News Corp boss defiant as demonstrators plan to protest ‘racist’ media
News Corp executive chairman Michael Miller has struck a defiant note against protesters planning to demonstrate outside the company’s advertiser roadshow, warning marketers that “being targeted by nameless groups is not a way to plan media”, while claiming Sky News has been unaffected by boycotts.
Miller’s comments come as protesters plan to stage a demonstration outside the Come Together roadshow in Sydney today to highlight what they claim is Australian media’s institutional racism.
The protests follow News Corp, and particularly Sky News, being heavily criticised for coverage over race and religious-based issues with industry agitator group Sleeping Giants calling for advertisers to stop placing spots on the subscription TV channel.
After the Christchurch terrorist attack on the weekend, the issue of inflammatory content published and broadcast by the local media has become particularly sensitive, with the Australian Communications and Media Authority launching an investigation into coverage of the atrocity.
Joint-organiser of the protest, freelance journalist Alex McKinnon, told Mumbrella: “The aim of today’s protest is to make profits from hate speech unacceptable”.
McKinnon went on to say outlets including the Daily Mail, Sky News and News Corp’s print outlets had made hate speech part of their business model and criticised Seven and the ABC for giving individuals such as Pauline Hanson and Blair Cottrell a platform.
“We hope to wake up people to how profoundly racist the Australian media is,” McKinnon said.
Other organisers of today’s planned protest include Sleeping Giants and GetUp. Neither organisation had responded to Mumbrella’s requests for comments at the time of publication.
Speaking to Mumbrella at the event yesterday, News Corp’s Miller was defiant about Sky News and its importance to the company, saying: “Part of the uniqueness of the Foxtel offering is Sky News and it does reach for an advertiser and very hard to get demographic.
Miller: ‘I don’t support hate speech’
“I have a strong view that we encourage free speech and we encourage free speech and diversity of views in our papers and on Sky News. I don’t support hate speech, and no one should.
“Anonymous speech is equally shouldn’t be listened to and Sky News has been targeted in the main by Sleeping Giants. An anonymous group who are targeting the advertisers.
“My view on that is that from advertisers we’ve had a lot of support.
“I encourage anyone to sit at home as I did last night and ticked off the major brands that are on Sky News during Paul Murray.
“Being targeted by nameless groups is not a way to plan media. This group is not a way to play media. I think most agencies and clients have that right. So while it’s received a lot of noise I don’t see it happening because it hasn’t had much of an impact.
“Noise has been the bigger impact right. But it doesn’t change what we think Sky News’ role should be.”
UPDATE: The protest went ahead this afternoon, with estimates on Twitter suggesting around 30 demonstrators were in attendance.
Here at snap protest of News Corp. About 25-30 protesters here including @MehreenFaruqi and @ShoebridgeMLC pic.twitter.com/z2vv88VqYw
— brad esposito ? (@bradesposito) March 20, 2019
We always exclude Sky News from TV bookings, can’t be trusted not to insult our customers
User ID not verified.
Miller would say that wouldn’t he? All of News inhabits the rabid right-wing views of its New York-based master. Time to break it up.
User ID not verified.
How exactly is sky news a hard to reach demo? Let’s not pretend this audience is some high net worth executive cohort. They stopped watching about 5 years ago (if they ever did) once after dark hit.
User ID not verified.
We also always exclude all SkyNews and have a blacklist on News Corp ‘opinion’ writers, which we list as hate speech in programmatic. And this is in relation to sizeable spends after consultation and agreement with our clients.
It’s a small industry and from my understanding, there are a lot of similar conversations happening around town. Many senior people may not be publically waving a banner but they are privately putting away their wallet.
User ID not verified.
News Corp’s principle sales point in the last few years has been to hijack the notion of trust, particularly when the digital giants have had significant issues in that space. Trust, News Corp claims, is their primary differentiator in market, and they claim that this “trust” has significant advantages for advertisers appearing in their content.
What News Corp fail to address is – what is the audience profile of those that “trust” News Corp? And is this an audience profile that mass brands would particularly want to associate with, or build a brand around?
As News Corp has continued its dance to the right of politics, celebrated commentators like Bolt, Devine, Houghton, and Panahi, who are extreme in their conservatism, I have no doubt that a certain band of Australians do have deep trust in the words written in News Corp papers.
But are these the audiences that an advertisers wishes to attach its brand to and extract growth from in the long term?
Maybe thats something they should hold a mirror against.
User ID not verified.
I can’t say I have the credentials to comment on the particular organisation here but I can certainly vouch for the fact that much of our marketing content is created with unconscious bias coming through and one aspect is racism or even in some cases diversity oversteer with people overcompensating so they don’t appear racist or prejudiced, when they really are. The creative industry needs to get on top of the way they think, the process they run and the people they hire to deal with this issue. It really is there. I collect examples. Feel free to ask.
Oh ok. That’s that then. Nothing to see here.
User ID not verified.
To get the right wing racists kicking in. And didn’t the Senator use twitter to broadcast his racist rants. Bit rich.
User ID not verified.
The problem here seems to be in defining “hate speech”.
