How Many Comments Do You Get Rejected on News Corp Websites?

AustriaBargain on 25/09/2023 - 01:05

I think I'm averaging maybe one in six comments rejected. Most common reason seems to be me saying something that supports or defends Indigenous people, or a reference to News Corp itself. But hey at least they don't just ban me. I'm getting better at phrasing my points carefully to slip past whatever criteria they use, but some issues you just can't touch with a 10 foot pole without it being rejected.

Anyway just wondering what your experience interacting with News Corp websites are.

I know I know, but I'm not paying for access, so I'm technically not supporting News Corp…

Internet

Comments

  • toasty on 25/09/2023 - 01:15
    +5

    What have you been calling Lachlan?

    But seriously, good on you for braving those comment sections.

    • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 14:12
      +1

      Calling him 'son of Rupert' would be abuse enough

  • Benoffie on 25/09/2023 - 01:52
    +2

    Probably 25%

    If Im criticising their lacklustre editing, poor or repetitive opinion pieces or generally bad journalism it seems not to make it.

    Also, posts that are too educated and well reasoned seem to miss the mark also.

    There's no rhyme or reason in terms of political spectrum though. Im an equal opportunity offender when it comes to The Tiser's standards 🤣🤷‍♀️

    • Nickels n Dimes on 25/09/2023 - 20:13

      My success rank was about 25% also, though just recently i got my account banned. After posting hundreds of comments over the last year, suddenly I was deemed to be too offensive to the bots or fringe groups using the site. I try to be as respectful and polite as possible and balance the line between left and right so as not to upset either side, but still seems i caused too many feathers to be ruffled on MSN. the site has a link for appeal / review of the policy decision by the link doesn't take you to a page where you can query their action, just a generic disclaimer of their utterly ambiguous policy.

  • localhost on 25/09/2023 - 02:34
    +6

    news corp… no, thanks

  • holdenmg on 25/09/2023 - 04:40

    I guess when one gets too old to read a Newspaper (and need it read to you) you step down as Chairman. lol

  • Hellfire on 25/09/2023 - 06:48
    +3

    Try posting to the guardian.. im at 0 for 10+. Cant say anything remotely critcal of their agenda.

    • deme on 25/09/2023 - 09:04

      What do you say?

    • try2bhelpful on 25/09/2023 - 11:23
      +1

      Huh? The Guardian comments appear in real time. Unless you are, particularly, offensive it will stay up there.

    • Benoffie on 25/09/2023 - 19:52

      Agreed. Try and remotely question their bias and you're shutdown. No such thing as discourse.

      • try2bhelpful on 25/09/2023 - 20:02

        So you’ve had your comments removed?

  • EightImmortals on 25/09/2023 - 06:50
    +2

    Not too many, you just need to learn the tricks, be creative with spelling, choose different words, sometime they reject quotation marks or genuine typos. In the end you are arguing with the machine anyway so it's not worth persisting too much. And which indigenous people were you supporting, the ones doing it tough or the 'elites' who live in the cites, own all the indigenous corporations that suck up most of the money that's meant to helping those in need?

    • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 10:07
      -1

      Correction, non-indigenous parasites are sucking more from the trough than your 'elite' indigenous aspersion.

      You know things like spineless thieves with non existent funeral insurance. If there's an "industry" in this space, the dominant beneficiaries are not a handful of indigenous elites. It's truckloads of white opportunists.

  • GordonD on 25/09/2023 - 08:12
    +9

    Its easy to criticise Murdochs media outlets for having an agenda.

    But so do the media outlets at the other end of the political spectrum.

    For example, try getting a Letter published in the Herald that isn't in favour of Yes. Not a chance. Every day the Letters page has a string of Yes letters. Despite the fact that the opinion polls are saying that intending NO voters now substantially outnumber intending Yes voters, apparently no NO voters are writing in. And its easy to see why. It would be a waste of time. No No letters are selected for publication.

