[newrotik]

I see a lot of complaints about this but find little information about what the actual problem is.

The abc link referenced mentions that Murdoch's reach through physical newspapers is indeed outsized, but acknowledges that only ~11% of the population uses this as primary news source. There is nothing indicating anything resembling a monopoly in radio, TV, and most importantly digital.

"The Australian" belongs to News Corp, but is generally considered a respectable outlet. Opinion pieces are clearly distinguishable, and they also welcome contributions by left wing politicians (Tanya Plibersek and Jim Chalmers are examples I remember seeing relatively recently).

[shakna]

> "The Australian" belongs to News Corp, but is generally considered a respectable outlet.

The Australian? Respectable? Nah, I don't think so.

They're right wing, obvious about it, and have had several outright false reports in the last few years. [0] They even run their own "Australian of the Year" award, with the same name as the actual award. Their editors call themselves right wing and conservative, and they've been accused by both the Greens and Labor of targeted harassment because of it.

[0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-australian/

[newrotik]

It is a conservative leaning news outlet. You may not agree with the view point but that does not imply that it is not respectable.

[agentgumshoe]

Unlike those left wing outlets that are nothing but beacons of honesty and decency, right?

Or is it ok to have nuance on the left but not the right?

Mediabiasfactcheck. Lol. Of course there are stringent guidelines as to what is specifically right wing, far-right wing, left wing and far-left wing... All this political tribalism is pathetic.