Rudd sticks it to biased Murdoch press

By Leith van Onselen

On ABC’s 7.30 Report last night, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd launched an attack on the Murdoch press, which he views as overtly biased against the government:

LEIGH SALES: Let me ask you one final question. On your stoush with Rupert Murdoch this week, I don’t recall you complaining about bias or corporate agenda when he backed you in 2007.

KEVIN RUDD: If you look carefully at the events of 2007, what you will see, Leigh, written right across the newspapers at that time was a whole series of negative attacks, negative articles, including the most personal attacks on me and my family in the years leading up to that election. You seem to have forgotten those in this discussion. I could list those for you one by one, which went to my wife, her business and the rest of our personal affairs as well. So let’s put that into a bit of context.

The second point is this: I have not said anything about Mr Murdoch doing X, Y and Z. What I’ve said is he owns 70 per cent of the print media in the company – fact one. Fact two, day one of the campaign, through his principal masthead in Australia, they say “This government must go”. Thirdly he says through his own direct statements that he wants Mr Abbott to replace me as Prime Minister. That’s fine. That’s his democratic right. It’s a free country. But the question that I’ve posed through this is simply as follows: what is underneath all this? Is it to do with the National Broadband Network representing a commercial threat to Foxtel? I’ve seen some commentary on that, and I’ve only just been looking back on the files today and discovered that in fact Mr Abbott’s NBN policy was launched at the Fox Studios here in Sydney. I would like to hear some answers as to what discussions Mr Abbott may have had with Mr Murdoch on the future of Australia’s National Broadband Network.

It’s hard to disagree with the Prime Minister’s critique. Upon calling the election, Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph produced the below front page revealing in no uncertain terms its political bias:

ScreenHunter_23 Aug. 08 09.18

The above front cover brings back memories of Fox News’ (also owned by Murdoch) blatant bias against Democratic candidate, John Kerry, in the lead-up to the 2004 Presidential election, as well as Fox’s ongoing attacks on the Obama administration. It is also the type of bias that I hoped would never find its way into Australian mainstream media.

[email protected]

www.twitter.com/leithvo

Unconventional Economist

Comments

  1. Good to see Kevin laying it on the line. “The Australian” has been biased so badly for the past 12 mths that most of it is unreadable. Murdoch’s other rags are mostly the same judging by Cairn’s Post & Brisbane’s Courier Mail

    Here’s hoping family longevity runs out for the wizened little prick.

  2. Privately is owned media is perfectly entitled to express whatever opinion it likes.

    I am more outraged at publicly funded media organisations expressing overt support for a particular party as generally been the case with the ABC and its ongoing love-in with Labor and the Greens.

    The Telegraph headline was a beauty.

    • reusachtigeMEMBER

      blah blah blah !!! (How much did you get paid to say that irrelevant spew? Just asking.)

    • too right. See my spiel below. Certain types of people get into media, just as certain types of people get into business. Media types are left leaning, Business types are right leaning. Murdoch is entitled to bring a bit of balance.

    • General Disarray

      I remember a while back you were going on about all this left-wing bias in the media. When I called out your BS you replied with something along the lines of “except Andrew Bolt”.

      You have zero credibility.

    • This has been independently reviewed and proven to be a load of bollocks 3d1k.

      If anything the ABC was shown to have more positive reporting of the Libs.

      As Murdoch owns 70% of the Aussie media his bias is obvious. Just look at the change in Business Spectator since Murdoch took it over, the anti Labor reporting level is painfully obvious with Gottliebsen as the head attack dog.

      • Bubbles – ever endured Barrie Cassidy Insiders, most of Q&A, the way ALP soundbites are presented on the airwaves as solid fact, the hectoring tone of their lead female political ‘journo’ – come on Bubs even you know deep down left leaning bias is rampant at the ABC. Wasn’t there a survey of ABC journos recently that showed around 45% vote Green 45% vote ALP and the rest…

        It’s probably time to remove political coverage from
        the ABC Charter. Let them continue with reruns if BBC productions something they do very well – oh o, problem – the rights for BBC have just been bought by Foxtel!

      • dumb_non_economist

        2d and Squirell,

        That’s just your opinion, I see the ABC as just left of centre, I see your beloved crap Foxtel and Skynews as very much to the far right!

