• expired

Free Access to All Articles on Crikey


Crikey, a truly independent Aussie news source is currently accessible without subscription. I would recommend checking it out and if you like it, take up a subscription when it goes behind the paywall again.

Related Stores


closed Comments

  • +11

    a truly independent Aussie news source

    It looks like a completely predictable mainstream mouthpiece parroting the exact same talking points that every Murdoch/News Corp-owned mass media outlet does in Australia.

    If their funding sources are independent, then their agenda and ideological stance certainly isn't.

    • +3

      I disagree strongly.

      • +24

        Literally every headline on the homepage is a mirror copy of today's op-eds and articles straight from the SMH, News.com.au, The Daily Telegraph, The Age, Guardian Australia or heck even CNN and MSNBC. A lot of partisan mud-slinging and divisive rhetoric with a complete disconnect from working class reality; sounds like an MSM hackjob to me.

        If you expect me to buy that as "independent journalism", then good luck to you.

        When 6 corporations own 90% of mass media worldwide, you can be damned sure that if your information is derived from sources that took you all of 3 clicks to stumble upon, then they definitely doesn't pass the smell test.

        • +5

          Yep, all true. Sadly, our once revered independant sources like ABC are just as political these days. It is what is is, know it, and keep a diverse range of sources. No point focusing much hate anywhere but just know everyone has an agenda and question everything.

          • +13

            @Xizor: Pfftt. Every enquiry into so-called ABC (left) bias has found no evidence of systemic bias, and it continues to be head and shoulders above other mainstream outlets in annual Media Trust polls. Go figure. The ABC tends to go harder at Labor governments because it knows the backlash will be more muted.

        • Exactly. Had never heard of this website before and I took one look at the headlines and clicked straight out again. Same divisive, left leaning headlines.

          • +5

            @spiff: the left and right media websites are just as agenda driven as one another

            • +6

              @Griffindinho: Which websites are right? Genuine question as I haven't seen any. Maybe not looking hard enough.

          • +6

            @spiff: Back when it was originally started & run by a guy called Stephen Maine/Milne it was an excellent source of original, independent content.

            Since he sold it (for a few million) it's become more or less just another media company.

            What you're going to find, especially as you get older, is that reality has a left-wing bias, a result of white males making up only a small percentage of the world's total population.

            That's not to say it has anything to do with race (as some Neanderthals will instantly leap to).

            Simply that what people call 'divisive left leaning headlines' are the thoughts & ideas of women, POC, minorities & so on, which don't always align with the thoughts & ideas of white males.

        • +3

          You expecting a news outlet to start making up stories?

        • +9

          Why in your initial post you mentioned just "Murdoch/News Corp-owned"?

          SMH, The Age, Guardian Australia, CNN, MSNBC are not News corp.

          But all of them (News Corp, Fairfax/Nine, Guardian, etc.) are basically the same sh#t, just gearing towards differently oriented click-bait-clicking gullible bunch. And those that live not on advertising but on my tax money are not better.

          A "truly independent Aussie news source" does not exists. Believe no one.

          • @Jef Tino:

            SMH, The Age, Guardian Australia, CNN, MSNBC are not News corp.

            Precisely, all mass media outlets are nothing but two sides of the same coin; they alternate playing the roles of "good cop"/"bad cop" for whatever flavour-of-the-month forced issue is all the rage, and condescendingly patronise the public with their half-baked propaganda that inevitably concludes "X group is responsible for Y problem" while never straying outside the bounds of acceptable public thought that says there can only be two sides, two parties, two choices.

          • @Jef Tino: Believe no-one, except you apparently Jef? Anyone expecting a totally independent (whatever that is) and completely accurate, "unbiased" current affairs/news site is bound to be disappointed.

            Despite your claim, the mainstream media isn't all the same - by a long chalk.

            A question for you. Where does a highly sophisticated and supremely knowledgeable person such as yourself turn for information and discussion on important economic, scientific, and social issues?

            PS Australian media surveys suggest you're out of step with public opinion on the ABC. Not that there's anything wrong with having a dissenting opinion, especially one which doesn't follow the vastly over-rated and often uniformed "majority" view.

        • Your ego is out of control @Amar89. There is plenty of good analysis around covering all manner of social and political issues. Unless you think you know better on most of those topics then you ought to read them and weigh up the "facts" and opinions presented. It's not difficult to see through the obviously ideological fluff, and it's arrogant to think you know better than others with more knowledge, experience and qualifications on particular topics. If indeed you do (lol), then argue your case in their comments. What doesn't pass the smell test is the "I know better" arrogance and cynicism of anonymous people on forums.

