- Thinking About It by Zee Feed
- Posts
- Analysis: Albo x Abbie Chatfield
On Friday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did a sit down interview with Abbie Chatfield, on her podcast It’s A Lot. I listened to it (as well as the shorter interview he did with the Betoota Advocate, released on the same day), so let’s analyse it.
A caveat on this analysis – what you’re reading is the third re-write. I’ve tried to be very careful and fair. Abbie is a necessary feminist voice but she is not beyond critique; at the same time, she is consistently targeted by those trying to undermine feminism and progressive politics which makes it even more important to approach criticism in good faith. I hope that’s what I have achieved here.
Intentions, journalism and who this is for
The first thing you hear in this podcast episode is an unequivocal declaration of her personal stance and bias: she is a Greens voter, her own values are to the left of the Labor party, she loves Adam Bandt.
She is also crystal clear about her intention with the interview: “My primary goal in this is to get Labor back into government. If you’re thinking that is so biased, it is biased.”
Abbie is not a journalist, but this is a great display of journalistic ethics. I have written a lot about how unbiased journalism does not exist (page 111), and that having an understanding of a journalist’s (or media personality’s) views brings more clarity to their work, not less. It would be impossible for Abbie to pretend to be neutral in this interview, given how much of her beliefs and thoughts she shares publicly online.
Who is this for? Abbie has also specified exactly who the intended audience for this interview was, posting to Instagram stories that it’s aimed at “people who weren’t engaged in politics … This was not for people well-versed in Greens/left-wing politics.”
Think of it as Albanese appearing on commercial radio or Dutton’s 60 Minutes segment, rather than the National Press Club. It is for people who come for her MAFS and reality TV recaps, crazy life stories… and, yeah, might just listen to what Albo has to say.
In comparison to other similar interviews – Albanese on Betoota Talks, and Dutton on Mark Bouris’ Straight Talk – hers was much more policy-focused.
Did I personally learn anything new? No. There was one thing I found very interesting (scroll down for that). But this wasn’t meant for me. That does not mean it was without merit.
What this interview does well
The interview lets Albanese lay out what he believes his government has achieved and its future plans in a clear, non-confrontational way, for young people who are not engaged. It succeeds in that goal.
Given the vast majority of the Australian media landscape is governed by conservative ideology and documented ties to the Liberal party, I understand the choice to platform the Labor party’s position unchallenged – there are plenty of other places documenting how the Albanese government has failed. Abbie is not a journalist, so she can make that choice if she wants to (and she has been completely transparent about it).
A solid jab at Dutton: Abbie mentions both in her disclaimer and during the interview that she also offered an interview to Dutton, but “he won’t do it”. Later (around 1:12:00) Albanese says of Dutton: “Can you imagine this bloke ever thinking of getting a policy that was aimed solely at women’s reproductive health? He hasn’t, and he won’t.” To really hammer it home, the ads that run throughout the episode are for a UTI treatment.
Most political jabs and swipes are nonsense, but I can’t lie – this one worked on me. I genuinely cannot imagine Dutton standing in front of a pack of reporters to announce funding for women’s reproductive health. He does seem like a man very uncomfortable around young women, especially outspoken women. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him photographed next to a young woman?
Dutton was happy to give an interview with former Olympic diver Sam Fricker, whose YouTube stats do not justify such a high profile guest (most of his videos in the past year have less than 5000 views). After one month, the Fricker interview has 5400 views; Abbie’s podcast had more than 200,000 listens in January alone.
Criticisms
People criticising this interview for being too soft remind me of those criticising the Barbie movie for being feminism 101. As I wrote at the time: “This thing is a blockbuster movie. It is intended for mass reach … The feminist ideas in Barbie are appropriately challenging for a mass audience drawn to a movie about the ideal white woman as a literal product.” Similarly, the way politics was presented in this interview was intentionally accessible for the unengaged young woman voter. I don’t think it’s productive for those of us who are more advanced and informed to judge the interview on what’s right for us.
My criticisms of the interview are focused on what her unengaged audience needs. Because there is a very high level of responsibility that comes with intentionally targeting these people.
She should have corrected some of Albanese’s claims. Some respectful pushback would have been helpful to demonstrate to this entry-level audience what political discourse and conversations look like. Conflict is normal in these conversations, so this could have been an opportunity to demonstrate:
That pushback and challenge can be respectful and non-antagonistic;
That you can disagree while working towards the same goal, and;
That politicians don’t tell the whole truth, so full context is necessary to evaluate what they’ve said.
That last point is particularly important for an entry-level audience, as the goal must be to encourage people to do further research and think critically about what they’re hearing.