    It is the nature of "journalism" these days. If it ever was, it is certainly not today about even-handed professional reporting, it is about advocacy of causes that those in the occupation or their bosses believe in. Like I'm sitting here on the computer doing what I do on it, with ABC News Breakfast showing on the TV software on the window in the top right hand corner, and in an hour they've had three, count em, three, Yes advocates being given air time.

    My experience is that, yes, the Murdoch media has a certain bias, one I don't particularly like, but it more likely to accomodate alternative views than the media outlets at the other end of the political spectrum.

    If you think its cause for complaint that every so often one of your comments is deleted in a Murdoch publication because it expressed a view in the other direction, try getting other views not deleted as "contravening community standards" in The Conversation. Initially that publication allowed comments on all articles. They block all comments now on most articles because readers had the audacity and temerity to disagree with the articles. I think the official excuse was that moderating the comments - that is deleting them - was taking up too much of their time.

    • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 09:57
      -1

      You are doing a lot of defending for someone watering down MSM bias.

  • cohiba30 on 25/09/2023 - 08:14

    I have a 100% failure rate lol. I've tried posting a few time to highlight when their previous 50 (or so) negative/outraged posts were made within a total of 2 minutes with similar sentance structures and clearly an automated bot; my posts get rejected every time

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 25/09/2023 - 08:35
    +2

    if i wanted a good flame war id just post on whirlpool

  • GordonD on 25/09/2023 - 08:37
    +1

    How do you measure bias in a media outlet? It is silly to think any single one of us can assess it, because we just compare the views it puts with what we believe. We are only measuring its bias against ours. And its the same when a media outlet gets someone to assess it. That only measures it against that person's. And its just as silly to try counting column centimetres of stories.

    But there is a way to measure media outlet bias. Because the views media outlets put attract people of similar views, and drive away people with conflicting views. People like to hear people like them expressing views like theirs. So its easy to measure a media outlet's bias, you just measure its audience's bias.

    Pollsters could do that easily. All they'd have to do is add a question about preferred media, and correlate that with the views they express. If any pollsters do that, they aren't telling us. But one media outlet did. It didn't realise or intend to do that, but by promoting its own opt-in polls to its own viewers and listeners, and the results of those showed us their bias by comparing their answers to those from randomly selected samples of Australians in opinion polls. And accordingly gave us an indication of that media outlet's own bias.

    It was the ABC that did it with its Australia Votes and Australia Talks polls. The answers the respondents gave to those polls showed the ABC is well to the left of the Australian public generally. Those results totally demolish the idea that the ABC and its enthusiastic supporters put that it is unbiased. If the results of Australia Votes truly represented Australia, Labor and the Greens would have fighting it out to govern Australia in the subsequent election that was actually won by the Coalition.

    Not that I'm saying a similar poll done of Murdoch media viewers and listeners wouldn't show they, and therefore it, weren't just as biased in the other direction. Its just that, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has done such a poll.

    So lets not persist with this nonsense that the Murdoch media is the only biased media outlet pushing an agenda in this country. If you think that you are just demonstrating your bias in the other direction. All our media outlets are somewhere on a spectrum of political and social bias. Murdoch's on the right. The ABC's on the left.

    • Crow K on 25/09/2023 - 08:58
      +1

      One of the "both sides are as bad" main talking points is the severe left-wing bias of the ABC (presumably they can't think of another "opponent" with comparative reach and scope to the Murdoch empire). But like the rest of their talking points, it's about floating an idea and not actually having anything to support it.

      It's been covered extensively in this forum before, with receipts, for those who want to dredge it up.

      • deme on 25/09/2023 - 09:03
        -1

        It's been covered extensively in this forum before, with receipts

        Provide a source, otherwise you are as the same are the people that say "some say"

        • Crow K on 25/09/2023 - 09:39

          Type "ABC bias" into the forum search bar, little bro.

          Nice "take" that telling you to do that being weasel words though. You sure you don't want to save that accusation up for when I put forth a position?

          • cohiba30 on 25/09/2023 - 10:08
            +2

            @Crow K: I took your suggestion and typed "ABC bias" into the forum search bar. I was struck with how many times its the same people posting on their same hobby-horse issues.

