News.com.au is a major online source of mainstream news in Australia, the CEO of which is David Penberthy who was mentioned in a reader’s post here. Some time ago a reader sent me a copy of an email that he had sent to the team at news.com.au after he had got fed-up with their ongoing sexist bias:
“As a frequent visitor to your site I am dismayed by the evident bias I see with regards to:
1. The types of articles that you choose to publish
2. The decision as to which articles you allow comments on and which you don’t
3. The decision of moderators as to whether comments are posted or excluded
In particular the type of bias that I find most annoying and which is particularly prevalent in your site is a stridently anti-male and pro-feminist bias.
I have read your FAQ page entries in relation to some of these points but I find that in practice your team makes decisions that are not necessarily in line with your guidelines. For example I myself on many occasions have sought to post comments that were in no way profane, etc etc but were not accepted.
Further some of the articles you publish, and also some of the comments, I (and I am sure many others) find to be in poor taste or offensive … it just seems that some positions are consistently deemed more acceptable than others … and lo and behold these seem to feature misandric themes that belittle and promote negative stereotypes concerning men. It’s tiresome and it’s wrong and you should improve your performance in this regard. If uncertain simply apply the test …. if this article or this comment was about women, would I publish it? If yes then go ahead. If not then don’t …”
News.com.au replied addressing a side-issue – but said nothing about the central issue of gender bias. This other blog post provides some examples of their biased journalism.
So how is sexist bias reflected in newspapers and web sites like news.com.au? It is done through a combination of the following measures:
- Through the choice of which subjects are addressed in articles and which ones are ignored, and then whether the coverage of each subject is balanced or only provides a partial picture of the issue at hand
- Through whether or not online public comments are enabled, and if so, for how long comments are accepted
- Through the nature and degree of moderation of online public comments
- Through the choice of loaded words within articles to reflect whether each particular view expressed, or person quoted is either good/valid or bad/invalid, as seen through the ideological filter imposed by the journalist or editor
- Through the use of misleading or bogus statistics within articles to support a pro-feminist perspective
With regards to point 2 above, I have noted a recent trend towards not permitting readers comments in relation to topics for which there will likely be a reader backlash against the pro-feminist position being advanced by the author and/or editor. A ‘good’ example of this is an article entitled ‘Proof that men are bigger idiots than women‘. In this case not only were readers comments not permitted, but the article was also excluded from news.com.au’s Facebook page and Twitter feed. Thus those who objected to the obvious misandry of the article were effectively silenced, conveying an impression of reader acceptance.
With regards to point 4 above, this reddit discussion thread looks at the choice of words used by the media in reporting instances of sexual assault of underage boys by women (versus the words used when reporting underage girls assaulted by men). The headline of this article in news.com.au ‘Teachers accused of having threesome with student, 16, in Louisiana‘ would no doubt have been ‘Teachers gang-rape student’ were the student female instead of male. Anti-male bias was also evident in this 2009 academic report by Roland Landor.
This article is another example of how journalists change language depending on the gender of the victim. When a woman assaults a man (who doesn’t even try to defend himself) it is a “fight“, but if it was the other way around it would be reported as an “unprovoked attack“.
Ah, but news.com.au by no means has a monopoly on applying feminist bias and blocking material that portrays men and mens rights in a fair and balanced manner. No, Australia’s ABC is yet another citadel of femdom. This was amply demonstrated in the 2014 article entitled ‘A lesson for men’s rights activists on real oppression‘ by misandrist journalist Clementine Ford.
Despite the usual feminist moderator habit of binning the majority of posts contributed by those not supportive of feminism, there were still some interesting exchanges amongst the readers comments.
Still on the topic of Clementine Ford, perhaps have a look at this other paper. If you scroll through the readers comments, amongst the offerings of simpering sycophants you will note a contribution from another who stated:
“You lost any right to speak about equality when you attacked and demonise those who are attempting to act as a counterbalance to the feminist movement. The only thing this article resembles is propaganda. For every issue females suffer, and they were good points, you proceeded to ignore about a dozen which society is now suffering under because of feminism.
Like how masculinity is seen as a “problem to be removed” at the age of school children.
About how it is encouraged for females to become teachers now with no effort to do the same for males to balance the number of people from each gender tutoring students.
How abuse and sexual assault against males is often either ignored or used as a source of humour, especially in forms of media. To the point where the castration of a male is only laughed at and mocked by a female audience.
About how some laws in the US have changed for the worse. One in particular allowing females the right to charge a man with rape if they have consumed any amount of alcohol, even if it was consensual sex and she was the one who talked him into it.
