CT will lose another subscriber

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

You do have choices in what you read, see, and watch.

You can read the newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, or the ones owned by Gina Rinehart.

Or you can support something different.

Heck if every fairfax reader put a couple of hundred into fairfax shares and voted en bloc they could blow even Gina’s deep pockets out of the water.

Do they care enough?

Jim Jones said :

Roundhead89 said :

Wow! Quoting Wikipedia, definitely a reliable source (not!). Last week it was confirmed that The Bolt Report was now beating Insiders on the first-run Sunday morning showing. The Bolt Report has consistently beaten Insiders in the cume ratings (all showings combined) since it began.

HA – I just figured out where you’re getting your figures from … the Andrew Bolt blog. BWAA AHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHA

He’s fiddling the figures so that he can look more popular than he actually is (cume ratings … a Bolt invention – much akin to his *cough* climate change stats), and you’re quoting him.

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

lol

Mysteryman said :

You do have choices in what you read, see, and watch.

You can read the newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, or the ones owned by Gina Rinehart.

SnapperJack said :

Sadly, this type of immaturity is common among leftists when it comes to discussing opinion leaders who do not subscribe to the fairly warped green/left view of the world.

Opinion-leaders? That’s a nice term for it. Demagogue is another. A few hundred years ago he’d have been leading the mobs hunting out witches.

Throwing around labels at people who have no clue about, calling them “leftists” with a “warped” view of the world just makes you sound like a person who knows they haven’t got a strong argument.

Jim Jones said :

poetix said :

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
….

http://theworstofperth.com/2012/02/13/la-gina/

Just in case you missed it. Poetry on the rocks.

OMFG do not click on that link … I can never unsee that, it’s like being violated. It’s even worse than all that whiney high-school poetry written by the angsty girls I used to try to sleep with.

It can’t be worse than reading your ever-so-valuable contributions to RA.

c_c said :

Who cares about Rhinehart, news organisations always have vested interests, various influences, and even if a journalist or editor isn’t trying to be bias, they none the less on some level write from their viewpoint. Nothing is neutral, the only way you can be informed is by seeking diverse sources of information.

johnboy said :

Editor-in-Chief Bolt soon enough one suspects.

But if that’s how she wants to spend her money so be it.

Readers, in turn, are free to make their own decisions about their media consumption.

+1 to both of these. I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s no different than anyone else buying into a company in order to have a say in the way it operates. If you don’t like what they produce, don’t consume it. You do have choices in what you read, see, and watch.

Jim Jones said :

Still waiting to hear why wikipedia is a gigantic left-wing conspiracy and should be ignored.

That is obvious, Wikipedia relies on “science” and “facts”, both leftist, warmest conspiracies.

SnapperJack said :

….. blah blah blah Andrew Bolt blah blah blah….

I think I express an opinion held by many people when I say the reason people dismiss Bolt is because he is a nut job on the far right of the media and deserves nothing else. I dismiss him casually in the same way I dismiss what comes from the far left (like people who dig up ‘roo graves, or vegans).

Actually, for a long time I thought his show was a satirical comedy performance lampooning the likes of Alan Jones.

Also – love the fact that you’re citing ‘australian conservative’ and the herald sun (giggle) in support of your *cough* argument.

That wikipedia article does have references to all stats. Still waiting to hear why wikipedia is a gigantic left-wing conspiracy and should be ignored.

So, cume ratings are when you figure out the best way to represent the figures in a way that demonstrates exactly what you want to show (ignoring all other means of representing figures).

It’s perfect for Bolt – exactly the way he does climate change figures (dishonestly)!

Jim Jones said :

Roundhead89 said :

Wow! Quoting Wikipedia, definitely a reliable source (not!). Last week it was confirmed that The Bolt Report was now beating Insiders on the first-run Sunday morning showing. The Bolt Report has consistently beaten Insiders in the cume ratings (all showings combined) since it began.

HA – I just figured out where you’re getting your figures from … the Andrew Bolt blog. BWAA AHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHA

He’s fiddling the figures so that he can look more popular than he actually is (cume ratings … a Bolt invention – much akin to his *cough* climate change stats), and you’re quoting him.

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sadly, this type of immaturity is common among leftists when it comes to discussing opinion leaders who do not subscribe to the fairly warped green/left view of the world.

