For some fun… if you had to choose one exclusively as a source of news for the next two years which would you choose? and why?
news.com.au or abc.net.au/news
Neither is great, but which would you choose?
No alternatives because of that’s not the point of “would you rather?”, but comment away none the less.
Looks like you’ve already played
For some fun
Where is the third option of Neither
https://michaelwest.com.au/
https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/
https://truecrimenewsweekly.com/news/
https://www.friendlyjordies.com/news
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Would_you_rather
Although in this case it might be two not so good options
@morse: "Would you rather" should have two interestingly contrasted choices. OP posted 2 news sources that are basically the same bullshit packaged up for very slightly different audiences.
@Loot N Plunder 's version would be much more interesting, eg friendlyjordies vs ABC news.
According to the poll results this is one for all the "greenies and lefties"
The ABC is full of them and hence so are thier incredibly biased stories.
🍿🍻
Would I rather punch myself in the face or stub my toe on a coffee table?
I only check News Corp websites when I feel my blood pressure is getting too low. I can't wait for the Murdoch children to inherit his media empire and break it up into pieces for quick payday. Unfortunately I think they'll keep the Advertiser/news.com.au because it was Rupert's baby. But I doubt they'll care enough to keep Rupe's right wing bent, it'll turn into a site, even more of a site, that just reposts viral social media "stories". We'll always need the ABC to give us proper Aussie news.
Al Jazeera
Yeah, though at the moment the live channel is mostly the war in Gaza. But normally they post all kinds of world news, the kind of stories that the ABC and SBS like to do, except they seem to have a much bigger investigative budget.
I'll say that Israel must regret killing that Al Jazeera journalist by now, Al Jazeera is piling on the IDF in spades. Whatever doubt and PR spin Israel tries to pull it seems Al Jazeera is entirely immune to it. They would have been anyway, but killing her must be making them double down on their efforts. And Al Jazeera is full of journalists and anchors from around the world, people you are used to seeing on America's ABC or the English BBC. It doesn't feel like an Arab news station, it feels much more like SBS with a billion dollar budget. Their reporting aligns so closely with the ABC and SBS that ABC News 24 used to switch to the Al Jazeera live feed at night to save money.
ill get downvoted on here for this but i am just being honest….
imho it is what the ABC 'used to be' [10-15 years ago] before it become Americanised and Polarising pushing socialist agendas opposed to educating people about the facts of an issue
this is just my opinion the ABC has become to Left leaning i probably see it more as the anti-sky news these days then a independent broadcaster - unless it is on at work i dont watch it
i prefer my news to be as free from bias as it is Al Jazeera might be middle easter but it is not anti-nor is it pro-Israeli - im watching it right now and it gives me the facts this how many people died on both sides these people need aid in Gaza asap, Israel is demand the release of hostages to allow aid to pass etc
i know the lefties love ABC/10 like the Righties Love Sky/SEN and other News corp media like the Herald sun etc
it has literally got to the point i already know to a rough extent what 'journalist' like Patricia Karvelas [abc] or Peta Credlin[sky news] will say and how they will 'present a topic' - to me that is not news if i can see the 'reporters' agenda then it is more closer to propaganda then 'news'
personally think the average Australian will 'watch' whatever news source suits their own personal agendas opposed to being educated on a topic to formulate their own opinion which sadly we dont really have in Australia
I think Australia in general is left leaning, especially when you include everyone under 18 years of age. Have you seen who is in power federally and on the state level? It's a sea of red. And greens grow in number each and every year. 20 years from now will the Coalition even exist? Will News Corp still exist? Will we ever have a Liberal as PM ever again?
@AustriaBargain: it shouldnt matter the news should be based on facts not feelings or agendas
the fact you think that is 'acceptable' for a publicly funded media kind of shows how bad the propaganda has gotten
of course you're allow your opinion ill always have the stances facts and science before feelings and agendas but our media will probably never give me the full picture thus is why i dont trust it
@Trying2SaveABuck: I'm guessing you are talking about the voice here? Thanks for allowing me an opinion, very generous of you.
@AustriaBargain: I have an issue with Australian media in general - please note i didnt down vote you
did you have an issue with the way it was reported on?
@Trying2SaveABuck: I didn't really follow ABCs reporting on it. I was much more interested in what people on The Australian were saying. I remember one comment on an article there saying that Indigenous Australians don't deserve a voice in parliament, because they weren't house proud like white Australians are. Struck me as an odd thing to say, an odd way to view Indigenous Australians.
