Pure Poison notes an Opposition Organ (how nice is it to be able to continue to say that?) editorial with lots of bad advice for Julia and a remarkably candid comment on the paper’s attitude to The Greens. From the editorial:
Greens leader Bob Brown has accused The Australian of trying to wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor. We wear Senator Brown’s criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box. The Greens voted against Mr Rudd’s emissions trading scheme because they wanted a tougher regime, then used the lack of action on climate change to damage Labor at the election. Their flakey economics should have no place in the national debate.
Something to file away any time you read anything from the Murdoch press on the topic.
.
The OO should now be called The Hypocritical Rag. If anyone has flakey economics it is the Coalition and its $11 billion black hole.
Things are getting too out of hand for the OO – the concensus on the joys of the free market is under threat.
The Independents can expect little better.
Hehe How many OO’s can you fit into a pair of budgie smugglers?
I put the quote as my Facebook update, so that I could start spreading this info.
….has accused The Australian of trying to wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor….
The alliance SHOULD be wrecked because they are simply not suited to each other. One of the parties is a flaky leftist power hungry pox, while the other is……….oh wait
Look, the Oz is to the Libs what Pravda was to the CPSU. Devoted, but increasingly embarrassing.
This editorial doesn’t make sense even on its own terms. Paraphrasing (and setting aside the existence of Greens-Labor preference deals) – the Greens voted against Labor’s climate change policy, the ETS, because they thought it wasn’t tough enough; then they campaigned against Labor because they thought Labor’s climate change policy, the ETS, wasn’t tough enough.
In what way exactly is this supposed to be a criticism of the Greens? If they want to continue banging the drum about climate change being a load of crap then I guess that’s their prerogative unfortunately, but the editorial reads like they’re trying to paint the Greens as somehow devious because they campaigned on the same principles that governed their voting record. Weird.
The cat is out of the bag well and truly isn’t it?
This is an incredibly stupid and arrogant admission by the OO.
We all, well most of us anyway, have known for some time that the OO is antagonistic to any POV other than that it holds dear and that it will wield its power to influence Australian voters to support its agenda and attempt to destroy any other it dislikes.
Both the ALP and the Greens have been the target of that power quite obviously in recent times but the bias and prejudices of the OO has never been so blatantly and transparently stated as it has now admitted.
Over at Deltoid there has been a running series called “The Australian’s War Against Science” which analyses the OO’s disinformation mainly on the topic of climate change.
But the War has never been so openly admitted as this editorial has revealed.
It seems the inability to control as totally as it wished the election and its aftermath has snapped the judgment of the OO.
The independents failed to do as the OO wished, the Australian public ‘failed’ in that they gave the Greens a swing more than double that of the COALition, the political process has entered uncharted waters and the OO is unhappy and lashing out hysterically.
They [who?] are scared.
Although I was initially shocked when I first read this I can now see it is a good thing.
The blatant animosity of the OO is now out in the open for all those who have eyes to see and can be taken as context for all that the OO presents in the future.
Unless of course it repudiates this editorial and clearly changes its attitude.
Another example of OO hogwash is the article by the Liberal-loving toad Arthur Sinodinos who, in an article in today’s edition writes:
So what belittling name does Sinodonis call Tony Abbott?
.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/spartacus-leads-grassroots-revolt/story-e6frg6zo-1225811142017
Makes me puke.
So Sinodinos is saying Abbott will end up crucified along with all his followers? I can get behind that idea.
Malcolm Fraser on Q@A the other night and aint it so.
Murdoch is a bloody disgrace and is the main problem standing in the way of a decent future for this country.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2991212.htm
Look, I don’t think it’s a hanging offence for media to be openly partisan. And I’m glad that they’ve actually come out and admitted it.
What it does mean is that anything they say about the Greens needs to be viewed in the context of their now openly stated goal.
The second thing is that the combination of one man controlling large sections of the Australian media, and the open partisanship of his media outlets, is unhealthy for democracy.
I think Sinodinos is saying he likes Gladiator movies and he has indeed seen a grown man naked.
…and stop calling me shirley!
“What it does mean is that anything they say about the Greens needs to be viewed in the context of their now openly stated goal.”
I am not quite sure why one should stop there. Their credibility on all matters political is well and truly shot.
And its not just the Greens who are the target of Murdoch’s OO and all who reside in there and who echo their line.
Its the alliance that is specifically in his/their cross hairs, the ALP-Greens alliance that is near enough vital to the ALP forming govt..
We have just seen in the last few days in particular the media in general target the Independents, the ALP [for example that disgraceful front page of the Telegraph] and now the Greens.
The democratic process depends on citizens making informed decisions.
With the Murdoch media/OO so dominant in the flow of information in this country the very essence of democracy is at risk here.
I wish I could feel comfortable with Robert Merkel’s (likely reluctant) assent to the sort of nonsenses Murdoch and co perpetrate, at 13.
Why be “openly partisan”, to thepoint where you start omitting facts, when you could be “broadsheet” objective, lay out the different viewpoints on an issue on their merits and let the people make up their own minds?
Tabloid MSM is just perverse and destructive.
