Scott Morrison
By Peter Clarke
March 26, 2013
Yesterday, we published a detailed de-construction of an interview between the ABC 730’s Leigh Sales and Prime Minister Julia Gillard. It was a critique of Sales for what we opined were her inadequate interview techniques in that specific context and of Julia Gillard for her blatant refusal to answer questions and her use of media training 101 avoidance techniques to manipulate media interviews. Neither came out of that encounter with much credit, least of all the PM.
Here in the comments section and on Twitter the responses have been vigorous and varied. A very worthwhile discussion is still flowing online.
As always, partisan passions appear to animate many people’s perceptions, judgments and opinions. A very few observers were able to bring a sense of disinterested appraisal to bear that rose above merely backing sides.
This is not about being a cheer squad for one of the political parties over another. That’s way too easy really. This is about effective, ethical journalism. And (look away now if you must) THE TRUTH. I know, I know, THE TRUTH is a highly contested idea and many would argue it barely exists, certainly within journalism as widely practised, but it is still a guiding ideal to aim for in some reasonable form.
Any other suggestions? Post-modernists, come on down!
We celebrate and critique journalistic practitioners using a range of measures and factors, depending on each case we examine. We critique politicians who, out of one side of their mouths, extol the notion of a ‘free press’ in the abstract, especially within a parliamentary political debate such as around media reform, and then, in their daily political encounters with legitimate questioning, seem to do their best to hobble and intimidate journalists and avoid the tough enquiries of that free press as they fulfill their democratic, fourth estate roles and functions.
Mind you, they and their media minders keep the avalanche of media releases, leaks and duchessing of favoured scribes flowing and rejoice if slabs of their propaganda appear in print, come out of broadcaster’s mouths or get picked up as talking points or assumptions during interviews by journalists too time pressed and/or lazy to do their own original research.
A free press? Sure thing.
Or even worse, as Tony Abbott has done and continues to do, avoid forensic interviews almost entirely. What does an outlet such as the ABC do then? Media entities are institutions within the media-saturated democratic ecology too. The ABC, historically and today, holds a special and vital place in our system despite its flaws and the many and growing pressures upon it. Both sides of politics despise it more than love or even respect it.
The commercial sector is just as vital. The strong advocacy (often overtly, corporately self-serving) character of much of News Limited’s contemporary journalism, recently most stridently around media reform, is a major blot on the journalistic landscape.
We @nofibs are not naive. Of course it is a battleground out there – especially now. But there is a decent dollop of hypocrisy attributable to those who can support a motherhood ideal in the abstract but fail to carry it into practice at the pointy end when they are confronted and questioned by skilled journalists doing their job on our behalf as citizens.
And that brings me to Sabra Lane, one of the ABC’s journalists in their Canberra bureau.
This morning on ABC Radio’s AM, Lane conducted a live interview with the shadow spokesman for immigration, Scott Morrison.
In my piece on the Sales/Gillard interview, I advocated a more radical approach by interviewers facing intractable stonewalling. I do not suggest Lane went all radical in this interview, but, as you will see, she did her very best to crack through the Morrison force field that included the well worn use of weasel words, hostility and gratuitous rudeness allied to a ‘no answer’ technique.
Sabra Lane did a fine job of conducting a difficult interview. Sadly for her and us citizens she came out of it with no useful information, having to be content with that secondary outcome: that many listeners would be able to perceive how Morrison behaved and how little respect he gave the wholly legitimate enquiry process about the coalition’s proposed policy shift in relation to asylum seekers.
Mind you, for every listener who came to that view, there would be as many who would think, ‘Good on you, Scott, you showed that pushy ABC reporter where to get off!’ That’s the way it is in our political/media environment.
Here is the interview and the transcript. I do encourage you to listen to the audio as it is radio, and the whole story of this interview lies in the aural tone and dynamic as well as the verbal content.
Sabra Lane: “Government must stop the boats: Morrison” Thursday, March 28, 2013 08:10
[audio http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/201303/20130328am-Morrison-boats.mp3 ]
Before briefly analyzing what happened between Lane and Morrison on air this morning, I mention that Tony Eastley’s lead did concern me a little. You’ll notice that the title is “Government must stop the boats: Morrison”. And Eastley starts his lead with: ‘The Opposition says 600 asylum seeker boats have arrived in Australia since Labor was elected in 2007 and it’s high time Labor did something to stop the flow.’ Call me old fashioned, but I think that is a poor way to frame this story. It smacks of being a conduit for a pure coalition perspective. Is it too much to ask for the ABC to frame this story in a way that makes it their chosen perspective not merely piggy-backing on an opposition assertion? This is a very long running, layered, complex, highly contested story after all. I thought that was lazy and overly reactive journalism.
