If you think climate action has been absent from the election campaign so far, you’re right. New data from Isentia shows how the most important issue facing Australia is being ignored by the major parties and the media, just weeks after large areas of northern NSW suffered repeated record floods.
In the weeks since the election began, climate change has been, respectively, the 7th, 6th and 5th most commonly mentioned topic in coverage — and climate received little mention in the debate this week (beyond Anthony Albanese’s focus on “clean energy”) or afterwards.
That suits both sides: the Coalition wants no mention of climate lest it remind voters in urban seats of the comprehensive failure of so-called Liberal moderates to press for effective climate action within a denialist federal government. And Labor treads carefully on the issue for fear of alienating a small number of regional voters — indeed, its biggest climate announcement of the election so far has been to insist coal miners would never be subject to requirements to reduce emissions.
Both sides are also recipients of large donations from fossil fuel companies, and former politicians and staff from both sides can be found working for fossil fuel companies, vividly demonstrating the phenomenon of state capture at work.
And the loudest voice in climate coverage in the election campaign? News Corp commentators have long attacked the ABC for being obsessed with climate issues, but in fact it is News Corp that has the highest volume of coverage. In the last seven days, according to Isentia, 12% of News Corp’s election coverage — bearing in mind it is the dominant media company and operates across television, print and online — was devoted to climate, compared to 8% of the ABC’s.
In fact, the ABC devotes little attention to climate: the cost of living and Medicare have been the two biggest issues in the ABC’s election coverage, as they have been for News Corp. A federal ICAC, and the Solomons debacle, were the next two most frequent subjects for the ABC.
(Despite The Australian’s purported focus on national security, Isentia data shows News Corp has almost completely ignored the Solomons disaster, giving it far less coverage than, for example, its continued hyping of the Albanese “gaffe” from the first week.)
Aged care also received more coverage from both the ABC and News Corp than climate.
The low priority the ABC accords climate doesn’t merely discredit the News Corp lie about the ABC being obsessed with it, it suggests the ABC is now so cowed by the Coalition that it is reluctant to give sufficient priority to an issue that should be at the top of any list of crucial election issues, especially for a public broadcaster.
Instead, it has handed the running on climate to a company that operates as an arm of the fossil fuel industry.
What of other outlets? Liberal-aligned Kerry Stokes’ Prime Media also ignores climate change almost completely — just 4% of its coverage in the last seven days related to climate issues. In contrast, rural media group ACM devoted 16% of its coverage to climate issues — equal with Medicare and behind only an integrity commission. At Nine, climate came third on 13% behind cost of living and an integrity commission.
So, only ACM and, to a lesser extent, Nine are giving appropriate weight to the most important election issue, while News as always remains in denialist mode, and other right-wing groups like Kerry Stokes’ completely ignore it.
And at “Your ABC”, the most important issue affecting you over the long-term (and, for all too many, increasingly the short-term) struggles for a mention — further evidence that something is now deeply rotten within the national broadcaster.
And the ABC did an overview on their vote compass data where climate change was one of the most important issue. This organisation has the most data available on australian voters, yet they can’t seem to focus on it, as they should.
That segment on ABC News Breakfast today: climate change was the number one issue with voters who were polled.
I am trying not to follow the tedious electioneering & had deduced that was why I’d heard no mention of climate change. Now I realise it’s barely being addressed, truly remarkable. Thanks for this piece, Bernard.
I mean, the ABC could actually get the Greens to discuss what their plan is to transition, they are the supposed experts at it. Oh and they may have a good chunk of the senate as well after the election.But no, seems a shoutout to Clive Palmers interest frate reeze and have Pauline expand on outlawing foreign ownership on residential housing is more worthy.
I watched the Press Club Greens Adam Bant presentation, and I’d like to see more of the greens policies debated in mainstream media, from what I observed.
The Geens appear to have some vision and energy, but there appears to have been so little follow-up on any of their statements, by Main Stream Media. But then I have become so jaded with political media commentary of late, that I possibly went and had a nap. Thank goodness for Crikey, The Conversation, The New Daily, and Annabel Crabb, for a more, nuanced reporting
Thanks Bernard, the power and influence of our Neocon overlords is never more clear than when the subject of climate change/pollution and the destruction of natural habitat is not mentioned.
