Just been talking to a mate of mine who has conducted an interesting little experiment - slightly dishonest experiment perhaps but interesting nevertheless.
He set up 20 different identities and then proceeded to write 10 pro-Rudd/antiHoward letters and 10 pro-Howard/antiRudd letters - all on the same topic. (He's an experienced and passionate writer of letters and often gets published under his own name.)He kept all letters less than 150 words and tried to make them all about the same length.
He sent them all off to various newspapers around the country and awaited the results.
Over the next three days he had 13 of the letters published. Nine of the pro-Rudd letters were published and 4 of the pro-Howard letters.
Two of the pro-Rudd letters were cut by a sentence. All 4 of the pro-Howard letters were cut.
He did this out of curiosity and, being an ALP voter, he was pleased with the result.
Yes, too small a sample to generalise perhaps but does it suggest something?

Letters are cut for numerous reasons communicat - and yes, I think it's far too small a sample. Such an experiment is extraordinarily difficult, because again, it depends on the quality of the letter, and how topical it is.

Aside from the fact letters are cut for all sorts of reasons, (defamation, style, coherence, brevity) there's the issues of interest. A newspaper editor will pick the letters that address the hot topics of the day.

If his letters cite issues, then it will depend on what issues they cite. If it's a good letter, you probably won't be able to just switch the word 'Rudd' to the word 'Howard.' It's just not that simple.

There is an exercise of topic selection in the process, which I suppose could be called bias - but ultimately, they're after controversy, from either side of the fence.

So, I sincerely doubt any editor says "pick letters that support Rudd."
Rather, they'll say "that Howard leadership squabble's hot right now. Gimme whatever's coming through on that."
By proxy, it will be supportive of Rudd because of the nature of the topic. But it's hardly a nefarious plot steeped in bias.

Ah but that was the issue TurnRightThenLeft. They were all on the same very hot topic indeed. They were all very well and very convincingly written (I saw them and so did several other people). He did all he could to make everything else equal. The pro-ALP pseudonyms he has used before were all accepted too. (Makes one wonder about how many people write multiple letters to the media.)

Oh well better than seeing your exact words used in the editorial without acknowledgment I suppose...

1996 Federal Government wanted a reduction in concentration of ownership of Australian media.
They acted on it by giving the news organizations a choice.
Ten years earlier he said that it was, in opposition he declared it was imperative that the Government break up the empires to permit them to operate.
The aggregation of power that resulted from four companies owning most of the national media was, as Paul Keating asserted in 1975 contrary to national interest... Just over a decade later as Treasurer Keating helped introduce new media ownership laws which created a distinction between print and broadcast.
Kerry Packer who was heavily involved in the cruel live export trade is gone and James the son who brought to an end his Dads love affair with 9 is investing heavily in China. Must be something in the air with China.

Rudd and China and Packer and China.
Last year we had another Cormo express right here in WA. Nobody wanted to break that story despite the fact it would have been a corker after 60 minutes allegations. Reports.

The ownership over media, newspapers radio etc has conflicts of interests throughout.

this is for the media get and ask both the govervents and all other goverment members are they ever going to admitt to the truth of the rapes and abuse that occurred in our states run institutions, orphanages, and remand centres , foster homes, in and out of care homes . and the institutions the churches took over from the goverment,type in daruk boys home the goverment is covering this place up and are the courts ,, im a victim of the abuses that occurred and im male , ,, their is more other reasons to vote some one in just other than the i r laws and the ozone climante which goverment is going to put their hand up to get the votes neither because their gutless, we victims need justice and not have the cases thrown from the courts , forgotten australians we are and forgotten i will never be forgotten until justice is given and that of other victims still suffrring today and im only 45, the senate inquiries done in august 2004 and march 2005 , no goverment has done nothing , still covering up the abuses , and are abusing their own powers in the goverment to do so

huffnpuff

They dont care

I have written articles to the media and like many here could give a toss.

They dont care about the abuse their parties infict on people.

They only care about their own agenda.

They support the parties just like those here.

They know and dont care as if they did they would do something about it.

All they have is words and say but its about IR see what i meean.

You already know that i post the truth and these party people dont like it.

They much prefer to push it away and stuff you.

Well thats not me.
And for interest I also had a look at your link.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

THANKKS FOR SURPORT LEAST SOME ONE WHO DOES UNDERSTAND US FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS EVEN KNOW I DON;T KNOW WHO YOU REALLY ARE, IM THE MAN WHO IS FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, AND I WANT TO OPEN THAT DOOR OPEN IT FOR EVERY VICTIM FOR ALL OF US FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS , WE ARE REAL VICTIMS , BUT NO ONE IN GOVERMENT WANTS TO SAY YES ITS TRUE, ,

Communicat,

Although TRTL is technically right about the experiment, I'm prepared to go along with you on this - and you know where I stand on political preference.

Our free local Rupert paper has been conservative in the way only hysterically parochial papers can be until recently. As a local paper it usually publishes letters about local issues, but for weeks now they've been publishing letters on federal politics.

As you say, most are pro-Rudd. 3 to 1 by my uselessly unscientific reckoning. The puzzling thing is why they bother. This is the safest of safe Liberal seats. Labor would need a 10,000 percent swing to even register in the figures. A fencepost would be more likely to get elected around here than Labor.

