I've been reading a few articles on media that suggest that the Howard government had a massive influence over reporting during his term as PM. The articles suggest that the relationship between politics and media has become somewhat unethical - that journalists are mouthpieces for government (particularly so during the Howard years); they report what they are told rather than investigate for themselves.

Clearly this is not the case in media representations of Gillard. The bias may have been less apparent under Rudd, but it is quite obvious that rather than a mouthpiece for Gillard, the bulk of maintream media has tried to misrepresent her at every opportunity.


Anyone have any ideas why this is so?

i'm pretty doubtful of the idea that the media in total is biased to any particular "side" of politics - i just think they're full of sh1t and liars eitherway.

No criticism at all about Gillard or the carbon tax in the media at the moment...anyone noticed?

Quote:

Anyone have any ideas why this is so?

I have been watching the leveson enquiry and when rebecca was interviewed she told how the media (and she spoke for the BBC as well) was "backing" blair. Then blair did something that "they" didnt like (whoever makes the decisions i guess) and they "switched sides" . Blair when he gave evidence said the same thing.

Since we have 70% murdoch media here too I see no reason to suspect it doesnt work the same way here.

SOB

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 2:32pm:

No criticism at all about Gillard or the carbon tax in the media at the moment...anyone noticed?

no, havent noticed that at all.

what are you reading?

JC Denton wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 2:36pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 2:32pm: No criticism at all about Gillard or the carbon tax in the media at the moment...anyone noticed? no, havent noticed that at all. what are you reading?

Google News is usually my Barometer for how the regime is controlling the spin...at the moment the spin is Tony wont repeal, Julia has taken up knitting and all of the "benefits" are flowing.

Apparently gordon brown is next in the  hotseat for the leveson enquiry. Thursday apparently.

SOB

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 2:25pm:

I've been reading a few articles on media that suggest that the Howard government had a massive influence over reporting during his term as PM. The articles suggest that the relationship between politics and media has become somewhat unethical - that journalists are mouthpieces for government (particularly so during the Howard years); they report what they are told rather than investigate for themselves. Clearly this is not the case in media representations of Gillard. The bias may have been less apparent under Rudd, but it is quite obvious that rather than a mouthpiece for Gillard, the bulk of maintream media has tried to misrepresent her at every opportunity. Anyone have any ideas why this is so?

which of course explains why the media was pushing for the election of Rudd in 2007. Seriously, has it not occured to you that the media are strongly anti-labor because most of the country is the same??? Is it just possible that rather than driving opinion, the media are reporting it instead?

and perhaps rather than the silly conspiracy you could consider that the reason Howard was PM for 12 years was that he was good at his job and well liked while the opposition was generally pitiful?

makes a lot more sense than your media conspiracy - particularly when they have an annoying habit of changing sides.

As i have said before its not a "conspiracy" its policy.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

makes a lot more sense than your media conspiracy - particularly when they have an annoying habit of changing sides.

I think there's your answer.  The agenda setters in the media know that both parties are reading from the same script.  They can grant or withdraw support to any side, at any time, with no consequence. 
The pollies know the media have the ability to make or break governments.

Thus, the media can lead government around like dancing bears. The government is really representing the medias interests - but who is representing ours?  How do we, the people get our voices heard over those of the media? 

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:12pm: makes a lot more sense than your media conspiracy - particularly when they have an annoying habit of changing sides. I think there's your answer.  The agenda setters in the media know that both parties are reading from the same script.  They can grant or withdraw support to any side, at any time, with no consequence.  The pollies know the media have the ability to make or break governments. Thus, the media can lead government around like dancing bears. The government is really representing the medias interests - but who is representing ours?  How do we, the people get our voices heard over those of the media?

I still dont think you are addressing the question as to whether media LEADS opinion or just reflects it. I dont think the answer is all that clear cut, but it does seem a particualrly labor excuse of blaming the media when they are in big trouble. After all, there isnt much good to report from the Gillard govt. it is usually a diet of scandal, incompetence and internal fighting. If the media ONLY reported events and left all opinion out of it do you think the polls would really be any different?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 2:25pm:

I've been reading a few articles on media that suggest that the Howard government had a massive influence over reporting during his term as PM. The articles suggest that the relationship between politics and media has become somewhat unethical - that journalists are mouthpieces for government (particularly so during the Howard years); they report what they are told rather than investigate for themselves. Clearly this is not the case in media representations of Gillard. The bias may have been less apparent under Rudd, but it is quite obvious that rather than a mouthpiece for Gillard, the bulk of maintream media has tried to misrepresent her at every opportunity. Anyone have any ideas why this is so?