I don’t remember the OO being this antagonistic to One Nation. But then Bob Brown is a far bigger threat to Murdoch than Pauline Hanson ever was.
All it took for this bizarre and anti-democratic outburst was a comment from Bob Brown that the OO was transparently running a pro-coalition political agenda, and had been for years.
Like we always say-
The Oz: Biggest glass jaw in the Australian media.
Possum’s prediction was spot on.
Here is another example of the bile of the OO.
This time directed at the PM.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/julia-enjoys-the-high-life-free-of-old-bags/story-e6frg6nf-1225916057081
Look, this is just not acceptable, Murdoch and co [the SMH had an equally bad effort today] have got to be held accountable, the situation is past ridiculous.
Because there is no money in that model. It is far better to be a partisan paper that your political base/readership will maintain loyalty with.
I’d say that this about Murdoch no longer being interested in running The Australian at a loss. He wants it to pay its way.
May I suggest that LPers reinforce the idea of a new media by participating in the ABC Poll – “Does a new political paradigm require a new media paradigm?” It is associated with Annabel Crabb’s Drum article “What’s News”.
At mid-night over 90% of the almost 1000 respondents had answered “Yes”. Many more responses required to ram home the message to Editors and journalists alike.
http://www.abc.net.au/
Robert @ 13, the way I see it there is nothing wrong with, in an editorial, the OO telling us what they think of the Greens. Admitting that they are out to “wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor” is in another league.
They are saying it’s OK to use their power to intervene directly in politics.
It’s not OK, IMHO.
hannah’s dad @ 20 I bet Julia’s like thousands of other working women who move between a sparsely organised living space and an intensely hectic professional work zone.
Handbags? Useless. Bulging brief cases aren’t much better either. Nah, a cardboard box which gets replaced from time to time. It’s a sort of portable desk top where there’s a spot for the hair brush and lippy along with all those files.
She’s one up on most, of course. Nowadays there’s a PA to carry it around for her.
Had a look at Annabel’s effort, Tosca. In typical fashion, the ABC has closed off comments: they really love it, don’t they?
“Yesterday was the first full day of it,…” could have more accurately have been written as, “Yesterday was full of it,…”
But at least she’s tried to come to grips with it. In other media, it’s still the war: how unfair, how unworkable it all is, how can the nation be held to ransom by a couple of bush politicians and a few discontented city pinkos.
It’s a new paradigm all right. We do need to heed Possum, Mr Denmore, Getup and others on coping with it. Boycotting news Ltd advertisers is not a bad idea.
Gillard at least seems partly aware of it. At Caucus she said it is no use just governing for the 6pm news soundbites. And Windsor especially showed how a politician immune from this schedule and from focus group/polling idiocy can sound so much more convincing and sincere.
It’s a war, but it can be won.
Better than advertiser boycotts are direct appeals to the CEOs, Boards, Marketing Managers and agencies to pull their campaigns with the paper…
You gotta hit ‘em where it hurts: the hip-pocket.
Campaign time! Write to the advertisers and inform them of the damage it does to their brand when they associate themselves with a newspaper masthead that so openly favours only one side of the political landscape.
Tell Mazda/HP/AMP etc. etc. that their brand has no business associating itself with a blatant political agenda, and that when they do so, it encourages about 50% +/- 0.01 of the market to place their business elsewhere.
Inform them that you will no longer direct business their way until they get out of the business of funding a political partisan media organ. Tell them that their brand should stick to purely commercial objectives, and it will damage their reputation if they continue to be associated with the funding of political partisanship. Explain that any company that wants to associate its brand with protecting the future, sustainability, and still having a functional civilisation in 50-100 years needs to pull its advertising from reactionary, partisan media outlets.
Time to get the list of CEOs, Board members, marketing managers and ad agencies together.
Peace out.
No link intended. So Bob consciously makes critical decisions with Newscorp bias in mind. That he needs to do suggests how polluted one large chunk of our media already is.
And yes a boycott of advertisers is a good idea. ANZ, for instance, spend at The Australian and were quite sensitive to customer response on a possible Gunn’s bank loan.
Best thing to do is contact advertisers directly.
It is not merely that the Oz holds The Greens in contempt but also their voters in both houses. Consequently I refuse to buy any more tofu from companies advertising in the Oz, for sure. The manufacturing of consent now sounds more like a 19C. steel foundry at full blast than a streamlined 21C. digi-hegemon.
I disagree. While the Oz has slowed its sales decline, that’s not the same as sales growth.
While it may be closely read in Canberra and by other media, actual punters show little desire to pay for its right wing views, especially when they’re presented as acres of tight, grey newsprint.
Meanwhile, the paper has continued to hire pricey journalists and has very few ads.
It’s impossible to know for sure, but on that basis it looks like the paper is losing at least as much as is traditional.
Shorter OO: We have grave reservations on the need for ballot boxes which impinges on our right to annoint…
Keep reminding yourselves, and everyone else you can, that Tony Windsor said his vote went to Julia Gillard because he felt the Coalition wanted a new election, which they thought they would win, and he wanted stable government that would serve out its term.
