Talk:The Australian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon The Australian is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.


Removed section "In sections of the Canberra press gallery The Australian is nicknamed "The Government Gazette", due to its anti-Labor stance on key issues and the propensity for details of important government initiatives to miraculously appear on its front page, complete with direct quotes from ministers, before the announcements have been made.[citation needed]" - definitely POV

The newspaper is outspoken in its support of action to improve the lot of Aboriginal Australians.[1][edit]

The citation here is not an example of this assertion, as it is muddied by the more consistent Australian theme of criticism of Labor policy and behaviour (of course entirely appropriate in this case.) Find a better citation to support this assertion. The paper does claim to be outspoken in its support of action to improve the lot of Aboriginal Australians, but this is not a neutral POV. --Spamburgler 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Recurring dreams 04:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


The Australian is described as an influential paper not because of how many people read it but because of who reads it - the political elite and the business class.[1]

Remove this section. Reference doesn't work, and for claims such as these I think we would need a third party citation rather than the paper itself. Recurring dreams 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Influential? Possibly so. A pretentious, self-important rag for Australia's third-rate aristocrats and Nouveau riche. ZwickauDeluxe 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution. Zaxios 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


I put up a POV tag, as the article is extremely biased when it comes to any perceived political leanings of the paper. Cheers, Rothery 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed though I think there's more issues than just that. I've put the POV tag back up there. There needs to be a criticism section for starters, because this paper has definitely had its fair share - Drthatguy (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to be more specific. The political leanings section is supported by refs and is reasonably accurate. What is wrong, and why? I suppose I'd actually put the paper as more centrist to right, rather than right of centre, myself.Greglocock (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has removed the pov tag. i think this the right thing to do. if you have a pov concern then by all means tag the article but please detail the issue here.Greglocock (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Excuse me, I'm not a wiki person, but shouldn't it be mentioned that Rupert Murdock owns this paper? It's odd that his name does not appear once on "The Australian" wiki (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It says it is owned by News Limited. Is that incorrect? Greglocock (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply Greglocock. I'm and I just created a first-time account.

Why does the Wiki entry for the "New York Post" have this entry, "Since 1993, it has been owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation..." and no such disclosure is made for "The Australian" published by News Limited?

Right now the fact that "The Australian" is owned by Rupert Murdock appears to be buried, IMHO.

Would it be a defacement if I noted that publisher News Limited is owned by Rupert Murdock? One advantage would be the creation of a direct Wiki link to Rupert Murdock instead of a couple of degrees of separation as it stands now... or would that be considered too much information for Wikipedia?Davemartin7777 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That rather depends. Does Rupert Murdoch own News Corp? I get the impression that he holds fewer than 50% of the shares and hence does not own it. However there is no doubt that he effectively controls Newscorp.Greglocock (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe Gersh — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Government Gazette"[edit]

Regarding "The Australian's perceived Liberal-Conservative views have led some to nickname it 'The Government Gazette', especially among some journalists, including sections of the Canberra press gallery." First, this is plainly not NPOV. Second, the SMH article cited does not support the statement. (It says "Perhaps bloggers' repeated reference to the paper as The Government Gazette tweaked the editor on a bad day." There is no reference to the Canberra press gallery or the use of the nickname among journalists.) Third, the insulting nicknames given to The Australian are not of encyclopedic value. So I'm cutting the line. Zaxios 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll remove the POV tag as well. Zaxios 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell considers the newspaper to be of the centre-right[edit]

Is that before or after they allowed a comparison to the mythological protector of the Chinese? The newspaper is obviously not comfortable with the government's foreign policy, and it should be stated as such for balance. Ottre (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Real Climate award[edit]

For some time the following has been included and removed repeatedly from the "Persuasion" section.

In 2008 the newspaper was named the 'Most Consistently Wrong Media Outlet' by the science blog Real Climate (Referenced at [2])

Earlier versions were much more POV and I tried to neutralize it. The question is, should it be included at all? It is a statement of fact - the blog did publish the "award" in 2008. The blog (as far as I can determine) is reasonably credible. The sentence could help to provide balance to the article (i.e. "criticism" as well as praise). I must admit I never liked the paragraph but, in fairness, I couldn't just delete it altogether. Any thoughts? Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree earlier versions were better. Without presenting context it seems to me that this is being given undue weight. Perhaps if there were a whole para on the paper's schizophrenic 'stance' on GCC, it would be enough to make this worth including. (That is some journos are believers and publish born-again articles, but the general weight of the articles is distinctly sceptical). I still struggle with using a blog as a ref. As a skeptic I'd actually proclaim that award as a sign of success. Greglocock (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
While RealClimate may not be as credible as a peer reviewed scientific journal, it is no less credible than The Australian, and significantly more credible on issues of science. RealClimate is by no means the only source that has criticised coverage by The Australian of global warming science and policy. Woood (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
So have any reliable sources criticised the paper's stance on climate change? THAT is the test. real climate is not an acknowledged authority on the media.Greglocock (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