She's a woman!!

  :-? :-?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

Apparently gordon brown is next in the  hotseat for the leveson enquiry. Thursday apparently. SOB

Fleet St has always had a bad name sob.

and Murdoch hasnt always had the power he has now..

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:12pm: makes a lot more sense than your media conspiracy - particularly when they have an annoying habit of changing sides. I think there's your answer.  The agenda setters in the media know that both parties are reading from the same script.  They can grant or withdraw support to any side, at any time, with no consequence.  The pollies know the media have the ability to make or break governments. Thus, the media can lead government around like dancing bears. The government is really representing the medias interests - but who is representing ours?  How do we, the people get our voices heard over those of the media?  I still dont think you are addressing the question as to whether media LEADS opinion or just reflects it. I dont think the answer is all that clear cut, but it does seem a particualrly labor excuse of blaming the media when they are in big trouble. After all, there isnt much good to report from the Gillard govt. it is usually a diet of scandal, incompetence and internal fighting. If the media ONLY reported events and left all opinion out of it do you think the polls would really be any different?

theres obviously some sort of feedback loop, I just think the media tells us what to think moreso than we tell them what to report. 
Recent example is that olympians posing with guns "scandal" - they tell us it "caused outrage" yet the unanimous opinion on the street seems to be a resounding "who cares"?  They're usually a bit better at gauging public opinion, so it doesn't stick out like dogs balls, but they're prone to the odd howler.

HATE KEEPS WAR ECONOMIES STRONG!!!

SIMPLE!!!

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 5:59pm: ... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:12pm: makes a lot more sense than your media conspiracy - particularly when they have an annoying habit of changing sides. I think there's your answer.  The agenda setters in the media know that both parties are reading from the same script.  They can grant or withdraw support to any side, at any time, with no consequence.  The pollies know the media have the ability to make or break governments. Thus, the media can lead government around like dancing bears. The government is really representing the medias interests - but who is representing ours?  How do we, the people get our voices heard over those of the media?  I still dont think you are addressing the question as to whether media LEADS opinion or just reflects it. I dont think the answer is all that clear cut, but it does seem a particualrly labor excuse of blaming the media when they are in big trouble. After all, there isnt much good to report from the Gillard govt. it is usually a diet of scandal, incompetence and internal fighting. If the media ONLY reported events and left all opinion out of it do you think the polls would really be any different? theres obviously some sort of feedback loop, I just think the media tells us what to think moreso than we tell them what to report.  Recent example is that olympians posing with guns "scandal" - they tell us it "caused outrage" yet the unanimous opinion on the street seems to be a resounding "who cares"?  They're usually a bit better at gauging public opinion, so it doesn't stick out like dogs balls, but they're prone to the odd howler.

Id generally agree. But I object strongly to media ownership enquiries and the like to attack the media when they arent supporting the govt at large. Is our media biased? IN general terms, no. Andrew Bolt is for sure but there are plenty batting for the other side as well. Bad news sells newspapers and lets face it, the ALP is a daily bad-news story mill.  You cant blame the media for repeating it.

It's interesting to see a rightwinger like longweekend admitting the Australian media is biased. Good on him for his honesty.

The argument that newspapers are simply following public opinion is, of course, the one that Murdoch uses to excuse some of his newspapers' one-sided political coverage. But that does not explain the papers coming out in support of one party or the other before an election. That is nothing but a deliberate attempt to influence public opinion and how people vote, otherwise there is no point in doing it.....

I have not been in Australia long enough to know how the mainstream media behaves when the Liberals are in power and, in particular, when a Liberal government is unpopular. Whether they give the Liberals as hard a time as they currently give Labor I will leave for others to decide.

Andrew Bolt is a columnist and is paid to write his opinion. His opinion is totally biased which makes for pretty boring, predictable reading. So are columns written by people like Piers Akerman and Janet Albrechtsen.

I have yet to find a regular columnist who is left wing, maybe longweekend can provide some names?

Finally newspapers are entitled to take whatever position they like editorially. They are also entitled to fill their opinion pages with rightwing writers, though they need to be aware this is ignoring a good chunk of their readership and is not smart business.

But they are not entitled to fill their news columns with comment or report the news in a slanted manner. This is one rule many Australian newspapers ignore.

cods wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 2:50pm: Apparently gordon brown is next in the  hotseat for the leveson enquiry. Thursday apparently. SOB Fleet St has always had a bad name sob. and Murdoch hasnt always had the power he has now..

thats true imo. Thing is he has it now though. Seems to me theres a reason theres no inquiry here in australia.

SOB