Talk:The West Australian

Australia: Western Australia / Perth Mid‑importance

The West Australian 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Perth (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Adjusted to locally edited as the Australian is print by news limited and distrubuted daily in Perth as well Gnangarra 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a number of statements using words like many, rarely, concerned, etc. Also comment like 'Doesnt respone to crtiques' though probable factual they all need to have a reference or be reword Gnangarra 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black: how can you mount an attack on a paper's journalistic style with a one-sided rant such as this, packed with unsourced and unsubstantiated claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.59.1 (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The West is a sham of a news provider and practically a mouthpiece for the Liberal party, proof of this exists through its coverage (especially in and around the 2005 election and the Kucera/Birney affairs) but for some reason the article resorts only to vague allegations. Coverage of Paul Armstrong's fines for various things for instance as well as quotes from Bob Hawke from 2005 would give sources to the issues raised. To a neutral reader the page seems hysterical - the business section, for example, is widely respected and its employment pages are institutional. Also the History section is quite incomplete - eg the attempt to become a local newspaper in the 1960s, the Western Mail buyout etc. Really the article needs an overhaul to bring it up to the standard of the pages for eastern states dailies.

Orderinchaos78 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

All West Australian newspaper articles (ie Sunday Times, the lack of anything about the two western mails, the independent, the daily news and the west australian) are very low quality, maybe some effort should be put into them as they reflect badly on the wa/perth project - considering how much the current newspapers get away with unsourced news materials (anyone notice the west has dropped sourcing stories) and the fact that they have the cheek to lift stuff off wikipedia :)

SatuSuro 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You don't have to read The West, and shouldn't the discussion page be about the quality of the article and how it can be improved. Also, all of those citations could easily be sourced from the website.I like Radiohead 10:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find 75% of my comment was about the article - which I note is still in need of radical improvement - and almost none of the items I mentioned would be on the website (they don't even keep their own articles beyond a few weeks).

Orderinchaos78 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is shite. Yes the newspaper may have its bias, but you do not need to fall to its level. And rather than appear as appraisal of this newspaper, it sounds more like a sounding board for somebody with issues. Kransky 10:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll find much disagreement with your view, to be honest. My personal preference would be to rip the article up and start again as a collaborative research effort with anyone who wants to contribute warmly invited, so that way we don't even have to work with what we've got to produce a quality article about one of Australia's oldest continuous newspapers. There are pro and anti views which need to be considered and accommodated, the current article manages to do neither. (I see SatuSuro and myself are thinking along similar lines - we've both been concerned by the quality of this article for around 9 months).

Orderinchaos78 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree completely. The West as a paper isn't worth wiping my bum with, but that's not relevant to a site that's supposed to be a source of quasi-encyclopedic content. The article needs to be reworked, and the full history the paper researched. Furthermore this history should take precedence in terms of the article's focus - the very valid criticisms of the paper's bias and quality can go in a criticisms section, where they belong Xlh 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - it probably needs to be either completely re-written, or otherwise - a systemic editing to bring it to a reasonable standard - the newspaper is at a low standard in a total australian context - and deserves criticism - a much earlier form, of this article read like a PR piece. The west in its current form is a mere pimple on the backside of its historical context and relevance in west australian history

SatuSuro 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we only disambiguate ambiguous article titles. "The West Australian" is not ambiguous as far as I know, i.e. there's nothing else it can refer to other than the newspaper, so we don't need to disambiguate. The exception to the "only disambiguate ambiguous titles" rule is if some WikiProject has agreed in advance to predisambiguate every article of a particular kind, such as the agreement to predisambiguate all Australian towns by naming them in the form Town, State. I'm not aware that any such agreement has been made for newspapers. Snottygobble 01:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem is, for a non-western australian reader - there is nothing to identify it as a newspaper?

User:SatuSuro 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you suggest a situation in which a non-WA reader will see a link to the article without any context telling them its a newspaper? Looking at the "what links here" for the article, I'm seeing a lot of references of the form:

"In 2006, The West Australian newspaper has run a series of articles highlighting the awful state of the Halls Creek indigenous population."

