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 โ19-03-2013 07:49 PM
on โ19-03-2013 07:51 PM
how come u can make a derogatory statement like this about someone and I get a slap for me giving u the - - - stirrers spade ,
It's actually quite simple, Newstart.
Making a derogatory comment about a policy, political party or politician is not deemed to be interpersonal - ,making one about a fellow poster is.
on โ19-03-2013 07:51 PM
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1748068/Explainer--Conroy-s-proposed-new-media-laws
on โ19-03-2013 07:54 PM
It is a dumb proposel.
There is room for an appointed regulator in the industry that has to be impossibly agreed to by all parties as being truly independant.
I see no future debate as anything talking about regulation will be labelled as an attack on freedom of speech rather than protecting those who are innocent (hardly anyone in parliment) and making sure the ownership is both evenly owned and evenly spaced in all states.
on โ19-03-2013 07:58 PM
on โ19-03-2013 07:58 PM
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1748068/Explainer--Conroy-s-proposed-new-media-laws
Thankyou, if that is truly a correct explenation I cannot see why there are so many angry letters in my newspaper comparing Australia to communist states and people being ashamed of the country.
I never read it and I'm guessing I am not the only person.
on โ19-03-2013 08:03 PM
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1748068/Explainer--Conroy-s-proposed-new-media-laws
Thanks LL. So now would it be too much to hope for that we could have some intelligent comments by those opposed to the bill as to which specific proposals they disagree with and why. So far this thread - like all the media coverage I have read - has been very long on rhetoric and very short on substance.
on โ19-03-2013 08:17 PM
on โ19-03-2013 08:29 PM
if you're into reading a bunch of government bureaucratic bovine excrement
here you go
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4993_ems_6d4ee109-01c1-4188-af1e-b4c94895190a%22
on โ19-03-2013 08:38 PM
Thankyou, if that is truly a correct explenation I cannot see why there are so many angry letters in my newspaper comparing Australia to communist states and people being ashamed of the country.
I never read it and I'm guessing I am not the only person.
The facts are hard to find.
That's the problem I have with the msm at the moment.
What they headline is often the opposite of the story content, but the headline and first paragraph with the lie get the attention.
I have seen speeches/events that have been reported about as if it was a totally different speech or event.