The persuasion section is particularly worrying to me, I don't disagree that it would be accurate to describe the paper as right leaning but the wording of the section seems overly loaded.Theworld2 (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's work on it. Look at The Melbourne Parish Magazine for comparison. Actually I think centre right is the wrong phrase, but that is what an editor said. I'd have said conservative, in its true sense. Persuasion might be the wrong heading as well. Greglocock (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think for a start we should get rid of the bit about left wing journalists naming it the Govt Gazette, the source for it is the SMH, clear bias/conflict of interest there.Theworld2 (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoa there, Dobbin. Sources merely need to supply the reference, they don't have to be unbiased or whatever. After all if the editor of the paper is quoted, that's obviously CoI/biased, for example. Having said that, i agree it doesn't add much to an encyclopedic article. The article on The Age is probably a good model for this one, its a lot less bitchy, since presumably the editors who are interested are all of one mind about it, whereas this one seems to have seen some edit-warring. I think changing the Persuauion header to say Outlook, or something, would be better. Greglocock (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Persuasion 2010[edit]

I removed the following edit, which replaced the entire previous persusion section:

The Australian is also an asset of media conglomerate News Corporation, whose holdings include Fox News, which has been the subject of criticism for a political right leaning at the expense of neutrality. (Referenced with this source).

This is original research. The source does not say anything about The Australian, so the editor was conducting their own analysis, linking two thoughts - implying that the newspaper is right-wing and not neutral because it is owned by News, which, in turn, owns Fox News. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

None of that sequence of edits was useful, not worth mentioning imo. Greglocock (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Twitter libel/climate change bit[edit]

Is this not a storm in a teacup? If so why is it here? And I bet you cannot find a single reliable ref that supports Lomborg disagreeing with the consensus on AGW, that bit is pure pot stirring. If you read his books as opposed to repeating the alarmist drivel you'd know that. Greglocock (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Destruction of the greens[edit]

While the enthusiastic editor is making a fool of himself in public I'd say that it is fairly unusual for a newspaper to recommend destroying an elected political party at the ballot boxes. Is this not worth a section? Greglocock (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've just re-instated some of this (fully referenced) material. (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that sections containing phrases such as "The Australian tends to lean quite erroneously to the right" and "biases/belittiling of Greens" are clearly POV. I was right to delete them. Please remember that since this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, it's meant to be neutral, merely stating the facts, not your opinions.

The main problem I have is with having a section devoting itself to The Australian's editorials and columns about the Greens. I'm afraid that they are simply not that notable. Having said that, I was perhaps mistaken in choosing to delete the lot. It's just that the section was originally extremely POV, and many contributors seem to want to devote large sections of the article to their grievances with The Australian's criticisms of the left side of politics in order to make the article reflect their personal attitudes towards The Oz. I think that it suffices simply to state what the newspaper's general political position is, and the fact that that arouses some controvery. In an effort to reach a compromise however I have amended the article to include the Greens controversy. I think a brief mention of it may be appropriate. Let me know if you are happy with it or object. (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks about right to me. Now, is that bit called Related Events really notable? Newspapers in oz have all had suppression orders at one time or another. and even if the material should be in the article, it is in the wrong place and mistitled. Greglocock (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please retain the section regarding the controversy with the Greens - it is ridiculous to keep removing it. There are clearly sockpuppets from the Australian at work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it does need a section on it. However, your request is fairly hypocritical, since you fail to discuss why you ignore specific requests on the talk page and in the article itself. So don't expect much tolerance from me. Greglocock (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Alignment[edit]

