Re: Clive Palmer
 

Actually, The Age backed Rudd. But it does bring up an important question - should media be allowed to back political parties or candidates.

It happened in 2007 when most media was supportive of "Rudd07", and now again when most was supportive of Abbott (or rather "not Rudd" in some cases).

Re: Clive Palmer
 

Yes. We live in a free society with press freedom. The media should be allowed to have any opinion that they want (as long as they don't break the law)

It is up to the voters to think for themselves

Opinions are like assholes etc

Restricting press ownership is the beginning of a slippery slope

Re: Clive Palmer
 

The question in hand is nothing to do with press ownership, just political bias during election campaigns (aka unpaid political advertising).

Similarly, should organisations such as Unions, Businesses, GetUp etc be allowed to make political adverts once an election has been called.

Re: Clive Palmer
 

Yes

Re: Clive Palmer
 

Kind of obviously, no.

First, it isn't their job, they are supposed to be reporting factual news, not making shit up, and not telling people what to think.

Second, the reason objectionable rich people look to own newspapers and TV stations is because it allows them to influence events - eg it works. Therefore, in the name of freedom and democracy, you need to make sure they don't get to buy policies they want, and part of that is not allowing them to direct papers to influence people to their way of thinking.

Papers, and all widespread media, should be required to be politically neutral.

Re: Clive Palmer
 

I would agree with that during election time, so from the day the election is called until the day after the election. At other times political content should probably be allowed as long as it doesn't attempt to defame someone or is untrue.

Re: Clive Palmer
 

:goodpost:

Yep - but unfortunately we know that doesn't happen it's just some papers are more subtle than others. They all stink:thumbdown:

Re: Clive Palmer
 

It's not so much the political bias in the press - that's always been a factor in elections - I recall The Sun suggesting that the last person out turn off the lights if Kinnock won in '92. And the press was vociferously anti-Howard in 2007.

What gets me here is that nobody - or very few people - questions it - you're absolutely right - very few people think for themselves in this regard, so politicians know that they can largely get away with it. It's only when you get a complete muppet like Jaymes Diaz that they fall over.

The whole business with the Press Club also seems a bit suspicious to me too. Journalists that give the government of the day a hard time don't last long in the Press Club, so it ends up getting stuffed with journalists who aren't really asking any probing questions, because they want to stay there. Even the alleged reporting heavyweights like Laurie Oaks

It's not so much press bias that troubles me, it's more the ethical standards that they seem to present. Politicians - of all flavours - just seem to wriggle around a bit, and then get let off the hook when they eventually don't answer. And then we had that young Guardian reporter attract industry criticism for trying to push Abbott on an issue - in fact he told her to calm down. She was perfectly calm - she was just pushing, very much in the style of Paxman or Snow. And of course he really didn't like it. She should have been congratulated, not reviled.

I really don't think that any of this is healthy for the political process.


S