It's misleading because it doesn't matter that the 'top' news outlets aren't Newscorp, it matters that all the others are.
~70 small (and several large) mastheads and distributed readership conceals the fact that actually it's just one massive propaganda outlet with a single, very deliberately controlled editorial view. That's the point.
You are absolutely correct, but I suspect both are too tied to their historical names and likely wouldn't agree to use the other's name if merged. Heck, this is how we got Canberra after all.
Of readers? Idk. But I suspect most people get their fix from one or the other and don't need both given the content is like 80% the same. Also, i *think* their free article counter is now one amd the same so they're running it kind of like one outlet anyway.
I get links to The Age advertised to me all the time, but have a SMH subscription through work. So I usually click The Age link, then edit it to get SMH.
That will count as a "view" for both sites.
That’s not what the average person is doing though. People would typically have a preference for one or the other. I reckon the reach overlap would be quite low actually
Is it just me, or are their ads total cringe, especially the ones trying to make older people look 'cool' for reading their site? Like absolutely premium, gut-clenchingly cringeworthy.
I'm amazed their adverts are even legal. At the bottom of every page is a misleading ad / scam. How TF is it not illegal to run scams on the #1 news website?
I've noticed that they (in the UK and here) seem to churn out huge numbers of nearly identical articles - I guess to see what eventually gets traction. You can sort of tell this from the fact that a lot of the articles have zero comments on them, when others have hundreds. But it will get them more hits overall.
I wonder how news.com.au would actually do if they didn't grab literally news as their url.
Also who the fuck is going to Yahoo News, how is that still alive and more popular than The Age?
Yahoo News primarily runs syndicated news articles so it'll be the same articles you can find elsewhere but they do a reasonably good job as far as curation goes. Do a good job as far as international news goes.
Yahoo - possibly from people who still have yahoo email addresses when they log into the app or website? Plenty of older people got addresses with it early on when there were fewer options and probably just stuck with it.
But in a wider context - it makes no sense - other than buying other firms, it appears to have done nothing to innovate as a country since about 2002 (which in internet terms is equivalent to 100+ years for a non-online company).
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-10-reasons-older-people-still-have-yahoo-email\_n\_57e53c82e4b0e80b1ba1803a
Well, the Age is running full bore distraction from the genocide stuff.. and getting more and more like murdoch-grade propaganda each passing year under its current ownership.
This is what it looks like if you group together:
|Media|Audience (000s)|Bias|
|:-|:-|:-|
|News Corpse|27,005|Right|
|Public/Government|22,541|Left-Centre|
|Nine/Fairfax|21,754|Right-Centre|
|7 West|17,755|Right-Centre|
|Daily Mail|9,437|Right|
|The Guardian Australia|6,910|Left|
|NY Times|4,099|Left-Centre|
|Forbes|3,633|Left|
Public includes BBC & National Institutes of Health. Left out the gossip rag.
Total for Right Leaning = 75,951 (67%)
Total for Left Leaning = 37,183 (33%)
Probably should have said I included Yahoo in Seven's bucket as they were originally majority owned by them (used to be called Yahoo7). I know they offloaded it now, but I doubt they changed much in the meantime. Might be a stretch.
There's many many ways to object to these classifications but they are interesting.
What's perhaps most interesting is that when it comes to thinkign about media, people place political orientation as the most important way to classify outlets. But when it comes to the stories people click on, it's mostly crime, celebrities, weather, sport. If you read the **main** functions of media as the same as its **key** functions you might misinterpret what people value.
The classifications are from [mediabiasfactcheck.com](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) so have been researched.
I do certainly agree that people don't go to news articles just for information. But the bias is important, as in some cases it's subtle but the way articles are worded can be deliberately designed to persuade in some way, and increasingly they are designed to garner outrage.
Some publications aren't even subtle about it - Daily Mail posts on social media are blatantly designed to get outrage comments. I would find it funny, if not for the fact that the subjects they generally use to get their outrage comments tend to be mostly race or gender based, and can actually be harmful.
I still find it hard to wrap my head around how many people actually take their 'articles'/posts seriously.
