Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Opinion and fact: ministerial expertise, cancers, cars and climate

By Rob Cover - posted Friday, 15 August 2014


He argued in an opinion piece in The Australian that attempts to focus climate change responses on carbon reduction were similar to "primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to the gods".

Newman's piece draws heavily on published research in order to ground his opinions in facts - an effective activity that any student essay-writer does as a regular part of learning assessment. However, what he fails to articulate is a study of his resources and whether or not they are, indeed, expert or biased themselves.

Newman cites the work of "Perth scientist" David Archibald, particularly referring to his book The Twilight of Abundancewhich argues that climate change is not an effect of carbon emissions but the result of shifts in solar activity. What Newman neglects to do is point to the fact that Archibald's fact are not only from a fringe perspective published in an unverified form, but that the author himself was apparently a former CEO of oil and mining exploration companies".

Advertisement

In Newman's case, then, opinion is articulated as fact by following the conventions of citation, in order to make an absurd argument about climate change and an even more ridiculous claim that likens contemporary models of climate action and responsiveness to "primitives" (indeed) fearfully attempting to appease their gods. Perhaps part of the responsibility of Newman, and one all opinion writers (perhaps myself too) should be following, is to consult all sides of the story, to carefully and slowly work through the different knowledges and make judgments based on expertise in order to come to a balanced, informed and informative opinion.

News Cycles, Immediacy and Ignorance

Part of the issue at stake here is the shift towards not only the twenty-four hour news cycle but to the intensification of immediacy in responsiveness. It is, seemingly, less acceptable for a minister, senior commentator or politician to state that further fact-checking and consultation with experts is needed.

Rather, the cycle operates with the assumption that there is a public demand all politicians and policy leaders know and understand every possible fact there-and-then and must have a position on those facts in order to appear as persons of 'integrity'.

Instead of bucking against that system and offering to consult their expert advisers, their departments, parliamentary research officers (etc.), Abetz and Hockey effectively buy into the system of immediacy in such a way as to participate in the "dumbing down" of information and fact, making "opinion" (and ideologically-driven opinion) the central component of all public debate, and pushing "expert opinion" and "informed opinion" to the sidelines, as if expertise and "being informed" are an archaic practice belonging only to dusty halls at a de-funded university.

While opposing the culturally-developed norms of contemporary political and news communication is not an easy task, politicians and opinion-leaders continue to be in substantially strong positions to do so.

Advertisement

Without undertaking some audience research, it would be difficult for this writer to know for sure, but one might make an educated guess that the public and the contemporary audience may well appreciate an opinion leader or politician who offers to go and check some facts, who says "I am still in the process of being informed on this complex issue" and who gives dignity to the government departments, researchers and expert consultants by stating that they are the people to whom she or he needs to return before saying anything further (digging a deeper hole, as John Hewson recently put it).

The problem with relying on the immediacy of hype and spin to cover poor research and a lack of engagement with quality research is that audiences are increasingly aware of how it works, as television comedies such as BBC's The Thick of It and ABC's Utopia demonstrate.

Combined with an intelligent network of commentary and response, opinion leaders and politicians become the least effective in leading the communication of ideas, the discussion of important issues and the effectiveness of public debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

27 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Rob Cover is Professor of Digital Communication at RMIT University, Melbourne where he researches contemporary media cultures. The author of six books, his most recent are Flirting in the era of #MeToo: Negotiating Intimacy (with Alison Bartlett and Kyra Clarke) and Population, Mobility and Belonging.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Rob Cover

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Rob Cover
Article Tools
Comment 27 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy