17 Minutes

[redandblack]

It’s been said that the level of Australian political coverage has been dumbed down to the lowest level possible. Forget policy, forget detail, forget intelligent debate, it’s all about a sound grab or a slogan.
I’ve been meaning for some time to express a thought I’ve mulled over for a while now. It was brought to the surface by a poster referring to ‘that dropkick Oakeshott’. Now this is a widely held view and it all seems to stem from the fact that the said Mr Oakeshott took all of 17 minutes to tell the nation who he would support in Government. That is, the most important decision for the Australian people for some time was explained with detailed reasoning.

If you go back to that day, you will recall Bob Katter taking some time to ramble on about his decision to support Tony Abbott. Some, perhaps a majority, might have thought he was a ‘dropkick’ well before that day, but that’s another debate.

We then saw Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott sit down together to give their decision. It was then obvious that the two would agree. As Katter had supported Abbott, it was also obvious that the other two would do the opposite, as otherwise they would have presented a united front with Katter.
Windsor quickly said the obvious and the obvious was that Oakeshott would follow suit. He did, but made a fatal mistake.

He wanted to say what he had considered before coming to a decision and why he had made that decision. It would have been patently obvious to any remotely interested observer that his decision would be to agree with Windsor, though, as no other reasonable interpretation was possible.

But he took 17 minutes.

He’s now a ‘dropkick’, even though almost every person who expressed an opinion on him up to that time had considered him to be someone who other politicians should emulate.

But he took 17 minutes.

Tasmania swore in a new Premier last week. The headline in The Australian read along the lines of “Left Lady looking for Mister Right”

It’s 2011 and we’re still reading that sort of journalism.

This week it’s a flood levy and the media rush to find ‘victims who will have to pay the levy’, even though the quickest reading makes it clear they’re exempt, or “I’ll have to pay thousands and it will ruin me”, even though you’d have to be on hundreds of thousands to pay that much. It’s 96 cents a week for one year if you’re on $60K, but this is the time of the quick sound grab, so facts get in the way of a headline.

I have a confession to make.

I listened to that ‘dropkick’ Oakeshott intently for that 17 minutes and I survived OK. I’ve only had one negative effect so far, except for making up for it by foregoing half an episode of a TV soapie.

That negative effect? Sadness at the number of times we’re happy to read a headline as fact, or accept whatever ‘fact’ is published that suits our argument.

We’re almost all guilty of it, including me, which is why I enjoy posts on here that attempt to be factual.

I enjoyed that 17 minutes.

All power to that ‘dropkick’.

[cripple]

Well said, its the stupid sensationalist shows such as ACA and Today Tonight that have caused this problem. Watched Negus' new show on ten this week and it seems like that will be a bit more "factual" as to what they report, hope so anyway.

[dedja]

Watching 4 Corners 'The Deal' is interesting viewing ...

[Q.]

Well said, its the stupid sensationalist shows such as ACA and Today Tonight that have caused this problem. Watched Negus' new show on ten this week and it seems like that will be a bit more "factual" as to what they report, hope so anyway.

No, it's the public who is the problem. It's the public who tune in, who buy the papers, who lap up and regurgitate the misinformation. Democracy is an amazing concept, but geez we take it for granted and poison it with complacency.

[Media Park]

I watched all 17 minutes to get out of work...

I voted for Abbott, so I knew that with my luck, Gillard would get in...

[Bat Pad]

Made a pretty big assumption that people only think he is a dropkick because of that speech. Any evidence to point to that backs that up?

[redandblack]

Any evidence to support that it wasn't

[Bat Pad]

Any evidence to support that it wasn't

No, and it may be possible. But I'm more inclined to think it's because at that stage he was still an unknown quantity without any exposure to people outside his electorate. With more exposure comes more scrutiny, and I think people have gotten over the first impression and may not like what they see. I'm not saying I am one of them either, I think he was unimpressive as a public speaker (and his gang of four comment where he is says they were there for good and not evil was especially stupid, given the implication that the original 4 were evil) but that isnt enough for me to class him as a dropkick, just unimpressive.

In terms of the dumbing down of the electorate, agree with the commercial networks, especially shows like sunrise and today. But ABC news 24 is good and I think the print media does a pretty good job (bias on both sides aside).

[redandblack]

Fair enough on the Oakeshott question, batpad, although I'm sure the perception changed after his 17 minute effort, especially by those who had praised him until his decision disappointed them, but I agree that some have judged him since then.

I wouldn't exclude most of the print media from my criticism.

[cripple]

Well said, its the stupid sensationalist shows such as ACA and Today Tonight that have caused this problem. Watched Negus' new show on ten this week and it seems like that will be a bit more "factual" as to what they report, hope so anyway.

No, it's the public who is the problem. It's the public who tune in, who buy the papers, who lap up and regurgitate the misinformation. Democracy is an amazing concept, but geez we take it for granted and poison it with complacency.

The public is the end result of the problem, but in so many cases the media forgoes their responsibility in delivering news to get a cheap headline and not everyone is clued in enough to sort out the garbage from the fact. This problem then escalates when that poor info they believed is repeated and the end result is the general population spouting rubbish because tracey grimshaw told them so.

[Dogwatcher]

7PM Project.
Dumbing down at its finest.

[Squawk]

R&B - it nearly took me 17 minutes to read your post!

[redandblack]

I'm surprised you read it all, mate.

I gave up half-way through

[Q.]

Well said, its the stupid sensationalist shows such as ACA and Today Tonight that have caused this problem. Watched Negus' new show on ten this week and it seems like that will be a bit more "factual" as to what they report, hope so anyway.

No, it's the public who is the problem. It's the public who tune in, who buy the papers, who lap up and regurgitate the misinformation. Democracy is an amazing concept, but geez we take it for granted and poison it with complacency.

The public is the end result of the problem, but in so many cases the media forgoes their responsibility in delivering news to get a cheap headline and not everyone is clued in enough to sort out the garbage from the fact. This problem then escalates when that poor info they believed is repeated and the end result is the general population spouting rubbish because tracey grimshaw told them so.

Chicken or the egg? Would papers still sell if they cut the crap out?

[Darth Vader]

Gee I'm glad the Oakeshot man wasn't an American. Bill O'Reilly would have put him on the pinhead file