Gina Rinehart

Miss Hale · 20 June 2012

overhang said:
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?

Yes, I recognise bias in The Australian and other News Ltd press. No I don't have a problem with this. Nor do I have a problem with The Age or SMH being biased. I have a problem when media outlets claim not to be biased when they are (like the ABC). I'm quite happy for The Age to print left leaning opinions etc. as long as there is no muzzling of anyone else (a) pointing this out, and (b) printing right leaning opinions (and that goes for the other way around too). Of course it would be nice to have a truly balanced media outlet but I don't think we have that at the moment, it's just the way it is. As long as there are no barriers to diversified opinions being accessible somewhere (even though not in the one publication) I think that is fine. With regards to the 70% share, is that not based on readership figures? If more people choose to read News Ltd papers how is that News Ltd's fault?

Calliope · 20 June 2012

overhang said:
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?

Considering that News Ltd. has to try to counterbalance the left wing bias of FairfaX Press, the ABC, the Press Gallery and the Labor/Green illegitimate government I think it is performing an essentail service.

drsmith · 20 June 2012

Paul Kelly on the ABC,

Finally, the Fairfax downsize means more opportunity and responsibility for the ABC as public broadcaster. Its boss, Mark Scott, believes the ABC has been stepping up to this mark. He's wrong, with the conspicuous exception of some lead programs such as Four Corners, 7.30 and Lateline.

Given the market vacuum opening, Australia can no longer afford a heavily taxpayer-funded ABC locked into a fashionable "writers festival" political culture that caters to a dedicated "true believer" minority. The ABC carries a special responsibility at this point in history.

That means commitment to the central policy questions: the decline in productivity and competitiveness, rising protectionism, the need for tax reform, the implications of industrial re-regulation, the loss of trust in politics, the rise of entitlement, the ramifications of population ageing, the resources boom and lethargy in education and health systems.

It requires an approach more mainstream, more intellectual and more independent.

The media restructuring should mean a greater journalistic onus with opportunity for the public broadcasters.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ty-public-policy/story-e6frg74x-1226401607937

sails · 20 June 2012

Knobby22 said:
......and Sails I think you should read the paper before making blanket statements.

lol - I have read them - albeit mostly online for free! However, I am choosy and if an article is pathetically biased to alp while only giving some of the facts while conveniently omitting other important facts, then I don't read far. And that happens quite a bit, so I think I have checked out enough articles to understand their left bias.

And, there have been times that those papers have not made a squeak about new findings that are not complimentary to AGW. Andrew Bolt has quite often commented in his blog about such silence when he reports what Fairfax have not.

No wonder lefties, who refuse to read Murdoch, don't have all the facts.

overhang · 20 June 2012

Miss Hale said:
With regards to the 70% share, is that not based on readership figures? If more people choose to read News Ltd papers how is that News Ltd's fault?

This was poorly conveyed by me, what I intended to imply was that clearly the left wing bias Fairfax papers are hardly manipulating the population. I'll be interested to see the effect that altering the size from broadsheet to tabloid size will have on market share considering the second largest complaint I hear about the SMH & The Age is the inconvenience of reading a broadsheet paper.

Calliope said:
Considering that News Ltd. has to try to counterbalance the left wing bias of FairfaX Press, the ABC, the Press Gallery and the Labor/Green illegitimate government I think it is performing an essentail service.

It's interesting you take that perspective that News Ltd has to counter balance the left as if they're the ones giving balance and perspective when the bottom line is they counterbalance each other. The media have the role of ensuring both government and the opposition are held accountable, its a pity you need to read two newspapers to have a balanced perspective.

Miss Hale · 20 June 2012

overhang said:
This was poorly conveyed by me, what I intended to imply was that clearly the left wing bias Fairfax papers are hardly manipulating the population.

I agree, I don't think they are manipulating the population at all. Nor do I think the News Ltd is either. As it stands, you can read a variety of arguments and counter arguments on any issue. I am concerned about rules that some pollies want to bring in where they will have more control of what is printed in the media. We don't need that. It's interesting that if papers were really to 'write crap' as Gillard so eloquently put it, readers would vote with their feet, there has to be some veracity to what papers print or we simply wouldn't bother to read them as they would be seen as unreliable. Unfortunately, the same market forces don't apply to our pollies when they 'talk crap' (or at least there is a time lag as to when we can exercise our distrust of them). IMO the media (except the ABC which is governemnt funded) is far more accountable already than the government.

overhang said:
I'll be interested to see the effect that altering the size from broadsheet to tabloid size will have on market share considering the second largest complaint I hear about the SMH & The Age is the inconvenience of reading a broadsheet paper.

Me too. I am surprised at how many dedicated Fairfax readers seem very happy with this change (although I suspect my Age reading father will be rolling in his grave ). I think it may well improve market share.

sails · 20 June 2012

Miss Hale said:
...It's interesting that if papers were really to 'write crap' as Gillard so eloquently put it, readers would vote with their feet, there has to be some veracity to what papers print or we simply wouldn't bother to read them as they would be seen as unreliable....

Isn't this precisely what has happened to Fairfax? They have lost the majority of readers in this country who have voted with their feet?

Miss Hale · 20 June 2012

sails said:
Isn't this precisely what has happened to Fairfax? They have lost the majority of readers in this country who have voted with their feet?

