THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER PISSED OFF WITH BLOGGERS
July 15th 2007 02:24
IT’S ON! WAR BREAKS OUT BETWEEN MURDOCH’S THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER AND THE BLOG POLITICAL COMMENTARIAT
From MediaBlab Australia via Factiva. Written by Peter Olszewski*
Whether bloggers can influence the outcome of the forthcoming Australian elections remains to be seen, but they certainly have had an effect on mainstream media, in particular The Australian newspaper.
Last week News Ltd’s The Australian was outraged by blogdom’s collective outrage over its interpretation of the latest Newspoll results last Tuesday, as written by the paper’s political editor Dennis Shanahan.
Contentious web site Crikey.com reported later in the day that, “The front page of today’s Australian newspaper and its reporting of the latest Newspoll has prompted a range of reactions, from shock at the sheer mendacity of its main headline ‘Howard checks Rudd’s march’ to muffled awe at the paper’s continuing ability to pluck some shred of glass-half-full optimism from the ongoing cataclysm of the Liberal Party’s federal polling. “All of which is no more or less than one might expect from the country's unofficial conservative organ.”
During the day a preen of busy bloggers jeered at The Australian’s Dennis Shanahan for giving the results a spin that favoured the Prime Minister, John Howard.
And, in an unprecedented move, The Australian then went on the attack against bloggers, venting spleen in print and also via a phone call to one blogger from the paper’s editor in chief, Chris Mitchell.
This delighted The Orstrahyun, a blog devoted to bagging Murdoch’s The Australian, which announced, “The Australian vs. The Blogstream War Has Begun.”
It wrote, “The shift from back-alley sniper and tripwire insurgency to full blown street fighting in the war between The Australian newspaper online and the thin ranks of the local political blogstream began yesterday.”
The blog quoted Peter Brent, author of another blog called Mumble. Brent posted this on Mumble, “A courtesy call from editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell this morning informed me that the paper is going to ‘go’ Charles Richardson (from Crikey) and me tomorrow. Chris said by all means criticise the paper, but my ‘personal’ attacks on Dennis had gone too far, and the paper will now go me ‘personally’.
“No, I’m not making this up.
“All very strange. And, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit, a little stomach-churning.”
Other blogs quickly sprang to Mumble’s defence. The Road To Surfdom said, “Do these guys at News think their reading public has had a collective frontal lobotomy? Do they expect their customers to just swallow their biased, looney manipulations whole, without even chewing? Do they really despise their blog contributors as much as Shanahan makes out? Are they really so afraid of criticism that they’re prepared to ‘go’ the humble Mumble?
“The answer, it seems, is sadly ‘Yes’. What a pathetic bunch of losers. Their condescending and now outright feral attitude is the best evidence yet that their pet government is going out big time next election.”
The next day, The Australian demonstrated what it meant by going to ‘go’ bloggers like Mumble’s Brent by letting rip with a devastating 1300 word editorial against those cursed bloggers, headlined, “Online prejudice no substitute for real work.”
The editorial kicked off by saying “The measure of good journalism is objectivity and a fearless regard for truth. Bias, nonetheless, is in the eye of the beholder and some people will always see conspiracy when the facts don't suit their view of the world. This is the affliction that has gripped, to a large measure, Australia’s online news commentariat that has found passing endless comment on other people’s work preferable to breaking real stories and adding to society's pool of knowledge.
“Nowhere is this more evident than in the fortnightly fury that accompanies The Australian's presentation of Newspoll, the nation’s most authoritative snapshot of the political landscape. Newspoll cannot predict the future but it can provide clues. Often they are hidden beyond the headline figure in an emerging trend. The Australian has proved itself adept at spotting these trends but our woolly-headed critics dismiss this as manipulation.”
Other gems from the editorial include:
“…Smug, self assured, delusional swagger is no substitute for getting it right. When it comes to spotting and properly understanding emerging trends, the evidence is on our side. Our analysis was proved correct in 1998, 2001 and 2004 and we expect it will again this year. We do not know who will win the next election but despite Labor's big lead in the opinion polls since Kevin Rudd was elected leader last December, history suggests it will be a tough fight.”
and
“…If there is a common theme to the criticisms levelled against The Australian’s political coverage by the self appointed online commentariat it is that our critics only howl when the heat is being applied to Labor.”
and
“…Rather than being a mouthpiece for the Government, as some online news sites would suggest, we have been harsh critics of Mr Howard. But most of our criticism has been from the Right, chiding the Government for being overly generous with middle class welfare and reform shy. The self appointed experts online come instead from the extreme Left, populated as many sites are by sheltered academics and failed journalists who would not get a job on a real newspaper. We fully expect that if anything goes wrong for Mr Rudd in the campaign this year we will be blamed for Labor's misfortune.”
and
“…Such commentators clearly have a market because there are a lot of people who want to have their own prejudices endlessly confirmed. But they should not kid themselves they are engaged in proper journalism and real reporting.”
and
“…Properly understanding how polls work gives our critics licence to project their own bias onto analysis of our reporting. The Australian is not beholden to any one side of politics and recent election outcomes vindicate our treatment of our polls. So let’s not mince words. We just don’t think many of our critics have any real clue about polling and very little practical experience of politics.”
