News Corp boss defiant as demonstrators plan to protest ‘racist’ media

We always exclude Sky News from TV bookings, can’t be trusted not to insult our customers

Miller would say that wouldn’t he? All of News inhabits the rabid right-wing views of its New York-based master. Time to break it up.

How exactly is sky news a hard to reach demo? Let’s not pretend this audience is some high net worth executive cohort. They stopped watching about 5 years ago (if they ever did) once after dark hit.

We also always exclude all SkyNews and have a blacklist on News Corp ‘opinion’ writers, which we list as hate speech in programmatic. And this is in relation to sizeable spends after consultation and agreement with our clients.

It’s a small industry and from my understanding, there are a lot of similar conversations happening around town. Many senior people may not be publically waving a banner but they are privately putting away their wallet.

News Corp’s principle sales point in the last few years has been to hijack the notion of trust, particularly when the digital giants have had significant issues in that space. Trust, News Corp claims, is their primary differentiator in market, and they claim that this “trust” has significant advantages for advertisers appearing in their content.

What News Corp fail to address is – what is the audience profile of those that “trust” News Corp? And is this an audience profile that mass brands would particularly want to associate with, or build a brand around?

As News Corp has continued its dance to the right of politics, celebrated commentators like Bolt, Devine, Houghton, and Panahi, who are extreme in their conservatism, I have no doubt that a certain band of Australians do have deep trust in the words written in News Corp papers.

But are these the audiences that an advertisers wishes to attach its brand to and extract growth from in the long term?

Maybe thats something they should hold a mirror against.

Oh ok. That’s that then. Nothing to see here.

To get the right wing racists kicking in. And didn’t the Senator use twitter to broadcast his racist rants. Bit rich.

The problem here seems to be in defining “hate speech”.

Someone will always claim what is being discussed is “offensive”. Especially if the issue being discussed is of any consequence whatsoever. Someone will always find reason to be “upset” by contentious issues. Or they wouldn’t be contentious.

Unfortunately we live in a world where most social issues are extremely complicated with many factors but to silence any commentary you don’t agree with by calling it “hate speech” seems very irresponsible and small minded.

History has shown us time and time again that even if you don’t agree with someones POV, silencing them just strengthens their grievances – and they will make themselves heard if you like it or not. People like Pauline Hanson should be absolutely given the same platform as everyone else so the ridiculous ideas she spouts can be called out for what they are in logical & objective discussions.

Regardless of what you think of Hanson, she is an elected official in this country for good or bad. Silence her and you are kind of proving her point or making it seem like she and her supporters have a legit grievance. Refusing to acknowledge or debate really does give unjustified strength to the other sides argument and its a shame to hear a journalist (freelance or otherwise) take this “silence them” attitude.

Did you fail to learn any lessons from Trumps rise to power Mr McKinnon? Or maybe you did but have found your niche and don’t care either way.

There are a lot of agencies / clients who apply values filters to their media buys and in my experience, clients are becoming more vocal about calling out who they don’t want to align with. Miller might be happy with the revenue News is getting but he doesn’t know what they’re missing out on.

You have absolutely zero understanding of the company or any of the people who make it up, or what the morale/political values of those people are, but feel free to continue to spout ‘hate speech’ about us.

Free speech should always reign true and free in modern society. Those who would confuse free speech with hate speech don’t deserve a seat at the table because anything you say to disagree with them will be disregarded, you can’t reason with people like that.

Interesting you feel so strongly after accepting jobs from them and writing content Alex… Look forward to your next piece on news.com.au

The Left trying to suppress speech, yet again. Remember that these are the same type of people who had to build a wall (i.e. Berlin) to keep people IN their failed state

“even in some cases diversity oversteer with people overcompensating so they don’t appear racist or prejudiced, when they really are”

who made you the arbiter?

Well said.
I struggle to comprehend how out of touch our national media has become to everyday Australians.

Freedom of speech does not equal hate speech. Those wishing to shut down freedom of speech only do so because they fear having contradictory views aired.

As a young(ish) Australian I definitely identify as an East German living under USSR occupation circa 1960-1990.

Ive seen you commenting on other Mumbrella articles attempting to race bait, stir up controversy, etc.

This isnt VICE and your agenda is both obvious and toxic.
Piss off OZword.

Except that this isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about hate speech, something that News has deliberately curated more and more, knowing that the visceral, emotional reaction it generates from people, gets more eyeballs. Agree that debate shouldn’t be shut down, but by the same token, those who spout complete gibberish should be called out for it. And that includes so called “mainstream’ journo’s who are anything but, publishing completely offensive garbage on a daily basis.

Alex McKinnon has not only contributed to news corp recently – he consistently pitches work to them. What a hypocrite.

I believe he was referring to the company’s ethos at an upper-management level, not having a go at individual employees. Pretty hard to argue that the organisation’s fundamentally rotten at the head. By all means, keep working there – we’ve all got to make a crust. But don’t lie to yourself about the company you work for if your personal moral/political values don’t align.

I’m as left wing as they come. I’m in News Corp sales and i’m not allowed to contact journalists due to ‘journalistic integrity’. Our journalists are free and independent and are Australian humans who freely write stories that accept climate change as causes for events or support labours policies. It’s as diverse as the Australian population.

I think there is a huge mis-understanding of News Corp Australia and how different it is here to News Corp in the US.

