Ben Spinoza has a spray at the media and commentators for not applying equal scrutiny to protest groups and developers, who sit on opposite sides of the fence … or the pulp mill, as the case may be.
THE media and professional commentators apply different standards to when it comes to the treatment of some issues.
I’m undecided whether this is a deliberate bias, or just a reflection of their social background — a sort of inherent bias if you like. Older texts on journalism note that the vast majority of journalists in Australia in the 60s, 70s and 80s were white, male, of Anglo-Saxon origin and middle-class. Given the number of women journalists currently in the profession I think that the gender equation has probably changed significantly but I would hazard a guess that the majority of journalists are still white, Anglo-Saxon, middle-class and, I would add, left-leaning conservationists. Obviously we can take Piers Ackerman out of the left-leaning category — he’s just stupid leaning — but you get my drift.
Anyway, back to the core issue — the treatment of issues. I’ll give you a couple of cases in point. When Gunns pulled out of the RPDC assessment process there was a lot of justified criticism and commentary about the lack of process. Almost to a person, the media, political commentators, Greens and independent MPs condemned the action by the state government in allowing the process to be ended and for setting up an alternative parliamentary approval process.
The central premise is that Gunns had pulled out because it knew the RPDC would not approve the pulp mill. All the critics agreed that the RPDC was the most appropriate body to assess projects of this nature. Later a rally was held at Hobart City Hall on the subject of political process which drew similarities between the pulp mill process and the Ralphs Bay process — the key point being that Walker Corp and the government should stick to the RPDC process. Concerns/fears were expressed that the same thing would happen to the Ralphs Bay process as happened to the pulp mill. Everyone expressed great confidence in the RPDC as the appropriate body to assess development projects.
That is all fine and consistent isn’t it?
However, the history of this is that in the past the Save Ralphs Bay group has said it will not accept the outcome of the RPDC process. At the rally they said they supported the RPDC process. Last week, Walker Corp, announced they had confidence in the RPDC and were committed to the process. You’d think that, given recent events, this would have been important news but it barely got a mention in the media (I didn’t see it in The Mercury at all). Instead, the Save Ralphs Bay group got a number of runs in the media repeating their concerns that Walker Corp/government would walk away from the RPDC process.
Various government members and spokesmen have said they will not intervene in the process. The Greens say they will not intervene in the process and believe the RPDC is the appropriate body. However, the Save Ralphs Bay group and Birds Tasmania, on my reading, seems to be having a bet each way. They say the guidelines look comprehensive but have left open the option of rejecting the decision if the RPDC gives the development the OK. In fact, they will campaign for federal political intervention.
The thing is, if this had been a developer leaving open the option of accepting or rejecting the RPDC then it would be front-page news. Commentators would be screaming about the lack of process and the destruction of democracy. So why the double standard? Do we have confidence in the RPDC or not? If groups opposed to developments are not prepared to accept the decision of an independent assessor, then why should developers?
In fact, why have the RPDC at all if everyone is just going to seek political intervention if they get a decision they don’t like. Perhaps Premier Lennon is right — if it’s always going to be political, because of the concerns of developers if they don’t get approval or because of the concerns of opponents if it does, then we might just as well let parliaments’ decide. They’ll have to take the political heat anyway, so they might as well do it up front.
A second case in point were the stories in Thursday’s media talking about the big crowd expected for the rally against the pulp mill? Is this a free advert or what? Is it really news that they say they hope to get a big crowd? Shouldn’t we wait to see if they in fact do get a big crowd? What is the standard that applies here? Can anyone get full media coverage to spruik a rally or public meeting?
The application of the double standard is actually quite entrenched. When a government (any government of any hue) says anything, it is met with a large degree of (healthy) scepticism and they are questioned and made to justify the statement/policy/cost/reasons etc. This same standard is rarely applied to opposition parties, community and protest movement interest groups.
Don’t get me wrong. I think the media has a very important role to play in scrutinising the actions of government and informing the public — it’s just that more care needs to be taken to ensure the actions, motives and statements by all players are judged by the same standard.
Yours
Spinozaorama (white, anglo-saxon, male, middle-class and left-leaning for the record).
