Mandate to Change Canberra Press Gallery

By Brian Arnell

Like the government, the media has a responsibility to serve the interests of the public.

The Canberra Press Gallery has a special responsibility to the public because of its accommodation in Parliament House. This gives accredited members of the Gallery a level of access to ministers and members of Parliament available to very few others. This access also confers prestige, which gives weight to Press Gallery opinions.

These privileges are granted on the basis that the Gallery performs a vital, ongoing public service. Currently, the Gallery is not meeting the obligations on which these privileges and the associated prestige are granted.

I have reviewed four newspaper articles and one television report from the two weeks before the calling of this year's Federal Election. The work of each journalist is critiqued separately below.

Michael Brissenden of the ABC’s 7:30 Report, sees politics as a sport and he seems to be a fan.

His report, entitled, "Political ceasefire as nation mourns Australian soldier" was broadcast on the ABC’s 7:30 Report on October 9, 2007.

Brissenden's report focused on the fallout from Robert McClelland’s speech the previous evening. McClelland said a Labor government would speak out consistently against the death penalty, including the execution of the Bali bombers.

However, Brissenden is not interested in the capital punishment debate, only in the competition between Labor and the Coalition. His report includes comments from Howard, Costello and Downer attacking Rudd and Labor. But he does not provide contextual background on the Government’s policy or any comparison between it and Labor’s policy.

His view of national politics as a sporting contest is highlighted by the following quotes. Bolding has been added.

"It may have been Labor's position, but aware of how this was going to play out as the day progressed, the speech forced Kevin Rudd on to the defensive."

"Kevin Rudd may be relatively new to this game, but he's been
around long enough to see a political pot hole when it presents itself, and
as you would expect, the Government's heavy hitters came out
swinging."

"Time is running out though, will he bring the parliament back next week? Some still think he will. Others are convinced he'll kick the campaign off this weekend."

Steve Lewis of News Limited publications, the Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph, barely conceals his venom while using unnamed sources, unsubstantiated allegations and loaded language to discredit Julia Gillard.

His Herald Sun headline is "Fighting fire with burning ambition" and The Daily Telegraph headline is "Left to own devices". The lead for both articles is identical. "On a recent night in Canberra, as the wine and chatter flowed, one of Australia's most powerful business figures offered a frank assessment of Julia Gillard. 'It’s her values', he said, barely concealing the venom."

This use of unnamed sources continues throughout both articles. There are four direct quotes from anonymous sources in the Herald Sun article, three in The Daily Telegraph and none of them complimentary.

There are also four paragraphs with references to the opinions of "detractors", "colleagues" and "critics". There is only one "reference" to the opinions of "supporters" but in the Herald Sun version even this is tempered by the use of the pejorative term, "political star".

The articles in both papers are virtually identical, apart from some notable substitutions and additions in Lewis’s descriptions of Gillard's actions and character. The language used in both versions is heavily loaded against Gillard. Interestingly, the descriptions of Gillard are even more pejorative in the Herald Sun than in The Daily Telegraph.

These changes are interesting because they clearly demonstrate the agendas of both Lewis and his proprietor. If Lewis’s impressions of Gillard were genuinely held, why would they not appear in both versions of the article? It is curious that the more disparaging Herald Sun version is available online while The Daily Telegraph version is not.

Below is an example of differences between the versions. Bolding has been added:

"And with that, Julia Gillard shoots off to yet another meeting, planning and scheming for the coming election". - Herald Sun.

"And with that, Julia Gillard shoots off to yet another meeting,
planning for the coming election". - The Daily Telegraph.

In addition to his use of anonymous sources and loaded language to discredit Gillard, Lewis makes numerous unsubstantiated allegations and fails to place his own and others’ assertions in context with known facts. Throughout, he makes no attempt to discuss policy.

An example of Lewis's failure to provide appropriate context is in relation to the allegation that Gillard is a "hard-core Leftie", "very Left" and "hard Left". Even a cursory internet search reveals that Gillard belongs to the Ferguson Left faction, which is often seen as more moderate than the Socialist Left faction. This does not necessarily disprove the allegation against Gillard, but it is a significant known fact that places both the allegation and Gillard's quoted defence in context.

