mightychurch.com

Idea shamelessly stolen from triplej drive show.

So, one of the biggest news stories of the year; an historic, generation defining moment; and what did Australian’s click on the big news sites?

Well on news.com.au, the current top 10 is:
  1.  Man licks charge with Bubble O’Bill
  2. Harvey Norman succumbs to credit crisis
  3. ‘Hypocrite’ PM hands staff more pay
  4. YouTube Heidi’s love story a fake
  5. Mixed views on Michelle Obama’s dress choice
  6. Job cuts strike heart of nation’s economy
  7. World facing huge computer worm
  8. Something fishy about miracle survival
  9. Entire airline crew arrested over drugs
  10. Gen X facing economic reality check

Did you spot it? Yes, below “Man licks charge with Bubble O’Bill” at no. 5 is “Mixed views on Michelle Obama’s dress choice.”

But what about our enlightened Fairfax readers?

Sydney doesn’t fair well - smh.com.au:
  1.  Rudd’s war on the middle class
  2. Woman critical after taxi incident
  3. Mystery player unaware of $7 million lottery win
  4. Two held in multiple murder case
  5. ICC removalists turn up early to carry off furniture

Nothing.

Melbourne, however, does - theage.com.au:
  1.  Full text of Obama’s inauguration speech
  2. Obama promises the world hope in the midst of crisis
  3. ‘How good-looking is my wife?’: Obamas dazzle revellers at inaugural ball
  4. David Jones corks the champers as sales slump
  5. Israeli use of white phosphorus ‘undeniable’: Amnesty

Hats off Melbournians! You are truly a more enlightened bunch.

What about the rest of the country? Well, Fairfax’s very down market sites for QLD and WA don’t bode so well:

Brisbanetimes.com.au:
  1.  And the nominations for idiot of the year are…
  2. Obama’s first gaffe comes 11 words in
  3. Bigger buses better than ‘bananas’
  4. Car thief drives off with baby
  5. Murders expose Sydney’s underbelly

I believe the “Idiot of the year” awards are quite something. Still, that’s one more Obama story in the top 5 than smh.com.au, even though it’s incorrect (it was the Chief Justice who flubbed it, but it looked like Obama’s mistake).

And WAtoday.com.au?
  1.  A daughter’s shocking secret
  2. Dice with death bad news for Packer
  3. Northbridge bar convicted over law students’ pub crawl
  4. Thousands of jobs go as BHP cuts WA operations
  5. After Becks, it’s Posh’s turn to pose in Armani underwear

Nada. Can’t beat a good booze or undies story though!

Glad you’re paying attention Australia! ;)

Luke - it doesn’t necessarily mean that people don’t care or aren’t interested in Obama - just that:

1. There is nothing more the web can tell us about the event that we don’t already know from TV
2. We have reached saturation point where we know as much as we want to about Obama.

In the Syd Ang news room we had a bit of a debate about this - have people had enough already!

Indeed, I was interested to watch Obama’s speech / Warren’s prayer on TV (which I did) but I read the sports news online for light relief ;)

Also I think the economic recession (3 or your top 6 stories) is more directly relevant to our lives here in Australia.

The liberal media here has gone somewhat overboard in its saturation, fawning coverage. Readers know when they are being sold the same message again and again.

There was an interesting piece I read yesterday that which analysed news coverage of Obama from around the world. It found that the Chinese media had the most balanced coverage of the new Obama administration which analysed the implications for global relations.

Which country had the most superficial and one-sided coverage?

Australia.

Sounds interesting Jeremy, do you remember where you read that?

I must say the term “liberal media” makes my skin crawl a little. What do we need - Fox News to keep things “fair and balanced”? ;)

Also just wanted to add that while it may be the story lent itself to TV coverage, or everyone was over it, the differences between the smh.com.au vs theage.com.au are quite perplexing. I would assume it’s an apples to apples comparison given they run off the same platform, but who knows. I wonder if they’re counting clicks or just pageviews, if it’s the latter then external traffic (eg if stories get picked up on Google News or other aggregators) could significantly distort the results.

The source was Media Monitors.
There were a number of versions of the story:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-media-in-thrall-to-obama-20090120-7l1c.html

http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_f2756c08-cb73c03a-6545d200-30c25070

I didn’t mean liberal media pejoratively. And I’m certainly no fan of Fox news.

In contrast to Australia, European markets tend to have serious, broadsheet conservative press.

Thanks for the links.

I guess I’ve been reading too much US news/opinion as I always read “liberal media” in the pejorative sense, “liberal” being such a dirty word in the US it has been abandoned for “progressive”, but I take your point!

Thanks Luke.

Yes I could have said ‘progressive’ - but I prefer ‘liberal’ because its a more accurate description in that our press is both liberal in terms of being socially progressive and liberal in terms of being economically liberal - pro free trade etc. This is an important distinction because it helpfully shows that The Australian - although it aspires to being a conservative broadsheet - is barely distinguishable from the Fairfax broadsheets.

Indeed a truly ‘left’ wing paper would be progressive but anti-liberal. Go and read Green-Left Weekly for an example ;) 

Mind you in these post-ideological distinctions between Socialists, Whigs (liberals), and Torys (conservatives) are pretty blurry especially in Australia where our political parties cross these lines.