Thread by @JimRHoughton

Thread:

Some words on Dan Andrews. Being 'progressive', I was glad he beat Libs last election but never really thought strongly about him. Some policy seemed a bit conservative, and Vic ALP's quite deeply in the same pockets of vested interests as much of Australian politics.

Many I know on Twitter probably felt the same way.

And when COVID crept up in slow motion one thing became crystal clear.

That there was a massive investment by some to push the live-with-it, keep-open, herd immunity propositions.

Another thing that became clear is that many in the federal government and media were heeding this message and actively agitating to prevent or delay lock-downs, and selling false ideas about children being immune, and eliminating community transmission as being impossible.

I don't know which combination of forces were truly behind pushing the 'live-with' proposition, but it was organised, multi-pronged, against reason and, as a glimpse around the world will tell us, catastrophically wrong.

We were having this conversation at the time, pointing out the flawed logic, the incalculable downside risks (with very little concrete information), and questioning the assumptions about risk, behaviour and relative values that must have gone into the 'live-with' modelling.

So, many of us were very relieved when Andrews and other premiers took a firm stand. It was also abundantly clear that VIC and NSW felt the need to ambush Morrison by announcing lockdown prior to National Cabinet, as he may have resisted if it hadn't been a fait accompli.

Even the most professionally apologetic journalists cannot deny bias in News Ltd media. Both in decrying lockdown measures and in trying to undermine Andrews' leadership. It was literally on their front pages day after day, and the daily pressers were seen by some as blood-sport.

This was the context for the momentum behind #IStandWithDan. Of course there were no doubt some highly partisan party Labor people pushing this, but also many less rusted-on progressives. And the approval ratings suggest this was not just a Twitter or politiati phenomenon.

Politics aside, this was an existential struggle. Victorian was convinced that this needed to be done, and Dan made it clear that he valued lives above all, and was absolutely resolved to do what was necessary. No other possible alternative leader could offer us than confidence.

Journalists have, quite rightly, said that questions need to be asked and politicians held to account. This is true, but we also know the hysterical campaigns News Ltd have championed in the past, and how easily they can mould the whole media agenda to bring someone down.

This was (and is) literally a life or death issue for those that happen catch COVID and their families. The risks, chaos and unknowns of Andrews being unseated at that (or this) moment are genuinely frightening. This is not worship, but a mundane fact.

For political journalists this time is pretty much business as usual. Same need to get an angle and a story. Same nexus of government, opposition, briefings, vested interests, and media proprietors' pressure and expectations.

But from outside it's a fight for our lives.

Some journalists do cop unfair criticism for asking testing, but perfectly legitimate, questions. And some of that is nasty.

That's a shame, but it cuts both ways. If journos treat Dan supporters as a monobloc, can they really be surprised when they are viewed in the same way?

Journalists need to realise that this is not about them, or about partisanship gone mad, but a fight for our lives. The same fight that those journalists, as members of the public, are in, and it's all about consequences and outcomes.