What do you think?
Rate this book
Sideshow: Dumbing Down Democracy
'After spending much of my life dedicated to the serious craft of politics, I have to admit that I am distressed by what it is becoming. Under siege from commercial pressures and technological innovation, the media are retreating into an entertainment frame that has little tolerance for complex social and economic issues. In turn, politicians and parties are adapting their behaviour to suit the new rules of the game -- to such an extent that the contest of ideas is being supplanted by the contest for laughs.'
'The two key rules that now govern the practice of Australian politics are: (1) Look like you're doing something; and (2) Don't offend anyone who matters. These imperatives are a direct consequence of the interaction between media coverage and political activity -- the aggregated outcome of countless individuals acting rationally in pursuit of their own interests. The sideshow syndrome, the overall result of these actions, is a direct threat to the nation's well-being.'
When Lindsay Tanner resigned in 2010 as the ALP's federal minister for finance and member for Melbourne, having had an 18-year career as an MP, he notably managed to retire with his reputation for integrity intact. In Sideshow, he lays bare the relentless decline of political reporting and political behaviour that occurred during his career. Part memoir, part analysis, and part critique, Sideshow is a unique book that tackles the rot which has set in at the heart of Australian public life.
'The two key rules that now govern the practice of Australian politics are: (1) Look like you're doing something; and (2) Don't offend anyone who matters. These imperatives are a direct consequence of the interaction between media coverage and political activity -- the aggregated outcome of countless individuals acting rationally in pursuit of their own interests. The sideshow syndrome, the overall result of these actions, is a direct threat to the nation's well-being.'
When Lindsay Tanner resigned in 2010 as the ALP's federal minister for finance and member for Melbourne, having had an 18-year career as an MP, he notably managed to retire with his reputation for integrity intact. In Sideshow, he lays bare the relentless decline of political reporting and political behaviour that occurred during his career. Part memoir, part analysis, and part critique, Sideshow is a unique book that tackles the rot which has set in at the heart of Australian public life.
240 pages, Paperback
First published May 2, 2011
13 people are currently reading
132 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
November 22, 2011
‘Modern politics now resembles a Hollywood blockbuster, all special effects and no plot.’
Lindsay Tanner (born 24 April 1956) is a former member of the Australian House of Representatives. He held the seat of Melbourne for the Australian Labor Party from 1993 to 2010. Lindsay Tanner served as the Minister for Finance and Deregulation from 3 December 2007. On 24 June 2010 he announced his intention not to contest the 2010 federal election. The seat of Melbourne was subsequently won by the Greens. He has written several books and been a commentator on Australian culture and the direction and role of the Labor Party.
Yes, there is a relationship between politicians and the media. It doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly healthy relationship if the predominant media focus is on news as entertainment. Who undertakes the detailed analysis required, of political proposals, in order to inform the public, and does anyone really care about the substance?
But is it all the fault of the media? Surely politicians have some responsibility as well, and doesn’t the electorate (generally) want to be informed? Don’t we all care about substance, at least at some level?
I’m about the same age as Lindsay Tanner, and I’ve been viewing the same political landscape for the same period of time. Certainly, the media has changed during that period: television was introduced into Australia in 1956 and didn’t become the major media source immediately. Sure, radio was important, but many people would have relied on newspapers or magazines (remember ‘The Bulletin’?). These days, many people receive all of their information from the electronic media: the immediacy of tweets and the sensationalism of current affairs reported online or on television make for ubiquitous coverage. Or so it seems. But the discussion is not about mode of delivery as much as it is about the quality of what is provided, and the attention span of those receiving the information.
‘Genuine outcomes are completely swamped by transient appearances.’
Observing Australian government over the past thirty years (and especially the past fifteen to twenty years) has involved watching ever increasing amounts of spin doctoring. Governments of both political persuasions have relied more and more heavily on media advisers and managers, of identifying the ‘appropriate’ times in the reporting cycle to reach whichever audience they are targeting. Yes, it’s a sideshow of sorts but it hasn’t happened overnight. The question is what do we (politicians, media and the electorate) do about it?
I was expecting more from Mr Tanner’s book. I was hoping to move beyond his evidence of the malaise towards some suggestions for addressing the consequences of it. I found some interesting information in the book but no real hope for a different future. Which I find distressing, because the electorate deserves more than the content-free election campaigning that has characterized some recent elections at all three levels of government in Australia.