About how university and college applications emphases upon getting more female students even long after they make up a considerable percentage of those entering each established teaching institute.
About how unemployment rates are far higher for males than they are for females; with “stay at home dads” being encouraged as a good thing while the very thought of a “housewife” staying at home and cleaning is regarded as offensive.
About how homeless the number of homeless men is staggeringly higher for males than it is for females, yet in many countries with this problem there are far more women’s shelters than there are those devoted to men.
About how divorce courts favour women over men, allowing them to leave with far more of their former husband’s possessions than the other way around. Similarly how unemployment is grounds for the divorce with a man while it is not for a woman.
About how any research which feminists deem “offensive” causes those who research it to be blacklisted. Such as one scientist who showed produced a paper showing findings and statistics which showed that for women, the hormone transfer from semen provides a number of health benefits, including anti-depressants.
Or how about how any attempts by masculinists to counterbalance and correct where feminism has gone too far and men’s rights are suffering is scorned as being “chauvinistic” or childish?
All that and far more you simply ignore and choose to portray MRA’s as acting irrationally and out of fear of equality? I’m not sure whether to laugh or weep.
Equality has not been achieved, that is something you got right, but it is not simply the female populations suffering. Some points you made were good, as I stated, but you seem blind to the idea that females might be dominating aspects to society and equality might come from them losing power as much as males.
Next time attempt to think about what you are talking about. Or better yet, why don’t you show some of that supposed interest in equality you kept mentioning and try to discuss the problems each gender is facing.”
And how did Ms. Ford respond to this thoughtful observation? By typing “TL;DR” (i.e. too long/didn’t read). Definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and clearly not the least bit interested in considering alternative perspectives.
Here is an interesting comment contributed by a reader of an article entitled “Feminism protest shows why the movement is dying“:
“I think many feminists have unfortunately become as inflexible and unlistening as they say men are largely because of the media’s selective reporting.
When reporting on gender issues and the male-female dynamic, as on all other issues, the media are supposed to objectively reflect all views. But over the past four decades they have reflected ideological feminists’ views almost exclusively.
The effect of this long-running lack of objectivity is, I think, to create in our collective mind an entrenched and immutable perception that no other view is possible and that gender issues and the male-female dynamic as portrayed by these feminists are not foolhardy concepts but widely accepted fact that is completely beyond dispute.
Thus, the ordinary woman — even the woman who may disdain feminists — can hardly be blamed for believing she is taken advantage of by men and must endure such oppressions as poorer treatment by male doctors and lower pay than the men at her company doing the exact same work.
Many if not most women are subjected to these oppression stories virtually very day of the year in the still-unobjective (liberal) media. The stories are convincingly told by intelligent, sophisticated members of such groups as the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), which says in the very first sentence of its position statement on equal pay:
“American women who work full-time, year-round are paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.”
If such educated, sophisticated groups as the NWLC — and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the subject of the following commentary — believe women are unfairly paid less, it must be true. Why would they lie?
This article informs us of an “alarming” (11.7%) increase in the number of women over 55 facing homelessness. It was based on a study by the University of Queensland’s Institute of Social Science Research. There is no mention that this demographic is a small percentage of homeless people generally, who are predominantly male. In fact there is no mention of men at all. Funny thing that.
Here is one reddit users response to this article:
“It is fairly annoying to constantly hear men make up the majority of x, therefore we need to help the female minority, but when the roles are reversed, the answer is still to aid women. Men are the problem when they comprise a majority that women want to be a part of, and men are ignored when they’re the minority or the majority of something women want no part of”
See this article for an example of how feminists don’t acknowledge gender when the story doesn’t fit their victim narrative (i.e. in this case six boys rather than six “students”). In this October 2014 BBC story note how no mention was made of the gender of the murdered students, guess they must have all been male (they were). This article addresses the same issue.
See the diagram in this Guardian article entitled ‘Drowning Lower and Middle Income Countries‘. It says “Worldwide 33% were female”. Hmm, I guess that means two-thirds of those who drowned were men.
“Read the tone and language in this article about a man who threatens his female partner with a knife, then read the tone of these two articles one about a female stabbing her male partner the other of a female murdering her partner by stabbing him. Great examples of the sexism and bias in the media”:
The following articles which all appeared in May 2016, exemplify the trend towards allowing ever stronger expressions of anti-male bias and loathing:
‘Oi luv, show us ya tits’: Are all men pigs? (19 May 2016)
Rise in men taking out domestic violence orders against mothers and partners at Southport Court (18 May 2016) Elsewhere in their web site/Twitter account this article is listed as “Men controlling women with DV orders” and “Rise in men taking out DVOs on GoldCoast has support workers worried”
Congratulations creeps: You’ve scared women off the streets, by Wendy Tuohy (13 May 2016) Australia
Domestic violence will flourish because of government funding cuts, by Jenna Price (2 May 2016) with rebuttal by Jasmin Newman here.