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        That’s just your opinion, I see the ABC as just left of centre, […]
        But this is simply a reflection of reality’s well known left-wing bias ! 😀

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        It’s probably time to remove political coverage from
        the ABC Charter.

        Indeed. Getting rid of one of the last vaguely even-handed and balanced sources of news will make it even easier to polarise people.

        Sometimes you’re so transparent it’s just comical.

      • dne have you watched Sky? If not you are missing the best political coverage going round. It is THE channel for political junkies and the one the pollies love. Forget about the ABC , so old school! Mired failed ideologies. Move to the new millennium!

      • dumb_non_economist

        2d,

        Yeah, I’ve watched both and both are nauseating and that you state the pollies love it about says it all. That’s right, lets get rid of old ideologies and replace them with one new one; rent seeking vested interest.

        I had to laugh at one comment here about blue collar workers getting what they want from the Murdoch press, it’s a bit like the old saying pissing, pockets and rain.

        Imo we love to knock the US, but we follow them slavishly.

      • DNE; yes, yes, yes, on that last point, a million times yes. All the way to politicians sending pictures of their junk to online mistresses.

      • You are absolutely correct 3d1k. What is outrageous in all this is not that the Murdoch press print what they want in their own paper. It’s that the public must endure the daily Left/Green propaganda of the one sided taxpayer funded A(LP)BC.

        I didn’t hear Rudd bleating when Murdoch backed the “fiscal conservative” Rudd in 2007? This is simply Rudd and the ALP whingeing at being called out. The same mob who wanted to inflict press censorship because their PM was being investigated for suspected dodgy RE dealings in the past.

        Very surprised MB would enter into this debate, backing a party who would curtail freedom of press information.

  3. GunnamattaMEMBER

    I tend to the view that KRudd knows the ALParatchiks are going down, and can raise issues that he (in his heart) knows he isnt going to have to deliver on.

    At the same time this issue (media ownership in Australia) is sensitive for Uncle Rupert, as it gives rise to the possibility that Australia’s media world is far less diverse than that in, say, Russia, and the possibility your average Australian may want to do something about that (remote but theoretically plausible).

    To play a similar sort of game Uncle Rupert is running left field static on the issue of housing affordability, knowing that this is is a sensitive spot for punters who might normally be expected to vote KRudd – but who can overtly see KRudd running from the issue like Dracula from a garlic clove.

    Like KRudd, Uncle Rupert knows in his heart that once all is done and dusted and KRudd is out the way, nobody is going to have to deliver anything on the issue of housing affordability, least of all TestosterTone, who will be able to focus on ensuring that the NBN doesnt have any dilution effect on Uncle Rupert’s bottom line.

    a win win all round…

    • As the big miners owned Julia so Tony is owned by Rupert. Our political class is totally corrupted and compromised.

  4. reusachtigeMEMBER

    Sadly, it’s the wrong sort of people that read his sh1t papers but they are the ones who vote! Do younger generations actually read papers? I honestly think they are too busy reading each others daily dribble online and don’t give a crap. Over time, readers of this mass media rubbish will drop off. And I am 100% certain old Rupert is fearful of high speed internet because said young people will be able to engage even more while sticking it to the mass media they care little for. His control is dwindling, thank f….

    • spot on…

      My observation is that our youth see traditional news media (print/TV) as something to laugh at.

      With delivery of the NBN, we see a very prominent nail hammered into the Newscorp coffin. It wont happen overnight, but sure as the sun will rise this NBN will spell the eventual demise of Murdoch’s existing business model.

      good riddance..

  5. is it the role of a paper to be balanced or to bring balance? The ABC/SBS and fairfax are all clearly left leaning. This reflects in part the fact that the types of people who do journalism tend to be left leaning and “progressive”(by their own skewed definition). This is similar to the fact that academics in social sciences disciplines at Uni tend to be left leaning. Likewise in America the left leaning New York Times, CNN, Jon Stewart etc combine with Hollywood to dominate the cultural landscape and subtly but often overtly promote democrats as being the champions of intelligence and sophisticated debate.
    FOX is a reaction to this – if it tries to present a balanced conservative line then it is diluted by the lack of balance from the left.

