press and filleted by their own electorates.

Windsor probably drew the long straw; speaking first, he had the luxury of being able to announce his decision halfway through his speech, knowing the press and the country would have no choice but to keep listening. It was harder for Oakeshott, who knew that the minute he announced his decision they would all stop listening to him and he therefore had no real choice but to leave it till the end. Which was, anyway, the only possible choice, given the degree of theatre the occasion deserved and got.

In terms of one's own personal development (and the more I see of certain people in their 70s and 80s, the more determined I become never to abandon the effort to be Better), what I found very educational was my own childish impatience for instant gratification. As Windsor got into his stride, I began to ask myself exactly why I just wanted him to hurry up, when what he was saying was actually content-rich and very interesting. I seemed to myself to be a toddler squalling for her dummy. I began to be a bit ashamed, and switched to Mindfulness mode. 

Which stood me in good stead when it came to Oakeshott, who set Mindfulness a bit of a test. But I don't know why a certain sort of commentator (on the Crikey liveblog, for a start) is whingeing about there being no substance to his speech. There appeared to me to be plenty.

Why is it impossible for anyone in the press gallery to show this level of self-awareness, let alone, awareness of the moment?

On a different topic, IPA guy, Chris Berg, provided one of the most cogent assessments of the road ahead.  Read the whole thing, but this struck me as the sort of smart thinking that can only happen when your brain isn't contaminated with the media mindset of looking for and expecting the worst to happen in any given situation:

Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor were quick to say their support for Labor did not indicate support for Labor's policies, or, indeed, any policies.

They're under no obligation to back the Gillard agenda. When the next stimulus package or mining tax comes up in parliament, the Government will have to negotiate with - convince - Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor, Adam Bandt and Bob Brown, Andrew Wilkie, and failing one of those, Bob Katter.

It could be pretty slow going. But it will force the Government to concentrate its mind on one thing at a time.

A Gillard minority Government may end up more effective, and more unassailable, than a Rudd government with a mandate, a healthy buffer of seats, and a pile of big plans for Australia.

The only thing I would add is that the very media environment I am criticising makes this outcome that more unlikely.  

Once again, I think we need to realise that any discussion of politics can never look at the role and actions of politicians in isolation from how the media covers them.  It is like analysing a winning grandfinal team without mentioning the opposition.

Finally, back to the independents.  This piece from Possum, good in itself, made a point I don't think can be exaggerated:

The Independents will be targeted in a way they are probably not prepared for – they will be demeaned, ridiculed and treated with contempt, where their honourable characters will be distorted into debased caricatures. The character assassination will be ferocious and their connection to their electorates will be serially brought into question, particularly from a group of ostensibly inner urban media elites whose acquaintance with New England and Lyne extends no further than peering down from 30,000 feet as they fly between capital cities.

But it won’t just be the usual suspects here. There will be an angry that we haven’t seen for a long time, from a group of disgruntled political zealots.

The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in.

Even yesterday, as they made their announcement, I'm pretty sure I saw something like fear in the eyes of the two indies.  They seemed genuinely startled as they addressed the gallery and told the world of their decision to back Labor.  

Obviously, they are well used to dealing with the media and harbour no illusions.  And yet, they looked taken aback at the hostility that greeted them.

Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt, if anything, can expect even worse treatment.

The matter, it seems to me, is now poised at a place well beyond traditional political allegiance of the left-right variety.  

On the surface, I have no particular love for the two independents and their politics to this point, but you would have to be deaf, dumb and stupid, or a gallery journalist (but I repeat myself), not to recognise the intelligence and sincerity Oakeshott and Windsor are bringing to the unusual circumstances of our new parliament. 

Anyone with an ounce of democratic fibre in their system would not only be willing but eager to give it its best chance of succeeding.

If this living experiment in representation comes undone quickly, it will be in no small part because the media couldn't, or wouldn't make the effort to understand and give some space to the changed environment.