Michelle Grattan of The Age, attempts a cheap and phony "objectivity".

Her headline is "Howard in dilemma as polls fail to deliver", with the lead, "Kevin Rudd is in an enviable position going into the soon-to-be called election".

Grattan continues the initial to and fro between the subjects of Howard and Rudd throughout the article. This attempt at 'objectivity' results in several contradictory statements. Most telling within the first three paragraphs, Grattan contradicts her own lead, with “anyway, the six-month average is historical, not a prediction.”

If the six-month polling average is not a prediction, how is it that Rudd is in an enviable position? Grattan’s self-contradiction can only be understood in terms of a cheap and phony "objectivity".

Michelle "Scoop" Grattan next moves onto Howard, but not before dropping the bombshell that “The Australian Election Study, published by the Australian National University this week, reports (from the 2004 poll) that fewer voters are ‘rusted on’ to a particular party”. Stop the presses!

She asserts that this revelation is "disturbing for Howard, because it suggests people are willing to desert even a solidly performing government more readily than in the past". Grattan forgets her "objectivity" for a moment. If Howard leads a "solidly performing government", how does she explain "Labor’s 57.1 per cent two-party average vote for April to September" she quotes later in the article?

Grattan uses the metaphor of a birthday cake to describe Rudd waiting for election-day and describes Howard as Mr Micawber. Perhaps Miss Havisham (another Dickens character) and her wedding cake would provide a more appropriate metaphor, at least for Grattan herself.

Malcolm Farr of The Daily Telegraph, conjures amazing equations and random quotes to warn us against the Greens.

His headline is "Control of Senate a heavy cross to bear" with the lead, "The question of who is the most influential non-government member of the Senate could lead young players astray".

Farr’s warning to young players should be heeded. But the danger is not the Greens; it is Farr himself. Farr’s answer to his own question is Steve Fielding, sole senator for Family First. He regales the reader with a befuddlement of figures and deft displays of arithmetic to prove the Fielding ascendancy.

According to Farr’s method Family First achieved a 30 per cent success rate compared to the second placed Greens on 1.02 per cent. Farr’s scoring is akin to the rating of prize fighters by win/loss ratios. He compares successful legislative amendments per number of amendments attempted. But this effort is ultimately pointless. As Farr notes himself, "Those statistics don't tell the complete story".

Farr makes much of the prospect of one party holding the balance of power in the Senate. Farr writes, "That outcome could be Senate inertia - not unknown to Labor governments - or a swag of compromises which corrupted the political intentions of a Rudd government". The Hawke-Keating Government dealt with this situation between 1983 and 1993 when the Democrats alone held the balance of power. Ah, but this time it is different. Why?

At this point Farr dispenses with "subtlety" and circumlocution and names his evil. "Payne (Liberal) has been an influential identity in a number of serious Senate debates - while Nettle (Greens) hasn't. But that does not mean Nettle might not defeat the Liberal senator".

The Democrats and Family First "will argue that a Greens-directed Senate would not be good for Australia", Farr writes.

Farr concludes with a quote from Fielding, "It would be a disaster for Australia to have the Greens holding the balance of power", and "The Greens have shown they like to frustrate governments, whether state or federal, Coalition or Labor".

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.

(This article was originally published in On Line Opinion, October 25, 2007.)

Karen Middleton: Defending the Gallery

By Brian Arnell

In a June 2007 interview on ABC Radio, some criticisms of the Canberra Press Gallery were put to Gallery President Karen Middleton.

Antony Funnell: Karen, if I could start with you: one
criticism that's often heard of the Canberra press gallery is that it gets too caught covering the mechanics of politics rather than the substance of politics. Is that a fair criticism?

Karen Middleton: I think it's always a danger that we can get caught up in the theatrics of things. When you sit watching parliament day after day, you do enjoy a little bit of light relief, and sometimes that can dominate the coverage. But I think we do try and get into the substance of things as well.

