Chris - the editorials are under the control of the senior editors (I use to write them in the 80s), so they are more of a pointer to what a small number of editors at the very top are thinking. Sometimes management may have a hand but more likely the influence would be subtle. I would be interested to know if anyone actually reads them. I suspect not.
The rest of the paper is a partial - note partial - indicator of the rank and file's concerns. As for devising a measure it is difficult to say. That's something I'd have to think a lot more about..
As noted the trend is towards lifestyle, leisure and celebrity, with the political stuff the concern of the elite.. they are in the paper because what else are you going to put in the paper?

Chris,
The teaser question answer is clearly an inequitable yes !
The answer to the article is qualified yyyyes
I too question the methodology of as any half decent salesman/politician should be able to tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Like wise it is somewhat lest than realistic to try and assess the media (particularly news papers) solely on what they publish.

Nor is valid (objective) to simply look at editorials or 'columnist's entertainions' alone and determine the answer by simple mathematics.

Likewise I reject objectively unsound that the notion of 'balance' equals non bias. I would argue that unbiased equals OBJECTIVITY.

Many news papers are 'selective' about WHAT they publish and tend to favour what is in their best commercial interests.

One local paper has banned LTE contributor because the they wrote for an opposition paper questioning the other's delivery method. (thrown on the front lawn V in the letterbox)
While a trivial issue it clearly demonstrates a general intention.

Along this line how does one balance out the central 15 pages of real estate ads and the 'petty' (quasi) advertorials about local developers as good news stories. This is despite an almost white wash against a pro-development council.

Or their difference in column cms. devoted to opposition members. I refer to subtleties like the choice, size and placement of pictures. Especially given that placement and size are charged at a premium for a reason.

Then there is a clear difference between a luke warm positive and a raging great rave.
Commercially it serves the media's commercial interests to simplify issues in order to sensationalise, trivialise political discourse.

Consider how much political information is tied to media deadlines. Take for example the media frenzy about Malcolm's leadership . They made it an issue.

More often than not the media create the the problem through sensation then claim they are simply responding to market forces. Are they really?
One wonders who is leading whom to the bottom of the pit

The final point on bias is to ask who's interests do they sever?

Hi Chris

Thankyou for your explanation. It's reasonable.

I've read many of your past articles and while often agreeing with the substance (and sometimes not) your work is always of a most high standard and can not be criticised for ever being uninformed.

I guess it is a natural tendency to write with the unconscious application of our own biases, and no matter how hard they try even the most professional of writers wouldn't be totally immune from such influence.

Gladly we have few Michael Moores in Australia ... though some try hard.

Sorry I was largely unfair and blunt yesterday. But I am heartily sick of the manipulation of the media and news by many politically biased journalists. It just seems to me few recall how our system works and all sorts of outlandish statements are made and opinions given without much knowledge or thought.

examinator,

Interesting comments. Do you think the question of media bias is worth pursuing given some of the shortcomings of the media you and others raise?

If so, do you have any ideas about how such a question (media bias) is best examined?

Chris,
Yes I do think bias in news papers should be pursued. However I do think that current methodologies deliver very limited practical value to those who need it.

Yes I do have a few ideas on how it could be done to whereby it could be more practically usefull and I would argue more accurately.
To do this I would suggest an expansion of focus to one that addresses the real villain the power differential.
Selectivity of Information = increased power differential
Keep in mind: I don't believe in absolutes only improvements.

This isn't structurally the place for such a discussion, leastwise with 2 posts of 350.

I have made this comment previously.
I agree with Raycom the ABC is badly compromised in having bias.

Some years ago my son went to work for the ABC.
A friend who already worked there advised him not to let on that he
was a liberal voter as it would affect his career.

Some time later my son made the comment that the only people in the
closet at the ABC were the liberal voters.

In regard to global warming their bias is blatant and they don't even
try to hide it, but openly scoff at a contrary opinion.