Talk:The Sydney Morning Herald

Bias

I find the description about the Daily Telegraph to lean towards being biased. You may want to try rewording it.

I am changing the sensationalistic in the description of the Daily Telegraph, this seems bias in disscussing a papers reporting practices.

Bias, what?

What's the deal with

Although more journalistly responsible than The Daily Telegraph, several of the paper's leading journalists, particularly Miranda Devine and Gerard Henderson are well known for their so-called "conservative" (right-wing) views and in previous times the Herald was noted for its conservatism.

The phrase 'although more journalistically responsible' seems to suggest a dichotomy with journalistic integrity on the one hand and conservatism on the other. Doesn't this sound more NPOV

The modern Herald is noted for its journalistic integrity and editorial balance, with both left leaning contributors like David Marr and cartoonist Michael Leunig, and conservative writers such as Miranda Devine and Gerard Henderson. However, historically the paper has been characterised as a right of centre counter-point to the liberal Melbourne Age, especially during David Syme's tenure as editor of the latter.

This article must be improved to compete with The Age's!

Sir Politic, KBE 15:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Move to Sydney Morning Herald?

Am I tripping, or did this used to be there? But there's nothing in the move log, so... weird.

Anyway should this actually be at the above address? I have a feeling there's a wikipolicy on not having "The" in the title, even if that's the official name. eg. University of Melbourne. Thoughts? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The proper name of the paper is "The Sydney Morning Herald". The article should stay as it is. --Centauri 19:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethics policy

An earlier edit of this article removed the information on the Herald's ethics policy. This was the reason given: (→Journalism - everyone newspaper has an ethics policy, not worth mentioning in such detail especially if only marketing prose is going to be used)

This is in fact not true - outside of the general code of ethics which applies to all working journalists in Australia, only The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald have published ethics polities which apply to the journalists they employ.

The reason the document is distinct from the general code of ethics (published by the MEAA, the journalist's union) is the Age/Herald ethics policy is far stricter - prohibiting a range of activies, including junkets, gifts etc, which are routinely accepted by other newspapers.

To my knowledge the only newspapers in the US and UK which have similar policies are the Guardian (UK), the LA Times, NY Times and Washington POst (US). (150.101.112.232 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

POV edit

An edit was just made to the article about the use of the word football, which was highly POV:

Controversially the Sydney Morning Herald has decided to call soccer "football". Rugby League is accepted as football in Sydney although the Herald had been calling AFL "football" for the previous few years. This move was met with almost universal condemnation and has been percieved as foreign "English cultural imperialism" as the editor, Alan Oakley, originated from England. Oakley controversially refused to publish condemnatory letters about the move, only publishing positive letters. Although an accepted practice in Murdoch tabloids, this was looked down upon by many who thought that Fairfax had higher standards. The Sydney Morning Herald sales have since continued to decline.

It might have some place, but the attribution of declining sales to the use of the word football to describe soccer is ridiculous. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Centre Right?

The Sydney Morning Herald? Cente Right? Get out! The paper openly supported the Labor Party in the last election! Ronan.evans 03:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC) u stupid idiot- it was said 2 be centre left--- i smell the words of liberalism, and so called "conservatism".

Better tell those paragons of bleeding heart liberalism Miranda Devine and Gerald Henderson they're with the wrong paper in that case. --Centauri 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

They're exceptions. The overall editorial leaning of the paper is centre-left. mgekelly 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we just sit on the fence and describe it as centrist? The paper's editorial position depends on the issue. It generally leans towards economic and social liberalism, but that's a very broad generalisation. --Kewpid 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the paper decided in 2004 that it would no longer offer an editorial endorsement of either side in elections. seems pretty determinedly centrist to me Dibo 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "political allengience" necessary? Anyhow, I for one agree that 'centrist' is the most accurate description; publishing stories on 'social issues' doesn't make it a lefty. Htra0497 27 August 2006 16:48 (AET)