          • +2

            @DisabledUser67242: Honestly man, what are you on about?

            You're projecting this image onto me that you've instantly and so assuredly deduced from one, single post which you vehemently disagree with?
            Or is this some latent grudge you've been harbouring from God knows how many other posts of mine in the past that have dared to go against your precious opinions that are clearly more equal than mine?

            And you're calling me arrogant and claiming I have some kind of 'holier-than-thou', know-it-all attitude, meanwhile you can read my mind and decide for me exactly what ideas and beliefs I embody?

            The lack of self-awareness and hypocrisy on display here is child-like.

            At no point did I say I was the infallible, Pope Amar the 89th and that everything I spout is gospel.
            I was arguing a point, and in doing so, displaying a modicum of conviction behind my opinion. You're inferring far too much emotional hysteria from text that simply isn't there.

            You're allowed to have your own convictions, no one's stopping you, but resorting to ad hominem nonsense and accusations of being "arrogant" really add nothing to the discussion, other than firmly cementing you as someone incapable of seeing people outside of their ideological lens where everyone has to fall into a predetermined category. I don't and to hell with whatever box you want to put me in; if that's the sum total of your ability to rationalise other people's opinions, then your circular logic means you'll simply disagree with everyone who doesn't have the exact views you do.

            • @Gnostikos: Well said amar89

            • +1

              @Gnostikos: I was commenting on your multiple posts. Suffice to say that anyone who thinks that only "two sides, two parties, two choices" are ever presented in media discussions and commentary needs to make more effort to find more sources and read, listen and absorb better. There is plenty of decent, well-reasoned and argued commentary on the internet, on radio, and occasionally on TV if you are prepared to look and listen. Alternatively you can continue to be cynical and believe that your own "independent" views are smarter and more valuable. That's arrogance.

              Skepticism and even cynicism to some extent are useful tools to have in your kitbag but they should always be tempered by acceptance that there are myriad people with far more knowledge, experience and wisdom who should be respected and whose commentary and opinions are worth listening to. The alternative is believing that all opinions are equal, arrogantly and ignorantly dismissing scientific advice, putting personal beliefs before society's (anti-vaxers for example), etc.

        • -1

          "A lot of partisan mud-slinging and divisive rhetoric with a complete disconnect from working class reality"

          Crikey (like the rest of mainstream media) just represents the views of all the wealthy inner city living ALP/Greens voters; anti-Australia, anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-heterosexual, anti-proletariat (despite claiming to represent people like me).

          • @Thaal Sinestro: Way to go with your hysterical, inaccurate and obviously tainted stereotyping Thaal. Particularly liked your "anti-Australia, anti-white etc" comment - straight out of the extreme right wing playbook. You aren't seriously suggesting that all or most Green and Labor voters are wealthy, city dwelling, homosexual heathens or subversives are you? A cursory look at stats from surveys and censuses will quickly debunk that perverse notion.

            Crikey (and most other media outlets) don't claim to represent anyone in particular and unlike some mainstream media outlets they don't have overriding editorial dictates or limitations. They present particular views across a broad range of social, economic and other issues. I might be wrong but I very much doubt any of their contributors would support your poor downtrodden white (male) misperceptions though. You could try Fox, I'm sure you'll find a sympathetic ear there somewhere.

    • -11

      The targets-in-chief: elites, academics, social reformers, media enemies, leftists and p*ssy feminists

      They like attacking other news companies.

      • -1

        Probably not their intention, but i think Crikey just sold me a subscription to The Australian.

      • +1

        Looks like the liberal voters have downvoted me.

    • One and done.

    • +1

      your recommended alternative?

    • +15

      Did you even read any of the articles? Parroting the same talking points as Murdoch/News Corp?

      Heres some titles - tell me if they're Murdoch/News Corp sounding?

      "Quiet Australians good, noisy ones bad: Morrison’s double standards make it clear whose lives matter most"
      "How the Australian economy was born on the back of slave labour. Yes, slaves."
      "A users’ guide to ASIO’s latest power grab"
      "Don’t count on that tradie-led recovery. The latest package is nothing to build on"
      "Who is Morrison kidding? The economy has been on government life support for a decade"

      • tell me if they're Murdoch/News Corp sounding?

        Believe it or not they are, and there are articles reinforcing the seemingly leftist mantra of those headlines from traditionally right-leaning mouthpieces in the News Corp portfolio and in the pay of other conservative news media conglomerates.

        The delineation between left and right is murkier than ever thanks to this complex, interwoven web of monopolies that dominate the flow of information.

