One of the many accusations levelled at Murdoch media is that it is now mainly in the game of propaganda. It’s a line that has been invoked by two notable News Corp critics — former prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull — as well as by many media analysts, such as Denis Muller at Melbourne University’s Centre for Advancing Journalism, who described News Corp as “cradled in conflict of interest, overt and covert influence-peddling and propaganda”.
One throws up one’s hands in despair at the daily Murdoch harangues on our devices, particularly via the reporting of its outlet Sky News, where “Disgrace” is a common epithet. This week, Sky News ran the headline “‘Disgraceful’: Labor’s defence announcement sees ‘no effective increase’ in expenditure”; the previous week, it headlined an article about the government’s appointment of an investigation into the World Central Kitchen deaths as “Labor’s reaction to Australian aid worker’s death was ‘disgraceful’”.
Understanding a headline
Hard news stories — as opposed to opinion and editorial — are broadly divided into two types: stories grounded in material events (accidents, natural disasters, civil disturbances, military actions, etc) and those deriving from various communications (speeches, interviews, reports, press releases, etc). In simple terms, the first type is concerned with things that happen; the second with things that are said.
The “newsworthiness” of these latter stories arises from a significant individual or organisation producing a form of communication that impacts larger events. Thus, in the reporting of the Israel-Gaza war, we typically hang off the words of key “news actors”, whether this is US President Joe Biden, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or various Palestinian spokespeople or UN representatives. Closer to home, these might be Anthony Albanese or other relevant local persons and organisations.
The following headline is an example, published in Guardian Australia: “Aid ‘still not reaching Gaza’, as top US official warns famine has started”.
Headlines such as this are constructed with three standard features. First is the explicit mention of the speaker of the words (or attribution): here, a US official. The second is the use of a reporting verb which characterises the nature of the speaking: here, a “warning”. The third is the summary of the key content of what was said, with the accuracy of this summary often established through direct quotation.
Subverting a headline
Significantly, the Sky News headlines — those about Labor’s “disgrace” — have almost none of these. Notably absent is any attribution. In fact the only way of knowing these are reported statements is the minimal use of direct quotation. Otherwise, the constructions stand as bald, fact-like and damning statements about government actions.
It is depressing and unsurprising to learn that, in both cases, the “disgrace” quote comes not from any actual player in the events but from untiring Labor critic and resident News Corp belligerent Greg Sheridan. The occasion of the uttering wasn’t a press conference or other significant political event either; it stemmed from a chat between Sheridan and Sky host Andrew Bolt. Thus, characteristic Sheridan rants on Sky in the evening are turned into “hard news” headlines for consumption the next morning. Without shame, the line between news and opinion vanishes.
It is worth noting that Sky News and other Murdoch outlets can produce legitimate reported speech stories. Around the same time as the Sheridan headline, the following Sky story was also published: “Anthony Albanese has let the Quad dialogue to languish, says former Japanese ambassador”.
This presents as an anti-Labor headline, but it does contain the standard features of reporting: a newsworthy speaker appropriately attributed; a neutral reporting verb “say”; and, one assumes, accurate enough reporting of what the former ambassador said.
However, Sky News often trashes these conventions. This subverting is most evident in the organisation’s pursuit of what seems nowadays to be its all-consuming mission: to discredit the Albanese government at every turn. This disregard for journalistic standards can be seen in a rundown of Sky headlines around the three features discussed.
Who does the saying?
Sky News’s headlines are often unattributed. It is only by reading the outlet’s digital stories that the source of the words can be found. The following are examples: “Labor government ‘making everything worse’ for power in Australia”; “Liberal Party ‘no less popular’ with female voters than Labor”; “‘Zero stars’: Albanese government has ‘failed the people of Australia’“.
Sometimes attribution is provided. This happens especially when there is quoting of LNP politicians appearing on Sky programs. The attribution allows opposition figures both public exposure and free kicks — however silly — against the government. See: “Angus Taylor: Albanese and Chalmers lied to Australians ‘over 100 times’”; “‘Utter farce’: Michaelia Cash fires up after Labor rushes through IR reforms”.
Also attributed are select “experts”, those from favoured organisations and think tanks who can be relied on to back News Corp’s various agendas. On example is its drive for nuclear energy: “‘We’ve lost the plot’: Top energy scientist Adi Paterson warns push for renewables could undermine integrity of electricity grid”.
It’s a sign of News Corp’s growing hubris that Sky presenters themselves are also regularly attributed, as though their nightly pronouncements — on whatever — have the status of news: “Sharri Markson condemns Albanese government’s lack of response to anti-Semitism”; “Credlin calls out Albanese’s ‘problem with telling the truth’“.
All this involves a curious linguistic manoeuvre, wherein the first-person commentary by a “journalist”, (e.g. Peta Credlin: “I call out Albanese …”) the next day becomes third-person reporting by a different journalist in the same organisation (“Credlin calls out Albanese …”). Opinion, of a highly partisan kind, miraculously becomes news.
How is the saying characterised?
Studies of reporting verbs in hard news stories and headlines find that the most common expressions used are generally neutral in tone: “say”, “tell”, “show”, “report”. Another common but less neutral one is “claim”, which serves to cast some doubt on the veracity of what’s reported.
Such subtlety is often missing in Sky’s attributed headlines. Preferred verbs are decidedly hyperbolic: “slam”, “brand”, “blast”, all designed to ratchet up the critique to full volume. “Richard Marles slammed for ‘desperate’ flights over limousine ride”; “Labor branded ‘foolish’ for sending message to people smugglers“; “Sky News host blast [sic] ‘climate hypocrisy’ of Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen”.
What is said?
In relation to Sky News headlines about the government, the content is nearly always less than flattering. The formula pursued is often: Labor/Albanese/relevant minister = “________” (insert pejorative descriptor + optional mention of issue). “Labor Party ‘hopeless’ on border protection“; “Anthony Albanese slammed as ‘weak and woke’”; “‘Dumb and dangerous’: Andrew Bolt blasts Penny Wong over Palestinian state call”.
The approach is decidedly adjectival. In fact, the news-gathering process for such headlines seems mainly about arriving upon a suitably quotable brickbat, either elicited from a show’s guest or else stated outright by a host. Across Sky headlines, Labor is described — or rather “slammed” — for being many things: hypocritical, incompetent, dumb, desperate, weak, dangerous, dishonest and woke — as well as the one-size-fits-all “disgraceful”.
In Sky News, News Corp has succeeded in creating a well-tuned and productive propaganda machine. The technique is to generate talk of a highly partisan nature, and then, through forms of linguistic manipulation, have this talk turned into pseudo-news headlines to be pumped out on a semi-industrial scale to the public.
Crikey’s Christopher Warren notes the success of the model, which has been to push Sky’s messaging way beyond the limited demographics of its television audience, and to be received now — however reluctantly — by millions via Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube.
In doing this, he says, “Sky both makes money through programmatic advertising and builds an audience (and distribution network) for its right-wing talking points”. Along the way, it has also done a good job of utterly confounding public understanding of what legitimate journalism is.
