The politics-media sideshow

 Being a very busy and stretched person responsible for making ministerial decisions, Sam, like all politicians, has to make time for the media, and for parliament, and for attending ceremonial events.

Australia’s ABC News 24, and other news sources that track politicians constantly, show how much of a politician’s time is spent doing media interviews. The more senior the politician, the more interviews will be demanded by the media. Presidents and Prime Ministers do interviews or press conferences every day. Logically, they must also have to travel to television or radio studios, or to the locations where they are visiting and the media is waiting to film them. Travelling to and attending functions and ‘photo opportunities’ would more than likely take up a fair amount of most politicians’ time.

When they aren’t actually involved in a media event of some description, they would likely need to spend time preparing and strategising for them. Politics in most countries is fiercely competitive, and politicians are increasingly spending their time trying to appear good in the media, or to find a way to attack their opponents.

Unfortunately, because of institutional pressures, politicians have to spend too much time politicking, and journalists have to spend too much time being sensationalist.

Before I got my role as a public policy officer with Peter, one of the jobs in the public service that I fell into was as a junior media advisor. In the big scheme of things, I have to say that I don’t feel I really contributed much of any real worth to society while working in the job. But I did gain some important insights that I’ll never forget.

In 2011 Lindsay Tanner, a former minister in the Australian government, released his book Sideshow: Dumbing down democracy, which discusses the relationship between the media and politics from his own insider's perspective.⁶

Unfortunately, as Tanner points out, less and less of a politician’s time is devoted to strategic leadership within their portfolio areas of responsibility, and more time is spent politicking and appearing in the media. If some problems aren’t getting fixed, part of the reason could be because politicians are busy doing other things. It’s not all their fault, because they do have to spend time trying to get elected, or re-elected, otherwise they wouldn’t be there to do the job in the first place.

I also tend to think that it actually is the job of politicians to appear in the media often. It’s tempting to think of politicians being distracted from their ‘real’ jobs, actually implementing policies and overseeing public servants, but isn’t participating in the media actually part of their jobs, too? It helps keep them accountable, it helps them communicate with us and helps us get information about government programs. Also, we need democratic debate between politicians from different parties, through the media, to help us make decisions about directions in public policy. I wonder whether we are forgetting how important it is that they do these things? It doesn’t just take away from their ‘real job’ – it is part of their real job.

When I’ve talked to politicians it’s always obvious how busy they are. They’re not lazy people. I don’t mean to imply by this that they are good people, or ethical people: that is another matter. But unfortunately most politicians only have two or three staff members to help them with their workload, including liaising with their constituents and running an electorate office. Even cabinet ministers might find themselves with only a dozen or so staff and advisors to help them manage. I can’t help thinking that in circumstances where the media pressure is growing through the 24-7 news cycle, that we could provide some more resources for politicians.

Imagine how much more empowered politicians would be if there were, say, an extra 1000 staff members employed? In the scheme of things, this is not a huge number of staff. But the effect on the capability of politicians and the enhancement to our democracy could be significant. There is a counter-argument that politicians would use these extra staff just to play more political games, which is probably true. But denying politicians of staff means that they have less democratic control over their departments.

And it isn’t just a matter of how much time politicians have. As Tanner points out, politics through the media is increasingly like a game. When ministers are confronted with a topical or relevant issue, journalists will demand quick solutions or answers from government bureaucrats. Politicians will make snap decisions, they will create new business units or structures to try to make it appear like problems are being actively solved. Their survival in the media, the pressure to keep their job, requires them to look like they are taking action to solve a problem.

It is not considered acceptable for a politician to say, ‘We’ll look into the problem and get back to you sometime late next month’. This obviously conflicts with the standard bureaucrat’s way of working. Snap decisions are made by politicians and action — meaningful or not — starts happening.

 

In his Andrew Olle memorial lecture in 2011, political journalist Laurie Oakes gave a good summation of what he thought was going wrong with politics and journalism in Australia.⁷ Journalists are frequently blamed for the poor standard of political debate, because they focus on trivial matters. As a result, politicians focus on creating sensational news stories and events, which usually exaggerate conflicts between politicians, or encourage politicians to participate in childish media stunts.

Oakes argues that our political malaise is not all the fault of journalists. As he argues, a lot of the problems with how politics is covered in the media stem from the fact that most politicians let their media advisors dictate their media strategies. 