The Bolt Report is beating Insiders in the cumulative audience:

http://australianconservative.com/2011/06/the-bolt-report-consistently-attracts-larger-audiences-than-abcs-insiders-data-shows/

To explain to slow learners like Jones what the cume audience is, it is the sum total of the first run and all repeats of a particular episode of an episode of a program. It is a common and well-accepted method of measuring ratings in the TV industry. Each episode of The Bolt Report is shown twice on Channel TEN in the major capitals. Each episode of Insiders is shown three times on the ABC and ABC News 24. So The Bolt Report showing each episode twice is beating Insiders which tries to milk each episode three times.

The Bolt Report beats Insiders head to head on Sunday morning:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/thank_you1/

And to reinforce the point further, read this:

http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-bolt-report-must-be-doing-fine-if-minions-of-the-extreme-left-are-so-desperate-to-vilify-it/

Thank you linesmen, thank you ballboys.

Carl Sagan said, of information and knowledge and the exponential increase of it….

“Not all bits are equal.”

2604 said :

Rioters who don’t like particular newspapers don’t have to buy them. .

Just like 8-year-olds who didn’t like working in the mills didn’t have to work in them, eh?

The problem with reactionaries is they have no understanding of history. A comforting ignorance about the reality of the world around them.

Blimey, Dungfungus, maybe you should get a job as Gina’s arse-canary, and if there’s a methane build-up you can die a happy camper and the rest of us can get a different sort of heads-up.

Rioters who don’t like particular newspapers don’t have to buy them. Thousands of crappy blogs available.

yellowsnow said :

Um, hello – can the Canberra Times get any worse than it already is? Gina or no Gina, it’s just impossible for the quality to decrease

It has almost zero local coverage aside from a few inner north stories and ACTpol and ACT govt regurgitated press releases.

When it does try to report something local, it invariably gets the facts wrong. Even when reporting something simple like yesterday’s weather or monthly rainfall averages the articles are ridden with errors.

More importantly , the CT singularly fails to hold the ACT govt to account on its failures – and there have been many in recent years. GDE, North Weston Pond debacle, crappy chip seal road resurfacing, crappy development, poor transport planning, closure of primary schools in Weston Creek etc only to find remaining schools are overcrowded and suddenly need expansion to cope with gentrification-led baby boom and Molonglo development that was already on the books. These are all issues that concern people in my area – yet reading the CT you wouldn’t know they mattered. All you get is a proliferation of third-rate federal politics stories and analysis, and international news lifted from the Guardian or Observer.

I guess if i had no toilet paper the CT might have a function, but luckily I generally remember and can afford to buy toilet paper so the CT is useless even to wipe my ass with! (plus the newsprint is v poor quality and rubs off really easily, so my cheeks and undergarments would get stained if i tried to do this)

The whole point of having a local paper is good local reporting. Otherwise we may as well buy AFR, the Oz or SMH and go straight to the Chronicle and RiotACT for local content. As for democracy and good governance – they don’t work well when there’s no quality local media holding govts to account. RiotACT and local ABC try their best to do this but the Canberra Times … epic fail.

Am I missing something? I always thought it was oppositions job to keep the Government to account? Perhaps if Zed wasnt asleep at the wheel for the last years it’d be easier to shine the spotlight on the actgov co

It’s not poetry in any meaningful sense of the word. It’s a selfish political screed laid out in badly-formed, painfully obvious rhyming couplets.

Even ignoring the lack of aesthetic or poetic merit, as political or economic doctrine it’s about as complex and well-considered as an Ayn Rand novel retold by a vapid teenage narcissist.

dungfungus said :

poetix said :

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
….

http://theworstofperth.com/2012/02/13/la-gina/

Just in case you missed it. Poetry on the rocks.

Poetry is subjective; I found it very passionate and motivating along the theme of “..a sunburnt country…a land of droughts and flooding rains” (over a century before climate change was invented)
Also aspirational. A bit of Henry Lawson. History would remind you that Australia became a great country because of the gold rushes in the 1860’s. Do you want us to go back 200 years to whaling and sealing to earn export income? If we do not extract the minerals that the world needs then another country will. I assume you find her poetry repulsive because their are no “F” words in it? Let’s hear some poetry of your choice from the existing editors of Fairfax newspapers then.

Oh … my … god Surely you can’t be serious.

Poetry may be subjective, but that stuff is just … drivel.

No one could possibly be so retarded as to defend it aesthetically … surely.

Not even the most annoying pretentious crap produced by the Melbourne set is as clumsy and didactic as that crap.

