“I think what all your listeners would expect… that we all get back to the priority of dealing with the challenges of jobs, small business and schools.” – Kevin Rudd on ABC 612 in Queensland.

Probably the best thing Mr Rudd has said in a long time. Yet still he cops a grilling from a fickle and hypocritical media. Mr Rudd’s advisors, newspaper readers and voters are all aware that ute-gate is a dying if not completely dead story. The only people that seem to care about this ten-day old story are the press.

On Monday, a rather snappy Mr Rudd lashed out at Queensland radio presenter Madonna King when asked about the ute he received from John Grant.

After sticking the boot into Malcolm Turnbull over the past ten days, it is clear that the electorate is well and truly over the political brawl.

Mr Rudd’s line has all the hallmarks of a well-tested focus grouped key message. Having won the battle over OzCar, it is now time for the PM to occupy the high ground and address the electorate’s real concerns.

The morally upstanding columnists of multiple newspapers have been calling on both sides of politics to return to the main game of the economy and jobs. They have asked that the political circus end. As soon as the PM attempts this, he cops a blasting for avoiding questions.

Yesterday’s papers were full of accusations of “side-stepping”, “ranting at the media” and “putting the brakes on the utegate brawl.”

Some days you just have to absorb the media flack and hope the electorate sees the forest for the trees.  Ten days after the story broke, the only people interested in this story are a group of lazy journalists flogging a dead horse. Let’s move on.

I’ve read all of the commentary from Fairfax and News Ltd.  In many ways the sentiment seemed to mirror my expectations.  Fairfax applauded his performance, but pointed out his failings.  News Ltd seemed to use the occasion to celebrate his career and lay the boot into the current Government.

Stutchbury was measured in his approach.  He wrote that Costello will be remembered as a great reformist treasurer.  He is in the pantheon with Keating.  I would argue that he continued the good work of Keating and was fortunate enough to operate in a greater economic climate.

Colebatch was reasonably harsh in his column.  He spoke of Costello the bully.  He recalled Costello’s tactic of leaning on finance and economic commentators.  This seemed to a bit of a cheap shot on a day that should have been reserved for praise.  Criticism should come if it is merited, but perhaps it would have been better form to leave this day alone.

My personal opinion of the man is mixed.  I think he was a phenomenal administrator and great orator.  He had talent in spades, but it seems he lacked ambition and drive to seize power.  He shared a lot of traits with Keating.  They were both strong parliamentary performers.  They also shared a strong commitment to liberalisation of trade and labour markets.
I’ve been reading Don Watson’s biography of Keating, Recollections of a Bleeding Heart.  The aspect I have found most interesting is the notion that Keating thought the good work had already been done when he took power from Hawke.  He believed all he had to do was oversee his reforms as PM.  They claim he had lost a lot of drive once he had the position.  As if the battle had cooked him.  I wonder if the same would have happened to Costello had challenged Howard.

We will never know, because unlike Keating, Costello never had the courage to take on Howard.  Some claim he was putting party interests ahead of his own, but I reject this.  Had Costello led the Coalition to the last election, having challenged in 2006, I think they would have won the election.  I think his legacy is one that will be mixed with contradicitions.  If we preserve today’s coverage as a time capsule, we might find that he will be regarded with tempered praise.

Earlier this morning RMIT University hosted the RMIT Communicator of the Year Award Breakfast at the Windsor Hotel in Melbourne.  Retired High Court Judge, Michael Kirby and Melina Schamroth shared the award.

Jill Singer, Mike Smith and Jonathan Green all spoke on the implications of journalist job losses and the restructuring of the balance of power between the journalist and the PR practitioner.  The key theme throughout was that truth and the public interest were being blurred and many cases forgetten in this upheavel.

