Why Mainstream Media in Australia Fails Citizens

12 Comments

1. Dreamy fairyfloss here, for our cash hunting profiteering solid momentary catchthis types, are ruinous to honesty, truth, reality. Solidarity with money, donors, influence, coercers, is brainless stuff. Read by pinky pussycats, blancmange boys, the news is couched in rigged predigested language. B. Henderson, (I knew him a little) “our most trusted newsreader”, would admit he knew nothing about what he read off sheets. Murdoch the hoarding, power seeking wart, dreaming of being huge, handsome, is a yankee wifedumping, taxbludging grub, knowing SFA.

2. Explains why Abalone keeps bending over for the New York Mummy’s propaganda sheets, proving once again that he’s a fucking dill.

3. It’s very much an Anglosphere issue of US, UK and Australia with Fox News and ecosystem in the vanguard skirting regulation, claiming entertainment and opinion, to promote MAGA, white Christian nationalist talking points and passivity from media (by threats from RW trolls through SLAPPs).

   Good contrast recent days an AIM contributor Lucy Hamilton had article in The Guardian based on analysis of Advance, their clichéd ‘social cohesion’ etc. and their divisive PR, very good.

   Then ABC Saturday Extra had Bassi the head of ASPI with five minutes of motherhood talking points about threats to ‘social cohesion*’, but with neither details nor specifics, and no questions from Bryant; learnt nothing, but sounded like a dog whistle that dilutes the the role of white Christian nationalism and the far right in Australia by focusing on the centre**?

   UK RW MSM ecosystem has same strategy of disappearing the centre and platforming Farage, Reform, far right etc. like Hanson, ON, Advance etc.; *also using a synonym of the dog whistle ‘cultural coherence’

   In addition to Koch Heritage Project Esther** using Israel-Gaza to pummel the centre in the Anglosphere esp US, local media replicate and like the UK reflex to any geopolitical event by a domestic prism to lazily blame their PM, FM and the centre; rinse and repeat.

4. During the 1980s when Born to be Prime Minister Bob Hawke was steering the ship of state hard a starboard on a course of economic rationalism while declaring that the party was over and insisting that the Labor Party had never really been a Socialist party in any case, the ABC news and current affairs services on Radio National were really quite good in keeping their audience informed as to what was actually going on.

   In spite of Australia’s draconian Libel laws that were used to stifle political dissent current affairs programs still managed to expose the political corruption in Bjelke-Peterson’s Queensland and Alan Bonds crooked political dealings in WA that came to be known as WA Inc, long before the law and justice caught up with them. There were lots of political current affairs and public forums on TV and Radio and considerable Political Satire programs like Rubbery Figures and Max Gillies and others. There was public feedback to the ABC with Backchat on TV and Australia Talks Back on the radio. All in all, politicians were subject to a lot of public scrutiny thanks to our ABC and it only cost Australians 8 cents a day, though that went up to 9 cents before that line was eventually dropped.

   The commercial stations were always strictly right wing and the ABC was always being accused of left wing bias essentially because it did not follow their example of right wing bias, and so gradually the independence of the ABC was repressed, especially by the notion that it had to be balanced instead of fair and accurate. More right wing leaning staff were employed to address the alleged lack of balance. Political Satire was severely reduced and Labor’s constant lurching to the right didn’t help address the problem of administrative pressure through their political appointees. By the time of Hewson’s GST circus the ABC news and current affairs had all but ceased to be accurate and informative. They were quite appalled when Hewson lost and ever after have supported the idea that politicians should not give voters time to assess the worth of their policies until they are announced during election campaigns.

   There was a documentary made about the Keating vs Howard Federal Election. I think it was simply called The Campaign. It was all about the media’s coverage of the election and it effortlessly exposed how utterly useless the media had become at properly informing the public by then. It also ushered in the Howard Regime with the media’s toleration of all its lies, scandals and involvement in murderous wars under false pretences. All made possible by media acquiescence to wealth, power and control and their complete abandonment of their duty to properly inform their audience.

   Now we don’t have informative news and current affairs, political satire is rare, and feedback forums to discuss what the ABC is doing are now non-existent. (Q&A was turned into a censored travesty that wouldn’t tolerate those not sticking to the media narrative). Instead we have deliberate unquestioned state propaganda so that our politicians can support our murderous warmongering overlords without criticism. And if the news has the potential to seriously damage the reputations of our overlords it is simply ignored by the media altogether in a conspiracy of silence.

5. There was a time when I gained great enjoyment reading the Saturday Melbourne Age. The political analysis, international news, the editorial, letters to the editor, the literary section, the travel section kept me entertained and informed for a week; (I was never interested in sports.) But that was a long time ago. Since the Howard era, (not necessarily because of him), the journalistic content and quality have dramatically declined. No longer rational objective analysis of Australian politics, no longer cogent editorials that revealed and criticised failings in Canberra’s policies, now we have repeated banal narratives that can be found word for word in daily editions from mastheads in USA and UK. So I no longer buy or read state or capitol city newspapers, nor do I watch any television. I do follow informative podcasts on ABC radio National and I subscribe to a range of Substack authors of various political persuasions. Now aged 83 years I consider main stream media lost interest in me as I began to lose interest in them. As for politics – I haven’t a clue who to vote for now!

6. Phil, Many Australians feel that news language has become scripted, cautious, and shaped by commercial or political pressures rather than open inquiry.

