“Lie” is a strong word, even when used of habitual liars like politicians. The media rarely use it for delicate semantic reasons; they’ll explain that for it to be a lie, it has to be deliberate, and for that you have to know the liar’s state of mind.
Which is a convenient evasion for a profession that for an entire Presidential term avoided calling President Trump a liar, or Scott Morrison, for that matter.
My opinion is that when the same behaviour is repeated, consistently, it’s reasonable to infer a state of mind, and certainly an intent, and so my judgment is that the ABC lies, even while using its most vaunted attribute: balance.
There’s a famous quote about journalism
If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the window and find out which is true.
It’s one of the notable characteristics of these ABC articles that while they contain quotes from—frequently—opposing points of view, the journalist never looks out the window. Rather, the ABC’s “balance” is supposedly served simply by reporting them both. That isn’t a lie of commission, but it’s deliberately misleading by omission, and that’s only one of the numerous ways that journalists put their thumb on the scales.
I’m going to use the article pictured above as a worked example later in this piece, however it’s representative of a style I’d argue is common in the ABC. Here’s another recent worked example of mine: Blackout? Don’t Worry, the ABC Will Gaslight You, and an extensive quantitative analysis …Whatever You Do, Don’t Mention The Climate Change.
It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it
To show how journalists and editors tip the scales, let me ask a few, hopefully simple, questions about journalism, with examples, that illuminate each of the techniques shown in the main illustration.
Is a headline more important than the last paragraph of a story?
Self-evidently, yes, just as the first few paragraphs are more important than the last. It’s well-known that readers may not even read the article at all, simply scan the headline, and the famous “inverted pyramid” style of journalistic writing is an explicit acknowledgment that readers will frequently read only the first few paragraphs.
So why, in an article claiming to be an analysis of where Greens’ votes came from, is the quote below not the lede of the story, but instead the penultimate paragraph? More, why is it the only mention of gender in the entire article? The article claims to be an “analysis”, yet the entire article doesn’t mention gender at all until this quote at the end.
I should repeat that: in an article that claims to be “analysing” where the Greens “stole” their votes from, the only mention of gender, or women’s votes, comes in a quote at the very end.
[The first mention of “Liberals” I think must be a typo, and should say “teals”, otherwise the whole quote doesn’t make sense.]
Does the “reporter’s voice” matter?
All three of these “voices” are regularly used in articles: the “reporter’s voice”; direct quotes; and indirect quotes. Examples:
- The ABC often lies to its readers
- “The ABC often lies to its readers,” regular ABC basher says
- ABC critic says Corporation often ‘lies’ to its readers
The first statement is in the “reporter’s voice”. It’s presented as fact, unattributed, and we’re expected to assume that it has passed the usual journalistic and editorial hurdles of multiple sources, fact-checking, and so forth. In other words, we’re expected to believe it. This is the ABC, our “trusted source” for news.
The second, reported, statement doesn’t have any such expectations. It’s simply one person’s opinion, and the fact that it’s attributed to that person indicates that if it differs from anything said in the “reporter’s voice”, then it is automatically in conflict with “the truth”.
The third statement doesn’t even provide an accurate quotation, but simply draws attention to a specific word or language that’s disavowed by the “reporter’s voice”. These are also known as “scare quotes”, for a good reason.
Here is an example of the use of the “reporter’s voice”.
All of this language is in the “reporter’s voice”. That is, we’re being asked to accept this as fact: that the Greens were “desperate”, that the reporter know what they saw as a “best chance”. We’re being told that Khalil is a “savvy political operator”, he was “out-spent” and that voters in Brunswick come from a “trendy” suburb. Not opinion, or framing—fact.
That’s the power of the “reporter’s voice” to tilt the scales.
Does choice of language matter?
Is there any factual or emotional difference between these alternatives?
- The Greens were desperate vs.
- The Greens were keen
- The Greens stole votes vs.
- The Greens attracted votes
- The Greens were a rampaging outfit vs.
