Reading the latest piece from Michael Stutchbury got me thinking, is the reason why The Australian has turned into Fox News with words because of a relatively recent demographic shift in their audience?
Is it a case where large demographic slices of people with any get up and go, simply got up and left the musings of The Oz, leaving behind an old, but educated audience of has-been conservatives, getting their world view tickled by one ideologically soothing editorial line after another to shore up market share?
It would explain a lot if it were the case.
Oh, and be nice in comments – it’s an honest question looking for quality thoughts. Why has Australia’s once accepted journal of record become what it has?
Its general reporting and occasional investigative piece is still absolutely top notch – it’s value add on the other hand, apart from a few very notable exceptions, simply speaks for itself.
It’s really a bit of a tragedy.
50 Comments
I don’t watch Fox News, but my understanding is that it makes no pretence at being engaged in quality journalism, whereas The Australian believes that it does. I think we are seeing changes to The Australian but the change I see is that it is becoming increasingly shrill and desperate as it tries to exert its old power and realises that it no longer can.
I’m not convinced it ever was the “accepted journal of record”. I can remember its reporting of environmental matters way back in the 80s as being unforgivably one-sided and if there was a nasty slant to a story that they could take about the Hawke government they would take it. But in those days there was no way for anyone to object or even sort out in their own mind, just what was wrong about any particular story.
I suspect that what has happened is that the rise of the blog (including yours) has made it quite clear that, despite their affectations to being the “accepted journal of record” that the emperor has no clothes. Misrepresentations, facile opinions, and just plain silliness, get demolished very quickly and very publicly.
I think a turning point for the paper was the last election. It was then that they realised things had changed for the worse. In the past Dennis Shanahan could have gotten away with his “Comical Ali” stuff, but this time he was mocked mercilessly and publicly. There are plenty of other examples I can think of, mostly involving their interpretation of the news. “We understand Newspoll because we own it”. No they didn’t. Nor did they understand the Crosby-Textor report. We went elsewhere for our interpretation. Most of what The Australian does is interpretation. Take that away and there’s not a lot left.
There’s also the matter of its circulation. I looked for some figures and the latest I could find is 133,000, but of that about 12,000 are giveaways. It is not a strong paper. I may have got it wrong but my understanding is that it has never made a profit. Put it all together – its commentators held up to ridicule, its circulation weak, its power waning and it’s not hard to understand why it is becoming increasing shrill and desperate.
The Headline block from their web site this morning – a block of neo-drivel crafted to propagate an ideology:
_________________________
Roadblock on remote housing [link]
Paul Toohey [link] NOT one of the hundreds of new houses promised in 2007 for remote communities as part of the NT intervention has been built.
o REMOTE: Lack of child abuse staff [link]
o INDIGENOUS CHILDREN: Footy scouts impressed [link]
o SOCCER: Kick a goal for greater opportunities [link]
o PAUL KELLY: Indigenous policy on trial [link]
o GALARRWUY YUNUPINGU: Locked out economically [link]
o NOEL PEARSON: We already suggested same remedies [link]
o POLL: How well is the government helping the indigenous? [link]
___________________________
Once upon a time I would look to the Aus for some right of centre commentary appended to a suite of news stories.
Alas your musings are so correct. These days all you can find is a suite of far-right wing propaganda pieces appended to a few snippets of sloppy journalism.
I was pondering the matter even as I happened upon your musings.
Yes the Aus has become almost creepily right-wing. Creepy because it continues to look like a newspaper – but you always know exactly what they are about to say about any topic! For example, with the series of links above you don’t even have to clik through to the article – all you have to do is read the headings and you know the whole contents of the article – instantly. It’s spooky! It’s almost like having a little right-wing parrot on your shoulder.
Yes – the thinking independent mind has deserted the Aus to an extent (ie – we all read the headings and then go elsewhere to find some news). But you hit the nail on the head when you pointed to the Aus as having once been the Jounal of Record for Australia. Now the mainstream print and tele (Journalists) – and us poor schmuck readers – are all at sea without an anchor. The ABC is too libertarian (or loony) left to fit the role. News L is a hodge podge of middle left/right/up/down pragmatic follow the leader pulp. Cable is rabid and deliberately reactionary. Crikey is sane but inhabits a tiny niche market (sanity simply don’t sell well). So where the f#*%?
what now for Australian media with the historic touchstone largely absent or irrelevant to the debate?
((Might this have something to do with [so very almost] every Media Outlet in Australia being owned by Mr Tweedle-Dee or Mr Tweedle-Dum? Or is this the fourteen billion pound gorrilla in the room that cannot be named?))