Question 1. What parts of the MSM were pushing the “new election” barrow so hard the week after the election; when it did a Cheshire cat disappearing act, and why?
If that’s lost in a blurr, the answer to the Cheshire Cat part is: “The week following the OO’s receipt of the 27-29 August Newspoll (published 3 September) which asked Which of the following parties would you most prefer the independents and minor parties to help form a government?
Answer:
The Liberals and Nationals Coalition 39%;
The Labor Party 47%;
Uncommitted 14%
(sampling error +or- 3%)
Source Newspoll 100808 Hung Parliament.pdf accessed through http://www.newspoll.com.au/index.pl?action=adv_search
I’m sure you remember the answer to the question’s first part.
Question 2 Following Mr Windsor’s decision, which particular adage do you think most appropriately fits the Coalition, NewsLtd (esp the OO), others which follow their lead:
(a) Hoist by their own petard
(b) Stewed in their own juice
(c) Evil be to them who evil think
(d) I’m laughing so much I can’t decide
(e) All of the above
(e) Other (please state) ………………..
First up, there is a line of authority that says that OO stands for Opposition Orifice, not Organ. This can be confirmed by Google.
Second, what is telling about the OO editorial is the statement that the Greens’ economic policies should not be part of the national debate. The OO wants to shut down discussion of these policies.
As I recall it was the OO that led the charge for a group called Coalition for Free Speech, to reform the nation’s libel laws. Free speech, eh? Only for some.
What a bunch of grubby hypocrites.
.
I think the OO has breached the Crimes Act.
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(966BB47E522E848021A38A20280E2386)~SLB+-+Submission+on+National+Security+Legislation+Amendment+Bill+2009+-+Ben+Saul+(Supplementary+Submission)+September+2009.pdf/$file/SLB+-+Submission+on+National+Security+Legislation+Amendment+Bill+2009+-+Ben+Saul+(Supplementary+Submission)+September+2009.pdf
The irony is that this sort of Manichaeanism, whilst deeply appealling to people of confirmed anti-Green propensities, renders its proponents incapable of achieving any influence either with people who vote Green or with people whose minds are open on the question of voting Green.
Down and Out of Sai Gon #18:
I am reminded that after the 2004 Federal election Paul Kelly described the Greens as the most extreme political movement Australia had seen for some years.
@28
I consider this attempt to parody the trendy, ineffectual lefties on this blog to be cruel and unnecessary.
And to the Labor operative (not identifying self as such) from a faraway suburb who placed a letter in our local paper claiming that our local greens are elitist latte-sippers who spend their time sneering about “bogans in their mcMansions” and are anti-working class: I know you read here – shame on you.
So what belittling name does Sinodonis call Tony Abbott?
LOOser? (sic)
Another bucket of chum this week is the "Julia's wild step-daughter" meme. The Tele has given it two runs, trialling the Evil step mother and Neglectful step mother.
And Andrew Bolt strides around the stocks hectoring the subject and enabling the ordure throwing. When rocks are thrown he holds up his hands and asks "How did that get in there?" Even when a scuffle breaks out in the crowd it is more of the same. I have given up trying to get comments posted there.
I think the hilarious part is that the Greens’ real crime is to *mildly* challenge the economic rationalist consensus. A consensus that really only continues in elite circles and has been rejected in substance by most ordinary Australians, who hate the endless privatisations, deregulations, speed-ups at work, increased tyranny by employers and obliteration of public services.
That the Oz is so hysterical about this indicates that the neoliberal project has been dramatically weakened. In the 1980s when it was on the front foot there was no need for them to employ such rabid language, because there was no challenge to the orthodoxy.
Diogenes @ 33. Don’t be silly. White people who aren’t leftists just CAN’T be guilty of sedition.
As for annoyances about minor parties holding the balance of power I remember the right and their media being really annoyed when Brian Harriden held the bop…oh wait a moment, they weren’t annoyed at all!
I think you may have forgotten the ad hom vitriol heaped on Harradine by the Murdoch press when he voted against the GST.
And my misogyny antennae is rippling as I note the tone of language used to describe Prime Minister Gillard.
apologies for the HTML fail.
GST still happened in the end though Paul although my memory is hazy. Did he end up toeing the line or did they wait until the numbers changed?
tssk @ 40. Referring back to the OO quote “and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box”; now that I think of it – and we all know the OO is of the opinion it is the journalistic deity within Australia – its editorial is almost biblical for it reminds of the following from the bible:
“Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree “(Deuteronomy 12:2-3)
Oh FFS, Dr Calvin, I see what you mean. [Headdesk] Obviously, Abbott would have controlled the wimmin in his family, including the ones he isn’t even really related to or associated with on a daily basis. Because if some rather likeable woman JG barely knows does something, it must mean… er.. something or other.
tssk, in the end the GST went through with Democrat-negotiated amendments, but I think with Harradine still holding out against it.
The other point I wouold make is that the OO is probably emboldened by their success in destabilising the Federal Labor government, and has overlooked the fact that this success was primarily due to Labor’s lack of bottle in the face of the media narrative and the focus groups. Bob Brown has more ticker in his little finger than Arbib, Bitar, Feeney, Shorten, Farrell and Howes put together.