Despite wishing for more, I still think this book is worth reading – by anyone concerned about the presentation of political information by politicians through various forms of the media to the electorate.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
Lindsay Tanner (born 24 April 1956) is a former member of the Australian House of Representatives. He held the seat of Melbourne for the Australian Labor Party from 1993 to 2010. Lindsay Tanner served as the Minister for Finance and Deregulation from 3 December 2007. On 24 June 2010 he announced his intention not to contest the 2010 federal election. The seat of Melbourne was subsequently won by the Greens. He has written several books and been a commentator on Australian culture and the direction and role of the Labor Party.
Yes, there is a relationship between politicians and the media. It doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly healthy relationship if the predominant media focus is on news as entertainment. Who undertakes the detailed analysis required, of political proposals, in order to inform the public, and does anyone really care about the substance?
But is it all the fault of the media? Surely politicians have some responsibility as well, and doesn’t the electorate (generally) want to be informed? Don’t we all care about substance, at least at some level?
I’m about the same age as Lindsay Tanner, and I’ve been viewing the same political landscape for the same period of time. Certainly, the media has changed during that period: television was introduced into Australia in 1956 and didn’t become the major media source immediately. Sure, radio was important, but many people would have relied on newspapers or magazines (remember ‘The Bulletin’?). These days, many people receive all of their information from the electronic media: the immediacy of tweets and the sensationalism of current affairs reported online or on television make for ubiquitous coverage. Or so it seems. But the discussion is not about mode of delivery as much as it is about the quality of what is provided, and the attention span of those receiving the information.
‘Genuine outcomes are completely swamped by transient appearances.’
Observing Australian government over the past thirty years (and especially the past fifteen to twenty years) has involved watching ever increasing amounts of spin doctoring. Governments of both political persuasions have relied more and more heavily on media advisers and managers, of identifying the ‘appropriate’ times in the reporting cycle to reach whichever audience they are targeting. Yes, it’s a sideshow of sorts but it hasn’t happened overnight. The question is what do we (politicians, media and the electorate) do about it?
I was expecting more from Mr Tanner’s book. I was hoping to move beyond his evidence of the malaise towards some suggestions for addressing the consequences of it. I found some interesting information in the book but no real hope for a different future. Which I find distressing, because the electorate deserves more than the content-free election campaigning that has characterized some recent elections at all three levels of government in Australia.
Despite wishing for more, I still think this book is worth reading – by anyone concerned about the presentation of political information by politicians through various forms of the media to the electorate.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
September 2, 2011
23/7: Not very far in but already impressed...This book is for anyone who ever frantically thumbed through a newspaper looking for 'real' news, came up empty-handed and wondered why.
2/9: I heart this book so bad.
I was cheering on the inside all the way through, until I discovered how tragically short Tanner was on solutions come the final chapter.
He's not short on ideas for how we got to this point, however.
From the need to entertain to the circus of gaffes, the dominance of emotive imagery over text and the creation of stories to fit pre-existing templates, reinforcement of audience prejudice and incitement of hate, celebrity sludge and political engagement apartheid, the evolution of the sideshow is carefully examined.
I put this book down half-way because I lost it under the couch, but went hunting for it again yesterday after my sister expressed amazement to me that her trashy woman's mag had printed an article about it being OK to reward children's tantrums with sweets.
"But that's wrong," she said, clearly confused.
"If women are made to feel like bad mothers they'll stop buying the magazine," was my reply. "Go to the Health Department if you want advice on health."
Then I hunted down Tanner's book, turned the page and read,
"The media have largely abandoned their traditional role of refereeing important arguments in the public domain. Positions that are factually incorrect therefore gain widespread currency because no disinterested party takes responsibility for challenging them. The outcome is the legitimation of nonsense." pp133
or, put another way,
"What you news wankers don't seem to understand is we are not here to give our audience credible news at any cost. We are here to entertain and make money for the owners." pp156
Interesting to me was the section of how 50 years ago people were force-fed TV news bulletins when there was less programming choice, while as soon as something else besides news became available in the evening slot, 50% of people switched to it. Viewers who don't have pay TV have more political knowledge by default (!)
Tanner writes:
"The increasing complexity of modern society is also a factor contributing to the sideshow syndrome. As early as the 1920s, Walter Lippmann was already arguing that society was too complicated for genuine democracy to be feasible...As Seven Network news director Chris Willis rather crassly comments, 'Television news has to be simple. If you want to be sophisticated, go and write a novel.'"
