Political journalist John Fund said legacy media outlets routinely make excuses for left-wing extremism while disproportionately focusing on right-wing violence [1].
This critique highlights a growing debate over media neutrality and the perceived ideological bias of established news organizations in reporting political violence. Fund's comments suggest that the framing of extremism varies based on the political affiliation of the perpetrators.
During an interview with Sky News Australia presenter Gabriella Power, Fund said the disparity in how different forms of political violence are characterized [1]. He said that the media landscape maintains a consistent pattern of highlighting specific threats while ignoring others.
"The legacy media in every country constantly refers to right-wing violence, right-wing extremism," Fund said [1].
Fund said that this focus creates a skewed perception of public safety and political stability. He said that the narrative is managed to protect certain ideological groups from the same scrutiny applied to others.
"There are lots of excuses made and lots of coverage that never occurs when a left-winger does something," Fund said [1].
According to Fund, this bias is not limited to a single region but is a systemic issue across legacy media globally [1]. He said that the lack of coverage for left-wing incidents allows such actions to be minimized or overlooked by the general public.
Fund's assertions center on the idea that the media serves as a gatekeeper, deciding which acts of violence are labeled as extremism and which are treated as isolated incidents, or justified responses to political grievances [1].
“The legacy media in every country constantly refers to right-wing violence, right-wing extremism.”
The claim reflects a broader tension between traditional journalism and the rise of alternative media platforms. By arguing that legacy media exhibits a systemic bias in reporting political violence, Fund is tapping into a narrative that suggests mainstream news is no longer an objective arbiter of truth but an ideological actor.