Years ago the share market quotes were about the same standard as those provided by the Australian Financial review with all the information needed to work out what was the best valued shares to buy on fundamental figures. These days the times covered, Net asset backing per share, earnings per share, dividend per share, Debt to Equity etc. columns have been dropped and there is simply no reason I can think of to buy the paper.
((sorry to largely repeat yr comments Possum but they were so incredibly aligned with yours and they sorta just poured out in one sticky globule…))
but I gotta disagree with your second ta last para quite vehmently (I’m feeling a tad disagreeable this mornin):
“Its general reporting and occasional investigative piece is still absolutely top notch – it’s value add on the other hand, apart from a few very notable exceptions, simply speaks for itself.”
Everything in the Aus is tainted by the tenor of the publication. The occassional rose might very well be poisonous. I used to enjoy fighting with George M or spitting at albrechtsen but even this pales recently. …. I spend far more time than I should reading the American and English press, watching cable, and dreaming of a quality Australian press.
“It’s really a bit of a tragedy.”
Blood oath!
Every thread needs more sticky globules!
Chris Mitchell
It is not that long ago we were being told to consider early retirement packages, the leisure industry was going to be the biggest thing etc and a lot of newspapers were restructured thinking this was how the place would look by now. It hasn’t happened and the dropping of vital information as people’s lives have got busier and longer has been a bad mistake from which Newspapers will probably never recover.They are quickly losing their clout to specialist areas of the internet.
loved this little quip from Hannah’s Dad on LP.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/07/01/rudd-and-gillard-attack-news-limited-hartigan-punches-back/#comment-812124
its has the same owner, what is so surprising, hands off Murdock what a joke, I use to read it first now it the last choice after the Blogs,SMH,ge in that order as for buying it no way
I think Shakespeare had it right in Macbeth – ‘it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’.
The Oz’s problem is mistaking opinion (whether Newspoll’s, or their lead writers’ thoughts) for fact. It’s quite sad, really.
Perhaps their current approach is a violent reaction to this 24/7 global communications world we now live in (led mostly by the Internet). Since news stories may be out of date by the time the paper edition is published, perhaps the editors think publishing opinions is a way of “staying ahead of the curve” because there’s not the same risk of redundancy to the content (to say nothing of its merit). Plus the opinion writers seem to think that they make news.
Perhaps I give them too much credit. In any case, it’s a shame, because there is always room for an authoritative record. Australia just seems to lack one – at a time when we probably need one the most.
The Fairfax media is not much better BTW. Their online papers are largely indistinguishable and, in the main, are just fronts for continually updated feeds from the newswires (AAP, Reuters, etc). It’s almost like junk mail. There’s no record there, either.
1. The Oz, like most newspapers, is struggling to stay relevant in the new communications world order, money’s too tight to mention
2. Opinion is cheap
3. They tried to stay relevant with their shrinking audience through cheap right wing opinion
4. They have painted themselves into a corner with this strategy, and George Meg and a reborn Shanahan is not enough to save them from the idiocy of Milne, Janet A, Chris Pearson, Mitchell, Imre what his name, et al.
5. Ergo, they are rooted
My guess is they feel the need to be more doctrinaire when Labor is in power. When the conservatives are in office, the world is safe and happy; they let their hair down. When their ideological opponents are on top, the ideological battle resumes, offence to the fore again.
More disturbing than what is reported (or commentated) in the Oz is what’s not reported. Just today the SMH had a report on a study that showed that the gender divide had grown within households during the Howard years, and a report that underemployment had grown significantly due to the GFC. Neither of these reports were touched by the Oz. This type of censorship is not just perpetrated at the Oz, however. Recently a report that there was an 150% increase in domestic violence perpetrated by women against men was only reported by those lefties at the ABC and, surprisingly, the Daily Telegraph. Interestingly both these outlets closed down their comments on the article within a few hours of posting it. All media outlets realise their power to shape opinion in their audience and pursue it shamelessly. I would prefer just being given the facts so I can make my own mind up.
I grew up in a SMH subscription house and so have never really read the Aus much as a daily ritual, i have however followed link recommended, especially fun during the Newspoll wars of 2007. It seems like a whole bunch of the comments here and on the Pollbludger are from people who have been readers but been disenfranchised by its progression to the ‘nutcase-rag-of-record.’