Green has particularly dire predictions for the future of the dissemination of public information.  He argues that PR practitioners are getting smarter and working harder while journalists are getting stupider and lazier.  Green doesn’t believe it’s the fault of individual journalists, rather a broader problem tied to news room resources.  The frames of reference of the “public interest” are being shifted to suit government and corporate agendas because journalists simply haven’t got the time or resources to initiate independent agenda setting.
Smith, who shared similar views on the current state of journalism, believes the problem may be temporary.  He laments the lack of editorial leadership as well as newspapers increasing emphasis on puff pieces and soft news content.   If a profitable online model can be built, reporter resources will increase, and we can again produce rigorous, probing and inquisitive journalism.  The consumer will want to pay for this premium.

Classic values of hope and optimism seems to be out of fashion in media circles.  Indeed, it took someone from outside the media industry to remind us that the purpose of the awards ceremony was to recognise and remind us of the value of honest and ethical communication.

Michael Kirby delivered a gracious acceptance speech and chose not to wallow in the negatives.  Instead he spoke of his passion for communicating complicated and complex legal principles in simple terms.  He argued that the law didn’t belong to lawyers and judges.  It belonged to the people.

It was interesting to contrast Kirby’s humble and hopeful message with the indulgent pessimism that permeated Green’s speech.  It is easy to be a pessimist and prophet of doom, but as Kirby reminded us, he was only able to be the “great dissenter” because he was passionate about communicating and resolving grievances.  That Green, a senior figure in the Melbourne media landscape, couldn’t see any signs of hope or any model to build a positive way forward, speaks volumes of the industry’s current malaise.

After the easter break I shall return to more consistent blogging. Life has been hectic. That isn’t an excuse rather an explanation. Great lecture today on social media by Steve Hopkins and Alice Clements.

TAB came under fire this week for announcing that they will be taking bets on Good Friday.  Attacks from religious groups, John Brumby and Tim Costello.  Called to donate a percentage of profits to the Good Friday Appeal by Brumby.

The Age launches an editorial assault on Transport Minister Lynn Kosky in its Saturday paper.  The next day, The Herald Sun, runs a story comparing the cost of implementing the Myki system with a NASA space probe.  Of course, the Myki system proves to be more expensive than space exploration.

Australian-owned stationery company, Smiggle, in hot water with Neil Mitchell. The release of a voodoo doll-inspired pencil case draws strong criticism from child psychologists and key community groups.

Chinalco’s proposed share increase in Rio Tinto dominates business pages.  Rio Tinto’s PR team release bleak financial forecasts, hoping to garner support for Chinalco’s bid.  

The ACCC sues Telstra for alleged breaks to the Trade Practices Act.  Telstra quick to respond, claiming that they are being sued for minor breaches that they have since rectified. 

News Limited apologises to Pauline Hanson for the nude photo controversy.  Pauline Hanson fails to win a seat in the Queensland election and proceeds with legal action against News Limited.

Internal Victorian Police documents, claiming that the Victorian Police’s information systems overwhelmed by data, leaked to the media.  Police spokeswoman says the systems are secure, and that further detail would follow from the IT department.

A few interesting topics popped up in the press yesterday.  I have included brief commentary on all items below.

Michael West, columnist with The Age Business, took issue with AMP and it’s communications with investors and the media.  His article, titled “On balance, it’s a PR plague“, accuses the in-house media staff at AMP of engaging in “corporate double-speak” and presenting “illusory dross” to investors.  

AMP’s shares have fallen to their lowest value since August 2003, yet it seems the company is at a loss to explain the reasons for the slide.  West believes they have created convoluted reports to keep the investor’s cautiously optimistic, instead of delivering the cold hard reality of the figures. 

Bruce Esplin, Emergency Services Commissioner, has given Telstra some rare public praise.  He applauded them for leading the way on the fire alert SMS service on Tuesday. ”The telecommunications carriers, led by Telstra, decided they would do that as a community service,” he said. 

GetUp and the Brotherhood of St. Laurence have had a bit of a media dust up over climate change. The politically progressive organisation GetUp have asked activists and environmentalists to send energy saving devices to Canberra in protest to the Government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. 

