It’s well-known that news tends to be framed in terms of pre-existing beliefs and prejudices. If there’s a general assumption that a public figure or a group of people has particular characteristics, stories will be framed in that way, and stories that don’t fit the frame may not get a run.
The coverage of the dispute between Howard and Latham over amendments to the FTA legislation illustrates this. When Labor Senators announced that the FTA would be supported, subject to some amendments, everyone treated this as the kind of minor facesaving that is usual when one side in a dispute backs down.
But as soon as Howard rejected the amendment on the PBS, the tone of media coverage changed completely. Howard is supposed to be canny and cautious, and Latham to be a wild man, liable to break out at any moment. So we get this kind of thing from Michelle Grattan.
It was typically Latham. Just when at last Labor’s course on the Australia-US free trade agreement looked relatively simple – the Opposition would agree to it after voting down the Left – the leader added a new, personal twist.
Grattan patches the holes in her argument by asserting that
The favoured game plan seemed to be that if these were resisted, they wouldn’t be pushed to the point of jeopardising the agreement.
but I saw no evidence of this game plan at the time.
Louise Dodson, Paul Kelly and Steve Lewis all take the same line.
The fact is that it’s Howard who has chosen to play high-risk politics here. No leader in Latham’s position could afford to back down twice in the same day, so his decision to dig in was a forced move, not an expression of character. But the idea of Howard as a reckless gambler doesn’t fit the established script, so it doesn’t get a run.
John Quiggin 
The second sentence in the second paragraph needs a verb, John.
Grattan provides a potential justification for her interpretation when she says: ‘The favoured game plan seemed to be that if [the Senators’ amendments] were resisted, they wouldn’t be pushed to the point of jeopardising the agreement.’ But she doesn’t say to whom this seemed to be the plan, and it might have been only her own guess.
Ignore that last point, sorry. By the time I’d read the article I forgot you’d already covered it.
I’d be criticizing Michelle too, if I spotted anything that looked like it was “framed in terms of pre-existing beliefs and prejudices” or made “a general assumption that a public figure or a group of people has particular characteristics”, but I couldn’t see that happening.
So it would be ungallant and churlish to consider something like this, “There’s a public impression that the Opposition is all over the place.” as coming within a bull’s roar of that criteria.
I’m told the opposition was a tad surprised by the level of protest messages that suddenly appeared in their inboxes. That would be consistent with the amendments (which really go nowhere unless they bind the government to make reservations when they ratify the treaty) being a last-minute spin that’s fast turning into a substantive issue. Straw Mark is just not good at policy.
Why would JWH want to help Latham save face when he can use this as stick to beat Latham all the way to polling day? It is Latham who is trying to be too clever by half. Howard is merely exploiting Latham’s ineptitude.
If Howard did the same thing to Latham he would have been described as a “political masterstroke” “wedging Latham in” etc etc.
Even more criticism than Grattan was from today’s piece by Louise Dodson. Where she writes: “The Latham position risks attracting the ire of those vehemently opposed to the trade deal and those just as strongly in favour of it. It could be a compromise which pleases no one and ends up making Latham look wishy-washy.” and “Another drawback for Labor is that the compromise position is complicated and difficult to communicate. A sure indication of that was that Labor MPs had vastly differing views of what had actually been decided yesterday. Opponents of the trade deal thought the party had agreed on effective rejection, while supporters of it thought the opposite.
If the Labor Party did not understand the import of the position, how much less likely is it that the rest of Australia will? This at a time when Latham needs, more than anything else, to appear to be a decisive leader with clear positions.
The latest Newspoll shows the Coalition making up ground on Labor, with the two sides neck and neck on a two-party preferred basis and the Coalition five points clear on the primary vote.
Latham needs a circuit-breaker to steal back the gathering momentum going Howard’s way. His trade deal policy is unlikely to be the one.
Stephen, I don’t agree that this is a guaranteed win for Howard. It is (as all those who treat Latham as the prime mover agree) a high-risk strategy. In a zero-sum game, risk for one side is risk for the other. If Labor can frame this as FTAvsPBS, they’ll win.
Howard had the chance to pocket a win, and appear reasonable by accepting minor Labor amendments. Not to do so was high-risk politics.
It was there all the time as Don’t call me Al shows today.
If Howard wants the Restricted Trade Agreement he can have it as even he agrees the amendments do NOT oppose the agreement merely facilitate existing protection.
As it is both sides are wrong. The text is all important.
In political terms howard is looking silly now.
*Anti-American to protect the PBS? talkback doesn’t like that. how to ruin a good focus group statement.