I cant help myself. I have to look at the Oz every day to see what they are up to. Well I nearly choked on my latte when I saw they have gone to Henry Ergas again for a critical look at the NBN.
How many times do you have to win an argument? Winning an argument with Henry Ergas is hardly an achievement though.
Obviously the Chris Mitchell round table came up with NBN as the topic of the day. The hacks mulled for a while then rang their go to man Henry Ergas. Good Grief!!! This man is so discredited and vacuous a grade three could run rings around him. But good enough for the Oz it seems.
Latte cold now so will slip out to pick up the tofu.
Well thanks for bringing The Australian’s editorial to my attention. I had wondered why the Greens had been so overlooked. I wondered why Gunns shameful legal pursuit of opponents to its logging hadn’t been widely reported.
I used to think Glenda Kapooral was a serious journalist with something to say. Clearly Glenda has never had to work in a job where the handbag was left in a desk like class room teacher, nurse, barrister, medicine. Nor has Glenda worked in an office where the office low life lifts money from you purse.
So the HUN is trying to smear Julia with Stacey Childs centrefold in ZOO – and smear of living with her female best friend. Not life choices I would make but she isn’t killing anyone or even supplying drugs.
In its defence it said other politicians had problems with relatives mentioning Howard’s brother who voted Labor but very silent on Howards brother who stole the superannuation contributions of 4000 National Mills workers in 1998 forcing the federal government to pay redundancy as the ATO forced the company into receivership. Companies exist to make a profit in a socially acceptable manner, companies that steal from their workers should not survive
Paul Norton how can Labor correct the Murdoch lies when Murdoch controls the media and the narrative
“very silent on Howards brother who stole the superannuation contributions of 4000 National Mills workers in 1998 forcing the federal government to pay redundancy as the ATO forced the company into receivership.”
The above bears repeating and repeating every time somebody brings up Julia’s misbehaving possible step-daughter. (who, it seems to me hardly knows how to kick over the traces – so she got her picture in some sleaze magazine, Big Deal! good luck to her. I hope she got paid well and complement her on having the body to be able to do it.)
Word of warning to the Murdochracy – remember how the New York strip club scandal you tried to pin on Rudd backfired immensely?
Murdoch doesn’t “control” the media and the narrative.
He doesn’t control radio, most television, the new media, blogs, the internet generally or the Fairfax Press.
There is a problem in that the lazy and stupid so-called journalists at the ABC, instead of finding things out for themselves, have figured out they can do their day’s work by cutting and pasting the OO. This needs to be corrected forthwith.
Oooh… Julia’s step-daughter is a fallen woman! Except that she’s not really a step-daughter or fallen. In fact, if she’s “hairstylist to the stars”, it sounds like she must be raking it in. Good on her.
Most of the journalists at the ABC may indeed be lazy and stupid, but it is no coincidence that the journals of choice that they use for their cutting and pasting all belong to the same proprieter.
The same organisation that has done a publishing deal with the ABC, and no doubt would just love to purchase most of the organisation, particularly now that it would fit in so well with its culture and its objectives.
Anyone who believes that the problem is solely a result of laziness and/or stupidity is sadly mistaken.
@drsusancalvin, @ Helen, I think @Paul Burns nails it with this:
They’ve been working hard to paint the PM’s partner as insufficiently manly and even effeminate, and now they’re pushing it into people’s faces that he has been married before, has fathered 3 children in that marriage, and that at least one of those children is #beauty-standard-2010 compliant. That’s going to obliterate most of their previous twaddle.
I know what they’re trying to do, but they’re really bad at this.
Has it occurred to them, do you think, that to many people the slightly effeminate house-husband is something to aspire to, and having a step-daughter whose version of “runing wild” is posing is a lad rag is something they can only wish for? If only the OO would stick to pointing out stuff like that.
Apparently Laura Tingle has an article today on the war between News Ltd and the Gillard government, if anyone has access to the AFR online.
adrian @ 57:
Tingle’s piece on page 12 of the AFR is a bit more interesting in regard to the money offered to the regional independents.
Sam @52: spot on. The real problem isn’t that The Australian is partisan, which has been plainly obvious for quite a while, it’s that the ABC, which has a much greater reach, seems to follow The Australian’s news agenda.
Incurious @36: no, that was self deprecating humour as I don’t think my life consumption would equal that of a decade for the sort of executive salaries who read the Oz. But hey, if you’re up for a new 2 ton 4WD Blitzkrieg this year do go ahead and write to the manufacturers.
Otherwise, I’m quite enjoying the bloated piss and wind fury of the OO’s journos. It means we’ve been effective.
I’m sorry but these daily outbursts of outrage at News Ltd are becoming tediously obsessive and spoiling what used to be a high quality blog.
Yes News Ltd is a home for hacks who are blatantly biased in favour of the conservatives. We know. Everyone knows. Enough already.
Not only outrage, Ken. We do contempt as well.
Ken, I think it’s a bit more serious than your characterisation suggests. It is the influence that News Ltd has on other news organisations, its ability to set the agenda, and its near monopoly position as far as print media is concerned that is the core of the problem.