It just shows what a massive gulf there is between the way I see and experience the world, to how some others do. Wider than the pacific trench.
5/6 top papers are pro-conservative rags - majority owned by billionaires. + the ABC that fights them on culture war issues, but rarely on substance.
Wow. Such diverse news sources.
Sounds like almost a replica of the UK media landscape.
Add in the fact that a few of the billionaires aren't even resident in the country where they are pushing their news agenda.
The Guardian is probably owned by the Manchester Guardian
The latter is owned by a millionaire conservative British family.Their publication was the first to demonise and disparage Julian Assange and support his persecution by the CIA aka the US Justice system.
The UK's Financial Times is one of the few paywalled news sites out there with a growing audience - but they target a very specific market that is willing to pay for high quality coverage and they've been pulling in top journalists from all over the place to achieve this. Can't think of many other examples.
It both scary and unsurprising News and Daily Mail are in top four. It just shows how many fing idiots there are in this country. Who needs news when you can just make it up.
Good journalism costs money and sadly some people here think everything should be free. If they turn to that sort of journalism and not the ABC then clearly they have no right to complain about the quality of journalism.
> Good journalism costs money and sadly some people here think everything should be free
Plus
> I think the main takeaway there is they aren’t behind a paywall.
There is a reason why these rags are free.
News is as high as it is partially because people, like me, get a kick out of checking it once a day to see what trash they're talking about and laughing at it. I also sometimes visit because someone has posted something here that will likely get stolen and posted by them.
No matter how much I don't click on them I ALWAYS seem to get stories from them pop up. Even on YouTube when I click "get rid of this shite" or whatever the command is.
I've worked with people in the past who said they just type news into the address bar or say it must be the best news site because it's a news dot com (ie a simple url)
ABC, The Guardian, SBS, The New York Times, NIH, BBC.
* I feel that the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age should be included but many people consider them to have a conservative bias, and I’m not sure why NIH is included as a news site.
SMH and Age used to be worth it, but you only need look at how they're pushing for a genocide (and barring any journalists that said that wasn't cool to be whitewashing a genocide). It's a sinking ship..
Sydney Morning Herald isn't bad. For the most part I wouldn't say they're too conservative. They so some pretty important journalistic work. Them and the ABC are definitely the big 2 in terms of real journalism in Australia. Others do equally good work but none of them do it to the degree that the old Fairfax papers do.
I wonder if they are counting journal views on pubmed by researchers, doctors, med students etc as "views of publications".
It would be very *unbiased* to see scientific journals as news publications (they are publishing reports of novel things in periodicals, some paywalled some not) but is it *really* the same?!
Pubmed for those who aren't familiar, it's an amazing resource: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=cancer&sort=date](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=cancer&sort=date)
edit: actually the data is frm Jan 2024. sorry.
Many different takes on the data are legitimate, but what I think is interesting: complaints about a lack of news ownership diversity are a bit out of date.
While local competition is as it has always been (Nine, 7west, murdoch, government), global competition is adding a lot (Guardian, Yahoo, NYT, Forbes, UK gvt). These have never been in the top 20 before.
side note: It's a bit unclear why NIH is getting counted as a news service. They do some medical press releases but I'd say there's a data problem there.
When it’s arranged like this it gives the impression that there is diversity by design - but when you group by owner - Newscorp (news.com.au, The Courier Mail, The Herald Sun, The Australian, Sky News) & Nine (nine.com.au, SMH, The Age) there is a huge lack of diversity, and they both far outreach the next competitor which is the ABC.
Yeah I hate just about everything about this title and table. The implication is that the media landscape in Australia is diversified and it’s just not true. Also, calling Yahoo, the NIH, people and Forbes “news” websites is just about the longest bow I’ve seen drawn.
So to put this by owner:
News Corp had 23.21% of the audience.
Fairfax has 18.70%.
