Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Dumb and dumber: voters' mind games with the media

In that dead space
Behind your pretty sky blue eyes
Wishful thinking
There's nothing there


Can't Find Love, by My Friend the Chocolate Cake


The media has an impulse to analyse everything. Not so much by commentary, but rather in the assumption that it can channel public opinion, and in this election, coax those special ones - swinging voters in marginal electorates - to speak their minds. In a slick sequence of sound bites, they believe they can expose the secret pact between voter and ballot box.

In the ideal set up, interviewers hope to cast their lines like fly fishers. What flashy concoction around a hook will entice their subjects? What is the tasty issue of the day to engage a whole stream of voters in a campaign that would otherwise be as soporific as a riverbank on a hot afternoon?

What are the dreams of Australians as they close their eyes each night, subliminal messages swimming in their minds as they drift away? If there are moral doubts about the Howard era, pangs of conscience, these remain well hidden. So far, we find personal opinion expressed only at the most shallow level. It mimics the media's own chatter.

What can be more condescending than the demand that someone reveal his or her judgment in thirty seconds or less? To appear before TV viewers as 'typical' (and therefore average and not too exceptional!). What greater insult than to imply that reporters can reduce the public psyche to a set of questions and answers in which the assumption is already made that the TV presenter is the clever one!

The media makes the fatal error of assuming that moral issues such as the Iraq war can be breezed over as easily as 'kitchen table' concerns. Make no mistake, the public do not merely suffer these demands - they have strategies. It is the strategy of the 'silent majority'. Here, the public play along, give the answers they feel the questioner wants to hear and keep their inner most thoughts well hidden. (See also Opinion polls - the poll(ution) of ideas and debate.)

Jean Baudrillard argued that methods to represent public opinion are more like the reverse of true representation. They lead only to imposed decisions taken in the name of the people. We are well used to this misappropriation of public opinion and political will. After all, it is only a short time since the invasion of Iraq took place led by a coalition of power against the spectacularly expressed will of all the peoples.

Opinion polls 'speak' for us and the media shouts at us and for us. And yet here is the paradox of the 'silent majority'. As Baudrillard said:

It isn't a silence which does not speak, it is a silence which refuses to be spoken for in its name. And in this sense, far from being a form of alienation, it is an absolute weapon.

This silence can be a form of “defiant dissent” because the media does not fool the people. We hide our true feelings; and keep silent a part of ourselves that we save for the social, for the private.

This resistance can be the saving of us all during elections. After Howard's policy launch, Ken Lovell over at The Road to Surfdom best expressed the mood of exasperation:

So I'm just fed up with them all. There's an election on Saturday week and we'll see who wins. In the mean time I don't intend to read anything more about it or watch one more mendacious grinning politician promise toys for Christmas that have no hope whatsoever of being delivered.

Is it any wonder that people ambushed by opinion polls or corralled into current affairs pieces also want to run and hide? Their answers may seem dumb. But dumber still is the media posse who believe they can ride out and round up opinions in the name of the people.

Examples can be found if we look at what is laughingly called the 'serious' end of the election coverage. The ABC and SBS assembled groups of 'swinging voters' from marginal electorates. It was all in the vain hope of capturing the mood of the nation.

After viewing ABC Four Corners and SBS Insight, I had that empty room sensation. You know the one - you walk up a dark street to a well-lit house, open the front door and find there is no one at home. On second thought, the blank, white walls of these voters' minds cannot be for real, surely. Rather, as we argue above, there are strategies by which the 'silent majority' remain silent about their true intentions. In effect, they are playing mind games with the media.

The Four Corners program, The Undecided, did little more than grab a handful of swinging voters from the electorate of Lindsay and probe them about their recall of sporadic bursts of election ads or TV news items. Here was yet another example of a tired ABC failing to think outside the square. Reporter Jonathan Holmes did not attempt to let his subjects interact with the local community.

One saving grace of Election 07 has been the community forum. In Eden-Monaro, GetUp put YouTube to good use so that people could send in questions via the Internet and let the candidates answer before a live audience. Instead of chasing up any such local gatherings, Four Corners kept its subjects sitting awkwardly around the kitchen table. A far better approach would have been to record any opportunity to engage in grass roots politics. Instead, the assumption was that election ads and fragments of daily news were informing them. The result was to show the media watching voters watching the media. Unsurprisingly, the only conclusion was no conclusion.

On SBS, Jenny Brockie's Insight show,  (Part 1The Deciders), repeated some of the faults of the ABC program. Here in the studio was a group chosen from the middle ground of aspirational voters. Not a homeless person or poor student in sight. Again, genuine insight was elusive. Brockie found a reluctance in her subjects to step outside of being “undecided”. As in the Four Corners group, the SBS studio audience was content to scratch the surface of political culture. In one instance, a woman questioned by Brockie said she felt 95% sure she would vote for the Coalition. Brockie followed up by asking what might possibly sway the remaining 5% of her final decision; and the woman replied with “a few little policies”. (Brockie of course was staggered that policies would comprise only 5% of the decision!)

