Miranda Devine thinks that Gina Rinehart is exactly what Fairfax needs, and takes a trip down memory lane revisiting her own time at the Sydney Morning Herald to point out why.

When I arrived at the Herald it was controlled by a handful of hard-Left enforcers who dictated how stories were covered, and undermined management at every turn.

Another former high-ranking executive described the newsroom collective as “sabotaging the paper and some very good journalists. It’s a crying shame”.

A former editor said: “They love acting like politicians act. To them it’s a war, to the great damage and detriment of the newspaper.”

Another former executive described the world view of the collective as, “inarguably Left-leaning, and anti-business”. It was also anti-religion – especially anti-Christian – and hostile to bourgeois family values.

“The tragedy was that [Fairfax’s] core audience was a conservative audience. You’ve never seen a paper more disengaged from its core audience. Particularly The Age.”

While editors in morning conference decided which stories should be covered, the collective decided how those stories were framed – and they were ruthless enforcers.

Seems rather damning. Although, not everyone remembers things the way that Miranda does.

Former Fairfax employee Neil McMahon:

Miranda’s column also didn’t ring true to Eric Campbell:

To which McMahon replied:

It’s not that I doubt Miranda’s assertion that Fairfax is practically a cross between Pravda and the People’s Daily, but it’s so confusing when even people who have escaped the totalitarian regime at Fairfax won’t corroborate her stories of Leftist indoctrination. I guess that the recollections of everyone who’s ever worked at Fairfax, with the exception of Miranda, should be regarded as suspect; the groupthink is just too strong.

(Visited 51 times, 1 visits today)