What strikes me is the way the Australian seems to represent a capital-C Conservatism, compared to say the Financial Review that to me seems closer to a classical liberal view with reasonable discussion and dissent; to put it another way the Fin spans Catallaxy Files to Club Troppo where as the Aus spans from Oz Conservative to Graeme Bird (although both have exceptions.) In this context the Fin has stayed relevant by giving mostly reasonable criticism of Labor’s policies and by not being too dogmatic. They also IMHO have some of the most reasonable and intelligent commentary on politics.
The Aus on the other hand have responded as the Liberals and Republicans have by not accepting the results from Australian and American elections and the GFC and are subsequently frothing at the mouth. They don’t have a logical approach to fall back on. That said, if the Aus are now Fox News that’s only because Fox News have left the field open by going even more bat-shit crazy than what they were before —> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJVhNH99c We are a much more moderate country that the USA IMHO so it is harder for the Aus to go quite as nuts.
Better yet, although it was focused on News Ltd as a whole, i quite liked Bernard Keane’s article the other day if for no other reason than the picture excerpts of the crazy: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/02/six-pieces-of-news-ltd-wed-like-to-see-behind-a-paywall/ To look back on it now, now that Howard has been vanquished, is really quite funny.
Poss, I’ve thought about your question all morning,
I don’t think that newspapers are changing for their demographics so much as there trying to keep a audience. The old model of newspaper journalism has worked for years, in today’s world where consumers have the internet and 24hr cable – delayed newspaper reporting becomes old news fast.
An example of the old journalism v’s bloggers/new journalism, is to take a look at the reporting and involvment by our own newspapers compared to say “The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan” over the past couple of weeks.
Andrew is a journalist who writes for The Times as well as writes for his blog at The Alantic. His, and Huffpo coverage of the Iran elections were A1. You could read updates and realtime twitter comments of Iranians who sent You Tube footage and pictures. Huffpo and Sullivan worked with bloggers and journo’s in order to get news out there.
News Ltd in Australia barely mentioned the Iranian elections and continued to stick to there old fashioned receipe of reporting. In fact sometimes I read stories on the US blogs days before they end up on the Australian MSM web sites.
I think that they continue to become more antagonistic in there articles and reporting in order to get people to react. This causes people to discuss and link to the article, producing traffic which produces income from advertisers.
Robert Maynne (sp) wrote in OO months ago that the OO has written about 44 articles negative on Rudd or the Government, that number has probably doubled since then. His comment did show that there is an ideology being written by OO journo’s and opinion writers, yet they hide behind a sheer curtain of ‘newspapers being important to democracy’ speel. Blogger discuss, debate some of these “opinions” and yes some of these bloggers go further and analyse and write about their conclusions – but isn’t this what democracy really about, to freely discuss and debate is healthy for democracy as long as the information being written is factual and not written with a ideologue veiw point. It’s not about a newspaper company trying to keep governments honest on their own, it’s about reporting the facts to the people and let the people decide whether they need to protest. This was not done in the case of the Iraq war or Workchoices by the OO, most consumers got their information from other sources and despite their very best efforts, Labor were elected. To now say “we endorse the Rudd & Labor before the election doesn’t take away from the months and years of rubbish and trivia reporting. The OO seems to be wanting their cake and eat it too.
Another current problem for News Ltd is that while they had some success in helping the Liberal Party in the 1975 Dismissal the 2009 Dismissal by fake email doesn’t seem to be quite as good a plan as the original. You’d think it would be so simple to install a second Malcolm after the glowing part they playing in installing the other Malcolm in the Lodge.
I consider myself a conservative, by which I mean I am skeptical of government and politicians in general, dislike irrational and profligate spending and do not believe in foreign adventures. So you can see I am hardly going to be a Liberal supporter. The Oz has less of a conservative bias and more of a Liberal bias.
The interesting thing is how their editorial content can vary in quality. Even Shanahan sometimes produces a decent article, the same goes for Paul Kelly and Greg Sheridan. Jack the Insider is always good, as is Megalogenis, even if you do not always agree with what they say. The rest are pretty much rubbish. But what is the alternative? Every other paper has apalling opinion pieces too, from SMH to The Age. Good god, I do not even bother looking at The Age Epicure section anymore. Utterly worthless.
The simple fact is that the Oz has better coverage, a better website and more consistent updates than any other paper website. There is a bias their, but once you are aware of it is is easy enough to filter it out.
I really need to proof read my posts.
The Oz is not the only paper that has allowed its standards to be eroded. Apart from The Australian Financial Review, all other mainstream newspapers in this country exhibit shabby journalism, institutional bias, and questionable prioritization of news. While there are sound journalists who work for them all, and some outstanding individual articles, dissecting the wheat from the chaff has become a tedious daily accompaniment of reading them.
