For the past 45 years journalist Laurie Oakes has covered Australian politics from the Canberra press gallery, amassing more than his fair share of leaks and scoops. In conversation with Richard Aedy, he laments the rise of spin, diminishing newsroom resources, and a power shift away from the media into the hands of the country’s political leaders.

Sunday, 20 July 1969 was one of mankind’s greatest days. Apollo 11 landed in the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon. Queen Elizabeth II had been on the throne for 16 years. Richard Nixon was in his first year of his first term as president of the United States. John Gorton was prime minister of Australia, and Laurie Oakes, not quite 26, had just clocked up six months in the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

In a democracy you need the journalists to have a certain amount of power so that they can get information; so they can quiz politicians; so they can hold them to account. If you can’t get near them you can’t hold them to account. Laurie Oakes

Channel Nine’s political editor is still there, of course. He’s reported on 10 prime ministers and 45 Budgets, one of which he was able to put to air before the treasurer of the time, John Howard, rose to deliver it. None of the politicians he now covers were in Parliament when he arrived, and many of his colleagues in the gallery weren’t even born.

In other words, Oakes’ frame of reference is unrivalled. His experience and track record mean that when he’s concerned about something, you should probably be paying attention. The problem, he says, is that voters are being kept in the dark.

‘That’s one of the reasons we’ve seen surveys about a lack of faith in the working of democracy, a lack of faith in the way the federal government in particular works. It’s because readers and viewers see that they’re not getting the sort of information they feel they need in a democracy.’

There is no single reason for this. Indeed, Oakes makes clear that a number of factors have contributed to the situation. One of them is the impact of digital technology on mainstream media, which has led to fewer resources and smaller staffs.

‘You can fire a cannon through some of the offices in the press gallery now and you wouldn’t hit anybody,’ he says.

‘You’ve got fewer journalists doing much more across a range of platforms. So obviously they can’t do the job they used to do. They’ll work long hours and they’ll keep trying even though it’s harder and harder and harder.’

There is another side to this, of course. Journalists are in the disclosure business and Oakes has done a great deal of disclosing. His stories based on leaks from inside cabinet arguably affected the outcome of the 2010 election. Politicians are in the information control business, though, and increasingly they hold the whip hand.

‘When I came here there were hardly any press secretaries,’ says Oakes. ‘Graham Freudenberg was working for Gough Whitlam and he was a special case, he could actually talk in the leader’s name. He’d say, “You can quote the leader as saying X, Y and Z,” and that would go down as “Mr Whitlam said”. Now there are millions of press secretaries—they breed like rabbits and they’re not helpful.’

It’s not just the escalating number of media advisors Oakes is concerned about, though, it’s control out of the leader’s office.

‘Take, for example, Sunday morning interviews,’ he says. ‘When I was doing the Sunday program I would go for the interview I wanted, the politician who interested me, and we’d pursue them and try and get them on. Mostly we succeeded.’

‘Now the prime minister’s office and the opposition leader’s office decide who will go on those programs. It’s no longer the journalists who decide, they take what they can get.’

This control, Oakes believes, extends well beyond the casting of TV interviews. It increasingly determines what goes in the papers, which still set the news agenda.

'Now, more than at any time I can remember, stories are dropped from on high, instead of journalists digging stuff out, which they still try to do. The prime minister’s office in particular is feeding stuff out in the way they want. This decides what people are reading and takes power out of the hands of the journalists. And because there are fewer journalists, they’ve got fewer resources with which to fight that and beat it.’

It all adds up to the balance of power moving rapidly in favour of the politicians. Hence Oakes’ concern that voters are not getting the information they need.

‘In a democracy you need the journalists to have a certain amount of power so that they can get information; so they can quiz politicians; so they can hold them to account. If you can’t get near them you can’t hold them to account.’

The press gallery veteran is under no illusions about what will happen next and points to US President Barack Obama’s social media unit, effectively an internal White House newsroom, as an example.

The unit produces a weekly video series, West Wing Week, which tracks the president’s every move. It’s a comprehensive multimedia experience that encompasses photography, videography and spin.

The problem, in Oakes’ perspective, is once again the disruptive power of digital technology. In Australia, one particular former prime minister spotted this earlier than most.

‘Kevin Rudd started it,’ says Oakes. ‘He had his own YouTube channel. He had a staffer with a cheap video camera and a computer to edit on. Even when he was on the backbench, [Rudd] could remain in public view by putting out his own news coverage of himself.’

While Rudd was no ordinary backbencher, he still had nothing like the resources available to the prime minister and members of the cabinet. Now, Oakes says, these resources are being deployed.

‘It is happening. Tony Abbott now has in his office his own videographer. That’s the start of building something akin to what Obama has built in the White House. It’s a threat. I’ve seen academic articles out of Britain and the US talking about the possibility of political journalism becoming irrelevant because politicians will have the means to cover themselves.’

‘Malcolm Turnbull himself says that the balance of power has changed – politicians no longer need to complain about the media, [they have their] own megaphone. That’s right.’

The awkward question for journalists is, will the public care? After all, Australians have embraced digital technologies, especially social media. Posting a video on YouTube is something that children can do. If politicians want to go around the mainstream media, Australians must understand that too—more than 12 million use Facebook each month—nine million every day.

Oakes is absolutely clear on the power of this approach.

‘In a way, this might, for a while, persuade the public that things have improved,’ he says. ‘You see a politician on social media and they look a lot more normal than they do under pressure in an interview on television. They can talk about their dogs and their football team and they look like normal people.’

That, for politicians and voters alike, is very attractive. When a country feels as jaundiced about its political leaders as Australian does, being reminded that they’re human is a relief. Annabel Crabb’s pitch-perfect Kitchen Cabinet, in which she asks questions while her interviewee cooks lunch, is a popular case in point.

But Oakes has a warning—democracy needs more than cooking shows and social media.

‘If you get that, and sacrifice in the process the probing that’s necessary in a democracy, then that’s bad for the way our system works. It’s what we’ve got to watch out for and fight. But it’s going to be a tough battle—I’m not sure we can win.’

The Laurie Oakes interview Thursday 23 October 2014 Find the full interview on the Media Report. More This [series episode segment] has image,

The doyen of the press gallery does plan to be part of the fight, though. He isn’t preparing to retire yet.

‘I’m 71 now. I still love what I’m doing but I’m doing less because of my age,’ he says.

‘I’d like to stay around and keep doing it for as long as I can. I love journalism and I particularly love reporting on politics. I get immense job satisfaction out of political journalism because the social importance is obvious and you realise you’re doing something important.’

The Media Report makes sense of our increasingly media-saturated world, talking to key players, examining contemporary journalism and charting the enormous changes of the digital age.

