Talk:The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)

message: Bogan is an offensive word and shouldnt be used in this wayBurnt-sienna 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: I think the picture of the DT which shows the Cronulla riots is quite insensitive. Im not saying that such things should be censored or anything (it has its own article for christs sakes); all im saying is that a one-off occurence shouldn't be used to illustrate such an influential newspaper such as the Daily Telelgraph in a worldwide audience in the light that it is.
Of course all Sydneysiders know that it is a right-leaning publication and know that certain things are printed merely for the sale of newspapers, but do people from around the world know this? No.
I will be, within the next few days, be changing the picture to reflect a more 'average' front page than what Ianblair23 chose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalwow (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why. The SMH cover is from the same time, and there's little doubt that the riot at Cronulla was shameful. The cover does not reflect on the newspaper. Joestella 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Picture 

message: There is alot of rubbish that I am going to clean up here. You are kidding yourself if you think that the Tele is any less biased that the Herald. TheRE IS NONE OF THIS TYPE OF STUFF ON THE HERALD. --Ehinger222 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish 

message: The section "Coverage Style: Perceived Bias" was deleted without (in my opinion) a good reason. I believe it has a place in this article as The Daily Telegraph does have a reputation, either deserved or undeserved, of sensationalism and bias. Whether or not a similar segment is included on the 'Herald' is irrelevent to this article. Why should the contents of this article depend on the contents of another unrelated entry (except for the fact they're both about newspapers)? Basically: it should not.
I request others' input into this. In absence of a good reason not to (other than "no evidence of that, I read it" or "NONE OF THIS TYPE OF STUFF ON THE HERALD"), I will be restoring the "Coverage Style: Perceived Bias" section in about 24 hours. Thanks! --Youngvariety 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Restoration of the "Coverage Style: Percieved Bias" Section

message: I received no objections (see above) so I restored the "Percieved Bias" section. If anyone believes the "Telegraph" is treated unfairly, I suggest that individual discuss the issue here before making any edits to the "Perceived Bias" section (as I have done).
Incidentally, I am aware if the discussion regarding newspaper politics on the Sydney Morning Herald discussion page. However I respectfully disagree to those users opposed to leaving such sections out: some papers have been accused of being biased and/or sensationalist. The Daily Telegraph is one of them and I have noted that in the article. Others have noted and talked about it; the section I have just restored merely reports it: regardless of how consistantly the Telegraph "...toe[s] a consistent line... across all their content." --Youngvariety 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only just saw this section. It is extremely biased, but that's a case for a rewrite, not a removal. Good luck proving bias in any newspaper, at least to an encyclopaedic standard. I have read the sources and rewritten the section from a more neutral POV. The use of the sources had been deliberately and misleadingly selective. Joestella 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Deliberately and misleadingly selective"? I rather take offense to that. I suspect your view of this is itself an example of bias rather than the paragon of nuetrality you claim to support. I suggest that you provide evidence that any of the sources provided was innacurate before you go about making wild charges of dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngvariety (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coverage Style: Percieved Bias" Section Now Restored 

message: I'm assuming the sources are accurate. But their use is deliberately and misleadingly selective. 
* The Telegraph has been described as being tabloid and sensationalist in nature, engaging in what some call "hyena journalism." It would surprise anyone reading the source material to discover that the term "hyena journalism" refers specifically to coverage of John Brodgen's past, and that the professor does not once use the term "sensationalist" - or any derivative thereof. "Tabloid" is apparently used by the editor in a pejorative sense, since the Telegraph is physically a tabloid.
* Piers Akerman, a leading Daily Telegraph conservative columnist, admitted a rightward slant in his weblog. Ackerman appears to concede that he is a conservative in the comments attached to the blog. It is not at all clear that he considers the newspaper to be conservative, and in any case, the status of website comments as sources is weak. Both the SMH and the Tele run left and right "biased" columns, that's the nature of the op-ed page.
* Additionally, a 'media credibility' survey conducted by Roy Morgan International revealed the Daily Telegraph was second only to the Herald Sun (also a News Corporation venture) in which newspapers people believe "do not accurately and fairly report the news." Read the source, and you'll see that the winning entry in this question was "all" newspapers, followed by the highest circulation paper, then the second highest, then two of the other highest-circulation newspapers.
* As with other News Corporation ventures, the Telegraph is criticised for what some perceive to be right-wing bias. The source here is a joke. The authors have not made findings on media perspectives: their focus is on wages and welfare. They call the SMH "moderate" and the Tele "right-wing", but do so in passing, without evidence or justification. And how did the Wikipedia writer find this source? It's merely the top Google result for "right-wing Daily Telegraph" site:au that refers to the Sydney paper.
There's your evidence. The paragraphs I removed were heavily POV. Care to respond? Joestella 04:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberately and misleadingly selective 