Of COURSE News Ltd has some responsibility for encouraging racial and religious hate – anyone who argues otherwise has not read one of its papers for years.
And Sky After Dark (and its enthusiastic imitator Macquarie Radio) carries just as much responsibility.
In both the News and Sky cases the real problem is that those who’re looking for an excuse to hate and looking for a confirmation of their views find it in both outlets – seldom outright hatespeak, just a constant stream of nuanced, anti-migration, anti-Muslim “hint hint, nudge nudge” commentary.
Sometime years from now historians will look back on the toxic influencers creating a society full of dissent and danger and see clearly where it found its support … or maybe they won’t, if only we did something about it now.
And am I a ‘leftie”? Far from it – most often vote Liberal, comfortable with capitalism and the least possible government interference in our lives. But I’m not blind to what’s souring our society.

In what way is protesting a suppression of speech? It’s not like they’ve pulled the electrical plug out at Sky News. And the “failed state” you refer to was a consequence of fascism effectively destroying any ability to govern in that part of the world, so be very careful what you wish for and whose speech you think should be more free than others.

Is a Murdoch still the boss? Yes.

You should ask an ex-News Corp journalist about how free they felt on certain issues and how comfortable they were with it.

I know and have known many News employees. I would not label any of them ‘right-wing’.

The conundrum is that what they consistently publish as lead stories and opinion pieces is overwhelmingly ‘right wing’ and basically ill-informed sanctimonious bile. I know that many female employees were extremely uncomfortable with the treatment of Julia Gillard.

Hate speech is not subjective or “opinion” and it is subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. We also don’t have US -style Free Speech in this country and frankly, thank goodness.

As to Hanson, One Nation received 4.3% of the National vote so I’d be happy for her to have 4.3% of total attention, but any more is disproportionate. This idea that free speech is under threat or her toxic views are not being aired, when she is on my TV, FB and in News platforms every friggin’ day is preposterous.

Also she’s a horrible racist, but skates through without charges because she and Anning and his ilk mostly do it in Parliament where they are immune from prosecution by the RDA.

I can understand why employees are defensive. But you’d not be much of a journalist if you could not see what agenda is run by News Ltd. The choice of stories, the language, the tendency to flood the zone with commentary – it’s repetitive and it is obvious.
But the Sky at night crowd is a whole other thing. Professional trolls, some get so excited these seem almost unable to complete sentences.
Miller talks about reaching a special audience. I’d be really surprised if there are many in that class and even more surprised if many advertisers valued them.

It’s not that nuanced

“knowing that the visceral, emotional reaction it generates” – this is my point John.

Why something that gets an emotional reaction is somehow off-limits from discussion in the wider world and more importantly – WHO gets to decide if something is offensive and “hate speech” its too loose a term?? Someone in Canberra? The Robert Murdoch’s of the world?? Or just the people in society we have decided have been more marginalized? This is a crucial and most overlooked point.

I have an emotional reaction when I hear people spout off about the dangers of inoculation in children however the best solution – if you truly believe what you say you believe – is to stand your ground and have an open conversation about the facts at hand. You may not convince your opponent at all but the point of public discourse isn’t to change the mind of the person your debating, but to win over the minds (not hearts unfortunately although that would be nice) of the general public.

As I said, I do not agree with News most of the time and do not follow their journalism with any fondness. However unless they have specifically called for violence or discrimination against any specific groups in society (which in all these articles I haven’t seen a single example of) I’m not sure how it can be labelled as “hate-speech”

You’re missing the point John. Who defines what is ‘hate speech’? Why is it up to them to decide what point of view I can be exposed to? If you disagree with someone’s point of view, argue against, don’t try to silence them.

Lmao????

I left News editorial recently (voluntarily) having worked at a number of other media companies and outside the media. It is the only newsroom I have worked in where the question “should we do this?” is never asked. The only question is “can we do this?” There are many good people and journalists at News but generally they are not the ones in charge. I have never worked anywhere where the employees believed less in what they were producing. On some level everyone in News editorial knows what they are doing, whether they admit it or not. But self-reflection, among other qualities such as journalistic ethics (unless they align with corporate or political goals), community cohesion or basic fairness and decency, is not rewarded or valued at News. What is rewarded is an overgrown schoolboy mentality, where all criticism and critics must be fiercely attacked, and editors talk openly about “smashing” people on the front page. Where punching down is somehow a proxy for “robust debate”. It’s just the way News is, and the increasing polarisation of political views is only making it worse.

Are you saying that Rupert Murdoch dominates the place and his staff have no say? Surely not!

Congratulation. Your bias makes you a terrible media planner

Well said

Nothing against news ltd journalists. The Australian news pages are top class. I read them all the time.

People need to differentiate between the journos and the commentators. Henderson, Kelly, Chris Mitchell, Ergas, Sheridan, Sloane. Lloyd.. these are emphatically NOT journalists, they are a pack of self serving IPA Shills and do nothing for journalism but a hell of a lot for the bottom line of news ltd.

Arguing with commentators is like fighting with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Nothing anyone says here will alter any headline view published in the Oz, or on the web.

I have a personal problem with editorial policy, I think it’s massively skewed and anti science. But i don’t hold the journalists responsible or the subbies or the ad booking staff or the photo or layout people.

The fish rots from the head.

there’s more than journos that work at News Old Reporter, you as an old hack should know that, and those guys have no influence whatsoever on editorial direction. Lots of them are more than uncomfortable with the consistent right wing stance of their publications, TV and online products…but you still have earn a quid as they say, and there’s not a lot of media jobs kicking around.

Hate speech would have a broader meaning, but if a platform creates an atmosphere of hatred and fear its basically facilitating acts of violence, two and a half thousand articles in one year demonizing one group people could be forgiven to think it’s not journalism, free speech has always come with responsibilities

Don’t let facts get in the way of a good racist rant

That was written incredibly well and gives a good insight into their thought process (lack thereof)!

Agreed.

How unprofessional. Why don’t you list your agency name if you think it’s common?