You think its unimportant, fine – plenty of others disagree with you.
@56
For men or for women? Or both?
Adrian @ 63 lots of things are important but there’s no point saying so every single day of the week. My reaction recently to many comments threads has been “Oh Christ they’re off again with juvenile in-group crap about ‘the OO’ and ‘Mr Rabbit’… time to stop reading”.
Now whether I read LP or not is obviously of no concern to anyone but myself, but it’s conceivable quite a lot of other readers feel the same way. I suggest the owners of the blog might consider where they want LP to go in the future, and whether a daily exercise in repetitive News Ltd bashing is the right way to get there. That’s all.
Laura Tingle’s article is on the inside back page of the AFR as part of the op-eds. It’s headlined ‘News Ltd Dilemma Can’t Be Avoided’. An excerpt:
She says formerly, the Rudd government thought The Australia’s partisanship represented a dummy spit at being taken off the dripfeed they enjoyed under Howard.
But she notes there is increasing disquiet in Labor ranks that this now looks like a company-wide agenda to dispute its legitimacy:
Tingle then goes onto to cite the impending policy decisions and positions that tred on News Ltd’s toes, including the anti-siphoning list for sports, the commercial threat to Sky from ABCNews24 and the Greens’ push for a Senate inquiry into News Ltd’s involvement in the Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal.
It seems clear to me (Mr Denmore) that a showdown is coming between Mr Murdoch and the Australian government, a showdown that many of us believe is well overdue.
The great supposition governments have made in recent years is that Murdoch will wreck you if you take him on. I’m not so sure anymore. Australia is insignificant in the scheme of things. He clearly wants to repeat his FoxNews success in our market, but I’m not sure he has a lot invested in it.
Andrew Reynolds on my blog The Failed Estate suggested the government pull its substantial advertising from News Ltd papers. That might work.
@63
Can you elaborate on this “near monopoly position”. I understand that the OO competes with the SMH, Age and AFR in the quality newspaper sector. I don’t know about the tabloids, but I presume that there is some competition there too.
adrian,
If that is the case then perhaps the post should concentrate on that aspect. It does not, just pointing out (yet again) that the Murdoch press is biased.
Hold the front page on that one.
I have never read a paper that is purely objective – I do not even think it is possible for anyone to be purely objective.
Mr Denmore,
While flattered by the attention, I should point out that it was Andrew Elder that made the suggestion.
Personally, I would think the government should pull most of its advertising from every newspaper – TV, radio and anything else.
I&U @67. These figures are over 4 years old and come from a parliamentary enquiry. The ownership share would probably have increased since then, particularly in regional areas..
Depends how you define ‘near monopoly position’, but it looks pretty close on those figures.
adrian,
Do you know anyone that gets all of their news content from newspapers?
I thought not.
Ken Lovell wrote:
Ken, I respect your opinion a lot and take my own breaks from LP (although for different reasons) but this latest outbreak of Murdoch criticism is well warranted.
The Fox News slogan: “Fair and Balanced”
The Australian: “Destroy the Greens at the ballot box”
There is a fundamental difference in the way the two news sources now represent themselves. I think it’s unprecedented in post-war journalism that a media proprieter has switched from partisanship (entirely within their right as Robert Merkel pointed out) to outright statement of intent to deliberately disenfranchise over 10% of the voting population.
I think what Ken is saying that there needs to be more of a focus on the positive, that is, overcoming the News Ltd beast. Problem is they have slightly more money.
Ken,
This thread spawned off a comment from hannah’s dad on Rob’s “How facts backfire” post. Seems a fairly sensible way to accommodate people’s desire to discuss News Ltd’s obvious political partisanship while keeping other threads on topic.
Apologies to Andrew Reynolds. Not great at names.
Regarding the current overwhelming focus in the blogosphere on News Ltd, I don’t think the disquiet is so much about the fact that this organisation takes an editorial position. It’s entirely within its rights to do so.
It’s more to do with the fact they crusade through their straight news coverage and don’t employ standard journalistic standards of accuracy, balance and fairness. Some of the coverage is wilfully inaccurate, twisted or malevolent in intent. This is beyond an op-ed. It infests every part of the News Ltd papers.
Mr Reynolds, News Ltd’s dominance is such that there are not many, if any, alternatives in many parts of Australia. Brisbane and Adelaide are one newspaper towns. And it seems fairly clear to a former practitioner like me that the ABC in those places largely rips and reads from the local paper.
Fairfax has a greater influence in Sydney and Melbourne, but the overwhelming source of information are the News Ltd tabloids in those towns and the 7 and 9 network evening news. None of those are particularly high quality.
AR@71. This is getting tedious. Plenty as it happens, but even if there were none, the point is that these papers set the news agenda for the day as been said and demonstrated many times.
By the way, I’m not sure you can any longer dismiss the discussion over News Ltd’s vicious attempts to unseat or delegitimise elected governments as the domain of conspiracy theorists, when the political editor of our conservative financial daily and a former Liberal MP both have cited it repeatedly in recent weeks.