Unfortunately though, these days I think the politicking is
almost as important as the substance, in the sense that it can
can affect the morale of the parties and it can then affect the way they portray themselves and it can affect the support in the opinion polls. So everything feeds back on itself, and I think you can't ignore it.

Clearly Middleton does not see a problem with the performance of the Press Gallery. Maybe she had other things on her mind. To give context to this interview, it is worth noting that Middleton was in the middle of an election campaign herself at the time.

According to an article in The Australian, she had held the position of president of the press gallery committee for the last three years, but the contest was unexpected because her two predecessors had each served for five years unchallenged. Her challenger was David Speers of Sky News and there were fears that if successful Speers could take away office space from the ABC. Sky operates out of a tiny space and has long sought extra room.

According to the article, some members of the gallery were unhappy with Middleton's response to the proposed introduction of mandatory police checks for parliamentary pass-holders, including journalists and there was a particularly fiery corridor meeting. Middleton is reported to have presented a middle-of-the-road approach in her response, which angered some members of the Gallery.

Middleton went on to win her re-election a week later. However, the issue of office space allocation underlines the privileges granted to members of the Gallery. Furthermore, the challenge against her demonstrates that not all members of the Canberra Press Gallery are happy with its direction.

Michael Brissenden: Sees politics as a sport and he seems to be a fan

By Brian Arnell

Michael Brissenden of the ABC’s 7:30 Report sees politics as a sport and he seems to be a fan.


His report entitled, “Political ceasefire as nation mourns Australian soldier” was broadcast on the ABC’s 7:30 Report on October 9, 2007.

Brissenden first pays due respect to fallen Australian soldier David Pearce and then it is back into the game. Next, we hear from the Prime Minister, John Howard,

Ladies and gentlemen, I've called this news conference here to announce that the Commonwealth Government will fully fund to tune of $30 million, the Kingston bypass. This is a state road, but you all know the history of dithering and
prevarication which has occurred in relation to the construction of the bypass.

The opportunities, the employment opportunities both here and in Adelaide that will flow from this contract are very significant indeed. What we have contracted or what we are about to contract to do is the construction of two superb state of the art vessels.

At this point, the ABC’s audience might expect some additional information or an Opposition rebuttal to put John Howard’s assertions in context with known or even disputed ‘facts’. For instance, Brissenden could have reported the Tasmanian government’s response to the funding of the Kingston bypass.

Tasmanian Treasurer Michael Aird sent out a media release in response to John Howard’s announcement. The Mercury had posted the story on its website by 10:30am and AAP had filed the story by 2:05pm, when the Sydney Morning Herald site published it.

Why did Brissenden neglect to provide this context to John Howard’s assertions? Because he was not interested in a road in Tasmania or any of the issues associated with it. Nor was he interested in defence and the building of ships in Adelaide. His sole interest was in the state of play between Labor and the Coalition. Brissendon says,

But the Prime Minister has been stubbornly holding off, hoping for a shift in the poll (sic) or a Labor gaffe that might stall the ‘Kevin 07’ momentum. And today, on the eve of another significant anniversary, that stubbornness was rewarded.

The ‘gaffe’ was that Robert McClelland made a speech the previous evening outlining Labor’s position on the death penalty in Asia. McClelland said that a Labor government would speak out consistently against the death penalty, including the execution of the Bali bombers. Kevin Rudd, in admonishing McClelland, said the speech was near the fifth anniversary of the bombing and insensitive in its timing

Brissenden never makes it clear whether the gaffe was McClelland ‘s speech outlining Labor policy or Rudd’s admonishment of McClelland for stating that policy. The government attacked Rudd and Labor on both counts.

Brissenden included comments attacking Rudd and Labor, from Howard, Costello and Downer. However, Brissenden never shows any interest in the substance of the argument. He does not provide contextual background on the Government’s policy or any comparison between it and Labor’s policy.