Unless someone can convince me otherwise I think it is not unreasonable to ask that a RS be used for any change to this in the infobox. I'd have thought a direct quote from the editor is a pretty hard statement to argue with on this. I'd go one step further and point out that the spectrum of opinion in The Australian ranges far wider than that of The Age, yet the latter article doesn't even bother with the silly tag. Greglocock (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This analysis gives no indication the paper provided a centrist view towards coverage of the 2010 federal election. Many of the columnists have a conservative perspective and/or are critical of Labor governments. I don't read newspapers but I am aware they publish opinion pieces skeptical of climate change and employ right-wing extremists like Andrew Bolt. What evidence is there to claim a centrist perspective? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
A) the editor says it is is centre-right (as comfortable with Rudd as howard) B) Bolt does not write for the Oz regularly, he writes regularly for a tabloid. C) "I don't read newspapers" -it shows, but yet you still have an opinion on them. D) "Many of the columnists have a conservative perspective and/or are critical of Labor governments. " true. Philip Adams, Mike Steketee, Errol Simper, and others are all also regular contributors. Not exactly a bunch of right wingers. E) "they publish opinion pieces skeptical of climate change" They also publish pieces that promote the AGW fairy tale.
So it would appear you don' know what you are talking about. However this is wiki so I have to give the impression that I take you seriously. Greglocock (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Shiftchange has observed on my talk page that quoting what the editor /thinks/ the political stance is, is not really a secondary source for that stance. I agree. Greglocock (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is this paper without 'political alignment' in the info box? Reading over the above i am amazed that there is ambiguity about its political alignment. It is clearly a conservative paper. No reasonable person could doubt this. It is openly 'socially conservative', and openly to the right of politics in its economic support of unfettered free market policies. Australia's only dominant Left Wing Party (The Greens), and its centre-Left Party (the ALP) have regularly and persistently noted the papers conservative leanings for over two decades. The paper employs arch conservative political commentators almost exclusively. It is referred to by other media outlets and newspapers as 'conservative'. Do you mean to tell me that because its editor once stated that it supports the economic policies of the know defunct Rudd government that we should deny commonsense and pretend it is 'centre-right'. It is a conservative paper and known as such internationally. Like all papers on WIKI this political alignment should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crapeblaser (talkcontribs) 11:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, find a reliable source that gives a political alignment. FWIW none of the 3 Australian large circulation papers I checked (Age, SMH, Hun) bothered with this simplistic red rag classification in the info box. In this context I suggest the bar should be set quite high for what is considered an RS. Greglocock (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless the editor of the paper self-proclaims a political alignment for the paper, then none should be professed on the wiki page. One's perspective on political alignment is relative to ones own political position. Claiming as fact that the paper is "conservative" or "leftist" only reflects the political alignment of the reader, which should be omitted from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhmailcenter (talkcontribs) 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that gives a political alignment for the paper? You could try the already existing reference on the page (reference six) which states that the paper is "generally conservative". Academic Robert Manne's various articles on the Australian media reference the papers conservative political alignment also. I can chase that source up if it helps. The Australian should be exempt from political alignment because other Australian papers are? Seems a bizarre argument. Why should Australian papers be exempt from these classifications? Are you suggesting it is a given that Australian papers are neutral where other nations papers aren't? The Guardian is described on Wiki as centre-Left, The Times as moderate conservative. Why? Because that is an accurate description of those papers political alignments. Just as 'conservative' is an accurate description of the Australian. By the bye, claiming that a paper is 'leftist' or 'conservative' does not simply reflect the bias of the reader. The Times is conservative in its political alignment, that is why Tory's read it. The Guardian is leftist in its political alignment, that is why Left Labour and Lib Dem types are its audience. Similarly, The Australian reflects the views of its target audience - who are socially right leaning, free market neo-conservatives. Everyone knows this but wikipedia. I find it bizarre that it is possible to classify China Daily as conservative on wiki, yet impossible to state such a basic fact about The Australian!

"Unless the editor of the paper self-proclaims a political alignment for the paper, then none should be professed on the wiki page." So despite commonly held views, it is the subjects self description that becomes fact on a wiki page.

The Australian is a conservative read. It is right leaning. Not a massive call. Something that is commonly understood in Australia. Yet unspeakable on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freighttrain6574 (talkcontribs) 15:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You've messed up the format of this page. As to your stupid accusation, at least when people accuse me of COI they usually manage to get my employer right. If you had bothered to read the above properly you'd see that I agreed with another editor that my inital statement was not satisfactory, so most of your rant is a waste of electrons. Find a reliable source, put it in, and that is fine by me. Greglocock (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Freightrain is removing parts of his rant so my reply may not make much sense. The history page reveals all. If anyone cares. Greglocock (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


This article is very lacking in the history of the newspaper. It's hard finding links because of the name:

--Surturz (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

antipathy this antipathy that[edit]

Does anybody remember any particularly sustained attacks by the The Australian on the Howard Government? Then we can go for a trifecta of antipathies. Greglocock (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't. Was that meant to be a rhetorical question. They don't work well on the web. If you want to make a point, make it directly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not rhetorical. I am pretty sure there was a caustic series of articles on some aspects of the Howard govt, but can't remember what it was about. Greglocock (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. They sunk the boot in about many aspects. They very very pro-republican when the PM was pro-monarchy. They kept on highlighting the leadership chances of Costello. They were scathing about government cover-ups, dissembling and incompetence. As they should be. Attacking government failings doesn't mean they are tracking one party over another. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably not of any great importance given that we aren't going to be emphasising this, but they criticised Ruddock fairly regularly over various stuff ups (haneef, various boatbeing stuff), and the AWB oil for wheat scandal was primarily publicised by the paper, and the public investigation was led by one of their journalists. So if you want your trifecta of antipathies, go for it. My opinion is that the Oz holds the government of the day to account, whether Liberal or Labor, but would agree that Labor's general ineptness apres Keating makes it an easier target. Greglocock (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Useful study on media slant[edit] table 6 is especially relevant. Greglocock (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Please explain why you think so. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Table 6 indicates that The Australian is not measurably different in editorial opinion at election time to most other newspapers. Many editors at wiki would be surprised to learn that, for instance the incoherent one a few paras up. Greglocock (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK vio[edit]

