Does the media...

[fat]

... treat Julia Gillard worse than they did any other Prime Minister?

Is there any research?

[jody]

I think they do.....she is the first female PM......of course she's going to cop a lot of crap

[caskur]

Mar 24, 2013 23:00:46 GMT 10 fat said:

... treat Julia Gillard worse than they did any other Prime Minister?

Is there any research?

Nope. They bashed and bashed Howard about "the Children overboard" incident and the UN sanctioned, "Iraq War" being illegal and the introduction of the GST debacle calling him "little Johnny" and a liar continually....

work Choices was a slap in the face to workers.... they won the election promising to overturn that... They did overturn that and that was about the only thing I can think of they did right.... however, now the scummy labor slugs are going to not only enforce an enforced raise on superannuation contributions, but they're going to attack the accounts of said contributions with higher taxes....

Get rid of labor!

[fat]

Many women believe Julia Gillard is beat upon because she is a woman but looking back as far as PM Mensies (I wasn't born before any previous PMs) I note that no PM has been immune from Media ridicule. They were particularly cruel to Billy McMahon for instance.

[caskur]

They threw rotten tomatoes at Gough Whitlam...

She is not attacked more... if anything she is attacked MUCH less than her male erstwhile contemporaries.

[slartibartfast]

No doubt at all. One just had to read News Limited (how apt!) for that.

[jody]

Margaret Thatcher copped media beating to a high extent too......women are not supposed to have jobs of such importance :/

[sonex]

Mar 24, 2013 23:00:46 GMT 10 fat said:

... treat Julia Gillard worse than they did any other Prime Minister?

Is there any research?

I suppose the most well known critics of Julia Gillard in the media are Alan Jones, Pickering, Bolt and Akerman, and she has been savaged by Jones and Pickering. Who were the comparative media critics of John Howard. ?

[garfield]

Gillard is a fucking idiot and deserves all the shit she gets and then some, balls or no balls.

[geopol]

Gillard has been traduced, savaged even, by commentators, political opponents and misogynists from all over the place, partly because she is PM, but the nastiness of the tone stems from the fact that she is female, strong and intelligent and has been intent on not only making big changes but managing to stay in power by keeping to an agreement with the independents who were not prepared to trust that arsehole Abbott to give him power. The ratbag right has been upset because Abbott was beaten by a girl!

[pim]

I don't know that it was a journalist who threw rotten tomatoes, or any type of tomato, or for that matter any other type of berry (apparently tomatoes are a type of berry), fruit or vegetable at Gough, whether at a press conference or at a TV interview. Mind you, Gough once threw the contents of a glass of water over Paul Hasluck during an exchange in Parliament so any journo stupid enough to throw cabbages or rotten tomatoes at Gough might have experienced a SPLAT! as Gough threw the stuff right back at him.

Fat ...

Mar 25, 2013 5:41:55 GMT 10 fat said:

Many women believe Julia Gillard is beat upon because she is a woman but looking back as far as PM Mensies (I wasn't born before any previous PMs) I note that no PM has been immune from Media ridicule. They were particularly cruel to Billy McMahon for instance.

Yes they were unkind to the hapless Billy. He was hard of hearing because of "chronic catarrh" (according to his bio) and that also affected his speech patterns and he came in for some pretty unkind ridicule as a result. He had prominent ears and I distinctly recall him being called "Billy-Big-Ears". One is reminded of the way Julia Gillard's ear lobes are commented upon. Julia deals with that by adjusting her hair style accordingly. Billy McMahon on the other hand couldn't cover up his prominent ears since he was elderly when he came to the Prime Ministership and by then he was somewhat follically challenged. I feel for him, being somewhat follically challenged myself. He was suspected of being a closet gay so there was quite a whispering campaign ... not so much in the media but among his political opponents - who weren't just in the Labor Party! His most trenchant critics were always to be found in the Country Party.