Again, Brissenden fails to provide appropriate contextual information because he is fundamentally uninterested in the issue. He was not interested in the capital punishment debate, only in the competition between Labor and the Coalition. The following quotes in bold highlight his view of national politics as a sporting contest.

It may have been Labor's position, but aware of how this was going to play out as the day progressed, the speech forced Kevin Rudd on to the defensive.

Kevin Rudd may be relatively new to this game, but he's been around long enough to see a political pot hole when it presents itself, and as you would expect, the Government's heavy hitters came out swinging.

Time is running out though, will he bring the parliament back next week? Some still think he will. Others are convinced he'll kick the campaign off this weekend.

Policy lies behind almost all the words and deeds of politics. A policy is akin to a decision. Not making a policy is a policy too. Yet Brissenden ignores policy. By doing so, he encourages policies based on political positioning rather than national interest. In this way, Brissenden becomes a de facto political player.

This is not his role. His job is to communicate the words and deeds of those engaged in politics to the electorate. This process is necessarily selective, but he can balance the selections he makes by providing factual context. Brissenden might see himself as a fan, but politics is not a sport.

Steve Lewis: Barely concealing his venom

by Brian Arnell

Steve Lewis of News Limited publications, the Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph, barely conceals his venom while using unnamed sources, unsubstantiated allegations and loaded language to discredit Julia Gillard.

His Herald Sun headline is “Fighting fire with burning ambition” and The Daily Telegraph headline is “Left to own devices”. The lead for both articles is identical, “On a recent night in Canberra, as the wine and chatter flowed, one of Australia's most powerful business figures offered a frank assessment of Julia Gillard. ‘It’s her values,’ he said, barely concealing the venom.”

This use of unnamed sources continues throughout both articles. The only attributed comments come from Bill Heffernan, “deliberately barren” and from Gillard herself. There are four direct quotes from anonymous sources in the Herald Sun article, three in The Daily Telegraph and none of them complimentary.

There are also four paragraphs with references to the opinions of “detractors”, “colleagues” and “critics”. There is only one “reference” to the opinions of “supporters”,the Herald Sun tempering its version with the pejorative term, “political star”.

The articles in both papers are virtually identical, apart from some notable substitutions and additions in Lewis’s descriptions of Gillard's actions and character. The language used in both versions is heavily loaded against Gillard. Interestingly, the descriptions of Gillard are even more pejorative in the Herald Sun than in The Daily Telegraph.

These changes are interesting because they clearly demonstrate the agendas of both Lewis and his proprietor. If Lewis’s impressions of Gillard were genuine, why would they not appear in both versions of the article? It is curious that the more disparaging Herald Sun version is available online while The Daily Telegraph version is not.

Below are two examples with differences between versions in bold.

But her detractors - and there are many in business, Liberal Party and within Labor ranks - portray her as a ruthless operator and good hater. - Herald Sun

But her detractors, and there are many in business, the Liberal Party and within Labor ranks, portray her as a ruthless operator. - The Daily Telegraph

And with that, Julia Gillard shoots off to yet another meeting, planning and scheming for the coming election. - Herald Sun

And with that, Julia Gillard shoots off to yet another meeting, planning for the coming election. - The Daily Telegraph

In addition to his use of anonymous sources and loaded language to discredit Gillard, Lewis makes numerous unsubstantiated allegations and fails to place his own and other's assertions in context with known facts. Throughout, he does not discuss policy.

An example of Lewis making unsubstantiated allegations is his claim that “Gillard’s ambitious tendencies have been well documented”. He provides no evidence, but this allegation is interesting because until recently this was a common claim made against Kevin Rudd. In a March 5, 2007 interview on the 7:30 Report, Rudd said, “I think for a long, long time, Kerry, many people in the media and elsewhere have described me as 'ambitious'. I don't think that's something which I'm Robinson Crusoe on in politics.”

An example of Lewis’s failure to provide appropriate context is in relation to the allegation that Gillard is a “hard-core Leftie”, “very Left” and “hard-Left”. Even a cursory internet search reveals that Gillard belongs to the moderate Ferguson Left faction. This does not necessarily disprove the allegation against Gillard, but it is a significant known fact that places both the allegation and Gillard’s quoted defence in context.

