tip off

Hartcher hits back at book, critics: I’m no Rudd man

In her new book Kerry-Anne Walsh accuses former Fairfax colleague Peter Hartcher of barracking for Kevin Rudd. Hartcher denies it. Does anyone have an agenda here, or is it business as usual?

Sydney Morning Herald political editor Peter Hartcher has fired back at claims made by former Fairfax colleague Kerry-Anne Walsh in her book that he backed Kevin Rudd during Gillard’s prime ministership. And he’s not the only journalist fingered in a thorough examination of how the press gallery works.

The Stalking of Julia Gillard  — subtitled “How the media and Team Rudd brought down the Prime Minister” — is already into its third print run after two weeks on the shelves. The 25-year press gallery veteran, who was most recently The Sun-Herald’s political editor, doesn’t hold back from naming and shaming journalists she believes became players in a destabilisation campaign against Gillard.

Hartcher — described by Walsh as “Rudd’s absolute favourite person in the press gallery”, “Rudd’s main media mouthpiece”, “Rudd’s mate” and “a tosser” — receives the harshest treatment. When asked why Hartcher features so prominently in the book, Walsh told Crikey: “Because his writings were so emphatically pro-Rudd.” She adds she’s not the only person in Canberra, or the general public, who thinks so.

Among the many Hartcher stories Walsh references is a February 2012 piece in which he observed: “As he returns, in all likelihood, to the prime ministership in the weeks ahead …” A week later, Gillard defeated Rudd 71 votes to 31 in a leadership ballot.

But Hartcher told Crikey: “I have no history as a Rudd supporter and am not a Rudd supporter. With Rudd, all I was doing was pointing out the political reality, based on established polling, that he was the preferred candidate to lead the Labor Party. If pointing out political reality now qualifies as cheerleading, then I guess I am guilty.”

Hartcher has not read Walsh’s book but says her thesis about the media’s role in Gillard’s demise sounds like a “conspiracy theory”. “This is all a bit fringe and bizarre and confected,” he said. “I’m not upset, I’m not shocked, I’m not angry, but I am bewildered.”

On Saturday former Labor leader Mark Latham described Hartcher as “the equivalent of Rudd’s press secretary, a political agent masquerading as an independent reporter”.

But Hartcher says people have short memories. “When Rudd was PM I was one of his harshest critics,” he said. “In Barrie Cassidy’s book The Party Thieves he wrote that my commentary on Rudd’s decision to abandon the emissions trading scheme would have led marginal seat members to think of supporting Gillard … I have no private or personal or political attachment or indebtedness to Rudd whatsoever. It was the story I wrote [that Rudd’s chief of staff was testing his caucus support] that provided Gillard the trigger to challenge Rudd.”

Hartcher added: “At no point did Julia Gillard herself, or any of her staffers, tell me I was a barracker for Rudd.” And he notes his story about frontbenchers Bob Carr and Mark Butler shifting away from Gillard was borne out by their votes for Rudd in the June leadership ballot.

It’s an unhealthy relationship, and it’s not serving the public interest where everything is off the record and no one has to put their names to anything.”

Walsh’s book was initially going to cover the workings of Australia’s first minority parliament in 60 years. But she decided to shift focus because the parliament’s policy achievements were being overshadowed by constant leadership speculation. During the Gillard years, she writes: “Every rule in the handbook of good journalism was broken.”

Walsh’s core contention is that the use of polling results and quotes from anonymous sources is out of control in the Canberra press gallery. She argues off-the-record briefings from Rudd and his supporters led journalists to repeatedly overestimate his level of caucus support and to underplay the minority government’s policy achievements. This would have been less likely only five years ago, she says, when pressure to file around the clock was less intense and editors vetted stories more closely.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it in terms of the daily rolling out of anonymously sourced stories. Maybe [journalists] just need to say, ‘put your name to it or I won’t bloody run it’. Politicians can whistle up any story they want with anonymous briefings. It’s an unhealthy relationship, and it’s not serving the public interest where everything is off the record and no one has to put their names to anything,” she said.

Walsh says journalists should have publicly questioned Rudd about whether he was briefing against Gillard and called him out for undermining the PM.