But that was the lead Sabra Lane heard in her headphones as she sat waiting to commence her live interview with Scott Morrison over a thousand kilometres away in Adelaide. I mention the distance because being able to visually interrupt (with her eyes or facial expressions or body movements) was not available as part of her interviewing repertoire on this occasion. You will see the relevance of that shortly.
A reasonable first question? The nub of the Coalition’s policy around asylum seekers is ‘turning back the boats’ to stem the tide as they and many electors describe the situation.
HOW exactly that would be done (considering also Indonesia’a public attitudes and past behaviors) would seem wholly germane to any policy discussion around asylum seekers.
But not with Scott Morrison. Read and learn how obfuscation works in practice.
Lane challenges, asking reasonably whether the detail of that policy has been explored with the Navy or Customs. She includes now the issue of costs as well.
SABRA LANE: So you haven’t discussed yet with anyone the likelihood of how many vessels it would take and indeed how much money would be needed to enforce this strategy?
SCOTT MORRISON: I didn’t say that Sabra. What I said is we’d be deploying the assets to get the job done. Obviously we are working through all of our policies and I’m no stranger to this space Sabra, but I’m not about to give the people smugglers or other a heads-up about those sorts of operational matters.
Well, to quote him back ‘the first thing we’d be discussing …’ Did he ‘say that’? The slipperiness increases. Lane changes from general to specific (deduction to induction).
SCOTT MORRISON: Well I think I just answered the question Sabra. I’m not about to give people-smugglers or anyone else a heads-up. What they can be assured of is they can expect an Abbott-led Coalition government to put an end to this madness and we will deploy the assets that are necessary to get the job done and the resolve that is needed to get the job done.
Even superficially, the ‘heads-up’ argument, now used twice in both answers, seems questionable. Perhaps Lane, as she multi-tasks within this interview, decides to let that aspect go for the moment and focus on costs.
Politically, you would have to give that exchange to Morrison. It is clearly circular and largely untestable within this interview. Most interviewers would recognize the tactic in a short interview and move on. Lane doesn’t argue but immediately shifts to another key, and for both the ADF and much of the general population, a real concern.
SABRA LANE: But you’d be getting Navy personnel to board those craft, to steer them, turn them around and all the dangers that involves?
SCOTT MORRISON: Well Sabra, at the moment they’re running a very expensive taxi service…
Morrison comes back with a quite nasty piece of sloganeering to avoid the thrust of that question. Nasty? He knows people have died in the latest incident at Christmas Island. He knows that Navy and Customs personnel have been involved in difficult and, doubtless for them, traumatic experiences. For their work to be summed up as ‘a very expensive taxi service’ does the shadow minister no credit.
Lnme attempts to interrupt to presumably challenge that proposition
Morrison uses another and distinctly contradictory assertion about ‘putting themselves at risk’. This is, of course, the thrust of Lane’s earlier question around the ‘how’ and practicalities of any turn-back operation at sea.
Lane moves to be more specific as her interviewee makes quite wooly general claims .
Now Morrison pushes back against the journalist attempting to reach specifics using the well tried ‘let me answer’ tactic. Sometimes that is fair and reasonable. Is it here?
This is an important juncture. Having failed so far to bring Morrison to specifics, Lane steps back to re-frame the whole purpose and character of the interview. This is not radical but a kind of middle ground appeal to the shadow minister to lower his tactical hostility and approach this policy discussion on a reasonable basis. She then immediately, with energy re-states her questions, beefing them up somewhat to give them more clarity and force.
Now we come to the main tactic Morrison is using to avoid being specific. ‘Operational matters’? He is trying to sound like a defence minister? Is it a reasonable claim? Or weasel words?
The Associate editor of The Australian and specialist writer on defence, national security, federal politics and international affairs, Cameron Stewart, tweeted his view after apparently listening to the AM interview:
@bennpackham @vanonselenp Scott Morrison is wrong. Explaining how Navy will safelyturn around boats is not a sensitive operational matter.