This is a very serious threat to our democracy, as I see it, and deserves a response beyond furious sharing of links and tut-tutting on the blogosphere. That probably means the launching of a campaign to pressure those who advertise most heavily in News Ltd papers.
Former Liberal “PM”, not “MP”
Mr. Denmore,
No need for apologies – I just thought that I should clear that up and not take credit for other’s ideas.
.
On the point, though – I would suggest that at least one of the issues is the government’s licensing policies on TV stations. The limitations, recently extended to digital TV, on the number of licenses issued is a real problem and one where I would have thought that those interested in a diversity of media views would have been earnestly campaigning for the number of licenses to be increased up to the technical limits of the technology.
With the newspapers, short of limiting the freedom of the press (or perhaps a punitive measure of withdrawing advertising) it is difficult to know what to do. Perhaps one of the better writers here should start a newspaper and see how they go.
.
BTW – I like the quasi-enforced civility of using the honourific in our names. Perhaps I will make mine permanent.
Moderated due to change of moniker…
Adrian @70
Thanks for the detailed response. Presumably, pretty much everthing else is Fairfax, is it? So, it looks more like a duopoly than a “near monopoly”, albeit with News being the dominant player.
But I will concede that News is more dominant than I had thought. I have been blithely living in my own Fairfax bubble all these years.
Anyone who is a GetUp member should encourage them to get involved in this matter.
adrian,
You seriously know people who do not watch the TV news or read blogs or speak with other people on a regular basis about what is happening, but they do read the newspapers?
You must frequent some unusual places.
Diogenes @ 10
I’m gonna invoke my education-in-the-classics pedigree and say that Sinodino just admitted “Tony Abbott is a slave.”
There can be no triumph in defeating an army of slaves. His masters at the Australian / News Ltd are the real enemy.
Andrew Reynolds said:
Here I’d agree. rather than having a system where government advertising in broadcast media was assumed to be fair enough, it should be expressly prohibited unless there are exceptional circumstances. (Only adequately timely and cost effective way of reaching intended target audience, information is essential for government program to work).
I heard today for example that only about 18% of people whom the government hoped would get the H1N1 shot took it up, in part because some had concluded that the emergency was now behind us. Without taking a view on whether mass immunisation was warranted, one might argue that mass broadcast media advertising, when it stood behind dedicated mass imunisation events held at various locations at specific times might be warranted (if such a program were). Time would be of the essence and there would be a pressing public health need.
Save in such circumstances, I say the government makes use of the web, email lists, the government gazette, its dedicated offices and so forth if it needs to support programs in a general sense. Apparently they spend about $10m pa on The OZ advertising government jobs. Does anyone think that if they didn’t advertsise in The OZ too few quality people would apply? It seems unlikely. Many come through recruitment agencies anyway.
Ken Lovell @ 61:
That’s an interesting perspective. I had been assuming the blatent bias of News Ltd was the major reason that the ALP had lost its majority of seats. I thought that largely because it was inexplicable to me that a government that had got us through a GFC with impressive boldness could be on the nose. So what else could it be other than the influence of News Ltd’s.
But of course you are right. News Ltd has always pursued an agressive conservative agenda. Which leaves the question, what went wrong? It wasn’t the dumping of Rudd because that was largely in response to the ALP’s falling popularity. It wasn’t boats because that beatup was too silly for words.
My conclusion: it was the big spend. Australians accept that the big spend was a good policy to get us through the GFC. But they still hate the idea of governments on a spending spree with their money. So I think the voter’s message is that, while they give credit for avoiding the GFC, they are still concerned that the ALP’s actions might be evidence of a propensity for the big spend. Maybe the negativity of the Oz about insulation and the BER was nothing more than playing to the choir.
If I’m right, the way back seems clear; tight budget control, minimise the number and magnitude of new expenditure programs, no new handouts, make a big deal about reducing debt.
And forget about News Ltd. The public knows where it stands and has already factored that bias into its decision making.
Looking forward to the News Ltd comment on the Coalition strongholds of Qld and WA lagging behind the other states on NAPLAN results.
Inside Story special on minority governments in Australia. Every state and territory has had one within the last 20 years!
http://inside.org.au/the-fabulous-fiftieth-nsw-parliament-and-other-minority-governments/
Incurious and Unread @80, unfortunately too many of us are in thrall to Ltd News. For a lot of us, it’s the only print media available.
I guess you can almost stomach it if you know that any reports about the government have as much relationship to the truth as a chook does to intellectual rigour. However, best to avoid it unless you’re desperate for weed suppressant.
“If I’m right, the way back seems clear; tight budget control, minimise the number and magnitude of new expenditure programs, no new handouts, make a big deal about reducing debt.”
Jenny, isn’t that more or less the The Australian’s message to Labor in this editorial?
Don’t get too close to the Greens and their policies and we’ll give you an easier ride.
It might be overall a good article, but it opens with a shocker. The very first sentence is completely wrong.
Mr Denmore @ 66 re
suggested the government pull its substantial advertising from News Ltd papers. That might work.
There would be an inescapable logic to do so.
I’m a very occasional commenter on LP, but have been reading for a few years now. I agree by and large with Ken that there is a trifle too much focus on the goings on of News Ltd, but it certainly gets the comments threads kicking. To be honest I tend to barely skim these threads as there generally isn’t anything new – I prefer the posts about actual issues, but that’s just me.
I must challenge the assumption that “everyone knows New Ltd is biased” though. Maybe amongst folk here, or even extended like minded circles (and by like minded I mean simply politically aware, not necessarily progressive). I have no particular evidence, but I reckon there’s a large mob of people who simply don’t consider the news reporting that deeply though. The bias in this editorial may be bloody obvious, but who reads that?
It’s the reportage of “actual news” that bothers me. There would be a fair few people who just pick up the paper and, after reading the back sports pages, flick through the front bit. The papers get the message across by what stories they choose to put where, not by burbling garbage in an editorial.
Oh, and before you give Fairfax a pass, the Queensland Country Life this week had “BETRAYAL!” on the front page with the article beginning thus:
Nick @ 88 in response to my comment that “If I’m right, the way back seems clear; tight budget control, minimise the number and magnitude of new expenditure programs, no new handouts, make a big deal about reducing debt.”
Yes. But the Oz is saying it on ideological grounds. I’m saying it because I think that through no fault of its own (in fact quite the contrary) the ALP is being seen as a party of big spenders and the ALP brand needs to be repaired. I also think the repair job is as much about the messages the ALP puts out as its policy directions.
Dr Tad @39 ” the Greens’ real crime is to *mildly* challenge the economic rationalist consensus.”
Perhaps it is more than just that. It might be just as Helens @37 anonymous labor operative claims, that the Greens are a challenge to wasteful and thoughtless consumerism. In any case what we need to establish is what is NewsCorps motivation.
My personal conviction is, NewsCorp is to McMansion type consumerism and personal debt, what Phillip Morris is to lung cancer and public health. The real power and income for NewsCorp is based on consumption. Mass consumption is their primary motivator, where as economic rationalism and free markets are just the ideological vehicle. Ultimately anything that baffles or redirects consumption patterns is a threat to NewsCorp economic fortune and therefor power base.
It will be interesting to see is how far Murdoch is prepared to go to protect his commercial interests. Laura Tingle already speculated on a show down between a democratically elected (albeit minority) Government and NewsCorp. Clearly Murdoch is no fool and the Australian part of his empire is only minuscule however of sentimental interest. Anyone who wants to disregard this ramping up of open hostility with a legitimate and fast growing political party by this media magnate will do so at their own peril. There is always the chance for The Australian to go down the road of the Völkischer Beobachter, not?
Hasn’t stopped the OO from plonking the the Smuggles Set’s flakey and clearly bogus economics squarely in the national debate.
I’m a member of the Greens and a former (and probably future) financial contributor to their campaigns. I currently live overseas and left Australia when KR was still PM and he was saving us all from the GFC etc. I don’t understand what has happened since but I have felt disgusted with all parties INCLUDING the Greens. That they blocked an ETS and therefore nearly brought us to the brink of having a PM who is a climate sceptic is disgusting. I only voted for the Greens this time because the ALP has been no better. Yes I know Rudd should have negotiated with the Greens or at least had the decency to pretend to. But I don’t want the Greens to have a spoiler role similar to what Ralph Nader did in the US – bringing in George W Bush.
Having said that, it is of course appalling that any media organisation would state as its goal to bring down and undermine a political party or alliance. That they admitted it really means the gloves are now off.
Martin B – what’s wrong with my opening sentence?
I understand Lindsay Tanner reduced government advertising by 20%. The Government advertising runs in to apparently $40M plus.
The OO may be snarky for lots of reasons with the election result going the wrong way – Aare more reductions to come in advertising placements, through foreshadowed examinations of accountability, the work of an integrity commissioner, truth in advertising, lobbyists register, electoral donation limits and so forth?
Does the Government need to advertise in the OO?
Its weekly circulation figures are not that good.
Perhaps truth/balance in reporting should be the price of advertising dollars.
Also the Greens have raised question about Storm debacle and News Ltd. Snarkiness all round methinks.
Peter Browne @99:
“IT’S ALMOST seventy years since Australia’s last federal minority government collapsed in internal disunity and scandal, having gone through two leaders kept afloat by two independent Victorian MPs. ”
I’m not sure what Martin has in mind, but for starters the last Federal minority government was the Curtin government, which only had one leader and didn’t collapse but went nice and orderly to a half-senate election at close to the full term of the Parliament.
d
You’re quite correct sputnik @ 93; I should have said ‘everyone who reads this blog knows …’
Mr Denmore @ 75 that is true but it must have been stated here about 158 times over the last three years and I see little point in talking about it again.
Pace Helen @ 73 my underlying point is that the last 6 months have been utterly disastrous for the Labor Party. Anyone who predicted this election outcome back in mid-2009 would have been laughed out of cyberspace. Yet the reaction from a substantial number of ALP supporters here has been to carry on as if Labor had won a famous victory and engage in fatuous ‘up youse’ antics directed at the opposition and News Ltd. In fact Tony Abbott is an authentic Liberal legend and the conservatives go into parliament rightly confident they will probably win the next election.
