Talk:News.com.au

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal News.com.au is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

News quality[edit]

Wikipedians citing or otherwise researching a news.com.au story should note that most of the site's content is reproduced from one or more of Murdoch's Australian newspapers (usually The Australian). It may be useful to look at the specific newspaper sites, or if possible a service such as Lexis-Nexis or Factiva, to find a more specific source. ～J.K. 03:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per the note above, news.com.au has changed drastically in nine years and now has a dedicated team of more than 34 journalists as well as access to limited News Corp masthead content and the resources of the centralised News Corp Australia network team. It is regarded now as its own separate entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.49.173 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2014‎‎ (UTC)

I agree that it has changed dramatically. Now it is much more clickbait focused on scandals and American celebrity than national news and this was not the case even six years ago. The site today is often quite literally whatever gawker.com ran yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.182.144.38 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the above, news.com.au also syndicates content from WP:THESUN which has since been deprecated, so editors should be wary about where the syndicated content from this site was originally published. This can be found at the end of each article. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)News.com is one of the most biased media sites in Australia . Famous for it’s unsubstantiated misleading articles and it’s zealous pro Israel stance[reply]

Political bias[edit]

Seriously? Maybe it's not vandalism, but it certainly doesn't meet the content requirements for it to be included in the article. The claims about the site being 'Pro SSM' and 'anti-Trump' are in clear disregard of WP:NPOV (and this primary source is not a citation for these claims but a rather the basis for the editor's opinion – it looks a lot like original research). MediaBias/FactCheck and HonestReporting are not reliable sources for making a blanket statement that the site is politically biased. Kb.au (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on News.com.au. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150825042518/http://www.similarweb.com/country_category/australia/news_and_media to http://www.similarweb.com/country_category/australia/news_and_media

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit stating that the site has in recent years moved towards tabloid style journalism...[edit]

I made an edit stating that the site has in recent years moved towards tabloid style journalism by increasingly reporting about social media occurrences and reproducing articles from tabloids like the Sun in the UK. It was removed because I hadn’t cited a source…but the source is my direct observation of the decline in standards of the website. Any idea how to reference something like that?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.186.82.186 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to a new section at the bottom of the page.
To answer your question, if that analysis hasn't been published by anyone then we can't put it in the page, because Wikipedia has a policy against adding original research (which includes your own analysis of things and your original conclusions derived from other analyses). See: WP:NOR. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:34B1:F4B0:5089:8239 (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:SYNTH as well. I second 2804's comment. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the syndicated sun content may need a mention on WP:RSN if it hasn't been discussed there already. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News quality again[edit]

What will it take as a source to not be considered original research? Here and and here characterize the site as being terrible journalism. They are objectively sensationalist and essentially a mill of clickbait and tabloids articles about how much cleavage some celebrity is showing or how there's some shopping hack going around that "you won't believe!" Thornfield Hall (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Thornfield Hall[reply]