Thanks for that, Willis. Maybe I will.
2/9: I heart this book so bad.
I was cheering on the inside all the way through, until I discovered how tragically short Tanner was on solutions come the final chapter.
He's not short on ideas for how we got to this point, however.
From the need to entertain to the circus of gaffes, the dominance of emotive imagery over text and the creation of stories to fit pre-existing templates, reinforcement of audience prejudice and incitement of hate, celebrity sludge and political engagement apartheid, the evolution of the sideshow is carefully examined.
I put this book down half-way because I lost it under the couch, but went hunting for it again yesterday after my sister expressed amazement to me that her trashy woman's mag had printed an article about it being OK to reward children's tantrums with sweets.
"But that's wrong," she said, clearly confused.
"If women are made to feel like bad mothers they'll stop buying the magazine," was my reply. "Go to the Health Department if you want advice on health."
Then I hunted down Tanner's book, turned the page and read,
"The media have largely abandoned their traditional role of refereeing important arguments in the public domain. Positions that are factually incorrect therefore gain widespread currency because no disinterested party takes responsibility for challenging them. The outcome is the legitimation of nonsense." pp133
or, put another way,
"What you news wankers don't seem to understand is we are not here to give our audience credible news at any cost. We are here to entertain and make money for the owners." pp156
Interesting to me was the section of how 50 years ago people were force-fed TV news bulletins when there was less programming choice, while as soon as something else besides news became available in the evening slot, 50% of people switched to it. Viewers who don't have pay TV have more political knowledge by default (!)
Tanner writes:
"The increasing complexity of modern society is also a factor contributing to the sideshow syndrome. As early as the 1920s, Walter Lippmann was already arguing that society was too complicated for genuine democracy to be feasible...As Seven Network news director Chris Willis rather crassly comments, 'Television news has to be simple. If you want to be sophisticated, go and write a novel.'"
Thanks for that, Willis. Maybe I will.
July 6, 2013
Sideshow – dumbing down of democracy. I don’t know where to start with this book, not to say that it was bad in anyway but that Lindsay Tanner brought up so any good points that I could almost write an essay.
But basically political spin has increased over the decades and Tanner seemed to imply that the main reason because the main purpose of commercial media was to make a profit and therefore giving people consumers what they want, i.e. entertainment. As he points out ‘news is now often judged on its entertainment value; and that there is an increasing emphasis on visual imagery. This means that everything has to be seen as ‘fun’ and trivia such the physical appearance of politicians (more often than not, female politicians) and as a result anything serious and of substance is a lot harder to get covered by the media.
So in this current environment, the media focus on words and events that would entertain their viewers and readers. Just think of the stunts that Steve Fielding pulled or any situation that was described as fiasco, turmoil, row, crisis or chaos and any of such situations are not nearly as big as they are made out to be. The 24 hour news cycle doesn’t help either.
I found his arguments surrounding the role that media plays in the disengagement with politics and the widening gap between those who are “into” politics and those who aren’t very interesting and a point that I wished he’d developed further.
But basically political spin has increased over the decades and Tanner seemed to imply that the main reason because the main purpose of commercial media was to make a profit and therefore giving people consumers what they want, i.e. entertainment. As he points out ‘news is now often judged on its entertainment value; and that there is an increasing emphasis on visual imagery. This means that everything has to be seen as ‘fun’ and trivia such the physical appearance of politicians (more often than not, female politicians) and as a result anything serious and of substance is a lot harder to get covered by the media.
So in this current environment, the media focus on words and events that would entertain their viewers and readers. Just think of the stunts that Steve Fielding pulled or any situation that was described as fiasco, turmoil, row, crisis or chaos and any of such situations are not nearly as big as they are made out to be. The 24 hour news cycle doesn’t help either.
I found his arguments surrounding the role that media plays in the disengagement with politics and the widening gap between those who are “into” politics and those who aren’t very interesting and a point that I wished he’d developed further.
November 6, 2018
There wasn't much new for me in this book. Arguably one could read only the introduction and not miss much. But maybe that's just me - I've read quite a lot of analysis along this theme in the past few years. Perhaps when it was first released it might have struck me as more insightful.
Anyway, if you're not familiar with the media's increasingly trivial coverage of politics (and politicians' role in reciprocating), this is a pretty thorough overview of the issues at hand, although a touch more data (not the plural of anecdote, as the adage goes) wouldn't go astray.