Someone will always claim what is being discussed is “offensive”. Especially if the issue being discussed is of any consequence whatsoever. Someone will always find reason to be “upset” by contentious issues. Or they wouldn’t be contentious.
Unfortunately we live in a world where most social issues are extremely complicated with many factors but to silence any commentary you don’t agree with by calling it “hate speech” seems very irresponsible and small minded.
History has shown us time and time again that even if you don’t agree with someones POV, silencing them just strengthens their grievances – and they will make themselves heard if you like it or not. People like Pauline Hanson should be absolutely given the same platform as everyone else so the ridiculous ideas she spouts can be called out for what they are in logical & objective discussions.
Regardless of what you think of Hanson, she is an elected official in this country for good or bad. Silence her and you are kind of proving her point or making it seem like she and her supporters have a legit grievance. Refusing to acknowledge or debate really does give unjustified strength to the other sides argument and its a shame to hear a journalist (freelance or otherwise) take this “silence them” attitude.
Did you fail to learn any lessons from Trumps rise to power Mr McKinnon? Or maybe you did but have found your niche and don’t care either way.
User ID not verified.
There are a lot of agencies / clients who apply values filters to their media buys and in my experience, clients are becoming more vocal about calling out who they don’t want to align with. Miller might be happy with the revenue News is getting but he doesn’t know what they’re missing out on.
User ID not verified.
You have absolutely zero understanding of the company or any of the people who make it up, or what the morale/political values of those people are, but feel free to continue to spout ‘hate speech’ about us.
User ID not verified.
Free speech should always reign true and free in modern society. Those who would confuse free speech with hate speech don’t deserve a seat at the table because anything you say to disagree with them will be disregarded, you can’t reason with people like that.
User ID not verified.
Interesting you feel so strongly after accepting jobs from them and writing content Alex… Look forward to your next piece on news.com.au
User ID not verified.
The Left trying to suppress speech, yet again. Remember that these are the same type of people who had to build a wall (i.e. Berlin) to keep people IN their failed state
User ID not verified.
“even in some cases diversity oversteer with people overcompensating so they don’t appear racist or prejudiced, when they really are”
who made you the arbiter?
User ID not verified.
Well said.
I struggle to comprehend how out of touch our national media has become to everyday Australians.
Freedom of speech does not equal hate speech. Those wishing to shut down freedom of speech only do so because they fear having contradictory views aired.
User ID not verified.
As a young(ish) Australian I definitely identify as an East German living under USSR occupation circa 1960-1990.
User ID not verified.
Ive seen you commenting on other Mumbrella articles attempting to race bait, stir up controversy, etc.
This isnt VICE and your agenda is both obvious and toxic.
Piss off OZword.
User ID not verified.
Except that this isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about hate speech, something that News has deliberately curated more and more, knowing that the visceral, emotional reaction it generates from people, gets more eyeballs. Agree that debate shouldn’t be shut down, but by the same token, those who spout complete gibberish should be called out for it. And that includes so called “mainstream’ journo’s who are anything but, publishing completely offensive garbage on a daily basis.
User ID not verified.
Alex McKinnon has not only contributed to news corp recently – he consistently pitches work to them. What a hypocrite.
User ID not verified.
I believe he was referring to the company’s ethos at an upper-management level, not having a go at individual employees. Pretty hard to argue that the organisation’s fundamentally rotten at the head. By all means, keep working there – we’ve all got to make a crust. But don’t lie to yourself about the company you work for if your personal moral/political values don’t align.
User ID not verified.
I’m as left wing as they come. I’m in News Corp sales and i’m not allowed to contact journalists due to ‘journalistic integrity’. Our journalists are free and independent and are Australian humans who freely write stories that accept climate change as causes for events or support labours policies. It’s as diverse as the Australian population.
I think there is a huge mis-understanding of News Corp Australia and how different it is here to News Corp in the US.
User ID not verified.
Of COURSE News Ltd has some responsibility for encouraging racial and religious hate – anyone who argues otherwise has not read one of its papers for years.
And Sky After Dark (and its enthusiastic imitator Macquarie Radio) carries just as much responsibility.
In both the News and Sky cases the real problem is that those who’re looking for an excuse to hate and looking for a confirmation of their views find it in both outlets – seldom outright hatespeak, just a constant stream of nuanced, anti-migration, anti-Muslim “hint hint, nudge nudge” commentary.
Sometime years from now historians will look back on the toxic influencers creating a society full of dissent and danger and see clearly where it found its support … or maybe they won’t, if only we did something about it now.
And am I a ‘leftie”? Far from it – most often vote Liberal, comfortable with capitalism and the least possible government interference in our lives. But I’m not blind to what’s souring our society.
User ID not verified.
In what way is protesting a suppression of speech? It’s not like they’ve pulled the electrical plug out at Sky News. And the “failed state” you refer to was a consequence of fascism effectively destroying any ability to govern in that part of the world, so be very careful what you wish for and whose speech you think should be more free than others.
User ID not verified.
Is a Murdoch still the boss? Yes.
You should ask an ex-News Corp journalist about how free they felt on certain issues and how comfortable they were with it.
User ID not verified.