Chief among the defects are inaccurate reporting of the facts, incomplete reporting, selective coverage, deliberate omission of some of the facts, and the intertwining of fact and opinion so that which is which is difficult to discern. The language used often distorts the message; words can be used so easily to demean or to enhance; the way they are used signals the bias of the writer – ‘cash splash’ is just one example
Some articles lack specific reference to sources. The use of ‘sources say’, or ‘authorities claim’ or ‘reliable informants report’ is a cop-out, yet they are used over and again. Even when a source is quoted, usually scant detail is provided. The reader is expected to have abiding faith in the author.
But perhaps the most disturbing and distressing aspect of contemporary journalism in this country is the institutional prejudice that permeates so much writing. Of course some of this resides in the author, and I suppose every one of us is entitled to it, so long as it is recognized and revealed, but when it seems to be simply a reflection of how the editor or the owner thinks, or how they wish the paper’s offerings to be presented, it become a corrosive force that eventually will diminish the paper and possibly bring it down. The Oz seems to be suffering from this affliction, and its readers infected, sometimes unknowingly. It is only perceptive readers who will diagnose the affliction and immunize themselves against it, often by rejecting the publication.
The blogosphere is playing a role in countering this insidious erosion of truthful reporting and reasoned opinion. We remember wryly the days of pre-election Newspoll interpretations by Dennis Shanahan where even the tiniest fragment of good news for the Coalition was highlighted and the awful news down-played. We remember the howls of protest from blog-sites, especially this one and The Poll Bludger. We remember Shanahan’s vigorous rebuttal and his words of contempt for bloggers, and his editor’s caustic editorial defence of him. Yet it did seem to effect a change, and now Shanahan writes more balanced pieces. Cause and effect – who knows?
In my view, instead of abandoning the MSM, which after all has a cadre of reporters and writers capable of good journalism, we should critique its offerings, courteously and objectively, through such sites as this one, which I suspect many journalists and editors read, in the hope that standards of journalism will improve, as seems to have happened in the case of Dennis Shanahan. How many journalists, no matter for whom they write, wish to be regarded as poor quality? Most professionals want to be respected, even admired. We of the blogosphere can contribute to raising standards, which will gain us more than by matching them with insults and condemnation.
But the admirable George Mega bats on
Possum wrote:
Or is it the case that TheOz moved further to the GOP-Karl Rove right and down the bumpy road of beaten up “wars” and “kingmaker” journalism into the unsealed track of tabloid journalism, leaving behind those for who used to devour its supplements: media, IT, Higher Ed, Arts and so on?
I still have a stash of old Australians marking particularly important events (and folders of clippings covering almost 4 decades): the first edition (1964), Holt’s disappearance, Moon Landing, Whitlam’s election, the Dismissal …. The Americas Cup, though not my last copy: 31 December 2007; so I have copies of what its journalism was like under some of its best editors (even during periods of uneven coverage and writing in the early 1980s).
The Australian’s target demographic was the nations movers and shakers, current and wannabe: business, IT and science, professional, public-service, political, media, academic, artistic; intelligent, well-travelled, aspirational, used to working with well-researched information, decision-making and used to having to defend their stances and advance their projects – and that’s what the writing and advertising reflected.
IMO (and many others) regard Paul Kelly as the last of the good editors, and the last years of his stint of Editor-in-chief coincided with the development of the WWW, java text, easier hypertexting and multimedia. Thereafter, special-interest message boards, chat groups and blogs; access to university research papers and discussion, international news stories and discussion (even ebay) newspapers (and their presentation of advertisement) increasingly competed with computer-based multimedia. His final year as Ed-in-Chief (1996) was the year of Howard’s election.
As TheOz’s computer-savvy demographic made more use of the computer-based information and news, its challenge was what would best retain its readership (and advertising that matched their needs and wants) during the information revolution. What was lacking was high-level analysis and reportage of Australian issues within an international environment, and vice versa. Yet the Howard Era was marked by increasing political partisanship, with an increasingly NeoCon/ US Republican “culture wars” bias, and increasingly strident and abusive attitude to those who did not fit its mould, especially following Tom Switzer’s appointment editor in October 2001. His stint as Op Ed is epitomised by the stunning hubris of “Kingmaker” and the Caroline Overington affair:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/nudge-is-as-good-as-a-wink-in-sweetie-land/2007/11/12/1194766587735.html
and Janet Albrechtsen’s gush about Switzer’s contribution:
From then on, The Australian increasingly alienated readers who expected an independent Aussie voice and held different views.
