Reading Newspapers

Jul 2, 2012

Q. How often do you read newspapers (in print, not online)?

 

Total

Aged 18-34

Aged 35-54

Aged 55+

Visit news websites daily

Visit news websites a few times a week

Visit news websites about once a week

Visit news websites less often

Never visit news websites

Daily

24%

15%

25%

34%

34%

20%

19%

14%

19%

A few times a week

23%

24%

25%

18%

22%

31%

14%

24%

14%

About once a week

22%

20%

22%

24%

19%

28%

37%

15%

14%

Less often

22%

30%

19%

16%

19%

15%

24%

39%

17%

Never

9%

11%

9%

8%

6%

6%

6%

7%

35%

24% said they read newspapers daily and 69% read at least once a week.

Older respondents read newspapers more frequently – 34% of those aged 55+ read daily. 28% of those on higher incomes ($1,600+ pw) read daily compared to 18% of those earning under $600 pw.

Those who visit news websites frequently also read newspapers more frequently – 34% of those visiting news websites daily also read newspapers daily.

Concern about Cutting Journalists

Jul 2, 2012

Q. Australia’s major newspaper publishers – News and Fairfax – recently announced substantial job cuts, including many journalists. How concerned are you that Australian newspapers are losing so many professional journalists?

 

Total

Vote ALP

Vote Lib

Vote Greens

Aged 18-34

Aged 35-54

Aged 55+

Read daily

Read a few times a week

Read about once a week

Read less often/

never

Very concerned

20%

26%

19%

23%

15%

21%

26%

34%

24%

14%

12%

Somewhat concerned

28%

28%

29%

34%

28%

29%

27%

34%

34%

24%

22%

A little concerned

29%

28%

29%

22%

31%

29%

26%

21%

25%

37%

32%

Not at all concerned

17%

16%

18%

16%

18%

16%

17%

9%

14%

21%

23%

Don’t know

6%

2%

5%

5%

7%

6%

4%

3%

3%

4%

12%

20% were very concerned and 28% somewhat concerned about job cuts to newspaper journalists.

68% of daily readers of newspapers were very/somewhat concerned.

Those most concerned were aged 55+ (53%) and respondents from Victoria (59%).

Statements about Cutting Journalists

Jul 2, 2012

Q. Which of the following statements is closest to your view?

 

Total

Vote ALP

Vote Lib

Vote Greens

Aged 18-34

Aged 35-54

Aged 55+

Read daily

Read a few times a week

Read about once a week

Read less often/

never

As we lose more and more professional journalists, we are losing the seasoned judgments of skilled and experienced professionals in gathering and assessing information – and that is a bad thing for Australia and Australian democracy.

50%

53%

49%

52%

41%

48%

62%

70%

53%

44%

35%

With the internet, we all have access to a large amount of information and the loss of the professional journalists who work for the major newspapers in Australia really doesn’t matter that much.

31%

26%

34%

34%

37%

30%

25%

20%

28%

39%

36%

Don’t know

20%

21%

17%

14%

22%

22%

13%

10%

19%

17%

29%

Respondents were more likely to agree with the statement that “As we lose more and more professional journalists, we are losing the seasoned judgments of skilled and experienced professionals in gathering and assessing information – and that is a bad thing for Australia and Australian democracy” (50%).

Those most likely to support this statement were aged 55+ (62%), daily newspaper readers (70%) and Victorians (58%).

They Slashed Their Own Pay, Too, Didn’t They? NOT!!!

Jun 21, 2012

You know how it goes–a company is in financial trouble, it slashes jobs to save money and, of course, the CEOs take a hit along with the regular workers. Slap, slap, slap–wake up! You’re not in Alice-in-Wonderland world. You’re in the real world, the wondrous “free market” where CEO salaries never go down, no matter how bad they screw up. Which brings us to the saga of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian.

The Herald’s management announced it was going to sack–we prefer not using the Orwellian word “redundant”, since it has a way of making the whole thing sound so neutral and mild–1,900 people, for an alleged savings, along with other measures (principally, making people pay for access to the website) of $235 million by 2015. But, not a problem for chief executive Greg Hywood, who is not taking a financial hit and is doing quite well, thank you very much:

Mr McCarthy’s replacement, Greg Hywood, got $1.5 million for his six months in the job last financial year, while he is now eligible for a bonus of 150 per cent of his $1.6 million base salary.

Not to mention the deep pockets of one mining billionaire named Gina who is determined, we think, to wake up one shining day to be greeted with the banner headline “Sydney Mining Herald.”

Not to be outdone in the shameless category, The Australian is going to slash 70 percent of its divisions–but somehow the Rupe found $2 billion to double his takes in Foxtel. But, have we heard of any cuts at all in Rupe’s pay ($33 million USD in 2011) or any of his other top underlings. We find out a little more of the life the Rupe leads, while he’s cutting the pay of others, from this wet-kiss profile of Wendi Deng (Murdoch) in The New York Times:

She used to wash her clothes and face with the same soap, said a 2008 Vogue article, and seldom wore makeup, much less luxuriated in the perks of privilege — like the private yoga classes with her friends Kathy Freston and Arianna Huffington — she indulges in today. At Yale, she would stake out Filene’s Basement to procure designer gowns on the cheap. Today, she is regularly photographed wearing Rodarte and Prada.

Mrs. Murdoch quickly and giddily embraced the trappings of great wealth. While her husband conducted business in various European capitals, she would travel with him and shop for glassware and cutlery and curtains to stock her new homes. In addition to their loft in SoHo, the Murdochs transformed an old hutong in Beijing into a courtyard oasis decorated with art by Chinese artists.

So, there it is: cuts are paid because of “changing conditions” or “new markets” or “new realities” but the story remains the same. The rich rob the workers who create the wealth–and, when things get rocky, the only people taking it in the chin are the very people who had nothing to do with creating the mess.

–Jonathan Tasini

Trust in Media Commentators/Journalists

Sep 5, 2011

Q. How much trust do you have in the following media commentators and journalists?

Total know them Total a lot/some trust Total not much/no trust A lot of trust Some trust Not much trust No trust Not sure
Laurie Oakes 85% 75% 17% 33% 42% 11% 6% 8%
George Negus 91% 75% 16% 27% 48% 12% 4% 9%
Tony Jones 52% 54% 29% 16% 38% 18% 11% 17%
Michelle Grattan 42% 47% 34% 13% 34% 22% 12% 20%
Andrew Bolt 52% 43% 42% 13% 30% 18% 24% 15%
Neil Mitchell 48% 42% 40% 10% 32% 21% 19% 19%
Jon Faine 33% 38% 40% 9% 29% 26% 14% 22%
Alan Jones 84% 38% 49% 9% 29% 16% 33% 13%

The best-known media commentators and journalists were George Negus (91%), Laurie Oakes (85%) and Alan Jones (84%).

Laurie Oakes and George Negus were the most trusted and Alan Jones the least trusted.

(Note: respondents who did not know of each commentator/journalist have been excluded from the above table).

Comments »

Sign up for updates

Receive the Essential Report in your inbox.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.