Talk:The Daily Telegraph (Australia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk:The Daily Telegraph (Australia)/Archive
 |
The Daily Telegraph (Australia) is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
|
|||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] criticism
Bogan is an offensive word and shouldnt be used in this wayBurnt-sienna 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title Picture
I think the picture of the DT which shows the Cronulla riots is quite insensitive. Im not saying that such things should be censored or anything (it has its own article for christs sakes); all im saying is that a one-off occurence shouldn't be used to illustrate such an influential newspaper such as the Daily Telelgraph in a worldwide audience in the light that it is.
Of course all Sydneysiders know that it is a right-leaning publication and know that certain things are printed merely for the sale of newspapers, but do people from around the world know this? No.
I will be, within the next few days, be changing the picture to reflect a more 'average' front page than what Ianblair23 chose.
-
- I don't see why. The SMH cover is from the same time, and there's little doubt that the riot at Cronulla was shameful. The cover does not reflect on the newspaper. Joestella 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rubbish
There is alot of rubbish that I am going to clean up here. You are kidding yourself if you think that the Tele is any less biased that the Herald. TheRE IS NONE OF THIS TYPE OF STUFF ON THE HERALD. --Ehinger222 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Your clean up was to remove the gut of the article, and add a reference to 2004 when it supposedly had the highest circulation in Sydney? I smell POV all over your recent edit of both the SMH article and this one. BTAUS 13:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Restoration of the "Coverage Style: Percieved Bias" Section
The section "Coverage Style: Perceived Bias" was deleted without (in my opinion) a good reason. I believe it has a place in this article as The Daily Telegraph does have a reputation, either deserved or undeserved, of sensationalism and bias. Whether or not a similar segment is included on the 'Herald' is irrelevent to this article. Why should the contents of this article depend on the contents of another unrelated entry (except for the fact they're both about newspapers)? Basically: it should not.
I request others' input into this. In absence of a good reason not to (other than "no evidence of that, I read it" or "NONE OF THIS TYPE OF STUFF ON THE HERALD"), I will be restoring the "Coverage Style: Perceived Bias" section in about 24 hours. Thanks! --Youngvariety 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Coverage Style: Percieved Bias" Section Now Restored
I received no objections (see above) so I restored the "Percieved Bias" section. If anyone believes the "Telegraph" is treated unfairly, I suggest that individual discuss the issue here before making any edits to the "Perceived Bias" section (as I have done).
Incidentally, I am aware if the discussion regarding newspaper politics on the Sydney Morning Herald discussion page. However I respectfully disagree to those users opposed to leaving such sections out: some papers have been accused of being biased and/or sensationalist. The Daily Telegraph is one of them and I have noted that in the article. Others have noted and talked about it; the section I have just restored merely reports it: regardless of how consistantly the Telegraph "...toe[s] a consistent line... across all their content." --Youngvariety 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I only just saw this section. It is extremely biased, but that's a case for a rewrite, not a removal. Good luck proving bias in any newspaper, at least to an encyclopaedic standard. I have read the sources and rewritten the section from a more neutral POV. The use of the sources had been deliberately and misleadingly selective. Joestella 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Deliberately and misleadingly selective"? I rather take offense to that. I suspect your view of this is itself an example of bias rather than the paragon of nuetrality you claim to support. I suggest that you provide evidence that any of the sources provided was innacurate before you go about making wild charges of dishonesty.
[edit] Deliberately and misleadingly selective
I'm assuming the sources are accurate. But their use is deliberately and misleadingly selective.
- The Telegraph has been described as being tabloid and sensationalist in nature, engaging in what some call "hyena journalism." It would surprise anyone reading the source material to discover that the term "hyena journalism" refers specifically to coverage of John Brodgen's past, and that the professor does not once use the term "sensationalist" - or any derivative thereof. "Tabloid" is apparently used by the editor in a pejorative sense, since the Telegraph is physically a tabloid.
- Piers Akerman, a leading Daily Telegraph conservative columnist, admitted a rightward slant in his weblog. Ackerman appears to concede that he is a conservative in the comments attached to the blog. It is not at all clear that he considers the newspaper to be conservative, and in any case, the status of website comments as sources is weak. Both the SMH and the Tele run left and right "biased" columns, that's the nature of the op-ed page.
- Additionally, a 'media credibility' survey conducted by Roy Morgan International revealed the Daily Telegraph was second only to the Herald Sun (also a News Corporation venture) in which newspapers people believe "do not accurately and fairly report the news." Read the source, and you'll see that the winning entry in this question was "all" newspapers, followed by the highest circulation paper, then the second highest, then two of the other highest-circulation newspapers.
- As with other News Corporation ventures, the Telegraph is criticised for what some perceive to be right-wing bias. The source here is a joke. The authors have not made findings on media perspectives: their focus is on wages and welfare. They call the SMH "moderate" and the Tele "right-wing", but do so in passing, without evidence or justification. And how did the Wikipedia writer find this source? It's merely the top Google result for "right-wing Daily Telegraph" site:au that refers to the Sydney paper.
There's your evidence. The paragraphs I removed were heavily POV. Care to respond? Joestella 04:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The daily telegraph regularly attacks the labour party in NSW, it regularly attacks the Greens as well. The majority of it's articles are written from a right wing perspective, it regularly supports right wing political agendas such as global warming denial and the majority of it's columnists are either conservative or right wing. I really don't see how you can deny any of this, and claim it is not a conservative/right wing paper. BTAUS 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Staff
What is our standard for the inclusion of Tele writers and other staff on this page? Joestella 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Re Staff. High profile columnists include Tim Blair? Outside of the blogosphere who has really heard of him? Piers Akerman at least has had a long and diverse career with a number of noteworthy confrontations. But Tim Blair? Will remove soon if there is no argument.
[edit] Subtle Australian bias?
iv just realised that the picture of the papers front page is the one for the crolla riots on almost every major Australian papers wiki page including
The Courier-Mail, The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph, The Sydney Morning Herald & The West Australian
and that's just out of the ones I checked
WHAT IS GOING ON its not like this is the most defining moment in Australian history...
(going to post this on the riots page as well)
[edit] Circulation
I really don't see why the Daily Telegraph's circulation in 2004 and is relevant. I propose deleting the following sentence: "The circulation of the newspaper in the first half of 2004 was around 409,000 per day, the largest of a Sydney newspaper." And replacing it with the latest circulation figures, which are 396,506 Mon-Fri and 342,739 on Saturdays as of June 2006 according to Roymorgan. See:
http://newsmedianet.com.au/home/titles/title/Demographics.jsp?titleid=1 BTAUS 02:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Animated Preview Picture?
I've reverted the example picture of this newspaper from a nausea inducing animated version to the former version. The animated version showed the original print edition scan, faded to white, then faded in a screenshot of the Daily Telegraph's website before flicking quickly back to the start of the animation. I have removed this for threefold reasons:
- 1. The animated image was much lower quality than the former, but much larger in filesize because it was animated.
- 2. The animated image flicked between pictures so quickly that it was very difficult to read or interpret anything. Additionally, the text of the webpage was impossible to read (one can only just make out the masthead in the corner).
- 3. This type of image is not standard across other newspapers. Presumably the reason an image of a print version is given is because they would be hard to obtain. Websites are not so difficult to simply click the link at the bottom of the infobox. 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That comment was from me, by the way. Those darned tildes didn't do their job properly. I swear I used four. Bilious 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