In the wake of 9/11, “Children Overboard” and the Iraq invasion, The Australian, despite occasional very good investigative journalism and occasional sops to “balance” (mainly cartoons and Matt Price RIP),was more a Howard Government/NeoCon propaganda organ than a newspaper. At the same time, access to international newspapers became easier and faster. Readers now had international ‘yardsticks’, representing the gamut of political and economic opinion, with which to compare TheOz, and the comparisons were increasingly odious as TheOz became ever more politically partisan as the quaity of journalism deteriorated to unsubstantiated tabloid ranting, hysteria, and beat ups.
Howard’s defeat by Rudd’s ALP, and continuing opinion polls, should have warned TheOz that it was alienating more than 50% of its demographic, and a smart newspaper would ditch the Switzer Era, return to its more highly regarded past, even improve quality journalism. Switzer left. TheOz’s hubris, if anything, grew even more self-destructive. Polls to the contrary, it decided that Rudd’s would be a one-term government and it his nemesis; resulting in probably the most sustained on a new PM in its history in the hope of destroying him. It seems to have failed to grasp that Neocon economics and Rove-Reoublicanism are dead, and more that 50% of Australians prefer PM Rudd.
So, Possum, I do not believe that large demographic slices of people with any get up and go, simply got up and left the musings of The Oz
People with “get up and go”, even those who get RSS feeds, still want quality investigative and analytical journalism. In international affairs, they get it from OS papers and blogs, and many of the top non-English speaking ones provide English translations. They also get it on international blogs and other interactive sites. They get video & opinion on social networking sites. They get twitter. They get Australian news from the same swathe of on-line & text sites. Many blogs do provide the analytical journalism people want, and these days, most investigative journalism is on the ABC.
I believed that TheOz dumped at least half of its target demographic with its blatant Liberal/NeoCon partisanship, sloppy journalism and tabloid beat-ups, hysteria and spin.
Pay for TheOz (or any NewsLtd newspaper) on-line? Gimme a break. it’s bad enough free.
OOps. The Janet Albrechtsen blog url for @12 is http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/room_for_all_in_national_debate
Can’t we just admit its all about shorter attention spans and get on with it?
Ad Astra,
In terms of the decline in accuracy of reporting, I wonder to what extent the accuracy has always been the same but we can only now see because of the ability of us to check the original events that form the basis of stories. I’m thinking, in political reporting, of the broadcasting of parliament and even press conferences online and being able to access the pdf files of newspoll numbers instead of relying on Shanners.
thewetmale,
You may be right. It may be that the technology now allows us to see the poor reporting, which hitherto was undetectable. It also gives us the opportunity to hold journalists accountable and give then feedback, and thereby influence those interested in improving their offerings, which I suspect most are.
asdusty at #13
Wrote this:
“Recently a report that there was an 150% increase in domestic violence perpetrated by women against men was only reported by those lefties at the ABC and, surprisingly, the Daily Telegraph.”
Sorry but I must correct the totally false impression that that shoddy journalism cited created.
If the 2 media outlets concerned really wanted to know what was the real cause in the increase in the REPORTING of the alleged increase by women against men, they only had to ask the right questions of the right people.
They would then have discovered that the increase is solely due to a change in the procedures of police attending domestic violence incidents.
They were recently instructed to ask what is going on and if both parties claim the other hit them then to arrest both.
‘She hit me” = arrest the women without a consideration of what is visibly going on. That comes later, its an attempt to keep it simple for the cops.
But the impact has been to dramatically skew those figures, although they do not reflect the later outcomes at all accurately.
For example in SA alone more women have been killed this by partners/ex-partners that have died from swine flu.
All the media had to do was to ask why this statistical phenomena has been caused and the story would have stopped.
The relevant NGOs that are involved in domestic violence could have told them. The police could have told them.
Instead the media went to a well known [infamous?] men’s rights spokesperson, got the predictable diatribe against women and printed that.
Shoddy journalism.
The circulation of 133,000 indicates about 1 in 400 for Victoria (ignoring interstate sales) So who reads the printed edition? I suggest the majority would be over 50. This is the group which “tends” to right wing.
Therefore the Oz is aiming at its readers.
The industry demographics for The Oz weekday readership can be seen here for anyone interested:
http://www.newsspace.com.au/the_australian/demographics
I last read the Oz regularly in the early 90s, religiously on IT Tuesday. Now newspapers, any newspaper, is the *last* place I’d go for IT information.
