I used to pride myself on the fact that the thing that I loved
about politics was that everyone was entitled to their opinion, and that I enjoyed
the debate, for its intellectual stimulation alone. I liked the idea that I could say just one
thing that could potentially make someone re-think their position, or go away
and research it a little more. Similarly, they might say something that made
me think again, as I was never under the misconception that I knew it all, or
that I had nothing left to learn.
This election though I have watched closely and read widely,
and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would even consider voting
for the Coalition. If you read beyond the
Murdoch press, and look at the policies, the answer is so very, very clear –
and I can only assume that those who do not see it have been brainwashed by our
dominant press. But the fact that I think I see it so clearly has itself caused
me great concern, because it is against my basic nature to be so self-assured.
I’m not just talking about the press in this election campaign
– I’m talking about the press for at least the last 3 years who, unhappy with
the result of the 2010 election, campaigned fervently for an ‘election
now’ for at least the first 12 months of the Gillard government. Then, when that didn’t work, they sought to de-stabilise
Julia Gillard with constant leadership speculation. Am I saying that Gillard never did anything
wrong – I’m not, but I am saying that I don’t think that she was given a fair chance,
nor fair credit for her achievements.
The opportunities offered by a hung parliament were well and
truly squandered by the Coalition who waged a 3-year long war on the legitimacy
of the government (i.e. a 3-year long dummy spit). A hung parliament is the best outcome that the
people of Australia can hope for from an election – it means that no one party
can push legislation through without scrutiny, and without compromise. If you were really and honestly truthful with
yourself – do you actually believe that either party has all the answers – that
you agree with them 100 percent?
We have all hoodwinked by John Howard’s “mandate”. John Howard claimed a mandate for the GST –
but when I handed out ‘How to Vote’ cards for the Democrats in the next election
– I had so many people tell me that they would never vote for the Democrats
again because they’d allowed Howard to push the GST through the Senate. They had voted the Dems into the Senate
specifically because they believed the Dems would block the GST. Howard never had a mandate – he was just the
least, worst option at the time for PM, and people thought that they’d made
appropriate safeguards in the upper house, only to find that Meg Lees rolled
over at the drop of hat.
So why is Murdoch so anti-Rudd/anti-Labor (or at least
perceived to be)? It is not about the
NBN, though I suspect that is also a factor – it’s because Labor tried (or at
least threatened) to restore balance to media ownership. Their proposed media reforms were minor,
though perhaps ill-conceived, and Murdoch wasn’t having a bar of it, because it
would reduce his power, wealth and influence. Giving Rudd another chance to pursue those reforms
is something Mr. Murdoch cannot allow.
Howard campaigned in 1996 on a platform of removing the
media cross-ownership laws, thereby allowing Murdoch to diversify from print. I remember speaking up in my first year ‘Intro
to Sociology’ class about the bias I had observed in the press at the time, and
being made aware for the first time that I could not blindly trust the news
without questioning the potential bias of the author. It was a lesson I learned well, because I now
read widely and inform myself from a variety of sources. But when Labor tried to scale back that
reform to a relatively miniscule extent, the outcome of this election was decided. Giving
Labor another term would lead to the risk that they would actually succeed in
this reform, or potentially seek to go even further.
Why is media ownership such a big deal? I live in Brisbane. I walk into my local supermarket, or
newsagent, and all I see are newspapers owned by Murdoch, shouting out the
Murdoch line. Even if I don’t open those
newspapers and read the stories, I’ve still be assaulted by the headlines and
assume that my vote won’t matter, because the result is already a foregone
conclusion. As much as it would be nice
if every voter had the time and inclination to research the issues for
themselves – that is simply not the work that we live in. Murdoch himself acknowledged (though, admittedly
in 1967), that no one person should control the media, but now he is the one
who controls it, his position has changed.
Democracy only works when the populace are informed – but the
risk is that when one person or group of people control the media, we cannot be
properly informed because we only ever see one side of the story. The claim that Murdoch owns 70% of the print
media has been ‘allegedly’ debunked, because he doesn’t actually own 70% of
newspapers – but he does own the newspapers that 70% of the population read –
and that’s not to mention his other business interests running a similar line. To argue that his level of media ownership is
insignificant is ‘splitting hairs’.
One of the responses to suggestions that Murdoch has driven
this election is that he supported Rudd in 2007 – so why should we question his
support of Abbott this time around? It
is true, that the Murdoch press jumped on the Kevin ’07 bandwagon – but was
that simply because the result was already a foregone conclusion, and jumping
on board sold more papers? By that stage
John Howard was so on the nose with voters that he lost his own seat (only the
second time in Australian history that an incumbent Prime Minister lost his own
seat). Is it really such a stretch to believe
that it was in Murdoch’s interests to support Kevin at the time?
I was seriously disappointed in the ABC this week when, on ABC
RN Breakfast with Fran Kelly, Anthony Albenese categorically set the record
straight about why Chris Bowen was not present at the ALP launch (he was receiving
an award from the Coptic Church in his electorate, which engagement was
arranged many months in advance). Yet,
on the ABC News that night, the claim that Chris Bowen was absent because he
was fighting for electoral survival in his Western Sydney seat was repeated
again, even after it had been proven untrue.
If I can’t even trust the ABC, then who can I trust?
No-one. The answer is that we can trust no-one. We have to simply research the issues ourselves, and accept that our allegedly ‘free press’, is nothing of the sort. The ABC has gone soft because they know they’re on the chopping block if Abbott wins. The Fairfax press is holding out to a large extent, and trying to offer balanced coverage, but have a maximum of 30% of the market share, and no real influence given their limited market. I’m not even sure that I can trust the polls, because I know how easily that they can be manipulated simply by the way that a question is phrased, or who you put as the number one option.
So, to get back to the point, do I actually think that you’re
an idiot if you vote Liberal on Saturday?
I don’t, but I do think that you are a victim of the state of the
Australian press. Please inform
yourself. Please read beyond the Murdoch
press. Please listen to the international
community about the state of our economy.
And please, please, please, don’t assume that the result of this
election is a foregone conclusion. You’re
vote counts – you can make it count.