If we refer back to our idea of 'defiant dissent', we can argue that many such answers reflect the trite nature of coverage. The Insight woman's response, seen in the full context of the campaign, was no less dumb than a tabloid headline or dull tone of an attack ad.

The evil of banality is what infects the six weeks of this campaign.

Again, on Insight, a further bizarre exchange occurred when one of the guests said he was not sure whom he voted for last time. As he explained:

I vote and then I let them get on with their job. So I'm happy to have my say and then forget about it until the next election comes around.

He gives no thought to politics between times. Well, why should he do otherwise? We become bored and indifferent to the constant demands to register an opinion. This is why we find satire to be a most effective weapon - it holds up a mirror to absurdity. The delight of The Chaser is to move away from indifference only to declare that the mock event is the only real one.

It may seem that cynics and comics are the only ones with a clear view. Yet if there is to be hope, the only way to begin to engage the public is by deliberative democracy.

It is too easy to make patronizing remarks about the fickle and shallow nature of voters. (Janet Albrechtsen liked to compare the appeal of Kevin Rudd to the desire of the masses for a change of car colour.) What is really going on is a war to outwit the opinion managers. For to make someone talk has become a major requirement.

The over quizzed and polled public are playing mind games - going along with the charade. By declining to show its hand, the public will not affirm democracy as spectacle.

left
right
[ category: ]
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Stephen and Baudrillard

I agree with Evan Hadkins. Your assertion that people withhold their opinions because they feel pressured by the interviewer to serve up certain views seems extremely far-fetched. What possible motive is there for these voters to withhold their real opinion? So they can play sophisticated mind games with the media and in so doing cleverly sabotage the paradigms of assumption and socio-political persuasion inherent in the media?

Come on Stephen, it's a nice theory to think about, but what a load of twaddle. Post-modern literary theory really has sent you into a spin. I find it amusing to watch you enlightened ones who have read a little Lacan, Baudrillard or Foucaux believing so whole-heartedly that everything the media does is superficial and unaware of itself. How about actually considering the task, as a journalist, of sketching out the views of a nation in a one hour television program. How would you go about doing it, and doing it so people won't switch off; in a way that people can understand and relate to? Luckily for you, I read your longwinded essay here on the internet, but on television you cannot be so longwinded or people switch off. It is the task of the good journalist to simplify issues, as objectively as is humanly possible, so they are understandable to people who are far less engaged in politics than you are.

I think you would find, if it was your job, your lofty suggestions of 'better ways' to represent the public would not solve the inherent problem of the medium, which is that you actually physically cannot represent everybody's views in the time frame given and must reduce things to sound-bites. You have to use 'case studies' in much the same way as polls cannot survey an entire population's views. The journalist must choose what they think best represents a cross-section of views, knowing full well they cannot possibly explore every nuance of the political landscape. Television is inherently a superficial medium. If you want nuanced and complex coverage free of soundbites and simplification turn to essay length print articles or political academic journals. What you are doing is expecting something from the medium that it inherently cannot give. I urge you, Stephen, to put yourself in a television current affairs journalist's shoes before you spout the very interesting, but essentially impractical and unhelpful, theories of the continental philosophers of 25 years ago.

Fiona: Welcome to Webdiary, Peter Jones.

We're at the mercy of idiots.

Cloud says:

"Bush voters rated Kerry's statements as a 4, and Kerry voters rated Bush's statements as a 4. But both sets of voters rated their own candidate's statements at only 2."

A US study of people's rapid judgments of competence based solely on the facial appearance of candidates predicted the outcomes of gubernatorial elections, the most important elections in the United States next to the presidential elections.

Asking participants to deliberate, instead, and make a good judgment dramatically reduced the predictive accuracy of judgments.

Years ago, as a student, I helped conduct a study which showed that lower performace results in IQ tests was an indicator of swinging voter intention.

We're at the mercy of idiots.

Talk about dumb

Richard says: 

"I guess, Eliot, that once a government has pulled an election stunt like Tampa, some folks would consider anything possible."

Just for a moment imagine if Kevin Andrews said he thought the refugees were here under "suspicious" circumstances.

Richard: One word, Eliot.  Haneef.  If Andrews' credibility were not lost, who knows what he'd be trying now.

 

Refugees probably faking it, says refugee advocate...

A refugee advocate, Pamela Curr of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, says she is suspicious about the circumstances and timing of the rescue of 16 people from a sinking wooden boat off the West Australian coast.

She reckons it's an election stunt by the Liberal Party.

"I have no proof but I think on these matters we have to have a healthy scepticism and suspicion of government intentions," Ms Curr said today.

"The government has used the refugee and asylum-seeker issue since the 2001 election as a tool in their favour.