    Its no wonder then that business interest like Murdoch feel the need to promote its own agenda and blue collar workers might be the ones reading hte stuff. They are the ones out there in the real world producing things and therefore have less time to be contributing to the social discourse dominated by the left leaning chattering intelligentsia. If murdoch does not bring the balance, who will?

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      There is a huge difference between ‘ideological bias’ and ‘interest of the owner’.

    • Actually I don’t think the ABC and SBS are left leaning. I think people have become so accustomed to the right wing press that the middle ground now seems like full blown lefties.

      • I find it very left too, except when it comes to house prices. On house prices the left are about 500 times to the right of Thatcher and Hitler.

      • General Disarray

        I agree Bubbley, anything looking at both sides these days looks like left-wing bias.

        The ABC charter requires them to be balanced. If you think they haven’t been you can complain and it has to be addressed.

        I hear a lot of accusations of bias but very few people actually back them up with a good examples.

      • Flawse,

        I am generally puzzled as to why you might think the ABC left leaning.

        Do any of the ABC’s announcers advocate nationalisation of banks or other industries? One party socialist states?

        Exacty what is it in the ABC that seems left leaning to you?

        In fact, it would be pretty easy to argue that the Coalition is an agrarian socialist party more than the ALP is a traditional party of the left. So are you saying the ABC supports the Coalition and its middle class farmer and banker subsidising welfare?

    • General Disarray

      “Likewise in America the left leaning New York Times, CNN, Jon Stewart etc combine with Hollywood to dominate the cultural landscape and subtly but often overtly promote democrats as being the champions of intelligence and sophisticated debate.”

      They don’t have to do anything. Have you seen Fox and friends? They do a fantastic job of making the extreme right look like a bunch of half-wits.

      • and yet they have massive viewership, which goes to show there are many out there who agree with them – why is it wrong to be a voice for those whose voice has been disenfranchised by left wing liberals who dominate the cultural landscape??
        Those on the left have a mighty high opinion of themselves and exhibit a socially sanctioned bigotted attitude against those they consider to be uneducated red necks.

      • I suggest you watch some of the Daily Show. Stewart frequently attacks all sides of politics, and coverage thereof, including MSNBC. I’m not going to claim that Stewart doesn’t lean one way, but it’s not nearly as biased as you seem to think.

        Fox is just the easiest target, particularly for it’s joke of a slogan, so it finds itself the butt of most of the jokes. Fox is almost a running joke themselves, sadly enough. They have a market, and they focus on it to the point where there is no impartiality in anything they do. This makes them worthless as a “news” organisation in my view.

        FYI, I struggle to find much bias in the online ABS news coverage as well. There is clearly a partisan blog section (the Drum), and a news reporting section.

        Sometimes (OK, all the time), both sides of the spectrum tend to resort to the “bias!” cry whenever the facts don’t agree with their viewpoint. Welcome to the real world, it’s shades of grey.

      • General Disarray

        Yeah they have massive viewership. They appeal to angry bigots that want their prejudice reinforced. There are lots of them.

        “why is it wrong to be a voice for those whose voice has been disenfranchised by left wing liberals who dominate the cultural landscape??”

        Straw man, there is nothing wrong with that and I never claimed there was. The problem with Fox is the number of times they have been caught “inventing” the news. They’ve been caught in flat out lies numerous times but it’s far more common for them to lie via omission. By all means produce biased content, but they should make it truthful.

        “Those on the left have a mighty high opinion of themselves and exhibit a socially sanctioned bigotted attitude against those they consider to be uneducated red necks.”

        If you mean those on the left have a bigoted attitude to bunch of immigrant hating homophobes who think God created the world in seven days then I’d have to agree.

      • and yet they have massive viewership, which goes to show there are many out there who agree with them – why is it wrong to be a voice for those whose voice has been disenfranchised by left wing liberals who dominate the cultural landscape??
        Uh, because huge amounts of what they present is hypocritical, often factually wrong if, not completely fabricated ?

        Let us not forget Fox News went to court to defend their “right” to actively and deliberately present false information.

        Being popular doesn’t make you right.

        Those on the left have a mighty high opinion of themselves and exhibit a socially sanctioned bigotted attitude against those they consider to be uneducated red necks.
        Heh, you mean like those on the right have a mighty high opinion of themselves and exhibit a socially sanctioned bigotted attitude against those they consider to be elitist snobs ?