   That said, I try to focus less on personalities and more on structures. Media concentration, advertising dependence, and political pressure shape coverage far more than any individual newsreader. As you mentioned, even trusted presenters often read from material prepared by others. That tells us something important about how the system works.

   The key issue is accountability. When ownership is concentrated and revenue depends on influence, journalism becomes cautious. That is not about one person. It is about incentives.

   If we want change, the solution is not anger at individuals but support for independent journalism, stronger ownership rules, and funding models that protect editorial independence.

7. Harry, strong feelings about political leadership are understandable. Many people are frustrated with how governments respond to media pressure.

   That said, I try to avoid personal insults and focus instead on behaviour and incentives. The larger issue is why political leaders of all parties feel the need to accommodate powerful media outlets. That speaks to ownership concentration, electoral risk, and the influence of dominant news platforms.

   When media power is heavily concentrated, governments often act cautiously to avoid sustained negative coverage. That is a structural issue, not just a personality issue.

   The real question is this: how do we reduce the leverage of powerful media organisations so policy decisions are shaped by evidence and public interest rather than fear of headlines?

8. Andrew, you raise an important point about media ecosystems rather than just individual outlets. The regulatory gap between news and opinion content has clearly widened in parts of the Anglosphere, and that affects Australia too.

   Where commentary is framed as entertainment or opinion, it often sits outside stricter journalistic standards. That can shift public debate without the same accountability requirements applied to straight reporting.

   Your example about language such as “social cohesion” is also interesting. Terms like that can either clarify risks or blur responsibility, depending on how they are examined. The real issue is whether interviewers probe claims with evidence and specifics, or simply allow broad statements to pass untested.

   I would be cautious, though, about reducing the problem to one ideological side only. Media concentration, political pressure, and commercial incentives distort coverage across the spectrum.

   The deeper question is how we restore rigorous questioning and transparency in interviews and opinion content.

9. B Sullivan, thank you for sharing that history. Many Australians who followed politics through the 1980s and 1990s recall a period when public broadcasting felt more probing, more diverse, and more open to satire and public feedback.

   Your point about the difference between being “balanced” and being “accurate” is important. When journalism treats competing claims as equally valid without testing evidence, clarity can suffer. At the same time, media organisations operate under legal, commercial, and political pressures that shape what is broadcast and how strongly it is framed.

   I would be cautious about describing today’s environment as total propaganda or conspiracy. That risks oversimplifying what is often a structural shift driven by ownership concentration, funding pressure, risk aversion, and shortened news cycles.

   What does seem clear is that investigative depth, satire, and genuine public forums have diminished compared with earlier decades.

   The key question now is constructive: how do we rebuild robust scrutiny, protect editorial independence, and encourage citizens to support journalism that genuinely informs rather than merely reacts?

10. Mediocrates, I relate to much of what you describe. Many readers remember a time when weekend papers felt substantial, analytical, and worth sitting with for days. The decline in long form political analysis and independent editorial voice is widely felt.

    Ownership consolidation, cost cutting, and the 24 hour news cycle have changed incentives. Depth has often given way to speed and narrative repetition. That does not mean quality journalism no longer exists, but it is harder to find in mainstream formats.

    Your shift toward podcasts and independent writers reflects a broader change in how Australians seek information. That is not disengagement, it is adaptation.

    As for not knowing who to vote for, that may be a sign of a more thoughtful approach rather than confusion. When party lines blur and narratives dominate, critical citizens look harder at policy detail and accountability.

    Perhaps the real question is this: what core principles matter most to you now when deciding your vote?

11. ADVANCE IN AUSTRALIA IS ORGANISING FOR THE NEXT ELECTIONS

    If you read The Saturday Paper, you might already have seen. I just spent two days undercover at Advance’s national conference. And what I witnessed was so frightening that I’ve been struggling to find the words – but I’m going to try.

    Advance article

    Far-right group Advance has been growing in size and influence, so when the team at GetUp saw they were organising a private conference, we knew we had to get inside. What I found wasn’t just a room full of extreme rhetoric – immigration described as an “invasion”, feminism destroying Western civilisation, a speaker who suggested Angela Merkel was worse than the Nazis. It was also a professional, well-funded political machine that is quietly reshaping how Australians think about politics.

    They’re incredibly organised, and incredibly well-funded by their billionaire backers. And they’re building infrastructure right now, between election cycles, to do everything they can to make the permanent rise of the far right a reality in Australia.
    Conal Feehely GetUp!!

12. @ Denis Hay: Re Andrew Smith comment.

    “Where commentary is framed as entertainment or opinion, it often sits outside stricter journalistic standards. That can shift public debate without the same accountability requirements applied to straight reporting.”

    In a recent US Court case lawyers for the Murdoch Media Manipulation Monopoly asserted that the entity was no longer a Newspaper of Record accurately reporting the events of the day, but rather an entertainment vehicle to amuse the readers.

    In Australia we should not be surprised because regional ”media” censor any criticism of the NOtional$ and are with time becoming even less relevant to the needs of regional voters.

    Consequently when the voters elect an MP who focuses upon their personal interests (alcoholism, philandering, exploiting the Parliamentary Allowances Scheme) there is no social pressure to call that politician to account.

    Consequently as experience in New England demonstrates, economic & social progress stops, leaving the community locked in a 19th century original, authentic, genuine theme park from where the biggest export is the kids to careers and life in stacked sardine cans in overcrowded, polluted mega-cities clogged with traffic congestion ….. the future that the present NSW Minus LABOR GOVERNMENT is supporting for the benefit of property developers.