Looking For Some “Media Bias”? Here’s The Premier Of New South Wales Starring In An Ad For The Daily Telegraph

Fuck it, I'm done.

Earlier today the Australian’s Media Editor, Sharri Markson, copped a bagging on Twitter for her “undercover investigation” into how universities are supposedly brainwashing the innocent minds of The Youth by telling them basic facts about the media and teaching them how to think critically about Australian journalism.

It’s already been ripped to pieces, on Junkee and elsewhere, by people who, in the course of doing media degrees at university, learned dangerous, radical ideas like “News Corp sometimes displays bias” and “it tries to influence the government”. Those are ideas Markson not only believes are untrue, but so patently false that to believe in them is either proof of an extreme ideology or an easily-swayed mind.

On a completely unrelated note, here’s a new ad for Daily Telegraph Plus, the Tele‘s subscription service, in which a lonely man on a train is comforted by the reassuring presence of the whitest group of journalists you will ever see.

Did you see that? Twelve seconds in? Here’s a screencap if you missed it.


On the right, we have News Corp columnists Andrew Bolt, Andrew Clennell and Miranda Devine. On the left we have Premier of NSW Mike Baird. In an ad. For the Daily Telegraph.

In an ad.

For the Daily Telegraph.




Put aside, for a moment, that the above picture makes it look exactly — exactly — like Mike Baird is going for a job interview, and the interviewing panel is made up of three News Corp columnists. Ignore that image, and its diamond-like purity as a commentary on the state of Australian politics, for a minute. Ignore as well how those three columnists would react if a progressive politician appeared in an ad for a publication like Guardian Australia or The Age.

Instead, try to wrap your head around this: in Australia, a major media company can rope the Premier of the country’s largest state into an ad for one of its newspapers, and publish a 1,500-word “investigation” into how universities are indoctrinating young people to falsely believe that that same media company sometimes wields undue influence in politics. Four days later. And not see how that might be a problem. This is genuinely the lived reality in which we find ourselves.



  1. Luke Williams says:

    Thank goodness we now have the internet and places like Junkee. Another fantabulous article from the Junkee team.

  2. Jerry Attrick says:

    Good to see Mike Baird prepping for the 2015 State Election

  3. pistola says:

    Baird happily pallin’ around with an individual who contravened the Racial Discrimination Act and who’s shown zero remorse for it. Nice one Mike.

  4. Marcus Hicks says:

    Lets not kid ourselves. This is just one step removed from the ludicrous situation that existed in Italy, with Berlusconi. When you have a company which controls the single biggest chunk of the media, spruiking for a single party, then you have all the hallmarks of dictatorship. Just as well the 5th Estate is pushing Murdoch into increasing irrelevance.

  5. Hannah Quinn says:

    No fan by a long shot of Baird or his ilk, and especially not of those right wing ‘comics’ but could this be doctored? It just seems so appallingly unbelievable.

  6. urdm says:

    Bahahaha, it’s not doctored. It’s 100% real.

  7. Thalia Davies says:

    This is what #SMH was invented for

  8. Annette Schneider says:

    ICAC, where are you?

  9. Oh. If you look at .10 on the iPad it seems Baird actually writes for the Tele. Well that’s perfectly fine then, isn’t it.

  10. Corinne Boudica Harrison says:

    I just finished a 2500 word politics essay on independent media and why more people should be switching to it. Slaughtered the 4th estate from the 1600’s to now and showed the mass media for what it was. Took me 7 days. All I needed was this photo and caption. Woe is me.

  11. "As if" says:

    Surprised that his sister, SMH’s self proclaimed “Mugwump” Journalist isn’t sitting next to him…

  12. Eddie wilgar says:

    Didn’t the Australian Prime Minister recently apologize to cash-for-comments right wing shock jock Alan Jones? Where’s the dignity of office?