      • disarray,

        “a bigoted attitude to bunch of immigrant hating homophobes ”

        you’ve just kind of proven my point. People have a different opinion on a few issues and the left resort to mindless labels and slogans that dont fairly refelct on MOST of the holders of those opnions. No wonder the right feels it has to sloganise back. Like I say, if the left was balanced the right could be as well. But the left aint, so the right must BRING balance.

      • General Disarray

        “you’ve just kind of proven my point. People have a different opinion on a few issues and the left resort to mindless labels and slogans that dont fairly refelct on MOST of the holders of those opnions”

        Mindless labels that just happen to reflect the opinions of Fox news’ core viewership.

        So let’s get this straight, according to you the majority of Fox viewers are;

        1. Pro immigration
        2. Support gay rights
        3. Atheists

      • no Disarray,

        just suggesting that if you are against some of these does not make you an ignorant bigot.

        eg
        1. Pro immigration (possible to oppose something that you think does not benefit the country withtou being racist)
        2. Support gay rights (they might support voting rights, right to work, right to live a gay life etc etc but not think a gay relationship warrants marriage recognition like hetro given they dont produce kids so dont carry special significance)
        3. Atheists (its possible to be a theist and not think the world was created in 7 days 6000 years ago). In fact, I’d argue atheism is inherently irrational given naturalism implies the mind is nothing more than that a physical determined (or random) process with no agency guiding it

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Support gay rights (they might support voting rights, right to work, right to live a gay life etc etc but not think a gay relationship warrants marriage recognition like hetro given they dont produce kids so dont carry special significance)
        You don’t get to deny people rights because you find their sex lives icky.

        That’s why they’re called “rights”.

        The State does not confer the legal privileges of a marriage contract based on the principle of “go forth and multiply”. If it did, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry.

        Atheists (its possible to be a theist and not think the world was created in 7 days 6000 years ago). In fact, I’d argue atheism is inherently irrational given naturalism implies the mind is nothing more than that a physical determined (or random) process with no agency guiding it.
        What ?

      • Dr smith,

        There are plenty of non hetro relationships out there (eg paternal, fraternal, business, sibling, etc etc). We dont give them marriage recognition, but most dont consider them icky. ONLY hetro relationships have traditionally been accorded the recognition of marriage – you cant honestly think that does not have something to do with fertility. The odd infertile hetro relationship simply shows that all laws have exceptions. By allowing gay marriage the exception becomes the rule and the focus moves from a procreative relationship to one that is merely romantic. If you are going that far, why not recognise relationships that are purely platonic, or paternal/maternal. They can be loving, long term – and thay can adopt kids!!

        or to put it in plain English. ALL forms of recognition exclude. They would not be a recognition if they did not. Its sophistry to suggest that anyone excluded from a recognition is ipso facto a victim of discrimination.

      • CNN is left wing? Really? It’s a very subjective term unless you say from which viewpoint.

        US left wing and Australian left wing are two completely different beasts.

        Could you imagine Obama introducing even 1/10th of Abbotts paid parental leave scheme? He’d be branded a communist sleeper agent.

      • You don’t get to deny people rights because you find their sex lives icky.

        That’s why they’re called “rights”.

        Erhh no they’re not.

        They called ‘rights’ because they are a social construct.

        Rights whilst being granted, are also enforced.

        Rights are not divine, they are social and therefore arbitrary.

        The State does not confer the legal privileges of a marriage contract based on the principle of “go forth and multiply”. If it did, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry.

        The state was never the originator of who conferred it, it has been a mantle assumed from the church, and much of that structure has a legacy.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        There are plenty of non hetro relationships out there (eg paternal, fraternal, business, sibling, etc etc). We dont give them marriage recognition, but most dont consider them icky.
        We don’t give them “marriage recognition” because their relationships would not otherwise be considered marriage.

        ONLY hetro relationships have traditionally been accorded the recognition of marriage – you cant honestly think that does not have something to do with fertility.
        The State’s interest in marriage is in defining a legal contract. It has nothing to do with “fertility” or “procreation”.

