Matt Smith: ‘Canberra bubble’ is often used as a get-out-of-jail-free card by the Prime Minister

Scott Morrison’s favourite get-of-jail-free rhetoric is exactly the sort of thing Trump tapped into, writes Matt Smith.

Political pundits, with much greater insight into the US political system during the Trump era, will have many theories about the crazy scenes we witnessed this week.

And across the world, experts will be trying to draw conclusions into what it means for their own political systems. One friend remarked: “In one afternoon, the greatest nation in the world became Zimbabwe.”

It is easy to think that the forces that led to Trump supporters, more appropriately labelled as idiots, smashing their way into the Capitol Building are worlds away from Australia. In many respects, that’s correct.

It’s not possible to imagine Parliament House being taken over because Scott Morrison won the election and Bill Shorten lost. But there are some patterns that are emerging in Australia that are worth noting.

The first two are much less persuasive than the third – but worth watching nevertheless.

The first is the idea of the so-called “Canberra bubble”. It is often used as a get-out-of-jail-free card by the Prime Minister – and many of his ministers – when there is a question they find uncomfortable.

As a defence it works because, for many, it is shorthand for “these pesky reporters in Canberra don’t ask questions about the issues that real Australians care about”.

It helps to perpetuate the myth that Canberra, and the press gallery, is full of pesky journalists who have not lived in the real world.

Scott Morrison and Donald Trump in Washington in September, 2019. Picture: Mick Tsikas

It is an extraordinary narrative when you consider the similar paths many politicians have taken to get to where they are. It’s a path that includes university, political staffer, preselection and then MP.

But the Canberra bubble narrative is exactly the sort of thing that Trump has successfully tapped into.

In South Australia, we saw a couple of examples last year where MPs started down the path of undermining the media.

Premier Steven Marshall labelled leaked documents about options for the final stage of the North-South Corridor as “fake news”, despite the proposals looking very similar to what was unveiled in the State Budget just a few months later.

Transport Minister Corey Wingard also took to the airwaves, and Parliament House, to describe correspondence about the Adelaide train contract as “magical emails”.

In both cases, the responses were focused on the State Government’s political opponents, but had the unintended, or otherwise, consequence of undermining genuine and legitimate news stories from a raft of media organisations. After the events in Washington, these two examples both seem trivial in nature. Neither Mr Marshall nor Mr Wingard have made a habit of these types of statements.

But anything that works towards undermining the great work done by journalists in the mainstream media, across various platforms, needs to have a spotlight shone on it.

Why? Because the alternative – relying on social media to inform political and public debate – is not the answer.

Earlier, I referred to the people in Washington as idiots.

They are not idiots because they care about the future of their country, children or families. They are not idiots because of concerns about votes.

They are idiots because they were duped into participating in one of the most ridiculous acts their country has ever witnessed by a man who used them; a man who consistently undermined the institutions – including, but not limited to, the media – that had traditionally served him well.

Trump’s disregard for anyone who did not agree with every single thing he did, and the way he publicly attacked the journalists tasked with asking questions on behalf of the American people, was a disgrace.

So, where did people turn? They turned to social media – the place where truth is less common than abuse and uninformed opinion.

Australia is blessed with a diverse media landscape, where every journalist is accountable to their audience.

They know who we are and if they don’t like what we say, or how we are going about our jobs as journalists, they can let us know.

On social media, I saw outrage after the leader of the free world was banned for spreading lies. And I saw thousands of anonymous contributors helping to muddy the waters over what was true and what was not.

The modern mainstream media landscape may not be perfect – but the alternative is putrid.

And in times of crisis, our political leaders need to be doing everything they can to encourage citizens to rely on the institutions that have served them so well for so long.