Mandate to change Canberra Press Gallery

Dennis Shanahan of The Australian, trawls through the latest Newspoll and finds something (anything will do) in support of the Coalition.

His headline is, Costello leaves Swan in his wake, and the lead is, "Kevin Rudd's nominated treasurer in a Labor government, Wayne Swan, is trailing Peter Costello as an economic manager by more than two-to-one".

Shanahan writes, "According to a Newspoll survey taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, voters favour Mr Costello as Federal Treasurer over Mr Swan by 53 per cent to 21 per cent. Almost one-third of Labor supporters - 32 per cent - believe Mr Costello would make a better treasurer, compared with 40 per cent who support Mr Swan.”

Next, Shanahan uncritically quotes internal Liberal Party polling from Victoria. Unsurprisingly, this polling shows Costello ahead of Swan. This time the margin is 56 per cent to 28 per cent.

Intriguingly this is followed by, "The Howard Government has also kept a clear 18 percentage point margin over the ALP on the issue of economic management". Surely this is a factor in the margin between Swan and Costello unless we ascribe the ALP’s entire 18 percentage point deficit to Swan himself. Apparently this has not occurred to Shanahan.
Another thing that has not occurred to Shanahan is context. Swan is an Opposition Shadow Minister going into an election. Voter opinion of Opposition Shadow Ministers going into the 1996 election is illustrative.  The following figures are from Newspoll.

Just before the 1996 election, 34 per cent of voters favoured Peter Costello as federal treasurer. Fifty per cent of Coalition supporters either believed Ralph Willis made a better treasurer (16 per cent) or were uncommitted to Mr Costello (34 per cent).

Just before the 1996 election, 25 per cent of voters favoured Alexander Downer as foreign minister. Fifty-six per cent of Coalition supporters either believed Gareth Evans made a better foreign minister (37 per cent) or were uncommitted to Mr Downer (19 per cent).

My review of the work of five senior journalists has found the following.

Instead of asking hard questions, members of the Gallery hide their personal and proprietorial agendas behind unsubstantiated allegations, unnamed sources and phony "objectivity". They use loaded language to discredit parties and persons and fail to place their own and others' assertions in context with known facts. They rarely discuss policy, cover politics as a game and, worst of all, insert themselves as political players.

The Gallery, like the government, has an obligation to serve the public. The election of a new government would be a signal from the public that they want a change in the politics of this country. If this is the public's decision, the Gallery has an obligation to play its part.