If Labor supporters want to do something useful, they should engage in some deep reflection about how the ALP has lost its way. Blaming it all on the MSM is just deluded, reminiscent of the way Republicans reflexively blame everything on the ‘liberal media’. The pending slaughter in NSW is entirely self-inflicted and anyone who thinks you can differentiate NSW Labor from the mob in Canberra is also deluded.
But by all means keep discussing pie-in-the-sky ideas about the government punishing News Ltd or changing media policy, if it’s a soothing distraction from the reality that the ALP is now in terminal decline. That is the true tragedy of the Rudd dismissal, if only people had the wit to see it, but of course that won’t be discussed any more either. We have to Move Forward.
Bingo. The previous minority government in Australia – Curtin’s – received a ringing endorsement when it went to the polls securing a majority in its own right.
Ootz @ 96 re
Hmmmm
1) Boatpeople_Islamic terrorists
2) Illegitimate government_voters stabbed in the back.
3) Greens_communist bastards
4) Government debt_spendthrift lefties
Remarkable the very similar themes or narratives to a time back in the 20th century.
1) Jews_scapegoats_racism
2) Weimar republic_Versailles_stabbed in the back.
3) Communists_bastards
4) Hyperinflation_money printing Socialists.
(And no prizes for guessing who was the author of the propaganda methodology.)
I’m not saying that the OO is planning a facist state, just that the 4 part strategy of demonising an ethnic/religious group; demonising a political enemy(s); establishing a “stabbed in the back” narrative and an economic one is soooo redolent of past history.
But the main slogan now appears to be “stabbed in the back/illegitimate” by Greenies and Indies who have formed an “unholy” alliance with Labor.
Re the minority Governments of Menzies and Curtin.
The Menzies minority Government lost the support of Coles and Wilson (from the Werriwa wheat belt) because the Independents did not believe, quite correctly, that the Menzies wartime Governmeent was capable of effectively prosecuting the war. They arrived at this belief for a number of cumulative reasons, some of which occured some time before the UAP lost control of the Parliament on the floor of the house including the loss of Greece and Crete to the Nazis, the Menzies Government’s appeasement of Japan over Siam, and lack of defence preparedness particularly in relation to the defence of Australia. The Independents’ disquiet was lingering and continuous.
Curtin lost the support of the Independents solely because of Eddie Ward’s claim in the Parliament that a document relating to the Brisbane Line was missing from official files, and refused to name his informant. That informant was Frank Forde, the Minister for the Army and Deputy leader. (The document was not in official files. (It was in the Secretary for Defence, Frederick Shedden’s personal papers, dated 21 February, 1936. Only Shedden, the CGS Sturdee and the then Minister of Defence (whose name escapes me, but who died before Ward made his claim. menzies wasn’t even in Federal Parliament then.). It was not in official files. Coles informed Curtin he would withdraw his support when it was revealed to him there was no document missing from official files. Curtin immediately called an election, which he won with a thumping majority. Interestingly, the only Labor member apart from Ward to make an issue of the Brisbane Line, apart from Ward, lost his seat. In the subsequent in camera Royal Commission it was concluded there was no document pertaining to the Brisbane Line missing from official files.
All the details are in my book, The Brisbane Line Controversy, now out of print, though it can be purchased on line.
Probably good Oakeshott didnt take the Minsitry. keeps the legislative/ executive lines clean, and that distinction actually matters in this situation….
Yes The Oz is a disgrace but a lot of people for whatever reason continue to exaggerate the influence News Ltd has with the public (not the politicians).
Exhibit A: 2007 federal election.
Paul Burns @105: “Curtin lost the support of the Independents…”
Thanks for the background. Can you tell me, were the independents planning to switch back to the Country Party? Or were they of a mind to go to an election? (bearing in mind this was July 1943 and an election was due before the end of the year.)
d
@31, that’s not what Windsor said, he said he thought the opposition *thought* they had more to gain from an election, not that he, Windsor, thought it, and he clarified I think on the 7.30 report that night, that he didn’t necessarily agree the coalition was more likely to win, just that he thought they were more likely to go to an election.
I see the first sentence has been changed
Hope I wasn’t too harsh…
Paul Burns: Awesome, informative post mate.
Yes, thanks Paul
Can you clarify: Curtin survived the no-confidence motion of 22 June by one vote (and the election was then called on the 24 June).
So did only one of Coles/Wilson switch? Or was there even more movement than that?
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes/votes16p-18p.htm
Fadden gave notice of the confidence motion on 21 June. On June 22 the UAP Speaker & the Chairman resigned and debate began, probably in the early evening, continuing until 7:30am then resuming at 10am until around dawn on 24/6. About 36 hours of debating with a 2:30 break.
The motion of ‘want of confidence’ failed 26-27 (out of 74!), Coles voting with the Government. Wilson (along with eight others) was not present for any of the debate, and some members had been away for some time.
The House adjourned on Wed 1 July and resolved to resume on Wed 8/7, but was dissolved in the interim.
It’s a bit weird. I really want to read Paul’s book now. :^)
d