Lewis ends his articles about Gillard with, “It’s something she is clearly in love with, whatever people think of her values”. Lewis clearly loves discrediting people using unnamed sources, loaded language and unsubstantiated allegations, whatever people think of his values.

Michelle Grattan: Cheap and phony 'objectivity'

by Brian Arnell

Michelle Grattan of The Age, attempts a cheap and phony 'objectivity'.

Her headline is “Howard in dilemma as polls fail to deliver” the lead, “Kevin Rudd is in an enviable position going into the soon-to-be called election”.

Grattan continues the initial to and fro between the subjects of Howard and Rudd throughout the article. This attempt at 'objectivity' results in several contradictory statements. Most telling within the first three paragraphs, Grattan contradicts her own lead, “Kevin Rudd is in an enviable position going into the soon-to-be called election” with “anyway, the six-month average is historical, not a prediction.”

If the six-month polling average is not a prediction, how is it that Rudd is in an enviable position?

According to Peter Brent, a member of ANU’s Democratic Audit of Australia and a widely published writer on opinion polling, “the polls are not useless…it is best if you take them in totality – look at the trend…Polls do become better as the election approaches”. Grattan’s self-contradiction is cheap and phony 'objectivity'.

Michelle ‘Scoop’ Grattan next moves onto Howard, but not before dropping the bombshell that “The Australian Election Study, published by the Australian National University this week, reports (from the 2004 poll) that fewer voters are ‘rusted on’ to a particular party”. Stop the presses!

She asserts that this revelation is “disturbing for Howard, because it suggests people are willing to desert even a solidly performing government more readily than in the past.” Grattan forgets her ‘objectivity’ for a moment. If Howard leads a “solidly performing government”, how does she explain “Labor’s 57.1 per cent two-party average vote for April to September” she quotes later in the article?

Grattan moves back to Rudd. Because fewer voters are ‘rusted on’, "it is also a worry for Rudd, because it means a lot can change during a campaign,” she writes. You remember the elections before 2004: how voters were ‘rusted on’ and how nothing much changed during the campaigns? Neither do I.

Grattan implies that Rudd says the right things, but for the wrong reasons. Having referred to Labor’s substantial lead in the polls, Grattan writes, "No wonder Rudd was pressing again yesterday for the election to be called.” Later she says, “This coming week sees the anniversary of polling day in 2004. Howard has no excuse to wait.”

In the same vein Grattan says, “Rudd was obviously self-interested when he argued yesterday for fixed four-year terms. But he has a point – the system, used in several states at least injects predictability.”

Grattan clearly engages in cheap cynicism at odds with known facts and fails to provide appropriate context. The following quote is from Grattan’s own newspaper stable, “Labor has always insisted on having fixed four-year terms while the Liberals want to retain the flexibility for the prime minister to set the election date.” - Sunday Age April 17, 2005.

Grattan’s article ends with gratuitous advice to John Howard including that he is the problem. There is no discussion of policy throughout. In addition to the banal commentary, logical inconsistencies and cheap shots previously mentioned, Grattan assails us with an avalanche of two-party preferred averages from time immemorial and her own literary pretensions.

Grattan uses the metaphor of a birthday cake to describe Rudd waiting for election day and describes Howard as Mr Micawber. Perhaps Miss Havisham (another Dickens’ character) and her wedding cake would provide a more appropriate metaphor, at least for Grattan herself.

An analysis of Grattan's article reveals a cheap, phony 'objectivity' that accords neither with logic nor known facts. A true attempt at objectivity consists of more than gratuitous cynicism and throwaway lines doled out in equal measure to two political antagonists.

Malcolm Farr: Warning youngsters against the Greens

by Brian Arnell

Malcolm Farr of The Daily Telegraph, conjures amazing equations and random quotes to warn us against the Greens.

His headline is “Control of Senate a heavy cross to bear’ with the lead, “The question of who is the most influential non-government member of the Senate could lead young players astray.”

