As Australia’s political establishment moves with a grim determination towards the next election, there is mounting evidence that more and more Australians are disenchanted with and disengaged from the political process. For one of the world’s foremost democracies, this is a matter for some concern. In seeking to understand how and why this has come about, among other things we need to put the relationship between our political leaders and our media under the microscope.

The people who conduct our national affairs and the people who report on them are, of necessity, quarantined in Canberra and removed from the rough and tumble of Australian suburban life. Members of the Press Gallery sit in their cubicles on the second floor of Parliament House gathering political news and views and disseminating them to what they fondly, but erroneously, assume to be an eagerly waiting public. In their offices, Senators, Members and their minders pore over the previous day’s media clippings, anxious to know whether their particular ‘spin’ on an issue has earned itself some currency. Both sides of the equation exist and work in a largely self-contained environment, more often than not oblivious to the grim realities faced by the rest of us and to the fact that most of us have neither the time nor the inclination to care less.

Issues come and go according to a 24 news cycle in which there are four deadlines; early morning, late morning, late afternoon and late evening. Politicians and their media advisers are caught up in this cycle and the result is that issues are dealt with according to the demands of the 24 hour cycle rather than their inherent importance. In many cases, issues are driven forward, not by the search for resolution but by the search for political relevance on one hand and career advancement on the other. However understandable, the fact is that the 24 hour horizon does the national debate a disservice. Media proprietors and their senior managers might seek to justify the 24 hour cycle by arguing that they simply meeting demand. I would argue that the issues comprising our national affairs have important ramifications for years ahead, not just the 24 hours during which they are hustled on and off the media stage.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Australian people, however intelligent and aware, have neither the time nor the inclination to immerse themselves in the subtle shifts in strategic story emphasis developed by media advisers for their journalist clients.

The closer we get to the election, the more political journalists focus on and present the views of the two contenders for the Treasury Benches. For some months now the political debate in Australia has been conducted, almost exclusively, by Government and Opposition spin-doctors playing to the Gallery. Minor parties and the independents have to struggle – really struggle – to get into a story and the media coverage of the recent furore surrounding the asylum-seekers/illegal immigrants on the MV Tampa is a case in point.

It is not generally appreciated that in the Senate, where the real legislative business is done, the Government and Opposition vote together over 70% of the time. They do this because, as contenders for government, their interests are very often identical. Given the media’s preoccupation with adversary, many of these decisions go unremarked upon. People learn of these collusions, if they ever do, months after the fact, resulting in the sort of disenchantment we’ve identified. Disengagement follows shortly.

This preoccupation on the part of the media with the Government and the Opposition ignores, yet again, the decline in support for the major parties and the corresponding rise in support for minor parties and independents. Media proprietors and their senior managers might well prefer a two-party system for ease of reporting - and lobbying - but they ignore, at their peril, this growing market of informed, interested political observers.

At its best, the relationship between the political media adviser and the journalist is one that provides for the thorough canvassing of an issue. At its worst, it is a relationship that stifles debate, limits analysis and plays to the 24 hour news cycle in a shameless and cynical manner. Most people know instinctively when there is more to an issue that the 10 second ‘grab’ on radio or TV or a headline and the first three sentences in paragraph one. The result? More disenchantment, more disengagement.

In fairness, perhaps the fault lies not so much with journalists, politicians and their advisers. Perhaps it lies, ultimately, with those founding fathers who determined that we would run our nation from a quarantine station halfway between Sydney and Melbourne.