OK, any day now I'm going to tag this article for violating WP:ATTACK. The "antipathy" rubbish has to go. There is no evidence of impropriety on behalf of The Australian, only a few vested interests' name-calling. No-one has been arrested or sued over any of this stuff. --Surturz (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Australian: "We believe Bob Brown and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box". Their words, not ours. But then again, the Greens *are* evil. Timeshift (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Surturz, do you work for Murdoch? If you can't see anti-Green and anti-Labor bias in the Australian's reporting over the past couple of years, you must have the same bias yourself. We all have biases, but The Australian' is certainly not a middle of the road one. It belongs in the article, but I'm not sure how. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Surturz-Do you not think it is notable that a serious newspaper in a western democracy so strongly emphasises its disdain for a (n unfortunately) significant political party in an editorial? FWIW I agree, the ALP bit is just the usual cut and thrust, but since it doesn't bother me either way I reworded it to make it more sensible.
HiLo, cut the COI accusations. Greglocock (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
HiLo didn't make any COI accusations. Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
"do you work for Murdoch?" I suppose that was just a friendly inquiry as to his employment status? see veiled threat. You'll also notice some mouthbreather above asked me much the same question, it really is none of anyone's business. Greglocock (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been in talk page discussions on various articles with the two users over the years and to me it doesn't come across in the slightest as a serious question. It is not a COI accusation. Timeshift (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, sorry Greglocock (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC) ref for the ballot box comment. Incidentally wp:attack refers to pages, not sections Greglocock (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting view by News Ltd more generally. Who said journalism and opinion were two different things? Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What my opinions are about The Oz and who I work for are irrelevant - see WP:NPOV and WP:OUTING. Greg's link is to the editorial and it is WP:UNDUE and WP:OR - you need some other WP:RS quoting the "destroyed at the ballot box" editorial to establish notability. Ultimately, accusations of bias should not appear in this article unless there is some reliable evidence that the bias actually exists (e.g. legal action). Otherwise, it's just politicians being politicians and mouthing off about unfavourable headlines/editorials. As for newspaper editorials and opinion articles, they're _meant_ to express a viewpoint. They're hardly evidence of bias. --Surturz (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I never really assumed you worked for Murdoch. It was just my way of saying that your biases seem to match his big paper's very well. We are all biased. My political bias tends to match that of the Fairfax papers. Yours matches more closely that of The Australian. That's not a criticism, just an observation based on you claiming that the paper is not biased. From your perspective, it's not, and that's fine. That's why it's better that the article speaks of particular attacks from the paper, as it has clearly done against the ALP, and more blatantly The Green in recent years. (I reckon Murdoch must be terrified of them, given what his papers say about them.) I don't see the problem in describing the paper that way. That's what it is, while the Fairfax papers are less critical of the Greens and ALP. It's the reality of spreadsheet publishing in Australia today. Let's tell the story properly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Surturz, in your opinion is mediawhine or crikey a sufficient secondary source? Or am i just chasing a dead red herring? Greglocock (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You're not going to convince me that The Oz's "bias" is worth including, if that is what you are asking. As for secondary sources, the problem is that competing news organisations are always sledging each other (e.g. The Australian's "cut and paste" column, ABC's "Media Watch"). My opinion is that if we include any text on The Oz's supposed bias, then the article is inferring or alleging improper behaviour.
Newspapers are usually much more critical of the government than the opposition. This is right and proper. We need to be _very_ careful that we aren't confusing proper scrutiny of the ALP-Greens government with editorial misbehaviour.
Newspapers are certainly allowed to run opinion articles, to have an editorial voice, and even to recommend a way to vote at election time. As long as opinion isn't presented as fact, then there is no misbehaviour. What's the phrase? "Bias is better declared"! :-)
At this stage I'd like to point out that the "History" section on this article is woeful and needs work. Our energies would be much better spent on improving that section than trying to discredit the newspaper. --Surturz (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. And the lack of bias is right in the article!!!

In November 2006, The Australian journalist Caroline Overington was awarded both the Sir Keith Murdoch Award for Journalism and a Walkley for investigative journalism over her coverage of the AWB Oil-for-Wheat Scandal for the paper.[15] The following year, Hedley Thomas won the Gold Walkley Award for his coverage of the Haneef case.

