Ward, Ian (2003). An Australian PR State? In R.M. Petelin (Ed.), Australian Journal of Communication Vol 30
(1) (pp. 25-42). University of Queensland: School of English, Media Studies
and Art History
Ian Ward
discussed Australian Government’s use of journalists and PR to “promote policy
and to outmanoeuvre their opponents.” He established early in the document that
this utilisation of media is a common practice amongst all levels of government
in multiple countries, however the focus is on Australian Federal Parliament.
Australian government have been consistently using press secretaries and
similar employees since 1918. Originally their work was orientated around press
releases and political speeches, but they are now also routinely used for handling
journalist enquiries, plan doorstops and other media events, and monitoring
media coverage. He does not just describe them as this, however. Ward goes on
to state that these media advisors also put on the spin to particular policy arguments
and positions, as well as releasing information with the aim to influence the
media and then the public on certain issues, citing the Howard Government’s
stance on “illegal immigrants” (e.g.: Operation Relex situation, which, while
it was greatly exaggerated, was highly effective in influencing public opinion
on the issue). Ward concludes by stating that the state plays a crucial role as
a dominant source of information and imagery, however we know little able the
operation of the PR state and as a result there is a gap in our understanding
of political communication in Australia. Ward uses a number of sources in his
text, which support his argument about the extensive reach and influence the
government has as a PR state, and how little we really know about it.
Taylor, Lenore (2012). The powerful spin of Abbott’s wrecking ball,
Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-powerful-spin-of-abbotts-wrecking-ball-20120518-1yvlu.html
Taylor focuses
on the current use of the media by the Gillard Government and the Opposition,
where the Government is using it as a platform to express their woes and arguments,
and the Opposition is using the media as a soap box to discredit the Government
rather than voice their policies. Taylor defends the media from blame for the
Government’s and the Opposition’s spin, saying it is in fact those parties who
are publishing the spin, not the media outlets. Taylor then states that the unspun
truth is more complicated, and to get to it you have to be familiar with the
context of that particular policy or argument. While the Opposition wilfully exaggerates
and misrepresents the impact some policies will have (e.g.: the Carbon Tax),
casting them in an unsubstantiated negative light, the Government tries to
mislead about the impacts as well, trying to distract the public with benefits
that seemingly come from nowhere when really they’re a result of something less
favourable (e.g.: tax breaks for families using funds from Carbon Pricing). Taylor
concludes that while both parties are misrepresenting the same policies by
manipulating the media, the ‘truth’ can be realised with further research, and
is a lot less exciting than what Australian politics make it out to be. In this
text, Taylor attempts to explain the spin tactics and their effect on the
public, and manages to produce an unbiased text on how to get past the spin and
find what the ‘truth’ of the matter is.
Tilley, Tom & Barrington, John (2012). Who Owns the Media? Hack, Triple J. Retrieved from: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/stories/s3425216.htm
Tilley &
Barrington speak about media ownership in Australia and the risks involved in
allowing the “super rich” buying up media outlets and establishing influence on
the media. They begin by talking about Lord Monkton’s visit to Australia early
in 2012 and how during that trip he proposed that Australia’s super rich
establish a TV channel similar to the US’s FOX News, featuring controversial,
right-wing media personalities to push the views of those super rich while
maintaining an appearance of balanced and fair journalism during their news
features. They spoke with Julie Parsetti from University of Canberra’s School
of Journalism, who said that “we must stand guard against that brand of news.”
Also discussed were super rich people who already had a stake in Australian
media, such as Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehardt, whose involvement may be
cause for concern as their bottom lines are business, not fair and balanced
journalism. Tilley and Barrington also look at the positive influence the
super-rich have had on Australian media, citing Kerry Packer and his work on
improving Channel Nine and introducing the respectable current affair show
Sunday, and Graham Wood, a generous donator to The Greens, who established the
free online news outlet The Global Mail. Both of them did so with the aim of
increasing journalistic integrity in the Australian Media. While Tilley and
Barrington cover concerns about the super-rich taking over the media and
turning it into a conservative propaganda machine, they probably don’t do
enough to say that the scenario is unlikely due to government restrictions on
media ownership, and they don’t promote the valuable efforts some of Australia’s
super-rich make to ensure the future and integrity of Australian media.
Riley, Mark & Reason, Chris (2012). Craig Thomson using
parliamentary privilege. Seven News
National, Channel Seven. Retrieved from: http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/national/
Mark Riley
covered how Craig Thomson, disgraced MP for Dobell, used parliamentary privilege
to defend himself against the claims that have been made against him by the
Health Services Union and Fair Work Australia, regarding his misuse of a HSU
credit card. Riley lists the allegations against Thomson, but uses adjectives frequently
in regards to these allegations to make Thomson look less credible. While
Thomson’s credibility in his defence against the accusations is questionable,
Riley makes no attempt to look at the situation objectively. Thomson did not
answer the accusations as the media expected, but rather used that time in
parliament and his parliamentary privilege to argue against the accusations so
he could not be targeted for libel and other lawsuits because of the claims he
made. Riley sourced multiple negative comments in regards to this action and
the defence Thomson made, with Opposition Member Christopher Pyne and HSU
Secretaries Marco Bolano and Kathy Jenkins dismissing Thomson’s claims.
Reported Chris Reason also gathered public comments from Thomson’s electorate which
were in similar vein. Both reporters make a point of showing how Thomson’s
manipulation of the media has failed him, however it could have been done in a
more objective manner.
