Whether or not it was, as former opposition leader Mark Latham said, a Seinfeld campaign, a campaign about nothing, the spate of election eve editorials advocating a vote for Labor can best be described as Claytons endorsements. Claytons - some readers might remember - was the non-alcoholic drink advertised by actor Jack Thompson as the drink he has when he’s not having a drink. The product soon went down the gurgler, but the expression entered the Australian idiom.

Newspaper editorial endorsements are a venerable tradition, originally based on the idea that the paper’s authority and their eloquence of argument would have some public effect. It has been a traditional test of quality newspapers that their reporting showed an independence from their editorial partisanship, that they reported without fear or favour, and that their opinion columns allowed a pluralism of viewpoints.

The Murdoch tabloid press has not been renowned for impartiality of reporting or diversity of opinion. In Murdoch’s early years as owner of the New York Post he endorsed Ed Koch for mayor against the liberal Democrat Mario Cuomo. As Cuomo observed, when the New York Times endorses you, they give you a single column of editorial support, but when Rupert supports you he turns the whole paper over to you.

It was this sort of total mobilisation of the paper - in news judgements, in commentary, in framing headlines and interpretations, in cartoons and photos - that led the London Sun to its famous boast after the Conservative triumph in the 1992 British election, “It was the Sun wot won it.” The paper’s front page on election day was devoted to a graphic depiction of the words, “If Neil Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights.”

So there is a long history of Murdoch mobilising his publications behind his preferred party, and of accusations by his opponents that they were on the receiving end of slanted news judgements and distorted news coverage.

But what we have in the 2007 Australian election is a historical novelty and an intriguing conundrum. The Murdoch press was generally biased against Labor but several of his papers editorially endorsed a Rudd government (as we predicted they would a month ago on APO). The Australian, Daily Telegraph and Courier-Mail all advocated a vote for change, while the Herald Sun and the Advertiser stuck with the coalition.

Throughout the campaign the front page of the Australian looked as if it had been dictated by Liberal Party headquarters, except that the Liberals would probably have been a bit more subtle. The major Murdoch tabloids were also generally pro-Coalition. If anything, they went slightly counter to their eventual editorial stances, with the Melbourne Herald Sun giving Labor a better run than the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

It should be stressed that although both papers showed a substantial degree of bias, neither approached the 1975 Murdoch levels of shrillness and unfairness. Editorial attitudes did not stop the Daily Telegraph appreciating the newsworthiness of the forged anti-Islamic flyers in Lindsay, especially when the cops and robbers element of how the perpetrators were caught on camera was thrown in. Occasionally, even when there was more editorial discretion, pro-Labor stories also led the paper, such as the Monday before the election when “Libs at War” revealed internal conflicts within the coalition about the conduct of the campaign.

But overwhelmingly in their news selection, in the framing of stories, in their use of reportorial initiative, and in the balance of their opinion columns, the stance was anti-Labor.

On the same Friday that the Daily Telegraph editorial endorsed Labor, half its front page had a picture of Howard, with the caption “Battered and bruised but our final poll shows Half-Term Howard is [and then the headline] Half a Chance.” This story - best read with the music from Rocky playing loudly in the background - said that the Tele’s Galaxy Poll showed a late swing back, with the government “within striking distance.” Its inside report was headlined “Too close to call: parties pull level” (Pulling level is a rather generous way to report a four point gap, which of course soon transpired to be misleadingly narrow anyway.)

Then, on polling day, Tele’s front page photo had Howard and Santa Claus embracing with the headline “Whoa-Ho-Ho” and the subhead “Final poll shows all John Howard’s Christmases might be coming at once.” According to the story, again by Malcolm Farr, “John Howard is gathering late campaign speed [and] has taken a big chunk of Labor support.” The inside story expanded on these claims: “A determined John Howard is poised to confound election forecasts and retain government.” Similarly, the Saturday Australian had “Rudd faces late Howard Surge,” sharing its front page with “Pearson accuses Labor of betrayal” and “Boomtowners still dig the PM.”

So how are we to understand this new phenomenon - Murdoch newspapers which are biased against the parties they are purportedly supporting?

Perhaps the first thing to note is just how qualified the editorial support was. Apart from the papers adopting different stances, the pro-Labor editorials were among the gentlest ever emanating from a Murdoch publication. As the Daily Telegraph editorial began, “This is an unusual editorial in that it praises the leadership and legacy of our current prime minister - and call for him to be removed.”

One interpretation is that Murdoch now cares less about what happens in Australia, that sitting astride his global empire he is less interested in what happens in the remote provinces. There is also some political value in the empire apparently displaying some internal diversity. It makes it harder for critics who are describing the dangers to democracy in such a media behemoth, and provides useful exceptions to when all editorials sing stridently in unison such as in support of the Iraq war and the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.

But I think we also need to probe more deeply. The first explanation is commercial. Murdoch’s interests are so intertwined with government policies and regulations that he cannot afford to be totally offside with any government that is going to be in power for some time. So News Corporation can now claim that it gave support to those politicians they will be dealing with, and hope that they will overlook just how belated and grudging and equivocal that support was.

Another is a combination of commercial and journalistic imperatives. These papers pride themselves on being on the popular pulse, voicing public concerns, reflecting society back to itself, and indeed have the capacity to influence public opinion. But despite their populist posturing, they are more out of touch than the anti-Howard “elites” they so frequently rail against. Despite their desperate appearance of finally jumping on the bandwagon, all their instincts had been the other way.

Two conclusions should not be lost sight of. Labor won this election without any help, and in the face of some hindrance, from News Limited, and so the government owes the company precisely zero. Second, the Murdoch press has exposed itself as being out of touch with public opinion, and with a more limited capacity to influence it than they might have imagined. Its senior ranks are so dominated by conservative ideologues that this colours all their views of politics. This long ago started to damage their professional credibility, but of more interest to their boss may be the fact that now it is also increasingly threatening their commercial performance.