        "Quiet Australians good, noisy ones bad: Morrison’s double standards make it clear whose lives matter most"

        Here's the ardent News Corp bastion, The Australian, with their coverage of BLM-inspired protests in Sydney where they state:

        There was a valid moral position both for and against the local protests.

        The protesters scored a success with their numbers in highlighting the ongoing failures to address Aboriginal deaths in custody, estim­ated at 432 since the 1991 royal commission report. This is a collective failure, a stain on state and territory justice and the responsibility of national government.

        Sounds rather indistinguishable from the assertions of the so-called "independent" Crikey.

        "How the Australian economy was born on the back of slave labour. Yes, slaves."

        Here's a Daily Mail Australia article endorsing the view that colonial Australian slavery was prominent in Queensland.

        "A users’ guide to ASIO’s latest power grab"

        If journalist Annika Smethurst's house can be publicly raided by the AFP in response to unflattering articles she had written about proposals to expand ASIO's warrantless surveillance dragnet while she worked for a News Corp-owned publication, then it's clear there are certain topics and agendas that are simply beyond the left-right paradigm and are considered sacrosanct territory by both sides of the two-party state.

        This again underscores the importance of not being partisan and relying on your ideological allies to inform you as to which stance you should adopt on a particular issue. Succumbing to the intellectually-feeble left/right divide is a way to completely short circuit critical thinking, as the higher up one goes on the stratas of left and right power, the more and more united these seemingly opposite sides become in their agenda.

        • -1

          Your understanding of the AFP raids suggests your own partisanship has blinded you to reality. IF you were as well informed as you'd like people to believe then you'd know that "the left" has argued strongly for laws which will protect journalists from prosecution in particular circumstances. The decision on whether to pursue journalists has almost always fallen to the government of the day. The ALP had this as part of it's platform at the last election: "Uniform national defamation laws should provide a proper balance between freedom of expression, freedom of the press, public debate and the protection of the reputation of others. Whistle-blower protection laws, national shield laws to protect journalists, and harmonisation of
          shield laws nationally, are important protections for free speech." More here under Free Speech, Freedom of Information, Privacy for those interested: https://www.alp.org.au/media/1539/2018_alp_national_platform...

          https://www.itnews.com.au/news/abbott-caves-on-demands-for-j... - and Dutton's efforts to undermine that very limited protection: https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/05/15/dutton-surveillance-jou... https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-rejects-journa... (read the article, not the headline)

          Here's a report which canvasses many issues regarding "freedom of the press". Well worth reading unless your own ideology has already closed your mind. Yes it was funded by that commie Get-Up mob: https://digitalrightswatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09...

        • +6

          You do know that an independent news outlet doesn't have to deliberately go against the grain of MSM outlets right? Independent media just means media that is free of influence by government or corporate interests. I'd argue simply blocking your ears and endorsing the opposite opinion misses the point, and also goes against your idea of not short circuiting critical thinking.

    • +3

      In your own clearly unbiased view (lol) @Amar89, what is their "agenda" and "ideology" precisely?

    • It's anti Murdoch if anything

  • +32

    It may be ‘independent’, but it’s certainly got a left leaning bias. Got that same vibe as GetUp! to be honest.

    • +1

      Yet they claim that The Australian is the one with the bias:

      The targets-in-chief: elites, academics, social reformers, media enemies, leftists and p*ssy feminists


      • +7

        Yeah, as we all know the Australian is as pure as the driven snow - after Murdoch has pissed all over it.

      • This deal is not about The Australian. Some have left bias, others have right bias. Same as in broader society.

    • +2

      Despise GetUp. Yuck

      • Why is that diddy?

  • +6

    It has certainly changed since its media specific commentary days. Unfortunately, there are people who used to work for other main stream media that joined Crikey and brought with them their old agenda. Nobody is neutral anymore. There is always n agenda. Even the podcast that called itself "No Agenda". Every one of these 'independent' sources is tainted to some extent. Some more than others. You have to get your feed from multiple sources. However, can you really be neutral? We all have our own agenda. What is corrrect is what we would like to hear. We are all biased to a certain degree. If you are left leaning, then everything from centre to right of is conservative and vice versa.

    • +1

      We should worry less about political stances and embrace different views and discussions, left or right. Not try and shout over or silence differences. Let everyone consume and critique. At least thats how it used to be.

    • +1

      I miss the old Crikey too. Fearless and irreverent. Now is just another small agenda pushing website in a sea of agenda pushing websites (left and right). Pick your bias, dive in and be fed what your wanted to hear.

    • +1

      We may all have agendas, but the point is journalists are supposed to be professionals who report the news, not manipulate it to their own agenda. They should stick to the facts on an issue and leave their opinions for opinion pieces. Their manipulation of the news makes them nothing more than activists!

