The Californication of Australian politics

Of course in the absence of a personal agenda, or corporate resources, the contemporary political journalist relies on the government to provide them with ideas for their stories. This process of story generation further cements the advantage that a government has. After all, what critical analysis can one expect from the animal that is being fed by the very hand that they are meant to be questioning?

In Australia today, we have political journalists who want to be the story. This has meant more time is spent reporting on tactics than policy outcomes; who is up and who is down; what the polls say; and who the next proverbial pop star is. There is not much room for discussion of what the impact of policy is going to be, or for serious questions of opposition responses or government policy frameworks. In other words: the government can get away with virtually anything.

Writing in the New York Times, David Brooks remarked that John McCain is the only person of character in the US presidential race. He spent an entire column reviewing the character and history of McCain, not his tactics or his poll ratings. He remarked positively on the unpopular stands and policy stances that McCain has taken, which with the benefit of hindsight have been more often right than wrong. It is inconceivable that you would ever see such a well researched, competently argued column in Australia. Not unless a government media adviser suggested, researched and presented it to one of our political commentators.

Until a political journalist can come up with such an article without relying on the government of the day, it is fair to say that the electorate will remain switched off, the government will continue to set the agenda, oppositions will be irrelevant, and democracy will be badly handicapped in a land that prizes its freedom of choice and individuality.

For all these reasons, if you want to look at the future of politics in Australia, look not to London or Washington, but to California.