Josephus,

My experience with Q&A is obviously totally different
from yours. There's always a wide mix of people on
the panel representing diverse and various viewpoints
which they express freely, as well as audience members
who are
free to ask the questions. Nothing is censored.

The episode that I was referring to in my previous post
had two insiders from The Australian on the panel and
they gave their opinions quite openly.

I don't like putting labels on people. Labels belong
on jars. Besides, many of our opinions are not set in
concrete and do tend to change with different circumstances.

Foxy,

This time you are talking complete rubbish.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-australian/

Their comment was--- "These sources are generally trustworthy for information"

"These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favour conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation."

So either you didn't read the assessment or you are lying.

Secondly their assessment of the Guardian is:

"Overall, we rate The Guardian Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favours the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last 5 years."

So the Australian is far more trustworthy than the guardian.

ETC

Shadow Minister,

You failed to mention that The Australian is
Right wing biased based on its story selection and
editorial positions. That they received a "mixed"
rating for factual reporting due to their failed
facts as well as their questionable reporting on
climate change, et cetera.

I have no further wish to argue with you Sir.
You think you are right. I think you are wrong.
Any further discussion with you is pointless.
You won't change your mind. I won't change mine.
Going around in circles is not productive.

Here's another link that may be of interest:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/whats-happening-with-insiders.13837

Dear shadowminister,

You really are utterly shameless aren't you.

You post the first part of the review section of The Australian then the second part of that of The Guardian.

The first sections are actually identical between the two:

The Guardian: ”These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation."

The Australian: “These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.”

It is in the second section where the distinction is made.

"Overall, we rate The Guardian Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last 5 years."

"Overall, we rate The Australian Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to two failed facts as well as questionable reporting on climate change."

Note the words “story selection that moderately favors the left ” for the Guardian while for The Australian it is a definitive “story selection and editorial positions that favor the right”. So no moderately about it.

In your own scurrilous fashion you have shown up one of the Murdoch media's trade mark distortions. You have learnt well from your masters.

Therefore your comment “So the Australian is far more trustworthy than the guardian.” is utterly without basis and a gross distortion of your source material. The opposite is in fact the truth. Shame on you.

SR,

It looks like the left whingers here are the scurrilous liars, as firstly Krudd's petition is fake news as > 1000 signatures are falsely generated by bots and more were paid for overseas.

Secondly, SR you are incompetent, as my point to Foxy was that she misrepresented the fact check that she was supposedly referring to." does so poorly on factual reporting with failed facts."

All major media sites, the guardian, Fairfax, Newscorp all lean one way or another and use loaded words, The Australian has over nearly a decade made only 2 factual errors compared to the numerous errors made by the Guardian. Which makes my point.

The claim that the Aus's reporting on climate change was "dubious" without any factual error is a personal opinion by the website which reflects more on the website than the Aus.

Foxy,

I assume linking to the IndependentAustralian is a joke. Its articles are left whinge polemics by "authors" that are not fact-checked and very frequently factually incorrect.

Shadow Minister,

Shame on you indeed!

You should actually read the articles presented in links
not pass judgement ahead of time. That's the difference
between us. You're a rusted on bigot who can only sing from
the only and only song-book. You're becoming a total bore.
Not worth the effort!