Features & profiles


Fiction reviews

Health, psychology & science stories


Investigative stories

Non-fiction reviews



PR, copy, corporate

Prime Minister interviews

Southeast Asia


( 363 visitor comments )




Censorship by omission

21 June 2007

Re Mark Day's story on regional radio:

These matters are worthy of our attention, sure, and well done on bringing them up.

But your media knowledge and considerable forensic skills would IMO be better directed in an examination of News Corporation. That is a way bigger story than the above one - indeed than anything you have broached here or in the Media supplement. Aren't we missing the main game, or at least a vastly more significant one?

Why might News Corp require examination? Let me give a couple of simple illustrations:

Two producers in Murdoch's Fox TV network wrote in their joint resignation letter recently:

"We can no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so far from that...

"Not only are you an instrument of the Bush White House, and Israeli propaganda, you are war mongers with no sense of decency, nor professionalism."

It was a story one did not read in The Australian. Why not? You should be able to discuss yourselves - you discuss everyone else. (E.g. an Australian commentator felt free to brand Geoff Clarke as "scum" this week.) 

A second, broader example: This newspaper (and its entire global stable) helped swing Western public opinion behind the Iraq invasion. That invasion and occupation have resulted in 655,000 Iraqi dead - that's the population of Canberra multiplied by two. It has put our transport systems, infrastructure and populace on the hitlists of terrorists local and foreign.

The war - which this newspaper championed - has helped endanger the security of millions of Western citizens.

Are you telling me that this is a less significant story than regional radio?

Visitor's : Add Comment