Post by Michael Wilbur-Ham on Apr 29, 2013 15:18:50 GMT 10
This thread is for recording and discussing the journalistic performance of The Age. Is their coverage fair and reasonable? Does it fully inform its readers?
Please discuss policy issues in the Facts, Policy, and Actions part of this forum.
I'm only commenting on what I see and read. I don't look at the printed paper most days, and when I do it is over lunch. My online reading is also uneven and far from complete. So I might miss some of the worst examples of bias and I might miss an article which puts their coverage in a better light. If I miss something - either way - please post here.
So here commences my watch of The Age:
The printed Age of Tuesday 30 April, 2013 has only a very small article on what was said on last night's Four Corners. The short article concluded by saying "For more see www.theage.com.au (A great example of how they are trying to push those reading print on-line).
It took me a few minutes to find the article on-line, which is 'Ashamed to be Australian': doctor slams Manus Island centre by the papers's immigration correspondent Bianca Hall.
Just as Four Corners ignored the party politics, Bianca also fails to mention the politics of this issue. No mention of the Greens.
Her article seems a simple case of reporting, so why it is put under Opinion is hard to understand.
Her follow-up article, published on-line at 12:21 pm - Families to stay on Manus despite warnings - includes some quotes from the Opposition but, acting in accordance with the paper's censorship rules - once again doesn't mention the Greens.
The next story I find is, Labor backflip on children in detention, and it too fails to mention the Greens.
Continuing to follow the topic of asylum seekers in The Age the story of 1 May, Review of ASIO analysis of refugees, has quotes from Labor and Liberal, and no mention of the Greens.
The Greens finally get a mention, and a prominant one at that. Greens push Coalition to get children off Manus by Bianca Hall was published on-line at 11:27am on Tuesday May 2. The first part of this story reports that the Greens are going to move in parliament to get children taken off Manus Island (something that could easily pass).
The second half of this story is a fantastic example of why I think The Age is the most biased paper in Australia.
The second half is about the Department of Immigration and Citizenship confirming that preparations were under way to move family groups to a compound at the Wickham Point detention centre, and quotes Amnesty International speaking out against this.
This part of the story shows the progressive nature of The Age. The Age chooses to report this issue. They choose to quote Amnesty International. And they choose not to include any comments supporting the housing children at Wickham Point (either from Labor, Liberal or others).
But, even in an article which has The Greens in the headline - they choose to not mention that the Greens support the views of Amnesty and are against children being held in detention anywhere. Given that the Greens are mentioned in the first part of the article the uninformed reader can only assume that the Greens either have no view on this or they support the detention of children.
I've had an Age reader insist that the Greens have no policies. In fact of course they do, and the Age often has articles and even editorials supporting Green's policies. It's just that The Age almost never, such as in this article, mentions the views of the Greens.
Everyone knows that some papers and commentators now have a bias to the right. So both conservatives and progressives can read Andrew Bolt or The Australian and take account of this bias.
But The Age's bias towards the Greens is not at all well known. A progressive reader of The Age is left with the feeling of 'if only Labor would do the right thing'. If their progressive readers were informed of the views of the Greens then some might decide to change their vote from Labor to Green. The Age doesn't want this, and by not informing their readers this is changing how people vote.
Please discuss policy issues in the Facts, Policy, and Actions part of this forum.
I'm only commenting on what I see and read. I don't look at the printed paper most days, and when I do it is over lunch. My online reading is also uneven and far from complete. So I might miss some of the worst examples of bias and I might miss an article which puts their coverage in a better light. If I miss something - either way - please post here.
So here commences my watch of The Age:
The printed Age of Tuesday 30 April, 2013 has only a very small article on what was said on last night's Four Corners. The short article concluded by saying "For more see www.theage.com.au (A great example of how they are trying to push those reading print on-line).
It took me a few minutes to find the article on-line, which is 'Ashamed to be Australian': doctor slams Manus Island centre by the papers's immigration correspondent Bianca Hall.
Just as Four Corners ignored the party politics, Bianca also fails to mention the politics of this issue. No mention of the Greens.
Her article seems a simple case of reporting, so why it is put under Opinion is hard to understand.
Her follow-up article, published on-line at 12:21 pm - Families to stay on Manus despite warnings - includes some quotes from the Opposition but, acting in accordance with the paper's censorship rules - once again doesn't mention the Greens.
The next story I find is, Labor backflip on children in detention, and it too fails to mention the Greens.
Continuing to follow the topic of asylum seekers in The Age the story of 1 May, Review of ASIO analysis of refugees, has quotes from Labor and Liberal, and no mention of the Greens.
The Greens finally get a mention, and a prominant one at that. Greens push Coalition to get children off Manus by Bianca Hall was published on-line at 11:27am on Tuesday May 2. The first part of this story reports that the Greens are going to move in parliament to get children taken off Manus Island (something that could easily pass).
The second half of this story is a fantastic example of why I think The Age is the most biased paper in Australia.
The second half is about the Department of Immigration and Citizenship confirming that preparations were under way to move family groups to a compound at the Wickham Point detention centre, and quotes Amnesty International speaking out against this.
This part of the story shows the progressive nature of The Age. The Age chooses to report this issue. They choose to quote Amnesty International. And they choose not to include any comments supporting the housing children at Wickham Point (either from Labor, Liberal or others).
But, even in an article which has The Greens in the headline - they choose to not mention that the Greens support the views of Amnesty and are against children being held in detention anywhere. Given that the Greens are mentioned in the first part of the article the uninformed reader can only assume that the Greens either have no view on this or they support the detention of children.
I've had an Age reader insist that the Greens have no policies. In fact of course they do, and the Age often has articles and even editorials supporting Green's policies. It's just that The Age almost never, such as in this article, mentions the views of the Greens.
Everyone knows that some papers and commentators now have a bias to the right. So both conservatives and progressives can read Andrew Bolt or The Australian and take account of this bias.
But The Age's bias towards the Greens is not at all well known. A progressive reader of The Age is left with the feeling of 'if only Labor would do the right thing'. If their progressive readers were informed of the views of the Greens then some might decide to change their vote from Labor to Green. The Age doesn't want this, and by not informing their readers this is changing how people vote.