Media Bias on Display: A Tale of Two Marches

 We’ve witnessed two major demonstrations recently—the March for Humanity and the March for Australia. Both had fringe elements, both attracted ordinary people—but the media treated them in drastically different ways. 

---

1. The March for Humanity: “Mainly Peaceful” Despite Violent Chants

At the pro-Palestine March for Humanity, violent slogans were openly broadcast:

• “Kill the IDF”

• “Intifada”

• “From the River to the Sea”

These are clear calls for violence—and for the elimination of Israel. Yet mainstream outlets mostly described the event as “mainly peaceful,” glossing over the chants and framing the narrative toward sympathy. Incidentally, so did our Prime Minister!

---

2. The March for Australia: Demonised Despite Marginal Extremists

By contrast, the March for Australia had some extremist figures, including known neo-Nazis and far-right ideologues. Yet many marchers rejected them—some literally turned their backs.
Still, media outlets relentlessly painted the entire rally as an ultra-right, racist mob. Headlines seized on the fringe—ignoring the majority.

Independent media, like Rebel News, delivered another view. Their video, “Forget the Nazis — THESE Aussies Are the REAL Story of Today’s March,” highlights that most participants were neither extremist nor hateful—but rather everyday Australians voicing concerns.

3. Media Double Standards in Action

Here’s the reality:

• One rally featuring violent chants is labeled “peaceful.”

• Another, with extremists marginalised by participants, is branded racist in entirety.

That’s not journalism—it’s narrative crafted to fit bias.

---

4. What the Broader Media Said

• Reuters labeled March for Australia a far-right rally that “propagated hate and community division.” Reuters

• News.com.au focused on clashes and extremist presence, characterising the event as dominated by extremists. News.com.au

• Courier-Mail emphasised nationalist slogans like “take our country back” and clashes with counter-protesters. Courier Mail

Despite this, none of these sources interrogated the March for Humanity with the same fervor over its violent messaging.

---

5. The Bottom Line

Both marches had extremists. Both rallies included ordinary people. Both were reported—but through wildly different lenses.

This glaring imbalance isn’t fair commentary—it’s selective framing. And that distorts the public’s understanding.

---

Want a More Nuanced View?

Check out the Rebel News video “Forget the Nazis — THESE Aussies Are the REAL Story of Today’s March” for a ground-level perspective that mainstream outlets skipped.

We owe it to ourselves to look past headlines—and confront media bias head-on.

Weekly Roundup – Top Articles & Commentary (Week 36, 2025)

 

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week;

• 3D Printed Homes and Australia's Housing Crisis
  
• 10 Reasons Australia should drop its commitment to Net Zero
  
• Why Thorium Modular Reactors Could Solve the World’s Energy Crisis
  
• War of Words: The Famine That Wasn't
  
• Media Bias on Display: A Tale of Two Marches
  

We welcome all feedback, so please feel free to submit your comments or communicate with me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or @grappysb on X.

War of Words:The Famine That Wasn't

The narrative of famine in Gaza has fueled global outrage—but the reality, as Pesach Wolicki argues in “The Famine That Wasn’t: How the UN, Media and Hamas Waged a War of Disinformation” (Gatestone Institute), tells a very different story.

Narrative or Reality?

Claims of a full-scale famine were largely driven by Hamas-controlled data, echoed by the UN and media—without independent verification. Israeli government figures, he notes, contradicted major famine warnings issued by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) in 2024. Yet headlines kept coming. The famine never materialized—but the global narrative became all-too real. (Lucianne)

Was There Famine—Or Failed Context?

This perspective has been mirrored elsewhere. A review by UK Lawyers for Israel found that the same famine data, upon closer analysis, actually did not support claims of widespread starvation. Issues of methodological inconsistency, data gaps, and potential bias were flagged.(The Times of Israel)

Further research, including peer-reviewed studies examining food shipments into Gaza through mid-2024, concluded that supplies were sufficient to meet basic nutritional needs—contradicting the claim of full-blown famine.

Lessons in Information Warfare

Wolicki’s article serves as a reminder that in modern conflict, misinformation can be weaponized as effectively as bombs. When humanitarian suffering becomes a narrative—and not just a condition—journalists, international bodies, and governments risk becoming complicit in spreading a skewed version of the truth.

Other outlets echo this warning. Analysts have noted how Hamas has effectively influenced media messaging by providing selective data, while mainstream organizations failed to offer balanced context.(DISA, themedialine.org)

Why It Matters

This isn’t about minimizing suffering—people in Gaza are undoubtedly struggling. The condition is grim. But conflating crisis with famine morphs policy into reaction and activism into virtue-signalling. Without measured scrutiny, the truth bends to the loudest narrative.

In today’s world, the responsibility lies with media and institutions—especially when accusations can escalate to international legal action or reshape global diplomacy.

Bottom Line

The crisis in Gaza is real—but the “famine” narrative is not backed by indisputable evidence. Whether repeated for political ends or ethical failures, misinformation damages credibility, distorts justice, and risks turning humanitarian tragedy into policy weaponry.