        The odd infertile hetro relationship simply shows that all laws have exceptions.
        No, it – along with the complete disinterest of homophobes in also making those reltionships “unmarriagable” – shows that fertility is irrelevant.

        If you are going that far, why not recognise relationships that are purely platonic, or paternal/maternal.
        Recognise them as what ? Marriage ?

        That’s because their relationships would not, were they not the same gender, otherwise be considered marriage.

        Its sophistry to suggest that anyone excluded from a recognition is ipso facto a victim of discrimination.
        I don’t “suggest” anything of the sort. I _assert_ that people exluded from entering into a particular form of legal contract for no other reason than their sexual proclivities are being discriminated against.

        I tell you what. Substitute “gay” for “asian” and tell me why asians shouldn’t be allowed to enter into marriage.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Rights are not divine, they are social and therefore arbitrary.
        And “we” as a society have decided that arbitrariness when it comes to legal contracts reachs only to responsible adult.

        Marriage between two people who just happen to have identical bits being one of the notable exceptions.

        The state was never the originator of who conferred it, it has been a mantle assumed from the church, and much of that structure has a legacy.
        Our society has a legacy of slavery and racism. That doesn’t mean we consider it law today.

        We (ostensibly, at least) have a separation of Church and State. The Church doesn’t get a say who and what is or is not legal.

        From the State’s perspective, marriage is nothing more than a specific type of legal contract. Denying two people from entering into that contract for no other reason than being the same gender, is about as clear cut an example of discrimination as you can get.

      • Rights are not divine, they are social and therefore arbitrary.

        And “we” as a society have decided that arbitrariness when it comes to legal contracts reachs only to responsible adult.

        Well no, we haven’t, hence the current stance.

        Marriage between two people who just happen to have identical bits being one of the notable exceptions.

        Which is the current stance.

        Now you’re appealing to ‘fairness’, to include homosexuals in this, or inversely, to have heterosexuals no longer have this privilege.

        So your stance is they should be afforded this ‘right’, and not so much that tautologically expressing what rights are,thus should encompass homosexuals by default.

        The state was never the originator of who conferred it, it has been a mantle assumed from the church, and much of that structure has a legacy.

        Our society has a legacy of slavery and racism.

        That doesn’t mean we consider it law today.

        Yep.

        We (ostensibly, at least) have a separation of Church and State. The Church doesn’t get a say who and what is or is not legal.

        No, marriage is the churches institutes.

        The law should confine itself to civil unions.

        From the State’s perspective, marriage is nothing more than a specific type of legal contract.

        No, once again, you’re staing a unio, not a marriage.

        Denying two people from entering into that contract for no other reason than being the same gender, is about as clear cut an example of discrimination as you can get.

        Yep.

        I’m discriminated from a woman’s only gym too.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        The law should confine itself to civil unions.
        Wow. What a surprise to see your argument devolve to a vacuous point of semantics.

      • Wow. What a surprise to see your argument devolve to a vacuous point of semantics.

        Yeah.

        Marriage is a religious institute, and I would fathom I’m not as intolerant as you to dismiss those that are religious.

        As far as other ‘rights’, such as access to an estate, certain forms of spousal leave, etc., they are all covered under a civil union.

        I.e. recognition of reciprocal rights, under the law.

        All reasonable forms of fairness, all forms of equitable treatment are being catered for.

        To go beyond that, to encroach into the realm of church, thus focring church and state back together again is symptomatic of the intolerance of the conservative left adhering to its outdated, 20th century dogma.

        The more progressive of us, following 21st century thought see no need to waste time for no good reason.

      • dr smithy,

        “The State’s interest in marriage is in defining a legal contract. It has nothing to do with “fertility” or “procreation”.”

        not sure I get your logic. I get its a contract, but its also a type of contract and like all contracts serves a particular purpose ie to recognise a relationship that by its nature is the basis of a family.

        “Recognise them as what ? Marriage ?
        That’s because their relationships would not, were they not the same gender, otherwise be considered marriage.

        a circular argument. Just as a platonic relationship does not qualify because there is no sex and therefore no fertility, equally gay relationships dont qualify because the type of sex is infertile.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Marriage is a religious institute, and I would fathom I’m not as intolerant as you to dismiss those that are religious.
        That’s an interesting definition of “intolerant”.

