Media

Nov 16, 2017

Don’t blame the Daily Telegraph for a predictable array of front pages

The Daily Telegraph has been panned for its front page coverage of the same sex marriage 'yes' vote. But why?

Emily Watkins — Media reporter

Emily Watkins

Media reporter

The Daily Telegraph‘s front page has been widely criticised online for managing to suck the joy out of a moment that most of the media have celebrated. But its greatest crime is using a dated ’90s sitcom reference that would surely be lost on most people, and a dad joke about how miserable marriage is. The grainy still of Al Bundy from Married with Children isn’t one of the Tele‘s most creative or interesting front pages by a long shot, but it at least provides a counter-point to the largely similar front pages of other newspapers around the country today. The Sydney tabloid editorialised in favour of a Yes vote during the campaign, but part of its modus operandi is to be talked about and position itself in opposition to the left elites, and that’s what it’s done with today’s front page.

Equally unique, Hobart’s Mercury‘s moving front page marked Tasmania’s vote for changing the law — above the national average — with reference to the state’s “shamefully late” move to decriminalise homosexuality just 20 years ago — the last state to do so. 

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

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

22 comments

Leave a comment

22 thoughts on “Don’t blame the Daily Telegraph for a predictable array of front pages

  1. Marcus Hicks

    “Foundational Social Traditions”-Miranda is so full of s**te. As is Bolt.

    1. thelorikeet

      Is the ‘bullying’ claim fake news? I suspect so.

  2. Marcus Hicks

    Hilarious that the same types of people who wanted to deny a minority their equal rights are now the same types of people who demand that we respect their rights. Hypocrites.

    1. Arky

      That’s the no campaign in a nutshell.
      “We’ve been denying you equal rights for generations, how dare you deny us the right to keep denying you rights?”

      Not freedom of religion- a right to force their religious beliefs on how the entire population uses a civil institution. A right to give a couple of particularly intolerant religious faiths primacy over civil law and secular principles. If you believe in intolerance because of a deity, and I believe in tolerance because of logic, your belief should be protected and mine should not, apparently.

      Even the more intelligent clergy can see that there is no practical way to demand the sort of “freedom of religion” the no troglodytes want without allowing every Tom, Dick and L Ron Hubbard to say “my religion says I don’t pay taxes, my religion says women must bow down to me, my religion says council planning height restrictions are the work of the devil”.

  3. Teddy

    I didn’t get the Tele’s front page (maybe I just didn’t look close enough), so thanks for explaining it. The Tele did have an interesting take inside (shared by the Herald – the only two papers Ive glanced at today) about the social divide the vote sharply revealed.
    Western Sydney used to be portrayed as boringly “mainstream” and white bread – the place for bland people to live vanilla “normal” lives… But the vote shows something else – anywhere our recent (and not-so-recent) migrants live isn’t like the rest of Australia at all. It fact its strikingly different place, where opinions which we can name accurately call “minority” , ones NOT shared by the rest of Australia, are the norm. Even conservative rural areas, as well as the more Anglo section of Sydney’s outer west voted overwhelming YES.

    I’m not sure what all this may mean… maybe we are heading for the sort of divisions that exists in the Netherlands? So how long now before “progressive” opinion joins Hanson’s anti-migration push? It already has on population in general –where readers comments indicate most Crikey readers support and echoing Dick Smiths reactionary position… Hmmm watch this space.

    1. CML

      The migrant populations…and their descendants…in western Sydney, and elsewhere, seem to have brought their ‘cultural and religious’ views with them, which look likely to continue through the generations. I thought they wanted to escape the repression of progressive views in their own countries.
      Makes you wonder what they wanted to come here for in the first place!!

      1. AR

        By definition, anyone leaving their home country to live, permanently elsewhere is declaring that there is something lacking about the old ways.
        Yet, so often when they get a foothold here, impossible whence they came, they get a hankering for those old ways coz they are now in the driving seat, of however small a vehicle.

      2. klewso

        Much as “we” did, back in 1788 – maybe not voluntarily, on the whole, but we did bring our own baggage.

    2. Arky

      Waleed Aly wrote a good piece perhaps a year ago, enunciating a point I’ve seen several people make (myself included), which is that if political parties started up in Australia today you would not get either the ALP or the Liberal Party. Both major parties have to satisfy increasingly divided support groups.

      Labor’s socially progressive causes to some extent alienate some working class voters who would otherwise back Labor on economic grounds, and the Liberals’ socially conservative causes increasingly alienate some middle class voters who would otherwise back them on economic grounds.

      This is why One Nation legitimately draws from both majors and it damages them every time Hanson acts like they’re the Liberal Party’s reserves and preference farmers. You have people who are natural Labor voters economically but aren’t socially progressive, and people who are natural Liberal voters socially but hate big business and the banks.

  4. shea mcduff

    Nah, I think I’ll continue to blame the DT mob for being nasty right wing elitists again.

  5. Jim Vickery

    I glanced at the Daily Telegraph and thought they were showing Senator Cory. Very puzzling.

    1. Venise Alstergren

      Ha ha, me too. Although his shoes looked too dirty to fit the bill.

  6. CML

    Emily…in detailing the articles written by some of the gay commentators in our media, you missed the very one which made me shed a tear or two.
    Crikey’s contribution by Amy Coopes…MAGIC!!

  7. Horowitz

    Just a thought on “religious freedom”…My take on that is this: “freedom” implies the ability to choose, so religious freedom only has one meaning: the freedom to choose which set of religious rules you wish to be bound by. Once you have exercised this freedom, all else is religious constraint: don’t eat that! dress this way! can’t do that! pray to me then! etc…This isn’t freedom in any sense of the word.

  8. Northy

    You’ve certainly got the Tele’s MO down pat, Emily. I find this front page far less troubling than their normal contribution to NSW, which involves twisting and fudging the news as far as possible and making sure their readers are completely mislead. This is surely an uncomfortable place for the Tele – they might have expected their anglo readers to have mostly voted no, but it turns out it was possibly first generation ethnic communities – not the Tele’s target audience.

    1. Teddy

      Northy, the people who pt the Tele pages together are the same white, liberal, inner city types that work in any international media organisation. They have about as much connection to Bankstown, Fairfield and ethnic suburbia as i do and all Crikey readers have, i.e. next to none. The paper editorialised in favour of the YES vote and clearly expected a YES win – as did almost every paper and columnist in the country – including a majority of those on The Australian.
      Now that Emily has explained the Tele’s front page to me, I think its ok-ish… Not a good one (that wouldn’t have to explained), but all through this interminable campaign I wondered why getting married was supposed to be exciting. I did understand why the massive wedding industry, the corporate boardrooms, the media and most of our conservative institutions were promoting it, but progressive left wingers?
      I’m betraying my age here but the generation I came from avoided marriage like the plague. I didn’t, not all the time, but all through the 80s and 90s when I lived as a married man with a family and worked in a media organisation and workforce which was mostly single and about 50% gay, my married status was sneered at as terminally “boring”. That fact that I also had children and lived in the western suburbs (or what was in those day considered the west – Leichhardt!) dammed me irretrievably.
      Ok, so I’m happy about the vote, but as the Tele front page eloquently says – welcome to the boring club.

  9. The Curmudgeon

    Hate to be a pedant, but it’s impossible to be “equally unique”.

  10. MAC TEZ

    If this is the one front page that really riled online critics, those critics can’t have seen many Terrorgraph front pages.

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

Sending...