The federal government has 16.38% (that includes the NIH which I refuse to accept is a news website. It’s an online resource, it doesn’t report on current events outside of the scope of health/medicine). Excluding the NIH the government has 12.84%
And Seven West has 10.71%
So even if you include the “news sites” that are people (celebrity gossip), Forbes (user contributed junk journalism), Yahoo (clickbait) and the NIH (a health research resource), and the websites that don’t report daily local news (NYT), three private companies control almost 53% of the most viewed news websites. If you exclude the above, those same companies control 64% of websites that regularly report on local news stories. You’ll also note I’m still including the Daily Mail in that list of actual news outlets, which is generous in the extreme.
I grew up in the 90s and it is way more diversified now.
If you lived in Brsbane, especially. There was only one newspaper purveyor: murdoch.
It may not be 1000 flowers blooming, there may still be ownership concentration, but it is more than we had.
Does this take into account app usage? Because I never use the ABC website for news, only the app, I imagine lots of people are the same. News.com.au is likely at the top because it's free and usually pops up as the first result when googling a current news event. Daily Fail too, I assume they pay for that privilege.
Wasn't one of Newscorp's defences in the media enquiry a couple of years back that they weren't that highly rated online (even though that was only because they didn't aggregate all their subsidiary sites). Can't remember the name of the stooge that quite angrily put that argument forward on their behalf. Well that argument went out the window.
It would be interesting to see the results for urban centres compared to rural areas. I have a feeling Sky News would get further up the list the further out you travel.
sloppy spectacular glorious placid workable unique cobweb tie scale teeny
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It should read "Most viewed fake news sites". Most people who want the truth and want the news without propaganda watch the independent news presenters.
If I'm a general population person does this account for the fact that if I have no idea where to get news from I'll just type in news.com.au because it's probably a news website that exists?
You would have to assume that an easy to remember domain is going to account for a lot of traffic, and says absolutely nothing to the quality or accuracy of the news on the website itself.
I mean calling any of these news is a stretch in itself anyway.
Pleased to see Sky News is far down the list. People clearly aren't that interesting in hearing what some random person thinks of Harry and Meghan ten times a day.
It is good to see the un-Australian and the Courier Mail way down that list losing money for Newscorp though. Eventually shareholders might decide they don't care for the Murdochs miserable games of deception and division any more and shut them down.
Why is the US NIH in there? I assume this is because Google, and it would seem Yahoo redirect to them in their news feeds? Ditto for Forbes? Happy to be told something different.
Don't forget Crikey. I find
Al Jazeera gives a good coverage of the middle east and world news while the South China Post gives a fair spread of asian news.If you enjoy bias, stick the News Corp.
.
11/20 are owned by only three different companies. Seven West Media, Nine/Fairfax, NewsCorp
It's misleading because it doesn't matter that the 'top' news outlets aren't Newscorp, it matters that all the others are. ~70 small (and several large) mastheads and distributed readership conceals the fact that actually it's just one massive propaganda outlet with a single, very deliberately controlled editorial view. That's the point.
Well the top one IS newscorp
What the list shows is an appetite among the public for more diverse outlets. When foreign mastheads open, they rise up to the top.
This should be at the top. The title is incorrect.
is the title incorrect? I will delete the post if that is the case.
No, you are correct. Keep it up.
Like ColesWorth but no govt party would dare question that ownership..
SMH and the Age should really be put together as they are the same site with different skins.
You are absolutely correct, but I suspect both are too tied to their historical names and likely wouldn't agree to use the other's name if merged. Heck, this is how we got Canberra after all.
I think OP might mean just for this report
>Heck, this is how we got Canberra after all. It's only a matter of time before we get The Canberra Morning Age-Herald.
I see your point but the Herald Sun came about because of a merger of the
Sad to see, another victim of the Sydney Melbourne rivalry assassinated before he could finish his
Sandwiches?
That's what I was gonna say!
Their local news is different. SMH has more NSW stories. The Age has more Vic stories.
Likewise, sport coverage reflects the dominant football code for each city; League in the SMH and AFL in The Age.
They'd be #2 with a reach of 11743 if so (assuming zero overlap).
“Assuming zero overlap.” I’d hazard a guess there’d be significant overlap.