The Herald has endorsed the NSW Liberal/National parties at every NSw election except the last one. That said, I think a better description than 'centre-right' or 'centre-left' is 'anti-incumbent'. Jeendan 03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the smh pretty regularly and agree with the above statements. It tends to take a centre left approach to most issues like social justice, environmentalism, multiculturalism and republicanism. For comparison check out The Daily Telegraph or The Australian. The general consensus seems to be in favour to edit its allegiance. Imalegend (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The herald is a part of the liberal media. Deviantly capitalistic and ready to exploit any oppurtunity to denounce left wing principles, it even calls soccer football in keeping with its general accelerated decadent world media "oppurtunity to be a part of the world community" liberal type of approach. It is a liberal conservative paper that propagates general bourgeois values like humanist charity, minority loving, human rights, liberal economies, constantly abused principles etc. The Telegraph is not so much right-wing as populist and is obviously a Murdoch paper. Politically they are not really worth comparing as the SMH takes a stance that has at its core, very bourgeois policy support. The SMH will support the most John Stuart Mills type of party and the Telegraph will support whoever they think will win. --Ehinger222 11:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reformat

Did a reformat that I hope is not too controversial. --Ehinger222 11:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you have pretty much removed all mention of the political leanings from both the Daily Telegraph article AND the SMH article, any justification for this edit? Additionally what source backs up the claim that the telegraph has a higher circulation than the Herald, or for that matter why is the telegraph even mentioned in this article? Im seeing POV all over the recent edits. BTAUS 13:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of wholesale removal of large chunks of text, how about a bit of creative editing. Admittedly some of the previous was not needed, see blogs, but there was still valid infortmation in the rest of it. Nomadtales 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that either of the two papers are very different politically, one is just far more sensationalist. I have revrted the whole thing. If in depth coverage of politics is required, than I think a new page should be created for the whole thing as I think it is just too complicated and difficult to grasp on a page that is meant to give an outline of the paper. Also I think there was massive bias in how the herald was treated compared to the Telegraph so I was simpl being bold about it. --Ehinger222 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me the the Tele is centre-right and the SMH is centre-left, but it seems equally clear otherwise to others. I find the SMH sensationalises on its pet issues, for example the environment, transport and urban planning. Others think the Tele sensationalises on education, health and crime. What matters is what is verifiable. A close inspection of either paper shows that they do not toe a consistent line politically across all their content. It may be frustrating, but in the absence of credible, verifiable sources on the two papers' allegiances, we'll have to leave politics and style characterisations out. Joestella 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The head honcho of fairfax, Ron Walker, is a liberal. How the herald can be called left wing is beyond me. --Ehinger222 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I will soon delete this section. Non-notable and only contains links to a personal blog. How's that for dubious? I think added by someone with an agenda to push. Recurring dreams 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I support that DXRAW 06:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's back. Tim Blair is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article: the SMH itself called him the "top dog among the new Australian digerati". Joestella 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A throaway line in an article about blogging is not enough to make Tim Blair an authoratative resource. Furthermore the incident mentioned is not notable, with no coverage or commentary from mainstream media. Recurring dreams 00:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "Recurring dreams", but just because you would prefer there be no criticism of the SMH, doesn't lift that criticism out of existence. The policy in question did receive coverage in the mainstream media (the Herald Sun), but no web link is available. Joestella 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I have never said anywhere I would prefer no criticism of the SMH. In fact, if you have properly referenced criticism of the SMH surrounding a major issue, discussed in the mainstream media, then please go nuts. But in the meantime, I would prefer that half the "politics" section of the a major newspaper not be filled with commentary from a blogger.Recurring dreams 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe that paragraph is not acceptable for a number of reasons. It's unencyclopedic, uses weasel words and has a single blog as the only cited source. Claiming that people removing the paragraph are trying to hide criticism is a straw man. It draws potentially defamatory conclusions that need to be backed up by reliable sources. Sarah 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible under Australian law to defame a corporation. Please don't peddle faulty legal advice to back your talk page arguments: talk of "potentially defamatory conclusions" on this page is overblown. Joestella 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, although I disagree with the suggestion that the source is unreliable, the consensus appears to have gone the other way on this. Joestella 01:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Peddle faulty legal advice?" You've got to be joking. I haven't giving legal advice, but just for your info, and not specifically about this particular issue, Wikipedia's servers are in Florida and we operate under the Florida and US legal system, not Australia's. And I wasn't actually talking about defaming a corporation. I was referring to comments on that blog, that you want us to link directly to at least twice, that include comments that may be capable of identifying, you know, living people. You seriously need to cut the invective and crap you keep injecting into talk pages and edit summaries. Sarah 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Sarah. Calm down. My views are not "crap" simply because you disagree. On the issue under discussion here, a consensus has emerged. I accept that. Move on.

