|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Courier-Mail article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The Courier Mail published an article 'Scissor Killer' around or on June/October 1980/1983? Can anyone direct me to this article which seems not to be found? email@example.com
- An article THAT old will never be online for most newspapers (it is well before the internet took off), especially a News Ltd one. I suggest a library, particularly the State Library. Dankru 10:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
From the last paragraph:
"It is common in government and political circles to discuss if any decision would pass the "Courier-Mail Test", meaning that if the results of the action were to go public, and all the positive aspects removed, how would any potential negative aspects be scandalised by the Courier Mail and thus what risks need to be mitigated early".
Let Me Google That For You:
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/speaker-urges-retention-of-parly-changes/story-e6frfku9-1226740134720 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/50098258 http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/resources/pdf/published/2011/june/decision_td17_2010_100611.pdf http://timkastelle.org/blog/2010/06/good-failure-and-bad-failure-in-public-sector-innovation/ http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-health-boss-quits-over-payroll-bullying-20101020-16t6p.html
Sorry don't have time to add these, plus I have no idea how , )
Found a paper which gives the "evidence" quoted but other factors argue for a left of centre position. My own understanding is that it is, for the most part, a left of centre paper - editorials and the odd columnist\blogger aside. Given the discrepancy a blanket "right wing paper" statement is not really appropriate right? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I can't speak about a range of subjects but I do know up until around the late 1990s they took a strong anti-homosexual position. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- To restart the discussion, the only citation we have in the article is to  from which the statistic of 4 out of 5 elections has the CM supporting the Coalition support is taken from the table on page 19. It should be noted that all but one newspaper was a majority Coalition supporter in those elections (showing support 3, 4 or 5 times out of 5) so the CM is by no means unusual in its support for the Coalition in that timeframe. However, if one looks at almost every other table in the source, the CM fairly consistently shows as right of the *average* of the group of newspapers as a whole, but still slightly left of centre based on absolute anonymised coding. That is, it takes a slightly left-of-centre position while the average newspaper is slightly-more-left-of-centre. Indeed, the general tenure of all the newspapers' reporting appears to be more to the left than to the right (which seems strange given the election support being more to the Coalition). I note that the report does not draw any conclusions itself about the CM; all we have is the data in the tables to make an interpretion (which might be WP:OR). I also note that this report is over 10 years old, so it is describing the CM over 10 years ago. I am wondering if that's a particularly reliable source to describe the CM today? Do we really have any evidence beyond our own POV on this issue? Should we stop describing its political position in the absence of a reliable source? Kerry (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)