He is right. Although media advisors will have significant media training, most of them have little initial experience, knowledge or education in politics. Many writers or journalism experts think content knowledge doesn't matter – they can write about anything. But it does matter. How can media advisors without an understanding of ideology advise politicians about strategy? It's politicians who know where they want to lead the country – for example, towards a more (or less) interventionist economic policy. Many journalists would only have a trivial understanding of what an interventionist economic policy is, or its implications, or its history in Australia or the world generally. Media advisors don't really know either.

Sam is very cautious in her interactions with the media. If she says something offensive or damaging to the government, she could lose her job. Journalists and voters will be critical of almost anything she says, whether she says ‘black’ or ‘white’. Elections are won and lost through the media, and how politicians look matters. Sam is busy, and she usually lets her media advisors organise most of her appearances. If there’s a speech needed, they will write it for her. If there is a written press statement to write, they will do it.

Sam also takes advice from her media advisors on how to respond to problem issues. For example, should she respond aggressively, or would it look bad for a woman to appear aggressive? Should she apologise for something, or would that look soft and indecisive? Unfortunately, even though these are trivial matters, it is the media advisor's main focus.

Sam also undertook media training and gets general advice. Typical advice includes sticking to ‘key messages’ and repeating those messages over and over. This looks bad if you follow a politician all day and you hear them say the same thing over and over, but if you only watch the television news once a day, you only hear it once and it sounds okay, and you get the message.

Other common advice to politicians is to stick to a set script of pre-planned comments. Sam is warned often enough of the dangers of making controversial comments, so she makes sure she chooses her words carefully, rather than using plain, simple language to actually say what she means.

Most journalists and media advisors I've met think in 24-hour terms. They wake up every morning, relatively refreshed, but then spend most of their days panicking and rushing to meet their daily deadlines. Let's say their deadline is 4pm. When that time comes, and they submit their pieces, they breathe a sigh of relief, then finish off their day with admin work or other projects like columns or interview research. Ultimately, it's what you'd call a 'fast-paced' environment. Many people, I've noticed, thrive in this environment – although there are also many that want to get out and find different jobs.

The truth, however, is that most media specialists take it one day at a time. The real weakness of media advisors and journalists is their inability to analyse the broader context or to think in strategic terms. Many media advisors who work for government whom I have met show virtually no interest in participating in strategic planning or policy committees. They are usually disinterested in disaster or emergency planning, too – even though would be perhaps the most important contributors. One day at a time ... And when the proverbial hits the fan they will deal with it then. That's their attitude.

Media advisors and journalists are not strategic thinkers. They would rarely see the connection between what they do and any long-term vision politicians may have for the future.

There is also a negative side to most journalists, and it's something I've never heard a journalist say. Oakes didn't say it. Journalists usually have no background or education in politics. Many end up in the press gallery, or reporting on politics, with no prior interest in politics. Most — arguably even Oakes himself — just fall into it. Someone has to do the job, and it's often just a timing or circumstance thing. Not only do most policy advisors have not have background training in politics, neither do journalists.

If journalists have little education or knowledge of politics, or of political history and context, they cannot effectively interpret it for the public. What chance does the public have if journalists, themselves, do not understand the connection between, say, Paul Keating's ‘flexible’ industrial relations changes, and different political ideologies such as social liberalism, conservatism, the new right, social democracy or Marxism? No chance. Journalists should have a thorough understanding of modern political ideologies; otherwise, they will not understand political context, and they will not be able to think for themselves. They will be little more than parrots parroting a political message, without a genuine understanding of what it means and how it sits in historical context.

And that's what does happen. It leads journalists to miscommunicate the meaning of political events to the public. For example, when a politician announces a policy, have you ever heard a journalist comment on whether it's good or bad for democracy? Or freedom? Or equality? I haven't, yet this is exactly the kind of analysis the public needs from journalists and independent observers.

Most journalists only tell us the facts, and then their analysis consists of whether they think it is more or less likely to cause the government to win the next election. That is pretty similar to a 'horse race' or 'sporting commentary' analysis. What we need to hear about is whether a policy is good for Joan Citizen on Average Street, or retirees, or students, or parents, or – even – the country as a whole.

Journalists will howl that it's only their job to provide the facts. But their job is more than that. It's their job to report on the facts and help the public understand those facts, and understand the context within which those facts exist.

The problem is similar for politicians' media advisors, who usually have little knowledge of economic theory, political history or political philosophy. They simply do not understand the broader political context they operate within. Under no circumstances should such people be called upon to lead politicians or set long-term political strategies. Politicians are elected to lead – it’s their job.

