With King Charles and Queen Camilla arriving on Friday for the couple’s first visit to Australia since he became its reigning monarch, sections of the media were keen to show their support.
Rupert Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph was, perhaps unsurprisingly, upbeat about the royal visit and, in a front page headed “Long May He Rein”, talked up the (remote) chance he will attend the $20m Everest at Royal Randwick on Saturday.
The evidence for this “exclusive” front-page yarn was nonexistent but the Tele reckoned it had “a big tip” on the King’s “Royal Randwick visit”.
“King Charles is set to put the ‘Royal’ in Royal Randwick when he arrives here this week,” the Tele reported. “He has been tipped to make an 11th-hour appearance at Sydney’s biggest race meeting on Saturday, at the $20m The TAB Everest.”
For its part, the Sydney Morning Herald admonished the premiers for refusing to meet with Charles, arguing that, as the King of Australia, “he should be welcomed with respect, particularly by the country’s leaders”.
“Perhaps politicians who feel strongly about the anachronism of Australia having a British head of state should elevate their actions beyond a childish no-show, and actually put it on the agenda,” the SMH editor, Bevan Shields, wrote.
But it was an analysis piece by chief reporter Jordan Baker that particularly caught our eye for its attempt to argue that Queen Camilla had “won over a sceptical public”.
“At her lowest ebb, when Britain hated her, the tabloids were describing her as frump, old trout and horse face, and even Queen Elizabeth described her as ‘that wicked woman’, Queen Camilla is said to have been pelted with bread rolls at a bakery,” Baker wrote.
“She’ll never rival her glamorous stepdaughters-in-law for attention, but an August poll found almost half of Britons had a positive view of her – up 10 per cent from five years earlier.”
It was the headline on the Baker piece which made us gasp. “From ‘horse face’ to ‘Britain’s grandmother’: How Queen Camilla won over a sceptical public”.
Did they have to repeat the insult in the headline?
After all, Shields’ piece criticised the press for “the misogynist language used about Camilla back then”.
“No responsible journalist would describe her as a frump, an old trout, or ‘horse face’ these days,” he wrote.
Shake it to make it
The Seven News Australia X account is your usual feed of the nation’s biggest news stories, with the official account pumping out links to stories about Anthony Albanese’s purchase of a Central Coast house, attempted changes to abortion laws, car crashes, wild weather and political developments.
But one of the featured stories caught our eye: apparently women were losing weight by switching out their lunchtime meal each day with something called a “Glow Shake”. We clicked on the link and it took us to the Seven News website.
“Women right across Australia are losing weight and getting their health back on track by switching out their lunchtime meal each day with a ‘Glow Shake’,”, the article claimed.
The article is of course not news, but advertorial. We took a closer look and saw the feed was littered with ads for cars and other products.
We asked the Seven News chief, Anthony De Ceglie, if Seven is the first media organisation to publish ads alongside news on its social media feed and how readers would know if an article was news or an ad but he did not respond.
De Ceglie did take notice, because when we returned to the weight loss shake ad on X it had been deleted.
It is commonplace for news websites these days to carry advertorials but such content is usually clearly marked as such.
Some articles, including the shake one, do contain a disclaimer: “This article contains affiliate links, whereby 7NEWS.com.au may earn a commission if you click on a link – at no cost to you.”
Judge not
We told you last month that Justice Michael Lee’s judgment on the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case made such an impact it was to be released in book form on 5 November, just in time for Christmas.
He Went Back for His Hat: Justice Michael Lee’s Judgment on Bruce Lehrmann was to be published by Melbourne University Press.
But last Friday a spokesperson from the federal court told Weekly Beast the book was in fact not authorised by the court or Justice Lee.
“No licensing or other arrangements with Justice Lee or the court are in place with this publisher,” the spokesperson said.
“Justice Lee’s full judgment is publicly available on the federal court’s website, in line with the court’s commitment to open and accessible justice.
“With regard to the impact of this publication on any future appeal process, responsibility rests with Melbourne University Press.”
News Corp’s AI embrace
News Corp Australia is extending its use of AI, if an ad for an “AI architect” is any indication.
“We are seeking a talented and experienced AI architect to join our growing team. In this role, you will be responsible for architecting and designing scalable and secure AI solutions that align with our business strategy,” the Seek ad says. “You will work closely with cross-functional teams to ensure that AI is effectively architected and designed into our existing infrastructure and processes.”
Last year we revealed News was producing 3,000 articles a week using generative artificial intelligence.
AI is also increasingly being used for illustrations at the Daily Telegraph, replacing newspaper photography or commissioned art.
Cost of ABC’s new look revealed
The ABC revealed its brand refresh earlier this year with new graphics, a new website and a return of the traditional ABC news theme.
“The new design is impactful and appealing for audiences and gives us a consistent look across all platforms,” the ABC’s news director, Justin Stevens, said in August. Our audience accesses our journalism across all platforms and mediums and the design needs to reflect that.”
We now know the full cost of Aunty’s facelift thanks to a freedom of information request on Right to Know.
The ABC spent $818,164 on the upgrade, including $65,000 on graphics, $37,000 on branding, $32,000 on travel for training and implementation. The bulk of the cost – $683,000 – went on fees paid to third-party design firms.
Not an excessive amount considering the scale of the project across broadcast and digital, but no doubt this one will come up at Senate estimates.