  • +14

    Is it too left leaning or is it me ?

    • +3

      Is Jorge Mario Bergoglio Catholic?

    • +15

      Everything will look left leaning when the majority of the Australian media landscape is on the right by default

  • +1

    Didn't the word crikey die along with Steve Irwin?

  • +11

    Those are some cringey/obviously biased headlines up there. I'm fairly left but it's way too much for me. There are far better sources of news.

  • cant possibly be more independent than my go-to news source

    • 404 Not Found

      Page that you are trying to request cannot be found.

  • +12

    If you want proper independent journalism:


    All of the MSM papers aren't really 'left' or 'right', they're just different approaches to a corporate agenda. Ever notice how little attention they give to actually important issues like tax evasion and unions?

    • -6

      Actually, the Australian covers the disproportionate power and questionable conduct of the unions in this country quite extensively. The unions call it a right-wing bias.

      • +9

        Ah yes looks like we have a reader of fair and balanced newspaper the Australian. The so-called 'left wing' media outlets like The Project and ABC often bash unions just like your friend Rupert and you would know that if you consumed more than one news outlet.

        No, unions do not have disproportionate power: the current party in government is explicitly anti-union and pro-corporate. Unions are not 'left wing' because asking for fair pay and workers rights isn't left or right wing. One of the most conservative politicians in our country Bob Katter is one of the biggest voices for unions in the country.

    • Michael West certainly has his own biases as well. Used to work for the majors but seems his agenda got the better of him over time.

      While he may be "independent" that doesn't seem to be literally what you meant since crikey is that…

      • +6

        What is his "agenda"? To expose economic and financial realities in a forlorn effort to wake complacent and ignorant Australians up perhaps?

        • +2

          Yeah I don't see any biases from Michael West. His only 'bias' would be anti-corruption which is hard to argue a bad thing.

          • +2

            @JD6750: I used to be a fan and followed for a long time (including across news brands!), but after a while you found him beating the drum about his own pet topics, without a lot of fact in some of them.

            Back when he still wrote for one of the majors, one time I challenged him by email about something he wrote that was incorrect. He asked for evidence, I sent it through, he didn't reply. Fine. But he then later went on repeating the same evidence free false allegations. That summed up his actual objectiveness and worth as a journalist for me. That turned me off as it showed he was writing to his market to tell a story rather than worrying about journalistic ethics and getting it right.

            He now seems to carry his brand as being 'the friend of the little guy against the big corporations' which has that old appeal and an obvious market, coming across as being on the public's side. I prefer someone who values facts instead of just attacking the usual suspects because it helps his image and sells subs.

            • +1

              @odysseus: Throw us a bone and be more specific about your challenge and West's "evidence-free false allegations". NO journalist gets it right every time but I'm interested to see what you think his sin actually was.

          • +2

            @JD6750: His articles more often expose corporate economic/financial 'ethics" and all that entails - manipulation of politicians, political complacency, selling the national estate to multinationals with minimal return to the common wealth, selling out taxpayers to corporations etc.

    • +5

      Add The Conversation to your list JD

      • +2

        The Monthly, the Saturday Paper, the Quarterly, and 7am Podcast are independent, brilliant, bordering on investigative journalism.

        • -3

          All leftist drivel.

  • +13

    Who actually pays for news? I won't even read an article that requires registration.

    People should pay me to listen to what they have to say.

    To hear more of my edgy opinions, subscribe to my monthly newsletter for only $9.99 AUD. First 100 subscriptions include GST!

    • +1

      You realise that most subscription fees now exceed advertising revenue right? So how exactly do you expect publications to pay journalists to do the work?

  • I upvoted it but it looks like the same drivel I could get in 97% of the other rags.

  • +8

    Such a sorry state of affairs these days, can't post anything without triggering the right and left leaning folks.

    • +2

      What are you talking about, the triggering is in response to the subject matter of the deal. It's not like political views are spouted on every post.

  • -2

    Since when has it become a deal to access left bias articles for free? Like we don't have enough of them.
    They should be paying us for subscribing to their site.

  • Can't see where you get the free subscription anyway.

  • Part of the problem is that those on the political left and right tend to read publications that reinforce their own views. This is why we as a society are so polarised and struggle to find middle ground.

    It's not perfect but I reckon


    is a step in the right direction. It's US centric for one, but it provides the perspective of different publications all across the political spectrum and helps us to get out of our own bubbles.

  • +6

    I get all my news from the ozbargain comments section.

    So as far as I'm concerned eneloops are currency, price jacking is the norm and MS Paint is the preferred means of communication.

Login or Join to leave a comment