There is one other unfortunate effect of this. When politics is presented in such simplistic terms in the media, it leads those who read or watch the media, who can easily understand such simplistic interpretations of politics, to believe that politics and economics is simple. It leads people to falsely believe that they understand the full complexity of political issues, and does not encourage them to doubt or question their opinions, or inspire them to learn anything more about politics.

People who do not doubt their political or religious views, who see the world in simplistic terms, can often be pugnacious. They have been known to hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers. 

They are less tolerant, and they are less open to or interested in political discussion. And so when journalists produce simplistic stories because they 'know that's what readers want', is that what readers really want, or is this merely created by simplistic news reporting in the first place?

Of course, I am not saying that journalists or media advisors are unskilled, or that they are not important. The reverse is true. But it is important to realise exactly what their strengths are, and what their limitations are. For journalists, it is important for them to realise that if they are going to make a job switch to reporting politics, they need to take some crash courses in political ideology, and economic and political history – or else they will inevitably be writing crap, and be totally unable to discern the meaning of political events.

Journalists and media advisors usually think in 24-hour timeframes, and they may not have had a long-term interest in politics. They have short memories. Even if you agree that it’s only their job to report facts (which I do not), how can they provide the full story if they aren’t aware of the history of issues? Politicians tend to make promises that, years later, are often forgotten. Is it not the journalists’ job to remind us of this?

Just like keeping track of the responsibilities of bureaucrats, who is keeping track of promises that politicians make? We remember some, sure, but do we remember all of them, or do they get away with it most of the time?

Sam is cautious in the media. She doesn’t take risks. If she is challenged with a problem in the media, she makes snap decisions so that by the next day she can argue to journalists and voters that she is taking action. She must look like she is strong and decisive, or she is in danger of losing her job, and her government is in danger out losing the support of voters at an election. If you think about it, we all know that people who are constantly panicking about losing their jobs usually perform poorly.

Sam will also do more than perform poorly. She, and her staff, will prepare endlessly for media questions that never arise. In fact, they try to manage issues so that they do not become contentious. Bureaucrats, especially senior ones, will also pay some attention to the possibility that an issue could become contentious. Ever briefing note contains an analysis, if relevant, on how the issue would look in the media. Every government project is viewed sceptically from the point-of-view of how it will appear in the media.

Sam can’t focus on long-term issues. She has to respond to new issues constantly. She has to appear in the media constantly. She cannot spend time actually managing her department, or thinking too much about long-term issues affecting the country. Bureaucrats, especially senior bureaucrats, are affected by the same problems, albeit in a different manner.

Journalists, although they do their best, focus on the trivial. It’s a result of the media and how it functions. Newspapers and television studios need to produce content that will attract readers. It needs to be short, relevant, and entertaining. Ideally there will be conflict of some sort. If possible, the story needs to be simple: this could mean a simplistic focus on ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’. They also need to produce content very quickly, and often don’t have time to research matters in depth. The quickest way to do this is to write according to formulas or standard angles.

But, as I have mentioned, simplistic reporting might also be responsible for the ostensibly simplistic preferences of the audience.

Most of all, when journalists try to report in more detail, to investigate the causes of issues, they are very poor at it. They are poor at keeping politicians accountable because they rarely understand the context, or the real reasons why government policies don’t work (which are described in this book).

This is a major problem. It causes journalists to miss the really big stories, the important ones. They focus on trivial matters like stunts or things a politician says in parliament. The multi-million dollar project which was an utter failure or waste of resources isn’t even noticed. Because they don’t think strategically, they don’t notice — and don’t encourage voters to notice — trends in policy failures. For example, if a policy has been tried and failed in another country, journalists will not hold politicians properly to account when it fails in their own country, when they really should have known better.

Politicians react accordingly. When the media focuses on scandals, even minor scandals, all their effort is placed on avoiding scandals. With no attention paid by journalists to the question of the accountability of and lack of expertise among public servants, there is no incentive for politicians to try to address the problem. Busy politicians don’t notice issues like this anyway, unless the media reports it.

As an example, have the American media really focused on the big issues confronting their nation and tried to hold politicians accountable? Have they shed much light for us about the causes of the economic recession after 2007 in America? Have they interrogated politicians about how they are responding to the crisis, with an understanding of responses that have been tried throughout history in similar circumstances? Do they get involved in this? Only in a minor way, at best, and usually it is not mainstream media sources that ask such questions.