message: What is our standard for the inclusion of Tele writers and other staff on this page? Joestella 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Staff. High profile columnists include Tim Blair? Outside of the blogosphere who has really heard of him? Piers Akerman at least has had a long and diverse career with a number of noteworthy confrontations. But Tim Blair? Will remove soon if there is no argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recurring dreams (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to pass wikipedia's criteria for notability. He should be in. Prester John 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because he satisfies WP Notability does not mean he is "high profile." Recurring dreams 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I've removed it, I'll add some further justification. Piers Akerman writes a regular column for the Tele and has his own blog on the paper website, has a long and eventful career in news journalism, appears on national television on a semi-regular basis, has been profiled in a main stream media article, and has been attacked in Federal parliament by a future Opposition leader. Tim Blair, while having a wikipedia entry (which incidentally other columnists/journalists do), seems to only write sporadically for the Tele (where are his articles? I've seen some, but I can't seem to find them), and has a blog. He is not "high-profile", other wise every columnist for the Tele would have to be deemed "high-profile." Recurring dreams 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staff	 

message: iv just realised that the picture of the papers front page is the one for the crolla riots on almost every major Australian papers wiki page including
The Courier-Mail, The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph, The Sydney Morning Herald & The West Australian
and that's just out of the ones I checked
WHAT IS GOING ON its not like this is the most defining moment in Australian history...
(going to post this on the riots page as well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viva43 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtle Australian bias? 

message: I really don't see why the Daily Telegraph's circulation in 2004 and is relevant. I propose deleting the following sentence:
"The circulation of the newspaper in the first half of 2004 was around 409,000 per day, the largest of a Sydney newspaper."
And replacing it with the latest circulation figures, which are 396,506 Mon-Fri and 342,739 on Saturdays as of June 2006 according to Roymorgan. See:
http://newsmedianet.com.au/home/titles/title/Demographics.jsp?titleid=1 BTAUS 02:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation 

message: I've reverted the example picture of this newspaper from a nausea inducing animated version to the former version. The animated version showed the original print edition scan, faded to white, then faded in a screenshot of the Daily Telegraph's website before flicking quickly back to the start of the animation. I have removed this for threefold reasons:
*1. The animated image was much lower quality than the former, but much larger in filesize because it was animated.
*2. The animated image flicked between pictures so quickly that it was very difficult to read or interpret anything. Additionally, the text of the webpage was impossible to read (one can only just make out the masthead in the corner).
*3. This type of image is not standard across other newspapers. Presumably the reason an image of a print version is given is because they would be hard to obtain. Websites are not so difficult to simply click the link at the bottom of the infobox. 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated Preview Picture? 

message: Although the article made clear that the newspaper believed that the state had failed the students, many accused the Telegraph of branding the students themselves as failures. The students successfully sued the newspaper for defamation.
This reads slightly one sided. Did the article make this clear? The fact that the students successfully sued the paper suggests that it didnt...? need citation from the court ruling and/or from the actual article to give this more credibility. Jpk82 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class we failed bias 

message: :Image:Dailytelegraph au.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dailytelegraph au.gif

message: :Image:Dailytelegraph au.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dailytelegraph au.gif

message: Sunday Telegraph is more left-wing endorsed labor at 2004, 2007, 2010 elections.Enidblyton11 (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunday Telegraph

message: I added a POV tag, but thought it best to raise it here as well. I was surprised when reading this article - at the moment, the article is almost entirely made up of a series of criticisms with quotes about findings. It gives the impression that this must be the most controversial newspaper in Australia, and that all criticisms of the paper are invariably upheld. I can understand incorporating criticism, but perhaps this could be reduced to a small section of only a couple of paragraphs? With some other content o balance it out a bit? - Bilby (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspaper articles as you would expect are notoriously controversial, even "Good Articles" such as the NY Times have several neutrality tags. I suggest we put some effort in this article and add a history, ownership and possibly online activity section so the emphasis on controversies is, at the very least,  reduced. Perhaps we should create a dedicated article on controversy to avoid WP:WEIGHT issues or redetermine whether the content in that section is notable at all. YuMaNuMa  Contrib  03:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Most of that section was added by one editor, their only edits to Wikipedia. See here. - 220 of Borg 02:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: :Most of that section was added by one editor, their only edits to Wikipedia. See here. - 220 of Borg 02:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 

message: I suggest the name of this article should be The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) to reflect better its origin, readership and subject matter. A reader from another country could gain the impression that the paper had a wider circulation than is the case.  Doug butler (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguator in title: The Daily Telegraph (Australia) 

