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