What these people fail to understand, and what Brown doesn’t get, is that newspapers have constituencies in the same way that political parties have constituencies. If you wanted a shorthand definition you could say that Bob Brown’s constituency is the inner city and the regional tree change towns, and the constituency of newspapers and websites such as the one you are reading now is greater suburbia – ie, most of Australia.
As Julia Gillard rightly identified in her speech on the Greens a couple of months back, the Greens do not represent mainstream values. The values which unite people in the suburbs are concepts such as reward for effort, the rule of law, strong national security, lower taxes and support for families.
That’s what’s important to you, readers. And if it isn’t, it’s certainly what’s important to us at News Ltd, and that’s what everything we write is in aid of pushing.
We at News Ltd have a CONSTITUENCY! Who voted for us and our political views by buying the Herald Sun to check what’s going on in the footy. Every purchase of one of our rags is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of our corporate beliefs on the issues on which we repeatedly present one side while pretending we’re reporting the news.
We’re just like a political party, you see – only one that most of the time claims to be an objective reporter on politics, not a shameless partisan promoter of one side of it. (It’d be harder to sell the Herald Sun if we called it “Corporate Right Weekly”, or The Australian if we called it “Rupert’s Views”.)
But – if you were confused because we declined to be explicit about it when we were claiming to provide you with information rather than propaganda – here are our views, for the record. We believe in low taxes for the rich (at the expense of most of you in “greater suburbia”), and middle class welfare, and locking people up without trial if it can be portrayed as “strong national security”, and pretending that we believe in “the rule of law” when we actually mean “the mob we take pains to misinform“. And of course, we believe the Greens need to be “destroyed”.
And that’s how we decide what “news” you need to know about (the stuff that helps our political campaign) and what “news” you don’t. And what details you need to hear about the former, and what details you don’t. It’s us – the corporate media that advocates for low taxes for the rich who own us – versus the only party still daring to stand against it, the Greens.
News is opinion, after all, not objective facts which can be reported neutrally or by describing competing approaches fairly! (Even though we might pretend that’s what we’re doing when we ask you to take what we say at face value.)
And if you don’t agree with our opinion now, give us time – maybe you will, after consuming and believing our one-sided, cynically-presented “news” for long enough.
PS: Maybe Penbo wouldn’t be so hostile to the Greens if his “scrutiny” involved actually reading their policies, rather than making them up.
The Greens stand for the retention or expansion of the welfare state, are hostile towards the police, support liberal drug laws, open borders, higher taxes, gay marriage and adoption.
“Hostile to the police”? “Support open borders”? And… “retention… of the welfare state”? Does he think welfare shouldn’t be “retained”? Is he demanding that Centrelink be demolished?