— cameron stewart (@camstewarttheoz) March 27, 2013
Stewart’s colleague at The Australian, Ben Packham, had a similar view:
Sabra Lane’s questions were very reasonable. She was just seeking details of cost and workability of Coalition boats policy
— Ben Packham (@bennpackham) March 27, 2013
Sabra Lane’s questions were very reasonable. She was just seeking details of cost and workability of Coalition boats policy
SCOTT MORRISON: Well that’s for the Australian people to decide.
Lane now pushes Morrison to accept the reasonableness of asking this question in the light of how major a policy shift it will be.
Morrison sticks to the ‘operational matters’ avoidance line.
Lane tries another tack and it seems a reasonable one: how do the people who will execute the ‘turn back the boats’ coalition policy view the practicalities of this policy?
Morrison switches the logic of her question from their ‘support’ to their ‘capability’. A very different notion. Avoidance and a very old trick within media training for politicians. The journalist sees the switch and effectively repeats the question.
SABRA LANE: You’re saying that they’re quite capable of carrying them out but are they actually on side?
SCOTT MORRISON: Well that’s a matter for governments to discuss with their Defence Forces, not for oppositions. But I’m very confident Sabra, let me be very clear, I am very confident that the Defence Forces and in particularly in the Navy are capable of carrying out the policies of the government of the day and I’d be surprised if you thought they weren’t.
Are these more weasel words to extricate himself? Suddenly shifting it to some future time and government is irrelevant to Lane’s question. Morrison then returns to ‘capability’. He puts a sting in his reply, pushing back against the interviewer by pretending her question implied she was questioning the ADF’s ‘capability’. Another very old media training trick. There was no such implication.
Sabra Lane let’s that sequence go and turns her attention to the idea of holders of bridging visas and proposed ‘behaviour protocols’. The thrust of her question is about how this policy has been forged within the coalition.
Did Lane touch a nerve here? Going by Morrison’s hostility maybe so. His almost absurd suggestion in his ad hominem pushback that Lane, by simply asking about how the proposal came forward and with what degree of support internally, was ‘dictating’ anything speaks for itself.
Lane gamely asserts her role. Politely.
Lane continues and describes Morrison’s tactic more openly. We are used to hearing interviewees use the phrase, ‘you are putting words into my mouth’, but more rarely the other way round. You be the judge from the transcript.
Lane re-asserts herself strongly and clarifies the question.
Morrison does illogical avoidance pure and simple.
Lane is dogged.
Observe here the politician’s ultimate refuge when pressed over the illogicality or inadequacy of an answer ‘Well, that’s the answer I’m giving you’, or similar. It is also used when an interviewer challenges a politician for not answering a question and the reply is ‘I have answered’. Effectively, ‘Suck it up!’
It is hard to imagine that Sabra Lane came away from that encounter very satisfied with the results of her efforts.
How else do you believe she could have approached or handled that interview? Were her questions reasonable and pertinent? What about her style and demeanor? Did you hear the answers you were seeking as a citizen about a major change of policy around asylum seekers? If not, what stopped that information from reaching you?
As always, YOUR views and discussion points welcome here in the comments section or @nofibs on Twitter.
Peter Clarke is the author of The interview: a hollow dance looking for new moves? in Australian Journalism Today, edited by Matthew Ricketson, Palgrave Macmillan
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
This interview unequivocally confirms my following opinion.
I personally do not give a damn about party politics and I could not care less about labels such as left, right, centre, wet and dry. What I care about is the health of our democracy. I hate it when it gets trashed for the sake of profit and power or through sheer ineptitude and stupidity.
The triumvirate MSM/ABC/LNP are clearly out of control for some time now. The malevolent alliance is hell bent in removing a policy rich and better than average Federal Government. These are unprecedented events.
A diverse range of tools are being deployed. They are ranging from telling outright lies, supply of misinformation, suppression of facts, personal attacks and the list goes on. Another effective tool is the constant reference to mid-term poll “results”.
Some honest journalists are stepping up to the plate in order to set the record straight. Unfortunately too many “fence sitters” do not seem to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Time is running out!
Get your act together people or our civil society goes down the drain. Do you care?
Sabra did a good job against a man who obviously hasn’t got any substance to support this nonsense at all. Clearly, Morrison and others in the shadow ministry have cooked up this scheme ad hoc and have consulted with no-one or put any genuine thought into HOW this will be accomplished.
