AFR-king what!? Mad money mag grovels to Gina, bootlicks billionaires and promotes plutocracy

‘Billionaire barons have every right to use their money to influence us’
~ Australian Financial Review, 28 May 2026

EVERY SO OFTEN, an editorial comes along that is so mystifying it is almost impossible to work out what the team were thinking when they came up with it.

Last Thursday, 28 May 2026, we saw the quintessential example of this phenomenon in the Australian Financial Review (AFR):

‘Billionaire barons have every right to use their money to influence us’

As the article is, almost mercifully, behind a paywall and in case you don’t find the headline objectionable enough, let’s cite the opening paragraph to add a little more context:

‘Sitting atop a $39 billion iron ore fortune and the AFR Rich List for seven consecutive years, Gina Rinehart is a prime example of a local billionaire who is building a network of influence and patronage.’

And the Walkley award for the most egregiously silly editorial of the year goes to…https://t.co/9RBirGjagn

— Mike Carlton (@MikeCarlton01) May 29, 2026

Award-winning broadcaster and journalist Mike Carlton succinctly summarised the AFR offering on Twitter:

‘And the Walkley award for the most egregiously silly editorial of the year goes to…’

Only it isn’t really silly.

It may read as though it were composed by the work experience kid, or the result of a misguided ChatGPT question, but it is actually another deliberate, calculated component of our society's prevailing, albeit naïve, narrative. One carefully curated by mainstream media to ensure we all remember our place and that that place can never inhabit the palatial heights of those in charge. Nay, we cannot even hope for more than to occasionally be deemed worthy enough to be invited along for a closer look — as happens from time to time for politicians like Barnaby or Pauline, for example.

The editorial waxes on to explain, in case readers don’t understand that obscene fortunes command power:

‘Since the Gilded Age of Rockefeller, Carnegie and Vanderbilt, billionaires of all political stripes have understood how to leverage their vast fortunes to shape public discourse.’

Thanks so much for clearing that up, AFR editorial team!

The gist of the piece relies on a detailed, if completely idiotic, premise that the ‘well-heeled [ala Gina Rinehart or major AFR shareholder Bruce Gordon, for instance] are entitled to fund and champion causes they care about’.

Apparently, this entitlement, for which the aforementioned “well-heeled” can pay handsomely, can extend to prejudicing the trial of alleged war criminals, such as Ben Roberts-Smith. Or promoting bigoted politicians, the likes of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON). Of course, while IA cannot be entirely sure, it is quite possible that the PHONies did not require too much more persuasion than the cost of the odd $1 million private plane, and an exclusive party invite or 20.

How surprising, then, that best friends Gina and Pauline have both come out in defence of Roberts-Smith, then. As for the media's mealy-mouthed home of money, the AFR, coming out in defence of Australian billionaires’ right to do and say whatever they please, well... you could have knocked us over with a feather!

Australian billionaires like Rinehart and Stokes are entitled to tell us what to think, said the AFR (28 May) https://t.co/4hUyhi6DiB - such as prejudicing the trial of alleged war criminals and promoting bigoted politicians (@ABCmediawatch 1 June: https://t.co/7C7W1bS6WE) pic.twitter.com/zLJYaTsXjb
— Dave Donovan (@davrosz) June 3, 2026

The AFR's sycophantic “editorial” (apparently now a euphemism for shameless promotion of plutocracy masquerading as informed opinion) goes on to advise us, ignorant oafs, how important billionaire philanthropy is in Australia in areas 'fiscally constrained governments can’t match'.

And that our gold-encrusted overlords' beneficent contributions to the common good are:

'...grounded in the practical realities of building a business that counter the typical intellectual theories, media stereotypes or government policies that might dominate debate.'

Interestingly, the puff piece does not cover how political donations by said oligarchs to stifle any subversive attempts to fairly tax their exorbitant riches might influence those aforementioned governmental fiscal constraints.

Even more telling is that the AFR piece – clearly motivated by the writers’ awareness that Trump’s America is now so on the nose as to be unsalvageable for Australian readers – concedes that in the U.S.:

'...the democratic playing field is being unbalanced by the “wealthification” of politics.’

But quickly salvages the situation, bringing the pontification back to its primary PR purpose, by then asserting that:

Australia is relatively well served by a wide array of private and publicly funded digital media organisations whose worldviews span the political spectrum.

In the digital age, consumers have never had (for better or worse) more diversified sources of information to tap into.

Well, editorial team at AFR, have we got a bonzer bridge Gina or Bruce can buy for you! Any wonder no one at that masthead wanted to put their name to this codswollop.

Aside from the obvious Murdoch-led bias, about which IA has published extensively, IA media editor Dr Lee Duffield explains:

Digital media has created many more channels, which are ideal outlets for these entrepreneurial personalities. It goes together with the lack of restraint that marks the financial ideology of neoliberalism.

It ... fits their financial interests to back or build movements on the extreme Right, declaring there are simple and direct solutions to big problems, and looking for low-hanging fruit — like anxiety and annoyance over migration.

Former ABC foreign correspondent and distinguished media academic Dr Duffield adds:

The "in your face" element to it seems to be directed against rationality, as with opposing public health measures like vaccination.... Like the opposition to immigration... like having to study to get knowledge. Such as kicking over environmental protections [to] serving the interests of billionaire industrialists who want nothing standing in their way.’

Philanthropists indeed! Self-interested, self-aggrandising, robber-barons more like.

In the florid words of founder Dave Donovan, responding to Carlton on Twitter:

‘Whoever wrote that turgid arse-crumpetry would have needed a miner's cap and a length of rope to find their way out of Riner's cavity.’

Or, in other words, AFR, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Whoever wrote that turgid arse-crumpetry would have needed a miner's cap and a length of rope to find their way out of Riner's cavity.
— Dave Donovan (@davrosz) May 30, 2026

This piece is an abridged version of an editorial originally published on 3 June 2026 in the IA members' only area. It was written in response to an AFR team editorial, by the IA editorial team, which may or may not include Michelle Pini, Dave Donovan and Dr Lee Duffield.

Follow IA founder Dave Donovan on X/Twitter @davrosz and Bluesky @davrosz.bsky.social and managing editor Michelle Pini on Twitter @vmp9 and Bluesky @michellepini.bsky.social, and Independent Australia on Twitter at @independentaus, on Facebook HERE and on Instagram HERE. You can also follow Dr Lee Duffield on Facebook HERE.