@AustriaBargain: Fair enough - strange comment from the Australian - everyone has 'as voice' via their democratic right to vote
i think a comment from one clearly racist individual is not why the voice was voted down - but it is probably something the ABC would say or something our PM would say it was all 'white racists' that voted No when factually speaking the rich 'mostly' white areas actually supported the voice….
@Trying2SaveABuck: You think there was just one racist comment on one of the many articles about the voice in The Australian? The comments are all still there, you're welcome to have a look and prove yourself wrong.
@AustriaBargain: i believe you - when your having a vote based on race your probably going to get racism do you think that people that voted Yes were not racist too - literally had MP Noel Pearson call Australians White c—ts
Senter Price family got attacked
Warren Mundine almost killed himself from the abuse he was getting….
do you see how only listening to 'one side' of the argument skews your view - i personally saw more racists pushing yes then i did No esp from our current government Noel Pearson comments in particular
i have NO doubt a small percentage of Yes and No voters where racist but i say this clearly it is not why the voice failed
@Trying2SaveABuck: I think if the voice vote were held a month sooner, it would have passed. And if it were held again months from now, it would pass. If News Corp didn't exist, it would have passed.
@AustriaBargain: No it 'never' was going to 'Pass' no referendum in Australian history has ever passed without bipartisan support
your 'welcome' to fact check me'
The Voice was 'dead' the moment Albo announced without Dutton and Littleproud on board
Dutton for all the media does to vilify him said he would support constitutional recognition but not the voice - i personally think Australia agrees with him
as for 'news corp' i dont think it had much of an impact on the referendum once people learned more about it, the less they supported it - if news corp was that powerful then your words not mine Australia wouldnt be 'left leaning'
@Trying2SaveABuck: Dutton was never going to be on board. If Dutton, his party, or the coalition were ever on board there would never have been a need for the voice in the first place.
@AustriaBargain: Dutton openly supports recognition he said it publicly multiple times he didnt support the voice- which is what Albo initially said this referendum would be about….. but Albo wanted 'the voice' which Dutton wanted details on before expressing his support and opposition too….
Littleproud was against both recognition and the voice thus he said the nationals would be supporting No from day one
@AustriaBargain: neither was the voice - that is why it failed the fact 41 percent of 1st nations people voted against it and 62 percent of All Australians kind of eludes to that
recognition might of help bridge the gap and give 1st nations people a feeling that they matter to Australians but sadly we will never know - Albo took that away from them….he should be replace he isnt fit to lead the ALP
@Trying2SaveABuck: You may hav read that in Facebook posts, but I suggest you check out this analysis https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/experts-skewer-indigenous-v…
Here's a poll that found people who watch Sky News were more likely to vote No, what an odd coincidence https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/16/peopl…
@AustriaBargain: Doesnt suprise me sky news only has about 52k viewers daily….
Compare that to ABC which is 2.3million….
Both are not great sources for news but if your saying sky brought down the voice or news corp im sorry imbut factually speaking newscorp doesnt have that much pull - most of news corp is pay walled so unless you inclided to suport that 'journalism ' youre not aborbing it
I'm unsure what the official numbers where but Aus has about 17million registered voters 52k is a drop in the ocean mate
Anyway have a good night it was nice to have this chat
@Trying2SaveABuck: According to News Corp itself, there are over a million paid subscribers to their mastheads.
ABC has fact checked News Corps influence, and their analysis is limited only to news and current affairs https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-14/fact-file-rupert-murd…
ABC also found that News Corp's share of circulation in national and capital city dailies was 65% in 2016 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-14/fact-file-rupert-murd…
It is important to note that these numbers may not be comprehensive and may not include all forms of News Corp media consumed by Australians.
@Trying2SaveABuck: I suspect if the referendum had been just for recognition Dutton would have opposed it still. I feel he said he supported it to make himself look reasonable. there would have been the same arguments about recognition e.g. saying that it would entitle Indigenous Australians to compensation or land etc.
I suspect if the referendum had been just for recognition Dutton would have opposed it still. I feel he said he supported it to make himself look reasonable.
you can only go by what people say and do Dutton said he would support recognition Albo could of 'called his bluff' when the polls showed a clear majority for No
this is on Albo he is the PM he pushed for the Voice the fact he didnt even read the Uluru statement and couldnt answer basic questions on it are all part of the reason it failed
@Trying2SaveABuck: The Voice was 'dead' the moment Albo announced without Dutton, who walked out on the apology to the Stolen Generation, later claiming to regret it and Littleproud on board. FTFY
@AustriaBargain: I'm not a right-winger, but some people have very short memories and think that a cyclical swing is ushering in a new permanent condition.
