Where did you see the in depth coverage of these issues? Where did you see pieces in the BBC or Guardian questioning the wisdom of buying a house with a “low start” mortgage?

Much easier to do yet another article on suffering cattle / Palestinians / whales.

And what of the aftermath of the GFC? When the Guardian bothers to report at all it’s in terms of wicked bankers enjoying obscene bonuses with the occasional piece pinning the blame on Thatcher. (Get the formula? INDIGNATION!)

I have news for Guardian readers. Bankers’ bonuses, distasteful as you may find them, are NOT the cause of the GFC. They are a symptom. Trying to prevent future crises by curtailing bankers’ bonuses is like trying to cure diarrhoea by shoving a cork up your rectum.

Healthcare is another issue in which the media have failed dismally. Who wants to tell the public that your nice doctor has gotten most of his post-graduate education at seminars sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of medical appliances?

If you want an example of what healthcare reporting should be like read this piece.

The Cost Conundrum by Atul Gawande June 1, 2009

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

Ever see anything of remotely comparable quality on the BBC?

I could go on. What’s missing in reporting on the Middle-East is that Jew hatred has become part of the warp and weft of contemporary Muslim culture.

We get our knickers in a knot about Indonesian abattoirs but nothing about the treatment of the indigenous population of West Papua.

The media are silent about the consequences of growing income inequality in most Western countries. The folk demonstrating in Tahrir Square and the Tea Party activists in the US have more in common than either would wish to admit.

So there you have it Alan.

It’s NOT about “targeting” this or that side of politics.

It’s about QUALITY JOURNALISM. The Murdoch media, WSJ excepted, do not claim to be quality journalists.

The Guardian / BBC / ABC etc do make that claim but they’re LYING.

Source: AFP March 5 2011
JULIA Gillard will sit down to lunch with Rupert Murdoch in New York on Thursday.
The Prime Minister will dine with the News Corp chairman during a week-long US visit.
She will visit News Corp for the lunch that will also be attended by the Australian-born Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Thomson, and a senior executive, Joel Klein.
...........
I wonder if Rupert Murdoch will now be on the visting list of every
senior Australian politician who visits New York in the future.

Thanks, Steven,
Again I agree with much of your analysis. But haven't found any evidence that The Guardian is as deficient as you seem to be suggesting.
You ask: "Where did you see the in depth coverage of these issues? Where did you see pieces in the BBC or Guardian questioning the wisdom of buying a house with a “low start” mortgage?"
Not sure about the BBC, but certainly George Monbiot at The Guardian has offered analyses of economics which were poopoohed at the time but have been vindicated since. On other matters too. The other journalist who is strikingly lucid and incisive is Simon Jenkins. There are others.
But my main concern is not accurate predictive analysis or credible opinion, but blatant lying in news reports. This, until specific examples are offered, does appear to be the exclusive province of Murdoch publications. Which is why those of us who value integrity and decency must withdraw our patronage.

Alan wrote:

>>...those of us who value integrity and decency must withdraw our patronage [from Murdoch publications]...

I'm guessing that you, like me, are not a patron. I'm also guessing that people who enjoy reading Murdoch publications are not going to take any notice of your exhortations.

Murdoch will carry on so long as his formula garners eyeballs and eardrums because, in the media business, that's the bottom line. It's the bottom line as much for the Guardian and ABC and, for that matter, Online Opinion as it is for Murdoch.

One thing I learned many years ago is that people don't mind being lied to as long as it:

--Doesn't affect them personally

--Reinforces their pre-existing beliefs

--Makes them feel good about themselves

--is not too obvious

Agree entirely, Steven.
Very well observed.

If you're in this forum defending the 'integrity' of the Murdoch Press, it's clear to me Rupert and his prostitute Bolt have you by the short and curlies.

It's not hard to pick the deliberate distortion of facts and misinformation spewed out by these newspapers.

However, I still find many of you coming on this forum regurgitating the blatant false claims made by the Murdoch Press, against anything marginally left of your far right position on the bench.

What you don't realise is that the majority of intelligent people who sit in the centre of the spectrum just see you as right-wing morons, easily duped by the misinformation in the media because it suits your backward perspective on things.

What's unfortunate is that there are enough people in society too easily duped alongside you because they don't have the inclination to be critical of what they are reading. This is what Rupert and his cohorts rely on to control the opinions of as much of the ignorant masses as they possibly can.