2 articles: SMH & ABC
http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-end-to-speaker-squabble-20100926-15rz6.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/26/3022207.htm
I can’t resist articles with an adversarial slant, but these two articles were so full of combative comment between the government and opposition on the issue of parliamentary Speaker arrangements it was almost overkill. That isn’t to suggest, however, that either article was inflating the issue, and weren’t merely reporting the goings-on. No - the content of both articles is extremely indicative of the relationship the government shares with the opposition: a fraught one.
We endured their squabbling in the lead up to, during, and after the election. For a while I found the back-and-forth insults hurled between both sides captivating. I’m not so sure anymore.
The SMH article starts with PM Gillard likening Abbott to a “bull in a China shop” for reneging on parliamentary reform. It then jumps to reassurances by Christopher Pyne (opposition), to accusations by Anthony Albanese (Labor), finger-pointing from Pyne, a denial by Albanese, more criticism from Pyne, and culminating in imputations from deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop. My head was spinning.
In terms of standout quotes, Pyne hit the nail on the head with: "It's a bit of an arcane debate for the public”. His comment that the pairing of speakers would be similar to “asking a Collingwood player from yesterday's grand final to play for St Kilda next week” injected some (needed) humour.
In relation to content, there isn’t much to differentiate the ABC article, and it has all the same players: Gillard, Pyne, Albanese and Bishop. However there is less jumping around and a steadier, more concise flow.
ABC utilised fitting quotes displaying the hostility. Pyne refers to politics as a “battlefield”, and Gillard’s frustration is palpable: “Mr Abbott says 'my job is to be a wrecker'… That's all he wants to do - smash things, trash things, break them up."
The article ends with the revelation that Gillard and her partner have finally moved into The Lodge after delays. However it left me thinking: human interest or irrelevant?
Nevertheless, I preferred the ABC article. Its extensive multimedia on the issue is impressive, and photos brightened up the story. SMH have included a short video, but they have disappointed me of late with their lack of multimedia - something online articles ignore at their own peril.
Great analysis Susannah! I also preferred the ABC's angle. As far as the lodge is concerned, I believe the only public interest on this feature would be the fact that Gillard has quoted to not want to move into the lodge "until she was elected by the people". Since this is not the case and she has anchored ship we should probably get her to redefine "people" to "person" ;)
ReplyDeleteThanks! I saw quite a few articles about the PM's move to The Lodge this week - it seems it must be news :)
ReplyDeleteYea, ive also seen quite a few articles about this topic as well. I agree with Milly, it is interesting that Gillard said she would not move into the lodge until elected. She has never actually been elected entirely by the people (Rudd debacle/hung parliament). I found the SMH and ABC articles were actually quite similar.
ReplyDeleteAwesome analysis Su! I agree the ABC article is way more interesting and engaging than the SMH with the extensive multimedia it includes. I think SMH does not really put alot of emphasis on its online layout as it focuses more on its news contents.
ReplyDelete