More concerning is what came after a few hours after the interview was published. Abbie shared a video in which she incorrectly explained how preferential voting works. It was misinformation, and was fact-checked by the Australian Electoral Commission on Twitter. Although she deleted the video very soon after she posted it, she did not correct the misinformation she had shared (even unintentionally) until Saturday morning. When she addressed the situation, she argued that what she said was “not wrong” although poorly explained. She was understandably very defensive (as Abbie is consistently targeted by trolls and misogynists).
We all make mistakes and no one is perfect, but if your stated goal is to get unengaged voters into politics, muddying the waters by not taking clear accountability for sharing misinformation doesn’t help. Posting defensive videos arguing with ‘leftists’ also does not help. It’s confusing, and feeds into the view that political conversations are aggressive and too complicated. It’s difficult to see how this content fits into the strategy of being an entry point into politics and moving people “to the left”. To me, it seems more likely to make this audience switch off again.
In these same videos, Abbie says that she has a strategy and is sticking to it, even if others criticise her strategy and don’t believe it will work. That is totally fair! Her strategy is a good one and I am sure it will have an impact. But ironically, Abbie often fails to understand or appreciate that others are using a different strategy to her and she can be dismissive of those differences. This mentality is also unhelpful for entry level audiences, who need to understand that there is no single, correct way to achieve political change. It takes all types of people, using all kinds of different strategies.
Albanese’s most interesting response
For readers of Zee Feed who are more advanced in political understanding than Abbie’s intended audience, there is one revealing answer from Albanese.
At around 33:30 Abbie asks about Labor’s relationship with the Greens, specifying that a lot of listeners will vote Greens 1, Labor 2. Albanese does not push back on the idea of voting Greens 1, nor does he make a case for voting Labor 1. Instead he focuses entirely on the preferences, saying those who care about the environment should not put LNP above Labor. “Labor is a party of government and we engage constructively across the parliament. I engage with all of the crossbenchers and we’ve got most of our legislation through because of that. And I respect people if they decide to vote for a minor party, but I say think about where your preferences go, because chances are that they will count.”
Is this Albanese making a subtle pitch for a Labor-led minority government?
At the very least it seems to be an admission that the two major parties won’t recoup much of the primary vote they’ve lost over the past two elections. It’s also in stark contrast to the interview Albanese gave to the Betoota Advocate, telling them (around 29:26) he thinks Labor can win majority government by picking up additional seats. Maybe it’s just because he wasn’t asked, but I think it’s noteworthy that Albanese did not push the idea of a Labor majority government to her audience.
In conclusion: I think the interview itself will be a net good for those who don’t pay attention to politics. But amongst the bad faith criticisms, there are also some very valid critiques that we can all learn from. And if there is one nugget that more informed voters should be thinking about, it’s that answer from Albanese on preferences.
If you had thoughts, I’d love to hear ‘em – email me!
Smart stuff on the Internet 💭
All the stuff I found on the web that made me think, smile, or have an ‘aha!’ moment. Spend your Sunday reading them – you'll be better off for it:
He Went to Jail for Stealing Someone’s Identity. But It Was His All Along. on the New York Times
Wild story! "All of the records that Mr. Keirans accumulated establishing himself as William Woods left the real Mr. Woods unable to convince the authorities that he was who he said he was, though he, too, had identification cards with his real name.”
Elizabeth Holmes Breaks Her Silence in First Interview from Prison: 'It’s Been Hell and Torture' on People
This interview is so outrageous, some of the things Holmes says are terrifying to me! Super interesting interview that’s a study in privilege and deluision. “Between roll calls five times a day, Holmes also works as a law clerk, helping women to secure compassionate release and their court cases, as well as teaching French classes. She also counsels inmates who are rape survivors. It helps her to find meaning in her incarceration. ‘Human beings are not made to be in cells," she says. "It goes so far beyond understanding. I’m trying really hard not to tear up right now. I’m trying to grow, as every moment matters.’”
The Expression of Death Online: From Parasocial Grief to The Monetistation of Digital Mourning on Infinite Scroll podcast
I know I always recommend infinite scroll but it’s always good, sorry! This episode includes interviews with two grief experts , and covers interesting angles like parasocial grief, the remaining digital footprint, and grief policing.
Even for an administrative hearing, Luigi Mangione draws crowds at New York City courthouse on CNN
This is the most comprehensive update I’ve found on Luigi Mangione’s latest court hearing. The hearing was just about administrative things, but still revealed some interesting details: “[His laywer] claimed that in an HBO documentary, New York City Mayor Eric Adams had discussed evidence that hadn’t been given to the defense. She also said she believes Mangione’s constitutional rights were violated when officers seized his belongings during his arrest in Pennsylvania. She plans to challenge some of the evidence taken by law enforcement at the time.”