That said, it is important that you not attempt to cloak your arguments in legalese when you are misrepresenting the law. Wikipedia is not deemed responsible for user-generated comments attached to the content of linked sites, here or in the US. And it is my understanding that US law is even more friendly to publishers than Australian law in matters of defamation. The paragraph, and Blair's blog posts, do not identify the originators of the SMH policy in question. The only entity that could even begin to claim it was defamed is the SMH itself.

Again, to use inaccurate references to the law to back up your perspectives on talk pages is the sort of discussion technique that is likely to intimidate other editors. I'd ask that you, as it were, "cease and desist". ;) Joestella 04:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Election endorsements

In recent years, the SMH has endorsed both Labor and Liberal campaigns at election time. In 2003, they endorsed the state Labor government. At the 2004 federal election, they announced a new policy of not endorsing anyone, with the caveat that "A truly awful government of any colour, for example, would bring reappraisal." In 2007's state election they endorsed the Coalition. Jeendan's wording "once again endorsed the Coalition" suggests that the SMH reverted to type, when in recent times the paper has been willing to support either party. Joestella 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Herald front page

I realise that the "Race riots explode" front page is getting a bit old, but I think it is more photogenic than the recent upload which is a bit bland. The bland one is more representative of a typical day's cover though. What do others think? Kewpid 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did like the symmetry of having the same story on the SMH and Tele cover illustrations. But the one you've put up is nicer to look at. And Earth Hour is referenced in the article. Joestella 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Earth Hour reference is far too prominent in this article. It was a good cause but not such a "big deal" that it is worthy of a mention here. Downunda 23:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, the Earth Hour now has quite a bit of prominence in the article... though it doesn't reflect well on the paper. Joestella 09:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reshuffle of sections?

Is it just me or does everything seem a bit out of order?

At the moment its

Intro

1. Contributors
2. Overview
3. Circulation
4. Features
5. History
6. Editors

I would argue that it should be something like:

Intro

1. History
2. Overview
3. Contributors
4. Previous Editors
5. Circulation
6. Features

Perhaps even a merging of History and Overview is on the cards? Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpk82 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Merge Column 8

I propose merging Column 8 with this article, since there is 100% overlap and Column 8 fails the notability test. Joestella 12:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge After reading both articles, there appears to be no overlap, the column is distinct in its own right with its own history, etc, and merits an article to distinguish it clearly from the main part of the newspaper. Where would it go if merged in here? DanielT5 13:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read The Sydney Morning Herald. You will find the overlap. The column has no history outside the pages of the SMH and cannot reasonably be considered distinct. Joestella 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Column 8 is a long running feature of the SMH and should definetly be in this article. --Nick Dowling 01:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge per DanielT5 DXRAW 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to know how DXRAW came to the conclusion that 'Column 8' is "distinct in its own right with its own history". Care to add this knowledge to the article? Joestella 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per DanielT5. JRG 07:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that this even needed to be brought up for a vote as Column 8 is a section of the SMH and is no way notable except as a feature of the Herald. While it looks like the merge is going to be voted down and I guess that the merge shouldn't go ahead if that is the case, it seems that several people don't seem to have a rationale for their vote - something which I believe is generally frowned on. --Nick Dowling 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to merge it and a couple of users reverted it, saying that while they supported the move, it needed a discussion. Those users haven't contributed to this discussion, of course. DanielT5, DXRAW and I go way back. Joestella 08:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of these users DXRAW 08:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear DXRAW is editing in bad faith. The evidence is where you'd expect. Talk:Column 8.