Sounds like you’d be better off just reading the Weetbix box

I would prefer to read the Media Releases on the Government’s website, rather than have them rehashed by the CT. That, and no wood heaters in Canberra, means I have no reason to buy it.

Seriously, If they are going to go out the may as well go out with a bang. There is an election in October. Maybe they could do some real journalism and make it a contest, rather than just reannouncing Labor’s policies?

Holden Caulfield said :

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
I have no idea why so many on this blog criticize this woman who is actually saving Fairfax Media from total destruction. I dont’t recall her ever saying that she was going to change the editorial opinion in the Faifax newspapers either (and she talks to the media very little)
From what I see, the craven opposition to her on this blog is all about her wealth.
Re your decision not to renew your CT subscription because you want to see their style preserved, did it ever occur to you that the reason their circulation is falling is because of the fact that they refuse to change?

Well, she does want three of her stooges sitting on the board.

I hope so, for the sake of the other shareholders and superannuation funds that hold Fairfax Media shares. The current board has been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years and she doesn’t want her investment to evaporate like taxpayers money is with Conroy’s NBN, Conroy being her biggest critic.

poetix said :

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
….

http://theworstofperth.com/2012/02/13/la-gina/

Just in case you missed it. Poetry on the rocks.

Poetry is subjective; I found it very passionate and motivating along the theme of “..a sunburnt country…a land of droughts and flooding rains” (over a century before climate change was invented)
Also aspirational. A bit of Henry Lawson. History would remind you that Australia became a great country because of the gold rushes in the 1860’s. Do you want us to go back 200 years to whaling and sealing to earn export income? If we do not extract the minerals that the world needs then another country will. I assume you find her poetry repulsive because their are no “F” words in it? Let’s hear some poetry of your choice from the existing editors of Fairfax newspapers then.

Roundhead89 said :

Wow! Quoting Wikipedia, definitely a reliable source (not!). Last week it was confirmed that The Bolt Report was now beating Insiders on the first-run Sunday morning showing. The Bolt Report has consistently beaten Insiders in the cume ratings (all showings combined) since it began.

HA – I just figured out where you’re getting your figures from … the Andrew Bolt blog. BWAA AHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHA

He’s fiddling the figures so that he can look more popular than he actually is (cume ratings … a Bolt invention – much akin to his *cough* climate change stats), and you’re quoting him.

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Um, hello – can the Canberra Times get any worse than it already is? Gina or no Gina, it’s just impossible for the quality to decrease

It has almost zero local coverage aside from a few inner north stories and ACTpol and ACT govt regurgitated press releases.

When it does try to report something local, it invariably gets the facts wrong. Even when reporting something simple like yesterday’s weather or monthly rainfall averages the articles are ridden with errors.

More importantly , the CT singularly fails to hold the ACT govt to account on its failures – and there have been many in recent years. GDE, North Weston Pond debacle, crappy chip seal road resurfacing, crappy development, poor transport planning, closure of primary schools in Weston Creek etc only to find remaining schools are overcrowded and suddenly need expansion to cope with gentrification-led baby boom and Molonglo development that was already on the books. These are all issues that concern people in my area – yet reading the CT you wouldn’t know they mattered. All you get is a proliferation of third-rate federal politics stories and analysis, and international news lifted from the Guardian or Observer.

I guess if i had no toilet paper the CT might have a function, but luckily I generally remember and can afford to buy toilet paper so the CT is useless even to wipe my ass with! (plus the newsprint is v poor quality and rubs off really easily, so my cheeks and undergarments would get stained if i tried to do this)

The whole point of having a local paper is good local reporting. Otherwise we may as well buy AFR, the Oz or SMH and go straight to the Chronicle and RiotACT for local content. As for democracy and good governance – they don’t work well when there’s no quality local media holding govts to account. RiotACT and local ABC try their best to do this but the Canberra Times … epic fail.

davo101 said :

c_c said :

Nothing is neutral, the only way you can be informed is by seeking diverse sources of information.

Exactly. Only problem is once Gina’s running Fairfax where am I going to get this from?

By seeking diverse information, I mean the onus is on media consumers to view multiple sources, not just rely on once source being unbias and having diversity of opinion.

Throughout the day, I’ll normally check in with The Australian, ABC News Online and The Conversation in the morning, and throughout the day check sites like BBC, News.com and NPR and NY Times too.

Throughout the day I’ll recognise differences between the stories, ranging from omitted facts to entirely contrary facts and opinions in stories.

