Well this is a turn up for the books, after years of right wingers whinging about the media supporting the Left of politics a study concentrating on the Howard years of government shows just the opposite.
Television and radio both favour the Liberals with the exception being some newspapers, so all that whining about the media being left wing is, well, just whining.

Quote:

it's like an arrow through my heart ..........
aaaaaarrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhh

course, this survey was done during the leftys reign, so unsurprisingly it favours them as being the downtrodden underdog.

makes NO mention of the libs always being correct

Meanwhile in the real world...

Media Bias in Australia
November 23, 2008

The ABC’s partisan preferences are not limited to Australian politics.

The taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) occupies a position in Australia similar to that enjoyed by the BBC in the United Kingdom.

The ABC runs two free-to-air national television channels, four national radio networks, nine metropolitan radio stations in major cities, 51 radio stations across rural and regional Australia and a range of Internet and subscription services.

No Australian commercial network approaches the ABC in terms of reach and, arguably, influence. It is well-funded, amply staffed and under more or less constant criticism for projecting a left-wing take on just about every aspect of Australian life that it touches.

Grahame Morris, a chief of staff to former conservative Prime Minister John Howard, once described the national broadcaster as, “our enemies talking to our friends.”

The recently retired presenter of ABC TV’s national gardening show was a former member of the Communist Party. The ABC, you see, takes no chances. Even when you were invited to tiptoe through the tulips, the ABC provided an ideologically reliable guide.

Obviously, the political and cultural disposition of the national broadcaster, as it sucks up taxpayer dollars, is an important and legitimate area of public debate. The left does not see it that way. Conservative criticism of the national broadcaster’s political and cultural perspectives is usually brushed off by the ABC and its friends as an attack on the “independence” of its journalists, producers and managers.

But an obligation to provide balance and diversity of opinion is enshrined in the ABC’s charter; and the corporation’s editorial policies and style guide set out rules for news and current affairs journalists in an attempt to ensure that the obligation is met.

The ABC’s partisan preferences are not limited to Australian politics. Consider this comment in the lead up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election from Red Symons, the presenter of one of its prime time radio programs:

“774 ABC Melbourne is, of course, supporting Senator John Kerry in his endeavor to become President of the United States. We can’t take sides in Australia, but I’ve had it from management we can take sides elsewhere in the world. We want Kerry to win.”

The Australian chapter of Democrats Abroad would have been chuffed to know that.

There are broadcasting codes that can be used to try to hold the ABC accountable to its charter. The process is far from satisfactory because, in the first instance, the ABC itself is the arbiter of complaints made about it.

So between 2005 and 2008 the Howard Government attempted to use the Senate Estimates Committee process to take the problem of political bias straight to the corporation’s managing director.

Over the three-year period, the Government tabled more than 1,000 examples of ABC journalists violating the organization’s editorial guidelines and style guide―its rule books for providing fair and balanced reporting. The examples were extracted from a very small part of the network’s output―the program transcripts that the ABC makes available online―and thus represented only a very small percentage of the total network programming. Unquestionably, a complete analysis of ABC output would have yielded thousands more.

A particularly egregious example of ABC mischief had occurred in February 2003 when Prime Minister Howard visited then Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri in the lead up to the war with Iraq.

In a meeting with Mr. Howard, the president of the world’s largest Muslim nation gave an undertaking that her Government would explain to the Indonesian public that a war on Iraq would not be regarded as a war on Islam.

However, ABC News, broadcast across Australia and beamed into Asia, that evening reported, “Well, there’s support for Iraq tonight from the world’s largest Muslim nation. Indonesia claims a war on Iraq would be a war on Islam.”

The ABC was forced to run a correction the next day, but the damage to the national interest had been done.

The Howard Government’s efforts to modify the behavior of the ABC resulted in a number of smoke-and-mirrors efforts to address the issue of bias in its current affairs broadcasting.

However, one year ago, the 11-year-old centre-right Liberal-National coalition of John Howard was defeated in a federal election by the centre-left Australian Labor Party (ALP) led by Kevin Rudd.

On election night, the ABC’s TV anchor and network icon Kerry O’Brien, on air live from the national tally room, declared that there had been a big swing “to the ABC” in Bennelong, the electorate of Prime Minister John Howard.

The gaffe, if O’Brien’s comment had, indeed, been unintended, provided an eloquent metaphor for the symbiotic relationship between the ABC and the ALP.

Maxine McKew, the ALP candidate who went on to win Bennelong from the prime minister, had been a 30-year veteran journalist and presenter at the ABC. She left the network at the end of 2006, laughing off suggestions that she intended to stand as a Labor candidate in the federal election.

pt1

Media bias and the Tampa affair

September 9, 2001 Martin Lehmann 

The attitude of the print media and naturally, the ABC, over the Christmas Island refugee saga clearly highlights how out of step the media is with mainstream Australia and how far journalists will go to manipulate public opinion to impose their left-wing, do-gooder views on the rest of us.

In the early days of the crisis, opinion polls conducted by the Herald Sun, Channel 10 and various radio stations indicated support for Prime Minister Howard's actions running at a staggering 90 - 94%. This clearly reflected the view of the vast majority of Australians that the refugees should be turned back. Yet the print media led by The Australian, ran editorials and opinion pieces highly critical of the Prime Minister's actions.

In a major opinion piece on September 6, The Australian's Greg Sheridan led with "The Howard Government has embarked on the most cynical, costly, dishonest, dangerous and destructive foreign affairs and defence adventure in the recent history of this country."

Some days into the crisis as the media assault began to bite, national opinion polls still reflected 75% support for Howard. You would never guess this from a study of The Australian's Letters to the Editor. I have suspected for some time The Australian selects letters in accordance with its journalists own lefty-trendy views. Notwithstanding the overwhelming support for Howard, the published letters were running four to one against him.

This action, in concert with the extremely unbalanced editorial and opinion pieces and features, in my opinion, suggests a dangerous and arrogant attempt to manipulate public opinion.

Ah the king of copt past is back.

You surprise me boofy, I would have thought an old lefty like you would have been outraged to see the media are pro right wing and that your views were not being presented fairly, but alas, the old lefty is a rightard in wolfs clothing.

I'm not surprised ,you hate the truth, what I posted isn't my opinion or the opinion of a rightard like your cut and pastes.
What I posted is a study of all political stories during the reign of the rodent, what that study shows is that your " opinion" is wrong, don't be upset about that, I too was surprised with the findings.
The difference between you and I is that you still choose to bury your head and believe "your opinion" I choose to believe the study as it was conducted to find out the truth, not the opinion of an old lefty like yourself.

Quote:


There you go again, it is your OPINION the study is wrong, the study if you bothered to read it, looked at all the political stories between 1996 and 2007 to see if those stories favoured one side of politics over the other ( fukc this is tiresome explaining such basic s hit to a grown up) the only way the study can be wrong, as you assert, is if they lied.
So ,in order to appease your conspironut imagination, you believe they lied.