Monday, August 20, 2007

Gossip-mongering

Across the world, it was a busy news weekend. Hurricane Dean lashed Jamaica and generally terrorised the Caribbean; the Gaza strip was plunged into darkness following the EU’s cancellation of fuel aid; space shuttle Endeavour prepared for re-entry despite damage to heat shields (a fearful reminder of the 2003 Columbia disaster); Mattel recalled 18 million lead tainted toys, and a suicide bombing in northern Iraq claimed up to 500 lives. Surely, these few examples were at the forefront (or at least in the top 10) of reports I saw over the weekend? Mmm, Nah.

Evidently, Kevin Rudd’s 2003 visit to a New York strip club is more news worthy than all of these, demanding an inordinate amount of airtime and comment (including 7’s Sunrise tour of the facility this morning). I have two problems in particular: 1. Our media has become so frivolous and focused on scandal and hype that it has forgotten its role as public educator (as distinct from entertainer) and 2. How far back are we to reach in order to smear an otherwise quality candidate, and how trivial need the offence be?

Firstly, our pathetic media. My criticism is restricted primarily to commercial television and print, as SBS and the ABC do a passable job of reporting with integrity and world context. It’s a favoured rant of mine and admittedly an easy target. Ten’s first at five circus, the current affairs phenomenon – and don’t even get me started on what passes for breakfast news. Over time the content has been continually watered down and jazzed up, lots of flashing lights and little that will invade your consciousness. Report on the fashion show, play up the latest P-plater tragedy, throw to the weather gimmick, finish with a panda bear wearing a nappy, and that’s a wrap. It’ll never cease to anger me. My solution is to beam Al Jazeera into all our living rooms – the details of which will be forthcoming in a future post.

The primary issue here is the extent to which we will all tolerate the smearing and muck racking that passes for politics these days. It seems that the campaign for PM has already degenerated into a contest about who can dig up the most embarrassing fact. Rudd’s wife’s multinational screws over some workers, Howard and Costello hate each others guts and both forget the name of the candidate they are supporting. All of which says very little about the quality of the candidate or their ability to be leader, let alone their little talked of policy positions. Rudd’s current Strip Club predicament is no different. Rudd’s clearly a family guy, not a noted beer enthusiast, and arguably an awkward geek. Still, he had a few too many to drink and got carried away with the (no doubt forced) male bonding. Who hasn’t been there? He woke up with a headache, a bag full of regrets, and no doubt that dirty feeling that won’t go away even after 1000 showers (that strip clubs are notorious for). Again, that doesn’t make him the Lone Ranger either. This isn’t a debate about the existence of strip clubs in our patriarchal (misogynistic) society – but a question over whether going into one means that you lack moral fibre or are unfit to lead our country.

I would argue not. Political leaders are human beings too and I wish the debate could be elevated above fear mongering and smear campaigns – and that we could have an adult conversation. Let’s talk about health care, our military commitment and the un-affordability of housing - and stop giving air time to year’s old scandal and gossip.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Bob Brown summed it up nicely. To paraphrase: 4 years ago Kevin Rudd took himself to a strip club. 4 years ago John Howard took Australia to war. Which was worse?

Let's not lose sight of the big picture here, which is the competent running of a country. Visits to strip clubs 4 years ago, and the like, have little to do with the issue at hand. It is fairly obvious that all this noise has been devised to confuse the simple and reactionary public on the big issues.