It makes the ownership of any one media outlet largely irrelevant.

“I know it must pain rusted-on lefties in Canberra to acknowledge this but the facts are the facts.”

If you’ve got proof of your comment “Bolt Report has always beaten Insiders in ratings”, I’d sure like to see it. That wikipedia article has links to ratings – you haven’t provided anything.

And anyway like I said, beating the Insiders ratings are nothing to crow about. Insiders has always had low ratings – in nature it’s a very niche program that caters to people with a high degree of interest in politics. The Bolt report is Fox News for unthinking bogan Australians. Citing ratings (and low ones at that) as some sort of justification of the (failing) populist tripe served up by that ignorant bigot is pretty hilarious.

According to the ratings, Bob the Builder is waaay more popular than Andrew Bolt (oddly enough, he’s also less offensive and has a better grasp on basic journalism).

c_c said :

Nothing is neutral, the only way you can be informed is by seeking diverse sources of information.

Exactly. Only problem is once Gina’s running Fairfax where am I going to get this from?

johnboy said :

Readers, in turn, are free to make their own decisions about their media consumption.

To a degree true, but if you have always relied on a particular source for news, you start to accept that news as gospel without too much critical analysis (ignoring media and journalism students), and without that news agency doing something pretty drastic in a very short time frame, you tend to know and trust what is been said. In fact this “trust” thing features pretty heavily in most TV channel news shows advertising.

So if slowly overtime a news source started to drop anti mining story’s and only publish pro mining story’s, people will start to only see the pro mining side of the coin, and soon forget any of the bad. Because you have always trusted media organisation x to provide a balanced view, most people are unlikely to question this new pro mining view and will assume that it’s a balanced view of the world.

The only time this doesn’t work is if the person actually has a keen interest or knowledge in the topic being manipulated and they will call BS. Of course even then all you need to do is look at the comments section of most of the major “news” websites to see how many people swollow any BS published hook line and sinker.

Of course Marge Simpson summed this up perfectly in the Lisa’s Wedding Episode – “You know, Fox turned into a hard-core sex channel so gradually, I didn’t even notice.”

Jim Jones said :

Roundhead89 said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Are you talking about the Gina Rineheart who became a shareholder in Channel Ten in order to secure a spot on the network for Andrew Bolt, so that he could continue his campaign against the ‘global warming conspiracy’?

Andrew Bolt has provided the truth which disproves this fanciful conspiracy theory. Bolt was signed to his contract by TEN chairman Lachlan Murdoch before Rinehart bought into the company. It was definitely a smart move by young Lachie. The Bolt Report is now beating the ABC’s left wing Insiders program, not only in the cume ratings (as it had from the day it started) but head to head live on Sunday morning as well.

Nope:

From wikipedia (with sources)

The series debuted with 163,000 while the encore received 123,000 viewers.[1] The debut was narrowly beaten by Insiders, which received 172,000 viewers.[2] Bolt stated on his blog he would like to beat Insiders.[3] He reached this goal in his second episode, reaching 174,000 viewers, beating Insiders with 166,000.

Ratings for the show declined to 136,000 viewers for the third episode and 131,000 for the encore. This compared to 207,000 for Insiders.[4] Insiders has defeated The Bolt Report in every subsequent week. The Bolt Report remains at the bottom of the free-to-air ratings for its timeslot.[

Wow! Quoting Wikipedia, definitely a reliable source (not!). Last week it was confirmed that The Bolt Report was now beating Insiders on the first-run Sunday morning showing. The Bolt Report has consistently beaten Insiders in the cume ratings (all showings combined) since it began.

I know it must pain rusted-on lefties in Canberra to acknowledge this but the facts are the facts.

Roundhead89 said :

The Bolt Report is now beating the ABC’s left wing Insiders program, not only in the cume ratings (as it had from the day it started) but head to head live on Sunday morning as well.

It’s not beating Bob The Builder, though.

dungfungus said :

I dont’t recall her ever saying that she was going to change the editorial opinion in the Faifax newspapers either (and she talks to the media very little)

Oh, how the rightards like to kid themselves.

So, we have climate-change-denying looney-tune Rhinehart, who is close friends with batspit-insane Christopher Monckton, who has given lectures at events organised by Western Australian mining magnates describing how the super-rich should buy newspapers in order to stifle dissent.

But she’s not buying Fairfax shares in order to get some value for the money she’s spending. No sirreee!

