DavidL, did you actually read this piece? The writer said "Newspapers are free to say what they will in editorials and opinion pieces, of course. But news data must be untainted."
It appears you cannot disagree with what the writer has said, so you distort and denigrate.
Who do you work for? No, let me guess ...

Alan, you have successfully identified a problem with the MSM, congratulations!

Perhaps you would now like to consider such less obvious transgressions with the ABC, SBS, BBC and other “progressive” MSM?

No, I thought not.

Get a “reality” based life for goodness sake.

Unlike the ABC, News Corporation’s media outlets need to attract eyeballs. On the day when their websites, newspapers and radio and TV stations cease attracting a large audience News Corporation will cease to attract revenue. On that day it will either change its “product” or go out of business.

But until that day News Corporation will continue in business and will continue to pay salaries to its staff and dividends to its shareholders regardless of what Alan Austin or, for that matter, Steven Meyer, thinks.

So getting rid of News Corporation is simple Mr. Austin. Persuade the great Australian public to turn elsewhere for its news and entertainment like…, well like…, uhhm like,….

Oh well.

C’est la vie

Alan, Steven has a point. And so does Spindoc.
Do you think the other media are as bad?
Where can we get untainted news?

Thanks, Sunflower. Yes, all news outlets have faults and foibles. I find ABC Radio News appallingly lazy and shallow these days. Whether there is another analysis piece here, we shall see.
But no other organisation approaches anywhere near News Corp for entrenched malevolence in the form of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation - even in court under oath.
Yes, certainly all news outlets have a bias in their opinion pages. There is no problem with that. Perfectly fair and reasonable. Fortunately we can find a wide range of different biases on line. Even here just on this site.
News outlets that seem report news without deliberate distortion include Alternet, Huffington Post, The Guardian and Christian Science Monitor. There are others.
And for investigative reporting, there is Wikileaks, of course. Which now does what newspapers used to do before they stopped employing investigative reporters.

Alan Austin

I am not a fan of the Murdoch media.

But, you see, one of the things that irritates me most about, say, the Herald Sun, is the way their columnist, Andrew Bolt, consistently misrepresents the science behind climate change.

Now as soon as I put it that way many people here will praise him for being one of the few journalists who, in their opinion, talks sense about climate.

You recommend the Guardian. I consider them to be, in their own way, an especially slimy and malevolent rag.

BTW unlike the Murdoch media outlets, the Guardian does not pay its way. It depends for its existence on cross-subsidisation from Auto Trader and other profit making media outlets within GMG (Guardian Media Group)

And don’t get me started on the ABC.

You criticise the Murdoch media for their attacks on the Gillard government. These are a pale shadow of the HOWARD HATRED that emanated from lefties in bygone years.

Perhaps lefties who attack the Murdoch media for their anti-Gillard stance need to complete the following aphorism.

People in glass houses shouldn’t……?

The reason the Murdoch media exercise so much power is simply because the competition is so awful.

Now is that really Rupert Murdoch’s fault?

Did he tell the ABC to employ only self-righteous lefties whose contempt for working Australians is so palpable?

Did he instruct Fairfax to employ only “journalists” lacking any vestige of communication skills? Journalists whose default style is a sneer?

So there you have it Alan Austin. Isn’t it a good thing that we have free speech in Australia so that neither you nor I can control what people read or hear?

Get real Alan Austin.