Snottygobble 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Point. Maybe there is no need at this stage, but I would hazard a guess that the Sunday Times qualifier of 'Western Australia' is a useful one, because of the commonality over time of newspapers with that name, and in many parts of the english speaking world. We just have to wait until something or somebody makes a claim in a novel title, or appelation of or pertaining to 'The West Australian' which is not a newspaper to make the disambiuation then, until then, we leave it to stand alone?

User:SatuSuro 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds right to me. There was a famous racehorse named "West Australian", but without the "The" in front. Snottygobble 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the cut sections are now at Talk:The West Australian/cut section Gnangarra 11:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's accepted by both advocates and critics of the West Australian newspaper who have written above and on talk pages around the place that this article is a sorry mess, and has been for a long time (at least 9 months as far as I'm aware). Rather than leave it as such, what are people's ideas on how to fix it or replace it? One idea may be to form a point list in this talk page (perhaps initially based on one of the better pages on this topic elsewhere), leave it for a couple of weeks so a range of people can add to or comment on it, and then build paragraphs around the dot points. Also a reference list of books, articles and journals which can be used for sourcing information.

There no FA newspapers to take a lead from, there are two articles that have achieved GA status, The Wall Street Journal, The Western Star after reading both I'm suprised that the WSJ is GA. WSJ has a very short history section for a paper thats been in circulation since 1882 and the article focuses a significant portion on the present publication. Western Star focus on its history seperate ownership and publications is interesting. Combination of the two offers a good basis, my thoughts

• :History - sectioned to diff periods, focus on pub type/style, print locations Gnangarra 10:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absorption of other newspapers in the early days gives a false sense of which the first real west was - as there were other take over - need careful delineation

SatuSuro 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

is there any easy way to mark off the history? clearly the Perth Gazette was one phase.

Orderinchaos78 11:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Best way is to go to henrietta and check what they determine as the earlier forms

SatuSuro 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Front page as reproduced in Savvas/Gaylard [1] - "The West Australian," which first appeared as "The Perth Gazette and Western Australian Journal" on January 5, 1833, to-day commemorates its centenary." rest of supplement on microfilm (will check today)
    Orderinchaos78 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

OK tricky one - The Daily News was separate then taken over - however WA News as a publisher has over 100 years been printer and publisher of a whole range of things - are we to mention non newspapers too?

SatuSuro 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In general yes but conditional to detail non newspaper publications - provided the publication is notiable in its own right Gnangarra

• Weekend News
• Daily News - should rate its own article, especially as a daughter art of WAN. Gnangarra

(at various stages attempts at weekly/monthly feature magazines - like Pic-Mag in the late 40s and early 50's -

• Regional editions (east suburban section for example) for a while in the 60's. (Battye has pretty good info on these) - went into the early 70s.
• acquistiion of the quokka

• Notable Editors - Editorial philosopy

recent ones are Paul Murray (1990-2000) Brian Rogers (Aug 2000-resigned Jun 2003) and Paul Armstrong (appointed 8 Aug 2003, joined Feb 2003 as business editor (from Evening Standard) took up role 10 Sep 2003 - source [2]) - get a list going back (shouldn't be too hard)

Orderinchaos78 11:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Neither arte really notable compared to the earlier ones - shows what limited understanding we have of the history. One could say that Armstrong is invisible and Murray is large in size....

SatuSuro 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK

Paul Murray (6PR radio presenter), hey this page needs a new title as he aint with 6pr any more Gnangarra 13:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Moved to Paul Murray (journalist). —Moondyne 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List from 1983 anniv edition (entire supp republished in Gaylard [3] p.6 (will get WA cite today)) lists:

Charles Macfaull (5 Jan 1833- death 13 Dec 1846) obit 19 Dec 1846, Mr Arthur Shenton (Owner, editor 1 Jan 1848-death 16 Mar 1871), Mr Henry Hullock (1871?-1879) (renamed WA Times "by syndicate of prominent settlers" in 1874, then "WA" as present from 18 Nov 1879), Sir Thomas Cockburn-Campbell (managing director, part owner 1879-1887) appointed after Mr Charles Harper (died 1912) bought out syndicate, Sir