This has ruffled the feathers of the Brotherhood of St. Laurence, who see energy saving devices as essential cost cutters for lower socio-economic groups in society.  They have claimed that GetUp only care about the “political elite” and “well off” members of society.

Finally, Shaun Carney, Associated Editor of the Age has given Pacific Brands another hiding in what has already been a disastrous week for the Company.  In his article, “Greed without end“, he has used Pacific Brands as the whipping boy in a larger argument questioning the ethics of executives salaries.

After the release of the Government’s Green Paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, there has been a great deal of opinion pieces popping up in various news publications. In this post I wanted to reflect upon the sources of these articles, the think-tanks who write and submit the articles, and their importance in the broader sphere of public policy debate.

The Government has released the latest Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) paper,  and the newspapers have been full of commentary from political parties, non-government organisations and think tanks on both the left and right of politics.  One of the strangest aspects in the whole debate has been that both the left and right leaning think-tanks have argued for the same thing, a carbon tax/levy, not an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). 

Though the arguments and motives differ greatly, it is strange to see such differing viewpoints come to the same conclusion.  John Humphreys, research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), has argued in his article (“It’s time to have a debate about climate change“, the Australian, 18/02/2009) that the real problem with the issue, is that the Rudd Government has failed to properly debate the decision.  CIS favour a carbon tax in which business is able to offset the financial burden by receiving tax cuts by acting in a green manner in other areas.  They also worry about the possibility of favouritism or bias when permits are handed out.  The clear agenda of their argument is, keep big business, particularly international business in Australia.

The Australian Institute’s Executive Director, Richard Denniss argues the case for a carbon tax on a much simpler basis.  By going with an ETS, the ordinary householders efforts to reduce carbon emissions is wasted, as the cuts they make will allow big business to buy up the difference.  Essentially, ETS can only guarantee a 5% drop, and the policy disables the ordinary person from reducing it further.  For TAI, this is more of an issue of sustainability, and much less about trade and international markets.

 In response, Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water, has tried to wedge the arguments of both left and right groups, positioning them as either environmentally or economically irresponsible.  Interestingly enough, she attacks the Greens and the Coalition, not the pressure groups and think-tanks who fill up the editorial pages of the leading daily metropolitan newspapers. 

To most readers, the author notes, attributing the article to the CIS or TAI, mean very little.  Indeed they both read as neutral, independent and balanced.  Penny Wong may find it useless to attack the arguments of think-tank groups, given that they have a low profile and aren’t necessarily identifiable with left or right ideology.  

Kevin Rudd felt it was necessary to step on the front foot, recently attacking conservative, free-market think-tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) for being “the source of neo-liberalism” in Australia.  The article in australian political magazine, The Monthly, played into the hands of the IPA, allowing them to use his comments as fuel to criticise his “neo-socialism” and “Whitlamism.”  This is a debate Rudd would be ill-informed to continue, given the resources available to the IPA, as well as their extensive links with the world of big business. 

Though ideological driven think-tanks may only effect a small minority of views in the voting population, it is impossible to deny how effective they are in moulding the context and framework of public debate.  The brain power and expertise within the think-tanks is formidable, and they serve an important function of Democracy, the free exchange and debate of ideas.  However, the credibility of the institutes are seriously undermined by the lack of transparency in regards to funding and financial backing.  Articles which bare any relation to an issue affecting an organisation that funds an Institute should be disclosed.

It is a competitive field, and in a tight economic market, donations will only come from organisations who feel like they are getting bang for their buck. I fear that the global financial crisis will greatly reduce the ability of the think-tanks to write articles which fail to directly related to the core issues affecting the donor’s business.  Such narrowing of the framework for public debate is a major loss to the market place of ideas and ultimately democracy.

More than slightly indulgent on my part, but I can’t think of a better place to list my aims and objectives for the rest of the year.  Given it is online, there is a little more at stake, for if I don’t achieve said goals, there is public record of my failures.  I have decided to split these into short-term and medium-term.  By medium-term, I am only stretching to 18 months.  I see no reason to hold this off any longer, so here we go.