        Marriage is currently a legal state.

        If it were solely a religious term, that only applied to the suitably religious, within the confines of their religion, few would care.

        To go beyond that, to encroach into the realm of church, thus focring church and state back together again is symptomatic of the intolerance of the conservative left adhering to its outdated, 20th century dogma.
        A ridiculous straw man.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        not sure I get your logic.
        It’s pretty simple.

        The State does not regulate fertility. The State does not try to determine if a man is shooting blanks, if a woman has had a hysterectomy, if both participants have decided never to have children, if either participant already has children, or if they plan on having a dozen children and living off welfare.

        There is no causitive relationship whatsoever between marriage and fertility. People do not suddenly become capable of conception on their wedding night, nor incapable of raising chilren without being married.

        I get its a contract, but its also a type of contract and like all contracts serves a particular purpose ie to recognise a relationship that by its nature is the basis of a family.
        If that were true then there would be provisions within the law to discourage, if not outright prevent, those uninterested or incapable of creating “families” from marriage.

        From the State’s perspective, marriage is a contract that serves the purpose of applying certain legal rights and responsibilities on two particular people. Nothing more, nothing less.

        a circular argument.
        No, an observation of fact.

        Two people in a platonic relationship are not married. There is, therefore, no reason for the State to recognise them as being married.

        If they want to become married, they are free to do so, and then the State will recognise them as married. Unless they’re gay, of course.

        Just as a platonic relationship does not qualify because there is no sex and therefore no fertility, equally gay relationships dont qualify because the type of sex is infertile.
        Your argument is broken. You conflate “no sex” with “infertile sex”.

        By your logic people using contraception or are physically incapable of conception cannot be considered married because “the type of sex is infertile”.

        There is no rational reason to oppose marriage equality.

      • Dr smithy,

        Last one for this blog. Laws dont tend to be built around the exception, they are designed to fulfil a broad purpose, in the case of marriage that’s to recognise the importance of life giving relationships. Just because there are exceptions to fertility within hetro relationships does not negate the broad purpose. A good analogy is voting age. We set the age at 18 because it fulfils the broad aim of voters being mature enough to exercise a democratic right. There will be cases of peopl in their 50s with a mental age of 5 lacking the sufficient maturity to exercise a vote. Allowing these people to vote does not however mean we should lower the voting age to 5. Why? Because no 5 year old is capable of exercising a mature vote and it would contravene the broad aim of democracies.
        …. Or to put it in the simplest possible terms. If babies were delivered by storks and sex was only ever for play, do you honestly think we would have marriage? There would be no reason for it from what I can see.

      • Laws dont tend to be built around the exception, they are designed to fulfil a broad purpose, in the case of marriage that’s to recognise the importance of life giving relationships. Just because there are exceptions to fertility within hetro relationships does not negate the broad purpose.
        Your premises are completely broken.
        Firstly, preventing homosexuals from marrying *is* creating laws around the exception – it is choosing a specific group of people and saying they can’t be married. Not that this is unprecedented in history – marriages have been prevented between similar arbitrary groups (different religions, different races) in the past – but that doesn’t change the fact you’re taking a general rule and building exceptions into it for no reason in particular.
        Secondly, marriage laws are not, and historically have not been, created with any concern whatsoever for “the importance of life giving relationships”. They were created primarily to facilitate political coalitions and the transfer of property (back when marriages were mostly arranged, and the women were considered part of the property being transferred).

        People generally don’t need any encouragement to be “fertile”. Indeed, a core function of most religions is to convince them they shouldn’t be.

        The “traditional” institution of marriage you are trying to defend – one man, one woman, entered into voluntarily, etc, etc – has only been around for a matter of centuries (if that, depending on culture – some places haven’t had no-fault divorces for very long at all).

        A good analogy is voting age. We set the age at 18 because it fulfils the broad aim of voters being mature enough to exercise a democratic right. There will be cases of peopl in their 50s with a mental age of 5 lacking the sufficient maturity to exercise a vote. Allowing these people to vote does not however mean we should lower the voting age to 5. Why? Because no 5 year old is capable of exercising a mature vote and it would contravene the broad aim of democracies.
        So since your analogy relies on democracy being harmed by allowed those to vote who are, in general, not capable of doing so responsibly, who is the equivalent party suffering harm when homosexuals get married ?

