Gina Rinehart

[Knobby22]

So how is it worse to have a newspaper taking the government to task, than have a government that enacts policy that the electors haven't voted on? Am I missing something, or is an action causing a counter reaction.

When nearly every member of a newspaper is told to attack one party its not a good look.

Murdoch bragged about how he got Tony Blair in, do you think that was fair?

 

[Miss Hale]

I get to read all the regular writers and they are mostly deep thinking. From Costello and Vanstone(She's very good) to a wide disporia of others. That's what papers should strive to be!
Those from the northern states don't get the chance to compare. I don't like it when an agenda is run and I am fed propaganda disquised as news.

OK, well I disagree. I think - on balance - The Age is left leaning and I am not alone in that opinion. Do you read the Herald Sun? Do you think that paper has any political bias? What do you think of The Australian?

 

[Knobby22]

OK, well I disagree. I think - on balance - The Age is left leaning and I am not alone in that opinion. Do you read the Herald Sun? Do you think that paper has any political bias? What about the The Australian?

Yes I read the Herald Sun. It has one resident lefty who is a mindless fool (that women who was on TV) and I don't mind Terry Macrann but its pretty empty of opinion content but is not afraid to lie in the headline and correct it about six paragraphs down. Its not as overt as the Australian but keeps pushing the aims of Newscorp but at least those aims are often nebulous and international. With Gina we know what she wants precisely and she is not afraid to twist the arm of the next government to get it.!!

 

[sptrawler]

When nearly every member of a newspaper is told to attack one party its not a good look.

Murdoch bragged about how he got Tony Blair in, do you think that was fair?

Well Knobby if labor had gone to the public with the mining tax and the carbon tax as their platform and the public voted them in.
Then they would have the mandate of the people and there is nothing anybody can say about it.
The unfortunate thing is this government has enacted far reaching and in a lot of ways oppressive taxes, with no mandate.
The result is a massive backlash, which in effect, is what is meant to happen in a free and open society.
The problem now is the government is trying to get the electorate to accept it was done in their best interest, however the electorate isn't wearing it.
Labor pineapple 101

 

[Miss Hale]

Yes I read the Herald Sun. It has opne resident lefty who is a mindless fool (that women who was on TV) and I don't mind Terry Macrann but its pretty empty of opinion content but is not afraid to lie in the headline and correct it about six paragraphs down. Its not as overt as the Australian but keeps pushing the aims of Newscorp.

I think the resident lefty you refer to would be Jill Singer. I'm not a fan of hers either.

The problem is that it doesn't try to be fair.

I would say the same about The Age.

Thanks for giving your opinion Knobby (absolutely no sarcasm intended)

 

[Calliope]

I get to read all the regular writers and they are mostly deep thinking. From Costello and Vanstone(She's very good) to a wide disporia of others..

What the hell is a disporia? Are they the loony lefties?

 

[Julia]

What the hell is a disporia? Are they the loony lefties?

I assumed Knobby meant 'diaspora', though I'm not sure how that really fits either.

 

[sptrawler]

Oh come on, give the guy a break, he comes from middle earth. Only joking, no offence intended.

 

[banco]

If a paper was fairly evenly balanced with it's presentation of issues then you could say it is independent, but when it's obviously leans on way or another then it can't really be called independent. The Age has a left bias so the editorial policy can't be called independent.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Miss Hale]

Oh come on, give the guy a break, he comes from middle earth.

Aha, now I know why he reads so many newspapers, because he has second breakfast

 

[Miss Hale]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Do you mean 'independent'. Tell me what you think it means?

 

[banco]

Do you mean 'independent'. Tell me what you think it means?

In the context of the media "not subject to external influence".

 

[Miss Hale]

In the context of the media "not subject to external influence".

Well I would argue that the they are always subject to the influence of the board to some extent even if it's just via the senior appointments so they can't really claim they are 'not subject to external influence' . For example, what would the current board do if all of a sudden their editor in chief changed the whole tone of the paper and was supportive of the mining industry, anti the Gillard government and started publishing articles about Tony Abbott being the best thing since sliced bread. Would the current board just stand buy and watch this happen I wonder? Alternatively, if the editorial policy of the paper is resulting in circulation falling, should not the board have some influence over this in order to maximise shareholder returns?

 

[IFocus]

Gina makes money through her royalties and the coming mining operations not news papers.

Gina is not interested in making money in news papers fact is no one is making much in news any more.

