Friday, September 09, 2005
Elections and the media pt1
I've heard a lot of people commenting that there's much greater coverage of the upcoming elections than in previous years. I'm not sure if this is the case, but it certainly seems to be most people's opinion.
I'm still unsure as to the quality of the coverage though. In order to make the news a story must have a strong combination of most or all of the following values:
Immediacy
Sensationalism
Size and Time
Lack of ambiguity
Binary difference (goodies and baddies)
References to elite people/places/organisations
Individual
Negative
The big story at the moment is the apparent collusion between National leader Don Brash and the Exclusive Brethren that released those nasty anti-Green pamphlets. I'd like to consider it in terms of these values.
a) Group decides to print pamphlet attacking party policy.
b) Gains secret authorisation from political party with similar interests.
c) Party denies then admits its collusion.
But doesn't this seem too simple? The narrative seems reasonable, but what about the details? And has anyone bothered to seperate the religious sentiment of the Exclusive Brethren from the political policies of National? I don't want another USA here, where religious fundamentalism is intrinsintly linked with a right-wing party. That's nasty. Which brings me to the next point.
Labour may go to court over leaflets
The secret seven behind anti-Government offensive
Brash loses gentlemanly touch
Brash mounts desperate campaign to restore credibility
Editorial: Clumsiness not exclusive to Brethren
John Armstrong: Brethren blunder a spin doctor's worst nightmare
Jim Hopkins: A word to the Intrusive Brethren - Put up or shut up
Brash knew about Exclusive Brethren pamphlets
So, at the end of the day, it's important to remember that news stories are just stories. Like a Hollywood blockbuster they follow prescribed rules of conduct and are presented in ways that, simply because of the way the system works, seldom show a balanced view.
Although personal integrity is important I think voters would be better off and better informed if they switched off the TV every second night and spent half an hour looking over party policy.
I'm still unsure as to the quality of the coverage though. In order to make the news a story must have a strong combination of most or all of the following values:
The big story at the moment is the apparent collusion between National leader Don Brash and the Exclusive Brethren that released those nasty anti-Green pamphlets. I'd like to consider it in terms of these values.
Immediacy
It's happening now and just before the election. Enough said.Sensationalism
It seems to smack of Dan Brown, doesn't it? A secretive and relatively luddite religious organisation in collusion with major political influence. Flagrant (and misleading) attacks on another party. The eternal debate of church and state.Size and time
This issue is about the amount of people involved and the amount of time it takes to cover it (because both time and people are money). There weren't many people involved, but those that were, were elite. As far as time goes, it doesn't take long to attend a few press conferences and track down some businessmen.Lack of ambiguity
It's very easy to explain to the voting public what has happened. From what I've seen there can be little arguing:a) Group decides to print pamphlet attacking party policy.
b) Gains secret authorisation from political party with similar interests.
c) Party denies then admits its collusion.
But doesn't this seem too simple? The narrative seems reasonable, but what about the details? And has anyone bothered to seperate the religious sentiment of the Exclusive Brethren from the political policies of National? I don't want another USA here, where religious fundamentalism is intrinsintly linked with a right-wing party. That's nasty. Which brings me to the next point.
Binary difference (goodies and baddies)
If there's one thing the media have done regarding this issue it's to highlight the lack of honesty shown by Brash. Considering that labour have built their campaign on the issue of trust, this binary will certainly work for them. Unless anyone cares to remember all the anti-democratic decisions/decision making processes paraded around by Labour in the past two terms.References to elite people/places/organisations
What do I have to say here?Individual
The major individual is Don Brash, and you'll notice that it is Don Brash rather than the National Party that is represented by the media. It's much easier to generate emotions when using a person than when using group. I was interested to note the front page of the Herald, perhaps the day following, which showed individual shots of the Exclusive Brethren businessmen involved. This was an attempt to personalise this largely unknown religious organisation and especially those members responsible for bankrolling the project.Negative
The story itself was something negative, but the headlines and stories that have spawned since it broke really tell the tale. I've pulled this list from today's Herald website:So, at the end of the day, it's important to remember that news stories are just stories. Like a Hollywood blockbuster they follow prescribed rules of conduct and are presented in ways that, simply because of the way the system works, seldom show a balanced view.
Although personal integrity is important I think voters would be better off and better informed if they switched off the TV every second night and spent half an hour looking over party policy.
Filed in: politics
Craig (mars-hill) Friday, September 09, 2005
