The press and issue framing in the Australian mining tax debate

Using supervised learning techniques to code newspaper articles on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (originally known as the Resources Super Profits Tax), this article analyses sources of partiality and emphasis in media coverage of the issue. It shows that opponents were more successful in airing their views in the opening stages of the debate, but the government's re-branding led to more favourable media coverage. There was a regional bias, however, with newspapers in states dominated by mining interests more critical than newspapers from other states. The only truly national newspaper (the Australian) was notable for having fewer ‘neutral’ articles, with a relatively high number of both negative and positive articles. The Australian Financial Review, meanwhile, had a greater number of neutral articles. Framing remained homogenous over time though variable across publications.

本文使用指导学习技术,对有关矿产资源租借税的报刊文章进行编码,分析了媒体就此话题的报道其中中立性和重点性的根源。研究显示,反对者在辩论的开始阶段成功地传播他们的观点。不过,政府的再推广也达到了有利的媒体宣传效果。当然,会有地区偏差,矿业利益集团控制的州,那里的报纸会比其他州更持批判立场。唯一名副其实的全国性大报登载的“中性”文章明显要少,负面和正面的文章都比较多,而《澳大利亚财经评论》倒是刊登了较多的中性文章。总之,格局一直比较单一,但具体到出版物则有参差。     

Suffolk Place,Southwark, London: a Tudor palace and its terracotta architectural decoration

Suffolk Place (c. 1518–22), Southwark, was the London residence of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. This majestic palace is visible in the foreground of Wyngaerde’s London panorama (c. 1544), from which it can be inferred that it possessed a double courtyard plan. The southern and eastern ranges of the outer courtyard of Suffolk Place were apparently adorned with architectural terracottas at both entablature and parapet level. As the palace was demolished in 1557–58, the finds of ex-situ terracottas are a key source of information concerning the decorative scheme of this vanished palace. Petrological study and other research indicates that the terracottas were locally manufactured, implying the existence of a London-area workshop.