I know and have known many News employees. I would not label any of them ‘right-wing’.
The conundrum is that what they consistently publish as lead stories and opinion pieces is overwhelmingly ‘right wing’ and basically ill-informed sanctimonious bile. I know that many female employees were extremely uncomfortable with the treatment of Julia Gillard.
User ID not verified.
Hate speech is not subjective or “opinion” and it is subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. We also don’t have US -style Free Speech in this country and frankly, thank goodness.
As to Hanson, One Nation received 4.3% of the National vote so I’d be happy for her to have 4.3% of total attention, but any more is disproportionate. This idea that free speech is under threat or her toxic views are not being aired, when she is on my TV, FB and in News platforms every friggin’ day is preposterous.
Also she’s a horrible racist, but skates through without charges because she and Anning and his ilk mostly do it in Parliament where they are immune from prosecution by the RDA.
User ID not verified.
I can understand why employees are defensive. But you’d not be much of a journalist if you could not see what agenda is run by News Ltd. The choice of stories, the language, the tendency to flood the zone with commentary – it’s repetitive and it is obvious.
But the Sky at night crowd is a whole other thing. Professional trolls, some get so excited these seem almost unable to complete sentences.
Miller talks about reaching a special audience. I’d be really surprised if there are many in that class and even more surprised if many advertisers valued them.
User ID not verified.
It’s not that nuanced
User ID not verified.
“knowing that the visceral, emotional reaction it generates” – this is my point John.
Why something that gets an emotional reaction is somehow off-limits from discussion in the wider world and more importantly – WHO gets to decide if something is offensive and “hate speech” its too loose a term?? Someone in Canberra? The Robert Murdoch’s of the world?? Or just the people in society we have decided have been more marginalized? This is a crucial and most overlooked point.
I have an emotional reaction when I hear people spout off about the dangers of inoculation in children however the best solution – if you truly believe what you say you believe – is to stand your ground and have an open conversation about the facts at hand. You may not convince your opponent at all but the point of public discourse isn’t to change the mind of the person your debating, but to win over the minds (not hearts unfortunately although that would be nice) of the general public.
As I said, I do not agree with News most of the time and do not follow their journalism with any fondness. However unless they have specifically called for violence or discrimination against any specific groups in society (which in all these articles I haven’t seen a single example of) I’m not sure how it can be labelled as “hate-speech”
User ID not verified.
You’re missing the point John. Who defines what is ‘hate speech’? Why is it up to them to decide what point of view I can be exposed to? If you disagree with someone’s point of view, argue against, don’t try to silence them.
User ID not verified.
Lmao????
User ID not verified.
I left News editorial recently (voluntarily) having worked at a number of other media companies and outside the media. It is the only newsroom I have worked in where the question “should we do this?” is never asked. The only question is “can we do this?” There are many good people and journalists at News but generally they are not the ones in charge. I have never worked anywhere where the employees believed less in what they were producing. On some level everyone in News editorial knows what they are doing, whether they admit it or not. But self-reflection, among other qualities such as journalistic ethics (unless they align with corporate or political goals), community cohesion or basic fairness and decency, is not rewarded or valued at News. What is rewarded is an overgrown schoolboy mentality, where all criticism and critics must be fiercely attacked, and editors talk openly about “smashing” people on the front page. Where punching down is somehow a proxy for “robust debate”. It’s just the way News is, and the increasing polarisation of political views is only making it worse.
User ID not verified.
Are you saying that Rupert Murdoch dominates the place and his staff have no say? Surely not!
User ID not verified.
Congratulation. Your bias makes you a terrible media planner
User ID not verified.
Well said
User ID not verified.
Nothing against news ltd journalists. The Australian news pages are top class. I read them all the time.
People need to differentiate between the journos and the commentators. Henderson, Kelly, Chris Mitchell, Ergas, Sheridan, Sloane. Lloyd.. these are emphatically NOT journalists, they are a pack of self serving IPA Shills and do nothing for journalism but a hell of a lot for the bottom line of news ltd.
Arguing with commentators is like fighting with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Nothing anyone says here will alter any headline view published in the Oz, or on the web.
I have a personal problem with editorial policy, I think it’s massively skewed and anti science. But i don’t hold the journalists responsible or the subbies or the ad booking staff or the photo or layout people.
The fish rots from the head.
User ID not verified.
there’s more than journos that work at News Old Reporter, you as an old hack should know that, and those guys have no influence whatsoever on editorial direction. Lots of them are more than uncomfortable with the consistent right wing stance of their publications, TV and online products…but you still have earn a quid as they say, and there’s not a lot of media jobs kicking around.
User ID not verified.
Hate speech would have a broader meaning, but if a platform creates an atmosphere of hatred and fear its basically facilitating acts of violence, two and a half thousand articles in one year demonizing one group people could be forgiven to think it’s not journalism, free speech has always come with responsibilities
User ID not verified.
Don’t let facts get in the way of a good racist rant
User ID not verified.
That was written incredibly well and gives a good insight into their thought process (lack thereof)!
User ID not verified.
Agreed.
User ID not verified.
How unprofessional. Why don’t you list your agency name if you think it’s common?
User ID not verified.