Talk:The Sydney Morning Herald

Bias

I find the description about the Daily Telegraph to lean towards being biased. You may want to try rewording it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.183.142 (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2005 (UTC)

I am changing the sensationalistic in the description of the Daily Telegraph, this seems bias in disscussing a papers reporting practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.13.52 (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

Centre Right?

The Sydney Morning Herald? Cente Right? Get out! The paper openly supported the Labor Party in the last election! Ronan.evans 03:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Better tell those paragons of bleeding heart liberalism Miranda Devine and Gerald Henderson they're with the wrong paper in that case. --Centauri 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

They're exceptions. The overall editorial leaning of the paper is centre-left. mgekelly 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we just sit on the fence and describe it as centrist? The paper's editorial position depends on the issue. It generally leans towards economic and social liberalism, but that's a very broad generalisation. --Kewpid 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the paper decided in 2004 that it would no longer offer an editorial endorsement of either side in elections. seems pretty determinedly centrist to me Dibo 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "political allengience" necessary? Anyhow, I for one agree that 'centrist' is the most accurate description; publishing stories on 'social issues' doesn't make it a lefty. Htra0497 27 August 2006 16:48 (AET)

The Herald has endorsed the NSW Liberal/National parties at every NSw election except the last one. That said, I think a better description than 'centre-right' or 'centre-left' is 'anti-incumbent'. Jeendan 03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the smh pretty regularly and agree with the above statements. It tends to take a centre left approach to most issues like social justice, environmentalism, multiculturalism and republicanism. For comparison check out The Daily Telegraph or The Australian. The general consensus seems to be in favour to edit its allegiance. Imalegend (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The herald is a part of the liberal media. Deviantly capitalistic and ready to exploit any oppurtunity to denounce left wing principles, it even calls soccer football in keeping with its general accelerated decadent world media "oppurtunity to be a part of the world community" liberal type of approach. It is a liberal conservative paper that propagates general bourgeois values like humanist charity, minority loving, human rights, liberal economies, constantly abused principles etc. The Telegraph is not so much right-wing as populist and is obviously a Murdoch paper. Politically they are not really worth comparing as the SMH takes a stance that has at its core, very bourgeois policy support. The SMH will support the most John Stuart Mills type of party and the Telegraph will support whoever they think will win. --Ehinger222 11:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The SMH is undoubtedly a center left paper and it should be stated as so. It is similar to the Australian as it has a lot of hard news but there are numerous examples of its writers and editorial page display a clear moderate left bias. Furthermore anyone who reads the pages of the Letters to the editor will see that nearly 90% of those letters reflect readers with left to very left views. Examples of specific left leaning writers include: Ross Gitins in Business - overtly pro Keynesian, pro high taxation and larger size of govt - these are clearly Center left views and cannot be described as centrist. Despite the current Federal Govts large govt spending his columns are laced with ideological opposition. There are many other examples, Elizabeth Farrelly on planning; Jacqueline Malley; Waled Aly; Peter Fitzsimmons - I could go on and on. One more example - the OECD says Australia has the second highest taxes on profits and wages yet - the SMH has been relentless in its campaign against the current govts tax cuts - despite most economists describing them as offering mere compensation for bracket creep. In general on any economic matter - the SMH references the left wing Australia Institute with no disclosure as to it’s links to the Labor party. Please be fair and update this page to reflect its clear center left ideological position. Dulwichhillecon (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion, but be aware that content in Wikipedia depends on reliable sourcing. Without a reliable, independent source supporting your view, it is of no value here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

“Recently become more right wing”

The suggestion that the Herald has “recently become more right wing” is not supported by the book cited at footnote 23. To suggest that Peter Costello is “in charge” of the Herald is incorrect, and it is also incorrect to suggest that the Herald has recently become more right wing, particularly given it endorsed Labor at the 2019 and 2022 federal elections, the first time it endorsed Labor since 2007. This suggests that the Herald has in fact recently become more left-wing. User6784 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That book was published seven years ago. That's not recent. It was published BEFORE the creation of Nine Entertainment, so irrelevant to your argument. And it's ridiculous to suggest the chairman of the board has no influence. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The proposition that it has become recently more right wing is unsupported by any objective sources. It seems to be your opinion. Is there any reputable, objective source that supports that proposition?

Costello is not the editor or even the executive editor of the Herald. And your argument ignores the Herald’s historical and existing editorial independence.

The simple fact is that the proposition is unsupported, and such a proposition ought be supported by a reference. User6784 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I demonstrated that your claims were wrong. Now you're simply repeating your opinions. They really should have changed just a little but based on the new information I have provided to you. And obviously historical positions are irrelevant here. Please also learn about WP:INDENT to maintain coherent Talk page discussions.. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Roster of Journalists?

A roster sounds like the list of players in an American football team. I have never before seen it used to describe such a list in Australia. How about simply "List of Journalists"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

List of journalists sounds good too Jack4576 (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether this section should be removed altogether. It is incomplete and does not seem to be useful, and journalists frequently change roles and publications making it difficult to keep up to date. Could any additional notable journalists simply be captured under the "notable contributors" section as many already are? Hanne Thato (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think its a useful section to be able to have a place to list journalists names; because many journalists on the regular roster aren't notable in their own right and so otherwise wouldn't appear on the Wiki. For those journalists especially, we can use this section as a redirect.

Sure it may be incomplete. Don't agree it'd be difficult to keep up to date or with that being much of an issue. Plenty of incomplete lists exist on Wikipedia; editors are free to contribute in their own time to improving little sections like this if they so choose. Jack4576 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576 Mostly every other newspaper / media outlet page (both Australian and international) just maintains a list of notable contributors. Should every company's page on Wikipedia include a list of employees .. ? Hanne Thato (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

?

Journalists aren’t ordinary employees. I don’t agree with the comparison you’ve drawn. Jack4576 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)