Tag Archives: malcolm turnbull

That’s Entertainment

8
by Media, politics • Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Long long ago, as the oldest of my Watermelon friends may just remember, there used to be talent competitions in community and media. At Eisteddfords performers performed, judges judged, winners grinned, losers were praised and encouraged, audiences applauded loudly in appreciation.

Then the geniuses who produce tv programs decided this was all wrong. In the same way as they changed motor sport broadcasts from reporting winners to reporting crashes, they changed talent shows from having the winners being the entertainment to having the losers providing it.

In order to do this the losers would be increasingly humiliated, disparaged, brought into public contempt, driven to despair, driven, if at all possible, to tears, a human car crash. As long as every possible human emotion could be wrung from the losers, the actual “winners” of a competition were essentially irrelevant.

As time has gone by networks have competed against each other to make the humiliation of losers more extreme and more protracted in each successive show. The public demand for such spectacles is, it seems, as strong now as when the Roman public were given opportunity, thumbs up or down, to decide on life and death in the arena. Not so much circuses that marked entertainment, and decline, of the Roman Empire, but loser shows.

And so it is with us, as ritual psychological disembowelling becomes the standard tv entertainment in all “reality” and “talent” shows that fill broadcast hours on all networks.

But that left all the political stuff that the networks had some kind of public obligation to report. People would, after all, probably want to know who was going to govern them after an election. But it was all so boring, like an old-fashioned Eisteddford. Grinning winners about to form government, losers with stiff upper lips ready to form a “loyal opposition”. “Loyal Opposition” indeed, what sort of television did that make?

Hard to stump tv executives for long. If politics wouldn’t come to reality tv, then reality tv would have to come to politics, or, more exactly be brought into politics. And so it began.

Began with the destabilisation of an existing leader. Unflattering photos, odd pieces of film, some past “scandal” uncovered, carefully edited bits of an interview played again and again. Then we might find a disgruntled and very junior member of the party to make a criticism, anonymously of course, and describe this as “voices”. A former leader may be called on to prove they are still relevant by voicing an opinion, pretending to inside knowledge they no longer have. Opposing politicians may be asked for their objective views on the leadership of the other party.

Then in stage two we go into full scale rumour creation, where two people having coffee are photographed through a long range lens in sinister fashion; where an innocent glance is scrutinised by “body language experts”; where some policy debate (a good thing, right?) is turned into a signal of raging dissent and rebellion. Phoney opinion polls are sought and presented in the most damaging light possible. “Numbers” are said to be counted. Soon all this has an effect. The party decides the instability created by the media has to stop (believing that firm action will end it, ha ha) and there is a change of leadership. The media will milk this for all it is worth, close up images of tears on faces (family gathered around, hopefully also with tears), interviews where questions are asked not for answers but for emotional response, families of defeated leaders followed to school or shops hoping for angry reactions.

And then suddenly all that good television is over. Time to start again, and the whole cycle is repeated with new leader, the political party discovering, belatedly, that changing leader doesn’t stop instability (a media creation in fact), the instability having nothing to do with who the actual leader is, but merely being the signal for the media to begin a new round of destabilisation. Sometimes, and this is a bonus, the media may decide to bring a former expelled contestant (sorry, leader) back into the Big Brother (sorry, Parliament) House, and the twist will be that they may be able to gain full reinstatement, deposing the one who deposed them. Human emotion in spades. Hours, days, weeks of good television.

Neither the contestants (sorry politicians) themselves, nor the viewing audience (sorry, voters) have any more control over this process than the contestants and viewers of Survivor or Greatest Race or Beauty and the Geek or the X Factor. All are puppets, manipulated at the whims of directors and producers.

A lot of contestants and politicians, will be damaged mentally and professionally in the process, and democracy itself is the Biggest Loser. But Hey.

That’s Entertainment.

Vice versa

1
by politics • Tags:

Remember the story about the child and parent who became magically switched and had to learn how to operate, with difficulty, in each other's worlds? The conservative politicians, suddenly and magically changed from government to opposition, seem to also be in some difficulty. The conservative side of politics has been believing many incompatible things in recent times – we shouldn't do anything about climate change in either good times or bad times; we shouldn't do anything about low paid workers in either good times or bad times; we shouldn't try to improve the rights of workers in either good times or bad times. In addition, interest rates will always be lower under a conservative government than a Labor government, except when they are not, at which time it is the result of Labor being bad economic managers. Union officials should never be allowed on to work sites when there is an increased rate of industrial accidents because they might try to lower that rate, and they shouldn't be allowed on when there is a low rate because they are not needed.

What else? Ah yes. Labor's emission trading scheme is no good because it is too weak, so the conservatives would like to make it weaker (it is also no good because it gives away too many permits, whereas the conservatives would like to make all permits free). An Australian prime minister shouldn't travel overseas to places like America or G20 meetings, unless he is a Liberal prime minister in which case these trips are essential to Australia's place in the world and its economy. Say the economy is going to struggle and you are talking it down, express confidence in the economy and you are hiding your head in the sand.

When a Liberal government is in power any problems it encounters are the result of the previous Labor administration's failings and world events beyond their control, any successes it achieves are purely the result of its own endeavours. Conversely a Labor government in power owes any minor success to the efforts of the previous Liberal Treasurer, while all its failures are purely the result of its own inadequacy and nothing  to do with external forces. Pay out money to the rich and medium rich and you are being responsible, give everybody a share in a financial stimulus and you are being spendthrift.

A Liberal government in power that approves takeovers of fundamentally important Australian enterprises by foreign companies is just doing good business, a Labor government that considers doing the same thing is contemplating selling Australia's national interest down the river. Comments about a future Democratic president by a Liberal prime minister are just free speech and perfectly appropriate, comments by a Labor leader, expressing views shared by three quarters of the American population, about the qualities of a Republican president, are certain to wreck the great alliance.

Send Australian warships out to escort desperate refugees to a desert island prison and you are being weak on border protection, unless you are a Liberal government doing the same thing.

Appoint right wing ministers and you are caving into the union movement, unless you are John Howard and then it is a sign that you are a strong leader determined to impose your ideology on the party. Sack one minister for a minor failing of strong ministerial standards in two years and your government is falling apart, reluctantly remove five ministers for breaches of weak ministerial standards and it is evidence of high ethical standards.

Spend money on infrastructure projects in Labor and Liberal electorates is a waste of money, spend money only in Liberal electorates just before an election is investing in Australia's future.

And on and on it goes. The conservatives don't seem to have quite got the idea of opposition yet. It should involve hanging on to the principles you had in government, and arguing for their merit. Or did Turnbull, Hockey and all not have principles or belief in the merit of their polices? Were they being hypocritical then and telling the truth now? Or vice versa?

All David Horton's earlier writing is here.