Journalists need to resist adopting News Corp’s agenda

Dr. Victoria Fielding writes that when News Corp framed the story, many journalists stopped asking whether the framing was accurate, and democracy paid the price.

When I tell people about my research News Company They use the news and comment view to campaign for conservative political causes, often saying: “Well, that’s obvious.” Even Prime Minister openly criticizes News Corp For campaigning “hand in hand” with the Liberals and the National Party against Labour.

Since everyone knows that News Corp is not only biased against the Right, but is practically the propaganda wing of the Liberal and National parties, it begs the question why the rest of the media haven’t worked a little harder to resist joining Murdoch’s anti-Labour, anti-progressive, anti-anything-right-wing pile-on.

In a recent article that my colleagues at the Murdoch Referendum Accountability Project published in the journal Journalism and MediaWe claim that: Voice ReferendumNews Corp has deliberately set an agenda that frames the Voice as divisive, with the rest of the mainstream media (including the ABC) dutifully following the same script.

In this study, we use a case study of News Corp’s overt and obvious activism in its offensive (and misrepresentative) critique of the Professor. Marcia Langton. If you remember, in the final months of the Voice Referendum, Langton was on record as saying at a university event that the “No” campaign was using racist and stupid tactics. Australian I jumped right into the story. Misrepresenting Langton’s commentsHe claimed Langton called “No” voters racist and stupid. He didn’t.

Australian He quietly updated his false claims without apologizing (which didn’t stop the former Opposition Leader) Peter Dutton continued to perpetuate the misrepresentation (because of course he did) and at the same time News Corp was collectively going full-on on Langton, calling his criticism unfair to the “No” campaign and “No” voters.

It doesn’t take a genius to see what News Corp is doing here. Throughout the referendum they worked, in Albanese’s words, “hand in hand” with the “No” campaign, particularly trying to advance the idea that the Voice was “divisive”. Langton was cited as evidence of this “separatism”.

Note that it is a right-wing tradition to always characterize allegations of racism against indigenous people and other non-White racial minorities as worse than actually being racist. In fact, many in the “No” campaign, including News Corp’s media arm, claimed the Voice was racist. White Australians.

This deflection of criticism is twofold. It deflects any examination of whether racism actually happened (of course it did, it was front and center throughout the entire Referendum campaign; why do you think the Referendum was needed in the first place?). It also frames the person making the accusation as the bad guy and characterizes those accused of being racist as victims. This is a powerful form of weaponized victimization; is a rhetorical strategy that is at the heart of right-wing movements around the world.

So we know what News Corp is doing here. This is very clear. But what’s just as annoying is this: this research – with the rest of the media lagging behind News Corp in treating Langton’s comments on racism as if they were controversial for the “Yes” campaign and therefore the Labor Government.

The Labor Government was subsequently asked to explain Langton’s statements.

For example, this Australian piece It starts with a paragraph:

‘Linda Burney was forced to call for attention and respect from both sides in the Voice Referendum debate after Marcia Langton accused the ‘No’ case of racism and stupidity, undermining the ‘Yes’ campaign’s strategy to win over five million undecided voters.’

In our article, we argue that the collective media’s framing of the “Yes” campaign as controversial and problematic for Langton through accusations of racism had a significant impact on the referendum debate.

It is important to note that outside of News Corp, the media’s framing of Langton was less aggressive, less productive and less critical, but still with the exception of a single outlier. Annabel Crabb on ABCThey collectively accepted the proposition that Langton’s comments were indeed controversial. More importantly, the media collectively accepted News Corp’s view that there was no racism in the “No” campaign that needed to be examined and therefore Langton’s accusations had no legitimacy.

Look, no journalist attempted to investigate the validity of Langton’s accusations, nor did they investigate how racism was emboldened during this dark period in Australia’s history and continues to be emboldened by the victory of the “No” campaign.

What this meant was that News Corp started the fire and the rest of the media poured oil on the fire to reinforce the innocent claims of the “No” campaign that Langton was wrong to call out racism and that the only racism that existed in the referendum campaign was racism against Whites.

We describe this process as the “Agenda Feedback Wheel”. As part of News Corp’s conservative advocacy against the Voice, it used its media power to deliberately set an agenda that was passively adopted by the rest of the media. Through this collective scandalous reporting in the media, the political agenda, and by extension the public agenda, was pitted against the Voice at a critical moment in the Referendum campaign.

Once you understand how this Agenda Feedback Wheel works, you can recognize it anywhere. Be it during the COVID pandemic, when News Corp set an agenda framing Victoria Premier Dan Andrews “Dictator Dan” but as Liberal NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian no such review was undertaken or, more recently, when News Corp politicized this disgusting incident Terrorist attack on Bondi To the Albanese government’s fault, journalists outside News Corp need to be more resilient in adopting News Corp’s framework as their own.

News Corp presents a far-right view that represents the interests of a small elite minority in Australia. Of course, there are other views that have the right to be heard and treated fairly and reasonably by journalists to ensure that the right-wing view does not dominate.

Journalists who don’t bother to research other views and who don’t examine right-wing views are abusing their media power at least as much as News Corp.