Janet CollinsClimate Change - Advertising versus Journalism
July 21st 2008 10:54
When America touted the idea of federalism, three guys sold the idea of federalism through numerous articles in the media. These people were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. They wrote under the name of Publius. These papers have now become part of history called “The Federalist Papers”.
In Australia, the media was also used to inform and educate people on any given government change. Some of this has, particularly in recent times, come under a lot of question concerning bias and ill formed argument.
So it is very interesting indeed how the Australian Government now has decided to use an advertising campaign to explain the confusion surrounding Climate Change and trading emissions. Could this not be done through our journalists?
It is more than a sign of the times. We have seen governments favour this route for decades. Remember Prime Minister Howard’s “Don’t Be Alarmed Be Alert” campaign, complete with fridge magnets, where millions of dollars were squandered away promoting the caution and worry over terrorists.
What does this all say about any government’s confidence in media reporting? Do they not think our journalists are capable of reporting to all of us, the simple minded, the issues that are confronting us and what a “trading emissions scheme” actually is?
Why spend millions (or is it billions) of dollars in an advertising campaign that could be explained by one or many of our intelligent journalists? This is cause for concern I would say. Isn’t this what our newspapers do – for nothing?
I would think the Federal Government could explain the whole thing by engaging a journalist or two to do a series of lift outs in their newspapers to explain the whole situation to all of us. Isn’t that what newspapers do?
Am I the only one who thinks this way? I would love to hear if you are with me on this – or maybe you think big adertising campaigns on government strategy is warranted.
In Australia, the media was also used to inform and educate people on any given government change. Some of this has, particularly in recent times, come under a lot of question concerning bias and ill formed argument.
So it is very interesting indeed how the Australian Government now has decided to use an advertising campaign to explain the confusion surrounding Climate Change and trading emissions. Could this not be done through our journalists?
It is more than a sign of the times. We have seen governments favour this route for decades. Remember Prime Minister Howard’s “Don’t Be Alarmed Be Alert” campaign, complete with fridge magnets, where millions of dollars were squandered away promoting the caution and worry over terrorists.
What does this all say about any government’s confidence in media reporting? Do they not think our journalists are capable of reporting to all of us, the simple minded, the issues that are confronting us and what a “trading emissions scheme” actually is?
Why spend millions (or is it billions) of dollars in an advertising campaign that could be explained by one or many of our intelligent journalists? This is cause for concern I would say. Isn’t this what our newspapers do – for nothing?
I would think the Federal Government could explain the whole thing by engaging a journalist or two to do a series of lift outs in their newspapers to explain the whole situation to all of us. Isn’t that what newspapers do?
Am I the only one who thinks this way? I would love to hear if you are with me on this – or maybe you think big adertising campaigns on government strategy is warranted.
| 107 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by TimmyH
Tech News
Can you HACK it?
Genyration
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Janet
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
The government undertakes advertising campaigns because that way they can control the message that is being sent out.
Leaving it up to journo's is fraught with danger because they can misconstrue the message, add their own agenda to the issue etc.
And let's face it, what journo out there doesn't take pot shots at the government of the day and try to discredit them.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
In some way I can see that an educational campaign done through advertising can be good. However, these government campaigns tend to be so smplistic they become patronising for example the previous one I mentioned. You will also remember the ill-fated Workchoices campaign. The Rudd Government used a lot of Parliamentary time to mock the left over materials from this one - stores of brochures AND mousepads - pointing out that a lot of it wasn't able to be recycled.
After all, this one is about preserving the environment. They need to keep that in mind before producing anything unnecessary.
Janet
Comment by colocountry
The core of your objection to government advertising seems sound to me and you didn't even'load up' on the previous fed government (God bless their complacent little hearts) for other spurious election ad campaigns. I like to hear reasoned argument without the spleen-venting of many professional commentators. Well done. Mrs M may have a case however, if we take the recent villification of Belinda Neal as an example. Every photo and every headline in SMH painted her and John Della Bosca as grotesque and bloated monsters who have committed a most heinous crime...all before the police investigation had concluded its investigations! Col
Who can we trust again?? Col
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Janet