  13. Wow. Just what the hell.

  14. Carol Carlaw says:

    That never happens to me on a train..I just see people from all walks of life looking exhausted and blank faces feeling the weight of the crowded smiles..all look like robots. Our country is becoming tiresome and it’s leaders etc pummeling the ordinary man into submission..that is what I see

  15. Anne O'Brien says:

    Looks whiter than the North Shore line…. and looking a bit awkward on the train away from their 4wds and rugby union fields… Weird how in a multicultural society we cop a media dominated by opinions from the one main culture – ‘the journalists you know and trust’…? Or those who live in the bubble that is yet to burst and splatter its contents over those least able to absorb the impact…?

  16. Lia ( says:

    Hahahaha… what a joke. If the ABC and SBS and nearly every other commercial channel along with SMH aren’t biased I don’t know what the hell is. Oh that’s right, its called independent journalism if its die-hard Labor or Greens allegiance.

  17. Sikamikanico says:

    Darn truth and facts with their left wing bias!

  18. Lia ( says:

    Truth and facts are highly subjective in this world. And its why people who are so damn one-eyed readily suck up all the ridiculous propaganda touted by the self-righteous lefties. If you keep an open mind you’re better able to see that all media are biased in some way and therefore better able to have an actual opinion. No one’s perfect, not even Labor (my God heaven forbid I should say that!!!).

  19. Spliff Biggins says:

    Yes. SMH and their left wing bias. A publication with Peter Reith, Paul Sheehan and Amanda Vanstone as columnists. A publication that on their front page published an editorial supporting Abbott in the election. Yep… Obvious greens and labor supporters. Obviously.

  20. Lia ( says:

    My mistake. Must have my Letter Editors mixed up. :P

  21. LukeW says:

    “…whitest group of journalists…” Is this relevant?

    Based on this criticism, would it be foolish to assume that Junkee’s staff-writers aren’t all white?

  22. JohnB says:

    The Murdoch press backed Rudd in 2007, didn’t it ?

    Also, Murdoch only has his extensive stable of papers because Labor under Hawke and Keating, changed the media ownership rules in the 80’s.

  23. Guest says:

    A transport promotional pic by the looks or some other photo op, so ….
    – which of the implications in the “article” are proven???

  24. CIWebMarketing says:

    YOU CANT DO THAT!!!! Where is the outrage, the media coverage, their not even pretending anymore.

  25. Paul Baltzer says:

    Andrew Bolt is no fool, always like what he does

  26. Neil William Mitchell says:

    U are in a moronic minority

  27. TheToonArmy says:

    Stunning, although it started to go off the rails after just 5 seconds when it claimed “with the journalists you can trust …”.
    I didn’t see any on that train.

  28. Todd Smith says:

    So you are saying this whole thing has been drummed up by Junkee? That this ad for SMH is in fact “A transport promotional pic by the looks or some other photo op” ? I just don’t have the words to express how crazy that is.

  29. photohounds says:


    I AM saying the picture PROVES precisely nothing other than these people may have sat in the same train carriage and smiled.

    The suggestion that it PROVES anything more? THAT is “crazy”.

    You DO know Labor and Liberal often eat LUNCH together, don’t you? Sometimes even though they differ politically they are actually friends. Too complicated for your black/white mantra?

  30. photohounds says:

    Careful .. many find logic distasteful …

  31. English Pedant says:

    “they’re” not pretending anymore, you mean, not “their”. “Their” means “belonging to them”…

  32. English Pedant says:

    A minority of capital letters?

  33. Shimon Dekel says:

    How can media bias possibly not exist?

    We all hold our own individual and unique views on national or global affairs, similarly the media is a “product” just like anything else and of course it is going to sell “the story” that appeals to most readers. Could it really afford to do otherwise? No it couldn’t, no more than the makers of coca cola could afford to alter the taste and style of their product, unless they’re keen on giving millions of customers over to their competitors.

    So to be taught to think critically is not “extreme”, indeed to chose to be otherwise and to be just plain dumb in a world which much has going on right now, would not only be extreme but dangerous. Yes, we should question why the media chose one photo over another when there is obviously a choice, why is it that some stories become front page news while more important stories are buried deep within the papers, and why it is that papers persist in constantly hammering the same viewpoint over and over again.