It’s hard to believe that once decent papers like The Age and the Courier-Mail now deem this hateful and misleading rubbish as being somehow worthy of publication.
And in closing …
See also these sources:
In December 2018 Australia’s SBS ran a program called “Is Australia sexist?”. Oh dear, this video critique exposes the rampant feminist bias of the SBS production.
Advocacy journalism (31 July 2017) Video
BBC caught covering up false rape allegations once again (7 July 2017) UK
Pro-feminist web site ‘Vice’ blocks archiving of their pages (4 July 2017) Caught out too many times publishing false/misleading ‘information’, so prefer to hit and run (& hide the evidence)?
Sometimes anti-male bias takes the form of simply omitting any reference to men (often in relation to male victimisation). This article, concerning homelessness, is one such example.
Our feral media attacks Cassie Jaye, by Bettina Arndt (12 June 2017)
Naming the ‘invisible perpetrator’: a big step forward for media coverage of violence against women (9 June 2016) Australia. I can’t believe that this illogical & biased article was written by a “Professor of Journalism”. No, wait, I can.
Child sexual abuse is always rape (12 May 2016) USA
Family Court ruling: violent father given sole custody of child (17 April 2016) Australia. Turning a child against a parent not seen as child abuse by feminist journo, plus the “violent father” may have been subjected to false allegation/s
Is Dr Phil Afraid of Janet Bloomfield? (22 January 2016) Paul Elam on video
When Gender Hatred Is ‘Funny’, by Mark Dent (20 January 2016) Australia
Analysis: NPR Talks About Women’s Issues Five Times More Than Men’s (18 December 2015)
These six tragic revelations from Carly Simon’s memoir will make you ashamed to be a man (if you are a man) (20 November 2015) USA. Once upon a time some men did some bad things to Carly Simon. Now, decades later, all men should be ashamed (WTF?) See readers comments
BBC continues to single out the number of female deaths when reporting tragedies (17 November 2015) Reddit mens rights discussion thread
BBC has never reported a single suicide caused by false rape allegations (9 October 2015) UK
Men stab, rape and kill women because they can. It’s time to say they can’t (25 September 2015) Australia
Everyday sexism at the Australian State Broadcaster: When airmen die in training and combat they are labelled “crew” and “people”. When two thirds of the workforce making the aeroplanes are men, the article notes that “one third were women” (19 September 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread
Why are we denying that women used Ashley Madison? (25 August 2015)
Suicide on Campus and the Pressure of Perfection (27 July 2015) Profiles only female suicides, conveniently overlooking the fact that most suicides are male.
I just read the first couple paragraphs of the NYTimes piece on the Ellen Pao Verdict. I don’t think I was entirely sold on media gender bias until right this minute. (28 March 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread
BBC gender bias and censorship (28 November 2014) Reddit mensrights discussion thread
A Currently Bigoted Affair (24 July 2014) An expose of some of the anti-male bias of Australian media
And here are some articles about daytime TV’s (pro-feminist) font of psycho-wisdom, Dr Phil in the USA:
The freeze-out of MRM perspectives in the media (Reddit discussion thread, 30 August 2014)
Sexism, only this time about men (8 August 2014)
How many men are paedophiles? (29 July 2014) Coz everyone knows there’s no female paedophiles right? Now they couldn’t have written an article called “How many people are paedophiles?” could they? ah, because … misandry
When journalists commit domestic violence (23 September 2014)
Blogged down in polarities (7 July 2014) This article isn’t about pro-feminist bias, it is about a broader issue of media behaviour that see views deliberately (and irresponsibly) polarised to attract reader interest and involvement. This is sometimes known as “click-bait journalism”.
Inherent double standards (A reddit discussion thread)
Why would anyone in a position of power ever stop pandering to women? – A reddit discussion thread (24 June 2014)
Add these to the misandry Hall of Fame (19 June 2014)
http://mensrightssydney.com/2014/06/10/making-abc-accountable/ (about ‘journalists’ using fudged statistics to support the feminist stance on domestic violence)
A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality: Taking On The Institute For Women’s Policy Research (16 February 2012) USA. Updated November 2016