Pauline Hanson Climbs Her Way To Controversy
What words come to mind when you hear the name Pauline Hanson? Controversial? Outspoken? Opinionated? These are some of the words that I associate with the One Nation leader.
Hanson is renowned for speaking her mind and resolutely preaching what she believes. The question is whether media outlets, in profiting from outrage, are perpetuating Hanson’s (harmful) opinions?
Through a political lens, journalism’s fundamental agreement within the media industry is guaranteeing democratic accountability through the reportage of the political process and investigating opposing perspectives. Journalism is understood and justified as a watchdog providing commentary on social processes political institutions are creating and defending. Media’s overt capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues refers to the fourth estate.
In an industry becoming increasingly competitive, select media outlets’ motives shift from upholding their role to be operating for the public interest as the fourth estate and instead place publicity at the forefront of their motives. This ethos is evident throughout one of Hanson’s recent television appearances, a segment following her trip to Uluru broadcast on A Current Affair (ACA).
The segment was advertised for days leading up to airing. A dramatized trailer referred to Hanson as a rockstar and a rock rebel. Accompanied by dramatic music, the trailer was strategically configured to amplify and exaggerate the segment. Far from traditional news, this example can be categorised as infotainment, a partnership of information and entertainment. The infiltration of infotainment redefines news changing from an informative source and instead becoming a ‘dumbed down’ version of current affairs.
The episode shows her discussing the closure of climbing Uluru with Indigenous teenagers and the Anangu traditional owners of the area. Hanson also attempts the climb in a pair of Asics, bald of any tred. Gaining a generous 200 metres, she proved the climb’s severity and difficulty. A live Facebook poll lined the bottom of the screen asking viewers should it be legal to climb Uluru. 62% responded yes and 38% responded no.
The integration of modern technology, such as Facebook polls, furthers the segment’s production as infotainment. The poll permits interactivity and simultaneously provides an opportunity for engagement.
As the segment concluded, Tracy Grimshaw disclosed that ACA did not pay Senator Hanson and that the visit was not their idea. This follows the fifth point of MEAA Code of Ethics as Grimshaw discloses conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism.
In closing, Grimshaw mentions that a full statement by Parks Australia about the visit can be found on the website. I attempted to source this statement, but was unsuccessful.
Although elements of the segment align with journalistic protocol, multiple flaws are existent creating questionable doubt regarding ACA’s motive. Why was Hanson selected to commentate the Uluru debate?
Initially the story was also uploaded to ACA’s social media channels however has since been removed. While the Facebook post was accessible, it accumulated more than 2,600 reactions, 1,200 comments, 1,300 shares and 193,000 views. Additionally, the video received more than 56,000 views on YouTube. In comparison to ACA’s other content, the Uluru feature outperformed past content in regards to engagement. The rates of engagement validate ACA’s strategic decision to include the segment.
The segment has been removed from all ACA associated accounts, including Twitter and 9Now. Having aired less than a month ago, the discrete removal of all traces of the segment raises numerous questions. Rather than positive publicity did ACA receive negative publicity? Was the response different to anticipated? All evidence has vanished.
Hanson is therefore exploited as a technique of generating publicity as opposed to representing political endeavours.
