Media should jump off Rudd bandwagon


Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun Columnist

March, 2008

ISN'T it time the media got off Kevin Rudd's bandwagon?

Agreed: the polls show the Prime Minister is wildly popular. Agreed: the Opposition has fallen in a heap.

But let's agree on this, too: the media is cheering Rudd when it should be reporting. Three recent examples show just how cuddly they've got.

First example is the media frenzy to join Rudd's ludicrous "ideas summit".

Rudd promised last month to assemble 1000 of our "best and brightest" over a weekend to help draw up a plan for our future. These would not be handpicked yes-men, he swore, but people selected "on merit" by an independent panel "at arm's length" from the Government.

That promise was no sooner made than broken, when Rudd personally invited ABC hosts Kerry O'Brien and Jon Faine -- on air -- to speak at his summit. At least both declined, properly noting there was a conflict between reporting and participating.

But Rudd did not give up, and Age editor Andrew Jaspan has agreed to join in, as has my boss, News Ltd chairman John Hartigan, who at least has the good defence of being an executive, not a working journalist.

Jaspan, on the other hand, is the hands-on editor whose front page hailed Rudd's publicity stunt of getting 1000 glamorous people to babble over two days as: "Rudd's bold attempt to create vision for Australia."

Nor is that the end of it. As Media Watch has now revealed, 20 media outfits have accepted invitations from Rudd's office to send a reader, listener or viewer to join his summit. They include all the big ones: the ABC, Fairfax, Channel 9 and News Ltd.

The Herald Sun first suggested one reader go to the summit to inject "real world" politics. But Rudd hijacked the idea and now even other summit critics are spruiking it as a lucky prize for their audiences -- a chance to air ideas rather than as a cynical stunt to co-opt opponents and present Rudd as the Great Listener.

This is the media being dragged on to Rudd's bandwagon.

Example two is the media's abuse of the Opposition after the Liberals' Alexander Downer skipped a Question Time and the Nationals' Mark Vaile flew to Dubai on private business.

The media was outraged. The Opposition MPs were "sulky-suits", "self-indulgent" and "bludgers".

They should get back to work, jeered Rudd's Agriculture Minister, Tony Burke. We need rules about MPs earning cash on the side, lectured Rudd. Hear, hear, the pack gloated.

Excuse me. You want to see an MP earning money on the side? Look no further than Rudd, who earned almost $130,000 during his first three years in Parliament, helping businesses wanting to set up in China.

An MP skipping Parliament to please rich patrons? Look again no further than Rudd, who went on a trip financed by the Beijing AustChina Technology company in 2006, missing not one but several Question Times.

Where the jeers of "bludgers" then? The media holds the Liberals to harsh standards it never imposed on Labor.

Example three is the spin the ABC put on the speech former prime minister John Howard gave in New York last week.

Howard did not mention Rudd by name and in almost an hour made just two cool criticisms of the kind he's made before -- that it would be "a mistake" to reregulate our workplaces, and that pulling our troops from Iraq could lead to disaster. Howard being Howard, there was no abuse.

But here's how the ABC's Lateline sold Howard's speech to its viewers: "John Howard has launched a bitter attack on Kevin Rudd's policies . . ."

"Scathing," the reporter added.

And here's how the ABC's PM reported it: "Former prime minister John Howard breaks his post-election silence with a strident attack on the Rudd Government's plans . . ."

"Bitter"? "Scathing"? "Strident"?

In contrast, see how those same two programs presented the truly bitter attack former Labor prime minister Paul Keating made on Howard's government last year, when he accused Howard of telling a "great lie", treasurer Peter Costello of being "the greatest L-plater of all time", workplace minister Joe Hockey of being "Shrek", and the Liberals of "stupidity" and spreading "poison".

None of this was dismissed by the ABC as bitter, strident or scathing.

Lateline instead introduced the spray -- which also took in old Labor enemies -- like this: "The former prime minister, Paul Keating, speaks with Tony Jones about the political climate in the lead-up to the federal election."

Jones ended that interview by calling Keating's rant "fascinating", and PM the next day hailed it as a "wide-ranging critique", "withering" and a "tough assessment".

Gentlemanly Howard is "bitter". But bitter Keating is merely "tough".

Do you sense the ABC is now programmed to write off Howard as a sour loser, no matter what? And you sense again those double standards?

The evidence grows not just that much of the media has lost its heart to Rudd and to Labor. That much is not new. The evidence is more damning: that with Rudd many journalists have given up even pretending to maintain a professional detachment.

Join Bolt's blog at www.blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt

bolta@heraldsun.com.au