McMahon had a weak speaking voice and was a poor orator. Remind you of anyone? Back in those days an election campaign was always kicked off by what was called back then a set-piece event called a Policy Speech. These days it's before a hand-picked audience but back then a policy speech was given publicly and you could count on hecklers being present. Bob Menzies loved hecklers. They gave him a target to which he could direct sarcasm and ridicule and give the majority audience a focus for their hostility ("Siddown ya mug!") and they added spice to his speeches. Poor Billy McMahon was something else. He was the first to use an autocue and with his hearing loss and quavering voice he sounded weak and unsure of himself. The hecklers gave him no mercy and his voice faltered, to a roar of ridicule and jeers. It wasn't his finest moment and it also wasn't his fault.

But McMahon still only lost narrowly. What's remarkable about the Whitlam 1972 victory is the small number of seats he won by. Whitlam claimed a mandate - justifiably - but it wasn't an overwhelming one. His mistake was to overestimate his political capital. Rudd on the other hand came to office with a lot more political capital than Whitlam, frittered it away and failed to use it. Whitlam would have loved to come to office in 1972 with the political capital that Rudd had in 2007.

But back to McMahon - he's viewed today, unfairly, as a hapless figure that symbolised just how moribund Menzies Liberalism had become. There's no doubt that the Australian people were ready for change in 1972. It really was time. But McMahon gave a better account of himself in that election than subsequent generations give him credit for, and he left the Liberal Party in better shape than many Labor people might have thought.

To relate this to Julia Gillard, I do believe that she has come in for media treatment that has been gender-based and unfair, and the media itself is one of the sleeper issues in Australian public discourse that may well end up rebounding badly on a future Abbott Government. But that's medium to long term stuff! In the short term it's all going Abbott's way. But for conservatives and opponents of Labor to tell themselves that there aren't issues with the media and everything's hunky dory and we live in the best of all possible worlds is to practise self-delusion. But that's not today's issue.

On the Labor side there will be those who say a Gillard wipeout will all be down to the evil misogynist media and I think that will constitute a Labor version of self-delusion. It all comes down to performance and Gillard's public performance as an orator and advocate has been abysmal. Her judgement is shown time and again to be hopeless - as shown with the Conroy media laws debacle - and she has quite justifiably been pilloried for it in the media. Malcolm Turnbull put it in a nutshell in Parliament last week in a very good speech he gave in the House of Representatives: "You come in for a bollocking in the House; you come in for a bollocking in the street, you come in for a bollocking in the pub ... and you come in for a bollocking because you deserve it and not because of the media".

Julia Gillard comes in for a bollocking because of her poor public performance. By contrast, Angela Merkel in Germany is another woman who has reached the top of public life in her country and to look at she appears somewhat dumpy and frumpy. I could easily imagine someone calling her "Oma" (Grandma) and I'm sure she has grandchildren who call her "Oma". I watched her Christmas address to the German people on the German news on SBS and she was quite grandmotherly in the way she addressed the viewers: a couple of homilies on family life and she concluded by invoking "Gottes Segen" (God's blessings) on the German people. It was kinda nice and I can see why they like her. But her media performance isn't the secret of her political success. It's the leadership she gives the nation that makes that grandmotherly frumpy little lady look reassuring with her homilies on family life and her signing off with "God bless!" If all she had were homilies and "God bless" but no leadership or vision, it would be seen as spin.

When Ms Gillard became PM and I heard her wooden delivery, I remember thinking that she could do worse than use Angela Merkel as a role model. Now I see the two of them as contrasting figures.

Gillard will lead Labor over a cliff this September, but many of her problems of public perception have been her own making. Don't blame the media.

[Deleted]

At present Gillard is only popular with the unions, and they ain't that popular, 18% of the workforce ---- still despite the dirty machinations within Labor that makes for a media field day, Labor has achieved good things with the economy that does not receive the media attention it should..more interested in the bitch fighting than the accomplishments.

No doubt someone in the media will write a espos'e on Gillard, Union power and Labor.

[geopol]

The media Pim are in the controlling hands of people who are politically opposed to Gillard and to labour. It may be very nice to say "don't blame the media": but that is as broad and bland and as pointless an assertion as many made by posters you rant against. The media certainly has had a stake in the demonization of Gillard as even I can see from the persistent nature of headlines and the radio commentators that have shouted her down The tone is what shows, the persistent nasty tone. Analysis has been shallow and shrill, often in the SMH too. I certainly do not absolve Gillard herself either.