*listen to the tortured syntax to explain the government’s position. Huh
* Bomber makes a classic statement to say ONLY the ALP can guarantee the treaty
Having said that Howard won’t go to an election.
He wil wait to see if the two public polls in a fortnight agree with his party’s polling.
Keating would call an election but Howard has neither the inflated confidence of Keating nor does he take risks.
He will agree to the amendments.
I agree with your first post, John – its Howard, not Latham, who could end up having the blowtorch applied to the belly. The point is that the amendment is innocuous at worst and essential at best. More importantly, it is politically salable as such.
If I were Latham I’d be delighted to fight an election saying the government was unwilling to get tough on dirty tactics by American Big Pharma; he’d have no problems with his backbench on that issue. Just posibly JH’s notorious stubborness has led him into a rare political blunder.
This is a very perceptive post.
Two things to throw into the ring:
Firstly, what Professor Quiggin has tabled is very true, and has I believe been built up over the years by a very astute, non stop!, daily verbage by Howard. He’s removed the personality from the text, so that over these long and many years these writers have all been drawn into the wordage of what Howard is all about. If, instead, Howard had used “personality” in his performance, as a communication tool, the writers would have looked beyond the words and built a larger picture in reportage of Howard. This means that the set plays by these writers Professor Quiggin has highlighted here were long ago created and have long since been ingratiated into their views.
The second point is that it is all changing now. The election reality is bearing down on everyone, and that throws open the door for a new look, new considerations, new assessments of Howard and Latham. Howard comes off second best in that new light, Latham appears “more real” in that sense, and while it creates for colourful and energetic reportage of him, it also registers more strongly with voters, enhancing his chances.
Lastly, because of the vast difference between the two, Latham and Howard, each reporter’s response to that man will reflect to some degree their own personal preferences and dislikes.
For instance, Michelle Grattan might undergo some sort of catharsis in the time ahead.. my rationale being that she appears as someone who, personally, would prefer Howard – seeing him for example in a grey cardigan and to whom she would serve a cup of tea. Latham, instead, might for example appear to her personally as a young man out spreading his wings, and on this sort of personal rationale would be reporting him from a position of being initially indisposed. Bit rough on the imagery here but time pressing to get my point in. If, therefore, Latham solidifies politically, and if he dispenses with the veteran Howard on one or other critical issue, backed by the public, her whole approach to him is threatened, through nothing other than her predisposition.
.. sorry, make that three things if you like.
JQ,
Also agree that this was a perceptive post. Howard had an easy win in his pocket, and now risks being perceived as backing US pharma against his PBS-addicted pensioner constituency.
The FTA got a good drubbing on Four Corners on Monday night and a good chunk of middle Australia is sensitive to the PBS issue. They don’t understand it, but Latham’s now in a better position to spin the FTA his way, after bungling his whole approach thus far.
It does seem as if Howard’s legendary vindictiveness got the better of him as he tried to kick Latham while he was down.
Alan reckons Howard was a tad surprised. This was reported elsewhere. He felt his way before he came out firmly against.
This is speculative, but maybe his minions were checking with his imperial masters before he struck his attitude.
It is true, of course, that two of the top trade negotiators involved in the FTA have landed plum jobs with pharmaceutical companies. They are certainly not expecting things to be business as usual as the Howard line would have us believe.
I agree that this is not totally without risk for Howard, but the Coalition have more credibility on the FTA as a whole, and this could offset some of the risks in relation to the PBS specifically. Howard could turn the election into a referendum on the FTA generally, bringing in economic management and US alliance issues, the very issues on which Latham does not want the election to be fought.
Sorry Stephen, Latham has turned this argument into one about the PBS and healthcare – Labor would love an election based on Healthcare.
Howard has not come up with a coherent excuse to knock back the amendment, he should have said that the amendments are trivial and let them through but he blinked and now has locked himself in – he can’t get out without backing down.
On the news Howard looks rattled.
I think Latham is in a strong position if he keeps up a ‘I fully support the FTA and I fully support keeping pharmaceuticals affordable. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. John Howard can’t’ line. Howard’s opposition to the amendment makes it look as though there’s something in the FTA that will lead to drug prices rising and that this is a price that we have to pay for the FTA. He and Abbott can’t put in a news-bite why the admendment is bad and why the FTA would be unworkable with it there. I think a lot of people are worried about drug prices rising as a result of the FTA and anything that looks like it will help keep down the prices will be supported.
Oh yeah and with the AMA backing the amendment Lathams postition improves.