Earlier in the week, Shanahan himself felt the heat of blogger rebuke and wrote an online response on July 11 saying, “Well, haven’t I copped heaps over my interpretation of the latest Newspoll survey that showed Labor well in front but John Howard catching Kevin Rudd on preferred Prime Minister.
“…For all of the academic PhD aspirants and armchair journalists prepared to cite ‘margin of error’ of two points one week, and then claim a victory the next based on the same two points (or condemn the reporting based on such a small shift), it is necessary to remember there is a real world that involves politics, the public’s latest thoughts and journalism that can’t afford the luxuries of a year-long PhD consideration, to ignore what the public is thinking or to ignore the latest shifts in public thinking.
“If we missed a trend either way – and we certainly didn’t miss the trend in Kevin Rudd’s favour – we’d be pilloried. At the moment we are being pilloried for suggesting there’s a trend that a lot of bloggers may not like.
“I’m content with having my say, not forcing my views down anyone’s throat and leaving judgment to history. So far history has been on my side.
Cheers to all those who engage in the great, democratic and political exercise of freedom of speech.”
A reader calling him/herself Johnny Rotten quickly posted this comment “You copped heaps because of the headline and the emphasis you placed on what may be a statistical irrelevant change from the last poll.”
Whitey commented, “What a whinging sook. Dennis, your attempts to explain yesterday’s column are even more embarrassing than yesterday’s column. The comments have clearly stung you, as they bloody well should, as you repeatedly and deliberately look for any spin in a Liberal direction while ignoring any ALP angle. The correct lead for yesterday’s p1 story was ‘no movement in polls’, not an insignificant swing within the margin of error and a trend that no one gives a stuff about.
“What about that garbage you wrote a few weeks back when one poll showed a narrowing of the ALP-Coalition lead? The great fight back eh –
what happened to that? And I don’t care if the Coalition accused you of being the Rudd Gazette, it’s their job to try and pressure journalists into printing their party line.
“History is about to bite you on the arse mate.”
And on it went until this notice appeared on the Australian’s site just before noon: “Commenting for this article is no longer available, try one of the articles below for more from the Dennis Shanahan blog.”
Martin O’Shannesy, chief executive of Newspoll, also decided to put in his two bob’s worth, writing, “First, thanks to all the bloggers for taking note of the ‘poll wars’ in The Australian yesterday. Now time to move on to something a little more serious.
“I was stimulated to consider whether Dennis Shanahan was right when he interpreted the turnaround in John Howard’s better prime minister rating as something more than merely encouraging. How could this be a turning point in the campaign if voter intention has not moved in spite of the Prime Minister’s improved ratings?
“The question is whether the data supports the view that a turnaround in Mr Howard’s better PM rating presages an improvement in the Coalition’s electoral stocks. The short answer to this question has been yes in the past three elections.”
* Disclosure: Peter Olszewski is also JJ McRoach and vice versa
From MediaBlab Australia via Factiva. Written by Peter Olszewski*
Whether bloggers can influence the outcome of the forthcoming Australian elections remains to be seen, but they certainly have had an effect on mainstream media, in particular The Australian newspaper.
Last week News Ltd’s The Australian was outraged by blogdom’s collective outrage over its interpretation of the latest Newspoll results last Tuesday, as written by the paper’s political editor Dennis Shanahan.
During the day a preen of busy bloggers jeered at The Australian’s Dennis Shanahan for giving the results a spin that favoured the Prime Minister, John Howard.
And, in an unprecedented move, The Australian then went on the attack against bloggers, venting spleen in print and also via a phone call to one blogger from the paper’s editor in chief, Chris Mitchell.
This delighted The Orstrahyun, a blog devoted to bagging Murdoch’s The Australian, which announced, “The Australian vs. The Blogstream War Has Begun.”
It wrote, “The shift from back-alley sniper and tripwire insurgency to full blown street fighting in the war between The Australian newspaper online and the thin ranks of the local political blogstream began yesterday.”
“No, I’m not making this up.
“All very strange. And, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit, a little stomach-churning.”
Other blogs quickly sprang to Mumble’s defence. The Road To Surfdom said, “Do these guys at News think their reading public has had a collective frontal lobotomy? Do they expect their customers to just swallow their biased, looney manipulations whole, without even chewing? Do they really despise their blog contributors as much as Shanahan makes out? Are they really so afraid of criticism that they’re prepared to ‘go’ the humble Mumble?
“The answer, it seems, is sadly ‘Yes’. What a pathetic bunch of losers. Their condescending and now outright feral attitude is the best evidence yet that their pet government is going out big time next election.”
The next day, The Australian demonstrated what it meant by going to ‘go’ bloggers like Mumble’s Brent by letting rip with a devastating 1300 word editorial against those cursed bloggers, headlined, “Online prejudice no substitute for real work.”
