So what!
Billions of human beings all over the planet will probably tune in to some kind of "news" media today.
So how consequential are the Fairfax editorial policies in the face of all of that?
Even within Australia where the privately owned "news" papers are dominated by the various Murdoch propaganda rags, how many people even read the Fairfax papers?

And of course the Murdoch media, or more correctly propaganda machine, operates all over the planet too. As such it is widely influential on a world-wide scale. So how much influence or difference will the Fairfax editorial policies make to anything at all?
And remember too that the real in-your-face face of the Murdoch media empire is epitomized in the abomination called the USA Fox (faux) "news" circus.

Jonathon,

Here's what Churchill really thought of Jews, from an article published in 1940 but written in 1937:

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article said. "It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law, and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity. These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution — that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

"The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different.' He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/world/europe/11iht-winston.4873300.html?_r=0

It doesn't seem to me like he would regard Israel as a Western state.

I have to disagree with a few points in the article.
While the small history lesson is true and the quotes from Erdogan are also true, I doubt very much that Turkey will start slaughtering Christians any time soon. Having spent some time there, the people are quite friendly, particularly to tourists and Western foreigners (not so much to those to their East). Tourism is a major part of their economy, so "slaughtering" Westerners (the biggest spending tourists) would be idiotic to the extreme.

However, there is another major point to be made. Turks do not think like Westerners in regards to history. The west, thanks to "progressives", is obsessed with apologising over supposed past injustices. This is a Western prejudice. Turks, like normal people, are proud of their history.

Prior to the "progressive" infection in the West, if you won a war you were proud of that victory. The obsession now with a "victim mentality" is to feel sorry for winning and to glorify the achievements of the losers. How silly is that? "We won the war, but we should feel bad for winning it!" Turks do not have this mindset. Western "progressivism" has not (yet) infected their historical outlook. This is why they won't admit to claims of genocide or feel guilty for past supposed injustices.

Dane,
Excellent research. But what would really shown Churchill as not anti Jewish but entirely anti dark age religion or truly anti semitic is his views on Islam. He was quite a bit more scathing in his condemnation of that dark age religion. I believe he despised the dark age nature (the vengeance, violence, arrogance and inability to change) of both religions equally. I have independently come to the same conclusion. Churchill would be more horrified at Western blind support for Israel than horrified at Israel. He would have expected Israel to behave as it does.

Dane,

Just to clarify a misunderstanding: my reference to Winston Churchill was not to insinuate that he was pro Jews or anti Jews.

I have not studied his position on that matter and am grateful to the link offered.

My point, and it may not have been clear in the article, was that once he decided on a mission eg the destruction of Nazi Germany as a threat, he did not wince from that mission. Irrespective of the pleadings and requests made to him by many.

Aristocrat

you say "Turks do not think like Westerners in regards to history. The west, thanks to "progressives", is obsessed with apologising over supposed past injustices. This is a Western prejudice. Turks, like normal people, are proud of their history"

I agree. On that point, in my humble opinion, you are spot on.