This is your change to say exactly what you thought of Crikey’s coverage during the election. Boilermaker Bill and Frank Devine have already had their say, so have your say by emailing – boss@

Frank Devine’s sledge in The Australian:

Australian blogs haven’t got their act together yet. (sic), once an entertaining rumour-monger, blew it by posing self-importantly as a player rather than an interested bystander.

Invest in the journalism that makes a difference.

EOFY Sale. A year for just $99.

SAVE 50%

Boilermaker Bill writes:

You have my deepest and heartiest congratulations on the fantastic coverage of election campaign – I dips me lid. Maybe someone should tally up the possums stirred, the bushfires lit, the snoots cocked during the campaign. I truly marvelled at the effort – I found it hard enough to rustle up my few contributions. I truly hope this is a springboard to take Crikey to a new level.

Twice unsubscribed but liked your editorial

I have been a Crikey subscriber twice since you began but each time I have unsubscribed because I did not like the gossip and general nastiness in most of your material.

I occasionally look at the site, though, and have got to say that I liked your election editorial. Well argued, with evidence for the position you took, and balanced. The best I read anywhere…

Not sure that I am ready for a regular dose of your stuff, but best wishes for

Ken in Sydney

Cheesy voting disclosures a turn-off

My only criticism of the election coverage was the cheesy and unnecessary disclosure of each staff member’s voting intention(s).
I felt like dry-retching when I understood what was to follow in the next para or two. Of course, like some sweaty Festival of Light member, I could not stop myself from reading on to assess how truly wicked it all was.

A solid editorial, why not? But this? Too much information! (I voted for Fred Nile in the Senate because I would like to see him repeat his pyjamas in the chamber stunt in Canberra.)

Lifer, name withheld

You need more Paddy

I do think you have to try to get a bit of balance in your coverage. I understand from your survey that 75% of your readers are ALP supporters, but what if that is a reflection of Crikeys left-wing leanings? I am not suggesting you get rid of existing commentators, but perhaps if your had a bit more comment from the right (it was good you had Paddy McGuiness) you might end up with readers that reflect more the population of Australia, and maybe even more subscribers?

Greg Spurgin

Okay for a quick update

We found Crikey the most informative source we could turn to for a quick update. Obviously as an organisation keenly interested in social cohesion, which is our reason for being, the election issues and policies were uppermost in our minds. Crikey acts for us as a reliable reference source and for the community as a welcome change agent in media communication.

Best wishes, Margaret

The Baby-Boomers:

We appear to fit the profile of those you like to denigrate – Boomers – however as Self-fundeds we aren’t costing you anything to keep, and as previously quietly hard-working citizens, we feel our opinions count too. Early in the campaign we detected an anti-government bias, and although many articles appeared to be of interest, we found these a ‘turn-off’ and usually skimmed through or ignored them. It must be very hard to always remain objective, however, as this is your stated mission, we were disappointed on this occasion. Lets get back to attacking the excesses of greed nationally, and leave the bias out.

Cheers, Ken and Anne Skene

Crikey bias:

This is my third email complaining about the ever increasing bias of your organisation. I must acknowledge that it is always possible that my bias the other way renders me super sensitive to the views expressed from your organisation; however it seems to me that over the years that I have been a subscriber and of later times, an alertee only, the attitudes have become increasingly ALP centric. In my view the Crikey contributions offered on television are equally skewed.

I have no doubt that you still intend to be non-bias; however I feel that it is slipping away from you. I know for a fact that it has affected your subscriptions (even if that is again only from the circle I am involved in. I cannot be 100% certain that it is not just our view).

I would be interested in receiving a response this time.


Strengths and weaknesses

The strength of Crikey’s election coverage was that it provided a well-informed, intellectual analysis supplemented by the insights of insiders. The weakness of the coverage was it provided a well-informed, intellectual analysis supplemented by the insights of insiders. The point is that the majority of the electorate aren’t particularly well-informed (or interested) and this was a major blind spot for Crikey. This continues in the aftermath, with the result being explained by insiders from both sides in terms of personalities and policies most Australian voters know nothing about. The highlight of the campaign for me was the voter in the polling booth telling her daughter it was a council election. Against this background negative campaigns really come into their own because people are more inclined to believe bad news than good news.


CRIKEY: We welcome frank feedback from readers on our election coverage to boss@ and we’ll publish the good and the bad on the site.

Save this EOFY while you make a difference

Australia has spoken. We want more from the people in power and deserve a media that keeps them on their toes. And thank you, because it’s been made abundantly clear that at Crikey we’re on the right track.

We’ve pushed our journalism as far as we could go. And that’s only been possible with reader support. Thank you. And if you haven’t yet subscribed, this is your time to join tens of thousands of Crikey members to take the plunge.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
SAVE 50%