Search results for "trust in media"
Jun 12, 2012
Essential Research

Trust in Institutions

Q. How much trust do you have in the following institutions and organisations?

 

Total

trust

26 Sep 11

Total

trust

12 Jun 12

A lot of trust

Some trust

A little trust

No trust

Don’t know

% change

The High Court

72%

60%

20%

40%

24%

9%

7%

-12

The ABC

46%

54%

15%

39%

31%

10%

6%

+8

Charitable organisations

61%

50%

8%

42%

35%

10%

5%

-9

The Reserve Bank

67%

49%

13%

36%

30%

14%

7%

-18

Environment groups

45%

32%

6%

26%

35%

25%

7%

-13

The Commonwealth Public Service

  49%*

30%

4%

26%

42%

18%

9%

-19

Religious organisations

29%

27%

5%

22%

30%

37%

6%

-2

Newspapers

na

26%

3%

23%

46%

23%

5%

na

Online news media

na

23%

2%

21%

45%

25%

6%

na

Federal Parliament

55%

22%

3%

19%

37%

36%

6%

-33

Trade unions

39%

22%

3%

19%

32%

37%

9%

-17

Business groups

38%

22%

2%

20%

46%

24%

8%

-16

TV news media

na

21%

3%

18%

43%

30%

5%

na

Political parties

na

12%

2%

10%

31%

52%

5%

na

Note: ‘Total Trust’ is an aggregate figure achieved by adding ‘A lot of trust’ and ‘Some trust’.

* This Commonwealth Public Service figure is from a question asked in 6 Feb 12.

 

Respondents had most trust in the High Court (60%), the ABC (54%), charitable organisations (50%) and the Reserve bank (49%). They had least trust in political parties (12%), TV news media (21%) Federal Parliament, trade unions and business groups (all 22%).

Trust in all institutions (except the ABC) declined since this question was asked last year. The major changes were a collapse in trust in Federal Parliament (-33%) and substantial declines in trust in the Commonwealth Public Service (-19%), the Reserve Bank (-18%), trade unions (-17%) and business groups (-16%).

Compared to the average, Labor voters had more trust in political parties (19%), Federal Parliament (34%), the High Court (67%),  the Reserve Bank (57%), the Commonwealth Public Service (42%), trade unions (36%) and  environment groups (43%).

Liberal/National voters, compared to the average, had more trust in religious organisations (33%) and business groups (27%) but less trust in Federal parliament (17%), the ABC (46%), trade unions (14%) and environment groups (21%).

Feb 24, 2012
Essential Research

Media just a pebble in the shoe of Big Mining

First published on the Drum on 16th Feb

Tony Maher, National President CFMEU

There’s been much hand-wringing about the impact Gina Rinehart’s buy-up of Fairfax shares will have on editorial standards at its popular mastheads.

Fair enough. Any more exposure to the views of her preferred mouthpieces Ian Plimer, Andrew Bolt and Christopher Monckton would push the average Australian well over the safe daily limit of exposure to unsubstantiated bluster and fallacy.

Though as last year’s carbon and minerals tax debates showed, newspapers don’t need to be owned by mining magnates to prosecute the interests of Big Mining. It’s just an added bonus.

The wealth and influence of the likes of Gina Rinehart are beyond the imaginations of most of us. Her fortune – twenty billion dollars and growing – is generated by vast tracts of resource-rich land, fuelled by the record prices being paid for Australian resources by developing Asian economies.

When you’re about to overtake Bill Gates as the richest person in the world, a non-compliant media is an annoyance, a pebble in the shoe. You don’t need to own the media to have a good shot at getting your own way. The sheer scale of the investment decisions at your discretion attracts the attention of governments.

You don’t need to own the media. But if you can afford it, you might as well.

Australia breeds a variety of mining magnate that attracts easy ridicule. Along with Gina Rinehart there’s youngster Nathan Tinkler, who at 30 took a gamble on a coal mining lease he turned over for $275 million – he still looks surprised; Twiggy Forrest who led the charge against the mining tax and is being prosecuted by ASIC over allegedly misleading the market; and Clive Palmer, who you would draw if you picked ‘capitalist’ in Pictionary.

Unsophisticated to a fault, with their conspicuous excess, private jets and family trust brawls – it’s easy to be distracted by the spectacle and lose sight of the extreme and dangerous agenda these people are promoting.

