The silence is deafening, and money even louder: which ministers are hiding from the media this election?
Who are the ministers mentioned most in the media this election campaign? How about those quoted most frequently? The results say a lot about the issues we’re prioritising, and who’s spending the most money, according to Streem’s Conal Hanna.
The exchange came 52 minutes into the third of three debates, and both leaders appeared tetchy.
Morrison: Who is your home affairs minister to be?
Shorten: We will pick after the election.
Morrison: I was wondering.
Shorten: Will you keep the same environment minister?
Morrison: Yes.
Shorten: Well where is she?
In case it wasn’t abundantly clear, the subtext to this exchange was that the Coalition thinks shadow minister for immigration Shayne Neumann isn’t much chop.
Labor thinks the same of environment minister Melissa Price, and Shorten was referring to a widespread belief that she has been hidden from reporters as the debate about climate change rages.
Labour’s decision to have Shorten dominate is baffling. He presents as scripted, fake and untrustworthy, whereas Plibersek, Wong, Albanese and a few others all present with far more humanity and integrity.
Given the election really is an open goal, it might not matter but if they don’t win a significant majority or if they don’t win at all, he’ll only have himself to blame.
Yes, how baffling to run with your party leader. Said no-one.
And in most elections the incumbent (correctly) gets more mentions as they are the ones being held more accountable.
Nothing to see here.
but Shorten isn’t the incumbent, he’s the challenger.
of course he needs to be featured, I just think having him so dominant is a mistake – his party’s asset is the depth of their popular and well credentialed bench. Morrison doesn’t have that – we know how crap most of them are by now – whereas he himself remains relatively popular compared to his team
This article seems to completely ignore the role the media itself has in driving the narrrative. In particular FTV & the tabloids thrive on a presidential style campaign as it creates more compelling stories/narratives for less engaged voters to be drawn in by. Not sure the parties, in particular Labor, can be held completely responsible for that.
Agreed. Especially when the Liberal Party have made Bill Shorten the explicit focus of their attack campaigns.
Agree.
NewsCorp / 7, blatantly peddling the LNP party line are echo chambers. (Between them they more or less own Fox (oops ‘Sky’) News Australia…
Not sure if anyone has seen the recent schooling of a so called up and coming conservative in the US; Ben Shapiro? He was being interviewed by Andrew Neil (a conservative), on the BBC and found himself in a real interview and not on Fox News. The outcome = Shapiro gets absolutely owned (found out for what he is; a fraud). Neil literally, reeled him in. Totally schooled him. Well worth a watch. (Neil used to debate at Glasgow Uni back in his Uni days and would tear the place to shreds…)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E
It doesnt take a rocket surgeon to know Dutton, Hunt and Taylor are poison and the Liberal party dont want them as a focus.
This is true. I remember when Morrison was made leader of the party, one of those FTV morning shows explicitly ran a segment about “Could Morrison beat Shorten?”, rather than anything to do with the parties
At least Labor have run some team-style ads (even if it’s only the big players) – one assumes the focus on faction warfare in the Liberal party has made them hesitant to talk about the team (the same issue Labor had 8 years ago)