• Recurring dreams: "I do accept your decision on the article"
• Sarah: objected to a unilateral merge, but expressed no opinion on the merge as such
• Calair: "I am inclined to agree that this article could be absorbed into the SMH article"

Does that help? Joestella 08:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added this to the list of proposed mergers. You can see why I tried to avoid this whole process to begin with: these votes aren't intellectually rigorous, they just get personal. Joestella 08:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support, I am not getting personal, and am very much an outsider, but I agree with Joestrella and Nick, Column 8 is a small part of The Sydney Morning Herald and always has been, the article is never going to grow in size from nothing more than a stub. The content should be merged into this article and redirected to here. Easily done. Nomadtales 10:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

...a couple of users reverted it, saying that while they supported the move, it needed a discussion. Those users haven't contributed to this discussion, of course. Actually, what was said - as can be seen at Talk:Column 8 - was that people should be given the chance to discuss it. My personal opinion is that Joestella's arguments for merging are reasonable, I haven't seen any convincing arguments against, and therefore it should be merged. But I also think that when several editors are likely to object to such a move - and I count three above who did - soliciting input first is a better way to handle things.

Also, remarks like "It's pretty clear DXRAW is editing in bad faith" aren't helpful - AFAICT, DXRAW simply missed the fact that the reverts you mentioned had taken place on Column 8 rather than here. Better to avoid such accusations unless all innocent explanations have been eliminated. --Calair 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Calair, rather than attacking me again, why not take a look at the sequence of events, and the text of the comments, here. The three opponents of the merge are opposing "per" DanielT5's spurious reasoning that "column is distinct in its own right with its own history," a gratuitous untruth from a man who I doubt has ever seen a copy of the Herald. I have a right to be suspicious of their motives. I feel vindicated in that this remains an uncontroversial merge. So can we put you down for a support, or are you just here to stick the boot in? Joestella 14:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: "...therefore it should be merged". I'm not sure how that could be further clarified. I support merging via the current process, but not via that which you originally attempted, nor your belligerent tone towards other editors. --Calair 03:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Support per commonsense. ChampagneComedy 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment there is no commonsense DXRAW 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support, Column 8 is an SMH institution and is worthy of a mention on Wikipedia, but a separate page is unnecessary. Merge into SMH article and redirect link. Euryalus 11:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - another stupid idea. Column 8 is a Sydney institution. Albatross2147 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really an institution in isolation from the SMH? It's even named after where it historically appeared on the SMH's front page! --Nick Dowling 08:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Unless someone comes up with some references to support the Column 8 article, independant of the publisher, Sydney Morning Herald.Garrie 10:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the suggested merge tag, as there appeared to be no consensus after several weeks of discussion. The last comment was 3 weeks ago (not five as I stated in my edit summary - a counting error, sorry). On that basis I am assuming this conversation has died a natural death.

Please revive it if you feel there is merit in further discussion. Euryalus 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Sun-Herald

I propose merging The Sun-Herald with this article.