John Winthrop Hackett Senior (1887-1913 editor and part owner, 1913-death 19 Feb 1916 sole owner), Mr George Wickham (very briefly in 1916), Sir Alfred Langler (1916-1927 editor, governing director), WA Newspapers Ltd formed 1926 (UWA received £425,000 and Anglican Church £138,000 - how come? answer: this was from Hackett's estate which was being managed by Wickham then Langler, the 138k paid for St George's College at UWA - source as per Hackett article) Mr H J Lambert (1929-1946, editor), Mr E C de Burgh (1946-1956), Mr W T G Richards (1956-1972), Mr Malcolm C (Bon) Uren (1972-1983). From 1927 owners were: C.P.Smith (came from Melbourne Argus) (1927-1951), Mr James Macartney (1951-retirement 1969) (first editor of radio magazine The Broadcaster (a WAN weekly first pub 1934), editor of Daily News (bought by WAN in 1935), company taken over by Herald & Weekly Times Ltd of Melbourne in 1969 - Sir Keith Macpherson of Melbourne (1970-1975). later - Editors Don Smith (1983-1987) Don Baker (1987-1990) - Bob Cronin (editor in chief 1987-1996), took a run for Stirling

in 2001

Desperately trying to be a tabloid -

SatuSuro 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

smirking, Was thinking WSJ format :) plus distribution country/city editions Gnangarra 12:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep this talk page on the topic of how to improve the article, please, okay? Hesperian 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken - but the history - for some of us - is more important than the present - as the current context is a mere shadow of its history - we now have enough history on this talk page to do a good history section, I would say - someone - go for it !

SatuSuro 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I now have some full text stuff from very old papers, and a timeline - where should I chuck it?

Orderinchaos78 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Perth Gazette and Western Australian Journal (5 January 1833 to 25 December 1847
  • Weekly on Saturdays
  • Initially was a four-page publication (source WA 17/11/1979 p.39)
• Perth Gazette and Independent Journal of Politics and News (1 January 1848 to 30 September 1864)
  • Weekly on Saturdays until 21 April 1849
  • Weekly on Fridays thereafter
• Western Australian Times (separate publication) (1 October 1863 to end of Sep 1864)
• Perth Gazette and Western Australian Times (merged) (7 October 1864 to 26 June 1874)
• Western Australian Times (3 July 1874 to 14 November 1879)
  • Both weekly on Fridays
• The West Australian (18 November 1879 onwards)
  • 18 Nov 1879 - 16 Oct 1883 - Tue, Fri
  • 18 Oct 1883 - 23 Dec 1884 - Tue, Thu, Sat
  • 01 Jan 1885--> - Daily Mon-Sat —The preceding
    talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]

I really think this info should be in a should be a separate article - ' Early Newspapers of Western Australia'

SatuSuro 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is West specific, there was a lot more then just the west Gnangarra 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - if thats the case - its early days just like the rwahs journal!

SatuSuro 14:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, a new article History of newspapers in Western Australia or similar please. I recall a good article on this in an old Early Days booklet which I'll try to dig up. —Moondyne 12:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I now know that from 1970 to 1985ish the paper was owned by Herald & Weekly Times, at which point it was acquired by Bell Group who already owned the Western Mail, in print since 8 Nov 80 (in its second incarnation) whose last edition went to print on 2 January 1988. The final edition (on p3) notes the Bell link. Anyone have anything a bit more solid on the Bell Resources link, and who did it go to after Bell failed? (I seem to remember them being caught up in the whole WA Inc churn)

