on 13-03-2013 08:46 AM
Socialism bordering on communism Gillard and Labor style. ( This will please the luvies and the socialists on here I am sure)
THIS government will go down in history as the first Australian government outside of wartime to attack freedom of speech by seeking to introduce a regime which effectively institutes government sanctioned journalism.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/an-aggressive-attempt-to-silence-your-media/story-e6frezz0-1226595884130
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is threatening to take away privacy law exemptions - often described as shield provisions - which are fundamental to the operation of journalism in our democracy. He clearly said today that these protections for journalism would be removed if the proposed Public Interest Media Advocate was unhappy with the oversight of a media company's reporting by the Australian Press Council.
This removes the capacity of journalists to do their job - it is a not too sophisticated endeavour to gag the media.
The government also risks standing as the one that turned the clock back to last century, with its highly interventionist, vague and unnecessary public interest test on media ownership - which is nothing more than a political interest test which governments will use to punish outlets they don't like.
It will only serve to add layers of uncertainty, huge cost and inefficiency, adding yet another cost on business and Australian taxpayers.
The stated rationale of the public interest test is that it is to preserve media diversity. Yet there is more media diversity today than in all of human history. Moreover, both the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Communications and Media Authority already have extensive powers to enforce media diversity today.
The minister has made no case as to the inadequacy of these existing powers. This proposal cannot be about diversity - that false need in the face of plenty is a sad disguise for the government's desire to control the media. The irony that the reference to a desire to preserve diversity is contained in a statement which advocates the abolition of the 75 per cent television broadcast reach rule is not lost on journalists.
The Public Interest "Tsar" will be beholden to government and will act as its gatekeeper. It is a sad day for Australian democracy.
It also represents a profound debasing of public policy process to sit on two reports for a year and then to put a gun to the head of parliament and business demanding passage of a series of bills in less than a week - all without any consultation with the print and digital media industry. Bills which have a huge impact on major employers, thousands of employees, investors and taxpayers in the Australian economy are being proposed in an old fashioned "stick 'em up" style hardly reflecting reasonable behaviour in a dynamic modern digital economy.
The whole approach today constitutes a travesty of public policy and parliamentary process.
Good read here
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillards-henchman-stephen-conroy-attacks-freedom-of-the-press/story-e6freuy9-1226595971160
on 13-03-2013 10:41 AM
The influence of the media
What is 'the media'?
Strictly speaking, the word 'media' is plural for medium, hence in its general form it indicates various methods by which information is dispersed (spread). 'The media', however, specifically refers to communication via print, radio, television and internet methods, which we often use as singular. 'Media' may also be used as an adjective, such as the term 'media laws' referring to laws that affect the media.
http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-58_u-496_t-1352_c-5201/the-influence-of-the-media/qld/the-influence-of-the-media/law-and-the-media-civics-and-citizenship/people-and-the-law
Laws that affect the media
In addition to fines for , the media also faces a number of laws that affect how they operate, a few of which are presented below:
Defamation: the misrepresentation of a person or their actions that negatively affects his or her reputation. The media must be careful about how they represent a person to avoid being sued for defamation.
Sedition: any action that encourages resistance to or disruption of authority, such as the government. The media must understand that any criticism of authority may be interpreted as sedition.
Freedom of information: in order to be held accountable for their actions, the government allows access to some documents. The media may use information from these documents if deemed 'in the public interest'.
Media diversity: the concept that there are many different media outlets. Diversity is important to maintain a healthy balance of politics. In 2006, law reforms on media ownership threatened media diversity.
Confidentiality. A journalist may use a source who wishes to remain confidential. Historically, journalists and their sources enjoy a professional confidential relationship privilege. It is possible, however, for a journalist to be charged with contempt of court if the source proves to be an important aspect of a trial and the journalist refuses to reveal him or her.
read more:http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-58_u-496_t-1352_c-5201/the-influence-of-the-media/qld/the-influence-of-the-media/law-and-the-media-civics-and-citizenship/people-and-the-law
we are considered the Media too
on 13-03-2013 10:50 AM
Senator Conroy is also standing by his take-it-or-leave-it demand that parliament pass his legislation by Thursday week, even though it has yet to be made public.