To answer your questions:
20 years from now the Coalition will almost certainly exist. The Libs get millions of votes and there's no new centre-right party that's a real shot at taking those votes off them. And people have been predicting the extinction of the Nats for decades, but they're still fine… winning regional and rural seats in various parts of the country, and usually needed by the Libs to form government.
News Corp will almost certainly still exist in 20 years. Some of the assets might get sold and some assets might get acquired, as is normal in a conglomerate over time. But many of the mastheads and outlets are profitable and patronised by very well-resourced corporate and political interests. They're not going to fall off the face of the earth just because some progressives don't like them, or because they get hauled through the courts a few times for shoddy journalism. They'll still be around.
We will certainly have a Liberal as PM again. The Libs are a centre-right populists, and if they have to tinker with some of their policy positions after a few years in opposition because their focus groups tell them that's how they're going to get back into power…. they will.
Geez, so many folks declare that a party is all but finished as an entity if they cop a big election defeat. And they're basically never right.
@AustriaBargain: You won't have to wait 20 years for my third dot point. A Roy Morgan poll released this week had the Coalition at 50.5% of the two party preferred vote, riding high after they undermined the referendum. I still don't imagine that they'll win the next election, but they'll win a fair few seats back and get started with some generational change that will position them for a good tilt in 2028. They've got a former military bloke in Victoria (I forget his name) who is in Federal Parliament now and very impressive. I'd be far from surprised if he was leading the party a few years from now. Edit: it's Keith Wolahan.
Last time the ALP swept into power (after Howard), everyone was writing obituaries for the dinosaur Liberal Party while ALP talked about carbon trading and the future. But the Libs (led by Howard's old headkicker Tony) were back in power within 6 years after Rudd and Gillard blew each other up. Anything can happen.
@park: Rupert Murdoch could die before the next election. That will fundamentally and forever change Australian politics, leaving the Coalition high and dry. There's no way the other Murdoch siblings will let Lachlan carry on with all this legacy media stuff when there could be a massive payday. The siblings made more profits from the increase in value of the Disney shares they got from the time they got them tot he time they were allowed to sell them than News Corp or Fox itself could ever deliver. Rupert is 92 and his hands look like leather gloves.
@AustriaBargain: Some of the four Murdoch kids in the family trust may choose to be bought out of the trust and take their payday that way. There's nothing to say that they want to fight Lachlan about editorial direction for the rest of their lives
@park: We'll have to wait for the real life Succession ending to see what happens. The entire world is eager to find out I think. What happens when the kingmaker dies..
@AustriaBargain: Yeah for sure. I think it's useful to remember that while Rupert has a particular style and taste, News Corp's editorial positions are to a reasonable extent the product of the lobby groups and advertisers that have been in their tent for decades. Lachlan's path of least resistance for a profitable business will be to keep them in the tent.
Yeah, vem weffties weckon cwimate change is a fing,innit?
Let me see,news, or being force fed Murdochs effluent laced with pustules . The poll options should be Murdochs rag or disembowelling yourself with red hot teaspoon
Poll is broken. Only one "source of news" option.
Have you ever played “would you rather?”
Yes I have.
It’s a fun game
Judging by the comments and the poll results, I have to ask: have you?
I actually didn’t think it would be as one sided as it is looking. I used to love abc news online, but now I think they use the most ridiculous examples, skew the evidence presented to favour a particular angle and their investigative journalism seems to aim to find fault and flaw rather than a more nuanced enquire into a topic. Not that’s new.com.au is better, occasionally it will have something before abc.
@morse: Almost all news media is biased in my opinion.
But the difference between the two you suggested is, one makes an attempt at reasonable news coverage while the other is simply an advertisement board for trash.
Yep. I have even carried moonbeams home in a jar
What about a real hard hitting news source such as the Betoota Advocate?
Next WYR could be Betoota Advocate Vs The Onion
Would be my pick over both!
Looking forward to the next WYR
News.com.au is good if you skip the first 10 lines of repeating them self.
The (profanity) can't even spell or use spellcheck on the front page. They use the word fury 8 times per day in headlines.
And the closer. Joe Hildebrand is their golden boy. Hahahahahahahahaha
news.com.au
i would miss all those kmart mum post. damn need that need 1k dupe handbag
My fav would be their s3x advice every weekends.
Despite having news in its name, news.com is actually entertainment and not news.
Best way to get summaries of Reddit posts or learn what's happening on TikTok.
Most Australian media outlets are entertainment magazine equivalents these days. It’s really getting boring.
🪨↔️🙅♀️
Is neither an option?
At least abc has some news related content.