        …. Or to put it in the simplest possible terms. If babies were delivered by storks and sex was only ever for play, do you honestly think we would have marriage? There would be no reason for it from what I can see.
        Of course we would. It would exist for the same reason it exists now – because from the State’s perspective it is nothing more than a particular kind of legal contract between two people.

    • GunnamattaMEMBER

      Murdoch is 70% of the Australian print media.

      ‘If murdoch does not bring the balance, who will?’

    • FOX is a reaction to this – if it tries to present a balanced conservative line then it is diluted by the lack of balance from the left.
      This line gives it away as satire.

      Your comment was satire, right ?

  6. It is also the type of bias that I hoped would never find its way into Australian mainstream media.

    Oh the irony!! The rest of the world must be cursing Australia for its most infamous export – Rupert Murdoch and his brand of tabloid trash “journalism”.

    • he has single handedly managed to distort and trash the media in the whole of the english speaking world .. that is a hell of an acheivement …

  7. Well, I can only hope that the voting public see Keven Kardashian for the weak insipid wannabe celebrity that he is, his one and only concern is for his “celebrity” status, his gain and zero for Australia and its people.

    I am glad that the paper can and does say it like it is!

  8. tsport100MEMBER

    Interesting strategy Rudd has of calling out the cronies backing Abbott. 1) He threatens to rip out the implicit guarantee of the banks by pitches deposit insurance (the largest political funders bar none) 2) Now calling out Murdoch and his campaign to keep our broadband in the dark ages broadcasting re-runs of the Simpsons indefinatley.

    Who’s next??? Land bankers with a land tax? Chinese owned energy retailers? This should be good!

    • “Now calling out Murdoch and his campaign to keep our broadband in the dark ages broadcasting re-runs of the Simpsons indefinatley”

      heh Gold

  9. The final scene in Animal Farm comes to mind.
    I hate them all equally.
    What if the paper had put Abott there instead? Would the PM be making the same comments?
    I guess not. If he had any honour, I would have said he would, but knowing what he’s like, I can’t imagine him doing that.
    If Abbott had copped it, he’d be bleating the same line, and dragging out the 2007 Labor backing as well.
    None of them have any honour or credibility in my eyes.
    What on earth am I going to do on election day??? (That’s what my wife asked me the other day. I haven’t been able to give her an answer yet)

  10. Dear Mr Abbott,

    Please provide a complete list of all meetings between Newscorp executives and you/your staff/LNP members in the last 3yrs, who was present and copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken during those meetings.

    + copies of all emails/communication between Newscorp executives and you/LNP members/your staff for the same period

  11. Rudd hectoring Sales is awful like a smug high school debater —

    The returned great helmsman, on the other hand, is a notorious mincer and mangler of words. His language is a combination of arcane abstraction, glazed with a type of slang derived from an American movie, circa 1962, but which has been censored by someone for whom English is not native. This amalgam of syntax is then delivered in a highly self-conscious style as if on a Spelling B and wishing to outperform the other nine year olds.

    http://nineavenues.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/groovy-sauce-bottle-shakeout/

  12. Royale With Cheese

    For me, I don’t think the published criticism of this current government is indicative of bias. There are plenty of valid reasons to kick this government out, most of them already discussed here on MB. The talk of Rupert Murdoch wanting the ALP out because of the NBN seems to be an attempt to paint News Corp’s criticism as self-interest, rather than genuine criticism.

    In my opinion, the bias comes from the free pass that Abbott and the LNP are getting from News Corp’s papers. While they are doing a reasonable job at holding the government accountable, they are MIA on the opposition.

    • +1 Indeed

      I don’t mind Rupert going feral on a politician but he should go feral on all of them.

      Labor only have themselves to blame, they were very happy to brown nose the media barons back under Hawke/Keating and let diversity decline.

      No surprise that they have a mutt attached to the seat of their pants.

  13. Pretty sure this:

    ‘What I’ve said is he owns 70 per cent of the print media in the company – fact one.’

    Is not fact. The 70% is closer to the distrubution level of news Corp which isn’t tne ownership.