"As they face oblivion, why would they not reach for it again? It worked before.

"It could well be part of the fear campaign. If this swings three or four western Sydney seats their way, well (it may work).

"I'm just saying I have an open mind and a healthy scepticism."

Finally.

The left has an equivalent to Pauline Hanson.

Richard:  I guess, Eliot, that once a government has pulled an election stunt like Tampa, some folks would consider anything possible. 

Good news for mendacious pollies

There was a nicely timed segment on All in The Mind (Radio National) last Saturday: "The Political Brain".

A study in the USA showed experimental subjects (voters) two video clips each of Bush and Kerry. Each candidate's pair of clips were of conflicting statements. The subjects were asked to rate (on a 4 point scale) whether the candidates' statements were contradictory.

Bush voters rated Kerry's statements as a 4, and Kerry voters rated Bush's statements as a 4.

But both sets of voters rated their own candidate's statements at only 2.

The subjects had their brain activity monitored during the testing. What the researchers found was that when the subjects were watching 'their' candidate the area of the brain that deals with negative emotions was active as they tried to come to terms with the conflicting statements.

But then another area, responsible for positive feelings and rewards, kicked in, in an attempt to deal with the dissonance.

The effect was that the subjects got a boost ... "a burst of positive feeling for essentially having defended against information that [they] didn't want to believe".

So ... a voter is likely to feel more positive about 'their' candidate when they've lied or performed poorly in a debate or interview!

Who's enjoying some warm fuzzies right now?

Don’s Party revisited

In Crikey on Monday, David Williamson said:

“Any journalist who can turn a man his own party dubbed a “lying rodent” into the Saint who saved Australia, has, like their idol, a superb grasp of slippery rhetoric which has hopefully earned them enough money to retire. These same scribes have falsely divided Australia into “Howard hating elites”, and “ordinary Australians,” without ever asking the question as to why many with the remnants of a conscience, including “ordinary Australians”, find it hard to stomach him.”

Good point about how the media works to misrepresent the public in this way. The divide then serves to create groups seen to be either ‘against us’ or ‘with us’.

Williamson wrote his play, “Don’s Party”, about a new Labor leader (Gough) who looked great in the campaign only to fall short by a few seats. However, for Williamson, the new drama is as good as written as (It’s time to end) John’s Party. Once again, the ending may get ugly.

The moronic mormon brothers

I watched the Mormon brothers last night in their last ditch attempt to deceive the public once again. It was pathetic to hear them babble on about how close they were, yet the truth was so blatantly obvious, they hate each other.

It's a pity for this country and the world we don't have an unbiased media, or even some part of the media which can give an open interview which is not controlled by only asking mundane stupid questions.

This election campaign is the most deceitful I have ever seen and one which will go down in history as the final nail in the coffin of this society. We should make all elections campaigns only two weeks and make it illegal to advertise or campaign outside your electorate. The next step should be to ban anyone who hasn't resided in their electorate for the previous three years and must remain there for the duration of their time in office. These elections are costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars with no return from them other than to fill the coffers of the political parties.

Yep, we sure have a system and media which represents the mentality of the populace, otherwise the people would ignore the moronic deception by these fools and stop buying papers and tune out.

Deliberative Democracy? What a Parody!

It would be nice to think that next Saturday the outcome would be the result of a deliberative democracy. But it won't! Far from it.

To have such a blissful state requires voters to be educated, mature, intelligent, interested in politics, rational, and altruistic. How many people do you know like that?

It requires a media that presents the truth about the political process, that is objective, factual, that does not have a profit motive or is not tied in with Big Business. Know a media organization like that?

It also requires politicians to be honest, to tell the truth, to admit to their failures and shortcomings, their hidden agendas. Know of any?

What will happen on Saturday is but a gigantic parody of what democracy should be.

Deliberative? I think not.

Run And Hide

I'm switching off for the next few days. Howard's desperation is becoming uglier by the minute.

The suspense is also killing me. No wonder school girls are fainting. Another reason to boot this buffoon and his crew out is this tiresome six week (official) election campaign that is driving everyone nuts.

I'm sure we will find John and Janette's finger nails embedded at the front door of Kirribilli House.

Not Baudrillard again

Hi Stephen, I'm not sure what your case is, quoting Baudrillard tends to have the effect of making my eyes glaze, so that may be part of the problem.

People seem to give their opinion to pollsters and not withhold - as the polls are usually correct within the statistical margin for error.  I see no sign of silence being used as a weapon on any large scale.

If you mean that the media in general and current affairs in particular trivialise politics (and much else) to the level of the sound bite, I most heartily agree. 

If you mean that 'consultation' is a means of control I do surely agree.  As is ignoring - like the protests against invading Iraq.

I very much agree that we need re-engagement with the political process - and I would whole heartedly support deliberative democracy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 hour ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 19 hours ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 4 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 19 hours ago