The diminishing independence of Australian media is to be deplored. But if we really want to worry about Gina Rinehart’s influence, let’s look bigger. Let’s look at the shape and direction of the Australian economy into the next century.

Mining is growing at a phenomenal rate, transforming the Australian economy as it goes. We all know about the Australian dollar – driven up by the resources boom and sucking the life out of manufacturing and other currency-sensitive sectors like education, tourism and retail.

Fewer of us know about the social havoc being wrought in mining regions: exorbitant housing costs driving out families, upheaval caused by Fly in Fly Out workforces, roads dangerously crowded with trucks and commuters.

The challenge facing policy-makers is how to make sure the mining boom delivers more value than pain to the economy; that it delivers good, skilled jobs to Australians; that it builds rather than destroys regional communities; that the extraordinary profits being generated in the finite decades of the boom leave a positive legacy for future generations.

But sharing the benefits of the boom is not an agenda Gina Rinehart is interested in. Quite the opposite.

Rinehart’s staunch opposition to the minerals and carbon taxes are well known; and her campaigning is not limited to her bizarre back-of-the-truck performance with Twiggy last year. Despite compelling evidence to the contrary, Rinehart is fond of telling business audiences that the slightest further tax imposition will see miners pack up their diggers and go to Africa.

But Rinehart’s grand vision for mining is the creation of extensive special economic zones across Northern Australia.

The lobby group she spearheads, Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision, argue that the special economic zones resources should essentially be tax free, with no resources, payroll or income tax collected.

But that’s not all. Companies would not just import their steel and machinery but could import a low-wage workforce to build major projects as well.

“Making our projects too expensive to compete internationally only jeopardises Australia’s future,” says ANDEV’s manifesto.

“Hence, in these special Northern “economic zones”, we should allow competitive and temporary short term workers to build our projects, say for a duration of up to two years nine months or so … our Government could choose, if such workers had proven to be good workers and potentially good citizens, whether to extend their stay to a longer period.”

ANDEV supporters, a collection of mining executives mostly based in Western Australia, find it grossly unfair that other industries can simply off-shore jobs to low-wage economies, but they are restricted by the realities of geography.

“Various industries in Australia already make use of overseas countries labour without restriction – for example, sending work overseas to India and the Philippines and elsewhere in Asia where labour costs are lower. The group argues mining companies should be allowed to hire short term workers from overseas … rather than becoming uncompetitive.”

The current rate of growth in the resources sector means that there is a necessity to bring in skilled workers from overseas. The Federal Government is currently developing the terms of a new arrangement – Employment Migration Agreements – which companies could enter into on major projects.

Unions are not opposed to all use of foreign workers, but we argue they must be paid at local rates and only used when local workers aren’t available.

If Gina Rinehart had her way, mining companies ‘in the zone’ would be given carte blanche to import cut-rate foreign workforces in the construction phase of their projects – the phase that delivers 90% of jobs.

So if we don’t get Australian jobs, if we don’t collect any tax, if we don’t put anything away for the future, if the profits from Australian resources are simply lining the pockets of mining magnates and foreign shareholders – what are we left with?

A buggered economy and some holes in the ground. That’s the real headline.

Feb 20, 2012
Essential Research

Gerard Noonan – Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees

Gerard Noonan is Deputy President of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and long-standing chair of industry fund Media Super. He has been active in the not-for-profit superannuation sector for more than two decades and was appointed to the board of Innovation Australia in 2009 and chairs IA’s Venture Capital Committee.

Aug 1, 2011
Essential Research

Trust in organisations to handle personal information

Q. Thinking about your personal information that you sometimes have to give to organisations and companies, how much trust do you have in following organisations to handle your personal information appropriately?

A lot of trust Some trust Little trust No trust Don’t know
The medical profession 39% 40% 12% 7% 2%
Banks 19% 40% 27% 13% 2%
Governments 12% 38% 28% 20% 2%
Australian companies 6% 43% 35% 13% 2%
On-line companies 2% 25% 41% 29% 3%
Political parties 2% 20% 34% 40% 4%
Foreign companies 1% 18% 36% 41% 4%
The media 2% 14% 35% 47% 2%

Of the organisations measured, the medical profession is the most trusted to handle personal information (79% a lot/some trust). Banks (59%) are trusted more that Governments (50%) or Australian companies (49%).

The media are the least trusted with 82% saying they have little or no trust in them.

People aged under 35 tend to be more trustful with their personal information – especially with Governments (58% a lot/some trust), banks (69%) and on-line companies (35%).