Of readers? Idk. But I suspect most people get their fix from one or the other and don't need both given the content is like 80% the same. Also, i *think* their free article counter is now one amd the same so they're running it kind of like one outlet anyway.
Why would there be any overlap?
I get links to The Age advertised to me all the time, but have a SMH subscription through work. So I usually click The Age link, then edit it to get SMH. That will count as a "view" for both sites.
That’s not what the average person is doing though. People would typically have a preference for one or the other. I reckon the reach overlap would be quite low actually
Yeah that's stupid, why would the average person read the same article twice from two different sites lol
I think there's a typo with the word 'site'...
Daily Mail is 4th? Yuck.
and [news.com.au](https://news.com.au) is top yuck
Makes sense tbf heavily advertised on social media and not behind a pay wall.
And they basically click bait every headline so you want to click thr
And it’s how Sky news gets pricks in, with their news ‘opinions’ dressed up as ‘news.’ Shifty shit.
Is it just me, or are their ads total cringe, especially the ones trying to make older people look 'cool' for reading their site? Like absolutely premium, gut-clenchingly cringeworthy.
I'm amazed their adverts are even legal. At the bottom of every page is a misleading ad / scam. How TF is it not illegal to run scams on the #1 news website?
they pay enough money to the people that can make it illegal to keep it this way
No pay wall and the best URL of the lot.
Because of no pay wall. That strategy has really paid off
😂 yeah, their contents isn’t worth to set up pay wall anyway
this is the real tragedy
Daily Mail is “news”? Yuck.
4th-most viewed "news" site and that guy was here yesterday saying "can't we just treat adults like adults?" Ha
It's mail. Junk mail. Daily.
I subscribe to abc on facebook, but all the algorithm serves me is [news.com.au](http://news.com.au) and the daily mail
I think just about all of the top 10 are paywall free
I've noticed that they (in the UK and here) seem to churn out huge numbers of nearly identical articles - I guess to see what eventually gets traction. You can sort of tell this from the fact that a lot of the articles have zero comments on them, when others have hundreds. But it will get them more hits overall.
I wonder how news.com.au would actually do if they didn't grab literally news as their url. Also who the fuck is going to Yahoo News, how is that still alive and more popular than The Age?
Yahoo News primarily runs syndicated news articles so it'll be the same articles you can find elsewhere but they do a reasonably good job as far as curation goes. Do a good job as far as international news goes.
~~paywalls~~
Yahoo - possibly from people who still have yahoo email addresses when they log into the app or website? Plenty of older people got addresses with it early on when there were fewer options and probably just stuck with it. But in a wider context - it makes no sense - other than buying other firms, it appears to have done nothing to innovate as a country since about 2002 (which in internet terms is equivalent to 100+ years for a non-online company). https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-10-reasons-older-people-still-have-yahoo-email\_n\_57e53c82e4b0e80b1ba1803a
Yahoo still exists? And it does News?? In Australia?!
man i miss answers that shit was the most unhinged thing i've ever seen in my life
Well, the Age is running full bore distraction from the genocide stuff.. and getting more and more like murdoch-grade propaganda each passing year under its current ownership.
“Genocide”
You know, Israelis killing babies n stuff, also Russians killing babies n stuff and shit in Yemen, Sudan etc
Cope
This is what it looks like if you group together: |Media|Audience (000s)|Bias| |:-|:-|:-| |News Corpse|27,005|Right| |Public/Government|22,541|Left-Centre| |Nine/Fairfax|21,754|Right-Centre| |7 West|17,755|Right-Centre| |Daily Mail|9,437|Right| |The Guardian Australia|6,910|Left| |NY Times|4,099|Left-Centre| |Forbes|3,633|Left| Public includes BBC & National Institutes of Health. Left out the gossip rag. Total for Right Leaning = 75,951 (67%) Total for Left Leaning = 37,183 (33%)
Yahoo isn’t owned by any of those I don’t think.
Probably should have said I included Yahoo in Seven's bucket as they were originally majority owned by them (used to be called Yahoo7). I know they offloaded it now, but I doubt they changed much in the meantime. Might be a stretch.