The planned measures include a public interest test on media mergers, to be administered by a government-appointed bureaucrat.
The public interest advocate would also oversee the self-regulatory body that handles complaints about the print and online media.
Senator Conroy insisted the advocate would not have the power to act against the press or journalists.
"That's just not the case at all," he told ABC radio today when asked whether it amounted to government regulation of the media.
Neither the government nor the advocate were changing a single standard the Press Council had in place now.
"The government are not introducing any new rules," Senator Conroy said.
Independent senator Nick Xenophon says he believes the measures won't go anywhere even though some, such as a cut in licence broadcast licence fees, have merit.
He criticised the plan to remove shield laws for journalists if media organisations did not support the regulatory body.
on 13-03-2013 11:03 AM
Critics 'hysterical'
Some major media companies have rejected the proposal, saying the changes could stifle freedom of speech.
News Limited chief Kim Williams said the announcement marks a "sad day for Australian democracy".
But Senator Conroy dismissed Mr Williams's comments, saying News Limited has been "hysterical" about the potential changes to media laws.
"This heavy-handed intervention that you're reading about from Kim Williams and News Limited should be seen as just a little bit of extra theatre as this debate goes on," he said.
"What's a sad day for democracy is the continued erosion of diversity of opinion."
Critics claim the reforms represent Government attempts to gain more control over the media, but Senator Conroy disagrees.
"This is a package that is balanced, [and] it achieves not having the Government take over regulating the print sector," he said.
"The Government is not funding it, it is not setting the standards and it is not judging the tests."
on 13-03-2013 11:19 AM
read that "tony abbott has lunch every week at news limited HQ"
proposition is certainly newsworthy, it's in the public interest for the public to know about it.
is it the truth, overt bias from news limited certainly wouldn't reveal it
on 13-03-2013 11:20 AM
Just another step towards total control and removing the rights of the people
sounds a little like Communism
on 13-03-2013 11:30 AM
Conroy knows he can't get this through hence the ultimatum. He's had to put something up after 2 years of posturing & threats.
Frankly I find his behaviour odious & unctuous..:-p Can't wait to see the end of him in power.
It's a great year for all those who have the best interests of Austriaa at heart. Looking forward to seeing most of the MP's demise, never having to see them again. I'm enjoying it. 🙂
on 13-03-2013 11:32 AM
Sounds like nothing much will change . Though those who believe that total freedom of speech actually exists may believe the hype and paranoia .
on 13-03-2013 11:34 AM
Just another step towards total control and removing the rights of the people
sounds a little like Communism
You've seen it have you?
Got a link?
I can't find the details anywhere.
Under Godwin's law surely News have lost the argument already
on 13-03-2013 12:08 PM
The funny thing it Gina Rinehart is currently taking a journo to court to force said journo to reveal details of her sources :^O
on 13-03-2013 12:21 PM
some comments from the abc website:
jackmedows
11:54 AM on 13/03/2013
High time that the one major ultra right wing Murdoch press (News Ltd)that owns %70 of our news outlets gets reined in.
Their very biased reporting has become very UN-Australian.
The hate campaign they run only feeds the low life of our society.
Even this (ABC)report has touches of bias, as I have started to notice on many of the ABC news programs. What ever happened to reporting the news rather than interpreting it to suit the bias of the current executives.
I like to read and listen to the news without all the sly innuendo that we currently get.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
burgerdee
11:42 AM on 13/03/2013
While I am not a fan of either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott. I agree that the Liberal opposition have fostered an abusive and aggressive culture of protest against the government and especially the Prime Minister. In the long run I believe this culture, if it is maintained, will only serve to denigrate the position of Prime Minister and the standing of politicians in general. Using abusive language and name calling really only shows a lack of intelligence and the inability to mount a credible and rationale argument in support or defence of your position.
On the issue of the Daily Telegraph comparing Stephen Conroy to a bunch of mass murdering dictators, well, the Daily Telegraphs reason for existence is to sell advertising space and not write credible news stories. To do this they have to create sensation as sensation usually grabs attention and attention attracts advertisers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------