One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt yesterday did exactly what she wanted — cut through a wild week of news and politics. Hanson’s stunt prompted a passionate speech from Attorney-General George Brandis, and politicians united in their condemnation of Hanson.
Within minutes of Hanson’s appearance in the Senate chamber, journalists and photographers were tweeting from the gallery, Sky News brought in a counter-terrorism expert to discuss Brandis’ speech who said such mockery could fuel terrorism, and Hanson was booked in for appearances on 2GB and Paul Murray Live. All the TV news bulletins carried the story, and all the metropolitan and national newspapers today carried the story on their front pages as a pointer, if not as the main story. Hobart’s The Mercury was the only capital city daily not to have any mention of the story on its front page. Even the NT News, known for ignoring big national stories in favour of crocodiles and other quirky yarns, had a front-page pointer, with picture, to the story.
Banning the burqa was not part of the national conversation yesterday morning, but after Hanson’s stunt, it well and truly is now.
Political marketing strategist Toby Ralph said Brandis’ response had only fueled more coverage: “Ms Hanson exercised her right to be a bigot again yesterday, and was slapped down magnificently by the oft-maligned George Brandis. But while most of Australia cheered the wonderful rebuke from Brandis, sadly it is likely to increase coverage of and sympathy for her position from her target audience of dim xenophobes.”
Centre for Advancing Journalism senior research fellow Denis Muller said the media couldn’t ignore Hanson, and provided the context and opposition to her position was included, the media should report on it: “She’s a public figure, she’s a senator, she’s in the Senate, she’s in Parliament. The media can’t ignore that, and yes, it’s a stunt and it’s sure to get plenty of publicity, but publicity of what kind? So long as the media report (the condemnation) as well, I think they’ve done what they can do.”
Muller says that the public interest in the matter overrides the censorship that would be involved in ignoring Hanson. “There is a public interest in knowing what a member of the Parliament is doing,” he said. “I don’t see how you could fail to give the public interest more weight than the argument about denying oxygen.”
22 thoughts on “Pauline Hanson’s PR masterstroke did exactly what she wanted it to”
John Hall
August 18, 2017 at 7:52 pmPauline is a sad little twisted person who the press loves. In many ways it is a sad sight that the press gives her so much coverage. Thank God/Allah for the ABC & Four Corners for showing her true colours as a deluded megalomaniac with pretensions of grandeur. Take her for the sad little soapboxer she is; with her poorer command of English than most migrants demonstrate. It would add to the dignity of Parliament if she covered her face all the time. The vapid look of sullen emptiness gets a bit tiring.
AR
August 18, 2017 at 11:23 pmAll the huffin’ & puffin’ & virtue signalling from the usual suspects of the wanker brigade ignores the plight of women who do have to wear that execrable shroud – that is really “about denying oxyen.
Let’s not have any drivel about women “choosing” to wear it of their own free will.
It might save your life in some benighted regions of the world but that’s not relevant to this country.
I find disturbing the number of commenters here who make jokes about it being good for hiding other MPs.
This cultural abomination is no funnier than foot binding.
Stiletto heels, anyone?
124C4U
August 19, 2017 at 9:36 amSorry to offend your sensibilities AR.
Your comments regarding the execrable shroud are excellent and true.
However I still think that we have such an execrable crop of Pollies that a cover of some sort should be applied to the lot of them, as well as a gag or some kind of cone of silence.
They are an embarrassment to us and make Australia a laughing stock.
But Misha Cash is an exception, if only she could be kept quiet.
Marion Wilson
August 19, 2017 at 2:53 pmThere are Christian nuns in Australia who wear very serious religious coverings to demonstrate their piety and the upper echelon of RC men swan about in some really glorious long robes of embroidered silk and satin with matching hats and smoking handbags. Or is it just the face covering that Pauline finds offensive? I understand that quite serious crimes are committed by Father Christmas “look alikes”. I think Pauline hasn’t done her homework on forced to wear clothing nor security issues.
Itsarort
August 21, 2017 at 11:41 amWith cheap and easy access to spf 50+, not even a blood-nut need wear a burqa these days.
Dougz
August 22, 2017 at 11:20 amIt didn’t take long for everyone to realise that far from banning the burqa, most of the country would be happier if Pauline kept hers on.
Permanently!
Now as for the novel requirement that the ABC be impartial…
I’m all for it. In fact I’m so much in favour of it that I believe that the same requirements and governance procedures MUST be extended to all broadcast media that have access to “our airwaves”.
I realise that “impartiality” might shock the jocks off a few media players, but if the idea has got merit, then it’s got merit wherever we apply it.
Right?