The next 2 weeks (now- 04-03-2009)

This time two weeks, I will be sitting in PR Writing, on the Monday, I will have attended my first class of the Graduate Diploma, PR Theory & Practice.  Between now and then, I should be able to write 2 or 3 meaningful and engaged posts on this blog.  This ought to enable a rolling start to the semester, eliminating the possibility of being sluggish in the first few weeks. 

I will have sorted out my newspaper subscription, and managed to get back in the habit of reading the whole paper everyday.  In addition to this, keep up the current level of media engagement, by continuing to listen to a wide variety of podcasts and watching either the ABC or SBS news. 

I also want to start going to SAIL again, this time with the proper mind frame to tutor more effectively.  No point showing up week in, week out without being on the ball and in the right head space.

On a personal note, I should engage in rigorous exercise at least three days a week.

6 weeks (now- 01-04-09)

After 6 weeks of solid study, I should think about landing some sort of work placement within an agency.  I can also begin speaking with a few companies regarding an in house internship.  

This is around the time I should look to become active with PRIA, and the young communicator’s arm of the institute.  Seems like a great way to network and find out about opportunities around the traps. 

By this stage, I will have approached a number of NGO’s and not-for-profits regarding volunteer work within their public relations or communications committees. 

Fitness should be greatly improved by this stage, with exercise intensity being stepped up.

6 Months (now- 18-08-09)

By this stage, I should definitely have undertaken some sort of work placement, and be in the midst of an internship.  If not, I should be actively seeking an internship, something two-days a week. The idea will be to try out as many different settings as possible; agency, government and in house corporate. 

The first semester of university will have been a good one.  I am returning to learn, and I want to have produced quality work, hopefully returning a few high distinctions, as well as engaging and contributing in lectures and tutes.

1 Year (2010)

Having built an impressive array of experience in a variety of public relations and communications settings, I will hopefully spend 2010 working for an agency or in-house three to four days a week.  This blog will be updated regularly, and the quality of analysis and writing will be of a professional standard.  As a result, the traffic will have picked up, and it will be of some value as a resource to the profession. 

I will have been successful with a number of pitches, managed events, and improved my writing and verbal skills immeasurably.  The aim is to be an outstanding prospect as a graduate, so I need to be an excellent writer, with ambition to become even better. 

The regular exercise over the year, will improve my ability to stay mentally sharp and aid my professional presentation.

The bushfires that engulfed the state over the weekend have devastated Victoria, killing over 170 people and destroying a massive amount of property. As horrendous as the story has been, the response of individuals and corporations in raising over $27 million for the Victorian Governments Bushfire Appeal has been phenomenal. The big banks have all donated $1 million and Wesfarmers have used their retail arms to raise money and awareness of the fund amongst the public, whilst also donating $500,000 directly. 

I can’t think of a better example of the positive effects of the often maligned PR Industry. Few would dispute that the donations are an exercise in corporate citizenship by these big corporations. The donation serves to benefit the victims of this horrible disaster,  whilst also garnering positive press and publicity for the organisations. At the end of many news bulletins, which are packed with horrific stories relating to the bushfire, the good news story of the generosity of Australia’s people is constantly linked to the organisations mentioned earlier. 

On dark days like these, it is comforting to know that the industry we work in can contribute positively to the lives of those who have suffered tremendous loss.

A large PR war is being waged by Coca-Cola at the moment. They are hitting out at the perception that their product has negative health consequences. Just when they thought their myth-busting advertisements were making in-roads, the dentists, through Australian Medical Association, have denied any veracity to the claims.

Coke need to be careful here, it seems as though they want to get into a ’spin war’, and I don’t think they can win, given the lack of credible third party experts on their side of the argument. They did receive a potential opportunity this week, with the AMA endorsing the addition of fluoride to bottle water. If Coca-Cola’s subsidiaries Pump and Mount Franklin are the first to undertake the added fluoride, they might yet have some genuine claims to looking after their customers. I will keep an eye on this issue.