Not to disagree with most of your points, but managing a hostile media is exactly the skill that is needed by any government.
I do not completely disagree with you. I've often bemoaned the poor work of the current Labor propaganda department. They took a straight talker like Julia and made her sprout goobledygook like her predecessor, promised us the "Real Julia" and gave us more goobledygook. The approach to embedding advertising-like catch phrases into speeches exposes speakers to ridicule, especially in these days of easy mash-ups. Compare this the Abbott's effective 3 point "Stop The ..." mantra, or the clever dog-whistle "A bad tax based on a LIE," where the 'lie,' of course, means to various audiences either the broken election promise or the Science itself. Abbott has, for the most part, been a supremely effective opposition leader (I think his blood pledge was dangerous and unnecessary over-extension, he did not need to lock himself potentially into calling a double dissolution, but we'll see how that pans out), and I can but admire his skill. He is a formidable politician, and anyone who convinces themselves he is "an idiot" is perhaps engaging too much in projection.
However I've come to the view that it is not entirely fair, in part because the gatekeepers are so effective that the performance of ALP politicians is largely irrelevant. Any good performances are effectively kept from public view. I'll give an example below.
To return to media "management" per se.
As a contrasting example, the Libs did not fight criticism from the ABC by coddling them. They viciously attacked and undermined their reputation.
Good as a general principle, but it is the particulars the define the reality. Among the salient differences here are: a) The ABC does not enjoy 80% domination of any branch of the media, quite the opposite. b) The ABC is by their charter not permitted from fighting back, ie. they (with the exception apparently of Shaun Micallef who gets the jester's wild card) cannot adopt a partisan political position. And despite the general perception among non-viewers and non-listeners (ie. most of the population) that they have a "left-wing bias" review after review finds that not to be the case.
It's one thing to attack a media fly-weight with both hands legislatively tied behind its back, quite another to get into a bare-knuckle fight with Mike Tyson. Look what happened when Conroy did try to fight back. He ends up with his head posted over Stalin's body and surrounded by images of histories most notorious dictators in the nation's most widely read paper, while News Ltd's print monopoly rights are trumpeted as fundamental to Western freedoms
Short of actually acting like Stalin and sending in the tanks, (no we really don't want that) what is the Australian govt to do. Especially a minority government. Nor is this even an ALP vs LNP issue.
Now it can be argued that I'm overstating the influence of the print media and that the high correlation between having Murdoch's backing and obtaining government (pro-Whitlam 1972, anti-Whitlam 1975, pro-Hawke 1987 and so on). is mere coincidence. Arguably Keating's "sweetest victory" (won via an extremely effective GST scare campaign) and the current hung parliament are the two exceptions to News getting their man across the line. Which recent embarrassment perhaps accounts for the gloves coming off completely ... this really has been the most vicious campaign since 1975. [Visit the archives and satisfy yourself by studying the tabloid press a month before each election ... I did something similar for a semi-quantitative analysis of crime reporting and and law & order policies in NSW over several decades, it's actually very enlightening]. But I really do feel that the print media still enjoys perhaps a surprising amount of influence. Perhaps it's the greater authority afforded to the printed word especially by those who read but little, or perhaps the stereotypical Telegraph reader's habit of moving their lips while reading the paper internalises the message ... meouw.
And I wish I could source that 90s quote from a senior News Ltd exec in the US who described the Australian government as "a wholly owned subsidiary of News Ltd."
Now for the example if you still have time ..
I happened to catch part of a News conference (on ABC24) given by the PM at a Qld school, where she very effectively (goobledegook free) hammered Campbell Newman for not singing up to Gonski. Which, she argued, was for party political reasons and to the detriment of Qld's school system. How was this fairly effective performance covered that day in the Telegraph? It wasn't of course, instead we were treated to the headline "GILLARDS KABUL TV". In fact the issue hit the Tele after the QLD govt's articulate response to the PM's speech, ie. banning the PM, and the Federal Education Minister from setting foot in a QLD school. Reporting some probably fabricated controversy about banned MPs going to the school gates the story, hit the front page under the overly large headline 'ENEMY AT THE GATES.' Yes that's right the nations most widely circulated paper informs it's readership that the Australian government is not the ENEMY. As to what was actually said ... ignorance prevails.
I don't believe any Australian government of any complexion has the wherewithall to stand up the News Ltd. Perhaps the our best hope lies in the emergence of new media, such as we are using now?