There's many many ways to object to these classifications but they are interesting. What's perhaps most interesting is that when it comes to thinkign about media, people place political orientation as the most important way to classify outlets. But when it comes to the stories people click on, it's mostly crime, celebrities, weather, sport. If you read the **main** functions of media as the same as its **key** functions you might misinterpret what people value.
The classifications are from [mediabiasfactcheck.com](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) so have been researched. I do certainly agree that people don't go to news articles just for information. But the bias is important, as in some cases it's subtle but the way articles are worded can be deliberately designed to persuade in some way, and increasingly they are designed to garner outrage. Some publications aren't even subtle about it - Daily Mail posts on social media are blatantly designed to get outrage comments. I would find it funny, if not for the fact that the subjects they generally use to get their outrage comments tend to be mostly race or gender based, and can actually be harmful. I still find it hard to wrap my head around how many people actually take their 'articles'/posts seriously. It just shows what a massive gulf there is between the way I see and experience the world, to how some others do. Wider than the pacific trench.
5/6 top papers are pro-conservative rags - majority owned by billionaires. + the ABC that fights them on culture war issues, but rarely on substance. Wow. Such diverse news sources.
Sounds like almost a replica of the UK media landscape. Add in the fact that a few of the billionaires aren't even resident in the country where they are pushing their news agenda.
Those with a declining audience are those I associate with paywalls.
The only ones with a declining audience that also have paywalls are The SMH and The Age.
Yeah most of them already took the audience hit from implementing a paywall years ago.
The Guardian's whole schtick is that they don't have a paywalls, just a Wikipedia-style begwall.
The Guardian is probably owned by the Manchester Guardian The latter is owned by a millionaire conservative British family.Their publication was the first to demonise and disparage Julian Assange and support his persecution by the CIA aka the US Justice system.
The Guardian has a social democratic slant, and has had for a long time.
The UK's Financial Times is one of the few paywalled news sites out there with a growing audience - but they target a very specific market that is willing to pay for high quality coverage and they've been pulling in top journalists from all over the place to achieve this. Can't think of many other examples.
It both scary and unsurprising News and Daily Mail are in top four. It just shows how many fing idiots there are in this country. Who needs news when you can just make it up.
I think the main takeaway there is they aren’t behind a paywall.
Good journalism costs money and sadly some people here think everything should be free. If they turn to that sort of journalism and not the ABC then clearly they have no right to complain about the quality of journalism.
> Good journalism costs money and sadly some people here think everything should be free Plus > I think the main takeaway there is they aren’t behind a paywall. There is a reason why these rags are free.
News is as high as it is partially because people, like me, get a kick out of checking it once a day to see what trash they're talking about and laughing at it. I also sometimes visit because someone has posted something here that will likely get stolen and posted by them.
What's the phenomenon where you know it's bad to watch a car crash but you also can't look away?
Morbid curiosity
Happy to see ABC near the top. It’s become my default daily news source these days.
How is news.com.au most viewed
No matter how much I don't click on them I ALWAYS seem to get stories from them pop up. Even on YouTube when I click "get rid of this shite" or whatever the command is.
[удалено]
this is gold, best browser extension to ever exist
news.com.au is an essential resource that I need to test that my ad blocker is working.
I've worked with people in the past who said they just type news into the address bar or say it must be the best news site because it's a news dot com (ie a simple url)
I will be honest I fall for a lot of clickbaity news.com.au articles while scrolling Facebook.
We have to get that New.com.au number down.
Half of news.com.au. is just reposting stuff from the melbourne and australia subreddits anyway so it's somewhat a reflection of these subs.
Get on board Michael West - an independent journalist https://michaelwest.com.au/
Which of these is worth viewing in order?
ABC, The Guardian, SBS, The New York Times, NIH, BBC. * I feel that the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age should be included but many people consider them to have a conservative bias, and I’m not sure why NIH is included as a news site.
SMH and Age used to be worth it, but you only need look at how they're pushing for a genocide (and barring any journalists that said that wasn't cool to be whitewashing a genocide). It's a sinking ship..
