The ongoing decay and ideological decadence of the mainstream media

Ultimately, it’s the people in the electorate who decide, not the journalists and reporters compromised by their narrow commercial and ideological interests.

In the ever-shifting landscape of Australian federal politics, the latest opinion polls have become a topic of intense media scrutiny, revealing a change in the public sentiment towards both the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese and the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton. While the polls suggest that Albanese and Dutton are as unpopular as each other—both showing a rating of minus 13 in the latest Newspoll figures—a significant gap persists when it comes to the preference for the Prime Minister.

There always has to be a caution against reading too much into polls this far ahead of an election, and the mainstream media, true to its nature, remains actively engaged in dissecting and interpreting the numbers and looking for any signs of turmoil within the Labor government, a pastime that always seems to be absent whenever the Coalition is in office.

The Sydney Morning Herald, recently took a bold stance with a headline article spotlighting what they perceive as “three signs of decay” within the Albanese government. However, the timing of such a critique raises questions about the validity of these assertions, especially considering that the current Labor government has only been in power for a relatively brief 18 months. How can a government be showing signs of decay after 18 months? What next, rigor mortis after two years?

These are ridiculous suggestions. Traditionally, governments are not deemed to be in a “state of decay” within such a short timeframe, and it’s a political evaluation that lacks the necessary context. Problems and difficulties? Yes, most definitely, there are issues which have beset the Albanese government in a relatively short period of time. But none of these issues are irreversible and mid-term polls are usually not positive for first-term governments: what is the more surprising is that Albanese’s polling numbers have stayed so high for so long.

The three purported signs of decay, as outlined by the Sydney Morning Herald, allude to critical aspects of governance. Firstly, the accusation of “policy inertia” suggests that the Labor government is struggling to articulate a forward-looking vision, but how can any government of any persuasion at the halfway point of their first term, still busy delivering on the agenda it promised at the previous election, be concerned about what it hopes to deliver in 2025 and beyond? Certainly, governments need to be aware of development of policy that attracts the electorate at subsequent elections—concurrent with the process of bedding down existing plans and agendas, as well as ongoing process of governing—but that stage hasn’t been reached yet.

Secondly, the Herald points to a perceived lack of preparation and a poor response to events, citing a recent High Court ruling on unlawful immigration detention as a case in point, a decision which overturned another ruling from twenty years ago. It could be argued that the government should have had contingency legislative plans in place to deal with this decision—High Court rulings in the past have been notoriously unpredictable and despite there being a belief that there was a slim chance of the 2004 ruling being overturned—the government should have been prepared, both in terms of possible legislation and dealing with the politics of any potential fallout. But to claim a “lack of preparation and a poor response to events” based on one case—one case!—and on an issue that has negligible effect on the electorate—which conveniently feeds into Coalition talking points on national security—is a narrow and shallow political analysis.

The third sign of decay, revolves around the concept of “isolated leadership”. Apparently, there are rumours of discontent within the Labor backbench and alleged tensions within the party are raising questions about the “cohesiveness of the government”. And, as usual, these claims are based on anonymous sources and lack concrete evidence, a common criticism when evaluating the credibility of such reports.

This analysis has to be placed in the context that the Sydney Morning Herald, owned by Nine Media and chaired by former Liberal government treasurer Peter Costello, is displaying the anti-Labor bias that it usually offers in its analysis, and the political opinions expressed in most of the mainstream media often reflects the perspectives of their owners, a factor that requires careful consideration when interpreting the alleged “signs of decay” within the Albanese government.

As the debate over the government’s performance intensifies within the mainstream media, it remains to be seen whether these early indicators of discontent will translate into a broader narrative of decay or whether the Labor government will navigate the challenges and emerge with an adequate political response. The pressures on the government are undeniable, yet the question of whether it can be labeled a “government in decay” is a lazy one, drawing varied opinions from political analysts and the electorate alike.