Why Thorium Modular Reactors Could Solve the World’s Energy Crisis

The world is scrambling for safe, scalable, low-carbon energy—with little to show for it so far. However, one overlooked technology may just hold the key. A new video—“Why Thorium is About to Change the World”—makes a compelling case that thorium modular reactors could revolutionize energy, end our fossil fuel addiction, and do it safely and sustainably.

Thorium: Abundant, Safe, Efficient

Thorium is more common than uranium—by 3 to 4 times—and is actually a byproduct of rare-earth mining. As I noted in What the Heck Is Thorium?, thorium has the potential to deliver clean, low-cost power for centuries.

Modern reactor designs take this further:

• Fuel efficiency — A thorium reactor can use up to 99% of its fuel, compared to less than 1% in conventional uranium reactors.

• Built-in safety — Molten salt reactors operate at atmospheric pressure. In a fault, the molten core drains into a passive storage tank—no meltdown, no Fukushima scenario.

• Waste profile — Spent thorium waste decays in a few hundred years, versus 10,000+ years for conventional nuclear waste.

• Proliferation resistant — Thorium cycles don’t produce weapons-grade plutonium, slashing nuclear security risks.

---

Momentum Is Building

This isn’t just theory anymore. Progress is happening:

• Copenhagen Atomics is building Europe’s first thorium molten salt reactor, with commercial units targeted by the 2030s.

• India holds the world’s largest thorium reserves (estimated at ~600,000 tonnes) and has made thorium a national energy priority.

• China is already operating a thorium test reactor in the Gobi Desert, with plans to scale up rapidly within the next decade.

---

A Cleaner, Smarter Nuclear Future

In my earlier piece, "Thorium Nuclear Update" (2017), I highlighted how thorium was shelved during the Cold War arms race. The tragedy? We pursued uranium because it made bombs, not because it was the best energy source.

Now we know better. The numbers tell the story:

• 1 tonne of thorium = enough energy to power a city of 1 million people for a year

• Australia alone has enough thorium reserves to power the country for hundreds of years.

• Thorium is cheap—less than $100/kg when sourced as a mining byproduct.

---

Why This Matters

Thorium modular reactors offer the rare trifecta of safety, sustainability, and scalability.

• Carbon-free power without crushing economies

• Fuel for centuries, not decades

• Safe, stable, affordable electricity that doesn’t wreck landscapes with solar/wind sprawl

If we’re serious about solving the energy crisis without crippling economies or the environment, it’s time to move beyond wishful thinking. Thorium might just be the future we’ve been ignoring for far too long.

👉 Watch the full video below.

10 Reasons Australia Should Drop Its Commitment to Net Zero

 

The Albanese government is pushing ahead with its Net Zero agenda, claiming it’s about “saving the planet.” But the reality is that Australia is paying a very high price for policies that make no measurable difference to the global climate. 

Here are ten reasons why it’s time to ditch this costly and damaging experiment.

1. Australia’s Emissions Are Tiny

Australia produces just 1.1% of global emissions. Even if we reduced that to zero tomorrow, the climate wouldn’t notice. Our sacrifice changes nothing.

2. Big Polluters Aren’t Playing Ball

China, India, and other large emitters are expanding their coal use and increasing emissions. Without them on board, our Net Zero push is meaningless virtue signalling.

3. Industry is Closing Down

Energy-intensive industries like aluminium smelters are shutting down. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing overseas—often to places with dirtier energy than ours. That’s not a climate win, it’s a net loss.

4. Soaring Power Bills

Ordinary Australians are paying the price. Electricity bills are skyrocketing, and it’s the poorest households who feel the pain the most. Net Zero is effectively a regressive tax.

5. Power Grid Instability

Our once-reliable grid is now unstable. Blackouts and brownouts are becoming more common, as intermittent solar and wind replace steady baseload coal and gas.

6. Destruction of Farmland

Wind turbines and solar farms are swallowing up valuable farmland, undermining our food security. We’re literally trading crops for panels.

7. Damage to Bushland and Wildlife

Pristine bushland is being bulldozed for massive renewable projects, displacing wildlife and ruining natural landscapes. How is this “green”?

8. Intermittent Energy Supply

Solar doesn’t work at night. Wind doesn’t blow on demand. That means expensive backup systems are needed, and consumers pay twice—once for renewables, and again for the backup.

9. No Measurable Climate Impact

After all this pain, the effect on global climate will be zero. Australia could vanish tomorrow, and global emissions would still rise. That’s the cold, hard fact.

10. A Better Path Exists

Instead of crippling ourselves with impossible targets, Australia should focus on innovation, efficiency, and resilience—ensuring reliable, affordable energy while continuing to adapt to whatever the climate brings.

Nett Zero is All Pain with NO Gain

Net Zero has become the clarion call to prompt countries to take the necessary steps in their economies to mitigate global warming. However, for countries that have insignificant global emissions, it’s economic self-harm for no climate gain, especially when the largest emitters are NOT doing their part. 

It’s time for Australia to stop pretending we can change the weather and start focusing on policies that actually benefit our people.