The editorial kicked off by saying “The measure of good journalism is objectivity and a fearless regard for truth. Bias, nonetheless, is in the eye of the beholder and some people will always see conspiracy when the facts don't suit their view of the world. This is the affliction that has gripped, to a large measure, Australia’s online news commentariat that has found passing endless comment on other people’s work preferable to breaking real stories and adding to society's pool of knowledge.
“Nowhere is this more evident than in the fortnightly fury that accompanies The Australian's presentation of Newspoll, the nation’s most authoritative snapshot of the political landscape. Newspoll cannot predict the future but it can provide clues. Often they are hidden beyond the headline figure in an emerging trend. The Australian has proved itself adept at spotting these trends but our woolly-headed critics dismiss this as manipulation.”
Other gems from the editorial include:
“…Smug, self assured, delusional swagger is no substitute for getting it right. When it comes to spotting and properly understanding emerging trends, the evidence is on our side. Our analysis was proved correct in 1998, 2001 and 2004 and we expect it will again this year. We do not know who will win the next election but despite Labor's big lead in the opinion polls since Kevin Rudd was elected leader last December, history suggests it will be a tough fight.”
and
“…If there is a common theme to the criticisms levelled against The Australian’s political coverage by the self appointed online commentariat it is that our critics only howl when the heat is being applied to Labor.”
and
“…Rather than being a mouthpiece for the Government, as some online news sites would suggest, we have been harsh critics of Mr Howard. But most of our criticism has been from the Right, chiding the Government for being overly generous with middle class welfare and reform shy. The self appointed experts online come instead from the extreme Left, populated as many sites are by sheltered academics and failed journalists who would not get a job on a real newspaper. We fully expect that if anything goes wrong for Mr Rudd in the campaign this year we will be blamed for Labor's misfortune.”
and
“…Such commentators clearly have a market because there are a lot of people who want to have their own prejudices endlessly confirmed. But they should not kid themselves they are engaged in proper journalism and real reporting.”
and
“…Properly understanding how polls work gives our critics licence to project their own bias onto analysis of our reporting. The Australian is not beholden to any one side of politics and recent election outcomes vindicate our treatment of our polls. So let’s not mince words. We just don’t think many of our critics have any real clue about polling and very little practical experience of politics.”
Earlier in the week, Shanahan himself felt the heat of blogger rebuke and wrote an online response on July 11 saying, “Well, haven’t I copped heaps over my interpretation of the latest Newspoll survey that showed Labor well in front but John Howard catching Kevin Rudd on preferred Prime Minister.
“…For all of the academic PhD aspirants and armchair journalists prepared to cite ‘margin of error’ of two points one week, and then claim a victory the next based on the same two points (or condemn the reporting based on such a small shift), it is necessary to remember there is a real world that involves politics, the public’s latest thoughts and journalism that can’t afford the luxuries of a year-long PhD consideration, to ignore what the public is thinking or to ignore the latest shifts in public thinking.
“If we missed a trend either way – and we certainly didn’t miss the trend in Kevin Rudd’s favour – we’d be pilloried. At the moment we are being pilloried for suggesting there’s a trend that a lot of bloggers may not like.
“I’m content with having my say, not forcing my views down anyone’s throat and leaving judgment to history. So far history has been on my side.
Cheers to all those who engage in the great, democratic and political exercise of freedom of speech.”
A reader calling him/herself Johnny Rotten quickly posted this comment “You copped heaps because of the headline and the emphasis you placed on what may be a statistical irrelevant change from the last poll.”
Whitey commented, “What a whinging sook. Dennis, your attempts to explain yesterday’s column are even more embarrassing than yesterday’s column. The comments have clearly stung you, as they bloody well should, as you repeatedly and deliberately look for any spin in a Liberal direction while ignoring any ALP angle. The correct lead for yesterday’s p1 story was ‘no movement in polls’, not an insignificant swing within the margin of error and a trend that no one gives a stuff about.
“What about that garbage you wrote a few weeks back when one poll showed a narrowing of the ALP-Coalition lead? The great fight back eh –
what happened to that? And I don’t care if the Coalition accused you of being the Rudd Gazette, it’s their job to try and pressure journalists into printing their party line.
“History is about to bite you on the arse mate.”
And on it went until this notice appeared on the Australian’s site just before noon: “Commenting for this article is no longer available, try one of the articles below for more from the Dennis Shanahan blog.”
Martin O’Shannesy, chief executive of Newspoll, also decided to put in his two bob’s worth, writing, “First, thanks to all the bloggers for taking note of the ‘poll wars’ in The Australian yesterday. Now time to move on to something a little more serious.
“I was stimulated to consider whether Dennis Shanahan was right when he interpreted the turnaround in John Howard’s better prime minister rating as something more than merely encouraging. How could this be a turning point in the campaign if voter intention has not moved in spite of the Prime Minister’s improved ratings?
“The question is whether the data supports the view that a turnaround in Mr Howard’s better PM rating presages an improvement in the Coalition’s electoral stocks. The short answer to this question has been yes in the past three elections.”
* Disclosure: Peter Olszewski is also JJ McRoach and vice versa
| 26 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