- The Greens had enthusiastic, dedicated staff
- The Greens attracted well-off children of Liberal voters vs.
- The Greens attracted younger voters
I’d argue that there is. All of the bolded language is used in the article, presumably in preference to the alternatives. This deliberately emotive, sometimes hyperbolic language is a very unsubtle way to tilt the scales.
In an article labelled ANALYSIS, does context matter?
In an article “analysing” an election result, would you expect to find a comparison of policies? You won’t find one here.
In the article it’s claimed that the three demographic predictors of Greens’ voters are gender, education and income. In that case, would you expect the entire article to focus on income only? Would you expect it to completely ignore gender, and mention education only in passing? It does.
Further, if you were asked to predict whether previous educational success was a predictor of income, would you say “I think better-educated people will usually have lower incomes than average”? Of course not, but the correlation between education and income is never mentioned, just as education itself isn’t.
Would you say “more affluent people tend to be women”? Of course not. Then why would this article concentrate on house prices and not gender, or education?
In other words, it’s not just what you say and how you say it, it’s the context in which you put it, and what you don’t say that matters as well. In an editorial or opinion column that’s perhaps defensible. In an article explicitly labelled ANALYSIS it’s inexcusable.
How can a “balanced” article lie?
How do they do it if it’s “balanced”? Easily. Read on and I’ll show you.
They story they really want to tell is in the headline and the early paragraphs, and it’s told in the “reporter’s voice”. The story they must include for “balance” is put later, or at the end, and is told in quotes or scare quotes. Vital context is omitted, and actual “analysis”—the investigation of competing explanations—is totally missing.
That way, if anyone accuses them of bias, they can point to the fact that all the information is presented; what’s obviously missing from that defense is how it’s presented, where, using what language, and with what context—most particularly, it’s not what’s there, it’s what’s missing.
In my opinion, it’s not even unbalanced, it’s lying.
A worked example
What follows is a laboriously detailed dissection of this specific article. There are a lot of pathologies to see, unfortunately, and multiple examples of all the unbalances I described earlier.
It’s important to remember that this article purports to analyse the source of The Greens’ success. Measured against that goal, it’s a dismal failure. What it does do, quite successfully, is to use repeated emotive language to portray Greens’ voters, and by implication, the party, as catering for rich, entitled, and by implication, spoiled, younger voters. There’s also a strong sense that all votes are ultimately just for sale, and the party spending the most money will succeed. There’s more, but I’ll catalog it as it goes past.
Language
The article is full of hyperbolic and emotional language. For an analysis piece that’s not a good sign, but worse is that the positive and negative connotations of the language are clearly biased in one direction. Rather than call out every example, I’ll just list some of them here, and you can decide whether these are “analytical” terms or not.
steal
children
stole
well-heeled
rampaging
well-off
well-off
well-heeled
desperate
wealthy
romped
trendy
savvy
booming
capitulated
affluent
affluent
expensive
Note the repeated use of various synonyms for “rich”. I haven’t listed all the synonyms used for “female”, or “well-educated”, because there aren’t any.
Headline
The headline is often the only part of an article the reader will see. If they don’t click through, then it’s the framing in the headline that will be their only recollection of the content. If they do keep reading, it has already set the framing and expectations for what follows.
Needless to say, the word “steal” carries a lot of emotional baggage. It implies, first of all, that the votes actually belonged to some other party. Now, I recognise that most readers won’t assume the literal meaning of the word, however the semantic resonance is there, when the sub-editor and writer could easily have used “attract” with equal validity. But they chose “steal”. So there’s already the unsubtle implication that some votes actually belong to a party, they’re theirs by right. Amazing.
Also subtle, but important, is the choice of active or passive voice. “Man beats woman” is a headline you’ll rarely see. “Woman found beaten” is what you’ll see. Note that here, it’s voters who vote, not political parties, but the Greens stole votes rather than attracting them. Instead of their policies appealing to voters who then voted for them, the Greens somehow actively pick-pocketed them. Yes, it’s subtle. It’s also insidious.