The highlight for me was the "Where to Now?" chapter. Tanner has (wisely) avoided giving prescriptive "silver bullets", but has identified some countervailing forces worthy of consideration. I would have liked to hear his thoughts about a few more , for example.
Anyway, if you're not familiar with the media's increasingly trivial coverage of politics (and politicians' role in reciprocating), this is a pretty thorough overview of the issues at hand, although a touch more data (not the plural of anecdote, as the adage goes) wouldn't go astray.
The highlight for me was the "Where to Now?" chapter. Tanner has (wisely) avoided giving prescriptive "silver bullets", but has identified some countervailing forces worthy of consideration. I would have liked to hear his thoughts about a few more , for example.
September 2, 2016
I had heard very good things about this when it came out. Having finally gotten around to reading it, I was left very disappointed.
Lindsay Tanner has plenty of insight into modern politics and the media but for the most part, this book is just a collection of quotes. The author states the premise but then says, "This commentator agrees. That writer asserts the same thing. The other person has written something similar." After a few chapters, it starts to become comical.
Around the middle of the book Mr Tanner begins to add some of his own commentary but unfortunately it doesn't last. On the whole, Sideshow is less an insider's exposé of what's wrong with politics in the 21st century, and more of a media studies thesis - and not a very good one.
Lindsay Tanner has plenty of insight into modern politics and the media but for the most part, this book is just a collection of quotes. The author states the premise but then says, "This commentator agrees. That writer asserts the same thing. The other person has written something similar." After a few chapters, it starts to become comical.
Around the middle of the book Mr Tanner begins to add some of his own commentary but unfortunately it doesn't last. On the whole, Sideshow is less an insider's exposé of what's wrong with politics in the 21st century, and more of a media studies thesis - and not a very good one.
July 18, 2013
This book was raved about by colleagues and the media in 2011, so I was very disappointed when I finally got around to reading it. 100 pages of anecdotes that seemed to sum up what I already knew (modern political discourse in the mainstream media is generally pretty bad), then 70-odd pages of often contradictory "causes" and "solutions" with no real analysis.
A quick read, and I'm glad I did, but I'm left with the impression that this book would have been a lot clearer and better if it had been written by someone who couldn't sell books on reputation alone.
A quick read, and I'm glad I did, but I'm left with the impression that this book would have been a lot clearer and better if it had been written by someone who couldn't sell books on reputation alone.
September 3, 2013
An important discussion in how the media focuses now on news as entertainment rather than being informative. Tanner discusses the causes of this in the context of Australian Politics - and reasons that all sides are partly to blame: politicians, the media and citizens and how politics now would rather be "entertaining" than action on issues that really matter.
October 24, 2024
This book was first published in 2011 & is very well researched & surprisingly thoughtful. Surprising because the author is also the politician who sang, for want of a better word, the Skyhooks classic Horror Movie to mock Tony Abbott's claim that Whyalla would be wiped off the face of the earth if Labor pushed ahead with climate initiatives. Reading it in 2024 was sobering. Virtually everything Tanner either predicted, or criticized as already happening, is worse now. Axe The Tax was only the first of Abbott's inane slogans but the practice is very much a way of life now across the board. The media has abandoned most efforts to communicate depth in political reporting &, since the advent of TikTok, sound bites have become a way of life. To quote the conman who can speak for hours without ever speaking any truth ... sad.
November 3, 2018
Written by a former Australian politician, this is an attempt to look at the relationship between politics and the media. The weakest point is the last chapter about how to stop the slide into dumbing down the news: Tanner had few suggestions and, seven years on, Australian politics has continued heading down the path identified here.
December 29, 2017
Interesting insight/perspective into modern Australian politics and how it's shaped by the current media landscape. Removes a lot of responsibility from politicians though. The book also makes the same point 1000 times. I get it Lindsay.
January 21, 2019
read at least once a year, love it.
April 17, 2012
After a life spent (And an apparent, subsequent disillusionment) in politics Tanner has published his seething account on the relationship between politics and the media demonstrating the intellectual Decline in media and consumer attitudes and why politicians have adjusted their 'Performances' accordingly.
Right now im sitting in my room. My girlfriend is using a laptop. I casually inquire what she is up to. without looking away from the flickering screen she replies almost unconsciously, "Oh, nothing. Just reading the news." I smile. I know when she says, 'news', it usually means nine MSN news where the top stories either have the word "Sex", "Arrested" or the name of a celebrity in their tagline.
