on โ13-03-2013 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 โ13-03-2013 12:29 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
regarding conversations with her own son too.
if ordinary people want the high court to reveal what ones own children say about them all they need are lawyers at $thousands a day .. its a fair system ;\
on โ13-03-2013 01:03 PM
A lot of breast beating here, and in the media, over what? It evokes memories of Roxon's
anti-discrimination laws and the "conduct is "reasonably likely" to offend" nonsense.
LL thinks the media messengers should all be "killed", and TH and NW think it means we will have a red read.
I do wonder if any here have perused the fine print, not that all of it is in place yet (hardly a surprise for NBN Conroy) because apropos the Public Interest Media Advocate (Press Council oversight), there is no mention of qualifications/background (no politicians please) or even their powers, terms of reference/limits.
Oh gosh, Conroy/government wants stronger self-regulation by the media, who are members of the press council, as opposed to statutory regulation, meaning the media will mark its own homework, just like it does now. Whoopee Doo, and we might actually get rid of media "bloggers".
A permanent community TV channel is good, as is the removal of the "75% rule", whilst the "Public Interest Test" (political interest test) is designed to placate LL, even though the ACCC is more than capable of overseeing media mergers and acquisitions.
A 50% reduction in the licence fees paid by commercial television broadcasters, if they broadcast an additional 1490 hours of Australian content by 2015, Considering the cost of producing "good" TV, does that mean Australia will have more local content of a lesser quality?
Let the dust die down, read the proposals, and LL, hang on to your side-arm and extra ammunition.
on โ13-03-2013 01:22 PM
thats right john, the criticism is a beat-up . the tele makes conroys case ๐
as i have said before, i dont want to shoot them.. i want honesty. i dont think thats too much to ask of them ? patently lying to the public as with selective concentration on topics of benefit to only one section of society is dishonest and not democratic. true democracy requires truth, something in short supply ATM.
and having read the proposals i have noticed they are far less draconian (not draconian at all actually) than regulation applied to television broadcasting that has been in place for quite some time . is bolt still on tv ? why yes he is ..
on โ13-03-2013 01:34 PM
I start to agree with you LL, and then you write:
"is bolt still on tv ? why yes he is .." Put away the pistol, he is not worth the effort.
"if ordinary people want the high court to reveal what ones own children say about them all they need are lawyers at $thousands a day .. its a fair system"
It always has been that money buys you the best legal team, and Rinehart has used the supreme court to so far issue subpoenas against journalist Steve Pennells of the West Australian, Fairfax journalist Peter Kerr, and now Adele Ferguson.
If you have lots of money you can fish for anything.
on โ13-03-2013 02:21 PM
What i don't get is that if the media reports something negative against the government what makes that a conspiracy???
The government deserves all the criticism it gets as far as I am concerned.
What I would like investigated is the phone call that Gillard made to stop a news report going ahead???
what right does a PM have to call up and make threats to a media outlet about anything???
on โ13-03-2013 02:31 PM
What i don't get is that if the media reports something negative against the government what makes that a conspiracy???
nothing remotely like that in the proposed legislation.
the other comments are equally off the mark, the PM (like anyone else) has the right to ring a newspaper and say 'thats false' and it was false . the newspaper has the right to proceed anyway. none of this legislation changes any of that. if a call to the editor caused a story to be held back, thats down to the editor.
on โ13-03-2013 02:35 PM
what right does a PM have to call up and make threats to a media outlet about anything???
What phone call is that?
What i don't get is that if the media reports something negative against the government what makes that a conspiracy???
The problem is not the media reporting in the negative.
The problem is when the report untruths and present them as truths.
Another problem is when they insist on treating anti groups equal right to debate as the scientists. For example the anti vaccination woman, who calls herself an organization, and condemns scientists who have done actual research.
on โ13-03-2013 02:35 PM
What i don't get is that if the media reports something negative against the government what makes that a conspiracy???
The government deserves all the criticism it gets as far as I am concerned.
What I would like investigated is the phone call that Gillard made to stop a news report going ahead???
what right does a PM have to call up and make threats to a media outlet about anything???
What about when they falsely report facts? Shouldn't there be some standards where truth is part of journalism?
on โ13-03-2013 02:37 PM
on โ13-03-2013 03:34 PM
Loving it, just loving 2013, the last year we have to be subjected to lies & spin, failed policies & erosiion of our liberties.....Oh happy day, just loving this year.:^O:-p;-)B-):-):-x:^O