More: “steal” also carries with it the connotation of dishonesty, stealth, and underhanded behaviour. Clearly The Greens didn’t attract these votes by proposing preferable policies, they stole them dishonestly. As the hashtag says, #ThisIsNotJournalism, but we’ve set the scene for what follows.
Early paragraphs
Although the article is ostensibly about from where the Greens “stole” votes, the article leads with money. In the “reporter’s voice” the Greens are described as a “rampaging outfit” [1,2], the measured language of political analysis right from the outset.
Did they “steal” these votes in a battle of ideals, or policy?
No, not according to the ABC. It’s just about money [3,4,7]. The journalist quotes Mr. Khalil rather than asserting what he says as fact, however notice that what the journalist does say is in agreement with him, and there is no fact-checking or contradiction of what Mr. Khalil is quoted as saying. For example, his assertion that “almost a million dollars” was spent is published, but isn’t checked. Mr. Khalil himself hedges his estimate with “I don’t know … but I think”, however even that isn’t enough to trigger the journalist’s need to check facts—to look out the window. It’s just published, without comment, right at the front of the article.
Note the subtle difference between “a lot” of Greens money being “put”, and the ALP’s “fundraising” [3,4], the clear implication being that the ALP’s efforts are grassroots, while the Greens have some external source of money. Note also the clear implication that success in an election is basically about how much money you can spend; almost the entire article is focussed on money, either who spent it or who has it, rather than the quaint notion that a political candidate might be successful because of policies.
These words are from Mr. Khalil, not the journalist, however the journalist chose to quote them, not check them, and not contradict them. What the journalist does use the “reporter’s voice” for is to describe the Greens as “rampaging”, Mr. Khalil as “politically savvy” and Brunswick as “trendy”. It’s also the first of only two times in the article where voters are described as “well-educated”, as distinct from being “affluent”, “well-heeled”, “well-off”, or “wealthy”, and certainly never as “female”.
So, in summary, the leading paragraphs in this story are that a seat that was supposed to “belong” to the ALP was nearly “stolen” by the Greens by spending a lot of money. It was a “ferocious” contest, not of ideas, but of money.
But wait, there’s more
In case the message hasn’t got through yet, we’re treated to another barrage of emotive adjectives—in the “reporter’s voice”, so it’s true—clearly identifying these voters as rich. Not well-educated, not female, not attracted to certain policies, not disaffected with other parties, these voters are just RICH [12,13].
The language becomes so ridiculously loaded that the journalist indirectly quotes someone describing them as “well-off children” [13]. Frankly, this disgusts me. These people are adult voters, not children, except that, trivially, every voter is someone else’s child, however the implication here is clear. The fact that the journalist, again, chooses to publish this particular phrase tells us a lot. It’s not in direct quotes, so it has the authority of the “reporter’s voice” although it is attributed. The journalist, again, doesn’t look out the window.
The first fifteen paragraphs of this story have now been dedicated to one simple message: Greens voters are rich, and their votes were bought with money.
It’s worth noting, in passing, that the unnamed Liberal strategist gives the entire game away in two quotes, however, as usual, the journalist completely fails to pick up on them. This strategist suggests that the Greens’ success is “what issues to home in on” and “knowing what issues will play well with voters” [14]. Personally, I use a shorter word for that: policies, and I would suggest that it might have played a part, but not according to this “analysis” article.
Much later that day…
A lot further down the article, now that the journalist, the ALP and the Liberals have all had their say about the Greens and their rich voters, we finally come to the necessary “balance”, some brief direct and indirect quotes from Adam Bandt. I suppose an article about the Greens would have caused comment without any actual input from the Greens…
Bandt directly and specifically contradicts some of the earlier assertions made by the journalist and other politicians. One of them must be wrong, surely, but if you were expecting some kind of journalistic looking out the window, you’ll be disappointed.
Bandt also points out that the Greens contested every seat, however they chose to do what every political party has always done, and focus resources [15] where they will do the most good. It seems, though, that when other parties do this it’s unremarkable, whereas when the Greens do it they’re “stealing” votes.