• There is little information on the Sun-Herald, so anything on the paper can be added to the SMH article, at least for now
• Other Australian newspaper articles do not have separate articles for the Saturday and Sunday editionsJoestella 12:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose established in 1953 a separate paper and now has 53 years of history. It also has its own editor, reporters and staff. Deserves own article. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think most Australian Sunday newspapers have their own editor, but no other Australian Sunday newspaper has its own article. Joestella 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Ianblair23 DXRAW 06:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Ianblair23. JRG 07:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Support the Sun Herald is only the Sunday edition of the SMH, even if it does have different staff. The Sunday Telegraph forms part of the The Daily Telegraph (Australia) article. --Nick Dowling 09:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Ianblair23 Not only does the Sun Herald have different staff, it has a different editorial position (its supported Labor in the 2007 NSW election, in contrast to the SMH, Tele, Sunday Tele). Just because there is a limited amount now doesn't mean more cannot be added. Recurring dreams 11:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of this pro-Labor editorial position? The Sun-Herald can't run an election-eve recommendation, and no Sun-Herald editorials seem to appear on their website they share with the SMH. Joestella 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sun-Herald doesn't post its editorials online (I think). But here's a good wrap up of editorial positions (and an extract from the Sun-Herald editorial) on William's excellent pollbludger site here: Link Recurring dreams 13:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if any of this material should be added to New South Wales general election campaign, 2007. Joestella 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Support, should be part of Sydney Morning Herald article until the content is there to warrant a separate article. WikiTownsvillian 09:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I would support if the Sun-Herald was always just a Sunday spin-off from the SMH, but if it was actually a completely seperate newspaper that Fairfax just bought up then it would have had its own history to start with, so therefore I would oppose. After a quick glance, in the article and on the Sun-Herald webpage, I can't see an answer to that question, so perhaps someone here knows. Nomadtales 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairfax bought the Sun, which had its own history, and discontinued it in favour of a new Sun-Herald. I'm not opposed to an article on the now-defunct Sun, but apart from its start and end dates we have no info on it. Joestella 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment the Sun Herald doesn't have its own website - it appears on the SMH's website. --Nick Dowling 10:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support per commonsense. ChampagneComedy 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment ChampagneComedy, could you please explain how it is "commonsense" to go ahead with this merge. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, the Sun Herald has its own editorial staff, journalists and political/cultural views. It is to all intents and purposes a separate newspaper to the SMH.Euryalus 11:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - stupid idea by lunatic deletionistas - Ianblair23 offers less combative reasons with which I agree Albatross2147 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the suggested merge tag, as there appeared to be no consensus after several weeks of discussion. The last comment was 3 weeks ago (not five as I stated in my edit summary - a counting error, sorry). On that basis I am assuming this conversation has died a natural death. Please revive it if you feel there is merit in further discussion. Euryalus 03:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of Wikipedia at SMH

More than just a war of words - Not sure if this is worth mentioning at this article, or elsewhere on Wikipedia?Garrie 10:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says more about Wikipedia than the SMH. Can we put it there? Recurring dreams 22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

how about Wikipedia:Press coverage. WikiTownsvillian 22:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

educated population

DXRAW, your 'source' says nothing about the education levels of the readership of the SMH, your statement is POV. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Howdy WikiTownsvillian - we must have been editing at the same time - I had noticed that POV and adjusted as you will see on the edit summary. Cheers!--VS ^talk 08:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not 'my' statement DXRAW 09:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Let's calm down a little more - it's Sunday and we are all on the same team. Statement was adjusted (and then re-adjusted by another anon editor). I am sure that WikiTownsvillian didn't mean anything personal, and naturally (as I hope all will understand) once something is referenced by an editor -s/he assumes some ownership of that alleged fact.--VS ^talk 09:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They should not and i don't assume ownership because of WP:OWN DXRAW 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that type of ownership DXRAW my words say 'some ownership - in otherwords I am saying - if you don't want to defend it, don't reference it - WP:AGF please!--VS ^talk 10:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Radical redesign" in 2000

The article states that paper was radically redesigned in 200, but does not provide any detail. I am not aware of the details or I would put it in myself. Can anyone who is a longer-term Sydney resident provide additional material to flesh this out? Euryalus 09:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it used to have comlumn 8 on the front page and the letters to the editor were on the other side of the editorial page. --144.132.216.253 15:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Good Weekend (Sydney Morning Herald) to SMH

• as per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Column 8, proposer merger from Good Weekend (Sydney Morning Herald) --Matilda ^talk 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • done --Matilda ^talk 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Political viewpoint

I thought Granny had recommended a vote for the ALP the 1961 Federal Election hence the close run thing that year. Albatross2147 (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Political allegiance Centre-Left?

Is there a source for this? Otherwise, I would think this technically falls under "original research", and with the lack of any source even suggesting the possibility of them being "allied" to centre-left, I suggest that this "Political allegiance" claim be removed entirely. If it isn't claimed by Sydney Morning Herald, nor by any other reputable source, it doesn't belong in this article. Aielyn (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking through again, and I see most people here in the discussion page are saying that they're mostly "centrist" and "anti-incumbent". I'm going to go ahead and remove the "Political Allegiance" entirely - if someone thinks it should be reinstated, please provide a source for the claim. Aielyn (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)