message: I've just removed the following content for the second time:
=== Reporting around LGBTI People ===
In January 2017, the Daily Telegraph published an article concerning a transgender woman subsequently convicted of a violent axe attack in a Sydney suburb. Although her transgender status was irrelevant to the incident at the time, The Daily Telegraph used derogatory slurs and made repeated references to the attacker's  history of sex reassignment surgery, calling the woman a "tranny" who "had chopped herself".
The following week, SBS published an article expressing concern about how journalists "appear to enjoy treating transgender people as the punchline to a joke," singling out the Daily Telegraph's journalist.https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/01/25/comment-trans-people-are-not-punchline-joke-media-must-do-better-gender-identity
In September 2018, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered whether the article constituted unlawful vilification through its "gratuitous references to", and "ridicule of" the woman's transgender status.https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5b9ef377e4b0b9ab4020fa95  The Tribunal found that the Daily Telegraph published the article with "apparent disregard for the injurious effect it might have on transgender people." The Tribunal also held that, "it is evident that [the journalist] was seeking to make fun of Ms Amati and probably transgender people more generally," and that the "attempt at humour was in poor taste and completely devoid of empathy or sensitivity."  
Continuing, the Tribunal also held that the article "contributes to the perpetration and perpetuation of demeaning negative stereotypes and a lack of acceptance of transgender people within the community."  The Tribunal ultimately concluded that, whilst "close to the line", the article did not reach the threshold for vilification.https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5b9ef377e4b0b9ab4020fa95 
Lawyer Michael Bradley wrote an analysis of the case for political news website Crikey, arguing that the publication of such articles should not be unlawful, but instead that the Daily Telegraph should have sufficient social responsibility to cease publishing the author's "recklessly hurtful attempts at wit — because he did, and does, harm."https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/09/19/tim-blair-trans-vilification/
As of September 2018, the article has been removed from the website of the Daily Telegraph and replaced with a notice stating "This article is no longer available."https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/allegedly-axey-evie/news-story/
There are several problems with this material.
* The subhead is wrong: there was no "Reporting", just one snarky blog post.
* The subhead is wrong: the post was not about "LGBTI People", just about one person who attacked strangers with an axe and happens to be trans. Generalizations as rash as this do not belong on Wikipedia.
* The complaints were all dismissed, which makes them less than WP:Notable.
* Hostile opinion pieces from non-notable writers do not make this incident WikiNotable.
This text was added by , an energetic SPA, after I removed an earlier version. Pandy has repeatedly added similar material to Tim Blair. That material has now been removed and the article placed under Discretionary Sanctions by User:L235. See Talk:Tim Blair for details.
Besides, this article's list of negatives about the DT is surely long enough already, isn't it? Cheers, CWC 03:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  blog post about axe attacker 

message: In January 2017, the Daily Telegraph published an article concerning a transgender woman subsequently convicted of a violent axe attack in a Sydney suburb. Although her transgender status was irrelevant to the incident at the time, The Daily Telegraph used derogatory slurs and made repeated references to the attacker's  history of sex reassignment surgery, calling the woman a "tranny" who "had chopped herself".
The following week, SBS published an article expressing concern about how journalists "appear to enjoy treating transgender people as the punchline to a joke," singling out the Daily Telegraph's journalist.https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/01/25/comment-trans-people-are-not-punchline-joke-media-must-do-better-gender-identity
In September 2018, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered whether the article constituted unlawful vilification through its "gratuitous references to", and "ridicule of" the woman's transgender status.https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5b9ef377e4b0b9ab4020fa95  The Tribunal found that the Daily Telegraph published the article with "apparent disregard for the injurious effect it might have on transgender people." The Tribunal also held that, "it is evident that [the journalist] was seeking to make fun of Ms Amati and probably transgender people more generally," and that the "attempt at humour was in poor taste and completely devoid of empathy or sensitivity."  
Continuing, the Tribunal also held that the article "contributes to the perpetration and perpetuation of demeaning negative stereotypes and a lack of acceptance of transgender people within the community."  The Tribunal ultimately concluded that, whilst "close to the line", the article did not reach the threshold for vilification.https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5b9ef377e4b0b9ab4020fa95 
Lawyer Michael Bradley wrote an analysis of the case for political news website Crikey, arguing that the publication of such articles should not be unlawful, but instead that the Daily Telegraph should have sufficient social responsibility to cease publishing the author's "recklessly hurtful attempts at wit — because he did, and does, harm."https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/09/19/tim-blair-trans-vilification/
As of September 2018, the article has been removed from the website of the Daily Telegraph and replaced with a notice stating "This article is no longer available."https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/allegedly-axey-evie/news-story/
</blockquote>
There are several problems with this material.
* The subhead is wrong: there was no "Reporting", just one snarky blog post.
* The subhead is wrong: the post was not about "LGBTI People", just about one person who attacked strangers with an axe and happens to be trans. Generalizations as rash as this do not belong on Wikipedia.
* The complaints were all dismissed, which makes them less than WP:Notable.
* Hostile opinion pieces from non-notable writers do not make this incident WikiNotable.
This text was added by , an energetic SPA, after I removed an earlier version. Pandy has repeatedly added similar material to Tim Blair. That material has now been removed and the article placed under Discretionary Sanctions by User:L235. See Talk:Tim Blair for details.
Besides, this article's list of negatives about the DT is surely long enough already, isn't it? Cheers, CWC 03:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting around LGBTI People 

message: There is a vast gap here in the history of this newspaper, describing the decades of its re-Packer ownership. It has not always been as it is today. 59.167.234.198 (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the issue.  I didn’t see anything really wrong with the cites, such as here, and if the article text phrases the newspaper quote or stated stance as something said by the paper that seems proper.  Whether the quote is deserving a mention is still a judgement call, but I do not see the concern mentioned.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge Gap in History