On this point Hartcher said: “I have accepted confidences from many prime ministers, including from Julia Gillard before and when she was prime minister. When you agree to a confidence you have a professional obligation to maintain it — that is why people are prepared to talk to us and to leak things to us. I’ve had briefings from Keating, Howard, Gillard, Rudd — about every significant politician from any party we have — in order to inform the public, not to benefit any one of them.”

The media’s fixation on Gillard’s gender is another theme of Walsh’s book, though not a dominant one. Walsh pings the Herald-Sun for claiming Gillard looked like she had “won a date with George Clooney” when she met Barack Obama. And she savages Hartcher for his analysis of Gillard’s misogyny speech (he concluded the PM “showed she was prepared to defend even the denigration of women if it would help her keep power”). “I have copped a lot of flak on that, but I think I will be vindicated on this,” Hartcher said. “Her deliberate use of gender for political exploitation only became clearer as the months unfolded.”

While Hartcher receives the most stinging criticism, Walsh also gives press gallery reporters Phil Coorey, Dennis Shanahan, Simon Benson, Gemma Jones, James Massola and Michelle Grattan a serve in the book. Lenore Taylor, now of The Guardian, is praised for her use of “facts and even-handed quotes”, and the ABC’s Barrie Cassidy emerges as a hero for calling out Rudd’s briefing tactics. News Limited’s David Penberthy is also applauded for his columns.

KA”, as she’s almost universally known, experienced Rudd’s less-than-charming side in 2007 when he tried to kill a story casting doubt on his tale of childhood eviction. In Stalking she also recalls Rudd casually mentioning to her during a 2006 interview that then-Labor leader Kim Beazley might not be in good health. “It was a sinister, subtle undermining,” Walsh concluded, “that put me on high alert that Rudd was a sniper in diplomat’s garb.”

29
  • 1
    Gail
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    So Hartcher has not read the book ….. but ….. he has an opinion

    says her thesis about the media’s role in Gillard’s demise sounds like a “conspiracy theory”. “This is all a bit fringe and bizarre and confected,”

    …and is not afraid to use it.

  • 2
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Senior journalists on the drip? No surprises there.

    Personally I think alleged corruption amongst some union bosses and politicians, and the ex PM’s strong identification with some or all of those unions, was another significant factor. Health unions in Vic and NSW, ICAC in NSW.

    Was this the vibe playing into PM G’s involuntary nasal drone? The sub dialect known as English-unionist?

    Overall I’m not really sure journalists are that significant - though I do grate my teeth at the implicit white supremacism in anti boat people (read anti brown people?) in GJ’s writings.

    Was the ugly News Ltd treatment all a get square for winning based on Work Choices in 2007? I wonder.

    And what about Paul Sheehan’s bias in Fairfax (the proverbial Palid Man).

  • 3
    John Ballard
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Hartcher cites Barrie Cassidy as authoritative on his work. He might wish to re-read Barrie’s column in the ABC Drum on 3 Dec 2012, which points out the bias in Hartcher’s coverage of ALP leadership during the year.

  • 4
    gerri willesee
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Once upon a time the Canberra press gallery addressed MP’s as Senator or Mister. To be given a background briefing - mostly about policy matters - was uncommon. Today MP’s have very young and inexperienced media advisers who are, at the best, inept and make fools of their masters. There was a time when MP’s didn’t ostentatiously pose for pix - photographers had to be good enough to catch the moment. And reporters good enough to catch the stories. Now, as Tony Abbott once did publicly, MP’s offer to “do it again for the cameras”.

    There’s now a total over-reliance on a reporter ‘capturing’ an MP to be his/her “contact”, while MP’s (try to) capture a reporter. Who wins? Not journalism. I was also saddened to see Peter Hartcher’s stories veering more and more to the 1KRudd camp as the phoney war went on. I too turned to Lenore Nicklin for actual news. We need desperately for media bosses (editors etc ,not owners) to review the way we operate in the gallery, including the continuing mixing of comment and ‘analysis’ with news. Hartcher deserves a carpeting. However, he will hopefully analyse his errors of judgement. But now it’s a game between the gallery and the MP’s - who can capture who first and who can be the winner.

    I just don’t understand how Peter Hartcher could tolerate having to spend so much time with psycho Kevin. And I would like to know if Peter ever gave advice to 1KR.

  • 5
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Don’t play with the media if you have a conscience”?