Young players should heed Farr’s warning. But, the danger is not the Greens: it is Farr himself. Farr’s answer to his own question is Steve Fielding, sole senator for Family First. He regales the reader with a befuddlement of figures and deft displays of arithmetic to prove the Fielding ascendancy.

According to Farr’s method Family First achieved a 30 per cent success rate compared to the second placed Greens on 1.02 per cent. Farr’s scoring is akin to the rating of prize fighters by win/loss ratios. He compares successful legislative amendments per number of amendments attempted. But this effort is ultimately pointless. As Farr notes himself, “Those statistics don't tell the complete story.”

Farr next provides his readers with more meaningless numbers on Senate motions. This proves that the Government has a majority in the Senate and supposedly point to “two horror prospects” for Labor. Labor could achieve a “massive anti-Government landslide” but still lose and only one party may hold the balance of power in the Senate and try to “rewrite” the policies of a Labor government.

Farr makes much of the possibility of a Labor landslide without winning government. He writes, “That would be a revisit of 1998 - in which Kim Beazley got 51 per cent of the primary vote but not the right number of seats”.

Actually, Kim Beazley got 40.1 per cent of the primary vote and 51.1 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. Yes, several times since the introduction of preferential voting in 1918, governments have won on minority votes. Beazley’s 51.1 per cent is the largest ever losing majority and you would hardly describe it as a “massive anti-Government landslide”.

As for the prospect of one party holding the balance of power in the Senate, Farr writes, “That outcome could be Senate inertia - not unknown to Labor governments - or a swag of compromises which corrupted the political intentions of a Rudd government.” The Hawke-Keating Government dealt with this situation between 1983 and 1993 when the Democrats alone held the balance of power. Ah, but this time it’s different. Why?

At this point Farr dispenses with ‘subtlety’ and circumlocution and names his evil. “Payne (Liberal) has been an influential identity in a number of serious Senate debates - while Nettle (Greens) hasn't. But that does not mean Nettle might not defeat the Liberal senator.”

The Democrats and Family First, “will argue that a Greens-directed Senate would not be good for Australia.”, Farr writes.

Farr quotes Fielding, “It would be a disaster for Australia to have the Greens holding the balance of power," and The Greens have shown they like to frustrate governments, whether state or federal, Coalition or Labor."

Farr’s article ends with the Fielding quotes. Farr seems to have forgotten his starting point, the supposed ascendant influence in the Senate which began this farce. Despite Fielding’s “heavy cross to bear” this article isn’t about him. Young players have been warned.

Dennis Shanahan: Trawling through Newspoll

by Brian Arnell

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 bolsters his Newspoll non-story by splicing in tidbits from last weeks ‘news’ about Rudd’s support or otherwise, for Swan as Treasurer in a future Labor government. Our hack admits near the end of his 492-word opus that Rudd has “reinforce(d) his support for Swan”. But how do we make sense of Shanahan’s maelstrom of figures?

Shanahan quotes Newspoll figures from August and September on perceptions of economic management for Rudd, Howard, the ALP, the Coalition, Swan and Costello.

He makes no attempt to place the figures for Swan and Costello in relation to the others.

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.

According to a Newspoll survey taken on February 9-11, 1996, just prior to the Federal election that year, voters favoured Mr Costello as federal treasurer over Mr Willis by 34 per cent to 27 percent. Fifty per cent of Coalition supporters either believed Mr Willis would make a better treasurer -16 per cent- or were uncommitted to Mr Costello – 34 per cent, compared with 50 per cent who supported Mr Costello.

According to the same Newspoll survey from 1996, voters favoured Senator Evans as foreign minister over Mr Downer by 54 per cent to 25 per cent. Over one-third of Coalition supporters – 37 per cent – believed Senator Evans would make a better foreign minister, compared with 44 percent who supported Mr Downer.

One poll signifies very little and the Swan v Costello poll even less. However, Shanahan’s desperate attempt to find good news for the Coalition signifies much.