[pim]

"espos'e"??


thinking ... thinking ... thinking ... ah!! You mean exposé!!

I'm not so sure exposé fits in any case. Unless you mean critically. Isn't that already happening?

[pim]

I suppose I should be miffed at your use of "rant" Geopol, but, hey, this is the board for rants! So allow me to be the only member of the board honest enough to own up to indulging in the odd bit of "ranting".

I don't deny for one second the laziness of the media and the way they've indulged in cheap shots. I think the media is a sleeper issue that should have been woken up to face the music well before this. In fact - in typical Gillard (and Rudd before her) style which gives me the screaming shits about modern Labor - the Conroy fiasco with the media laws is yet another example of an important issue that has been botched, screwed up and f****d over by the appalling political incompetence of this government to the point that it's probably not going to be dealt with for another decade at least.

I feel another "rant" coming on so I'd better leave it at that.

I'm glad you don't absolve Gillard.

[sonex]

Mar 25, 2013 11:54:10 GMT 10 geopol said:

The media Pim are in the controlling hands of people who are politically opposed to Gillard and to labour. It may be very nice to say "don't blame the media": but that is as broad and bland and as pointless an assertion as many made by posters you rant against. The media certainly has had a stake in the demonization of Gillard as even I can see from the persistent nature of headlines and the radio commentators that have shouted her down The tone is what shows, the persistent nasty tone. Analysis has been shallow and shrill, often in the SMH too. I certainly do not absolve Gillard herself either.

An excellent summary Geo. Well done.

[garfield]

;D

[garfield]

Gillard is a fuckin idiot and so is anyone that supports the twat ;D

[pim]

Did we just hear a flea fart?

[geopol]

Thank you Sonex.....The flea farts often, and increasingly so......

[garfield]

Mar 25, 2013 12:26:38 GMT 10 pim said:

Did we just hear a flea fart?

Hey, while you're up north why don't you enquire as to how the live cattle trade is going these days ... not that you'd give a fuck anyway, being that you're firmly on the other side of the fence and into mugging private industry for your own ends, just like gillard.

[pim]

lol - flatulent little flea, innee!

[garfield]

If you see any cattle men up there tell them you're voting for julia and she's the best bet for the future won't ya, make sure you're wearing a helmet though. ;D

[pim]

Geopol,

In between Garfield's flea farts as he desperately tries to run interference on what has turned out to be not a bad thread (so let's ignore the flea farts!), yes there is an issue with the media as regards Julia Gillard. The Murdoch press in particular has declared war on Gillard, but that's not a new problem for Labor. You'll recall a similar state of war waged by Murdoch on the Whitlam Government back in the 1970s - and in fact so virulent that even the Murdoch journos staged a strike in protest. And yet Labor, after wasting two years obsessing about "We wuz robbed" and copping another bollocking from the electorate in 1977 on the back of the 1975 bollocking, woke up to itself, pensioned Gough off, picked itself up, did the hard yards and was back in office two parliamentary terms after that for the longest, most creative and most productive period of office in its history as a party that contests federal elections. Labor can recover from this. Alas, it's going to have to do so from Opposition.

Of course the media sucks, Geopol. I watched yesterdays Insiders and thought that the soft interview Barry Cassidy gave Christopher Pyne, which turned out to be one long free kick for Pyne to peddle anti-Labor commentary with scarcely a single challenging question about his side of politics (SMS messages? To Pyne? From Labor backbenchers? About another leadership spill in June? Give us a break! Why didn't Cassidy roast Pyne on this one?) was disgraceful.

My point is that Gillard Labor, and Rudd Labor before it, haven't done their reform agendas any favours with their political incompetence. In fact they've set it back by raising these reform agendas in such a way as to bring discredit on them, thereby making it more difficult for a reform government in the future. And mark my words, there will be a reform-minded Labor Government in the future - although possibly not in my lifetime! Or if in ten years time I'll be in my mid 70s and I hope I'll still be around and cranky enough to say what I think - but the problem is that an attempt by them to address issues like global warming (ignore Garfield's predictable bullshit - just keep your aerosol can handy and direct a spray in the direction of the flea fart) or media reform, or to build on Gonski, or .... is going to be met by sneers and jeers of "Not more Rudd/Gillard snake oil!". Because mark my words an Abbott win is going to be followed by a Liberal/Murdoch narrative about the last 5 years as some sort of "aberration", a failed experiment - the sub text of course being that "the people" got it wrong in 2007 and corrected their "error" in 2013 when things got back to normal.