With Howard fighting this:
“We’ll be fighting the campaign based on defending the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme but also in the knowledge that if Labor’s elected, the FTA will go through with enabling legislation that’s much strengthened in the national interest so people will have a choice,” he said.
with this:
“The whole basis of the patent law is to encourage innovation, to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit, to encourage people to lodge applications to protect their good ideas,” Mr Howard said. “If you introduce the sort of change that the Leader of the Opposition is recommending, you would have a result of inhibiting many people from protecting their ideas.”
You know who’s winning on rhetoric.
Stephen Kirchner thinks John Howard is on a hiding to nothing by banging away at Latham’s equivocation on the FTA. He thinks that the ALP is electorally vulnerable on issues of policy relating to the US alliance, both economic and strategic:
There is no doubt that the ALP is vulnerable on the issue of its obesiance to the popular US military alliance, but it is robust on the issue of the imposition of US economic insitutions.
I would be surprised if Latham were to lose electoral support on the strenght of his substantive policy towards the FTA, still less the on the political worthiness of adopting a subordinate attitude to Republican Party operators.
For military security, Australians are supportive of the US alliance.
For economic prosperity, Australians are more likely to look to increased integration with North Asia, or to multilateral trade talks.
For cultural identity, civilised Australians enjoy the glorious aesthetic traditions of the British Empire – still the love than none dare name.
On the FTA issue itself, I think that Latham can score points on the policy aspects. Australian voters are more aversed to importing aspects of the, PBS-disabling, US health model than they are attracted to the putative benefits of signing onto, FTA-enabled, increased US trade flows.
I think that the reason that Howard is banging away on FTA is political, not policy-based. Howard wants to divide and rule: stir up trouble in the ranks of the ALP, some sections of which are divided about the value of the US strategic alliance. A bonus would be to expose Latham’s weakness as a leader.
Howard is also able to retain the political initiative by making his Opposite number squrim, duck, hide or run for cover.
Thus Howard is both taking a policy punt on the FTA and backing a political certainty on Latham’s standing in the ALP.
Jack, I think Howard’s pulled off the remarkable feat of uniting the ALP and increasing latham’s standing after one of its most divisive debates in months, if not years. The silly duck has wedged himself between the FTA and his own hubris … and it’s a beautiful thing to behold!
I see JQ has imported some good thinking from Krugman and dailyhowler.com regarding scripted scribes – and not a moment too soon!
Also, as pointed out in the 7:30 Report this evening, if Howard rejects the Senate’s amendments, then technically the only group to have voted against the FTA will be the Coalition.
Of course, Labor’s two talking points will then be:
1) Labor is the only major party to vote for the FTA, and 2) Labor is the only major party protecting the PBS.
Oh, the sweet, sweet irony.
Labor gets to fight the election on its own turf (health) and they get brownie points for supporting the alliance.
By making such a silly tactical error, Howard has given the Labor Party a get out of jail free card.
Sean.
Listening to talk-back radio today and just from my personal impressions,I think there is a high level of anxiety amongst the community,about the whole question of the cost of pharmaceuticals under an FTA. I think Latham has executed a brilliant maneovre.Again,I think Howard is underestimating the strength of anti-Bush feeling in the community. The crowds flooding into cinemas to see the Michael Moore film also represent an interesting political development.,and I suspect are part of the surge of feeling against US policy and Bush. I think Howard’s view that he can rely on pro-US feeling in a coming election. I just think he’s wrong,and for the moment has been placed on the back footLatham….. Brian McKinlay
I disagree Brian. People may be anti-Bush, but they are pro-America and Howard may be able to play on that. Also, anti-American people will vote for Latham anyway (either directly or through preferences), so his perceived softening towards the US (Beazley and the FTA) is a good move.
The reason I never thought there would be an early election is that I think the coalition will want to play up the “home by christmas” story – and this will resonate more strongly the closer we get to christmas. I still think that “home by christmas” is the ALP weak card. And I still tip an October election. No later because Howard will fear the possibility of a Kerry win in the US.
Darkness reaches for the darkness
“It’s started raining” exclaimed the flight attendent upon opening the plane’s door late tonight. Yes, I’m back in Melbourne. Back Pages is bad enough, but don’t go over to John Quiggin’s place, where the good professor seems to be taking…
Darkness reaches for the darkness
“It’s started raining” exclaimed the flight attendent upon opening the plane’s door late tonight. Yes, I’m back in Melbourne. Back Pages is bad enough, but don’t go over to John Quiggin’s place, where the good professor seems to be taking…
FTA mutates into political football
The FTA battle has become a brazen display of parliamentary kung fu, incomprehensible to outsiders and unconvincing without the sound effects. Since Chris Sheil is a mainlining political junkie, his site has carried the emotional ups and downs of the…