OPPOSITION Leader Malcolm Turnbull’s performance on the 7.30 Report this week was like one of the great constitutional fights in the High Court in the 1980s – as so many of his media appearances are.
In the court, the barrister would have an immeasurably complex argument which he (invariably a he) wanted to get out. But a judge would rudely interrupt with some pertinent question. The barrister would deal with the interruption and then press on.
It made it difficult for those in the court’s public gallery, but it did not matter much. The public gallery was invariably empty, bar a few poor press sods like me.
Later, the court’s judgment would come down and it would be apparent that the barrister’s argument had been listened to, and indeed, often accepted.
Turnbull is like that barrister. The only difference is that he is in the court of public opinion not a court of law. And the court of public opinion has a far lower attention span.
Now, I am going to ask you to be patient. I want you to read to the bitter end this answer Turnbull gave to Kerry O’Brien about climate change.
Turnbull: “The answer to your question is this: that the proposal that Frontier Economics have put down here is one that has not been presented, at least as far as I’m aware, before. It’s a hybrid. What it involves doing is having an intensity target for one sector only for the generators. The argument against baseline and credit has been that it’s very complicated to be setting baselines of emissions intensity on a whole, on many, many industries.
[Keep going, dear reader, we are almost there.] “The great virtue of this scheme is that you tackle the generators somewhat differently to everybody else, and that’s very effective, because they are half of your emissions and they are the big-capital intensive sector that has to transform. And what we have here is a scheme that uses, that has been analysed using the same economic models the Treasury uses, which demonstrates that you can achieve a greater cut in emissions with dramatically lower electricity prices and dramatically lower losses in employment, particularly in regional Australia.”
Phew! Even in print it is like wading through cold molasses.
Tragically, he may be right. His scheme might be better than the Government’s. His might be an elegant money saver and the Government’s scheme an unwieldy croc. But he has no chance of persuading anyone of that in a television interview.
It may be an apocryphal story, but when Neville Wran was NSW Opposition Leader he had more TV sense than his media adviser, who was beside himself one day after a recorded television interview.
“You kept repeating yourself,” the media hack moaned.
“Good,” said Wran. “Whatever clip they take will be the one I want shown.”
There are tricks with the long, live interview, too.
For a start, the interviewee does not have to win the argument. There is no argument. There is only a performance.
Listen to Turnbull argue. Listen to the combat. Here are seven quotes from that (typical) interview:
“Well, Kerry that’s not right. . . .”
“That’s not true. . . . “
“Well, Kerry, that is absolutely not – what you just said is just not true, with great respect. . . .”
“No, no, Kerry . . .”
“Kerry, you’re missing point. Kerry, you’re missing the point. You’re completely missing the point. . . .”
“Oh, Kerry, that is just nonsense and, you know . . . .”
“Kerry, you are wasting your viewers’ time.”
Looking at it, you could almost take out the word “Kerry” and insert “Your Honours”. Of course, you would leave in the “with great respect” .
In a court you have to answer the judges’ questions. You have to make out the case, and it often means going — respectfully — full on to meet the argument. The judges enjoy it and are informed by it, because they are, for the most past, attentive, informed, intelligent and impartial.
Voters and television viewers, on the other hand, are not. They watch a television political interview, almost like a football match – cheering on their own side and booing the other side.
Unlike in a court, you don’t have to answer media questions, especially on television where sophisticated arguments are so easily lost to the distractions of body language or some event going on in the household.
Indeed, it is better not to answer the questions because it is a fallacy to imagine most voters or viewers will decide a policy question on its merits — unlike judges. This is especially true on complex matters like climate change.
This does not mean we should surrender debate and policy consideration to simplistic slogans. Rather it is to choose the right medium for it – and it is not television.
With all great policy questions – the Vietnam War, climate change, Medicare and so – opinion changes slowly. Often the arguments a better first aired in print. Often they take time to filter down and across via friends and acquaintances.
Unfortunately, many voters take their cue from people they like and respect even if they are not especially well-informed about the matter in hand.
And with climate change, a hastily put together report is no substitute for months or years of work.
Turnbull’s climate change choice was to either have a comprehensive alternative which he party supports down to the last detail and only go on TV with it after it has had a good airing in print, the net and radio which are more conducive to complexity, or let the Government’s plan through.
Has Turnbull been fatally wounded by climate change flip-flops and OzCar? Not necessarily. But he is going to have to understand that a good intellect, a sharp mind and an acute understanding of the detail in a brief – which Turnbull has all of – are not enough. As Barrack Obama pointed out in “The Audacity of Hope” a politician has to use the media to persuade people.
Coalition supporters must be hoping he can learn to do it. You cannot invite the electorate to a dinner party.