You read the articles and get the impression the paper is pro-Howard, then read the letters and get the impression the readers are all pro-Rudd. Weird.

Of course the media is biased. Anyone can see that.
They follow the fashion and it is fashionable to bash Howard.

I have no inside knowledge of the commercial TV networks or the newspapers
but I do know about the ABC and all the liberals are in the closet.
Plenty of room in there as the queers are all out in the open.

Again the PCs will complain, but there it is, put up with it !

This is no about political bias, but does show the power the media has and that from time to time they colude about what is published.

During the raciallly motivated gang rapes in SW Sydney, and there were about 60 reported, the police apparently issued press release/s warning the public about the dangers. None of this was published and the reason was that the media did not want to give Sydney any bad publicity in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics.

This disgusts me and further lowers my opinion of the media and those that run it.

I wonder how the media would have reacted if there had been a major gang rape in Sydney during the Olympics? Not reported at all?
Will human rights abuses in China be reported during the Olympics? Probably not. Although the media appears to be happy to interfere in the democratic process here they won't dare do it there.

We know how biased labor is

Did we see when rudds wife sacked 400 people from work directions all over the papers. Nope

Do we see how the labor party hids peadophiles. Nope

Do we see how labor hide child sexual abuse and physical abuse. Nope

Do we see labor taking into account the report into corruption 2004. Nope

So what do we see rudd as a poster boy and standing for the people. Nope

Labor and unions stand for themselves and their own predator activities.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

My mate has just gone past on his morning constitutional. He informs me that he has just had another shot at the media - with similar results. He wants to try a third time - three in a row should be pretty conclusive according to him.
He thinks it is a bit of a joke. Does the media need a bit of shaking up and then a sharp tap on the shoulder to settle it down - or perhaps a knife to level it off?

Recently a member of the police dept was charged with murdering his wife in Brisbane. It was reported on the television news in a most perfunctory manner midway through the bulletin. Newspapers didn't run much with it either.

How odd I thought. Normally any homicide grabs headlines. And when it concerns a member of the community that enjoys high levels of public trust and respect who would have thought it would go almost unnoticed.

When I was a member of a police dept in Australia I befriended a local newspaper journalist who would call-in looking for stories.

He went on to become a member of the media section of that police dept and we bumped into each other years later. It was then that I got a bit of insight into how the the media thing works.

His hearsay story is mine for that reason. But it does leave me wondering why so many of us believe what we read in the newspapers and hear/see on television.

My conclusion: Self-evidently biased and questionably corrupted.

The part Janet Albrechtson played in the recent leadership shenanigans was amazing. What is a single journalist doing deciding it's time for a leadership stoush? Shouldn't that have been up to the party?

I don't think the media has as much influence with the public as it likes to think, but it has far too much influence in politics if one journalist can cause that much trouble.

Occasionally the media do some good things like exposing corruption, etc. but the media has far too much influence and push their own personal or their bosses views. There are no reporters these days, as they all think they are commentators. Reporters should report facts, not opinions.

Sometimes though they come unstuck, like at the republic referenda. Almost 100% media backing for a republic and they had to eat crow.

Worth remembering that.

Mmmm...remember the Australian newspaper came out heavily in favour of a republic - and then went very, very quiet afterwards....republic was largely media driven apart from a few high fliers who believed they were in line for the presidency.
One of the interesting things is the (perhaps deliberate) lack of knowledge of even our most experienced journalists when it comes to constitutional issues. They will happily blame all state issues and problems on Canberra - even when they are not fiscal issues. Tell them it is something that only the states can deal with and they simply do not get the point.

Have you ever thought that you should start making a list of the things
that media gets wrong about subjects of which you are familiar.
I have been promising myself to do just that for some time, but
typically I guess I am too slack to do it.

If a number of people did this I suspect that significant errors would
be close to 50%. I think this must be why journalists are down there
with second hand car salesmen in the prestige stacks.

it just shows that the media reports only what they want , daruk boys home has been covered up by the courts and the goverment and the media ,are even covering daruk boys home up and alike , as they seem not to want to say a word on our behalf the victims , the forgotten australians , the goverment can give 300 hundred million dollars to another country and pay for the a.p.e.c. yet wipes its hands of the victims that suffered while we were in the states care , , the media can talk about court cases so why don;t they get involved , everyone i write to or talk to say they can not mention anything , while a case is in the courts yet we hear on the news about these case and others , i wrote to today tonight , and they wouldn;t even touch my story but they had the goverment psycharist, on their station mr pamajami ,, so that shows that net work is invovled with the goverment , and the reason i know pamajami is be cause the goverment got me to visit him , and he him self would not know what it was like as he younger than me and im 45, type in daruk boys home with or with out my name but do both and see the only hits you get im not affriad of the pedophiles no more im doing things legal if i wanted i could do life , but thats not me at the present ,

Oh that is so tempting Bazz - but probably a waste of time. Can you imagine the media publishing something like that? Ever tried to get a letter to the editor in pointing out a constitutional error? Did have one journo ring me once to find out what I was talking about - found out that, although he did at least know we have a Constitution, he had never read it and did not understand what the function of it was.
Would have thought it was basic journo training. Perhaps Pof Zines (ANU Law School) could come out of retirement and teach a few classes?