(more…)

May 2, 2011
Essential Research

Perceptions of Media

Q. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Total agree Total disagree Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
The media usually reports the news accurately 35% 54% 2% 33% 41% 13% 12%
The media usually reports all sides of a story 21% 69% 1% 20% 46% 23% 10%
The media is too critical of government and politicians in Australia 29% 57% 4% 25% 46% 11% 14%
These days I rely more on the internet than newspapers and TV for my news and information about politics. 44% 46% 12% 32% 37% 9% 10%
I trust the media more than I trust politicians 37% 43% 4% 33% 33% 10% 20%
I trust politicians more than I trust the media 16% 65% 1% 15% 44% 21% 18%
The media does a good job of scrutinizing politics and holding politicians accountable 45% 43% 3% 42% 31% 12% 12%
Overall, the media are politically biased in favour of the Liberal Party 19% 55% 4% 15% 44% 11% 26%
Overall, the media are politically biased in favour of the Labor Party 23% 50% 5% 18% 41% 9% 25%
The media are too focused on personalities and not enough on policies 70% 18% 21% 49% 15% 3% 12%
There is too much coverage of politics in the media 34% 52% 7% 27% 45% 7% 14%
The media does a good job of helping people to understand political and social issues 40% 48% 2% 38% 36% 12% 12%
I follow the news closely every day 57% 38% 10% 47% 32% 6% 6%

The majority of respondents disagree that the media usually reports all sides of a story (69%) and that the media reports the news accurately (54%).

However, they tend to trust the media a little more than they trust politicians – 37% agree they trust the media more and 16% agree they trust politicians more.

The results also indicate that respondents want more rather than less coverage of politics – only 34% agree that there is too much coverage of politics and 57% disagree that the media is too critical of government and politicians.

Respondents were divided over whether the media does a good job of scrutinizing politics and holding politicians accountable (45% agree/43% disagree) and tended to disagree that the media does a good job of helping people to understand political and social issues (40% agree/48% disagree).

70% agree that the media are too focused on personalities and not enough on policies.

A minority of respondents think the media are biased – 23% think they are biased in favour of the Labor Party and 19% in favour of the Liberal Party.

(more…)

Feb 21, 2011
Essential Research

Trust in Federal Leaders

Q. Who do you trust most to deliver good policies for Australia’s future?
(Question commissioned by Network Ten)

Total Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens
Julia Gillard 40% 81% 5% 62%
Tony Abbott 31% 1% 72% 2%
Don’t know 29% 18% 23% 36%

40% have most trust in Julia Gillard to deliver good policies for Australia’s future and 31% trust Tony Abbott most.

Opinions closely follow party preference although Julia Gillard is overwhelmingly trusted more by Greens voters (62% to 2%).

Women are less trusting of Tony Abbott – 40% of men trust Julia Gillard and 36% trust Tony Abbott while 41% of women trust Julia Gillard and only 26% trust Tony Abbott.

Younger people are also less likely to trust Tony Abbott – those aged 55+ trust Tony Abbott (44%) more than Julia Gillard (36%) while those aged under 35 trust Julia Gillard more (42% Gillard/24% Abbott).

Download the Network Ten Essential Question of the Week. (1.1 MB pdf)

(more…)

Dec 14, 2010
Essential Research

No names rule in media jungle

First Published on The Drum 14/12/2010

Here is the word cloud that will prick a thousand egos – and restore some reality to the debate about the future of the media.

In an era of celebrity journos building Twitter empires and media business models inspired by the porn industry, the truth is that very few members of the public have any idea who is writing or reporting their daily news.

That’s what Essential Research found while working with the Media Alliance’s Future of Journalism Project – when asked to name  a journalist, the vast majority of respondents could come up with only one name: ‘Don’t Know’.

(more…)

Sep 27, 2010
Essential Research

Welcome to the #politicotragicmedia wankersphere. How can we help?

US Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich was first up, and with him his security detail – two clean-cut, serious, suited dudes scanning the room during Bleich’s presentation on the Obama presidential campaign’s pioneering use of social media.

The dudes didn’t have much to worry about with this crowd, the only real and present dangers being excessively snarky tweets or a tussle over an ipad charger.

The Media 140 ‘Oz Politics’ conference at Old Parliament House last week brought together Twitter commentators, activists, journalists, academics and politicians, collectively known as the #politicotragicmediawankersphere.

(more…)

Sign up for updates

Receive the Essential Report in your inbox.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.