Hi all,

Actually, it would be interesting and important to have actual figures on media ownership. So far, I've found an issue brief from the Centre for Policy Development, titled:
Media Ownership and Regulation in Australia, by Rob Harding-Smith, CPD Researcher. it's dated August 2011, and says:

'With the exception of Sydney and Melbourne, no large urban center has more than one daily newspaper. There are only two national daily papers in Australia today, the Australian and the Australian Financial Review. Only the Canberra Times and the West Australian were outside the ownership of the two major organisations, however in 2007 the owner of the Canberra Times, Rural Press Limited, merged with the Fairfax group, leaving one.
News Limited controls the majority of the newspaper market in Australia with almost 70 per cent of the market-share within the capitals compared to 21 per cent for Fairfax. The two big organisations also own many smaller papers as well as the majority of suburban titles. A small number of companies also control the commercial radio and television networks and this number is soon set to decrease following the takeover of Austero by Southern Cross. Pay television in Australia is dominated by Foxtel (25 per cent owned by News Limited) and Austar (merger with Foxtel pending), and the four highest rating Internet news services are owned by the existing news sources.'

Looking forward to a good discussion with less invective.

Interesting but I hardly ever read a Murdoch paper. The best journalists, who actually understand their topic, write for the Australian Financial Review, the Economist or Bloomberg and they know what a mess countries like France are in. Australia would be very foolish to emulate anything which they do.

Alan, I agree that the bias in the Murdoch media is a huge issue, as it has misled the Australian people and given them a false basis on which to cast their vote and decide whether to support or denounce all manner of government initiatives.

It really does amount to an enormously undemocratic aspect of our (pseudo)democracy.

But it is only one part of a much bigger issue; the enormous bias exerted by the business sector in general.

There really is the most amazing bias towards never-ending rapid population growth, which is directly related to the vested interests of the property development sector and indeed just about every other business sector.

I note in particular when Gillard said that she was in favour of a “sustainable Australia not a big Australia”, she was smartly put in her place by the powers that be and despite many calls for her to elaborate on it, we never heard anything of the sort from her again!

That’s how powerful that particular lobby is.

But you seem to go along with it! You apparently have no problem with the current rate of immigration or with it continuing at a high level indefinitely. Hence no problem with the domestic demand for infrastructure, services and everything else continuing to rapidly increase. This is despite our current, past and future struggles to build and improve infrastructure and services. In short, this type of growth works diametrically against our efforts to build much-needed I&S, and makes sure that even with our best efforts, more I&S will always be much-needed!

I must say, I don’t understand your overarching position here: you are very strongly against the bias of Murdoch but not at all against this much bigger and more important bias.

If we were to somehow make Murdoch politically neutral, it would help but ultimately not do a great deal to address this greater problem.

We really do need to make government independent of the sway of the big and powerful end of town. This is a whole lot more important than making Murdoch politically neutral.

The media has the power to sell products, set fashions, promote ideas, alter values, create heroes or villains, endorse opinions, champion causes, stimulate debate, sponsor charities, cause controversies, incite rebellions, provoke wars, approve candidates, criticise policy, arouse emotions, and destroy governments, a fact that all governments, both democratic and totalitarian, are fully aware of.

And the media people like Alan Austen are also most acutely aware of it.

What we are seeing in Alan Austin's latest whine is who gets to own this incredible power? In the past there was little cultural diversity in the media. The media reflected the values and attitudes of the tertiary educated, left wing elitist class who generally infested it. But Rupert Murdoch did not become super rich because he was dumb. He realised that the media was not reflecting the values and attitudes of the majority of the population and that the continued promotion by the media of unpopular and deviant ideas was really beginning to grate on the public.

Murdoch made himself rich because he is a lot smarter than Alan Austin. He knew that creating media which reflected the majority opinion (instead of talking down to the populace) would sell. Naturally, this does not go down well with Alan and his finger wagging mates.

Alan and his friends who were once the almost exclusive owners of this incredible media power have been squeezed out of their privileged position and they are not happy about that. This is why they endlessly groan about the Murdoch media and every other right wing media that is giving the public what they want, instead of preaching down to them with all the imperiousness of evangelical fundamentalists.

The reason that Murdoch has such a big readership is precisely because he can gauge the mood of the people, provide accurate and investigative reporting, and incisive, broad, and relevant opinion.

The reason Alan and other left whingers are largely ignored by the public is because they provide exclusively partisan opinion, no new facts or information, and analysis so flawed a primary school child can pick it apart.

Murdoch has in the past supported both Labor in Aus and Labour in the UK, and the left whingers were singing his praise. Now that Newscorp (and the majority of Australians) have decided that Labor is incompetent and dysfunctional, now the left whingers have decided that Newscorp is the great Satan.

To me it sounds like an excuse for failing "We wouldn't have lost the election if Newscorp had not reported our failures!"

As Chris Kenny says:

"LABOR often allocates blame elsewhere for election defeats: in 1975 it was John Kerr and Rupert Murdoch; in 2001 it was the Tampa asylum-seeker standoff; and in 1996 it seemed to be the voting public.

This time Kevin Rudd is getting in early by blaming Murdoch again because the alternative is to receive the same treatment as Mark Latham, who in 2004 was made to wear all the ignominy of Labor's failings.

But with howls about media bias being amplified by the ABC, it is worth pointing out their absurdity. Any serious search for jaundiced coverage should focus on those who have attempted to make a case for the government's re-election. But dodging blame and questioning motives are just ways to forestall necessary self-examination."

Alan, I would suggest the Rudd imbeciiles do as Tony Abbott does. Stop feeding their enemies. Abbott refuses to be interviewed by the ABC. His message is getting out regardless and his enemies are dismissed by thinking people. His enemies seem content to be merely talking to themselves. Graham Young undertook research on who listens to the ABC. He found it was a case of lefties talking to lefties. Few others botherred to listen.
Abbott by his actions seems to agree.

Oh, I'll an7swer your question before you ask.
Yes the Murdoch media is more influential than the ABC. The ABC doesn't present a broad spectrum of ideas.