So the paper went after the Coalition govt just as hard as it is now going after the ALP-Greens government. --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the 'anti' Lib examples. Yes I agree, proper newspapers do generally give the sitting government a hard time. Cheers Greglocock (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
My impression is that the attacks on The Greens have been going on from way before they became part of the government. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify the paper as being anti-ALP so much as anti bad government. Abbott and the Libs are not given the dream run by The Australian that a traditional political slant would necessarily require. Rudd and Gillard have both floundered in government policy and public opinion and the paper reflects this. If Abbott became PM I would expect to see him likewise the target of criticism if he failed to deliver. I rate all three prospects as near certainties. We cannot say the paper is biased unless there is some evidence. Directing strong criticism of poor government at that government is not bias but good journalism. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The Australian has said they want to destroy the Greens. Good journalism doesn't indistinguishly blend fact and opinion togther. Pretty simple really. Timeshift (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
And that was statement was made in the opinion pages (in an editorial). Where do you suggest it should have been made? Greglocock (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere. For media organisations to come out in this day and age and call for the destruction of a party, it all harks back to Labor's early days when they fought with and eventually won against the conservative media. I refer to The Australian and it's content more generally when I say that they blend fact and opinion together. It's a disease that's infected all media outlets but some do it worse than others. Case in point. Timeshift (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well we obviously aren't going to agree, but the fact is that most newspapers have opinion pages, and most newspapers have editorials, where whatever bee the editor has in his bonnet can buzz. The media was pretty unsupportive of One Nation, I suspect you approved of that. Greglocock (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't seem to recall The Oz treating One Nation any different than the other media outlets, and I certainly don't recall any media outlets calling for One Nation's destruction. But not like it matters anywhere near as much, One Nation never had anywhere near the influence on parliament that Labor/LNP/Green had. The Australian is biased against the left. They are a right-aligned media outlet that has troubles keeping their fact and opinion in check. They're not? Stuff like this is just lefty rubbish? Yes... that must be it. The Australian couldn't be just biased... it just couldn't. Timeshift (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course its biased. Great we agree on something. All newspapers are biased. I suspect you didn't used to read the Oz when One Nation were around. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if you don't read it now, you really sound like a typical Fairfax/ABC and they supply you with your little soundbites. That's fine, like I said I don't think we're going to agree on much, and frankly this is way OT for a talk page. Greglocock (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, but i'm just answering statements/questions i'm asked - FWIW I read all news sources, i'm a big fan of google news and the search refinement features it has. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary section break[edit]

Please see the ref I provided above in the History section of this talkpage [7]

The extensive literature devoted to the politics of the period and the 1975 constitutional crisis12 confirms Murdoch’s interventionism in both the affairs of the Australian and matters of state, and it goes some way to explaining the paper’s dramatic reinvention from the outspoken liberal paper it became under Adrian Deamer to the crusading right-wing paper edited under Leslie Hollings. Yet the rapidity and extent of this transformation, attributed to Murdoch’s own disillusionment with ‘bleeding heart’ liberal causes, require closer examination beyond the events of 1975. The issue of Murdoch’s proprietorial influence is not in doubt, but the extent and nature of that influence during the transitional decade of the 1970s and throughout the 1980s, at the time of News Limited’s unprecedented overseas expansion, should not be automatically assumed. The 1987 election, analysed in Chapter 6, complements the analysis of the 1975 drama and confirms the rise of radical right-wing ideologues and the influence of conservative think tanks on the paper while maintaining a

liberal counter-voice in Paul Kelly and the Canberra bureau.

--Surturz (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

More antipathy[edit]

I've removed a couple of statements claiming antipathy to Labor and the Greens. The statements are unsupported by the sources. If we are going to tell our readers that the Australian is hostile to a specific party, we need a reliable source saying precisely that, not an editor drawing his own conclusions and stating them as fact. WP:OR and especially WP:SYN are worth reading for guidance. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Support There is a big difference between an editorial position, and biased reporting. Political parties of all stripes claim media bias when it suits them. The Australian went after the Howard government just as hard when it was in power, e.g. the Haneef case. It is right and proper that the fourth estate be critical of the government of the day. The only unusual factor at this time is that the Greens are part of the government. --Surturz (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Position on climate[edit]

Looking at this edit, we find three references supplied. The first, a Guardian article, does not mention The Australian at all. The second is a redlink. The third is a subjective opinion piece, but the estimates given do not match the text supposedly supported. We need reliable and relevant sources for our text. --Pete (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Good find on the media study. That's exactly what we need, rather than blogs and irrelevancies. --Pete (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While the second source wasn't correctly formatted, the URL was always easily discernible (, and it appears to qualify as a reliable source. The source for the statement which was added to the article appears to be page 55 (the article appears to be using the stance of news stories, commentary articles and editorials towards the Carbon tax as a proxy measure of overall editorial stance in relation to climate change). Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's a valid assumption. The Australian was highly critical of the Rudd government's Building the Education Revolution scheme, but you could not reasonably equate that to a negative attitude towards education. Likewise climate change and the carbon tax are two different things, and criticism of a cumbersome scheme is no more than that. Unless explicitly stated, otherwise. --Pete (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's the methodology those well qualified-looking academics used in researching and writing this paper, and not a reason to dismiss what appears to be a reliable source out of hand (they appear to note that general antipathy towards the government probably also coloured the choice of slant and editorials in their analysis and I presume that they know what they're doing given the positions they hold). Without wanting to engage in the debate over this issue, I have to say that I'm concerned about a) your attempts to dismiss this source as a 'red link' given that the URL was always easy to spot, especially to highly experienced editors such as yourself and b) the fact that you once again have inserted your political views into a talk page post for no apparent reason; this really makes it difficult to have any kind of conversation with you. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I do beg your pardon. I was unaware I was expressing any political view. Criticising a government policy on a given subject is not the same as criticising the subject. Equating one with the other - as you seem to be arguing - is a fallacy. Perhaps you could quote an extract from the paper which informs your statements and it may be clearer? --Pete (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

