I think it's a case that conservatives get more butt-hurt when their policies are being challenged. One just has to watch Fox, 7, 9 and 10 to see how biased media can be.

So all Government funded organisations are left leaning now?

Absolutely. But then that's part of the whole "live and let live" philosophy encouraged by the left.

My point exactly. Absence of one agenda does not automatically mean that the opposite agenda is in play.

Is that what I said?

Some tinfoil hats I know claim Russia Today is the best source of news:Russia Today.

To me it looks far too left for much credibility.

Same goes for The Young Turks.

I would say RT is left of centre where as TYT is further left. You can see the difference in the gun debate where the both project different views.

I'd agree. I can't stand left views they're so devoid of reality on so many levels quite often. I see a lot of left wing articles about boat people (to name a common issue) where they have all these fantastic ideas which all ignore the key issue of financing. Makes for frustrating reading.

so all print media are right leaning are they???


Edited by batfink: 6/11/2013 12:13:44 PM

Can you provide a link to the article/s?

I can't find the ones I want at work but I do remember being linked this on FB: Boat People - Green Left. In saying that the site is called the green left so this is hardly surprising.

I think the extreme right view of boat people lacks empathy and is quite selfish. The extreme left lacks caution and security. To much in either direction is a bad thing but the approach has to be measured.

Human nature is quite selfish though, we are not without our own problems.

The lefties think the government is a charity service and neglect the cost of these people. They often come here without the ability to go to work and are completely dependent on us to pay to support them.

Sure you can argue that my opinion is selfish worrying about money (i've heard it before)but its not like we don't have our own needs to protect. Are we really in a position to fork out hundreds of millions of not more?

I never made that claim and I'm not quite sure why you would think that I had.

Of coarse there is your family and your well being and your wealth and all those things are to be protected. That is human nature. I disagree that human nature is more selfish than not because a mind without empathy is a psychopath. Selfishness is a negative trait. Looking at a refugees story is sad and some people find it impossible to understand because its not happening to them. That is a selfish attitude.

Consider that you could have been born randomly to any mother around the world. The fact is that you are going to come into a reality that is impoverished, the odds are way against you. Most people don't have perspective and some people have to travel to gain it but you are extremely lucky to live in a country like Australia. That's what I mean by selfish attitude. They are not evil people, just people that have been fucked by lady luck.

All as I'm saying is there has to be a measured approach.

What you are describing is not really selfishness, it's empathy, or lack of it. There are plenty of people you are well aware they have been lucky enough to be born into relative comfort, but its the ability to empathise with the situation of those less fortunate that is the key. It's a balance that we can probably never get right. You can't just allow all boat people in. Where do you put them? Who pays for their care? How do you guard against terrorist or criminals arriving then plying their trade here? What effect does an opening policy like that have on the number of boats that don't make it, and having hundreds of people get lost at sea?
By the same token, we are a rich country by comparison, and we should do everything we can to help, but it all comes at a cost, in both purely finicial terms and the social cost of these displaced persons adjusting to the local population (and vice versa). Just imagine the backlash if an act of terrorism was commited by someone who came by boat as a 'refugee'.

you are always ranting about the papers being right wing....

A lot of what you said I agree with. I'm not advocating open boarders, never was. But there is this attitude amongst the conservatives that they are all criminals and terrorist and they're here to take our jobs. Maybe one or two are criminals so yes we should screen each and everyone, but do it humanly. It's definitely a political hot potato and it's stirred by the media. Every country takes in refugees. There is no silver bullet to fix the problem. Until peace comes to war torn countries and humanity can overcome poverty it's ongoing.

It's pretty state biased in Russia but it's pretty reliable for news in the Eastern Bloc.

News Corp bias against Kevin Rudd showed up in independent study, diary reveals

Date
November 7, 2013 - 1:19AM

Mark Kenny
Chief political correspondent

Kevin Rudd's repeated claims of systematic anti-Labor bias in his treatment by News Corporation newspapers ahead of the September election were fuelled by an independent assessment of media reporting commissioned by the Labor Party.

The revelation underlines the extent of frustration within the government as it reeled from its bitter leadership instability and the late switch to Mr Rudd, whom many in the ALP had openly criticised.

The previously confidential study, obtained by Fairfax Media, was undertaken at the request of Mr Rudd's key adviser, Bruce Hawker, as the pair wrestled with what to do to rebuild the former prime minister's reputation and improve Labor's poor communication with voters in time for an election due within weeks.

It found that Mr Rudd was subject to "unfavourable" reporting in The Daily Tele-graph at "over twice the volume of unfavourable coverage of Kevin Rudd and the ALP than The Sydney Morning Herald".

Advertisement
The analysis, which goes some way to explaining Mr Rudd's unusually direct references to media bias throughout the campaign, was undertaken by the media assessment and measurement firm iSentia.

It compared 1256 newspaper reports carried in News Corporation newspapers The Daily Telegraph in Sydney and Brisbane's The Courier-Mail and Fairfax Media's The Sydney Morning Herald.

The comparison covered three periods starting just before Mr Rudd replaced Julia Gillard in June, then during early- to mid-July, and finally over a fortnight taking in the first few days of the election campaign called on August 4.

"Kevin Rudd was positioned as incompetent in 215 News Corp articles and self-interested in 120," the study concluded.

"The implied message that Kevin Rudd displays negative personality traits appeared in 143 News Corp articles."

In his campaign diary published this week, The Rudd Rebel-lion, Mr Hawker makes reference to the study and reveals he had counselled Mr Rudd on more than one occasion during the campaign against repeatedly hitting back at News Corp mastheads during daily press appearances.

Labor MPs were furious at their treatment after The Daily Tele-graph began its campaign coverage with a front page headline on day one of the campaign exclaiming "Finally you now have the chance to . . . KICK THIS MOB OUT".

Labor insiders also suspected that the coverage in News Corp publications intensified under the influence of veteran New York Post tabloid editor Col Allan.

"Unfavourable News Corp coverage was most prevalent in the last two-week period analysed [July 26-August 9), which coincided with the calling of the election and the arrival of Col Allan at News Corp Australia," the iSentia analysis concluded.

"Of The Daily Tele-graph's coverage, 54 per cent [251 articles] was unfavourable towards Kevin Rudd and for The Courier-Mail this proportion was 46 per cent [178]," iSentia found.

"In contrast, 29 per cent [118 articles] of The Sydney Morning Herald's coverage was unfavourable towards Kevin Rudd."

However, it also found that the Herald was "the leading source of unfavourable press coverage of Tony Abbott and the Coalition".

It concluded that overall 42 per cent (or 119 articles) of its coverage of Mr Abbott and his party was "unfavourable".

Among several other revelations in Mr Hawker's book is an account of the period immediately after Mr Rudd was replaced in 2010.

Mr Hawker writes that he played a pivotal role behind the scenes on behalf of Ms Gillard during the protracted 17-day period of negotiation to form government with the Greens and two independents. This included helping to convince the previously conservative-aligned independent MPs Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor to back Gillard over Mr Abbott.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/news-corp-bias-against-kevin-rudd-showed-up-in-independent-study-diary-reveals-20131106-2x1ig.html

What?

The Labor party commissioned an independent body to undertake the study.

It's still biased then IMO. If it had been commissioned by a third party, fine. But they've still set the parameters for the study.

The bias also showed up to anyone with common sense when News Corp photoshopped Rudd into Nazi uniforms.

Have you ever met a DT reader? :lol:

Any third party interested enough to commission the study would have some form of inherent interest in the outcome and thus would be biased.

Fair call :lol:

International media or international election watchdogs.