  • 6
    Flickknifetipsy
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    I remember being horrified at the amount of criticism that Peter Hartcher levelled at Mr Rodd before Ms Gillard took over. I think that in the early days of Ms Gillard’s term as PM Mr Hartcher gave her every opportunity. However, Ms Gillard made many mistakes and contributed to
    her own unpopularity and she had never been truly accepted after she took power suddenly and in what was perceived to be a violent manner.
    As for the gender card, I don’t think Ms Gillard used this. From my recollection it was the CEO of Westpac, Gail Kelly, who first pointed out the mysogynistic tone to the media coverage in relation to Ms Gillard. Unfortunately Mr Abbott took the lead in disrespectful, vindictive rhetoric and far too many followed in his wake, many with apparent delight.

  • 7
    Brigid Tancred
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    I could not agree more with Kerry-Anne’s comments about Peter Hartcher’s dislike of Julia Gillard. I read the SMH every day and was constantly struck by the hostile attitude he took to her. It was a bit like reading opinion in the Daily Telegraph. It was so personal that it made me wonder whether she’d knocked him back some time.

  • 8
    Paul
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    The thesis is correct, the media wanted to shaft a PM and they did.
    So a variation on a theme of faceless men is that 2 PMs have lost their jobs, one courtesy of mining companies and another by the media, including the ABC.
    Crikey, New Matilda, The Conversation (sans Grattan), Independent Australia and thank god for The Guardian are the only media outlets worthy of the name.

  • 9
    drmick
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    Nailed the leader of the conga line of suck holes. I would be surprised if he had read the book. More so that he could read. Any wonder the paper is closing down.

  • 10
    Frank Birchall
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    As a daily reader of the SMH, I felt Hartcher’s pieces were more pro-Abbott than pro-Rudd, though both positions are consistent with anti-Gillard.

  • 11
    Mary Henderson
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Just reading the book in question and, oddly enough, don’t believe for a second Hartcher’s claim of not having done so.

  • 12
    FelineCyclist
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    The responses of journos to this book has been as fascinating as its subject matter. Time and again they prove Walsh’s thesis. The press gallery are still under the delusion that they merely reports objective facts. In reality, they have become part of the process, knowingly or unwittingly. Examples of the former include the News Ltd press’ unrelenting campaign against PM Gillard and the ALP generally. Examples of the latter include every silly journo who lapped up the KRudd camp’s leaks and whispers, without realising they were being played likes $2 Ukelele. Hartcher may fall into the former or latter category, depending on his level of knowledge - so was he a knowing participant or just a naive patsy?

  • 13
    Margaret Smyth
    Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    I wrote to the SMH continually over the last year, and posted comments to Peter Hartcher’s articles, deploring his bias. He was bylined as “Political Editor”, but his articles were opinion, not factual reporting.

  • 14
    Mike M
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    The way in which the press acted as a posse looking for blood was pretty sad…..and what they seem to like are cynical politicians like Howard, and now Rudd….and don’t get me started about Abbott. A bit more objectivity and we might see a higher standard of politician and politics.

  • 15
    Henry
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Bravo Brigid as above. Maybe being knocked back was why he was Rudd’s ahem mouth piece. Guess he had to get his jollies from somewhere. Can just hear Peter, oh come on Kev, give me a fair suck of the Sav!

  • 16
    Jara22
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    Peter Hartcher can’t see past his own nose. His articles dripped with disrespect and contempt for Julia Gillard and praise for Rudd. Either he’s delusional or he thinks we’re stupid.

  • 17
    Henry
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Peter: Ooh fair suck of the sav please Kev.
    Kev: Gotta zip now

  • 18
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    Mike M we’d probably see a higher level of awareness from punters too.
    Who’s interested in hack opinions - we’re old enough, we can take responsibility for rolling our own, “Just pass the making’s.” They can hold their spit.

  • 19
    Popeye
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    I’m surprised that Michelle Grattan gets only a passing mention in this item. I’ve notyet read KAW’s book, so perhaps Grattan’s role figures more prominently.
    Hartcher was not until recently a frequent contributor to the Age, but Grattan was, until her departure, the paper’s chief political correspondent. And she kept up, more or less from the moment Julia Gillard became prime minister, a constant barrage of criticism of Gillard in particular, but as well, of the Gillard government in general. Her columns came to be known in my house as the Grattan Daily Hate. Any sense of even-handedness, balance and fairness were concepts ignored by Grattan who, in my opinion, should have known better as a senior and hitherto well-respected jourrnalist.