I am pleased to finally hear a journalist go tough and push for answers on specifics.
I think Sabra did well. And I was not surprised by Morrison’s rude and intimidating manner when he was cornered and had no real answers.
The media should do more of this kind of examination of the LNP’s vague and ‘pulled out of the sky’ rhetoric put out as policy. It is in no way acceptable from a group who are putting themselves out there as an alternative government.
The simplistic and jingo ladened crap that the Liberals seem so fond of may sit well with die hard neoconservatives and those people who get all their news and opinions handed to them from the Murdoch rags and Alan Jones, but if this crowd expect people to vote for them they need to lift their game dramatically.
Do they really have so much contempt for the voters of this country?
At present they’re simply relying on the trouble the ALP has visited on itself and on the mindless, vile hatred that they, with the help of a less than adequate media, have been able to stir up and maintain against the ALP – and more specifically, Julia Gillard. And at present there is a real danger that it will be on this basis alone that they will get to run Australia for the next 3 years…god help us all!
This is surely not a matter of national security – despite the fact that our security forces are involved.
To claim that dealing with boatloads of refugees IS a matter of national security is just disengenuous nonsense, which no amount of obsfication and bluster can mask.
Sabra asked Scott Morrison how our security forces were expected to perform the task of turning the boats around and ensuring they returned to Indonesia. Of course he had no answer. None at all. Perfectly obvious.
“How else do you believe she could have approached or handled that interview? Were her questions reasonable and pertinent? What about her style and demeanor? Did you hear the answers you were seeking as a citizen about a major change of policy around asylum seekers? If not, what stopped that information from reaching you?”
I don’t know how else she could have approached the interview. I am not trained in this area. What I did glean from this interview is that Sabra Lane was irrelevant as Morrison just ran roughshod all over her. Are you implying that Morrison is good at obfuscation? If so, are there no tools at the disposal of journalists to ‘out’ this practice?
I am of the opinion that we have a poor selection of journalists, operating apparently in an environment where their superiors are dictating the agenda. But I am willing to be proven wrong. Could you please point me to ‘recent’ continuous good examples of journalism so that my view could be changed? PLEASE!
Drats! I knew I should have checked the spelling of “obfuscation”. Thank you.
“Are you implying that Morrison is good at obfuscation? If so, are there no tools at the disposal of journalists to ‘out’ this practice?”
Yes. In my opinion Scott Morrison is deliberately clouding the issue. I see this as very much a humanitarian issue, not one that in any way threatens our national security.
Unfortunately, broadcast journalists are very much in a cleft stick when attempting to deal with “bully bounce” tactics by interviewees. As soon as they stand their ground and insist upon honest and direct answers, they’re accused of aggression, of talking over the interviewee and of taking sides.
Sabra Lane did what she could to get to the nub of the matter (i.e. to get Scott Morrison to explain exactly how he thought the navy would bring about the turning back of refugee boats) but with little success. She maintained her dignity and did what she could to get a straight answer. To my mind, the bluster and obfuscation from Scott Morrison did him very little credit and leaves the distinct impression that his “solution” is no solution, and is nothing but political rhetoric.
Trevor, Appreciate your thoughts. I suspect Sabra Lane would have been glad to sacrifice a little “dignity” in exchange for a modicum of authentic and policy relevant information from the shadow spokesman. Imagine how dispiriting that kind of outcome can be for the sincere and dedicated journalist? Agree about the “cleft stick” problem. That aspect seems to be getting worse. But I suggest the ball is ultimately back in journalism’s court to reform, renew and re-invent techniques and seek through adaptive practice the outcomes they seek and we need.
You state in your article “It smacks of being a conduit for a pure coalition perspective. Is it too much to ask for the ABC to frame this story in a way that makes it their chosen perspective not merely piggy-backing on an opposition assertion? ”
Well said, as that, imo, is the core of the problem. On the Gillard interview, Sales also asked and assumed her questions from a coalition perspective, and here, Lane does the same. And i is across the board at not only the ABC, but almost every political discussion that takes place. The coalition perspective is the default one, no matter how wrong or right that perspective may be.
