Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Don't Tell Us About It Janet

Oh Janet, Janet, Janet. I know you're a bright woman so I also know you're deliberately avoiding reality rather than just being ignorant of the facts to support your utterly wrong latest rant.

Here we go.

Last week an internal panel set up at the NYT to "improve our journalism" reported that, among other things, the NYT needed to lift its game on reporting religion in America. It found, as just one example, that its coverage of gay marriage "approaches cheerleading".

And what would you call your gay marriage assault or your objection to the two mums on Play School? You're an anti-gay cheerleader, as is the paper for which you write whose editorials tell homos to "just get over" wanting to get married and who hire columnists who will express identical sentiments.

In 2003 the Pew Research Centre found 51 per cent of Americans believed the press had a left-wing bias; 26 per cent thought it swung right. A Gallup poll revealed only 44 per cent of Americans were confident the media was capable of reporting news fairly and accurately.

But what about Australia - you know, the country in which you actually live? Need I remind you of how chronically stacked on your side are Australian newspaper columnists? What about the fact that every Murdoch newspaper and all but the SMH in the Fairfax "Chateau" gave us Vote Howard editorials on the day of the last election (which somewhat negates your "media was conducting a love affair with Mark Latham" argument)?

I'm not sure what the figures are relating to bias perception by readers but it's really much more straightforward here: Murdoch owns 60% of the print media in Australia. Murdoch newspapers have a right-wing bias. Therefore, the majority of print media is right-wing.

Television media: Sure, I wouldn't deny that perhaps Aunty's not always so objective as she should be, but have you tuned into channels 7,9 or 10 lately? Naomi Robson isn't exactly crying "Revolution!" under her pearls. Can't see any shrine to Marx in the background of A Current Affair. Therefore, by a 3:2 ratio Australian commercial media is clearly biased to the right.

Tired of the left-wing media bias, particularly after September 11, 2001, bloggers mounted a serious challenge. As US blogger Matt Welch told Anderson, his blogging was a "direct response to reading five days' worth of outrageous bullshit in the media from people like Noam Chomsky".

Again, Jan, what about keeping it in Australia and talking about all the excellent left media commentators who give us a fresh, non-Rupert persepective on reality? You see, in Adelaide and Brisbane, hundreds of thousands of people have little choice but to drown in the Murdoch ocean because there's no serious alternative. At least New Yorkers jack of the NYT can go to the NY Post or some other quality Murdoch publication.

While the quality of blogging varies wildly, the best bloggers, such as Australia's Tim Blair (timblair.net), are checking facts, reporting news, breaking stories and giving alternative commentary to that found in large sections of the old media.

Gee, couldn't have seen this ringing endorsement coming from space.

Old media derides the blogger as "a guy sitting in his living room in his pyjamas writing what he thinks".

Really? Strange, I could have sworn Margo Kingston's Web Diary, (uber-right) Alan Anderson's Razor and Greg Baine's, John Boase's, Tim Dunlop's, Philip Gomes', Jozef Imrich's and Guido Tresoldi's blog sites have all variously been linked to the online SMH at some point. Can't see where the derision lies there? I'd say it's far more indicative of old media moving with the times and embracing blogging.

Old media detests the Fox phenomenon and those dastardly "shock jocks" -- you know, those radio broadcasters who often attract more listeners than newspapers have readers.

Proving my point all along that the Murdoch empire has never been concerned with truth, integrity or investigative journalism but whether it can make as much money as shock jocks do. Personally, I don't detest the Fox phenomenon personally, I merely detest the gutter level to which it has dragged down journalism. Hate the sin, not the sinner and all that.

(Old media) might notice the rise of evangelical religion, or the swing back to family values, even at the expense of feminist dogma.

At the last election, Family First was a case of Family Who? The media had no idea, and when they did catch up, the reporting was done with just enough disdain to offend your mainstream reader.

Since when? I remember numerous columnists and editorials apologising for FF and its dyke-burning ways. In fact very conveniently, over at the Chateau, Miranda wrote a glowing piece on FF only two days before the election.

You're of course perfectly entitled to your opinion, Janet. Could you please just even now and then actually be correct and accurate? Please?

2 Comments:

At 19/5/05 12:39 pm, Anonymous Bazza said...

Sam. Whats so frightening about our Janet, is that I think she believes the crap she writes. Consolation is Media Watch, who have exposed our Janet. This has upset The Australian so much, their running a campaign against Media Watch.

Love it !!

 
At 19/5/05 6:44 pm, Anonymous Rodney said...

Albrechtsen's tactic is typical of right wing commentators. Accuse others of bias to divert attention from your own. The same dynamic's at work when they accuse others of being Howard/Catholic/freedom/democracy haters. It's they who do most of the hating.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home