ABC have been reporting on it on their online news. Orderinchaos 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Hesperian 06:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there should be some mention made of the West's political leanings. For example, in The Australian, there is a section discussing the paper's outlook, dubbing it liberal conservatism. I think it is important to note the West's outlook in a similar way. It would be preposterous to pretend that the West does not have an ideological leaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.33.230.148 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• However that may be - its hardly the tag that just got put on it in the infobox either
  Suro 10:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Is The West still a conservative paper? I agree it was in 2007, but lately it seems more centrist. Jameswilkinson5 (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to be supporting McGowan lately. Probably cashing in on his popularity. The West isn't conservative in the same way Newscorp newspapers are, in that it can support the Labor party when it wants to. It would be good if we could find a more recent source for the political leaning. Steelkamp (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although right after I say that, they come out with a front cover like this. Steelkamp (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the website - is unnecessary detail for a 175 year old newspaper - I can think of all the drunk journos who inhabited the palace as being far more interesting than a failed attempt at takeover - therefore it was pruned - and the 175th magazine section started. Refresh the west is a mere dot of the history of which the current journos dont even appreciate probably

I think it should be a section near the end of the article like Alumni for schools etc. What is the inclusion criteria? Gnangarra 04:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me; I was just following suit while trying to finalise the Blackburn article. I'll move it and see how it looks. There's quite a few imbalances in the article's structure. One that puzzled me is the section on Controversy in 2007. There should be a list from here to billy-o of the battles the paper's had with W.A. governments. I guess that's just what came immediately to mind when those edits were being done. Retarius | Talk 04:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnang - Criteria - either gone on to other public positions - (murray to radio), to have gone on to a career that transcends the hack journos thankless life (robert drewe as novelist), to have in other words gained public acclaim (or otherwise) outside of their previous slog

Ret - wa gov vs the west or vice versa is a sep art

cheers guys

Suro 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with sats the controversies are a separate article its been an ongoing issue with the west. But the criteria IMHO needs to be more refined as most journos to come out of the west have worked at the west and theres been more than a couple of sporting persons that have turned journo who have also worked for the west. Gnangarra 05:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>

Actually, I hadn't checked the history when I wrote the above. I only have a peripheral interest in this article but I can now see that it's been stretched and squeezed like an accordion over the past three years and that my comment on controversies was rather misguided. I think the only way this article can progress is if all qualitative/political analysis material is removed. As I said on the W.A. Wikiproject talk page, I really don't believe that any attempt to characterise the political positions or editorial line of newspapers is useful here. I'd remove that section about populism, on that basis. I'd also, now, remove that "controversy" section. There's enough material in the history file to make a stub for a sub-article on the "Wars of the West" if anyone wanted to. Retarius | Talk 05:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the uncited comments from Keating certainly don't enhance the article and maybe should be removed (or cited), but removing the statement on the paper's political/editorial leanings would be equally inappropriate. This media outlet may be publicly owned, but at the end of the day as a media outlet, it's entirely appropriate for it's political leanings to be examined, critiqued and cited. There is little to no argument between commentators that the West is a paper which is editorially conservative. To remove that very pertinent (and important) information from the article would certainly be to the article's detriment. Indeed, removing that would only serve the agenda of attempting to present 'The West' as a wholly objective media outlet, which it clearly is not. Xlh (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early days, but there a sfire at the old Newspaperhouse on the terrace, [5] Gnangarra 07:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MelbourneStar: The West's "support" for Labor came only at the last minute before the election. A reasonable explanation might be that, on perceiving an inevitable change of government, Kerry Stokes & Co felt obliged to curry favour in view of what could be four very interesting years for everybody. Today's editorial strongly promoted a two-party system and rejected any diversity of representation. To my mind, Liberal and Labor are equally conservative parties and have been since the days of Wran, Hawke and Keating. Bjenks (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agree - they also have carried Andrew Bolt op pieces for a few months now - hardly an enthusiast for ideas short of balanced journalism JarrahTree 11:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following well-cited information was removed by User:The-Pope on the basis of being "not notable":

In 2015, the paper was victim of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by

screengrabs of staged interactions between the fake jihadist accounts and the fake Thorne account to journalists. Not realizing that the "jihadist" accounts were controlled by the same hoaxster that was impersonating Thorne, some of these faked interactions was published on April 18, 2015, and described as evidence of "the deep hatred many of Thorne's followers harbour towards non-Muslim Australians".^[3][4]

Ripperarian (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

when an article about an item like a newspaper is entered into this online encyclopedia - if every controversy for the history of the newspaper was in print - it would not be an article....

