Murdochery | Blogotariat

The Murdoch media, or Newscorpse as it is sometimes called, is notorious for lying to its readers and listeners, as I have demonstrated many times. Some examples are given in the sources below of bald-faced lies, lies by omission, complete inventions, spin and assorted other drivel1-30.

The organisation also is about denialism. It denies climate change31-39, Covid-1940-44,

It lies about electric vehicles45,46, regularly states that there is a war on Christmas47-49, that women should not have bodily autonomy50, and that the Royal Commission into institutional child sexual abuse should not occur51. They get away with it because when the Coalition are in government federally, Murdoch supports them to the hilt, even to the extent of reporting batshit crazy stuff as if it was gospel52,53. However, when the Labor party are in government federally, they seem to be more concerned with trying to ‘win over’ the Murdoch media54,55, seemingly by running dead on anything approaching some sort of legislation making lying in the media punishable by sanctions. As a consequence, nothing changes; the Murdoch hacks continue lying.

If a piece of journalism in a newspaper, magazine or any associated online publication, is clearly a lie or inaccurate, it is much better and faster to inform ABC TV’s Media Watch than to make a complaint to the Australian Press Council, the body charged with promoting better journalism, something that is greatly desired.

Former Media Watch host, Jonathan Holmes was of that view back in 2010 when he said “The watchdogs – the Australian Press Council and the Australian Communications and Media Authority – are slow, legalistic, and relatively toothless. By contrast, Media Watch is swift, and when necessary, brutal”. Media Watch, now in its 31st year, has been hugely popular precisely because it publicly calls out dodgy journalism practices and delivers swift ‘adjudication’, sometimes even before its

audience contemplates a complaint to the regulator about any journalistic transgression56. The fact that Media Watch exists at all, clearly demonstrates the failure of the regulators.

As an example of the processes of the Press Council; back in 2021, ABC journalist Louise Milligan complained about an editorial published in the Murdoch budgie cage liner, The Australian, headed “Greatest enemy of truth is those who conspire to lie” in print and online on 8 June 2021. It said: “Many at the ABC express their displeasure at being held to account by The Australian. Forget that their own Media Watch has a leery obsession with News Corporation, some less thoughtful ABC journalists, and their flacks, one-time reporters who seem to have forgotten where they came from, decry any form of scrutiny”. It continued with: Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of Sally Neighbour and Louise Milligan”. It went on to say “To be good you often need to be brash, and brave. But to be really good, you need to be beyond reproach. Your loyalty to the truth must be without question. Fairness and balance is your currency. It has to be. Think of the opposite qualities to answer why. The subjects of good journalism, of important journalism, lie and dissemble. Good journalists do not. They rely on the truth. They yearn for it. But they understand the limits. In many respects the natural enemy of a journalist, aside from a public relations hack, or a political flack, is the defamation lawyer. The most dangerous enemy of the journalist is bad, lazy, deceitful journalism”57. This is rich coming from a Murdoch rag, which as you can see from the references below, is not averse to bad, lazy and deceitful journalism, or outright lying. This Murdoch editorial demonstrates the truth of the adage: When conservatives make an accusation, it is in fact a confession.

The determination by the Press Council was that The Australian’s editorial had breached general principles 1, 3 and 6. However this determination was not made public until 5 September 2023, some 27 months after the offending article. This is a ludicrously long time to come to a relatively simple decision. What was the punishment? Nothing. The adjudication of the breaches was apparently punishment enough according to the press council57.

Who funds the Press Council? News Corporation (News Corp) is the largest single financer of the Australian Press Council, accounting for nearly two-thirds of the Council’s annual income, yet in one crucial respect its editorial policies flatly contradict the Council’s statement of general principles. Point 1 in that statement says: ‘Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion’58.

News Corp Australia’s Editorial Professional Conduct Policy says at Point 1.3: ‘Comment, conjecture and opinion are acceptable in reports to provide perspective on an issue, or explain the significance of an issue, or to allow readers to recognise what the publication’s standpoint is on the matter being reported’ (The Australian n.d.). The question naturally arises: how can this contradiction on a cornerstone issue in journalism ethics be allowed to stand without evident challenge from Australia’s only formal agency for newspaper accountability?58

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is an independent authority that regulates broadcasting, radio communications, telecommunications, and some online content in Australia. Established by the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, ACMA investigates, enforces, and prosecutes complaints related to communication and media services. If you have issues with any of these services, you can report them to ACMA for investigation. ACMA can deal with complaints on many topics, but cannot deal with complaints regarding online misinformation or journalistic ethics59.

Where news outlets place a false story, it must be removed and replaced with a retraction and an apology of the same length in the same font in the same place; if printed, the apology and retraction will be on the same page number in the same font and the same column inches as the offending article; if online, the retraction and apology must be of the same prominence and length as the offending article; if on radio or television, the retraction and apology must be at the same time, in the same program and of the same length as the offending article. It is time to stop this bad, lazy, deceitful journalism.

Sources