Australia, where "Left" is Centre

[bigfield]

The Labour party can generally rely on the ABC (our taxes at work)
The Guardian is generally anti-coalition if not necessarily pro-labour.

What is your complaint? Those newspapers do not have to be purchased nor subscribed to.

Those aren't even newspapers. You won't find the Guardian or the ABC on the news stand next to the Australian, the Herald Sun, and The Age.

Firstly, the ABC gives equal airtime to both parties. If you want to make the claim that Labor "can generally rely on the ABC" then are also saying the same about the LNP. They're the most impartial news outlet in the country.

Secondly, the Guardian is certainly left wing and harshly critical of the LNP government. But they're one news agency, and they are only online. You won't see a Guardian newspaper in anyone's newsrooms, you won't hear AM talkback radio hosts discussing the headlines on Guardian's headline.

Thirdly...wait, there is no thirdly. If your list of left wing newspapers is only two items long, and neither of them is even a newspaper, then you've just demonstrated the dominance of right wing media in Australia.

The Labour party

"Labour"? Seriously? The party name uses the American spelling, get over it.

 

[Hermit]

The Labour party can generally rely on the ABC (our taxes at work)
The Guardian is generally anti-coalition if not necessarily pro-labour.

Newscorp prints over half a million papers every weekday, more than that on weekends. Neither the ABC nor the Guardian prints any.

What is your complaint?

Bias. Difficult to make out from my post, I know, but that is the complaint.

Those newspapers do not have to be purchased nor subscribed to.

True. So, no bias?

IIRC in 2007 the Australian supported Kevin Rudd(erless)

The only time Murdoch tries to get into bed with federal Labor leaders is when his editors conclude that, despite News Corp’s efforts, the conservatives will not win anyway. Not that it lasts long or happens often. The previous time Murdoch cosied up with Labor was in 1972. Less than two years later he was barracking for the conservative coalition again.

 

[bigfield]

IIRC in 2007 the Australian supported Kevin Rudd(erless)

Election 07: The newpapers' choice this time round

On the eve of Election 07, the major papers have taken the opportunity to endorse their favoured party. And there's a marked difference from 2004, especially in the News Limited papers.

www.crikey.com.au

The Canberra Times didn’t entirely cover their choice in glory, grudgingly endorsing the ALP in an editorial narrowly focused on health and education spending.

The biggest surprise is the strong support for Labor in the Murdoch press — a marked difference from 2004. The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail and The Mercury are all throwing their support behind Kevin Rudd. For the Tele and the Courier-Mail, it’s their proud boast that this is only the second time in their respective histories they have endorsed Labor at a Federal level. News Ltd stablemates the Herald-Sun and The Advertiser back the Coalition. Both acknowledge the significant mood for change, as well as Rudd’s steady hands and his softly softly approach, but ultimately conclude that the Coalition’s economic record and delivery of prosperity renders them deserving of a fifth term.

Our unscientific tally has it at pro-ALP: 7, pro-Coalition: 3 and Undecided: 1

In particular, "for the Tele and the Courier-Mail, it’s their proud boast that this is only the second time in their respective histories they have endorsed Labor at a Federal level." They went back to LNP in 2010 and have endorsed the LNP in every election since then.

The Australian's record on endorsement:

2004: LNP
2007: ALP
2010: LNP
2013: LNP
2016: LNP
2019: LNP
2022: ?

 

[bigfield]

newsrooms

*breakrooms

 

[Tigers!]

The Labour party can generally rely on the ABC (our taxes at work)
The Guardian is generally anti-coalition if not necessarily pro-labour.

Newscorp prints over half a million papers every weekday, more than that on weekends. Neither the ABC nor the Guardian prints any.

That's hardly my fault. I am well aware that both are non-paper based. If you are concerned about their lack of reach then talk to them.
Tell them that you will buy the print copy.

What is your complaint?

Bias. Difficult to make out from my post, I know, but that is the complaint.

Those newspapers do not have to be purchased nor subscribed to.

True. So, no bias?

You seem to be complaining most about the reach of those newspapers (news sources). If you don't like them either don't read them or perhaps start your own. If you do not like the "bias" then don't buy or look. Or start your own unbiased news source.

IIRC in 2007 the Australian supported Kevin Rudd(erless)

The only time Murdoch tries to get into bed with federal Labor leaders is when his editors conclude that, despite News Corp’s efforts, the conservatives will not win anyway. Not that it lasts long or happens often. The previous time Murdoch cosied up with Labor was in 1972. Less than two years later he was barracking for the conservative coalition again.

Last time i checked the news sources are free to choose whom they support even if you do not like it.

 

[Tigers!]

IIRC in 2007 the Australian supported Kevin Rudd(erless)

Election 07: The newpapers' choice this time round

On the eve of Election 07, the major papers have taken the opportunity to endorse their favoured party. And there's a marked difference from 2004, especially in the News Limited papers.

www.crikey.com.au

The Canberra Times didn’t entirely cover their choice in glory, grudgingly endorsing the ALP in an editorial narrowly focused on health and education spending.

The biggest surprise is the strong support for Labor in the Murdoch press — a marked difference from 2004. The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail and The Mercury are all throwing their support behind Kevin Rudd. For the Tele and the Courier-Mail, it’s their proud boast that this is only the second time in their respective histories they have endorsed Labor at a Federal level. News Ltd stablemates the Herald-Sun and The Advertiser back the Coalition. Both acknowledge the significant mood for change, as well as Rudd’s steady hands and his softly softly approach, but ultimately conclude that the Coalition’s economic record and delivery of prosperity renders them deserving of a fifth term.

Our unscientific tally has it at pro-ALP: 7, pro-Coalition: 3 and Undecided: 1

In particular, "for the Tele and the Courier-Mail, it’s their proud boast that this is only the second time in their respective histories they have endorsed Labor at a Federal level." They went back to LNP in 2010 and have endorsed the LNP in every election since then.

The Australian's record on endorsement:

2004: LNP
2007: ALP
2010: LNP
2013: LNP
2016: LNP
2019: LNP
2022: ?

Nobody is forcing you to buy, look at their product.

 

[Tigers!]

The Labour party can generally rely on the ABC (our taxes at work)
The Guardian is generally anti-coalition if not necessarily pro-labour.

What is your complaint? Those newspapers do not have to be purchased nor subscribed to.

Those aren't even newspapers. You won't find the Guardian or the ABC on the news stand next to the Australian, the Herald Sun, and The Age.

Firstly, the ABC gives equal airtime to both parties. If you want to make the claim that Labor "can generally rely on the ABC" then are also saying the same about the LNP. They're the most impartial news outlet in the country.

I am so pleased you truly believe that.

Secondly, the Guardian is certainly left wing and harshly critical of the LNP government. But they're one news agency, and they are only online. You won't see a Guardian newspaper in anyone's newsrooms, you won't hear AM talkback radio hosts discussing the headlines on Guardian's headline.

So tell the Guardian you will buy their paper if it is ever printed.

Thirdly...wait, there is no thirdly. If your list of left wing newspapers is only two items long, and neither of them is even a newspaper, then you've just demonstrated the dominance of right wing media in Australia.

It was Hermit and you ,not I who complained about the alleged "bias". If you are concerned about alleged "right wing dominance" then ask yourself 2 questions
1. Why do "non-right wing paper based media" not exist much is Australia? I'll give you a hint - they would be tedious, boring, insufferably self-righteous rags
2. should I start an alternative myself instead of constantly complaining?

The Labour party

"Labour"? Seriously? The party name uses the American spelling, get over it.

And I will use the British spelling.

 

[bilby]

The Labour party can generally rely on the ABC (our taxes at work)
The Guardian is generally anti-coalition if not necessarily pro-labour.

What is your complaint? Those newspapers do not have to be purchased nor subscribed to.

Those aren't even newspapers. You won't find the Guardian or the ABC on the news stand next to the Australian, the Herald Sun, and The Age.

Firstly, the ABC gives equal airtime to both parties. If you want to make the claim that Labor "can generally rely on the ABC" then are also saying the same about the LNP. They're the most impartial news outlet in the country.

I am so pleased you truly believe that.

Secondly, the Guardian is certainly left wing and harshly critical of the LNP government. But they're one news agency, and they are only online. You won't see a Guardian newspaper in anyone's newsrooms, you won't hear AM talkback radio hosts discussing the headlines on Guardian's headline.

So tell the Guardian you will buy their paper if it is ever printed.

Thirdly...wait, there is no thirdly. If your list of left wing newspapers is only two items long, and neither of them is even a newspaper, then you've just demonstrated the dominance of right wing media in Australia.

The Labour party

"Labour"? Seriously? The party name uses the American spelling, get over it.

And I will use the British spelling.

Why would you do that, Tiggers? Using an incorrect spelling of a proper name is, at best, an embarrassing mistake, and at worst a deliberate insult.

 

[Hermit]

You seem to be complaining most about the reach of those newspapers (news sources).

No. My initial post was entirely about media bias. I supplied several graphic examples of it. In my next post I made a brief comment concerning Newscorp's dominance of the print media. That was a reply to an issue you raised. The next three comments in that post were once more about bias.

 

[Tigers!]

You seem to be complaining most about the reach of those newspapers (news sources).

No. My initial post was entirely about media bias. I supplied several graphic examples of it. In my next post I made a brief comment concerning Newscorp's dominance of the print media. That was a reply to an issue you raised. The next three comments in that post were once more about bias.

As always bias is in the eye of the beholder. Don't confuse my willingness for them to aim for a particular audience as me necessarily agreeing with all they say.
Those papers are ultimately commercial entities. If they do not make money then they fold (no pun intended). They have determined/ decided that they remain viable by aiming at a certain demographic which just happens to be one of which you are not a member. They are not obliged to pander to all sensibilities as they are not using public money. You will need to find something more your style or start your own.

 

[Hermit]

As always bias is in the eye of the beholder.

Always?

I have provided several graphic examples of blatant bias. Right or wrong, they show a consistent theme: Conservative politicians = good, Labor politicians = bad. This bias does not merely exist in the eye of the beholder. It exists objectively, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the message.

 

[bilby]

In Australia, newspapers have steadily morphed from being the source of breaking news, consumed by people of all kinds, to being newsertainment solely consumed by angry conservative old men.

They used to need to be fairly impartial and to cover real stories; If they didn't, their readers would go elsewhere.

But now their readers have gone elsewhere - to TV news (which has its own problems), and to the Internet.

It should surprise nobody that the print media and commercial TV networks in this country target the 'grumpy old conservative man' market, with non-stop invitations to outrage. That's the only demographic that hasn't realised that these media are no longer the trustworthy purveyors of information that they used to be.

And when conservative old men are lied to consistently by media that they learned as young men to trust implicitly, they swallow the bullshit hook, line and sinker; Become angry; And lash out.

This would be less of a problem if they weren't in charge of almost everything.

Peace, order, and prosperity are a major threat to the outrage based "news" business model. So it's unsuprising that these media do everything they can to make things worse. For example, by supporting cruel public policies (such as those of the LNP), and batshit nonsense (such as that embraced by ONP and PUP).

A happy and prosperous society is rather boring. Murdoch cannot afford to let one happen.

 

[Metaphor]

In Australia, newspapers have steadily morphed from being the source of breaking news, consumed by people of all kinds, to being newsertainment solely consumed by angry conservative old men.

They used to need to be fairly impartial and to cover real stories; If they didn't, their readers would go elsewhere.

But now their readers have gone elsewhere - to TV news (which has its own problems), and to the Internet.

It should surprise nobody that the print media and commercial TV networks in this country target the 'grumpy old conservative man' market, with non-stop invitations to outrage. That's the only demographic that hasn't realised that these media are no longer the trustworthy purveyors of information that they used to be.

And when conservative old men are lied to consistently by media that they learned as young men to trust implicitly, they swallow the bullshit hook, line and sinker; Become angry; And lash out.

This would be less of a problem if they weren't in charge of almost everything.

Peace, order, and prosperity are a major threat to the outrage based "news" business model. So it's unsuprising that these media do everything they can to make things worse. For example, by supporting cruel public policies (such as those of the LNP), and batshit nonsense (such as that embraced by ONP and PUP).

A happy and prosperous society is rather boring. Murdoch cannot afford to let one happen.

Stop mincing words bilby tell us what you really think.

 

[Patooka]

He's not wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

He's not wrong.

Of course he's wrong in almost every literal statement he made, such as that print newspapers are consumed solely by angry conservative old men (I'm surprised only that he didn't throw in 'white').

 

[Bomb#20]

In Australia, newspapers have steadily morphed from being the source of breaking news, consumed by people of all kinds, to being newsertainment solely consumed by angry conservative old men.

