Foxy,

"rational and principled, without being biased to any social or political position" is not a description that can be applied in any way or form to the New Matilda or Independent Australia.

The articles in these magazines are strongly left wing, not subject to any editorial oversight or review, and as a result make tenuous claims with no support. Furthermore their articles are generally devoid of any new material and consist mostly of polemics from inconsequential authors with over inflated egos.

The journalists you mentioned before ie Piers Akerman, Janet Albrechtsen, Miranda Devine, and Andrew Bolt, while not favourites of mine are all far more qualified than the dross at the NM or IA. The reason the left whingers hate them so much is that they have the respect of the public.

SM,

Do you really believe what you're posting?

Piers Akerman has the respect of the public?
And he who never finished high school, and
was asked to leave his grammar school
because of a disagreement with the headmaster.

Janet Albrechtsen - who's got so many facts
wrong in her columns that it's not funny -
and when confronted by Media Watch did not reply.

And then of course Andrew Bolt - who wouldn't
know the truth if it fell on him.

And Miranda Devine - her "objectivity" shines so
brightly its blinding (not).

Ah well, to each his own!
You and your team of course are always right!
Everyone else is biased - but not you!
Afterall - you know what to think. You're told,
by reliable sources. Ours aren't credible.(sic).
We get it!

cont'd ...

Here's an interesting article by Alan Austin
on how the Murdoch press manipulates:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15412

1) Repetition in an authoritative tone has driven
home the "truth" to many.

2) They repeat impressive sounding propositions which
they don't bolster with evidence. They don't because
they can't. Day in, day out, week in, week out, year in,
year out. And the accolades keep coming.

3) They ignore global context.

4) They deny the global financial crisis impacted
Australia.

5) The sneaky rehtorical question which also avoids
actual fibs.

6) They make things up.

If you can't say something destructive about Labor,
don't say anything. Therefore you won't find any
research or mention into how Australia's global ranking lifted
during the Whitlam administration, fell under Fraser, rose
through the Hawke/Keating period, slipped badly during the
dismal Howard years and rocketed to the top with Rudd
and Gillard.

Of course this is not an opinion of a Murdoch journalist.

Foxy,

Janet has a doctorate in Law, Miranda has a degree in physics, Bolt has an Arts degree, and Piers has decades of high level journalism.

Alan has achieved almost nothing in his life, and his quality of "journalism" is laughable.

SM,

Andrew Bolt started an Arts degree - he didn't complete it.
Miranda Devine does not have a degree in Physics.
Piers Akerman consistently gets facts wrong in ways that
suits his political agenda and as for Janet Albrechtsen -
having a law degree does not qualify one's expertise
in journalism. Our current PM is also a lawyer - (and a
Rhodes Scholar to boot) so what?

Numerous studies have shown that there is little or no
relationship between educational achievement and job
performance or productivity. Degrees are poor predictors
of whether someone will become a good journalist,
politician, doctor, or teacher. The fact is that the
skills required to get a degree are not the same as the
skills needed to deal with running the country, or
being a good journalist, or deal with a medical emergency,
or dealing with an unruly high school class.

And the journalists that you mentioned consistently get
facts wrong in ways that suit their political agendas.
For example, in 2002 Victorian Magistrate Jelena Popovic
successfully pursued a libel claim in relation to Andrew
Bolt's article; the judgement cost Bolt's employers
almost $250,000 in damages to Popovic, as well as the
costs of the trial and an unsuccessful appeal to the
High Court.

These journalists tell people what they should be thinking
and hordes of followers lap it up. Like the Fox jocks,
they stick to just a few themes - "Stop immigration,"
"End Multiculturalism," "Honour the Churches," "No Stolen
Generation," "Frown on Divorce," "Crack down on welfare,"
and they hammer them over and over. Top of the list in their
Right-Wing songbook is the non-existence of climate change.

They understand that to succeed in today's media - you need
to create controversy and a division of opinion.

And they milk it for all it's worth.

cont'd ...

You of course are entitled to your opinion.
But not your facts!