All the same the opinion pieces were more interesting then, and it had a great Letters page. But the decline in opinion diversity in the Oz’s writers in turn has killed diversity of readership, and now the comments on their articles are just painful to wade through.
fredex – while the point about increased reporting is valid, your contribution tends to feed into the long held view that DV perpetrated by females on males does not occur at all.
It has been grossly underreported for social/cultural reasons, and women have been getting away with it for years.
Because of the biased view, resources have been allocated only to women escaping and recovering from such abuse. If the increased reporting results in some funds now being allocated to male victims’ needs, that is way past due.
Yes, the media outlets should have stressed that it was an increase in reporting, rather than occurence, and made the point that it is an area that has long been neglected because of the underreporting.
One needs to look no further than Milne’s piece in this morning’s OO to underline the proposition.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25737024-33435,00.html
from the Milne article BK is pointing to:
“The new Rudd rules are these: if the Prime Minister declares something to be false then his denials are not simply to be recorded as part of a balanced story. The story itself is to be airbrushed out of history. The media must now take Rudd at his word. And act on that word.
Before I make a number of points arising from this proposition, just ask yourself where our democratic process would end up if the media acceded to this. Somewhere north of Pyongyang would be about the destination.
And remember this: Rudd is the man who brought us the Anzac Day false dawn ceremony story. The one where he kinda, maybe and finally was found to be complicit in plans to dummy up a dawn service to suit his appearances on the Seven Network’s Sunrise program.
The same man who kinda, maybe and finally was found to have been the main speaking attraction at a cosy dinner hosted by disgraced WA Labor lobbyist Brian Burke. And the man who kinda, maybe, did nothing wrong at the New York Scores strip club but rang his wife the next morning to apologise for his behaviour. Just in case.”
___________________________
Now I don’t mind this sort of crap in the comments – but this is nothing short of ludicrous. Apparently all world history can only be quoted if it is seen through the eyes of a journalist from the Australian.
Apparently these stories;
“the Anzac Day false dawn ceremony story”
“a cosy dinner hosted by disgraced WA Labor lobbyist Brian Burke”
“the New York Scores strip club”
are the signature stories marking the Rudd Prime Ministership.
The Australian’s problem is that its coverage increasingly reflects a world that doesn’t really exist outside the minds of a few deluded members of the far right still clinging to the myths of the neo-con movement of Bush and Howard a few years back.
No-one ever bought those myths in any fundamental way, but The Australian’s columnists have convinced themselves – and a large chunk of the remnants of the Coalition – that the merest stumble from Rudd will presage a swing back to the right.
One gets the impression these days that they are singing to a largely empty church. Rudd, Gillard and company have cottoned onto that fact and are now treating the Milnes and Shanahans of the world as the irrelevant voices so far out of the mainstream that they can be safely ignored.
I certainly ignore them and their silly, silly newspaper.
The ‘right’ is divided: on one hand real businesspeople who think global warming is a problem and the GFC requires govts to stimulate the economy Turnbull is one of this group, on the other hand the ‘conservative base’ who live in dreamland. The Oz reflects this division,
Turnbull needs to put a stake through the hearts of the daft culture warriors and drag the Liberal Party, kicking and screaming, back to the middle of the political spectrum.
Should he fail, which appears likely, those who are both socially progressive and economically liberal – and that includes a fair swag of the business and professional community – will remain disenfranchised in Australian politics.
The Australian web site won’t load for me, and it is increasingly difficult to buy the printed addition, is this their last haray.
I think you’ve been slightly harsh on the Oz here.
Every newspaper has the right to choose their ideological bearings – the Oz has not shied away from the fact that it has chosen to represent the conservative side of politics. While you (and I) may disagree with their ideological bearings, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t entitled to express their opinions. What’s more, the Oz has managed to convey its ideological viewpoint in a more sophisticated (for lack of a better way) manner than other newspapers (e.g. The West Australian, The New York Post, The Washington Times, etc).
The key question, of course, is to ask is, if you’re going to talk about The Oz’s conservative bias, is there going to be a similar article about The Age’s or The Canberra Times’ left-wing bias? And more importantly, does any of this actually matter?
I think my main problem with the Oz is that I caan predict exactly what their response is going to be to any issue simply by asking; “what would Sarah Palin think?”. Sheridan especially, increasingly is trying to walk a very thin tightrope between parroting the Pentagon and Netanyahu, only to find that they are more ‘Left’ than he is. The latest hysterical rant about Iran could have been penned only by someone who is suffering paranoid delusions.