Again, what’s noticeable in this article is as much what’s not there, as what is. Just as there is only a single mention of women, there’s only a single mention of the Nationals, despite the fact that they are a perfect example of a minor party that focuses its resources where they will be effective, only the Nationals only contest a very small fraction of seats. You might think that there is a useful contrast to be drawn between the two, but not in this article.
Bandt also mentions policy, however that broad hint is also ignored.
Did we mention that Greens voters are RICH?
After a brief, but necessary—because “balance”—quote from Bandt, the article returns to its main theme: how rich Greens’ voters are. We’re treated to an exhaustive analysis—finally, some analysis—but not of education, or gender, or policies, but of house prices as an index of how rich Greens’ voters are.
I don’t need to belabour the point, since the journalist does it so well, that this “analysis” of where the Greens “stole” votes from has only a single, simple, painfully repeated message. Their success had nothing to do with policy, it had nothing to do with voters’ disaffection with other parties, it had nothing to do with either education or gender, it was because their voters were rich. It descends to the absolute bathos of claiming—but not establishing—a correlation between house prices in one suburb and the returns from two booths. I think, in the journalist’s mind, that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Greens “stole” votes from other parties by, um, having rich voters. No, wait, that doesn’t make sense…
Here’s my alternative story
The Greens owed their electoral success to their policies.
The policies they carried to this election didn’t differ significantly from the policies they carried to previous elections. What’s clear is that the same messages they’ve proclaimed for many years—of stopping global warming, of gender and identity equity, of reversing the growing divide between rich and poor and improving social equity—have struck a stronger chord. They’ve appealed to well-educated voters, to younger voters who are facing the existential threat of climate change, and to women. All of these demographics have found the alternative policies and messages of other parties less appealing.
The Greens have sensibly focused their efforts on electorates containing those demographics, and where those messages resonate most.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY BEST REPRESENT THE WISHES OF THE ELECTORATE.
Apologies for the shouting, but this simple, even trite explanation seems to have eluded the ABC, which instead has spent an entire article attempting to paint the Greens’ success as theft and vote-buying, and their voters as one-dimensional caricatures, namely rich.
But, but, we haven’t told a single lie
Indeed, it’s possibly true. All attributed quotes are obviously the responsibility of the speaker, and indirect quotes are—mostly—attributed.
Were the Greens “desperate”? Is Mr. Khalil a “savvy political operator”? We have to take the journalist’s word for those assertions, however the majority of the facts in the article about house prices and booth results are all presumably accurate. It’s the article as a whole that’s a lie, in my opinion.
How does it lie? By failing to check any of the quoted assertions, even when they’re in clear and direct opposition; by deliberately choosing the headline, emphasis and language; by failing to discuss or investigate other important demographics; by burying the clearest and most accurate explanation at the very end of an article. Instead this “analysis” is dedicated almost entirely to unsubtly smearing the Greens and their voters, but with “balance”. In my opinion, of course.
Here are those last two paragraphs again, all that was really needed.
A reminder: just in case you think I’m making sweeping generalisations on the basis of a single article, here’s another worked example of exactly the same techniques at work, on a completely different subject. In both cases the goal of the article isn’t to provide either news or analysis, it’s to promote a particular point of view. Blackout? Don’t Worry, the ABC Will Gaslight You
Further, if you’d like quantitative rather than qualitative arguments, here is an exhaustive analysis of three hundred and sixteen ABC articles, published over one month. My focus here was to investigate the ABC’s apparent allergy to climate change, and in particular their regular technique of burying important but unwanted content toward the end of the article. Facts don’t lie. …Whatever You Do, Don’t Mention The Climate Change
[Original ABC article https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-02/greens-conservative-voters-federal-election-parliament/101200284 is archived here, as the ABC frequently change articles after publication]
infinite8horizon - peter d barnes 
Pingback: ABC Gas Gaslighting Again | infinite8horizon - peter d barnes