GLAM target article[edit]

Just a notification that this article will be the target of Wikipedia:GLAM/SLNSW a two-day GLAM training session at the State Library of New South Wales starting tomorrow (Tuesday 27th Nov). Any Wikipedians interested in helping out online would be welcomed. If this article is on your watchlist, please consider it an opportunity for some intensive collaboration over the next couple of days. If you notice new editors making mistakes - be kind! --99of9 (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

removal of 3 sections[edit]

I do not understand why these 3 sections are against policy. They are: Gillard/AWU affair, Paywall (beats me) and the stimulus watch. Gillard/AWU needs better refs, the other two seem notable and relevant. Greglocock (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with the paywall content. The other two are seriously non-neutral. Their intent appears to be to say "The Australian is terrific because it led the way in showing you all how bad the Labor government is." I can see the point of a later historical perspective that highlighted how the Australian's anti-government campaign was a successful one, but that's certainly not what's there now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I read BLP properly and agree the AWU section needs a proper rewrite at the very least, and the section as written should go. I think insulation gate and the large waste of money that was was BER do warrant a section as well, somewhere. Greglocock (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually the main article on AWU affair is where it should be, perhaps we just need a link to it. Greglocock (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Another problem with all of this is WP:RECENTISM. The Australian is nearly 50 years old. We should not be emphasising some blatantly political campaigns of the past couple of years. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And why did you agree that discussion was a good idea, and then change the article again anyway? That's guaranteed to annoy other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I added some balancing positive assessment of the BER. Who would that annoy? Yes I must admit the stimulus thing looks a bit weird out on its own. Why that story and no other? Greglocock (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It annoys me as someone who sees no rush to get this stuff into Wikipedia (unlike what someone with a short term political goal might want) and who thought your suggestion of discussion was a good one. Please await consensus in discussion before changing the article. Don't do both at once. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I won't edit this article til it is sorted out here. I'm off on holiday for 2 weeks now so when I get back i'll see what is decided. here's my suggestion we should have a notable investigations section including but not limited to : AWU affair should be linked to via a one sentence description. BER should be linked to, and insulation gate mentioned. New starter- wyvenhoe dam thingo should go in. Paywall section should stay although once everybody has a paywall I can't see that it'll be notable, so on that basis it could go. Greglocock (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's Wivenhoe Dam, but I've no idea what the issue is. That article contains nothing controversial, nor any mention of The Australian. I'm guessing that means that others won't know what the issue is either. Does one have to be a Queenslander? I hope it's not more recentism and political content. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should be adding random news stories that the Australian has run, except where there is a particular award (e.g. Walkley) or something that justifies its insertion. Funnily enough I agree with HiLo48, I don't think AWU affair currently rates a mention in this article at all, not even a link - until such time as the Oz wins an award for it, or the PM gets gaoled or something (which is highly unlikely). --Surturz (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The AWU affair is recognoised by wikipedia as being notable - henve why it has its own page. It should not be controversial for it to be noted on The Australian's page that The Australian led the story whilst other media outlets largely ignored it until Gillard herself responded to it. Apollo1986 (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That section was in regards to a controversy involving a living person; was referenced only to The Australian; and was written in a clearly non-neutral point of view -- a very big 'no no'. That section was in violation of WP:BLP. Multiple reliable sources other than The Australian - which specifically address the coverage in a balanced point of view, will do. —MelbourneStartalk 09:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you really think other media outlets would admit they were so slow to report on the story? It appears that you require other outlets to admit their own failings with respect to the lateness of their coverage on the AWU affair. Otherwise, wikipedia should censor the story and deny that this was a notable story, even though wikipedia has its own article on the AWU affair. This is clearly absurd. Also, you fail to explain how the section was not written in a neutral way or how it infringes WP:BLP policy. Apollo1986 (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Do YOU really think The Australian has treated the matter neutrally? No neutral observer does. Sadly, this whole area is one where people who hate the Labor government want to tell the world what a wonderful job The Australian is doing. That is the worst possible motivation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Apollo, it is your own observation that they were "slow to report" = WP:OR.
  • Using The Australian source, in The Australian article on a controversial topic involving a person (of the political left - when the paper identify themselves on the right) is not neutral - that's called bias. Take a good hard read of: WP:BLPSTYLE.
  • And don't get me started on the fact that The Australian source is an opinion peice - please read WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:USERGENERATED (with the latter, 3rd paragraph in particular).
  • Here's the innapropriate section: The Australian was the "first media outlet to pursue the AWU affair" (seems like trial by the media), "a saga which involved Julia Gillard helping her then partner set up a slush fund" (Second sentence of opening para of Slush fund describes what the latter sentence implies, since it doesn't go into detail) in the early 1990s when she was a salaried partner at Slater and Gordon. "Once again, the story was ingored for a long time by other media outlets" (Maybe good for a peice in The Australian - but not for neutral Wikipedia). The ABC for instance did not cover the story until after Gillard "finally" (negative connotation; Implies that she was sloppy and took her time... not like she's running a country or anything) "held a press conference to respond to the allegations against her" (negative connotation; also, "allegations" which ones? from whom?)."[8]" (the opinion peice from The Australian used as a reference) The story then became a "major political issue" (really? according to whom?), resulting in Julie Bishop questioning Gillard in parliament and "Gillard holding another press conference to respond to the evidence against her." (negative connotation; The word evidence... hmmm wonder what that insinuates?)
Neutral point of view that source, and that section, is not. And that is what happens when you rely on The Australian opinion peice, negatively slanted and one sided. Hope I have clarified things for you! Face-smile.svgMelbourneStartalk 09:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
1) The issue is not whether The Australian has treated the matter neutrally. "No neutral observer does" Says he who calls those who disagree with him "lib Lovers"!