This is typical of what tanner describes as the 'sideshow syndrome', where the media are blurring the lines between news and entertainment. Tanner explores this view and more specifically, its relationship to politics.
Sideshow syndrome is simple to illustrate. Most people could probably describe more of Julia Gillard's physical features and idiosyncrasy then name polices she has ratified.
The argument the media will put forward is they are simply responding to consumer demand. In a world of hyper stimulation nobody has the time/interest to read proper analysis of party policy. Everybody wants the 20 second soundbite (Moving forward) a 'Raw' display of emotion (Bligh's tears after the Queensland flood) or a good old fashion political scandal (Any idiotic story that has has had the 'Gate' suffix tagged on in the last 30 years, like 'utegate') or other story lines that can be packaged in a familiar template
Of course, these sorts of things dont happen every day and we live in a 24 hour news cycle world. The front page of tomorrows bullets cannot read, 'Sorry, no news today', so the media have some tricks up their sleeves to keep the 'show' running, for example. The ever increasing propensity for media outlets to sensationalize stories with the use of a few carefully placed words. Any problem becomes a Crisis. Policy set backs translates to 'In Tatters' and any Criticism is a 'Savage Attack. Meaningless polls are set up and columns written to reflect back the public fears and prejudice's as apposed to articles written to stimulate thought and discussion on issues that would ameliorate prejudices and better society while Serious issues and politics are reduced to gossip and trivialization.
Because of the decline of media ethics and standards politicians have been forced to change their attitudes least they get steamrolled by the media juggernaut.
Policy announcements become a weekly events, committees are set up and short term solutions are advocated so politicians can be seen to be doing something (The number one rule of politics according to Tanner)
Ostensibly, the awful reality is that serious people are engaging in a "glorified song and dance routine". 20 seconds of news coverage is better then one after all.
Anyone annoyed by the 'Content free' style of covering politics and current events by mainstream media will enjoy this. Be warned though, you wont be walking away with to much hope for the future. As professor Phillip Meyer laments, "A new model needs to be developed that finds profit in truth, vigilance and social responsibility." That day seems far away.
Right now im sitting in my room. My girlfriend is using a laptop. I casually inquire what she is up to. without looking away from the flickering screen she replies almost unconsciously, "Oh, nothing. Just reading the news." I smile. I know when she says, 'news', it usually means nine MSN news where the top stories either have the word "Sex", "Arrested" or the name of a celebrity in their tagline.
This is typical of what tanner describes as the 'sideshow syndrome', where the media are blurring the lines between news and entertainment. Tanner explores this view and more specifically, its relationship to politics.
Sideshow syndrome is simple to illustrate. Most people could probably describe more of Julia Gillard's physical features and idiosyncrasy then name polices she has ratified.
The argument the media will put forward is they are simply responding to consumer demand. In a world of hyper stimulation nobody has the time/interest to read proper analysis of party policy. Everybody wants the 20 second soundbite (Moving forward) a 'Raw' display of emotion (Bligh's tears after the Queensland flood) or a good old fashion political scandal (Any idiotic story that has has had the 'Gate' suffix tagged on in the last 30 years, like 'utegate') or other story lines that can be packaged in a familiar template
Of course, these sorts of things dont happen every day and we live in a 24 hour news cycle world. The front page of tomorrows bullets cannot read, 'Sorry, no news today', so the media have some tricks up their sleeves to keep the 'show' running, for example. The ever increasing propensity for media outlets to sensationalize stories with the use of a few carefully placed words. Any problem becomes a Crisis. Policy set backs translates to 'In Tatters' and any Criticism is a 'Savage Attack. Meaningless polls are set up and columns written to reflect back the public fears and prejudice's as apposed to articles written to stimulate thought and discussion on issues that would ameliorate prejudices and better society while Serious issues and politics are reduced to gossip and trivialization.
Because of the decline of media ethics and standards politicians have been forced to change their attitudes least they get steamrolled by the media juggernaut.
Policy announcements become a weekly events, committees are set up and short term solutions are advocated so politicians can be seen to be doing something (The number one rule of politics according to Tanner)
Ostensibly, the awful reality is that serious people are engaging in a "glorified song and dance routine". 20 seconds of news coverage is better then one after all.