It doesn't have to be that way and already there are voices out there in the Labor movement,
(muted right now because who's listening?) which are giving a different perspective and critique of the current situation. As Mark Latham says in the latest Quarterly Essay, the Labor Party is not dead yet and thoughtful Liberals (they actually do exist although you won't find them here on NTB. Garfield, for example is a lot of things - a flatulent flea for one thing - but he's no thoughtful Liberal!) warn of the downside for the country of an electoral tsunami that delivers a bloated majority to one side and almost wipes out the other side, thus rendering the country de facto a one party state for a few years.

Basically, Geopol, these are nuanced issues. I'm not covering for the Gillard Government but it's impossible to have an informed non-polarised debate/discussion about Australian politics on this forum. So if you do put a detailed position you get verballed. It's a waste of time.

Rudd's history and Rudd-luvvies (I'm not saying you're one) should get over it. He won't be there to pick up the pieces after the September Holocaust. Forget it. Look at Peter Costello and his attitude towards taking the Liberal leadership both before and after the 2007 elections. There's the template that Rudd is using. Rudd has no ticker and he'll be the last person to lead Labor through the hard times. He's "Chicken Kev"! Gillard is leading Labor over a cliff and that's a fact. September will bury her. The media in this country is in dire need of restructuring - but I think that's happening anyway. The media reforms proposed by Gillard/Conroy were modest and the reaction was over-the-top and hysterical. But I'm not going to run away from the fact that the politics of it on the part of the Gillard Government were completely screwed. In fact they were as bad as the way Rudd's fight with the miners in 2010 was suicidal in the way it was conducted, and had the effect of killing what should have been bloody good policy. You know what I think, Geopol? It's not that Rudd offers such a great contrast to Gillard. In fact policy-wise there hasn't been much difference between them. The truth is that both in policy and politics, the one has been a continuation of the other.

When I heard both Crean and Ferguson talk about getting back to Hawke/Keating I silently cheered. It's what I've posted again and again on this forum: after the 1996 wipeout of Keating by Howard, Beasley Labor ran from the Hawke/Keating legacy as far and as fast as they could with the result that the Libs picked up the economic narrative that Keating would have bequeathed to post-Keating Labor, ran with it, claimed ownership of it - and Beasley Labor let them do it. Labor has never regained ownership of the economic narrative ever since then. Not even during the time of the Rudd or Gillard Governments.

Gillard likes to talk about "moving forward" - in that horrible way of hers where she demonstrates a hopeless lack of understanding of basic English phonology and abolishes the "schwa" (the unstressed syllable) giving all 4 syllables of "moving forward" equal value and equal stress. The Libs have a lot of fun with this.

But there will be zero "moving forward" for Labor unless and until it reclaims the legacy of Hawke/Keating and builds on it. Ponder what that means.

[Deleted]

Certainly the divisions began with Gillard back stabbing Rudd, as I recall I was the only one here warnining that this was not a good move for Labor while there was much cheering for Gillard.

Even then media was kind to Gillard at the time and continue to be rather lenient apart form the shock jocks who would condemn Labor no matter who is the leader....indeed she desrves more of a bolllicking that she is gettting.

There must be good reasons why Albanese and Ferguson et al suppported Rudd...people from the Keating era not liking where Gillard was taking the Labor party away from that ideolouge Labor held with reforms and modernising the economy, while maintaining social democracy, where as Gilllard is going back to unions that for the most are corrupt....one does have to ask why...

An espose....<picture a ' over the e......couldn't be fucked fucking around getting it right, the meaning is quite clear.....will exspose the reasons why Gillard went down this path breaking away form Hawke and Keating
traditions and returning to the days of Unionised unwinable direction.