I also note that no label was attempted to be applied to morrison, unlike the Gillard one, it was all questions relevant to the discussion, without assumptions, that got heated simply because morrison didn’t answer. Compare that with the Gillard interview where the discussion turned heated after Gillard had answered all the questions, but perhaps just not to Sales liking. Sure, Gillard obfuscated later in the interview when Sales finally did get around to asking relevant questions. But by then, Sales had her so far offside from her continued ‘gotchas’ that I think anybody would have been obfuscating by then no matter what the question.
Interviews would be far more informative, imo, if the interviewee made their chosen perspective none. This would remove their assumptions, which only tend to impede the process, not improve it, and force them to stick with the absolutes we already know.
As to what should these stations do when tony abbott doesn’t show up. Simple, just discuss his policies (or lack there-of) without him. If he doesn’t like the outcome, he can come on and defend himself. Ignoring him is again just playing into the coalition perspective.
Hi Tom, thanks for your take. I quite strongly disagree with your idealised “neutrality” proposition. That is an impossibility if you try to imagine how human journalists engage with material and the process of enquiry. We do agree partially around how the ABC and others are caught up in assumptions and agendas that they have insufficiently thought through themselves journalistically. (Not too sure whether you are being entirely fair to Sabra Lane in this instance.) That is very concerning. But that problem is threaded through so much coverage now. But I do suggest you google up Jay Rosen and track down his “view from nowhere” arguments. They may give you more insight into where I am coming from. Additionally, all our discussions around journalism need to recognise how profoundly and rapidly the realm of journalism is transforming within the digital revolution and the many-to- many model induced by social media and ever increasing hyper-connectedness.
Thank you for putting this article together Peter. And well done Sabra Lane.
I now realize, more than ever, that morrison and his kind hide behind bluff, rhetoric and mock outrage. If only the interviewer was able to say, “You are either avoiding my questions or you don’t know the answers … so I won’t waste my listeners time. I’m going to terminate the interview now and we’ll think the worst of you. What do you think listeners?”
” I quite strongly disagree with your idealised “neutrality” proposition.”
Yes, perhaps I didn’t phrase that too well. When I said ‘prespective’, I meant as in taking a side, or opinion, that isn’t necessarily based in fact, but is based more on a current ideology. Stick with facts. Lane did with morrison, and exposed him for his empty rhetoric, Sales, however, just picked the oppositions talking points, and found herself slapped down with facts from Gillard that shot her position to pieces. This put her off her game, and set the tone for the interview. If she had just stuck with facts, and based her ‘perspective’ in that, we would have all been better off.
This “view from nowhere” you mentioned, imo, is what has led to this ridiculous ‘balance’ the ABC is supposed to practice. Interestingly, they increasingly practice balancing themselves with the adopted ideology of the conservatives, as highlighted in these two interviews.
Thanks for the feedback though, it is appreciated, and you articles are stimulating an interesting conversation.
Thanks Tom. I really appreciate your thoughtful contributions to this far from straight forward set of issues/problems. We actually don’t want agreement on every aspect. It is surely a pluralist set of problems with doubtless pluralist solutions.
Without wishing to be ingratiating, I am most impressed by your level of education, and your degree of critical thinking, so glad to be on your mailing list. Thank you for all of your effort.
What happens if a boat sinks? have they got any agreement to ‘turn the boats back’? As far as I know Indonesia has said they wont accept them.
Is the default positon- let them drown- but dont tell us about it.
The analysis here is sound in my opinion. Morrison’s main thrust was “we know better and we are tough and WE will decide what the Navy etc will do” despite all evidence that such a scenario is unlikely. The questions from Lane were incidental to that.
This has become the opposition tactic. IOW, whatever the question : this is the answer (and if they can’t be fit together, I’ll just end the interview.
My big ‘grudge’ in interviews is that it has become a game from the media. Interviewers aim for gotchas a lot of the time (rather than eliciting actual information – the interviewer often aims for damning information) and the politicians have become well versed in responding with non-answers/evasions (I think primarily because the line of questioning deserves no less).
Someone above said that Sales was frustrated that the answers the PM gave were not those she was after, and I concur for the most part. I get personally frustrated that many in media repeat & repeat and repeat the same questions expecting a change in answer. This is a media failing.
Lane was better than Sales in this respect because she tried to come at the issue from a number of different angles.
My final peeve, is the media’s technique of interrupting in attempt to escalate the momentum. Media complains that there is no in-depth answering to questions, but as soon as someone attempts a full answer, it is interrupted to ‘move on’. This engenders disrespect, promotes the 2 second grab, sloganeering and does a disservice to viewers/listeners who really DO want to hear the answer.