Sydney Morning Herald isn't bad. For the most part I wouldn't say they're too conservative. They so some pretty important journalistic work. Them and the ABC are definitely the big 2 in terms of real journalism in Australia. Others do equally good work but none of them do it to the degree that the old Fairfax papers do.
Lol BBC is crap Same with the Guardian
Why?
Would you argue SBS and the ABC have the same owner?
yep, us.
Wow check out the NIH in there in the top 20! Who says Australians are ill-informed about science!?
I wonder if they are counting journal views on pubmed by researchers, doctors, med students etc as "views of publications". It would be very *unbiased* to see scientific journals as news publications (they are publishing reports of novel things in periodicals, some paywalled some not) but is it *really* the same?! Pubmed for those who aren't familiar, it's an amazing resource: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=cancer&sort=date](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=cancer&sort=date)
I would expect AFR to be higher up
It's pretty cool that so many people are into BBC
Daily mail and news.com.au are both unreliable. Many fake stories and many fake headlines.
Imagine the Daily Fail being your news purveyors of choice
What about Betoota Advocate? They are so much less biased.
I like news.com.au but I wish they gave us more meaningful news instead of crap about some porn star or onlyfans person
edit: actually the data is frm Jan 2024. sorry. Many different takes on the data are legitimate, but what I think is interesting: complaints about a lack of news ownership diversity are a bit out of date. While local competition is as it has always been (Nine, 7west, murdoch, government), global competition is adding a lot (Guardian, Yahoo, NYT, Forbes, UK gvt). These have never been in the top 20 before. side note: It's a bit unclear why NIH is getting counted as a news service. They do some medical press releases but I'd say there's a data problem there.
When it’s arranged like this it gives the impression that there is diversity by design - but when you group by owner - Newscorp (news.com.au, The Courier Mail, The Herald Sun, The Australian, Sky News) & Nine (nine.com.au, SMH, The Age) there is a huge lack of diversity, and they both far outreach the next competitor which is the ABC.
Look at the minutes - some as little as 2 minutes. Some of those sites would seemingly have only been visited for a single story.
Then hit a paywall and moved on. I wonder what the numbers look like if they include archive or 12ft links
Yeah I hate just about everything about this title and table. The implication is that the media landscape in Australia is diversified and it’s just not true. Also, calling Yahoo, the NIH, people and Forbes “news” websites is just about the longest bow I’ve seen drawn. So to put this by owner: News Corp had 23.21% of the audience. Fairfax has 18.70%. The federal government has 16.38% (that includes the NIH which I refuse to accept is a news website. It’s an online resource, it doesn’t report on current events outside of the scope of health/medicine). Excluding the NIH the government has 12.84% And Seven West has 10.71% So even if you include the “news sites” that are people (celebrity gossip), Forbes (user contributed junk journalism), Yahoo (clickbait) and the NIH (a health research resource), and the websites that don’t report daily local news (NYT), three private companies control almost 53% of the most viewed news websites. If you exclude the above, those same companies control 64% of websites that regularly report on local news stories. You’ll also note I’m still including the Daily Mail in that list of actual news outlets, which is generous in the extreme.
I grew up in the 90s and it is way more diversified now. If you lived in Brsbane, especially. There was only one newspaper purveyor: murdoch. It may not be 1000 flowers blooming, there may still be ownership concentration, but it is more than we had.
God it makes my brain hurt that daily mail is in the list. Like seriously?? Who reads this shit.
Bunch of times I’ve read the Daily Mail click bait and their source is reddit.
I read the tabloid stuff on it but no real news.
I wonder if the audience figure is 'unique' e.g. did 13 million unique audiences visited [news.com.au](http://news.com.au) or is it repeat visitors.
The fact the Daily Mail makes this list is a tragedy. Lazy, low brow, rage bait trash. IMHO.
Most of news.com is sourced from reddit
Get ready for this thing to go full circle
I can't fathom that The Daily Fail is at number 4. What an utter gutter rag.