Have you considered the possibility that conservative old men are dinosaurs and therefore the only demographic who don't mind paying to get news in the format they're accustomed to when other demographics are getting news for free by growing a little format flexibility? How are you going to make a go of selling pro-Labor newspapers if the pro-Labor readers won't pay because they're reading the news on the internet? Australia's supposed "media" bias sounds about as worrisome as the American right-leaning bias of news radio -- it's not a problem, because news radio is a niche market.

 

[bigfield]

You seem to be complaining most about the reach of those newspapers (news sources).

No. My initial post was entirely about media bias. I supplied several graphic examples of it. In my next post I made a brief comment concerning Newscorp's dominance of the print media. That was a reply to an issue you raised. The next three comments in that post were once more about bias.

As always bias is in the eye of the beholder. Don't confuse my willingness for them to aim for a particular audience as me necessarily agreeing with all they say.
Those papers are ultimately commercial entities. If they do not make money then they fold (no pun intended). They have determined/ decided that they remain viable by aiming at a certain demographic which just happens to be one of which you are not a member. They are not obliged to pander to all sensibilities as they are not using public money. You will need to find something more your style or start your own.

This is merely a justification for the predominance of right wing newspapers, and not a very good one.

The Australian does not make money and hasn't made money for over ten years. It survives, not because it's a viable business in its own right, but because it's an effective means for Murdoch to push his political agenda.

Allowing any corporation to dominate journalism is a terrible idea. Corporations are motivated to pursue policies that enrich themselves by protecting their assets.

For example, Labor's NBN plan threatened the viability of Foxtel, which could not compete against streaming services running over high-speed internet. News Corp campaigned aggressively against Labor and the NBN and uncritically repeated the LNP's lies about NBN cost blowouts and the merits of its "MTM" alternative. The campaign succeeded, the LNP wrecked the NBN project, and everyone except Foxtel got royally fucked over.

Media corporations controlled by a single owner are also dangerous because they serve as a platform for that owner's own political views.

Murdoch on climate change:

Climate change has been going on as long as the planet is here. And there will always be a little bit of it. At the moment the north pole is melting but the south pole is getting bigger. Things are happening. How much of it are we doing, with emissions and so on? As far as Australia goes? Nothing in the overall picture.

This line of argument has been made constantly by one of News Corp's most published columnists, Andrew Bolt, who spreads falsehoods about climate science in order to undermine popular support for climate action. As shown already, News Corp's papers were extremely partisan in supporting Tony Abbott's election in 2013, therefore putting a climate change denier in the country's top office.

 

[Hermit]

In Australia, newspapers have steadily morphed from being the source of breaking news, consumed by people of all kinds, to being newsertainment solely consumed by angry conservative old men.

Have you considered the possibility that conservative old men are dinosaurs and therefore the only demographic who don't mind paying to get news in the format they're accustomed to when other demographics are getting news for free by growing a little format flexibility? How are you going to make a go of selling pro-Labor newspapers if the pro-Labor readers won't pay because they're reading the news on the internet? Australia's supposed "media" bias sounds about as worrisome as the American right-leaning bias of news radio -- it's not a problem, because news radio is a niche market.

News radio is not a niche markets yet. Right wing political activist and shock jock Alan Jones was hosting a breakfast talk show broadcast in Sydney. Aged 78, he was on a two year contract worth 8 million dollars when he retired in 2020. He was obviously worth that much money to interests who signed that contract for helping shape the opinions of Sydneysiders.

 

[Politesse]

Take it from a beseiged American: such a "niche market" can easily turn an election. Or the mind of a witless conservative politician.

 

[Patooka]

News radio is not a niche markets yet. Right wing political activist and shock jock Alan Jones was hosting a breakfast talk show broadcast in Sydney. Aged 78, he was on a two year contract worth 8 million dollars when he retired in 2020. He was obviously worth that much money to interests who signed that contract for helping shape the opinions of Sydneysiders.

You left out all the side gigs he did as well. For example Sky News and Channel Nine whatever the fuck their morning show was.

And that's the point. You can say print media is only for old farts but print media doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's how Peter Van Onselen writes for The Australian and is also host of The Project. This is why Miranda Devine is used as an "expert" on FOX and Friends. The is how Radio hosts like Steve Price and Ray Hadley were guaranteed spots in the editorial section of The Telegraph.

And it appears everyone is forgetting one simple fact about print media today; you can read the fucking articles online. Not only is print media not going away it will continue to have significant influence over media as a whole. So yes Murdoch owning most of the newspapers in Australia is a real fucking problem.