Forget Murdoch. Google has the power to sway elections around the world. There is no law or regulation that can stop the company from using that power.

After the 2016 US election, Google executives were saying that the result was "offensive", and pledged to make the "populism movement" nothing more than a hiccup in history. Eric Schmidt, executive chairman until 2017 of the Google parent company, declared that "the project for the next decade" would be "how people get information, what they believe and what they don't".

Polls/pollsters are also seen as having skin in the game of influencing how people vote. They have been described as “voter suppressors”. Voters reading the polls might decide that it it’s not worth voting if the polls show that their favoured candidate or party is lagging in popularity. They might decide not to support fund raising, or help people get to the polling booths. This could well be the reason for the US election result. But it could also apply even where voting is compulsory, particularly with voters who often vote for someone they don’t really want as a ‘lesson’ to the sitting member.

I note that Senator Hanson-Young is going to chair the Senate enquiry into the media. Nothing to do with the Murdoch press’s having caught here rorting public money for personal use several times, of course.

Foxy,

Clearly, you don't read the Australian.

In the Australian, there are several ALP diehards as contributors whose opinions deviate significantly from the LNP positions, plus many contributors that strongly criticise the LNP. While the majority are conservative, the claim that they only publish conservative views is complete rubbish.

Contrary to that, The Guardian and the ABC very seldom deviate from the left agenda, and similarly, the left-leaning Fairfax media empire has essentially collapsed and been taken over.

Most papers and media are opinion based reporting. To make it law that opinion not be expressed is violating freedom of expression. The only way news can be shown is by eye witness accounts or video of the event or statement of the political opinion behind the report.
Eg. It is a human right to put to death a healthy newborn baby. Democrat Yes Republican No
Eg. It is a legal right to put to death a political or religious opponent.

Shadow Minister,

I used to read Murdoch's flagship newspaper - The
Australian regularly. Not any more. And I'm not
the only one who's stopped reading it. As Fact-Check
for Media bias confirms - Murdoch newspapers are not
just Right wing - but they distort and manufacture
news - campaigning for favoured political parties and
candidates.

Even News Corp insiders are speaking against their
organisations bias - particularly at The Australian
as evidenced on Q & A the other night.

We should all be concerned about the impact the company
has on democratic debate in this country - when it owns
over 70% of the country's newspaper circulation and does
so poorly on factual reporting with failed facts,
questionable reporting - the use of loaded words that
appeal to emotion or stereotypes to favour their
causes.

Foxy, Q&A is an opinion discussion and not worthy of the term factual news reporting. I read all sources of reports and from that can tell you Q&A is merely left wing opinion, and reflects the politics of the persons interviewed. Politics is based upon opinion and is a diverse range of ideas. Q&A suits your opinions, but not mine as I have a different paradigm, from which I form law and action.