Gina is interested in investing $50 mil for billions in return i.e. punching governments around for greater advantage in her mining operations thats where she makes money rememeber.

Just like Lang tried with Charlie Court......difference is Charlie was a real Liberal and told him to Fu(k off.

So end game is she buys the best Coalition money can afford, owns a TV station and News operation and runs her agenda and you lot say good on her.

This is not left / right argument its actually a national interest argument..........remember Charlie Court WA state premier was an absolute die in the wool hard nose Liberal and he had common sense to see Langs agenda for what it was.

 

[sails]

...With Gina we know what she wants precisely and she is not afraid to twist the arm of the next government to get it.!!

You do??? How can you possibly know what Gina wants?

You and Swan and a few other lefties only THINK they know what Gina wants. Nothing but assumptions...

 

[sails]

Gina makes money through her royalties and the coming mining operations not news papers.

Gina is not interested in making money in news papers fact is no one is making much in news any more.

Gina is interested in investing $50 mil for billions in return i.e. punching governments around for greater advantage in her mining operations thats where she makes money rememeber.

Just like Lang tried with Charlie Court......difference is Charlie was a real Liberal and told him to Fu(k off.

So end game is she buys the best Coalition money can afford, owns a TV station and News operation and runs her agenda and you lot say good on her.

This is not left / right argument its actually a national interest argument..........remember Charlie Court WA state premier was an absolute die in the wool hard nose Liberal and he had common sense to see Langs agenda for what it was.

Without Gina, Fairfax is likely doomed. With Gina there is a chance of some jobs being saved and a more rounded paper that will appeal to a wider audience. Nothing wrong with that.

If it's a national interest issue, then why hasn't the strong left bias of Fairfax been raised as an issue before?

 

[Knobby22]

If she uses her business acumen to improve the company then I am for it.
I am also for her having some influence on the direction of the paper, it is her right as owner.

However, I believe she is buying Fairfax to gain political influence to get what she wants, and she has clearly stated what she wants- a special economic zone for mining with lower taxes and regulations such as wildlife preservation rules removed.

She is free to argue her case as part of the democratic process but I don't know why you guys can't see that its not good for someone to own a major media company when there real money is tied up with something else annd they want to influence the populace and government to push that business.

If she gets the right to have an special economic zone, the money she spent owning Fairfax will be payed back many times over.

I do think though that Tony Abbott will call her bluff and will not be unduly influenced however.
...and Sails I think you should read the paper before making blanket statements.

 

[Calliope]

It seems to me that what the fuss is all about is that Rinehart will be able to somehow reduce the left wing bias of the Fairfax editors and journalists.

It is ironic that Stephen Conroy, Minister for Internet Censorship, and Rinehart hater, set up an inquiry under Former Justice of the Federal Court, Ray Finkelstein, specifically to allow him to censor the content of News Ltd. papers.

 

[drsmith]

I do think though that Tony Abbott will call her bluff and will not be unduly influenced however.

Malcolm Turnbull has chipped in.

In that sense if Rinehart's objective is to exercise influence it may be at odds with the shareholders' interest in maximising the value of the company.

So it is not unreasonable for the board to say to her: if you want to exercise editorial control over the company, then make a takeover bid and after you have bought it, it is yours to manage or indeed mismanage to your heart's content.

Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Rinehart took over Fairfax and ran her newspapers in a manner that engendered trust and confidence in readers and advertisers, ensuring that when she wanted to make a particular political point she did so in editorials or opinion pieces as opposed to slanted news coverage, she may be able to achieve political influence without diminishing the credibility, readership and value of the papers.

It would be interesting to know whether Tony Abbott rolled him out, or whether he rolled himself out.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/rinehart-the-saviour-20120619-20m0c.html

 

[overhang]

I've noticed many on here are critical towards the left bias in the Fairfax press. I'd like to ask those who are critical if you recognize the right bias in The Australian and similar News Ltd press (who happen to control a 70% market share in Australia) and if so do you have a problem with this?

There is no doubt most people would prefer to read a paper that has a similar editorial bias to their own political leaning rather than challenge their own ideology by reading a paper with an opposing political stance. But I find it frustrating when people of both political persuasion criticize the bias in either Fairfax or News Corp while completely discounting the bias that exists in the press that they read.

As and individual that attempts to remain unbiased it seems the only way to receive balanced news is to read the paper from both major companies.