Kerryhemsley said :

Would it look like this? http://t.co/A6wBJiU6

That’s brightened up my day, though ruined my week.

Winter is coming.

johnboy said :

Editor-in-Chief Bolt soon enough one suspects.

But if that’s how she wants to spend her money so be it.

Readers, in turn, are free to make their own decisions about their media consumption.

Readers have for some time been making their own decisions about their media consumption, and they haven’t been choosing Fairfax.

A bit of editorial guidance probably wouldn’t go astray, considering the current editorial strategy of turning the SMH and Age into vacuous leftist rags (trying to out-Tele the Daily Telegraph) hasn’t exactly been a success.

Roundhead89 said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Are you talking about the Gina Rineheart who became a shareholder in Channel Ten in order to secure a spot on the network for Andrew Bolt, so that he could continue his campaign against the ‘global warming conspiracy’?

Andrew Bolt has provided the truth which disproves this fanciful conspiracy theory. Bolt was signed to his contract by TEN chairman Lachlan Murdoch before Rinehart bought into the company. It was definitely a smart move by young Lachie. The Bolt Report is now beating the ABC’s left wing Insiders program, not only in the cume ratings (as it had from the day it started) but head to head live on Sunday morning as well.

Nope:

From wikipedia (with sources)

The series debuted with 163,000 while the encore received 123,000 viewers.[1] The debut was narrowly beaten by Insiders, which received 172,000 viewers.[2] Bolt stated on his blog he would like to beat Insiders.[3] He reached this goal in his second episode, reaching 174,000 viewers, beating Insiders with 166,000.

Ratings for the show declined to 136,000 viewers for the third episode and 131,000 for the encore. This compared to 207,000 for Insiders.[4] Insiders has defeated The Bolt Report in every subsequent week. The Bolt Report remains at the bottom of the free-to-air ratings for its timeslot.[

And OMG – Insiders is a ‘left wing’ program?

The same Insiders that regularly features that master of inanity Piers Ackerman as a guest?

Roundhead89 said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Are you talking about the Gina Rineheart who became a shareholder in Channel Ten in order to secure a spot on the network for Andrew Bolt, so that he could continue his campaign against the ‘global warming conspiracy’?

Andrew Bolt has provided the truth which disproves this fanciful conspiracy theory. Bolt was signed to his contract by TEN chairman Lachlan Murdoch before Rinehart bought into the company. It was definitely a smart move by young Lachie. The Bolt Report is now beating the ABC’s left wing Insiders program, not only in the cume ratings (as it had from the day it started) but head to head live on Sunday morning as well.

Beating Insiders in the ratings game is nothing to crow about.

Also “The Bolt Report remains at the bottom of the free-to-air ratings for its timeslot” – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bolt_Report

Also, Andrew Bolt is a complete cockhead – the world would be a far better (and smarter) place if he wasn’t in it.

Who cares about Rhinehart, news organisations always have vested interests, various influences, and even if a journalist or editor isn’t trying to be bias, they none the less on some level write from their viewpoint. Nothing is neutral, the only way you can be informed is by seeking diverse sources of information.

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Are you talking about the Gina Rineheart who became a shareholder in Channel Ten in order to secure a spot on the network for Andrew Bolt, so that he could continue his campaign against the ‘global warming conspiracy’?

Andrew Bolt has provided the truth which disproves this fanciful conspiracy theory. Bolt was signed to his contract by TEN chairman Lachlan Murdoch before Rinehart bought into the company. It was definitely a smart move by young Lachie. The Bolt Report is now beating the ABC’s left wing Insiders program, not only in the cume ratings (as it had from the day it started) but head to head live on Sunday morning as well.

poetix said :

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
….

http://theworstofperth.com/2012/02/13/la-gina/

Just in case you missed it. Poetry on the rocks.

OMFG do not click on that link … I can never unsee that, it’s like being violated. It’s even worse than all that whiney high-school poetry written by the angsty girls I used to try to sleep with.

Would it look like this? http://t.co/A6wBJiU6

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
….

http://theworstofperth.com/2012/02/13/la-gina/

Just in case you missed it. Poetry on the rocks.

Editor-in-Chief Bolt soon enough one suspects.

But if that’s how she wants to spend her money so be it.

Readers, in turn, are free to make their own decisions about their media consumption.