Oh, Peter, I must say I didn’t like the statement about neither Sales or PM came out of the i/v looking good – least of all PM.
I have 2 criticisms of that, firstly – you point out the failings of both in the course of the interview – perhaps it is better to let those who read you story take their own conclusion? I think this is what media should always do, rather than dictate opinion (which makes half readers cheer and get the the half’s backs up).
The other is: define the motivation of the pro/antagonists in order to assess the success of the overall interview.
Of course bias plays a part in every evaluation, but the constant push by media for damning answers/gotchas means that if the interviewee successfully imparts his/her message without being “got” then it might be deemed that the interviewee was successful. Political journalism has become wholly confrontational – which means issues of interest/consensus are either treated with scant regard or manipulated/skewed to become contentious when it should not be.
In either case, the viewer/listener will make their own mind up. Trouble is, this overall game robs the audience of ALL the required information.
Jen
Thanks, Jennifer. As you already probably know, we differ somewhat on the role and communication responsibilities of the professional politicians. Of course the “gotcha” impulse/culture is alive and well but not everywhere. And more than occasionally, something akin to “gotcha” is exactly appropriate. I think of Sales and Abbott, in her Walkley Award winning interview late 2012, where it became clear Abbott hadn’t read the relevant documents from BHP. I can name a myriad prominent politicians from both sides who aren’t the slightest bit interested in your imagined/idealised “in depth” interviews while the interviewer sits there listening patiently (including on topics as important as major infrastructure policies or fiscal plans). It takes two to reach that kind of approach to forensic discussion. It IS multi-factorial, of course, – well beyond what you describe. One issue, as I alluded to with the Gillard interview, is allocating enough time to a specific interview. Another is the more veiled culture within journalism that rewards certain behaviours over others. None of this is simple and is why I resist agreeing with your and others’ blaming the journos only or largely. The media class and political class are entwined in often deeply unhealthy ways (unhealthy for the democracy I mean). We all see them “use” each other. We see the strategic “leaks”. I infer you wish to sheet home the blame primarily to interviewers/journos. I believe strongly that misses the whole layered reality. It is a little like pretending what you see and hear within the temporal confines of a specific interview IS the reality. It is barely a glimpse of some kind of reality. It’s a crafted construct. As you have seen, I advocate interviewers lifting their game quite radically. But, by that I mean widening and deepening their repertoire of techniques not narrowing them. For some, of a certain mien, that may require using the weight and calmness of his/her personality to chip away and slowly elicit information creating coherence as they do so (if they have enough time allocated). For others it may mean having the courage/confidence to crack open the stultifying media interview conventions when required. That will mean, YES! interrupting. Lane tried a little (you didn’t mind hers as much in THAT context?). It is a hard ask. I totally stick by my own opinion that Gillard came out of that Sales interview very poorly too in the light of the overall context and the week we had just had. It was an opinion based on clear information before us and the wider context. And it was in my view intrinsic to my analysis of that specific interview however imperfect. Sure, I agree much of what has happened to Gillard in the media has been deeply unfair. But, her own political communications need significant improvement and more than a dash of added authenticity, in my opinion. My comments are far from confined to her. I hope this clarifies my position. I understand yours overall. Thanks for such a friendly debate/discussion.
While I agree with many of your premises stated above, the average viewer/listener actually sees it on a much more superficial level. And that level is the one where voting decisions are made, for instance.
Though the deeper context is important to ‘insiders’ and ‘aficionados’ the snappy 2 second grab appears to deny context in interviews. And this, in turn, has effected language choice (both interviewer & i/vee) and encouraged evasive tactics to avoid becoming a headline on a single line or word.
The “no carbon tax” comment from the PM is a classic example. The first line was indeed what she said but it was followed by, “but I am determined to price carbon in the next term”. This part was deliberately omitted in order to create an impression and demonstrated that how a politician frames their answer is often misused or omitted for effect.
Using the PM as a further example: several ‘side’ interviews that have not been done by gallery journos show a completely different, far more honest set of responses. Unfortunately these are not given wide distribution because they DON’T fill the sensationalised agenda of mainstream press.
I’m obviously not a journo myself – but I’m not anti-journo … my husband is what was once classed a Super A when he left NewsLtd to freelance, but thankfully in the arena of sport!