'Keep Mining Strong' - Interest Group Interactions with Government

Based off the lectures given by Ian Ward in POLS2111: Politics and the Media, UQ

Do you think that the origins of the mining industry campaign, ‘Keep Mining Strong’, lie in the present government's electoral vulnerability or more broadly in the political influence that interest groups may achieve by 'going public'?

There were several factors at play in the controversial ‘Keep Mining Strong’ campaign run by the mining industry in opposition to the federal government’s proposed mining tax. Firstly, the people behind the original campaign perceived the government to be vulnerable to the opinion of its voters – meaning if they could sway the opinion of the public the government would have to cancel the tax. Secondly, the mining industry has enough money, and political influence gained through this financial power, that they had a reasonable chance of their campaign succeeding through a technique known as ‘going public’.

‘Going public’ is a form of venue shifting (Ward 2009:1039). It involves seeking to shift a decision on policy into a forum where a favourable outcome is more likely. In this case, the mining industry, through its use of high profile campaigns, shifted the ‘venue’ for the decision making, parliament, into the public arena, where they had a greater chance of influencing events. Under these circumstances, the government was unwilling to stone-wall the mining industry, as their public support was dwindling and they did not wish to lose their electoral majority through acts of which they knew the public would disapprove.

This easy “mobilisation of public support” (Juan Zhang 2010) is what has prompted the change of tactics in ‘insider’ interest groups – interest groups who already have the attention of political figures or prominent news corporations. Previously, media stunts and campaigns  - issue expansion techniques - were the domain of ‘outsider’ interest groups: interest groups without political clout or connections to policy makers.

Ultimately however, this is just a discussion of political theory and the policy making tactics employed by interest groups. The true reason behind the ‘Keep Mining Strong’ campaign was that the major backers of the mining industry didn’t like the tax the government was planning to implement, and had deep enough pockets to do something about it. This is evident since the campaign faded immediately after the mining tax was amended to be more suitable to the major financers of the mining industry.

References:

Ward, Ian. 2009. Lobbying as a public affair: PR and politics in Australia. USA: Creative Commons

Zhang, Juan. 2010. A Study on the Strategic Changes in Australian Lobbying Industry Since the 1970’s. China: Qinghai Normal University

Living with Depression (my factual story)

Trigger Warning: depression, self harm, negative body image and suicide. 

Note: If the above won't play: Click Here

Government PR and Policymaking

This post is based off the lectures given by Dr Ian War in POLS2111: Politics and the Media at UQ

Does the suggestion that policymaking involves a strategic contest to frame policy explain why executive government invests so heavily in advertising and public relations?

There exists in Australian politics a continuing struggle between opposing sides of government, in which each side aims to capture the good will of the voting public. To further their cause, parties are investing more and more heavily in advertising and public relations to frame their policies in a light most appealing to the consuming public.

Andrew Podger states “Communications are at the heart of politics”. Today, perhaps it is more accurate to say that marketing, or public relations is at the heart of politics. When a party succeeds in placing their policy in the public eye, public discussion inevitably occurs. This public discussion has manifold effects: it builds or disassembles public support and it frames the issue as significant. This public discussion can make or break a policy, so parties are willing to invest heavily to present their policy in the best possible light.

Of course, the opposing party does their utmost to simultaneously discredit their opponent, while presenting their policies as viable alternatives. This constant manoeuvring between parties means that government and party spending inevitably increases. This increase signals the increasing political imperative of managing the public discussion of policy.

Policy-making involves a strategic contest to frame policy. Due to the nature of this contest, for the benefit of the public in the media arena, parties and governments are required to invest heavily in advertising and public relations to ensure they’re policy is accepted by the voting public.

Public Media: Monkeys and Men in Suits

This post is based of the lectures given by Bruce Redman in JOUR1111: Introduction to Journalism and Communication at UQ

“The difference between  commercial broadcasting and public broadcasting is the difference between consumers and citizens.”

- Nigel Milan

In this week’s lecture we discussed public media, the adversary of public media. Fortunately, I do have some experience with this form of media, so I have some idea of what I’m talking about.

As we already know, commercial media is profit driven and privately funded. As such, it succeeds or fails based on its business success. As you can probably guess, public media doesn’t follow that business model.

Generally, public media is described as media whose mission it is to serve or engage the public. Usually government or public-funded, public media includes traditional broadcasters and networks, as well as public uses of new platforms and distribution mechanisms, such as the internet, podcasting, blogging.

Public media should have public value.

According to the BBC public value is:

1. Embedding public service ethos

2. Value for licence fee money

3. Weighing public value against market impact

4. Public consultation

Public Broadcasting should involve:

1. Geographic universality.

2. University of appeal.

3. Special provision for minorities.

4. A recognition of the broadcaster’s special relationship to the sense of national identity and community.

5. Distanced from all vested interests

6. Universality of payment

7. Structured to encourage competition in good programming rather than competition for numbers

8. The liberation rather than restriction of broadcasters.

In addition to this wealth of information, Bruce also showed us some interesting statistics.

- For example, 41% of people get their news from the ABC. That’s nearly half of the population (a half I am a member of).

- Each week, 12.6 million Aussies watch ABC TV. The only caution with this statistic is that I don’t know if this includes children, or if it’s only talking about news tv, or includes ABC3 (for example). If they were only talking about adults, or only talking about news segments, this would have a significant impact on the result, as well as giving it some context.

- Over 85% of Australians don’t think the ABC is biased.

- The ABC is the only source of radio news analysis and ‘current affairs’ (an explanation and analysis of current events and issues, including material dealing with political or industrial controversy or with public policy).

- As well as the only source of lengthy interviews with politicians and nations leaders in the media other than talkback.

Of course, all this information is probably biased, since Bruce used to work for the ABC. Not that it’s a problem for me, since I already want to work for them.

With that sort of flattery I am going RIGHT TO THE TOP

The News ‘Style’ of Public Media

Some of the benefits of the sober, new-orientated ABC/SBS approach are

- it’s serious

- broadsheet style: not tabloid

- values importance over interest

- considered, not quick and unchecked information

However, some people complain that this makes the ABC/SBS

- boring

- elitist

- of limited interest

- poorly presented

- out of touch

Not that I really care, because public media (and its lack of ads) is important, because it’s the ‘last bastion of long-form investigative journalism’.

Public media “is such a special vehicle for voices to be heard…(for) visions and viewpoints…ignored by commercial media.”

– Robert Richter

What the ABC/SBS should continue to do:

- Produce quality (while the budget might be tight PM needs to produce programming that people want to watch [less commercial imperative])

- Make themselves relevant (do they have a role to produce programs that mass audiences want to watch [ratings and audience numbers?])

- Engage with the democratic process (to provide programs that give voice and access to the political process, both mainstream and niche)

- Inform the public (hard and soft programming, accurate and balanced, reflective of the nation)

- Be independent (regulators and independence of funders government)

The differing ground rules of commercial and public media

While the Courier Mail, the Australian, etc have the profit monkey on their back, the ABC has its own monkey (political independence and funding).

I was looking for a normal monkey but this is what came up and I wanted to share the nightmare.

The ABC and SBS are not ‘owned’ by the government. They are held in common by the people, unlike commercial media, which is held by the man with the most moolah.

Public media faces tension between being a watchdog of the government, while being allocated funds by the government. It has to ‘bite the hand that feeds it’.

Do you think this ongoing struggle between the government and public broadcasters, and the struggle between the roles public broadcasters must play, has any sort of conclusion, or any consequences? Feel free to comment below if you do.