  • 20
    cairns50
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    since when did crikey become an apologist for peter hartcher anybody who read his articles in the smh and age could not help but notice that he never ever wrote a postive thing about julia gillard and was an apologist and rudd backer always

    kerry walsh has spoken the truth about him and he doesnt like it, so what

  • 21
    Dion Giles
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    Gillard wasn’t the real target of the journos’ stalking, nor was Rudd. From November 2007 on, the corporations (increasingly foreign like News Ltd and the mining companies), that own the journos and also own the Liberal Party regarded Labor as an impediment to their insatiable greed for untrammelled grabbing power and as not a legitimate party of government. Inventing endless “leaks” to stir up reader pressure for displacing the leader was part of their presentation of Labor as temporary and illegitimate. You could even see it in their vocabulary. In supposedly straight news reports, the Government didn’t do this or that, Labor (the usurpers) did it. It was the same with Whitlam. The Hawke-Keating government was accepted for a while because of Keating, who in the terms of Sir Humphrey was “one of us” like Tony Blair, and who presided over a massive shift of wealth from the wealth-makers to the wealth-takers.

    The shift from Gillard to Rudd, however, seems to be blowing up in the faces of those ultimately behind it.

  • 22
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    I have commented on crikey’s boards noting the corrosive and bilious reporting of Hartcher in respect of Gillard. It seemed to be sometimes anti-Labor as much as anti-Gillard, but Gillard copped the brunt.

    Hartcher was left to look like a fool in his harsh and incorrect response to the Gillard misogyny speech, which he hated and everyone who wasn’t a bilious Press Grallery reporter loved.

    There is no question in my mind that he lost sight of what a journalist is, and moved over to becoming a barracker. Anything, everything that Gillard did was reported negatively by him.

  • 23
    Tali Barrett
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Sometimes others can see what we ourselves cannot - like the dodgy partner. Clearly he is blind to his own bias

  • 24
    Dented
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    “Her deliberate use of gender for political exploitation only became clearer as the months unfolded.” Really Mr Hartcher?
    Julia’s leadership shone a light into a dark corner of our national psyche that many men refuse to acknowledge.
    Blaming women for their own persecution is an aspect of misogyny.

  • 25
    John Taylor
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    If the leadership saga was a slow burning fire, Hartcher was always on hand to blow on the coals.

  • 26
    pam walker
    Posted Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Kerry-Ann is just saying in an articulate and informed way what many people were already thinking. She’s not the only one who watched appalled at how many in the media - and yes, definitely including Hartcher- mauled Julia Gillard. And they hunted as a pack. And sorry Hartcher, history will not vindicate your response to that “speech” because Julia Gillard has a much better sense of what really denigrates women - and it’s not juvenile descriptions of private bits. Refusing to give respect due to office of PM (make an honest woman out of you??!!!) and refusal to acknowledge legitimacy of that office holder is much more denigrating and a lot more offensive. Not to mention the unforgivable parroting of Alan Jones’ “died of shame” bile. The PM had every right to strike back against that Abbott attack. Like the rest of the pack, Hartcher never gave Julia Gillard a break and history will note that.

  • 27
    rob oxford
    Posted Friday, 19 July 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Hartcher is far up himsef that it’s no surprise that he sees nothing untoward in his boosterism.

  • 28
    CML
    Posted Sunday, 21 July 2013 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Hartcher Is a Gillard-hating minnow compared to just about every journalist who works for Limited News, particularly The Australian. Why is this author picking on Hartcher from the SMH, and letting all the others off Scot-free? Bit of bias there Ms Walsh?
    And NO, I haven’t read this book. Being female, I am fed up with the feminist mafia making ex uses for the worst PM I can remember in my 70+ years on this mortal coil. Also a ‘rusted-on’ Labor voter, who is delighted at the return of Kevin Rudd as PM. He is highly intelligent, a visionary and that will do me.
    Could all you Gillard luvvies get over it, please? She got what she deserved, considering the way she became PM, and she was nothing but a puppet of the unions during her term as PM anyway.

  • 29
    Maureen Daly
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    If you were to read the book, you would find that she hasn’t let “the others” off Scot-free. Being female or otherwise doesn’t provide a basis for your anti-Gillard rant.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...