            • Crow K on 25/09/2023 - 10:10
              +1

              @cohiba30: Yeah well, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail ;)

              "ABC is Left Leaning!" Thread is probably the gold standard for the whole discussion of the concepts.

              It has some peak SlavOz energy in it (he runs the "state funded means state ran means state controlled" line that deme floats below) and wouldn't you know it, trans people and pedophiles soon become wrapped up in his talking points too.

    • deme on 25/09/2023 - 09:02
      -5

      Cool story bro

      Murdoch's on the right. The ABC's on the left.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      ABC is literally state sponsored news
      Murdoch is literally corp sponsored news

      There is no left and right, it's just a bunch of plebs being used.

      • GordonD on 25/09/2023 - 09:19

        There is no left and right, it's just a bunch of plebs being used.

        I don't disagree with you. In my day there was a clear left and right. If you were on the right your social and world views were on the right. If you were on the left your social and world views were on left. To those of us from way back then the views the media and political class try to inflict on us these days look weird. Neither "right" leaning or "left" leaning media outlets and the journalists that are employed in them question the same basic assumptions about what we should believe and how the country and the world should be run that all too often just seem to serve those with power. The only way to hear alternative views is to go to the internet where you hear everything from the insightful to the utterly looney.

        • deme on 25/09/2023 - 10:33
          +1

          I don't disagree with you. In my day there was a clear left and right.

          Think about this for a sec, why are they called left and right?

          • GordonD on 25/09/2023 - 15:29
            +1

            @deme:

            why are they called left and right?

            Sir, sir, I know the answer to this one!

            In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the royal veto privilege (Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate) generally sat to the left of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat on its right.

            It was how politicians chose to align themselves and associate, by allegiance to the establishment, before there were the strong political parties of today. I would expect it might be how the elected members of the Voice would form groupings if the major political parties don't get a grip on it. By whether they want it to deliver basic services to disadvantaged communities, or radical political change.

            • deme on 25/09/2023 - 17:51

              @GordonD: Great work reading the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article, so now do you see how categorising a political party on a single axis is stupid?

    • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 09:56

      How do you measure bias in a media outlet?

      Anyone who owns that question is a part of the problem. A willing enabler and paying passenger.

      Even Murdoch doesn't shy away from the fact he's toxic. Never, ever heard him arc up or deny being called out for being the wall blocking action on climate change.
      Apparently it's true. "Only the good die young". He should survive the end everyone else will suffer. Does it make him a cockroach, or is he less endearing? Maybe Lachy knows?

    • AustriaBargain on 25/09/2023 - 15:22

      If the results of Australia Votes truly represented Australia, Labor and the Greens would have fighting it out to govern Australia in the subsequent election that was actually won by the Coalition.

      Well the ALP controls the nation and all states except Tasmania. ALP and Greens didn't need to fight it out because the ALP won majority without them yeah? But the the ALP needed to they would make a deal with the Greens, like they just did in the Senate.

  • deme on 25/09/2023 - 08:56
    +1

    I know I know, but I'm not paying for access, so I'm technically not supporting News Corp…

    Are you using an Adblocker, because otherwise….

    • AustriaBargain on 25/09/2023 - 15:19

      Yup, Wipr for Mac and iOS. Blocks ads reliably.

      • fredblogs on 26/09/2023 - 20:17

        How do you avoid having to pay for access?

        • AustriaBargain on 26/09/2023 - 23:42

          Got a six month offer here and it just never expired.

  • JIMB0 on 25/09/2023 - 09:33
    +1

    Your comment is sure to get published if you can pin the problem on Dan.

    • deme on 25/09/2023 - 10:33

      jv?

  • Cheaplikethebird on 25/09/2023 - 09:46
    +1

    I avoid giving any sort of web traffic to News Corp websites.

  • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 09:50
    -5

    It's a nasty socially destructive white right wing rag, what did you expect.It's staff (like most of the MSM) are recruited accordingly from countries that perfected such ideology.
    This org plunged the planet into irreversible climate change. Why would they want to be humane to a non white ethnicity?