2) Opinion peices often refer to facts in support of their argument. And so it is with the Chris Kenny peice. The fact that the ABC did not report on the scandal until after Gillard addressed it is a fact worth mentioning, particularly since it demonstrates that The Australian reported it a lot sooner than the ABC.

3) You say that "has repeatedly denied that she knew it was a slush fund". This is blatantly untrue. Gillard herself referred to it as being a slush fund to assist with the re-election of union officials in her 1995 exit interview with Slater and Gordon.

4) Nowehere is it implied that Gillard "was sloppy and took her time". You are reading too much into it. It is a fact that Gillard took quite a while after The Australian's reporting on the issue to respond. That's why the word 'finally' is appropriate.

5) The AWU affair was a "major political issue", widely reported late last year. And yes, there is evidence against Gillard. If there wasn't she wouldn't have needed to respond twice last year to certain facts which had emerged about her involvement in the affair. Apollo1986 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apollo, I don't love any party. It's obvious that you do. I seek neutrality. Because of your adoration of a particular political party, you don't. And you cannot see your own partiality. You also believe that anyone who doesn't love who you love is a supporter of someone else. That's not true. It's pointless discussing these matters any further with you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)1 - That was Hilo, in regards to the "Lib lovers" comment - I wouldn't have used those words, but considering there should be one view on having a negative section on a living person referenced by a non-neutral opinion peice -- I would understand why there would be people of the Right wanting this section kept. Oh, and a word to the wise: The view is 'remove it'.
2 - "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." → WP:USERGENERATED
3 - I refer you to what had been changed straight after that edit.
4 - That's what the sentence/paragraph implies. It relies too much on the source. Who said she had to respond quickly? you did. That sentence doesn't even take in consideration the fact she could have been busy; her father died; she's a PM and she has specifically said she wants to focus on positives rather than a smear campaign. You forgot to mention the fact that The Australian had to apologise for certain untrue statements implicating Gillard. That's balance. This section is far from it.
5 - And she has denied any wrong-doing; she herself has accused The Australian of a smear campaign [9] (Sounds like they have a conflict of interest.) - so why all the fuss?
and 6 - I'm not going to delve into this further; my view on this section has not changed. Whether it's negative about Gillard, negative about Abbott, or negative about the person down the road from me's all the same - negative. What I'm suggesting, is quite simple: Find reliable sources that explain the situation in a neutral point of view, taking into account everything on both sides - then perhaps proceed with a section. Avoid The Australian sources. Avoid opinion peices. Because if any random person who didn't know anything on the issue, came and read the section, they'd think that the person in question was some sort of criminal - I believe that is the conclusion that this section brings. —MelbourneStartalk 10:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
"Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." We are talking here about a newspaper, not a living person. Again, I repeat my criticisms of your insistence that we do not use The Australian to source the fact that it was the first outlet to report on the AWU affair - other media outlets would not report on their own slowness to report on the issue, so the standard you have set is an impossible one. I note that the fact that the ABC did not report until after Gillard responded is not disputed by you. Your only objection is that The Australian have pointed it out in an opinion peice. Apollo1986 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


OK guys, you are just repeating the same points at each other over and over. Please start WP:DR/WP:M/WP:3O or whatever it takes to resolve the dispute. --Surturz (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Stimulus Watch[edit]