Anyone annoyed by the 'Content free' style of covering politics and current events by mainstream media will enjoy this. Be warned though, you wont be walking away with to much hope for the future. As professor Phillip Meyer laments, "A new model needs to be developed that finds profit in truth, vigilance and social responsibility." That day seems far away.
May 13, 2016
This is a must-read for anyone who cares about democracy.
This is an excerpt from my review:
Politics in the 21st century matters more than ever it did, but Tanner’s right when he says that democracy is at risk when the people aren’t sufficiently informed about issues to make valid choices at the ballot box. He’s not talking about the small percentage of us who are interested in politics and will always find a way to be informed about it, seeking out new media on the net and (in my case) badgering politicians of all stripes with old-fashioned snail mail so that they certainly know my opinion and can’t pretend they didn’t receive it! No, Tanner is concerned about the majority of people who used to learn about political issues almost by osmosis. Given a choice they wouldn’t have watched or read anything about politics, but because in days gone by entertainment choices were fewer and the idea of individual choice on a home screen was a Jetsons fantasy, they ended up watching the news and current affairs programs and were in touch with national and state affairs by default. Those programs (even if their political stance was biased) presented the issues of the day with sufficient integrity for voters to make an informed choice, but that’s not so today.
Today what passes for news is most commonly superficial. It must not be ‘boring’ or people will reach for the remote, choose a DVD or go play on the computer. So what’s offered is sensation, scandal and sport; and the templates the media use are based on ‘violence, novelty, shock, drama, conflict, celebrity or spectacle’ (p168). Sentimentality (one sick baby, one unhappy teenager, one couple who can’t pay their mortgage) often means that there is disproportionate public demand for funding short-term high profile pseudo-solutions instead of long-term programs of greater significance. The emphasis on appealing to emotion most commonly ends up generating fear: crime stories; riots, political unrest and terrorism all generating knee-jerk responses from public and politicians alike. Provoking anger is a favourite strategy...
To see the rest of my review please visit
http://anzlitlovers.wordpress.com/201...
This is an excerpt from my review:
Politics in the 21st century matters more than ever it did, but Tanner’s right when he says that democracy is at risk when the people aren’t sufficiently informed about issues to make valid choices at the ballot box. He’s not talking about the small percentage of us who are interested in politics and will always find a way to be informed about it, seeking out new media on the net and (in my case) badgering politicians of all stripes with old-fashioned snail mail so that they certainly know my opinion and can’t pretend they didn’t receive it! No, Tanner is concerned about the majority of people who used to learn about political issues almost by osmosis. Given a choice they wouldn’t have watched or read anything about politics, but because in days gone by entertainment choices were fewer and the idea of individual choice on a home screen was a Jetsons fantasy, they ended up watching the news and current affairs programs and were in touch with national and state affairs by default. Those programs (even if their political stance was biased) presented the issues of the day with sufficient integrity for voters to make an informed choice, but that’s not so today.
Today what passes for news is most commonly superficial. It must not be ‘boring’ or people will reach for the remote, choose a DVD or go play on the computer. So what’s offered is sensation, scandal and sport; and the templates the media use are based on ‘violence, novelty, shock, drama, conflict, celebrity or spectacle’ (p168). Sentimentality (one sick baby, one unhappy teenager, one couple who can’t pay their mortgage) often means that there is disproportionate public demand for funding short-term high profile pseudo-solutions instead of long-term programs of greater significance. The emphasis on appealing to emotion most commonly ends up generating fear: crime stories; riots, political unrest and terrorism all generating knee-jerk responses from public and politicians alike. Provoking anger is a favourite strategy...
To see the rest of my review please visit
http://anzlitlovers.wordpress.com/201...
October 30, 2015
An interesting read, but one that blames the media more than the politicians. Not surprising, given Lindsay Tanner was a politician. I think it needs to be read in conjunction with another book about similiar topics, NOT written by a politician, to give more perspectives.
I was surprised to have to wait until the last quarter of the book for Tanner to mention the role advertising and ratings play for media organisations, as these surely play a pivotal role in what gets reported, and how.
Definitely food for thought though, and a worthwhile read if you're wondering what the heck has been happening to Australian politics recently.
I was surprised to have to wait until the last quarter of the book for Tanner to mention the role advertising and ratings play for media organisations, as these surely play a pivotal role in what gets reported, and how.
Definitely food for thought though, and a worthwhile read if you're wondering what the heck has been happening to Australian politics recently.
