Aug 28, 2013

Murdoch’s might: how much do News papers influence elections?

Do Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspapers determine election results; do they back winners each time? Henry Belot looks back at elections to 1975 to find out whether Murdoch really is a kingmaker.

Labor is screaming over biased reporting in News Corporation titles. But does the endorsement of Rupert Murdoch and his editors influence the outcome of elections? The chequered record of editorial backing by Murdoch's three major mastheads since the 1970s suggests a muted influence, at best, according to a Crikey search through the dusty archives ...

Since the constitutional crisis of 1975, The Australian has officially endorsed eight successful candidates and five unsuccessful leaders -- abstaining in 1996 when John Howard came to power. In an editorial column published every Friday before the nation heads to the polls, The Australian has endorsed 11 Liberal leaders and only two from the Labor side -- Kevin Rudd in 2007 and Bob Hawke in 1984. Rodney Tiffen, an emeritus professor at Sydney University, told Crikey it's no surprise The Australian endorsed these two Labor candidates, given Rudd went on to enjoy a 23-seat swing in 2007 and Hawke prevailed over Malcolm Fraser after eight years in office. "Occasionally the Murdoch press gives qualified and tepid support to Labor, but only when it's likely that Labor are going to win," said Tiffen. "When they give support to the conservative side of politics it's all out and wholehearted -- that's what we've got with The Daily Telegraph this year." There are no tepid endorsements at the Herald Sun. Melbourne's most-read newspaper has endorsed Liberal candidates at every federal election since the merger of The Sun News-Pictorial and afternoon broadsheet The Herald in October 1990. Four of these candidates proved to be winners, with the other three losing the election held on the following day ...

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

36 thoughts on “Murdoch’s might: how much do News papers influence elections?

  1. Mr J

    While the editorials might not pick it, their coverage leaves a lot to be desired.

    For example, the Thomas Kelly gaffe by Abbott has only been covered in The Guardian, Fairfax papers and New Matilda. Compare that with Rudd’s gaffes (which deserved the coverage they got I might add). While Abbott’s sex appeal gaffe got plenty of coverage this wouldn’t be perceived negatively with the everyday punter as it wasn’t inconsiderate. But perhaps I’m being pedantic.

  2. klewso

    “Kevin Rudd in 2010”?

  3. klewso

    I reckon it’s more the editorial control (the framing) of what makes it to print – their view of what constitutes “public interest” and what we get to see of the news – and the years between elections, the sort of PR they spout?
    They tried to save Howard for as long as they could between ’04 and ’07, but had to eventually let his hand go – to save their own reputation as much as anything? Then, after, it was back to business as usual – framing Rudd/Labor as incompetent?

  4. klewso

    [… see the next (NBN) story for m.o. spin – that can go on for years. Every negative aspect about Labor policy picked up, amplified and magnified.]

  5. Bruce Park

    It’s not a question of endorsement. In this past 3 years or so the Australian, Telegraph and Courier Mail have been totally one-sided, with abusive and often ridiculous convolutions of “news” that even News Ltd has to defend as “satire”.
    The people involved – notably Mitchell and the so-called Boris Whittaker – are not journalists. They are desperate courtiers, bending over as far as it takes to please the boss.And the boss is plainly a doddering, lonely crank.

  6. BruceHassan

    How much do they influence elections (i.e. voters)? I think that the more obvious their bias the less they have any real influence. Their over-the-top espousal of their emperor’s views just makes the emperor look ever-more cranky and irrelevant. The trust rankings for various newspapers make it obvious that very few people actually believe anything they read in a Murdoch paper. Whenever I hear questions about the influence of the press, I recall the total support (Murdoch, Fairfax, etc) of the press for the Yes vote in the republic referendum, and total failure of the referendum. Murdoch papers may good for a laugh, good for fire lighters (although the SMH is better on that score), good for picking up dog poo, good for Labor to blame for its pathetic campaign failure – but do they really influence the way people vote in the privacy of the booth? I suspect not.

  7. klewso

    “Citizen Drain”.

  8. klewso

    They only have on work on swaying the opinion of a majority of swinging voters (5/6(?)% of the whole), to influence their perception of fitness to govern.
    The rest won’t be swayed – they’ll either see it for what it is, or as reinforcing their preconceptions.

  9. David MacGahan

    Is this time different due to the massive threat of labors NBN though?

  10. Karen

    “Doddering, lonely old crank” (lol) sitting on top of his billions and not a wife to show for it…what a guy…

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details