If you are indeed trying to link items for an argument 'for' or 'against' a participant or character involved in a controversy, it does not necessarily mean that the medium is also to have all the details included.

JarrahTree 06:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of

WP:Undue (and perhaps the paragraph could be trimmed) a wholesale deletion of cited content by an editor (however well-established) would seem to be overkill in this case. An established newspaper reprinting a convicted terrorist is certainly not something to be dismissed as "not notable". Publishing such an interaction is also reflective of the editorial and journalistic judgement of the medium and interesting its own right. It should be noted as well that I opened this discussion before reverting, and therefore an edit-warring warning would seem perhaps to also be an example of overkill. Ripperarian (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again/finally, I challenge anyone with a good understanding of the history of the 'West', to name at least 20 of the controversies they have endured in the last 80 years (most eds have a very very limited understanding of the history of the west at the best of times) - there have been many, and really should be in another article. JarrahTree 06:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Goldberg person and their actions, are obviously of great interest to you, as you have edited solely about him and his targets. (Do you

links or conflicts of interest to declare? Also, if you have previously edited here under another account (especially on the same topics), that's OK, but you should declare that on your user page). But, as someone who lives in Perth, reads The West, and is fairly aware of most controversies, I've never heard of Goldberg, Thorne or anyone involved in this hoax. For a controversy, such as "being fooled by an elaborate hoax" to be notable to the media outlet, there must be some consequence to the paper, or to some other public figure/organisation due to the hoax. Some lasting action. An journalist or editor sacked. A journalistic policy changed. Something. Just being hoaxed isn't notable. Not in in the slightest. It's only mentioned in passing in the SMH article - and as a competitor to The West, if they thought it was significant, they would have gone harder in criticising them. So, I'm going to remove it again. As despite your comment of it being "well referenced", there are no references that indicate that it was significant to this article. By all means it belongs in the Goldberg and Thorne articles, but not here. The-Pope (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, The West Australian supported the McGowan Labor Government up until 20 January 2022, when the decision was made to delay the reopening of interstate borders, locking Seven West Media Chairman Kerry Stokes, who was on an overseas trip, out of the state. Following this, the newspaper has been highly critical of McGowan's COVID-19 response. - please amend as the newspaper was supportive of McGowan's stance on COVID.

Please remove this section as there is nothing to back up this news about our advertising.

Formerly a conservative "daily paper of record", The West has adopted the style of a popular tabloid. It has very ably utilised colour printing and its monopolist status to maximise display advertising including the use of multi-page advertorial supplements and loose inserts. Advertising is frequently accorded priority over news on the front page by means of a four-page wrap-around cover section.^{[citation needed]}

Please amend the below to take out the prices of the subscriptions as they are incorrect. Also, the online readership numbers are out of date re 1.8 million per month.

As of January 2015, refraining from reporting greatly reduced print circulation, the paper claimed "readership across print and online platforms" of 1.8 million per month (a daily average of less than 70,000). Online readership was limited by requirement of paid subscription ($9 per week or $468 p.a.). As of May 2022, daily paper subscription cost $15.10 per week ($785.20 p.a.) or $7 p.w. ($364 p.a.) for online digital access. According to national research, "Despite heavy digital consumption, 3 in 5 [Australians] get their news from a newspaper".

In 2021, audited "cross-platform readership" of The West and The Sunday Times combined was 4.1 million per month. In February 2022, Seven West Media WA chief executive Maryna Fewster announced growth to 4.5 million per month boosted by (potentially duplicated) counts of hits on subsidiary websites including

Please admend the below - these are out of date figures and don't reflect the current newspaper sales and could be harmful:

Circulation and profits slump[edit]

The West Australian recorded a significant fall of nearly 25% in profit in June 2016. A serious drop in circulation was also reported with average weekday circulation down from 157,000 to 145,000, while the weekend edition averaged 241,000, down from 258,000. Cost-saving measures such as staff redundancies was attributed to the poor performance.

Please amend the below, as Piers Akerman has never worked or contributed for The West Australian

The West Australian 1833 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC) The West Australian 1833 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]