Why man the barricades for your foe?

AS Fairfax grapples with a potential takeover alongside its decision to shut printing presses, retrench staff, shift content online and downsize its broadsheet newspapers, it has attracted unequivocal support from its greatest historical adversary: the Labor Party.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says Fairfax is a "trustworthy" and "impartial" media company. Wayne Swan says a takeover of Fairfax by billionaire Gina Rinehart would be a threat to "democracy". Senator Doug Cameron, chairman of the Senate Environment and Communications Committee, is worried about Fairfax having "its own political agenda".

In Labor's 120-year history there is no institution that has expressed such a visceral disdain for Labor than Fairfax and its two broadsheets The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

While the icy relationship between Labor and Fairfax has thawed in recent years, this should not be mistaken for tacit support because Fairfax editorials now openly barrack for Labor's enemy, the Greens.

"Both papers were severe critics of the very concept of Labor politics," historian Nick Dyrenfurth says when asked about the relationship. They favoured only "the respectable classes".

In 1891, The Herald editorialised against Labor's very existence, describing it as "our greatest peril". As Gavin Souter writes in his history of Fairfax, Company of Heralds, the company that purchased The Herald in 1831 represented "Australian tories". Bridget Griffen-Foley in her book Party Games describes the paper as "a staunch defender of Protestant Christianity, the British monarchy, the rule of law, middle-class values, private property and free-enterprise capitalism".

Like the Syme family, which controlled The Age from 1856 to the 1960s, Fairfax became increasingly conservative, using the paper to promulgate anti-Labor views and commercial interests.

It was not until 1961 - 70 years after Labor burst on to the political scene - that the SMH recommended a vote for Labor. It backed Arthur Calwell's Labor Party, largely as a protest against the economic policies of the Menzies government. But this was an aberration; it was not until 1984 that the SMH again backed Labor, supporting the Hawke government's re-election.

The Herald did not advocate a vote for John Curtin's wartime government at the 1943 election, even though it argued "We could not choose a better leader today". Nevertheless, the voters gave Labor its greatest ever victory in federal politics.

The Herald could not bring itself to recommend a vote for the popular state Labor governments of Bill McKell, Joe Cahill or Neville Wran. It was not until 2003 - 112 years after Labor was founded - that the paper recommended a vote for Bob Carr's government seeking a third term. So did The Australian. Carr, like Wran, despised The Sydney Morning Herald.

The paper has only advocated a vote for Labor at five out of 43 federal elections - 1961, 1984, 1987, 2007 and 2010. In 41 state elections over 120 years, only once has it promoted a vote for Labor. It is an appalling record for a paper that prides itself on independent and open-minded journalism.

Since the SMH adopted the Fairfax charter of editorial independence in 1991, it has recommended a vote for Labor in just three out of 13 state and federal elections.

The Age has not been much better. While historically more progressive than its Sydney stable mate, it led the charge against Gough Whitlam's government over the loans affair. Although it endorsed Labor in 1972, The Age backed Billy Snedden's bid for PM in 1974 and on October 15, 1975 advocated Whitlam's removal from office. "Go Now, Go Decently," its editorial thundered.

Earlier, in April 1975, The Herald argued for the Whitlam government to "be brought down".

This newspaper, like other News Limited newspapers, is not averse to recommending votes for non-Labor governments or campaigning strongly on issues that run counter to the newspaper's philosophy. After enthusiastically supporting Whitlam at the 1972 election, The Australian had become a bitter critic by 1975. However, this newspaper has recommended more votes for state and federal Labor governments in its 48 years than the SMH has in 121 years. So have other News Limited newspapers. Unlike The Herald, this newspaper did not recommend a vote for John Howard over Paul Keating in 1996. News Limited's The Daily Telegraph backed Keating in 1993 and 1996.

Today, The Herald and The Age employ some of Australia's best journalists and publish lots of fine reportage. But their editorial line has almost always argued against the interests of Labor. Worse, they are increasingly catering to a cloistered worldview shared by an inner-city elite that ignores mainstream issues in the outer suburbs and in the regions across the vast Australian continent.

Before Labor rushes to man the barricades at Fairfax, believing the company is the last and best hope against democracy's imminent collapse, think again. While the paper backed Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard at the last two elections, today their heart beats not with Labor, but with the Greens. In April, The Herald declared "the mantle of leadership in progressive politics" has been passed from Labor to the Greens. Labor's purpose in politics, its structure and its policies, the paper argued, "no longer resonates" and is "corrupted" and in "decline".

In opposing economic growth and moderate social and environmental reform, The Herald now represents the new establishment that is the far-left: resistant to change, with a narrow perspective, protecting its own selfish interests. Keating told the ABC's Jon Faine last year, The Sydney Morning Herald is "a complete rag" that is "lost in space".

A century ago, opposition from the dominant conservative media saw the labour movement set up supportive newspapers across the continent. They didn't last. Today, there is no need for Labor to seek to control the media as there is more diversity of news and opinion in the public domain than ever before.

As the government contemplates regulations covering editorial independence, standards and diversity, there is a danger these initiatives could themselves threaten democracy and freedom of expression. Newspapers, like any other person or organisation, are entitled to their views. But as Labor governments of the past understood, the voters themselves will be the judge of sound leadership and good policies.