When given the choice between a mistake and a conspiracy, the latter should normally be assumed.
That was my choice this week when I realised that after a series of harsh (but in my opinion fair) comments about the problems of the Albanian government, I had been removed from the all-important email distribution list that the Prime Minister’s media team sends to political journalists.
I contacted colleagues at other media outlets and discovered that they were all still receiving emails from the Prime Minister’s Office. I don’t.
For those outside the Canberra bubble, the email distribution list provides journalists with updates on press conferences, so-called “announcements”, state visits, media interviews, you name it.
Without such prior information, covering government actions becomes a little more difficult and information and commentary are delayed. That is why it is not difficult to become suspicious when one is removed from the list after a period of criticism.
I must admit that I immediately assumed it was a conspiracy on the part of the Prime Minister’s office, so I contacted the head of Albanese’s 11-person media unit to find out exactly what had happened.
But clearly I’m too cynical. Like politicians, you should always believe what their staff tells you.
I was eventually convinced and assured that it was a simple case of incompetence that sent me to the naughty corner, unable to receive any communication from a team with communications in their title.
Peter Van Onselen has been removed from the Prime Minister’s media team’s important email distribution list for political journalists after a series of harsh opinion pieces on Anthony Albanese’s troubles (above).
To be fair, he didn’t call the failure incompetence, that was my expression. But when you assume there’s a conspiracy, it’s better to assume it’s all true, which is the same thing.
Apparently something went wrong with their technical systems because I have two email addresses that somehow contributed to me not receiving anything at all.
It had nothing to do with the timing of the recent criticism of the Prime Minister and his ministers!
When the explanation got a little more technical, I had to admit defeat and accept the merits of what I was being told. I struggle to turn on my computer every morning, even at the best of times, so the boss beat me to it when the conversation turned to IT details as part of the explanation.
The Prime Minister’s Office’s mailing list also often includes the sending of transcripts of interviews and press conferences that ministers have held. In the past, these transcripts have not always been accurate, but to be fair, I am talking about what has happened in the offices of previous prime ministers, not Albo’s.
Missing words or figures, slightly modified here and there, have been exposed in both mainstream media and social media after transcripts are uploaded to official government websites.
Occasionally, the transcript says “inaudible” next to a difficult or poorly answered question. Although the audio, when you go back and review it, it sounds pretty clear.
In the past, I’ve had no luck getting off the mailing list while working at other media organizations. Also when I had to work harder than usual with a prime minister.
I guess it must just be an unfortunate coincidence.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ poorly received budget and rising inflation have also come under scrutiny.
Readers will be happy to know that I’m back on the list – in fact, both of my emails are, so I now get two copies of everything in case one of them doesn’t work out.
Is it too soon after complaining to ask to be removed from the list? Probably.
What has nothing to do with conspiracies or blunders is the reality that there are different levels of access to what both the government and the opposition distribute. Some journalists have more access than others. For example, a longer period to receive information about upcoming events.
This game of providing better or worse access based on how obedient a journalist is has long been played by those who run the country. Or perhaps more accurately, those who work for those elected to govern the country.
Politicians like plausible deniability. They like to blame their staff so they don’t have to take the blame.
Political officials are considered an extension of the minister they serve, meaning they cannot be summoned before parliamentary committees to be scrutinized for their actions.
But when a minister presides over a failed government, those same political officials often throw up their hands to take the blame, saving the minister’s career. Inevitably, they appear in another office soon after. Or take an apt government appointment as thanks for participating in the protection racket that is modern politics.
It’s a dirty business, but someone has to do it because without politicians the country couldn’t function on its own. Or could…?