The section on Stimulus Watch has been entirely removed for reasons I don't understand. It is a notable story, and should be included. Apollo1986 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my mind and decided that unless stories or investigations are really influential (and we can't tell yet with StimulusWatch, but storm in a teacup, or just another straw on the camel's back, is my rating in the long term) of the level of watergate, then they don't belong in the article about the newspaper. If on the other hand we had good third party reasonably balanced commentary on this to use as a basis, great, perhaps it would be possible to include it. But i have my doubts about that happening. The various frothings by the lefty-latte set aren't much use as a startpoint. Greglocock (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This account of the 2010 federal election is even handed and indicates that the BER program became a major controversy:

"Meanwhile, the economic stimulus initiative Building the Education Revolution had begun to receive critical press coverage over alleged cost blow-outs and rorts.[60] On 12 April 2010, the Building the Education Revolution (BER) Implementation Taskforce was announced to ‘provide additional assurance about the implementation of the BER program’.[61] The Taskforce was charged with receiving, investigating and responding to complaints, ensuring value for money, and recommending changes to policy, contracts or projects to ensure the objectives of the BER were realised.[62]"

Apollo1986 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The article contains no description of any particular stories, and that's for good reason. The paper has existed for nearly 50 years. In that time it has presented thousands of stories, some very influential. Mentioning just one now, a very recent one at that, and very political, in a climate where the long term impact is not clear, would be quite wrong. I could argue that The Australian's strong campaign against Australia's Vietnam War involvement in the late 1960s was of more significance, especially in that it strongly condemned Liberal Party action, but I won't. Best to exclude all individual stories. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I think The Australian's reporting on BER has been influential. The program has become renowned for cost blowouts and waste. The article has contained Stimulus Watch for a while now. I don't have a problem with inclusion of The Australian's campaign against Australia's Vietnam War involvement in the late 1960s as well. Apollo1986 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Which campaigns from the 1970s and 1980s will you include? HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure. How many were there? I think that the article should have more of the recently notable stories as they show how influential The Australian has been in the last few years. The BER and AWU affair stories in particular were ignored by most of the rest of the media for quite some time. Arguably without The Australian the public would not know about either. They sure wouldn't have found out through Fairfax or the ABC. Apollo1986 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Focusing on recent stories will tend to create the impression of bias, if those recent stories are going to be focused on one side of politics. I think what is needed are sources that show that The Australian's coverage was, in itself, notable. Major awards, extensive (particularly academic) discussion of the coverage, or other sourcing which is focused on the coverage rather than the issue being covered, along with context to show that this particular coverage was notable in terms of The Australian. - Bilby (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Apollo - your question "How many were there?" perfectly demonstrates the big problem you have. If you don't know about the thousands of stories The Australian has covered in the past 50 years, you are in no position to judge or argue how significant one particular story is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems like everyone disagrees with me on this one. Apollo1986 (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Australian/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Part of the description of the newspaper is not very informative

for those who do not exactly know the Australian connotations of some terms. For example, I have no idea what a _liberal_ attitude to social issues means. Is this Australian, American or European (English or non-English) terminology? What does this more concretely mean. This kind of expressions should be made more understandable by

giving an example of how this shows up concretely.

Last edited at 07:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 07:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Political alignment[edit]

Put your sources here and we'll thrash this out. Add a date of publication. I will revert any change to Centre Right unless it is discussed here first. Greglocock (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Centre Right

Chris Mitchell quoted in Crikey 2007

Conservative 2013

The book that keeps getting quoted to support Right

Here is what it actually says "It is generally conservative in tone and heavily oriented towards business., it has a range of columnists of varying political persuasions but mostly to the right."

[1] who is this guy? 2004

Not statistically different to neutral 2004 An interesting statistical analysis especially Tables 4 and 5

  1. ^ Clancy, Laurie (2004). Culture and customs of Australia. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-313-32169-6. 
My observation is that whenever people start squabbling over infobox fields, it's usually a sign that the situation is more complex that a simple value in an infobox field can represent. In such cases, I feel that it is better to not use this field in the infobox but rather have a section in the article where the situation can be discussed in more details. In this case, that section can present the evidencethat the newspaper is left/right/centre/whatever (suitably cited) according to our normal neutral point of view. Unless actually linked to a political party, trade union, lobby group, etc, most newspapers will have a range of views expressed in editorials, opinion columns, etc, so it is difficult to distill that range of positions into one or two words for use in the infobox. Why don't we just set the various claims out in the article and let the reader decide where they think the newspaper is positioned for themselves. Summarising into one or two words seems to run the risk of being "opinon" or "original research". So rather debate what the infobox should say, first write the section about the political alignment. Kerry (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. i suggested eliminating the silly infobox alignment thing 6 years ago but pedantic twats like to reinsert it. Greglocock (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: delete political alignment from infobox[edit]

Delete As Kerry says above, a one word summary is inadequate, and reliable sources give a range of alternatives. Greglocock (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)