Is it the practice of newspapers to be objective reporters or to act as amplifiers for one side of the debate?
The Guardian thinks it is the latter:
So, who said the performance was “shambolic”? This bloke:
The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, labelled Taylor’s appearance “shambolic”. He told reporters in Tasmania the shadow treasurer had “completely and utterly stuffed up” because he “couldn’t answer the most basic questions about the centrepiece of Peter Dutton’s budget reply” about migration.
Taylor could have announced he had just cured cancer, and Chicken Chamlers would have said the same thing. How is this news? The Guardian goes on:
Angus Taylor has improvised Coalition policy on migration and superannuation in a post-budget address, giving different targets for net migration than the opposition leader, Peter Dutton.
Taylor said that the Coalition would seek to cut net migration by 25% over three years, suggesting the reduction would get shallower over time compared with the initial 100,000 cut proposed by Dutton and other senior shadow ministers.
The differences are minor at best and nitpicking at worst.
There is a bewildering array of immigration figures around which it is easy to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), The Guardian’s goal with this story.
Ironically, this kind of ‘making the news’ versus ‘reporting the news’ is a classic Murdoch media tactic, now regularly deployed by The Guardian, which has transformed into the ironic mirror image of its nemesis.
Both media houses now operate on the principle that ends justify the means.
The Guardian seeks a borderless, woke dystopia, while the Murdoch Press seeks a borderless, conservative dystopia.
Australia and Australians play no role in their culture war of FUD.