 

So here are my recommendations. First, for politicians. Don't let your media advisors lead. Take their advice, yes – you must – but then it's your job to lead. You should decide what the story of the day is. You should decide what the campaign's key messages are. Never outsource or delegate these things to media advisors: they don't understand politics as well as you do, and they rarely understand your target audience (voters) as well as you. They have their biases, and they don't always see the strategic or long-term relevance of things.

Second, for journalists and media advisors. Know the content and history of public policy better. You'll never believe me on this; you'll think you don't need to be subject matter experts; you'll probably think you understand politics already. None of likes to consider truly how little we actually know about politics. We all think we understand things that are complex, and give an opinion about things sometimes when it would really be more honest to say that we don’t know. We don’t always recognise how little expertise you have, until we start learning. What is more likely – especially among lazy or time-pressured journalists or advisors – is that you will fail to see the political significance of many events, and you will not fully understand the implications of one party or another winning government. If you aren't a subject matter expert – if you can't engage with or analyse the political significance of it – what you'll do is just pretend to be an expert anyway, and you'll treat politics like it's two rival footy teams, and you'll get childishly excited about who's 'winning' and who's 'losing'.

Since the mid-2000s, there has been the growing question of media resources to cover the news. Print media, previously known for being the media that focuses on issues in more depth, is facing business-model pressures. It is cutting staff numbers. Internet blogging and social media are more important. News from mainstream media outlets is now available free online.

From an economic perspective, this seems like a fairly normal occurrence. Technology causes a crisis in the business model of an industry, or the industry itself is made obsolete by technology or changing social circumstances. This happens all of the time in history. The question is what to do about it.

It is quite common for services or products that are important not to be provided by free-market forces in a market economy. This has always been true of services such as defence and hospitals, and lots of other things that governments provide. Things that are ‘public goods’ are often best produced by governments, or funded by governments, there being no other practical way.

This also occurs when industries change. Energy industries, for example, have had a difficult time changing from coal or polluting energy sources towards green energy sources. In many countries, governments are trying to help the transition process through investment and taxation incentives. As another example, in Australia the government itself is investing in a National Broadband Network, which is too big and expensive for private companies alone to invest in.

Increasingly, governments subsidise or have a role in agricultural production, vehicle manufacturing and other industries. Using free market measurements, these industries are judged to be unprofitable. Yet they are unworthy of doing only according to free-market principles. Everyone knows that we need to produce food. If the free market doesn’t cause there to be enough investment in food production, then we should do something about that. Would we just say, ‘No, the market dictates investment, and if there is not enough food then so be it’?

This looks like it might be the direction that our media is taking. Governments should consider whether they should expand investment in print media especially, through government-owned broadcasting or media organisations. Of course, care should be taken so that journalists are free to write about politics as they see fit, and not become propagandists from government.

Is a well-funded and capable media not essential to a well-functioning democracy, and every bit as essential as the energy and food industries? Is now not the time for us, as a society, to consider public funding of journalism, especially serious journalism? Perhaps countries could capitalise on this opportunity to provide funding by printing newspapers containing serious journalism.

Perhaps it is an opportunity to create a journalism that isn’t affected unduly by sectional interests and lobby groups, or the influence of media proprietors. There may be a few newspaper printing presses about to come up for cheap sale.

What happened to me, fortunately, is that I left my job as a junior media advisor within government. That’s when I became a policy advisor and worked with Peter. I moved on from one horror story to the next.

 

Key points: ·         Politicians are forced to play political games through the media. It’s part of how our democracy works. This game focuses on politicians getting media coverage for ‘announceables’ – trivial policy announcements that do not contribute to policy or political debate. ·         Journalists focus too much on the short term in politics. They rarely follow up on stories later on, to hold politicians accountable. ·         Media advisors think day to day, and have little ability to think strategically or about longer-term politics. ·         Journalists demand quick answers to policy problems. This causes politicians to lock in simplistic or conventional policies that will seem appealing, without due consideration of options or proper research. ·         Journalists have little or no education in or knowledge about politics or economics or public policy development. They are thrown in the deep end to cover these matters. ·         The media is facing financial pressures that could make its coverage of policy development issues even worse.

Possible reforms: ·        Politicians could lead their own media strategies, and not passively leave campaign strategies to their media advisors. ·        Journalists could focus more on the real reasons why government policies don’t work, rather than focusing on only the political game-playing from politicians. Believe me, there should be enough scandal and conflict within bureaucracies to keep newspapers selling. ·        Consider public funding of journalism through publicly funded, independent newspapers.