But then there’s the other significant issues that are virtually completely suppressed by this mob so intent on removing the quality of life before the Neocons re established their power and influence.
The removal of publicly owned assets while lowering costs that created employment and provided transparency.
The withdrawal of free education which used to help enable people to see through the manipulation and propaganda so implicit in Neocon ideology.
Reagan removed the 1930’s legislation that required media to make an attempt to discuss issues with an emphasis on fairness.
Murdoch became a US citizen shortly after and the rest is history.
Our media and the control of most information has been a Neocon whitewash ever since.
Agree, but one would add the quiet preeminence of the IPA to inform the LNP policies and promote through compliant media (inc. censorship by omission) e.g. NewsCorp; clicking into established fossil fuels and climate science denial, now delay on transition, US but global ‘architecture of influence’ i.e. Koch ‘Atlas Network’ think tanks, including ‘oven ready’ policies across all portfolio areas.
I’ve noticed you pointing out Koch and the damage it continues to cause, it’s an important part of the puzzle to shed light on, thanks.
Think to understand libertarian ‘think tank influence’ in not just Anglosphere of US, Oz or UK, but transnationally, two authors are essential.
Jane Mayer’s ‘Dark Money’ & ‘architecture of influence’ revolving round Koch network donors etc., and Nancy MacLean’s ‘Democracy in Chains’ which highlights the Kochs’ favourite economic ideology (drawing upon neo-liberalism) of ‘segregationist’ and Nobel Prize winning economist, James Buchanan who made Hayek, Friedman and Rand appear soft’ ‘public choice theory’.
A local researcher/journalist Lucy Hamilton has written about think tank influence in ‘Think tanks’ call for ‘freedom’ really promises authoritarianism‘, in Menadue’s Pearls & Irritations (13 Nov ’21):
‘Australia is on the trajectory to becoming a “competitive authoritarian” regime. This is not because of state governments imposing curfews, lockdowns and closing borders. It is, rather, the by-blow of politicians, pundits and academics who espouse a form of libertarianism…. The birth of mid-20th century neoliberalism was substantially the result of the establishment’s fear of the power of the populace..Even now culture wars against “cancel culture” or “wokeness” are attempts to silence the newly equal who demand their right to be heard. The old guard is not giving up its preeminence gracefully.’
Both sides are as bad as each other have a read of ” free speech for me but not for thee” 1980 s.
Businesses don’t make donations. They make investments. Fossil fuel companies control the agenda through their investments in the political system, corrupting our representation and our democracy.
Peter Malinausksus, now SA premier, made this part of his (landslide) pre electoral platform.
”
If we want to restore public trust in our democratic institutions, we should ban all donations for elections.
No more private money for political parties’ campaigns.
Not business money. Not union money.
Let’s get it done.”
Pretty straightforward. Pretty hard to argue against. And I don’t really see why either (any) party at federal level could argue against – surely just levels the playing field – to an argument of ideas.
Good article, thanks.
Now that so many aussies have had the opportunity to experience first hand what the future weather’s going to be like, Newscorp and Sky can deny all they want, and the ABC can ignore away – the people want action.
“the people want action”.
Is there any real evidence for this, or is it just a vague aspiration from the people that will have no practical results? For example will the people refuse to vote for members of the main parties that are beholden to the fossil-fuel industry and have no intention of providing any real action? Seems to me people who want action would certainly put Liberal, National and Labor way down the ticket. No. The general media suppression of climate change coverage is doing its job and keeping voters attention on vital topics for the nation’s future such as Katherine Deves’s lunatic witterings while our pollies get on with business as usual.
Let’s hope so.
The people need action.
I guess we’ll find out in a month or so.
glen australia is 1.4 percent of glabal emissions. that the science. The greens campaign on percapita emissions and dont say it, thats the politics. the environment and the earth doesnt recognize percapita only the totals. If Austrlia reduces per capita to zero the effect on the earth is 1.4 percent reduction. The greens have somehow convinced some people that australia can save the world, we cant. China has 1056 coal fired power stations and USA probably similar. Brandy only talks percapita because he is only intersted in the politics as is Sarah Hanson Young young.