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
I have no idea why so many on this blog criticize this woman who is actually saving Fairfax Media from total destruction. I dont’t recall her ever saying that she was going to change the editorial opinion in the Faifax newspapers either (and she talks to the media very little)
From what I see, the craven opposition to her on this blog is all about her wealth.
Re your decision not to renew your CT subscription because you want to see their style preserved, did it ever occur to you that the reason their circulation is falling is because of the fact that they refuse to change?

Are you talking about the Gina Rineheart who became a shareholder in Channel Ten in order to secure a spot on the network for Andrew Bolt, so that he could continue his campaign against the ‘global warming conspiracy’?

This article demonstrates the problem nicely:

One director, in particular, became quite agitated about what I was saying. “I don’t ever want anyone coming into this boardroom again,” he told his colleagues as he held up a copy of one of Fairfax’s hefty Saturday papers, “and telling us that people will buy houses or cars, or look for jobs, without this”. He then dropped the lump of newsprint onto the boardroom table with a thud.

TPS?

dungfungus said :

I dont’t recall her ever saying that she was going to change the editorial opinion in the Faifax newspapers either (and she talks to the media very little)

She wants a board position (which she is now entitled to hold) but she is also refusing to sign an agreement which states she won’t interfere with editorial decisions (a prereq for board positions). One could argue that her stake is in fact to control editorial content.

As a potential strategy she is using – the way traditional media shares are currently going, before too long they will be in a position where they can not live without her, if she takes her money and walks they die, as such will prob allow her onto the board without signing the non-interference agreement, all it will take is time. I also suspect that she will stop a pay-wall from going up or she will at least tear it down. No good wanting to tell the world your thoughts, but restricting who can here them. (I somewhat suspect that the “Gina’s corner” section outside a pay-wall wouldn’t do so well for her)

dungfungus said :

I have no idea why so many on this blog criticize this woman who is actually saving Fairfax Media from total destruction.

If this is what saving looks like then I think I prefer letting the SMH and Age die a dignified death.

dungfungus said :

I dont’t recall her ever saying that she was going to change the editorial opinion in the Faifax newspapers either

OK then, so see wants three seats on the board and the power to hire and fire editors because…???

Holden Caulfield said :

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
I have no idea why so many on this blog criticize this woman who is actually saving Fairfax Media from total destruction. I dont’t recall her ever saying that she was going to change the editorial opinion in the Faifax newspapers either (and she talks to the media very little)
From what I see, the craven opposition to her on this blog is all about her wealth.
Re your decision not to renew your CT subscription because you want to see their style preserved, did it ever occur to you that the reason their circulation is falling is because of the fact that they refuse to change?

Well, she does want three of her stooges sitting on the board.

It’s like something out of Futurama.

dungfungus said :

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
I have no idea why so many on this blog criticize this woman who is actually saving Fairfax Media from total destruction. I dont’t recall her ever saying that she was going to change the editorial opinion in the Faifax newspapers either (and she talks to the media very little)
From what I see, the craven opposition to her on this blog is all about her wealth.
Re your decision not to renew your CT subscription because you want to see their style preserved, did it ever occur to you that the reason their circulation is falling is because of the fact that they refuse to change?

Well, she does want three of her stooges sitting on the board.

I must have missed Mrs Rineharts “regurgitations” to date so would you mind quoting a couple for me?
I have no idea why so many on this blog criticize this woman who is actually saving Fairfax Media from total destruction. I dont’t recall her ever saying that she was going to change the editorial opinion in the Faifax newspapers either (and she talks to the media very little)
From what I see, the craven opposition to her on this blog is all about her wealth.
Re your decision not to renew your CT subscription because you want to see their style preserved, did it ever occur to you that the reason their circulation is falling is because of the fact that they refuse to change?

I don’t think you will need detox or a wellness centre to give up the newspaper….. there are plenty of alternatives.

We found that while we cancelled the CT, it keeps coming (even years later). I’m guessing they need the subscriber count or something.

Try The Guardian online – you get just enough free articles to get you through a bowl of muesli and a cup of tea.

Then there’s Crikey, who want about $13/month for what are some very good articles.

I’d recommend choosing a range of sources, though – if all you read are the US/British media, you get a very slanted view of the world.
Al-Jazeera, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine would be some good choices.

Just a tip. They will keep delivering and require you to pay for what you have received, even if you don’t pay that invoice.

Then if you don’t pay they will forward to a collection agency and threaten to put the details of the default on the credit rating site.

Unfair but insufficient money involved to make it worthwhile calling out the dogs.

Bottom line, ring and cancel.

Personally I’d advise signing up to support a plethora of independent news sites!