I guess it means the New Corp website is posting the article outside the paywall, so readers can find it without subscribing to The Courier-Mail website.
1 Like
Yes, there are sneaky ways around the paywall but most people are not aware of them.
Iâd say the Brisbanites are being caned for loss of revenue due to drops in sales or subscriptions and are pointing the finger at who may be contributing to the losses.
Thatâw what I think as well. CM.com.au has an article published behind a paywall but then news.com.au subsequently publishes it without a paywall.
Some stories from behind the paywalls at the Telegraph and Herald Sun also get published on news.com.au Iâve noticed, but very few from The Australian get a rerun and the couple that do are only shortened versions, from what Iâve seen.
So maybe itâs news.com.auâs fault to republish stories from other papers? Then its format must be changed so that readers will be pointed to paywalls on other News Corp websites.
Iâve heard that 14 staff Courier Mail photographers were let go from the company today.
The Guardian says up to 70 staff photographers across News Corp papers were made redundant. Of the 15 who were let go from The Courier-Mail, 13 were forced to take redundancy and two took voluntary redundancy. More than 25 photographers will be made redundant in NSW and 10 SA photographers had been sacked. The report says News Corp is expected to next target production staff, including subeditors and designers.
EDIT: veteran photographer Gregg Porteous was one of 25 photographers who left News Corp in mid May.
And as long as you relentlessly pursue the ABC, now matter how flimsy the premise, then youâre in.
http://about.abc.net.au/statements/abc-refutes-claims-in-the-australian-monday-5-june-2017/
2 Likes
Mark Day revealed in his weekly media column in The Australian today that it was his final column for the paper after 17 years.
What on earth does that mean? And how does what the ABC responded with excuse the charge from The Australian? Is it standard practice now for Australian news organisations to wait for approval from the British PM about news that occurs? What other news events does the ABC need to wait on word from the British government about?
Although in the Media Diary it stated that he will still appear in The Australian occasionally in the future.
If the ABC or any other news outlet drew conclusions about an event being a terrorist incident when it may not have been, then everyone would, rightfully so, be criticising them for doing just that. So of course theyâre going to let the authorities conduct their own investigation and make their own declaration and therefore leave the media to report the authoritiesâ findings as news rather than speculate to make a headline which would serve little more than to be click-bait.
Rushing to be first with the news, as too many outlets are prone to doing in search of those elusive clicks, shouldnât be at the expense of responsible reporting.
10 Likes
And weâve seen a lot of newspapers jump to the wrong conclusion early on and then deletethe article ccompletely or change it and fauil to acknowledge the initial errors in reporting.
1 Like
Today the Australian is bashing get up 
. Constant right wing bias from news corp as usual.
2 Likes
No sorry this is just an assortment of every cliche imaginable in regards to reporting of this kind.
They didnât need to âdraw conclusionsâ, no one was going to âcriticise themâ, the authorities didnât need to âconduct their own investigationâ, and it wasnât âspeculationâ.
It was ESTBALISHED FACT that a white van had rammed through pedestrians on the bridge, and then a number of individuals had ran out and started hacking at people with long knives.
Itâs like a nuke dropping on Darwin, but saying news channels shouldnât speculate until we wait for Trump to confirm it was a nuke. Just utterly stupid.
Look, I have to be honest, I donât read The Australian at all. But if an organisation is keeping tabs on what our taxpayer money is delivering, then Iâm all for that.
But itâs not as innocent as that. Newscorp are on record as saying that they believe publicly funded organisations like the ABC and BBC shouldnât exist and that all players in media should all be privately owned. They hate the publicly funded competition so there is a clear agenda.
1 Like
So, isnât that a healthy balance to news organisations which believe that such organisations should be publicly funded and would NEVER criticise the ABC? (Like Fairfax?) Isnât it healthy for the fact that Government owns a media news and entertainment company to be questioned and criticised? If this was something against Labourâs ideology, there wouldnât ever be a let up in the relentless attack for the public funding to stop.
But they did report those facts, They just didnât describe as a terrorist attack until it was officially declared so. The Australian is saying they were too slow to describe it that way but they were being cautious.