The Sydney Morning Herald: The Curious Case of a Major Omission
In which an otherwise mundane story on self-interested international negotiations reveals an apparent effort to influence as much as inform.
The front-page '“Editor’s Picks” includes the story in question, billed as an exclusive and given prominence for much of the day on Monday, July 3rd, 2023 in The Sydney Morning Herald.
A story from Sydney Morning Herald journalist Nick O’Malley entitled “Australia sides with China, Russia in bid to sink Pacific nations’ plan” was given significant prominence for much of the day, and was billed as an exclusive.
For passive readers it’s a mundane piece on self-interested international tax negotiations and backroom dealings.
But for enthusiasts of active reading it’s a very curious and revealing example of how reporting can choose to subtly influence readers at the expense of fully informing them, through the use of negative framing and omission.
Negative framing
The charged title of the piece “Australia sides with China, Russia in bid to sink Pacific nations’ plan” strives to conjure up an awful image of Australia diabolically joining with the very worst of countries to sink the Pacific nations (as they are submerged by rising oceans).
It’s powerful, negative framing.
As we read through the article, we learn those Pacific Nations have proposed a shipping tax of $100 per tonne to encourage the use of cleaner fuels.
O’Malley reveals his inside sources in recent closed, preliminary discussions have disclosed that opposition to this grand proposal has hardened among a group of 20 nations including China, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Australia.
While Australia hangs out with Very Bad Company, who actually supports the proposal?
We’re told that apart from Pacific countries, the EU and ‘many other nations’ support it.
The story moves on to a collection of statements from experts, Government representatives, and insiders, most of who express deep disappointment in Australia’s position.
For a reader afflicted by Apathetic Intellectualis the conclusion is that Australia is a pariah of a state, an outsider in the West siding with some of the most awful regimes.
But what’s the Major Omission?
Active readers immediately ponder what the position of the largest economy in the world is: the United States of America. Rather strangely, it’s entirely unmentioned throughout the article.
They don’t support it either.
In a story the prior week: US ‘still on the fence’ as nations debate global shipping emission tax, it is revealed the US did not put their name to a statement backing the idea.
The article quotes a State Department spokesperson who writes “The United States is open to considering a mechanism, although it would be necessary to work through a number of important design and policy issues that would not be resolved this year.”
This position is further clarified by analyst Ronan Palmer, who comments that with presidential elections next November it “is just not going to move for it’s own political reasons.”
The US position is as clear as it is tricky: they oppose it for political reasons while at the same time voicing general and vague support for the idea of it, presumably to maintain their brand in the eyes of their base.
This double-dealing on the issue (in the sense of action contrary to a professed attitude) is enabled beautifully in recent reporting from The Guardian:
A picture is sketched in the reader’s mind of a very well-meaning Democratic party, wringing their hands and, with a sharp intake of breath, stating solemnly that they would love to support it, if not for that pesky Congress.
There’s one small problem with the claim that intransigence of Congress is the major issue, as reported in US ‘still on the fence’ as nations debate global shipping emission tax.
So who are the 22 countries who supported the proposal at the Paris summit?
Reuters reports that they are Denmark, Norway, Cyprus, Spain, Slovenia, Monaco, Georgia, Vanuatu, South Korea, Greece, Vietnam, Lithuania, Barbados, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Ireland, Mauritius, Kenya, Netherlands, Portugal, New Zealand and the European Commission.
So who else doesn’t support it from the ‘Five Eyes’.
We have to add the United Kingdom, and Canada to the list, with New Zealand the only member of that Western alliance supporting the proposal.
Influence over Inform?
With a little active reading a clearer picture of reality emerges.
Far from being a pariah allying with the worst of nations, Australia is joined by longtime allies and major economies far beyond China and Russia.
The story then should really be entitled “Australia sides with the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Canada, and many other countries in bid to sink Pacific nations’ plan”.
But then the entire negative framing evaporates in a puff of facts.
The reality is there is no political will to support the plan in its current form, within many of the most significant economies.
So why distort reality for a reader in this way?
It’s hard to say, and even harder to imagine that O’Malley is not aware of, or interested in the positions of major economies and allies like the US, UK, and Canada on this topic.
But the reality is they’re entirely omitted from his story, as if he’s been struck by a bout of total incuriosity about the viability of a plan, in an article purported to be looking at that very issue.
The effect of this omission, as revealed on Twitter and in the article comments, is to cultivate an incensed reaction both from the political left for the perceived environmental hypocrisy, and from the political right for the perceived cozying up to states like China and Russia.
It sure looks like the effect of the article, at the least, is to influence rather than inform.
Sponsored By
A final point on this article, with an active reader mindset in place, is to note O’Malley received sponsorship:
The Global Strategic Communications Council turns into a rabbithole of endless primarily UK, European and US-based philanthropic organisations.
With GSOC arranging international travel for O’Malley, the question arises as to whether they also helped in lining up those internal sources at the closed preliminary session, and whether there was a selective leaking of country positions which would help to enable the negative framing at the heart of the story.