Well that is my opinion too but current Fairfax management thinks it has more to do with things such as the broadsheet format (which I think is a factor but not sure how much).

Julia · 20 June 2012

overhang said:
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.

Good point to raise, overhang. I'll readily admit to choosing to read The Australian at least partly because it largely reflects my own views at this stage.

I have, however, voted Labor more often than I've voted Liberal so am a swinging voter.

Imo the present woeful government has turned many previously swinging voters into Labor detesters.

If I were to add up the hours spent reading The Australian versus hours spent listening to ABC Radio, the radio hours would hugely exceed the print time. That represents a balance toward the Left if anything, given the strong bias of the public broadcaster.

Good for Paul Kelly. Totally agree with his remarks. To be fair to ABC TV, though, they have in recent times done some thoroughly good stuff on e.g. Captain Emad, the people smuggling "refugee". No fear or favour in that report.

Agree with all Miss Hale has said.

banco · 20 June 2012

Miss Hale said:
Of course it would be nice to have a truly balanced media outlet but I don't think we have that at the moment, it's just the way it is.

The US newspapers probably put the most effort into being objective and balanced (yes, yes I know they don't entirely suceed) and it's arguably as much a weakness as a strength. They often end up virtually reprinting press releases and dumbing everything down to he said/she said reporting lest they be seen as biased.

IFocus · 20 June 2012

drsmith said:
Malcolm Turnbull has chipped in.

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

I would say the Liberal party machine rolled him out well aware of future implications of a Coalition government. The Nats are firmly in bed with Gina she pretty well owns the lot of them including Barnaby.

Plus Malcolm is the only one with balls to take on Gina, there is really no one else in the Coalition parliamentary party that would risk it.

Calliope · 20 June 2012

IFocus said:
Plus Malcolm is the only one with balls to take on Gina, there is really no one else in the Coalition parliamentary party that would risk it.

I don't know about "balls." Malcolm is what is known as a "soft-**** leftie."

noco · 20 June 2012

IFocus said:
I would say the Liberal party machine rolled him out well aware of future implications of a Coalition government. The Nats are firmly in bed with Gina she pretty well owns the lot of them including Barnaby.

Plus Malcolm is the only one with balls to take on Gina, there is really no one else in the Coalition parliamentary party that would risk it.

Yeah, well we all know which party Turbull really belongs to and he certainly is not a team player in the Liberal Party that is for sure.

Glen48 · 20 June 2012

The old man Lang was throwing money at Joh to run for PM guess a bit has rubbed of on to the daughter and the money has gone to her head.

banco · 20 June 2012

Glen48 said:
The old man Lang was throwing money at Joh to run for PM guess a bit has rubbed of on to the daughter and the money has gone to her head.

Pity a man of such integrity never made it to the lodge.

Macquack · 20 June 2012

IFocus said:
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.

Totally agree.

sails said:
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...

Wake up sails, what do YOU think Rinehart wants?

sails · 20 June 2012

Macquack said:
Totally agree.

Wake up sails, what do YOU think Rinehart wants?

It doesn't matter what we think. YOU need to wake up and stop making ASSumptions about other people when it is no more than a tainted guess.

Just because you THINK you know what she wants doesn't make it so.

I would love to know how she thinks - she's got pretty good business nous. Without Gina, Fairfax is doomed anyway - so they've got nothing to lose and plenty to gain.

MrBurns · 20 June 2012

sails said:
It doesn't matter what we think. YOU need to wake up and stop making ASSumptions about other people when it is no more than a tainted guess.

Just because you THINK you know what she wants doesn't make it so.

I would love to know how she thinks - she's got pretty good business nous. Without Gina, Fairfax is doomed anyway - so they've got nothing to lose and plenty to gain.

I agree, it's no ones business except hers and the shareholders anyway, and as for that half wit Wayne Swan he should just pull his head in hes a total embarrasment.
Ãf Rinehart does something illegal different story.

Julia · 20 June 2012

banco said:
The US newspapers probably put the most effort into being objective and balanced (yes, yes I know they don't entirely suceed) and it's arguably as much a weakness as a strength. They often end up virtually reprinting press releases and dumbing everything down to he said/she said reporting lest they be seen as biased.

That's a great point. We're all so busy criticising our media here. Maybe instead we should be thankful we can access a news and opinion source that is prepared to take a stand for or against government and other societal mores, and further, that we live in a society where it's still possible.
At least for now.

Calliope · 22 June 2012

Our soft left liberal Malcolm Turnbull thinks Rinehart should sign the pledge to keep her nose out of Fairfax editorial affairs. He is away with the fairies. Graham Richardson is more on the ball.

By the way, don't hold your breath waiting for Rinehart to sign the Fairfax charter. She is in this for power and she can only achieve any of that by making sure Fairfax speaks with her voice.

For the Labor Party it is a chilling thought, and it's not too warm for a few journalists I know, either.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...age-one-disaster/story-e6frgd0x-1226404790357

Gina Rinehart

Miss Hale

Calliope

drsmith

sails

overhang

Miss Hale

sails

Miss Hale

Julia

In Memoriam

banco

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Calliope

noco

Glen48

Money can't buy Poverty

banco

Macquack

sails

MrBurns

Julia

In Memoriam

Calliope

Similar threads

Gina Rinehart

In Memoriam

You are arguing with a Galah

Money can't buy Poverty

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency