Prev
Next

You’re either with us, or with the cultural terrorists

Carrie Miller

by Carrie Miller

17 Jun 06:00am

Must Reads

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future… - this is a caption

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

75

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips” - this is a caption

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

48

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou - this is a caption

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

186

Filed under: Culture Wars, Ideology, Internet, Media, Opinion, Writing

62 comments

Do any of you really care less about what the media thinks about itself? To all the philosophers out there, yes, I get there’s an infinite regress being set up here. I am, after all, in the media talking about the media talking about itself. But forget that for a moment and answer the question. I bet for most of you it’s no. But gauging from the readers’ commentariat of many online publications, for a small, but significant minority of media audiences, it’s a big yes.

What I want to know is: how did such a tedious trend take off? When did the media become obsessed with itself? And, more importantly, when did readers start to mirror this obsession?

Admittedly, I didn’t spend too much time researching the historical roots of this phenomenon. But I have a feeling that although it’s always been around, the media’s obsession with itself, and your obsession with this obsession, really took off during what the media likes to call the ‘Culture Wars’. I’m pretty sure I heard someone at a dinner party crammed with smug lefties say quite authoritatively that the phenomenon had something to do with the rise of a political movement called ‘neo-conservatism’ and the neo-cons’ need for an enemy against which they could define themselves.

This enemy was called ‘the Left’ or more accurately, ‘latte sipping, inner city, tree-hugging, fag-loving, left-liberal elites’, which made them – the neo-cons - ‘the Right’, or, in more precise terms, ‘ignorant, homophobic, war-mongering, moralistic god botherers’.

From what I can gather, the people in these two groups were naturally an opinionated lot, and some of them even got opinion columns in major newspapers. The people that owned and ran these newspapers and magazines seemed to like this a lot because the columnists got very upset with each other which made for good copy.

In fact, it became like the print equivalent of a reality TV show – a bit like Big Brother, where you take opposing personalities and put them in the same room for extended periods and watch them crack the shits. Anyway, what these opinion columnists most liked to talk about were other media commentators which set up this never-ending cycle of the media talking about itself.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, most average punters at first ignored this grandiose, self-referential irrelevance and read the sports pages and their horoscopes. Back in Media World though, these opinion columnists - being the attention-seekers that they are - turned up the hysterics (on the Left this is called polemics) so that even sensible people would be drawn in to their ‘debates’. Even more self-referentially, these ‘debates’ were often about the media and its effects. The fictional Right said that the media caused violence, sexualised children and made them fat; the fictional Left said whatever people with PhDs in Cultural Studies say. Sorry, I’m getting bored.

In the end, the media got what it wanted: media commentators became the new celebrities, and audiences started taking sides. You were either for Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Miranda Devine, Janet Albrechtsen, or you were against them. You even felt compelled to write letters and emails about it. And then the media commentators would refer to your comments in their columns and blogs until the media-reality loop became complete.

Why I’m telling you all of this is that at that dinner party I mentioned earlier, someone also said that the Culture Wars were “over”. Apparently, since Barack and Kevin got into power, and more importantly that George and John were booted out, there was no longer a “war” to fight. Not caring that much, I just took this person at their word.

But strangely it seems that the media haven’t stopped staring incessantly at their own reflections and neither have the die-hards among their audience who insist on keeping the battle raging.

Just read the letters pages or online comments of our leading publications including this one and you’ll find a lot of banging on about the fictional Left and Right framed in terms of the old Culture Wars – some of it quite insulting. I’m not quite sure why this is still going on, but I think it’s safe to say it’s getting boring.

What can each of us do about this? Here’s an idea for the readers of opinion columns. Just for starters, why not read each contributor’s article without prejudice? Hell, why not engage with the ideas on their own terms rather than being blinded by what you think their values might be? In short, why not try to play the ball and not the man?

I know it’s incredibly arrogant of me – someone in the media, the place where all this crap started – to ask anything of you. But for the sake of normal people who couldn’t care less about this stuff and just want real information and entertainment out of their media, can we all just shut up with this nonsense. I’m starting right now.

Most commented

343Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
306It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
240La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
216Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
186The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
153What happens to us if we collide with GFC 2.0?

62 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      07:14am | 17/06/10

      The culture wars which have been in full swing for at least five decades and show no signs of slowing. I find that most people who claim that the Left and Right are “fictional”, tend to be supporters of one or the other side by stealth.

      Of course, the real culture wars are about much more than the media talking about themselves. The media are simply one of the participants, mostly on the Left side of things - as we can see from the stance of the majority of journalists on issues such as gay marriage, asylum seekers, Tony Abbott, and so on.

      To limit your analysis to opinion columnists is, of course, to miss the point. *All* journalism is opinion, and the “news” sections are the most important combat zones.

      Reply

    • Sherlock says:

      10:41am | 17/06/10

      Eric says: “I find that most people who claim that the Left and Right are “fictional”, tend to be supporters of one or the other side by stealth.”

      Couldn’t agree more. There’s nothing fictional about the left/right political divide. I’m firmly on the right and others, such as persephone, are firmly on the left. I don’t see the problem.

      Taking myself and persephone as examples, I would suggest there is very little that we would agree on, especially politically, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect her opinion or dispute her right to hold it no matter how wrong I might think it to be.

      Well considered diverse opinions are what a good blog needs. Those that attempt to drown out dissenting opinions eventually die a prolonged death as little more than a bunch of people consistently agreeing with each other.

      Reading other people’s opinions on matters allows me to question my own. While my opinion may not change it certainly moves further away from the far right.

      I for one say let’s have more good natured argy bargy between the political left and right. It’s been my experience that the answer to most political issues lies somewhere in the middle of the two. Discussion can only help us find that point.

    • iansand says:

      11:31am | 17/06/10

      The problem is the allocation of opinion on areas unconnected with economics on the basis of a perceived left or right position.  Abortion is one example.  Climate change is another (at least in relation to its existence - I can see the argument in relation to dealing with the problem).  It is lazy.

    • Lance Link says:

      02:24pm | 17/06/10

      @iansand,
      is it as lazy as making the assumption that the notion of a “perceived left or right position” or infact “politics” itself is reducible to “economics”? “Left” and “right” aren’t exclusively “economic” perspectives, despite what economic rationalists would have us believe, about politics. The “problem” as I see it, is this very confluence of economics and politics and the shabby manipulation of self-interest, particularly as it effects “uncommitted” voters, in marginal seats.

    • papachango says:

      03:13pm | 17/06/10

      Sherlock - yes there are definite political positions, but to define everything in terms of left and right is a bit too simplistic.

      For example I think that laissez-faire capitalism (not the crony capitalism that bails out failed banks however) is the only economic system that actually works and makes sense. I think socialism is as evil as facism, in fact I think there’s not all that much practical difference between the two ideologies. I’m appalled by the nanny state this country is becoming, buit acknowledge that it’s still superior to many other cultures - I don’t go in for any of that cultural relativist rubbish.

      I also believe that all recreational drugs should be legalised, that gay couples should have as much right to marry and adopt children as everyone else, and that voluntary euthanasia is a fundamental human right that governments shouldn’t have the power to take away.

      Am I a left-winger or a right winger? based on the first pargraph I’d be a rabid righty neo-con god botherer (I’m agnostic and think all organised religions are fairy tales BTW).

      Based on the second paragraph I’d be a bleeding heart fag-loving latte sipping leftie. I do actually like my lattes, but I detest the envy politics and faux oppression adopted by e.g. the Aboriginal Industry or the Muslim community. As for ‘fag loving’ (isn’t that a bit of an insulting term?) I do differ from say the Greens a bit here in that I couldn’t care less about people’s sexuality. The Greens want gay people to use their sexuality as a badge of honour to show how oppressed they supposedly are, and as part of their whole class struggle thing.

      I actually think my political views are pretty consistent and can be broadly defined as classical liberal or libertarian. It’s all about maximising individual freedom and minimising the power of governments over the individual and the market.

      But calling that rightwing or leftwing is too simplistic. Right and Left are sometimes given narrow economic definitions i.e capitalist - socialist, in which case I’m firmly on the right, but that would also make Pauline Hanson and the BNP on the left!

    • NEFFA says:

      03:34pm | 17/06/10

      Wow Eric, your actually managed to comment without blaming the feminists.
      I think this is a huge step forward for you Eric. well done.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      03:35pm | 17/06/10

      I’m with iansand.  I find that these labels bring more confusion than clarity.  Libertarians are often percieved at economically ‘right’ and socially ‘left’, where as groups like One Nation were percieved as socially ‘right’ and economically ‘left’.  The only sensible definitions of ‘left’ and ‘right’ come from revolutionary France and application to today’s political spectrum is anachronistic to say the least.  When Bismark introduced trade tariffs they were opposed by socialists (left) as nationalistic, now when conservatives (right) try to remove tariffs they are opposed by unions (left) as capitalistic.

      And to deal with Eric’s straw man of deniers being from one camp or the other, I am firmly Libertarian.  So, am I left or right?  Or neither?  I have been described as both by different people.

    • Split Decision says:

      06:51pm | 17/06/10

      Eric,
      the “left/right divide” is a effectively a fiction in the context of a stable, western two-party democracy… tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum? Despite what the “right” would have us think, they aren’t fighting street-battles with communists like they were in Berlin in the ‘20s & the “left” in this country gave us the “White Australia Policy”... hardly international socialism. While it’s true that Labor’s drift to the middle (particularly with and post Whitlam) “pushed” the “Liberals” even further to the “right”, (particularly with Howard), both major parties are essentially moderate, bourgeois-capitalist political organisations, entirely appropriate to the society they exist in.

    • Eric says:

      07:06pm | 17/06/10

      Just Sayin’ - once again, someone misses the “most” in my comment, and assumes I meant “all”. If I had meant “all”, I would have said “all”.

      As for the left/right dichotomy - mostly, though with exceptions, people’s social and economic beliefs do tend to cluster into two broad categories among those lines. A Labor voter is more likely to favour boat people and quotas for women, a Liberal more likely to oppose.

      Of course, it’s ridiculous to think that all political positions of all people could be reduced to such simple terms. But as a rule of thumb, it’s around 80% reliable.

    • Brian Burgess says:

      08:54am | 17/06/10

      The line between irony and sincerity in these columns has dissolved to the point where Ms. Miller doesn’t know what she means any more.

      Reply

    • Kim says:

      08:55am | 17/06/10

      Well said Carrie. It would be nice if more people could take a step back and respect that their opinion is simply that. It’s not always a case of ‘I am right and you are wrong’ - there is a sunny patch in the middle where we can agree to disagree, respectfully. It’s almost become a lost art.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      08:55am | 17/06/10

      I am always amazed that the media portrays itself as the gatekeeper for society.  Who determined that the media should guide social behaviour, morals and what information is made public.  Considering that the media never present a balanced perspective on anything.

      I love when media interview each other as their chosen ‘authority’ on any given issue, when in reality, copy and paste is all they ever do these days.

      Reply

    • Press says:

      08:58am | 17/06/10

      I tried that.  Got abused for it. On The Punch. Repeatedly.

      And your piece. Objective, is it?  No slant? No loaded passages? Yeah yeah, sure.

      Pah.

      Reply

    • Old Clive says:

      11:05am | 17/06/10

      Assuming that you can read and are not too predijuced, there is a book written by a bloke names Whitney in 1966, possibly before your time, called"An age without standards.” He doees,t say much about the media but he has a lot to say about the arts. If you want to go back a little bit further go to the book of scorn the Bible and read Romans 1 which is a fairly accurate summary of todays society. Of course you may call me a wowser but I can assure you that I will not be surprised or upset about it, and I am not HOMOPHOBIC I am a normal human being, it is the others who are subnormal.

    • Press says:

      04:08pm | 17/06/10

      Ms Miller asked
      “why not read each contributor’s article without prejudice?”
      and
      “why not try to play the ball and not the man?” 
      which I responded to.

      Whatever OCs point is, and whoever he is aiming it at, are beyond me. Not my remarks, that’s for sure.

      Notice, though, that to make his points -whoever her’s aiming at - he’s gone and made several quite needless personal assumptions. Funny that.

    • Hannibal Lecturer says:

      07:03pm | 17/06/10

      @Press,

      I wouldn’t take it too personally , if I were you. The “Romans 1” reference should tip you off to OC having make believe “friends”. I think he just writes what the voices tell him to.

    • Press says:

      08:42pm | 17/06/10

      Ta, HL, nah, didn’t. Agree - v odd! 

      Just thought his tired old trick of making empty “damaging” assumptions worth highlighting.

      A lot of posters here try it on.

      Nearly time to kick back with a cuppa and the stereo. Bloody cold here tonight.

      Cheers.

    • mid says:

      01:07pm | 17/06/10

      Agreed, was a very good way of framing what is essentially a fictitious situation (especially when you get the inevitable “Nazi” or “Commie” jibes).

      Shame that most people won’t read it, and will continue banging on with the usual “leftard”/“right wing nut-job” rubbish. What it does say to me though is that if someone rolls out those sorts of comments, it is usually a pretty good indicator that they have no valid argument so instead resort to school-ground tactics to win the argument at all costs.

    • Old Salt says:

      10:22am | 17/06/10

      Completely agree with the article, especially the comments about what side of politics you are on.  I used to read comments hoping to find some arguments or discussion on the article or opinion piece but all you get now is “leftards” or “right-wing nut jobs” with no fact, no discussion or well put argument.  It is frustrating and i support peoples right to say what they want, but if you are going to be involved in a discussion is it too hard to contribute something worthwhile?

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      10:23am | 17/06/10

      “I heard someone at a dinner party crammed with smug lefties say quite authoritatively that the phenomenon had something to do with the rise of a political movement called ‘neo-conservatism’ and the neo-cons’ need for an enemy against which they could define themselves. “

      Are you sure you weren’t just talking to yourself in the bathroom mirror, Carrie?

      Incidentally, the culture wars do exist. Look at asylum seekers - that’s like Verdun (check Wikipedia) for the lefties. The obsession with the subject among (what did you call them?) latte-sipping fag-hags makes no sense outside the context of a perceived war with the right.

      I am sure we have our own fortresses and salients too, Carrie, but as righties are never smug at dinner parties, I can immediately think of any. Maybe that idiotic apology of Rudd’s - that probably made me angrier than it should have ...

      Reply

    • Gummi Lowe says:

      07:18pm | 17/06/10

      @Adam C,

      the “obsession” with asylum seekers is entirely on the part of the “right” as you have amply demonstrated. It’s been decisively proven that, numerically,  they are an insignificant compared to our population and annual migrant intake. The purpose they serve ,politically, is to be kicked around the parliament and the country like a football, in the hope of whipping up hysteria among the disenfranchised and uncomitted, particularly those that live in marginal seats. Fortunately, to most people, that tactic is as transparent as it is stale. Nice try with the “idiotic apology” jibe though. You must be disappointed that no-one has taken you up on it.

    • Jon says:

      10:38am | 17/06/10

      How anyone can form an opinion from the fairy floss media in Australia is a joke. You need to cast a wider net than that for information. The mining the internet is great but the gold is hard to find, however books are the best, and at least the authors can be held to account.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      10:39am | 17/06/10

      For starters Carrie… you’re not really ‘in’ the media. If I Google your name for instance, I get your latest Punch article and the character Carrie Miller from the Twin Peaks inspired Canadian snowboarding-murder-drama ‘Whistler’. In comparison, if I google Brittany Stack, cadet journalist from the Sunday Telegraph I get about 4 pages worth of bylines that have been published nation wide.

      Now I don’t know Brittany from a bar of soap, but I can be pretty sure she doesn’t have your very impressive initials after her name - and I’m 100 per cent certain she doesn’t ponder the media’s role in the culture wars each morning before news conferrence.

      The media isn’t obsessed with itself. Opinion writers are obsessed with themselves, and obsessed with being considered part of the ‘media’. The actual media? They’re obsessed with living on subsistence wages. With dictatorial Chiefs of Staff, with backbench sub-editors that mangle the truth out of their copy - while you were staring at your belly button writing this piece, the real media were doing death knocks on which ever car accident / plane crash / murder / shark attack happened in the last 24 hours.

      The only people talking about ideology and culture are opinion writers. The rest of the media is trying to tell stories that matter to the ‘punters’ between their horroscopes and sports pages.

      Reply

    • Jack Sparrow says:

      01:44pm | 17/06/10

      You’ve never heard of a pseudonym, Brittany?

    • Penny says:

      10:42am | 17/06/10

      One of my favorite columnists is Jack the Insider. He is funny and thought-provoking. But, even when his blogs are not about politics you get the same people going after each other hammer and tong, insulting each other, telling everyone that their opinion is the right one (or the left one as the case may be) and it beome incredibly tedious to read.Some of the posts are longer than my students essays! In this case it’s not the media that’s obsessed wth themselves it’s the readers.

      Reply

    • Septic Sceptic says:

      05:26pm | 18/06/10

      That’s very generous of you Penny: to assume the bona fides of the “readers” of these forums. I, for one, am extremely sceptical of the genuine independence many of them espouse.

    • Hamish says:

      10:46am | 17/06/10

      Carrie, it is not necessarily arrogant to suggest that people should take more notice of the contents of someone’s argument than their political position. They should. However, it is arrogant to suggest, especially as a member of the media, that the culture wars only exist in the microcosm of the media. For instance, cultural wars have existed in academia probably for centuries (in Australia the left has already won). In education cultural wars continue to be fought in Australia (with the left again in the ascendancy).

      Media culture wars reflect schisms in society. Sure in the media they are more openly fought, but the reason people like Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine (and David Marr for that matter) are published is because the public like to read them. The media doesn’t exist for its own sake.

      It is also arrogant to downplay the relevance of the culture wars. The media no doubt is at the forefront, but this is largely due to the media’s own lack of discipline. No one necessarily cares that a journalist is left-wing, it’s when their political bias affects their coverage of events that it becomes a problem. There have been many cases recently of journos being blinded bias, especially left-wing bias. I note the coverage of the ambulance hoax in Lebanon, the coverage of Tony Abbott’s hypothetical advice to his daughters, the (lack of) coverage of climate change debate, the (still) fawning coverage of Barack Obama in Australia and the initial reaction to Israel’s ‘attack’ on the ‘peace’ flotilla. It is this lazy ideologically driven journalism that laid the platform for the success of Fox News in the US (where the culture wars are far more hostile).

      Do I think it is good that more Americans watch Fox News than any other news channel? No. Do I think that Fox News exhibits a bias beyond that of other news channels? Maybe, but at least they are open about it. Is ignoring the culture wars and/or writing them off as a media fabrication a good idea? No. Like politics, you may not be ineterested in the culture wars, but they will inevitably take an interest in you.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:19pm | 17/06/10

      Fox open about its bias?  Do the words “Fair and Balanced”, or “No Spin Zone” ring a bell?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      03:45pm | 17/06/10

      Fox News’ Motto is “Fair and Balanced”. How can they be open about a bias (and it is very clear they have a right wing bias) when they are presenting themselves as a balanced coverage when it clearly not?

    • Hamish says:

      02:20pm | 18/06/10

      Shane, Fox News’ Fair and Balanced tagline operates in opposition to what is perceived by most middle-Americans to be a liberal (their term) bias in most mainstream media. Fair and balanced is supposed to mean - ‘we’re fairer and more balaned than those liberal sumbags’. Everyone knows that’s what it means, including you I imagine.

      I didn’t say Fox News wasn’t biased. Indeed I believe all news organisations are biased to some extent. Are Fox News more biased to the right than BBC World is to the left? I don’t know. But, as I say, they are more honest and open about it.

    • D'oh says:

      11:08am | 17/06/10

      David Marr…..

      ‘Nuff said

      Reply

    • nic says:

      11:29am | 17/06/10

      The media got what it wanted with Bolt et al? I think you have missed the point, it’s what readers want. Funny you mentioned the names of the 5 or so prominent conservative columnists in the media. Listing the names of those on the opposing ‘side’ would have said more about the media than anything your article did.

      Reply

    • Lee from WA says:

      11:32am | 17/06/10

      The Culture Wars are actually really quite important because they are not so much fought over the patch of turf call ‘the media’ (as the Left have a pretty strong grip on that anyway, at least in Australia) but over how we are to understand our history, our society and our culture, which are all interlinked anyway. For some, on both Left and Right, they will see it as an all or nothing prospect but never the less, it is an important battlefield. We should have vigorous discussion on what is important and how we should it. I hope the debate continues and I hope that people stay fired up.

      On the issue of media-navel gazing - it is important that we have media commentating on media. Bias is in everything and all our media outlets are biased in some way. Some do a better job than others of minimizing or identifying their own bias. Bias is only a problem when it is ignored or denied, like in the case of the ABC, which is in constant denial over its left-wing tendencies, though to admit them would pose a significant problem as the ABC is owned by all.

      Reply

    • Manfred Freiherr Von Richtoffen says:

      01:57pm | 17/06/10

      Supposing it were the case that the ABC had “left-wing tendencies”, how would “admitting them” pose problems for an organisation “owned by all”. Where would you place the concept of “public collective ownership” in the political spectrum? Where do you suppose the political affiliations of the owners of Australia’s AM radio stations, newspapers and television stations lie? How can you demonstrate that these media outlets favour the “left”?

    • Lee from WA says:

      03:08pm | 17/06/10

      It poses a problem that a organisation that is paid for by taxpayers completely is politically biased as they have an obligation to be impartial. Our taxes shouldn’t be subsidising an organisation that is biased to one political agenda, whether left or Right, unless they have been voted for (like political parties). That individuals are biased isn’t so much of an issue but I think, as numerous media commentators have pointed out, there is a serious lack of Right wingers/conservatives on the ABC. Nearly (if not all) of the presenters are left-wing (some overtly), with only one program that I know of (Counterpoint) that has a consistent conservative viewpoint.

      Take Q&A for example. It would be hard to argue that Tony Jones is anything but Left-wing (though he is usually professional enough to not show his bias). Then you have Left-wing pollie and one definitely Left-wing guest, one Right wing pollie and then one guest who is not always on the Right. Hardly balance. When was the last time they had a predominantly right wing panel? Never as far as I can think of. And have they had panels dominated by lefties? Absolutely.

      The sheer number of left-wing voices outweighs the conservatives by a substantial margin. Saying conservatives get a fair go on the ABC is like saying that there is enough women in parliament - the numbers say no.

      Privately owned media can be as biased as it likes (though there are only a few overtly Right wing across the whole of the media) as we don’t foot the bill. Most media organizations are more mercenary than political. Those that are political, the majority are Left wing. Commercial AM talk back radio seems to be dominated by the Right but the ABC, which has plenty of talk back, is definitely Left wing and is nation wide (unlike Alan Jones and the like) so I’d say they cancel themselves out.

    • Bill O'Reilly says:

      07:39pm | 17/06/10

      So because you agree with “numerous media commentators” that “there is a serious lack of Right wingers/conservatives on the ABC”, it must, in fact, be the case?
      This comment is enlightening: “Privately owned media can be as biased as it likes (though there are only a few overtly Right wing across the whole of the media) as we don’t foot the bill.” So again, according to… well, you, so it must be true… the “whole of the media” is left biased, which is OK, because their only commitment or social obligation is to their owners and to profit. That would seem to be right-wing’s sham “morality” exposed, right there: economic rationalist expedience without a semblance of conscience or responsibility. Thanks Lee!

    • Lee from WA says:

      01:18am | 18/06/10

      Bill,

      Are you saying that there are as many Right wing presenters/commentators on the ABC as there are Left wing presenters/commentators?

      Are you saying there are, amongst the politically motivated media, as many Right wing outlets as there Left wing?

      If you foot the bill, you are free to say what you like as you are the one who will suffer the consequences. The free markets kinda work like that, in the case of the media, moderating what will and won’t be said. In some ways, it is more democratic than politics as people will leave with their wallets, which can have an immediate impact on a company.

      And for a guy so dismissive of what I said because they are opinions (which I wholly admit are just that), you haven’t backed up your assertions with any evidence.

    • Andrew says:

      12:47pm | 17/06/10

      There are a lot of comments relating to the left leaning media in Australia. Would be interesting to hear from the people who make them give a summary of which outlets they feel are biased either way as it seems to be a constant argument on all blogs that each side is hard done by compared to the other.

      Reply

    • Hamish says:

      01:14pm | 17/06/10

      Hi Andrew,

      This is my shot limited to Australia. In terms of opinion pieces:

      Left over-represented
      Fairfax newspapers (by far most bias news organisation in Australia. Have Miranda Devine as token right-winger)
      ABC
      Possibly Sky News
      Channel 10 (limited to Paul Bongiorno)
      Crikey (especially Bernard Keane and Guy Rundle, both of whom write undergraduate essays not proper articles)

      Right over-represented
      News Limited (although has left-wing opinion writers such as Jill Singer)
      WAN (West Aus Newspapers)

      News coverage is more complicated. For most media organisations it’s not that the way they report the news is necessarily bias (except Fairfax), it’s more what news they choose to report, or which agenda they choose to set.

      Biggest left-wing agenda setter - Sunday Age (but no one reads it so it doesn’t really work).

      Biggest right-wing agenda setter - Daily Telegraph/Herald Sun (think crime, asylum-seekers, etc).

    • mid says:

      05:18pm | 17/06/10

      We all see “unfair bias” when what we read doesn’t match our world view

    • Aussie Osbourne says:

      06:37pm | 17/06/10

      Well Andrew,
      Your comment stands in testimony to the unscrupulousness of the deceitful left. Having trained a hardened cadre of media insurgents all throughs the 1980s, by the mid 1990s they’d successfully infiltrated the major media outlets of our vast, if unsuspecting, brown land.  They sensed their time to strike with the glorious ascent of John Howard to the mantle of greatest prime minister in the history of the known universe. Brilliantly camouflaged as vitriolic bile-spewing right-wing psychopaths, the crack team of communist double-agent insurgents: Piers Ackerman, Janet Albrechtsen, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and Gerard Henderson played on the sentiments of the gullible populace like virtuoso pianists. Unfettered by principles of any kind these wolves in sheep’s clothing gained the confidence of the people until the time was right to turn, then, slowly drip by immoral drip they gradually revealed themselves so vitriolic, so febrile, so foaming-at-the-mouth just plain kooky, so unconscionably anti-enlightenment that the “right” was effectively discredited forever and the devious work of the “left” was done… the scoundrels!

    • bella starkey says:

      01:03pm | 17/06/10

      I like how in these culture/history “wars” each side is so quick to announce the other the winner.

      Reply

    • pc says:

      01:27pm | 17/06/10

      Hi Bella

      Did someone win the culture wars? I suppose they had a lot of queenslanders in their team?

    • Stark Nekid says:

      03:49pm | 17/06/10

      What a feindishly devious plan: annoncing the “other side” the winner! That’ll keep them guessing for days…

    • James1 says:

      05:16pm | 17/06/10

      Everyone loves an underdog.

    • papachango says:

      06:14pm | 17/06/10

      Actually the Left tried to declare victory for themselves when Rudd was elected.

      Much like the AGW ‘debate is over’, there were repeated suggestions that ‘the culture wars’ are now over, even by Rudd himself. One opinionista even suggested that all the newspapers across the land should have a purge of any conservative or rightwing opinion columnists, as they are ‘no longer releveant’ (Presumably once a leftwing government is elected they don’t need anyone from the media to scrutinise them)

    • charmaine says:

      01:43pm | 17/06/10

      Ms miller, is once again the voice of reason as usual. Look forward to your next article. Keep up the good work carrie.

      Reply

    • Doh says:

      02:57pm | 17/06/10

      Were you at that dinner party charmaine?

    • Ramsay Gordon says:

      05:16pm | 18/06/10

      @D’Oh,

      What? Your weren’t invited? D’Oh!

    • miles says:

      03:05pm | 17/06/10

      Ah, culture wars.
      This is what happens when you start grouping everyone’s individual opinions into only two groups. I mean, how can just two groupings possibly satisfy one persons aggregate views on innumerable disparate subjects? Let alone a country of them.
      It is an utter farce.
      Like a two party preferred democracy.
      You throw out a stupid statement like “you are with us or you are against us” you can be bloody sure for one that I will be against you… whatever you are for. You can also be sure a hell of a lot of other people will be with you, because well, they don’t want to be against you do they?
      One side has to be constantly at war with the other or else the curtain falls, the whole charade becomes clear.
      And then you have these new governments that the media labels centrists. How creative. This means they can blithely flip from side to side depending on from where the money flows, without having to ever live up to such pesky things as ‘ideals’ or ‘beliefs’. Another thing you might call them is corporatist governments. That is if you were not working for a multinational news corporation.
      Culture wars, what crap!

      Nice idea Carrie. if only you hadn’t descended to the very depths of navel gazing you were decrying! Maybe it is just not possible to talk about this without navel gazing… now there’s an idea wink

      Reply

    • Blossom says:

      03:07pm | 17/06/10

      I too agree Ms Miller,  ones personal opion is just that and all this name calling is rather pathetic. There is an old saying don’t baffle me with BS ..dazzle me with the facts. I resent the implied communist chants because I vote Labor. I am no more communist than anyone else who votes Labor or Liberal is. If anything those mining adds the wealthy mining bosses made convinced me this tax is the right thing.

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      04:18pm | 17/06/10

      Hardly, this is about people with class and morals trying very hard to stop the erosion of our society through these gradual attacks on the very fabric of our society in an apparent “forward thinking” mantra (often espoused by the media). The fact is that those of the lower class devoid of morals and self respect are now in a position to legislate that those that actually do have morals must act in the same manner.

      Reply

    • The Prince of Darkness says:

      07:49pm | 17/06/10

      ...Or it could be about sane, lucid people who don’t have a loony “come-and-speak-in-tongues-to-my-imaginary-friend” agendas having a rational dialogue… it could all be a bit “over your head”, Senator.

    • mid says:

      08:54am | 18/06/10

      “those of the lower class devoid of morals and self respect” holy sh@t, can’t believe you actually wrote that

    • Ryan says:

      11:00am | 18/06/10

      @mid : just to remind you, money does not equal class, more than often its quite the contrary.

    • Ted says:

      06:23pm | 17/06/10

      I don’t know what any of you are talking about. 
      But Carrie is funny smile

      Reply

    • Press says:

      07:32pm | 17/06/10

      Ryan says:03:18pm | 17/06/10
      “Those of the lower class devoid of morals and self respect are now in a position to legislate”

      So, folks, there we have it. The published view of a regular poster and Lib supporter, in 2010 no less, recorded for all to see.

      Those nasty immoral lower classes, eh. Fancy them ever getting to vote or form government.  Gosh.  Never mind, Ryan will fix that.

      He’s come up with a sure fire election winning slogan, there. Messrs Abbott and Hockey’ll be ordering up the bumper stickers already.  I can see ‘em now: “Vote ALP: Vote Immoral Lower Classes.”

      Been asleep this past 100 years, have you Ryan?

      Democracy - a concept opaque to the Liberal mind-set.

      Reply

    • julian thomas says:

      09:45pm | 17/06/10

      only allow ppl with 3 kids to vote, that would be interesting

      Reply

    • Nathan H says:

      04:03pm | 18/06/10

      I noticed she listed what she must think is the neo-con club of “Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Miranda Devine, Janet Albrechtsen”. What about the other side? Is that list too long? I can shorten it: “everyone else”. There, fixed it.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 05:00PM

@joekiely an Irish ghost called a mist fairy comes on dark road and pushes you into the ditch. nothing to do with six pints

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 04:45PM

@joekiely @pjlogue @franksting @cowoods I love 100. The dead man was known to the Garda.

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 04:36PM

A history of Ireland in 100 excuses http://t.co/YK5tblI6 cc @pjlogue @franksting @cowoods

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 04:03PM

Wow the official Chewbacca website looks like it was designed by... a wookie http://t.co/SCTBVbVt

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

by Tory Shepherd

116

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

by Anthony Sharwood

34

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

by Lucy Kippist

25

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed