Problems in getting to the story and getting it out

The trend in government is to remove from the public service all rights of information provision to the media, even at the highly technical or specialist level. The only officer licensed to comment then becomes a ministerial media advisor who covers the whole field from relaying (or making up) the political commentary of the minister to passing over (and often getting tangled up in) the nuts and bolts information held by field officers, prosecutors and researchers. With the best will in the world a ministerial media advisor or even an advisor or two could often not deal adequately or appropriately with every query.

That's being charitable - the role is more usually interpreted as being much, much more about covering the ministers' proverbial against all possibility of embarrassment than as providers of information, which is presumed to be public information unless there is some very compelling reason for it not to be. Among a sizeable, and growing, grab bag of techniques for not answering questions are:

1. Simply not responding to calls or not being available.

The expectation, borne out often enough to make the tactic worthwhile, is that the absence of a response will kill the story. Variations on this theme include promising responses which never eventuate. This can approach being a whole of government response directed at a particular troublesome issue, journalist, or publication. But journalists do not have to let them get away with silence - if it is impenetrable, it should be met with exposure and ridicule.

2. Passing the platitudes.

The answer is meaningless twaddle or relates to some other question not asked. In general terms, one expects an answer to have a level of detail commensurate with the question. Often generalities do fit the bill, providing the overall flavour or colourful quotes to illuminate the issue. However a political discourse conducted entirely at this level is a meagre meal. The real story is almost invariably only revealed with some specifics, some analysis and some questioning on that basis. The ease with which many journalists can be passed off with a few platitudes is of enormous comfort to the trade of authority. Queensland Transport Minister Steve Bredhauer issued a release in which he claimed the State was the "provider of one of the best public transport systems in the world". For any journalist familiar with virtually any other city including Bogota, Columbia, this should have provoked uncontrolled hilarity and led to merciless lampooning. It passed largely without comment.

3. Playing favourites.

Announcements or stories of general interest and applicability are given as presents to journalists who are perceived likely to treat the material in a sympathetic manner. The initial treatment often sets the tone of subsequent coverage.

An argument can perhaps be mounted that to glorify mere prior announcements of government policy with labels like exclusive or reference to highly placed leaks is fairly disingenuous on the part of media outlets. Their journalists and their own hunger to be first, are merely being harvested by governments seeking to set up the story with the most coverage on the best spin. Fitzgerald and EARC certainly had the view that if it was an announcement or a release it should be made available to all.

The term leak should be reserved for the juicy stuff they do NOT want out.

4. Running up to deadline.

There was a considerable contrast between the way in which Australia's first and second State of the Environment reports were released. The first, prepared under a commendably independent process, was released to journalists under a three day embargo to allow them time to digest the weighty tome, before it was released at a lunchtime event with copious talent available.

The second, full of bad news, had no prior release - journalists were presented late in the afternoon of a busy parliamentary day with an abbreviated summary report and the balance of the 1270 pages in relatively inaccessible CD-ROM. Most hacks not surprisingly relied heavily on the positive spin release from the Minister's office, and the story quickly died from then on.

5. That's not a story.

This is a fairly familiar attempted kill-off line that the flacks serve up to the hacks all the time. It is also surely something for the journalist or media organisation to decide. However, the line often works with over-busy or insufficiently savvy reporters. There have been cases where media personnel and organisations have checked to see whether the government thinks a particular issue is a story - and then taken the advice given. This is just asking for management.

6. Burying the news and other diversions.

There are often attempts to bury or deflect anticipated embarrassments with a diversionary announcement. In one case, which shows almost breathtaking audacity, the Queensland government long and strenuously opposed the declaration of additional protected areas within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. When forced to the wire by the Commonwealth, a quick release emerged from Premiers to claim the credit for protecting the reef, while the Commonwealth fumed in the background.