News.com is just a bunch of: which d grade personality is showing their buttole for money now and a summary of 3 other peoples opinions from online forums. Oh, and tips about bali like: little known hack can save you millions - wearing a helmet while drunk on your scooter…
It is literally just a bunch of garbage written by kids with worse spelling and grammar than myself (scary stuff).
But without news.com.au, how will I know what all of the OnlyFans "content creators" are up to?
Gees at least support the artists and subscribe directly.
But without news.com.au, how will I know what daily horrible tragedy occurred to an Aussie in Bali.
They never talk about the tragedy of Bali having to deal with said Aussies.
Like imagine if people flew for hours to your house just to drunkenly yell at each other and piss against your wall.
I wouldn't fully trust any main stream media. You will only hear what the network owners want you to hear. Vangard, blackrock and state street are majority shareholders in almost every media company (and most major companies in the world). Here is an example. https://youtu.be/yXfRDC2NKY0?si=Hlc0btpl19K3B4TM
I wouldn't trust anyone who makes broad, sweeping generalisations like "don't trust mainstream media", or who gets their knowledge of news media from a 2-minute meme video.
I would trust someone who actually reads news and knows about the differences between specific news organizations, including who owns them, which way they lean, and how they verify and present their news content. ABC News is 100% owned by the Australian Government, but there is a law giving the ABC absolute editorial independence from the government, which means it can, and does, frequently publish news critical of the government.
I didnt say what you are quoting me for, I was saying you should be open to the possibility you are not being told the truth, or certain facts are being deliberately ommitted to encourage you to side with a particular point of view. I personally dont care what you believe, but I didnt come to my point of view from watching a 2 minute meme video, it is just an example of the way the system works. I dont want anyone to blindly believe what I am saying, look into it for yourself to come to your own conclusions. There have been many examples from the russia-ukraine conflict such as using video game footage to show ukraine shooting down russian planes, and reports of Ukrainian buildings burning where the firefighters in front of the building were from Edmonton Canada. They even used photos of Tasmanian firefighters claiming they were exhausted Ukrainian firefighters. These are just a few exmples I have seen.
You are doing what nearly all mainstream conspiracy theorists are doing: You are attempting to deligitimise genuine journalism and genuine journalists by citing a few cherry-picked examples where devious people (who are not genuine journalists) attempted to trick the public by passing off fake evidence as real evidence.
The reason you discovered those things are fake is because of genuine journalism.
Instead of saying "do your own research", which usually means subscribing to biased conspiracy theory channels like Russell Brand's channel, why not attempt to find out about how journalism works and which news media channels are actually reliable. You can tell which ones are reliable, because they usually publish articles correcting and apologising for information that they previously erroneously reported, and they include fact-checking services.
If you're genuinely interested in truth, you should follow fact-checking websites like AAP FactCheck, which is non-profit, or RMIT ABC Fact Check, which is a collaboration between the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and ABC. These websites check the claims of politicians, news articles and viral social media posts against the evidence. Or for a bit of clarification, you could watch ABC's Media Watch, which compares what different news agencies are reporting while also doing a bit of fact-checking.
For US information, you could try https://www.factcheck.org/ (you can tell it's unbiased because it has debunked claims from both major parties)
For the UK, you could try BBC's "Reality Check", also known as "BBC Verify". https://www.bbc.com/news/reality_check
My favourite newspaper is the Guardian, but I don't always agree with some of the opinion pieces they publish.
I just opened news.com.au and what did I see? Almost wall-to-wall advertisements for a gambling app (TAB) taking up about 60% of the screen. At least half the articles on the front page are clickbait news about celebrities or some random (funny or shocking) thing that happened to an ordinary person who filmed it and put in on TikTok or Instagram.
I opened up abc.net.au/news and it's basically just news with a few in-depth stories specific to Australia.
I think that people forget what a great job that the ABC do for the country folk. Most people rely on the ABC for news of fires etc. Infact the ABC is the only one that does this
Very true. That and radio. I was more referring to the news website.
A relatively intelligent individual should be able to "de-bias" any new source they watch/hear/read.
Should they have to?
No, but it seems most news sources were pressured over the past however long to build opinions on top of news facts. I can't identify any news sources I've come across that don't now do this in some measure but I'd still contend that unravelling the opinion quite often leaves you able to absorb the actual news facts.
Personally I use news aggregators and blockers that remove the wall-to-wall advertisements, but I do fine ABC and SBS often contain more facts under their opinions :)
Thankfully. That world does not exist. I choose independent journalism not five eyes BS.
Definition…
Looks like I won't be playing on this occasion.