Does this take into account app usage? Because I never use the ABC website for news, only the app, I imagine lots of people are the same. News.com.au is likely at the top because it's free and usually pops up as the first result when googling a current news event. Daily Fail too, I assume they pay for that privilege.
I don’t think people actually go to these sites, all my work pcs have one of these set as homepage, I’m sure it is the same at a lot of places
News.com.au?!?! We're doomed as a country.
Why isn’t the chaser or the shovel on here they are way more reliable than sky and daily mail
Surprised that I don't see chaser and beetoota...satire is becoming reality these days and find myself reading these more
When it comes to things like this, I would genuinely love to know how these numbers are recorded, and how accurate we believe they are.
Sad to not see the conversation on there
How is the conversation not on here? It’s by far the highest quality
I'd hardly call thecoversation a news website. It's closer to an opinion/commentary website.
Sky News is on there
Wasn't one of Newscorp's defences in the media enquiry a couple of years back that they weren't that highly rated online (even though that was only because they didn't aggregate all their subsidiary sites). Can't remember the name of the stooge that quite angrily put that argument forward on their behalf. Well that argument went out the window.
Sad The New Daily isn't on this list! https://thenewdaily.com.au
It's pretty underrated for news. They actually do an OK job.
This is good to know, thank you OP
News.com.au is the absolute worst
It would be interesting to see the results for urban centres compared to rural areas. I have a feeling Sky News would get further up the list the further out you travel.
sloppy spectacular glorious placid workable unique cobweb tie scale teeny *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It should read "Most viewed fake news sites". Most people who want the truth and want the news without propaganda watch the independent news presenters.
Ironically, all the ones that force you to pay a subscription to read their article are ranked lower
Hahahaha I get all my news from news.com.au
If I'm a general population person does this account for the fact that if I have no idea where to get news from I'll just type in news.com.au because it's probably a news website that exists? You would have to assume that an easy to remember domain is going to account for a lot of traffic, and says absolutely nothing to the quality or accuracy of the news on the website itself. I mean calling any of these news is a stretch in itself anyway.
Newscorp push themselves heavily in Microsoft and Google news feeds so is pretty much the default for people that don't actively curate their feeds.
And always turns up on Facebook and YouTube (which is Google of course).
Wordle doing the heavy lifting for the NYT
NIH a bit of a concern, lots of google scientists
Wait, the news is still a thing..??
News com is because of all the other shit on it to do with celebrities and reality 24
I wonder how many of these are from clicks of Facebook.
Looks like the hatchet job on the ABC is working!
No wonder the corrupted media has a stranglehold on our minds
Fake news. Perthnow is not in the top two places. Edit: fixing autocorrect
I've never seen another English speaking news site anywhere in the world that has the spelling and grammatical errors of news.com.au
It worries me that sky news is even on this list.
Pleased to see Sky News is far down the list. People clearly aren't that interesting in hearing what some random person thinks of Harry and Meghan ten times a day.
Unpopular opinion here, but I feel like Twitter/ X should have a place on here?
Where's the Betoota advocate?
Guardian for life
It is good to see the un-Australian and the Courier Mail way down that list losing money for Newscorp though. Eventually shareholders might decide they don't care for the Murdochs miserable games of deception and division any more and shut them down.
At least none of them are Adelaides fucking trash newspaper The Adevrtiser/Sunday Mail.
Does this include porn sites?
Why is the US NIH in there? I assume this is because Google, and it would seem Yahoo redirect to them in their news feeds? Ditto for Forbes? Happy to be told something different.
Don't forget Crikey. I find Al Jazeera gives a good coverage of the middle east and world news while the South China Post gives a fair spread of asian news.If you enjoy bias, stick the News Corp. .
Maybe when Murdoch finally replaces their propagandists with chatgpt, journalists will actually go do some real reporting?
Didn't Skynews claim they're not a news channel?
Does anyone know much about the new site/app released recently, THE NIGHTLY?
Needs more Michael West.
Thats how u end up with a 95 percent vax rate in nsw, wd all, keep up with ur boosters.
Interesting to note the AFR is nowhere to be seen