Swing Lowe – unlike a fair few others, I’m not actually concerned about their bias or slant or ideological position at all.
I’m concerned about how the effective national journal of record has descended into a bit of a parody of its former self because of it’s seeming lack of concern about basic matters of fact.
Take the series they’ve been running on the waste of the stimulus package as it relates to education spending recently. More power to anyone that wants to question government decisions, or criticise them or whatever – but The Oz of old would have made sure what they were saying actually had some significant foundation in fact. But nearly every story they’ve published on this has turned out to be, basically, wrong. Their economic analysis of the macro-economy over the last 9 months was pretty much the same.
Too often these things have ceased to be a campaign for bringing inconvenient truth to light, but have just become a campaign.
That’s the tragic part – not the ideological lean of the Op-Ed section, but the way that ideological lean has started substituting for actual quality reporting. Fox News shows where that leads.
Swing Low wrote
“is there going to be a similar article about The Age’s or The Canberra Times’ left-wing bias?”
Don’t mistake terminal wingeing or terminal feeble-mindedness (respectively) for left-wing bias.
I think Rudd’s main beef was the Turnmail-gate story was published without mentioning that the Govt had said the email didn’t exist when they had plenty of time to insert that. And the fact that the Govt could at the time unequivocally state the email doesn’t exist is a piece of irrelevant data. In fact it is critical piece of data that tends to destroy the whole story.
To Rudd it would have seemed like they were deliberately intending to print the story without government reaction, in other words it would have seem very much like an intentional smear.
But it is typical of the MSM when they get caught out to misrepresent the position of other parties.
Quite obviously Rudd is NOT saying ‘take my word’ on everything and print nothing else, he is saying that the Govt’s comments on an issue concerning it should be included, as it always should. And we all know that is what he is saying.
Rudd gave Milne a deserved kick in the backside, taught him a lesson and now Milne is responding like a spoiled brat.
One can see the plan taking shape.
The Coalition get some polls that give them a glimmer of hope, Costello decides to call it a day so Turnbull’s friends see an opportunity for one last hail mary. The think tank deep in the bunker decides to go for the super duper big smear to try and destroy Rudd’s credibility with the public, and of course the friendly MSM will print whatever they put in their hands so it seems, and apparently without seeking comment from aggrieved parties.
The MSM let themselves be used like a blow-up doll by the Coalition.
And you still have to ask why didn’t the papers print the fact that Rudd had said the email did not exist, there was plenty of time. And why didn’t they seek Rudd’s comments on the story in any case as any junior reporter would know you have to do. There is has been no reason given that satisfies me so I can only assume they were too slovenly, lazy to bother or simply didn’t careless.
In passing elsewhere on the internet the other day, I read an opinion, it may well have been by Bernard K., which said that Murdoch Inc. were trying to put pressure on the Rudd government to grant them a licence for a new ‘Free to Air’ TV station. Hence your comments Poss., that they are going down the Faux News road, may be more than apt.
Possibly they are orienting the online presence to synch in with their plans for a Faux Australia channel?
I seem to remember that Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch put pressure on the government of Hawke/Keating, by sooling their media interests onto them with piles of relentlessly negative comment, until they agreed to their agenda and they got Foxtel up. Maybe Mr Murdoch is of the belief that he can achieve the same successful outcome again if he tries the same tactic on the Rudd government? Ergo, they will buckle under the weight of the negative press, which they hope other media outlets will pick up on and run with, so as to have a snowballing effect and increase the damage to such an extent they have to give in.
Good luck!
What Mr Murdoch hasn’t apparently thought of in this instance is that we, the punters, have now got the internet to help us to see through their scams.
I find it sad that it’s no longer worth buying the Oz. Apart from couple of journos who provide factual info and a good interpretation of it there is no point in just reading journos whose opinions are less worthy than the writing found on many blogsites.
The problem is that the Oz can no longer get away with less than factual writing (e.g. the fake email story). It can be debunked so quickly.
Although partly Murdoch owned I find A-pac terrific. An interview or debate can be seen and heard in its entirety. It is then easy to pick up whether a journalist’s story is correct or not. Many are not so the media loses more credibility.
Shanahan has certainly changed and that has to be entirely due to the shellacking he got from bloggers. Milne needs to leave the scene completely – parody a supposedly good newspaper does not need.