  • Almost Banned on 25/09/2023 - 09:52

    I get maybe one in ten rejected - but it seems like almost all of my comments spend DAYS in pending purgatory before they are finally published, once the story has disappeared into the internet ether.

  • jugsy on 25/09/2023 - 09:56
    +3

    Get a more productive and entertaining hobby

  • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 09:59

    If you are commenting on a principle of the articles content, just email the author

  • Nugs on 25/09/2023 - 10:09

    where's the poll?
    zero, because I don't recall posting
    .

  • brendanm on 25/09/2023 - 10:34
    +2

    Why on earth would anyone bother commenting on news sites?

    • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 12:44
      +1

      Actually in this instance it isn't a news site, per se. It's a Newscorp site.
      Fluff,lies and propaganda interlaced with socially destructive (mythology based) social engineering agendas.
      You have a good point.
      Re newscorp, though, drinking from the toilet is bad for you at the best of times, but ingesting the contents from the untreated septic tank (directly) is ,shall we say, risky?

  • try2bhelpful on 25/09/2023 - 11:25
    +1

    You need to use the Murdoch trope bingo card. Lots of misuse of words like woke, virtue signalling, feminnazis etc. if your ideas can attract Neo Nazis to a rally then you get an extra bonus.

    • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 12:46

      If they had a tax on the word 'fury' Murdoch would go broke.
      If there was a tax on pure bullshit he'd have gone broke decades ago.
      I thought Neo Nazi was code for young liberal

    • try2bhelpful on 25/09/2023 - 13:43

      It looks like I might have triggered the Neo Nazis.

      • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 15:29
        +1

        "Murdoch trope bingo card"
        You mean the Dutton/Joyce/Canavan Thesaurus?

        Abbot would have contributed if (a) he was semi-literate and (b) the tears from onion-ising, weren't blinding him.
        Besides he's busy on his knees at Ruperts feet these days.
        Just imagine the poisonous content from hereon in. All full blown hate enabling if not inciting overt violent pushback.

        Looking fwd to the full Pezzullo txt files being spewed into the media

  • Rob-4x4 on 25/09/2023 - 11:33
    +1

    News Corp media is not Journalism. It is newsatainment .. all about entertaining the masses and getting the most eyeballs on their site. Boring things like accurate well researched journalism go out the window.

    NYTimes How Fox Chased Its Audience Down the Rabbit Hole

    • bajillionaire on 25/09/2023 - 12:06
      +2

      The problem with "anger-tainment" is that it inherently needs a "them vs us" narrative to sustain itself. It has to be problem, not solution, focused. Hell it can't even just be neutral.

    • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 12:47
      +1

      more like news stain

  • Ocker on 25/09/2023 - 14:41

    The moderators of the comments are most likely apprentice journo's with no real idea of how to interpret the comments. More a case of if in doubt then stike the comment

    • Protractor on 25/09/2023 - 15:31

      Nah, they's have a set formula that matches their agenda.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/09/2023 - 15:34
    +1

    (profanity) News Corp.

    • AustriaBargain on 25/09/2023 - 15:41
      +2

      Agreed. But I like reading what my ideological opposites are reading and seeing what they say to each other. Plus reading The Australian is kind of invigorating, raises the blood pressure.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/09/2023 - 16:14

        That's cool, but wouldn't bother commenting. You won't change the hard nosed "silent" "majority" who live on there.

  • quog on 05/10/2023 - 15:21

    weirdly any posts to articles by andrew bolt get up, same for Rita panahi. even if negative about them or the article

    general news articles, about 50% not accepted.

    it's almost like whirlpool mods go there to get paid

    • AustriaBargain on 05/10/2023 - 15:28

      I think they are vetted by humans, because they take a while to get approved, and I read an article on I think news.com.au written by someone who approves or denies comments. So it's kind of interesting that they do use the subscriber money to pay human moderators, at least in some cases they claim to.

  • shutuptakemymoney101 on 08/10/2023 - 17:21

    I got frustrated with the rejected posts so I cancelled my digital subscription, I still read the paper I just don't pay their subscription anymore :-)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join