    I do not have a problem with the universities teaching students to think about these issues. I can understand why the media houses may have a problem with having their practices questioned but then, perhaps they should clean up their act so the necessity for such analysis on the issue of bias is greatly lessened

  34. Shimon Dekel says:

    I was even getting into the politics of who papers do or do not support, in any case it is quite unimportant. What is more important is why? Because at the center of that question is the answer as to what ideology is influencing media INTEGRITY (or otherwise).

    Papers are inclined to think that their integrity lies in people just lapping up their viewpoints unquestionably as the be all and end all of what is occurring and why it is so. That however is not where Media integrity lies, it lies within the rationale for why papers do certain things and present things only from a certain perspective. If this does not stand as an upright reason for the media conducting itself in the way it does, then media integrity is greatly lessened.

    For all the apologists who stand up for current media practices, just think about this. If you had the opportunity to have a secondary and tertiary education, you probably had it hammered into you to write papers that were “balanced”, one that presented your position on something but also recognised and addressed the criticisms of that viewpoint too.

    The model of journalistic writing however is very different and does not allow for such a variety of views to be explored within a single article and so, the question of why then a particular viewpoint is pursued over others does become integral to the standards exercised within news reporting

  35. ColinSC says:

    So that is why the government (for all the people) is doing its best to wipe them out? No bias there then.

  36. ColinSC says:

    Then destroyed him if you remember.

  37. JohnB says:

    Hey, I learned about “balanced writing” and reading between the lines in form 4 and 5 English.

    The papers today (Murdoch and Fairfax) are a disgrace.
    It’s no longer objective reporting, it’s a competition to push an agenda.

  38. JohnB says:

    And by “independent media” you mean a left wing “progressive” mouthpiece, right?
    “Independent” media is every bit as biased as the MSM. In fact I’d venture it is even more biased for a logical reason. “Independent media” is mostly biased to the left. Leftists are known to be perfect in everything they do and say and therefore whatever wild leftist socialist fantasy they come up with, or whatever fascist conspiracy they might allege, it is all in the service of what’s correct and what’s good and since the end justifies the means, it is perfectly acceptable to write whatever lies they like in support of the leftist cause.

  39. Corinne Boudica Harrison says:

    Poor darling. LNP trolling quota down today is it? For the record, commercial/mass media is biased to the right because that suits their agenda. The point of the fourth estate (do you know what that is?) is to act as independent watchdog, information provider and facilitator of the public sphere within society. Instead we are served the drivel Murdoch’s minions spew on a daily basis then is it really unreasonable for REAL independent media to be biased towards the left in order to correct the balance?

  40. peanut2004 says:

    Where’s the Like button

  41. Shimon Dekel says:

    I would agree

  42. JohnB says:

    First, Corinne, the old “LNP trolling quota” is the pathetic refrain of the Leftists without the intellect to make a proper case.

    I am afraid I am a bit more of an idealist than you.
    I believe that balance should be WITHIN a publication rather than by having News Ltd being “balanced” by the utter bullshit of “Independent Australia”.

    I have a great disdain for biased media. I don’t read the Murdoch press because I don’t like Mr Murdoch. I think their news reportage is biased and it should NOT be biased.

    I find that Fairfax has sadly sunk into biased reportage after setting the standard of objective press for many years, The Age in particular.

    As for the “independent” media, they have no excuse.
    The drivel, propaganda, lies and misrepresentation would put KCNA to shame. Some of these “independent” sources are far far worse with bias and lies than the accusations levelled by the Left at the Murdoch press.

    The ideal is that reporting is entirely objective and a balance of views (from all sides) is included in the editorial pages for analysis and discussion.

    Fairfax’s opinions are rampantly left with the occasional right leaning commentator.

    News Ltd’s opinions are rampantly right with the occa…. without a view from the Left.

    The problem is that the self righteous hypocrites of the Left do not recognise that those of the centre right deserve to have a viewpoint without them being labelled as “paid trolls” or the like.