The whole “stimulus watch” campaign – which is still on their website – sums it up for me. Just like the Lieberal party, the OO can’t stomach the idea of public funds being spent on anything productive, so they treat it like it is a dangerous animal on the loose: “we’ll tell you when it could show up at your house and get you”.
What this also highlights is that they cannot be bothered doing their own investigative reporting, so they hope some Lieberal sympathiser on a P&C committee will email them on a school being awarded dollars and they can blow it out of proportion without looking or waiting for a plausible excuse.
Oh, and without fail there will be a weekly bile venting on “the left” and how “they” are destroying Australian and the global society. There was a cracker last week by a supposed art critic about how religion is in jeopardy.
No real or relevant pieces to the world, just plenty of tripe. You can set your watch by Albrechtsen and Sheridan. They are so predictable. “Damn those activist judges!” and “George W Bush was a great statesman!”
Without George Megalogenis and Jack the Insider, the entire operation is bereft of quality journalism and would not give anyone any reason to visit their website.
Possum I don’t think the issue is so much demographics as writers and editors. The fact is Australia has a major shortage of centre-right thinkers and intellectuals, including people who could fill these roles. There are plenty of centre-right people in Australia, but most of them are either not that interested in ideas and debate, or are too busy being successful (in business for example) to want to work for the Australian. This has probably always been the case, but its got worse in recent years. People like Paul Kelly are the exception, not the rule.
For evidence, look for substantial centre-right Australian blogs. Not a lot are there?
That means that somewhere like the Australian either has to use people from the left or centre-left, or the hard right. Murdoch was never going to let the Oz become a lefty paper, so as the supply of right-wingers with a respect for the truth dried up the pages got increasingly filled with the Switzers, Mitchells and Albrechtsons of the world. This tends to be self-reinforcing. Without something to coalesce around (be it a newspaper or a major think-tank sane and moderate right-wingers are less likely to stick at the job of discussing ideas, as opposed to going off and making their fortune. Even a good blog would help – Catalaxy could have played that role if it hadn’t allowed itself to become such a haven for figures like Graeme Bird.
“Accepted journal of record” my ass. I’m old enough to remember 1975, when The Australian behaved exactly as it’s behaving now, and for the same reason – because Murdoch told it to. You need to get through your head that The Australian is not really a newspaper at all, and never has been. It’s Rupert Murdoch’s vanity sheet and megaphone.
Psephos, is that the same donkey that Channel 9 is trying to attach to dancers’ backsides?
It’s arse, lad. A-R-S-E. Arse. Barges for the appending to. Licking for the purposes of.
Clive CAtt (27) The RM figures suggest you are wrong. The majority are not over 50. And where is the evidence that this group tends to be ‘right wing’ whatever that means?
Possum (28) those are very interesting figures on that link to Roy Morgan. That’s a lot of readers in the 14-24 age group don’t you think? I can’t remember reading a paper until I was in my 30s, and sort of settled down. A pity RMR didn’t give a figure for 35-44, but a guestimate (based on 35-49 group) is 76000, which is not much more than the 25-34 group.
It would be great to get some industry demographics for blog readers. My impression is that those in the 14-24, even 25-30 groups are not active partipators. In one uni course, all the undergraduates said they had never commented on a blog! They were journalism students. Perhaps the over-50s, and retirees (with more time on their hands) are gravitating to this medium. I notice quite a few commenting on Pair of Ragged Claws.
And good to see some praise for George Megalogenis and Jack the Insider on this thread. As Matt Welch says in the Columbia Review 90 per cent of political blogs are ‘crap’, but ‘the action in the top 10 per cent is among the most exciting new trends in journalism’ (can’t give a link, I’m sorry as it is an academic journal). In that top 10% are also MSM blogs.
Poss, I agree with you: it’s not really about any overwhelming right wing bias at The Oz – that’s always been there, it’s the cheap shots that most of their writers now seem to be being encouraged to take. There’ll always be the far right commentators like Albrechtsen, Pearson et al; but the rest don’t have to join in the general rubbishing of anything that’s slightly to the left of Genghis Khan with such alacrity. I used to buy The Oz – even though I disagreed with its slant, because it contained a clear right wing analysis that was, despite the occasional tedium, well written. Now it’s just unfathomable. And, BTW, I’ve noticed the same sort of thing with SkyNews, where they’ve started editorialising in their item headings (with profoundly stupid headings like ‘Kevin 747 Overseas AGAIN). My plea to the managers and senior writers at these organisations is: have some respect for your readers’ intelligence – especially those who do not slavishly follow your line, and if you despise the Labor Party then at least tell us why.