What political decay really looks like

Within Australian federal politics, the interpretation of opinion polls and the subsequent media narrative often overshadows the substantive work conducted within parliamentary offices and electorates. Unquestionably, governments would prefer to have positive opinion polls all the time, but the better governments are not driven by polls: parliamentary business and managing public programs are a substantial part of the role of the Prime Minister, ministers and the government of the day. Certainly, despite what they all say publicly, politicians do inspect the polls, analyse them and interpret what they mean. But then they go off and do their work in their parliamentary offices, or out in the field in the electorate. While they take a serious interest in the polls, they are not consumed by the polls: there is a marked difference.

The media, on the other hand, has been relentless in amplifying the notion that the Albanese government is teetering on the brink of turmoil. Allegations of discontent within the backbench have been fervently disseminated, with the ABC and Nine Media leading the charge, suggesting that the government is in a “world of pain”. However, seasoned political observers argue that such discontent is an anomaly for a new government, especially within the initial 18 months of its term.

Turmoil and decay is rarely a feature of first-term governments—that’s not to say that they are without problems, especially if they have been out of office for close to a decade—but it is rare. Cabinet positions are rarely available to first-term MPs, where most are learning the art of being a politician and working out the practical nature and intricacies of politics and managing a political office, and they’re not even in a position to be disgruntled and unhappy with the role they have as a backbencher: politics is based on rules of longevity and pecking orders, and a fresh-faced and new politician simply has to wait their turn. Certainly, if there were reports of dissent or disillusionment with the leadership in the second or third term of a government, that would be believable, because that’s generally when it happens.

In addition, claims by Andrew Bolt from Sky News suggesting Albanese should “step down”, is “not up to the job” and will face an imminent leadership change in the Labor government, ignores the mechanics of a leadership spill within the Labor government, which requires 75 per cent support from the Caucus, a threshold which is close to impossible. Critics argue that these reports are driven more by sensationalism than by a genuine assessment of the government’s stability and performances.

As a comparison, what does a “decaying government” look like? The final years of the NSW Labor government between 2008–11, a level of decadence reached after 13 years in office; the NSW Coalition government between 2021–23, a level of incompetence reached after 10 years in office; the second term of federal Labor between 2011–13; the final years of mayhem in the federal Coalition between 2016–22, or the Howard government after they won their fourth consecutive election in 2004. All of these governments were long-term and had simply run out energy, become complacent or riven by internal divisions. This is what decay looks like. This point has not arrived for the Albanese—and that’s not to say that it won’t arrive at some point in the future, but it’s very unlikely in this first term and certainly not the case at this point of time.

Prime Minister Albanese also doesn’t have the same ideological, personal and political instabilities that many of his predecessors had: Rudd couldn’t hold his party together with his esoteric personality and leadership style; Tony Abbott was consumed with ideological culture wars; Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison led a divisive and divided Liberal Party; Julia Gillard had to contend with an even further divided Labor Party that was also dealing with the fallout from deposing Rudd and his continuing destructive presence in Parliament.

Albanese doesn’t have any of these issues to contend with and appears to be more amenable to collaboration and operates within a more cohesive party structure. Albanese may yet need to deal with these issues: political parties, no matter how successful they might be or how well their government is travelling in opinion polls, will always have dissenting membership who are unhappy with the performances of their leader.

Certainly, there are issues that rank-and-file membership have been clearly unhappy with: the Labor government’s responses to raising the Jobseeker rate in 2022; slow progress on social housing construction; the lack of debate over the AUKUS deal; Stage 3 tax cuts; the unchallenged support for the government of Israel when it’s obvious to everyone that the Israel Defense Forces have committed war crimes against Palestinian people in Gaza—there is much for Labor members to be unhappy about, but this is not a government in decay—yet—despite what many in the mainstream media are suggesting, or indeed, hoping for.

Essentially, this is the narrative of discontent from a pro-conservative mainstream media doing their best to destabilise a government that has upset their ideological base and drawn the ire of the media editors and proprietors at News Corporation, Seven West Media and Nine Media, and increasingly, the ABC.

In the complex world of Australian politics, where optics and narratives vie for attention, the true and accurate measure of the Albanese government’s trajectory will unfold over time, shaped by both its policy actions and the perception war waged in the media. Ultimately, it’s the people in the electorate who decide, not the journalists and reporters compromised by their narrow commercial and ideological interests.