“We do not have time for this kind of silliness, we’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve, and I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them, not on this...[sideshows and carnival barkers].” Barack Obama
It's a kooky coincidence that the same week as the most powerful man in the world spat the dummy about media trivialisation of politics, the former Australian Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner, launched his book about media trivialisation of politics, called "Sideshow". Now you can assume this was not co-ordinated. They may agree, but they don't really operate in the same circles.
And I agree also. Although he doesn't seem to have refererred to it in what I've heard, the "silliness" around Obama's birth certificate couldn't have been more timely for Mr Tanner in supporting his point that policy has been subjugated in favour of theatrics.
The infuriating thing about the situation we have reached that both men point out is that, particularly in Donald Trump's case, the media is not doing it's job in putting the microscope on policy proposal and are instead eating up Trump's "sideshow" with a spoon. I mean, let's face it, Trump is mad! He wants to tax Chinese imports by 25%! Has he any idea how dangerous that is? And yet the media lapped up his hair-brained conspiracy theory instead of taking him down on the issues. Meanwhile Obama is quizzed ad nauseum on his already well-researched origins instead of engaged directly on policy debate. It's a farce.
Tanner's book makes many useful points it seems from the couple of interviews I've seen him do this week. His point was usefully underlined by a sad return of the hair scrutiny Gillard is being subjected to, recently beaten up for her hair while she toured the sites of the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear-meltdown. How much more trivial can you get?
While lamenting the media for their shallow nature is nothing new, it seems there's always been a fairly strict convention in the States that no one mention it. It seems quite unprecedented that the President himself should take them to task on it, complaining as he does that he could never get media "cut-through"on policy but when he makes a statement about the birth certificate issue, they are on him like a shot:
Of course naturally, it's not really the media that is to blame, directly. Just as parties complain that the media don't talk about the policies and help people understand the issues at stake, so companies complain that the media has no interest in products but only in sensationalising and gossip. The media respond that people, the people, aren't really interested in that stuff. Frankly, they are right. Sadly we can all complain as much as we like, but until we start demonstrating that we want more depth in our media reporting of political issues, they are only going to keep serving up what we ask for.
A further caveat I think though is this, how is Lindsay Tanner hoping to promote his book? How is President Obama hoping to get re-elected? Media campaigns. It's catch-22. Furthermore, it is worth noting that in every Tanner interview I saw, when asked about his time as a Government Minister, he declined to comment quite steadfastly. While the issues his book raises are very interesting, I wanted him to talk about his role in the overthrow of the last Prime Minister and in the scraping of the emissions-trading scheme - which right now are two of the biggest issues we face. So he was taking from the media, but not giving back.
So it seems important to remember that if media is truly a mirror to society, 'perhaps then if you're looking into it you can't really complain about what it reflects back to you.