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1797745/Comment–Does-Murdoch-own-70pc-of-newspapers-in-Australia-

    The NBN would be good for Foxtel (which Murdoch owns) so no idea where this conspiracy is coming from.

    Whatever. Picking a fight who wields considerable media influence isn’t smart.

    • Nice to see at least one person on here who recognizes that Kevin can’t even get the facts right.

      Not to mention that newspapers are becoming less and less influential as people migrate to online sources for their news.

      Of course, the fact that Murdoch papers do have the majority of capital city daily circulation (Kevin should have stuck to this claim if he wanted accuracy) probably reflects that his newspapers are giving readers what they want – his competitors, who are losing market share, aren’t. Wake up, Fairfax.

      It’s interesting to ponder the reasons for this. Could it have anything to do with the fact that newspaper readership is aging, and the propensity for people to become more conservative as they get older?

      • Do they still print newspapers?

        Only slightly kidding. I haven’t had newsprint on my fingers for at least 12 months and what is on the front pages is now a mystery to me.

        Most of what I know is administered by tablet.

        Hmmm – that sounds a bit worrying.

      • GunnamattaMEMBER

        +1 I havent picked up a physical newspaper in years (maybe excepting the free FT’s they give out on some European flights)

        I gots to say that its good to know that while I have been away this fine afternoon the whole loop factory has been out on this thread….

    • Actually, the NBN would not be good for Foxtel in their current model. Foxtel are slowly being dragged towards “on demand” model, but they are still a long way off it yet.

      Their online services (up until recently, let’s wait to see how their new release goes) were plagued by constant buffering and failing to connect (101 errors) to channels. What’s more, their online services were largely about watching TV on the net – practically no “on demand” services.

      Foxtel are still stuck largely in thinking about their product as regular TV and obsess about programming as such. A major fear for Foxtel would be the rise of online streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, which cost a fraction of what Foxtel charges per month but supplies more content on demand.

    • The NBN would be good for Foxtel (which Murdoch owns) so no idea where this conspiracy is coming from.

      Obviously you haven’t heard of Netflix or Hulu.

      Edit: oops .. didn’t see booboo’s explanation.

    • “The NBN would be good for Foxtel (which Murdoch owns) so no idea where this conspiracy is coming from.”

      You got this from the words of uncle rup himself. It is however absolute rubbish.

      The NBN would be the end of foxtel. Apart from australian sport there is nothing on foxtel that I can’t get cheaper or for free on the internet, the only problem … our crappy download speeds.

      The older generations who aren’t as tech and net savvy might hold onto it for a while but the Gen Y and X are already avoiding foxtel and going online instead.

  14. “It is also the type of bias that I hoped would never find its way into Australian mainstream media.”

    Ehhh… come again?? What makes Australia so unique and special that it’s immune from this type of political thuggery?

  15. Typical ALP and Rudd BS. News Corp own 34% of Australias print media, but the ABC and the ALP never let the truth get in the way of a good story.As Peter Beattie has now joined up for the ALP in the seat of Forde, expect the BS to flow a bit faster.

    • Indeed dj. Qlders must be just over the moon at the prospect of having Beattie back, the Premier who inflicted Anna Bligh on them. The alternative to Rudd if the election is lost?

      • C.M.BurnsMEMBER

        (most) Australians still view Malcolm T favourably, and yet following your logic he gave us Abbott.

      • That’s laughable. You compare Abbott’s election as LNP leader to Rudd’s parachuting in Beattie , overriding pre-selection at branch level of another candidate – yet another promise broken by Ruddster? No comparison whatsoever.

  16. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/it-boils-down-to-which-one-can-be-taken-on-trust-20130807-2rgmy.html

    “Rudd has lied. I use the term ”lie” as in lie, as in knowingly saying something that he knows not to be true”

    More bias at the SMH too.

    PS: From GD’s link above, bias at the Guardian too;

    “But Kevin Rudd’s claim that Rupert Murdoch – or News Corp Australia – “owns 70% of the newspapers in this country” is, as a factual statement, false.

    Verdict

    Kevin Rudd’s claim that Rupert Murdoch “owns 70% of the newspapers in this country” is false. He is closer to the mark on the circulation of News Corp Australia’s capital-city and daily newspaper titles.”

    The whole MSM is biased against Rudd!