September 23, 2012
Overall, this was an excellent look at just why 21st Century politics in Australia has become so bad. Lindsay Tanner is able to come out and call it how it is - we have a cycle whereby the media and the politicians play a chicken and the egg game to see who can dumb public debate down quicker. Both sides are to blame, and it's just a question of which side decides to buck the trend.
The writing style is free-flowing and easy to follow, and no stage did I feel as though the book was dragging. Highly recommended.
The writing style is free-flowing and easy to follow, and no stage did I feel as though the book was dragging. Highly recommended.
September 10, 2012
Found this quite entertaining for a political book. Also triggered a lot of notes for my own writing, which meant I didn’t think much about what anyone else would get out of it as I read – sorry if you expected a better review for your own purposes! I’m currently involved with a group of women running for local government and this has been part of my personal ‘background reading’ to filter into that process. Some insights, but nothing really ground-shattering. But some good references, as well as example scenarios.
September 15, 2011
I agree with his point but felt he laboured the point. The same point over and over. It was refreshing to see a discussion of the media portrayal of politics and the effect on Australia's democracy from a former politician but this is predominantly an opinion piece. At least there was an admission to his own participation in the "sideshow". No suggestions or solutions to overcome the issue are offered though.
July 4, 2011
Good outline of the problems in Australian political discourse (and media coverage). It's interesting seeing some of those mechanics explained by an insider.
On the negative side: I think Lindsay misunderstands and mischaracterises some of the online changes feeding into this, he suggests no potential resolutions, and some parts are sloppily written.
Overall though, I highly recommend you read it, especially if you've never read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death"
On the negative side: I think Lindsay misunderstands and mischaracterises some of the online changes feeding into this, he suggests no potential resolutions, and some parts are sloppily written.
Overall though, I highly recommend you read it, especially if you've never read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death"
July 21, 2011
My first book on Australian politics and I struggled to get to the end. It was probably worth it but my reading of this would suggest that the media should take all the blame for the situation as it is. I dont agree with that as I think politicians and the electorate take some of the blame too. Perhaps I am just a cynic but when it would appear that all most politicians worldwide want to do is stay in power they wont act in the best long-terms interests of their constituents.
September 28, 2012
The basic premise of this is obvious, but it was nice to have it explained more thoroughly and really interesting to read the stories of Lindsay Tanner's direct experiences.
A few times I did feel like his argument was a bit all over the place, although I entirely agreed with him. Not that it was confusing or his point was lost, I just would have liked it more if it had clearly defined and separate subjects or areas. But I suppose that's my problem, and not a problem with the book itself.
A few times I did feel like his argument was a bit all over the place, although I entirely agreed with him. Not that it was confusing or his point was lost, I just would have liked it more if it had clearly defined and separate subjects or areas. But I suppose that's my problem, and not a problem with the book itself.
January 5, 2014
Hmmmm, I think we now know why Lindsay left Politics: DISILLUSIONMENT. He articulates what we see happening daily without necessarily attributing blame as such or criticising individuals for the dumbing down of national debate. But what's the answer? In that sense it's a disheartening read. Very engaging book, very articulate on the modern Australian polity.
July 31, 2012
Lindsay Tanner takes an alternate look at politics in an honest and humorous book which looks at many topics in Australia's poltitcal history and how the media has affected Australian politics. Tanner talks also of his own expereinces during his political career and gives great insight into our political system today.
Want to read
May 19, 2011Looks interesting, albeit with a premise that is clearly obvious by watching most politicians worldwide in the first place. Here's an article on the book.
March 25, 2013
"You can't open maintenance" - driving power of announceables.
Market signals that guide politicians.
Focus groups as good servants, but bad masters (impossibility of having them as the first without risking the second?)
Market signals that guide politicians.
Focus groups as good servants, but bad masters (impossibility of having them as the first without risking the second?)
July 8, 2011
It was ... OK. At times a little long-winded, but overall Tanner speaks as someone who has seen (and actively been a part of) the increasing entertainment over substance approach by the media.
October 3, 2011
A bit dry, but thought provoking.
March 18, 2012
Enjoying this so far
February 13, 2013
Fascinating, but a little repetitive.
July 25, 2018
Interesting book that argues that the media is dumbing down politics and even more dangerously, democracy by presenting news as entertainment. Tanner brings up lots of good points that I agreed with, but he blames the media more than the politicians (not surprising as he is one) I would have liked for him to propose more solutions instead of just pointing out the problems.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews