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 17-03-2013 01:21 PM
Then again, what is wrong with the word "castigate" or even the word it can be mistaken for at times if one reads a bit quick. They are both in the English dictionary so what's the problem ?? Neither are swearing, derogatory nor slanderous.
on 17-03-2013 01:30 PM
sorry newstart, I was so sure it was nero who requoted that post. maybe I just didn't see yours?
anyway the email is aumoderation@ebay.com. if your requote is gone, the original should be gone too
on 17-03-2013 01:34 PM
I think that's it, I haven't needed to use it for a few months Maybe someone will correct me if I'm wrong
on 17-03-2013 01:47 PM
No it was poddsters post (not to blame for the report). It may have been LL as I have been a bit rough on some comments but truthful, maybe the truth DOES hurt.
They just don't seem to look closely enough and me thinks it maybe my turn. How do you put in a complaint to them, I am X-(
i think you overestimate yourself. you haven't scratched the surface or anything near it. :^O
on 17-03-2013 02:35 PM
i think you overestimate yourself. you haven't scratched the surface or anything near it. :^O
[/quote]
Scratched the surface of what ? I think you are on the wrong thread LL, you might be looking for the Men thread if you need a scratch LOL
on 17-03-2013 02:36 PM
shady acres? :^O
newstart it doesn't make any sense that yours is gone and his is still there. i just had a look to see what you're talking about. maybe you should put in a complaint?
very odd indeed!
Try as you might Debles, the string buttons are not in 100% working order, could it be over use one has to wonder?.
No doubt there may be a delayed reaction though at times it takes weeks and months.
on 17-03-2013 02:42 PM
By the way, I feel sure that LL took no offence at my atempt at some satire 🙂
Were you offended LL?
on 17-03-2013 03:21 PM
By the way, I feel sure that LL took no offence at my atempt at some satire 🙂
Were you offended LL?
not at all, attempts dont faze me 🙂
on 18-03-2013 11:37 AM
Journalists need to renew the mission and win back trust.
Speaking of the audience, let's consider them as we consider the merits of policy change to media regulation.
I won't defend for one moment the government's sub-optimal internal process, the fact it took far too long to respond to reviews that actually require a considered, well-thought-out policy response. In terms of the fine print, the package reads like mild chaos and extreme compromise.
But the principles guiding the proposed changes? Let's look through the static and consider them.
There are two: that concentration of media ownership in Australia will not get any worse than it is now. Not any better, mind you - just no worse. And that self-regulation - a principle that newspapers have rightly fought for and defended - should be made to actually work; that people who are the victims of intended or unintended abuses by media companies have their complaints properly heard.
The principles in this package are, in fact, the challenges the mainstream media must meet in order to survive the transition currently upon us. We in the media must renew our mandate with audiences by innovating and moving beyond the strictures of the old masthead and network models, and by being accurate and reliable.
We can pretend the only player here with an existential trust problem is the Gillard government, and wilfully ignore our own parallel universe: the evidence that audiences don't trust us either.
We can comfort ourselves in self-delusion, and strut and fret. Or we can spend less time swaggering and railing against our enemies and more time renewing the mission of contemporary journalism. We are tellers of truths, news breakers, curators and contextualisers; and at our best and bravest, we are people who write things that someone, somewhere, does not want written.
The only people who can save or destroy journalism are journalists. And we will save it only if we exhibit courage and humility, not manufactured conflict.
This is my last weekly column for The Age. I cannot express what a pleasure and a privilege it has been. I wish Age readers, treasures that you are, the very best.
Katharine Murphy is national affairs correspondent of The Age.
Thankyou Katherine for considering your audience and what your professional role is
on 18-03-2013 12:34 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-18/rowland-media-regulation-stitch-up/4578648
The men of TV and a media regulation stitch-up
By ABC's Michael Rowland
Updated 3 hours 10 minutes ago
When 32 of the nation's best-known male TV presenters gathered for a photo shoot two weeks ago, they didn't expect to be used as the mouthpiece for a News Limited campaign against Conroy's media reforms, writes ABC's Michael Rowland.
....The Sunday Telegraph reporters and photographers were all extremely professional and a pleasure to work with.
Fast forward to last Friday, two weeks after the photo shoot...
The paper, planning to run the story on Sunday, approached the ABC and the other networks wanting some extra quotes from the presenters involved. Specifically it wanted to know our views on the Federal Government's contentious media reforms.
Fair enough. It had been one of the biggest stories of the week and the Telegraph was within its rights to seek the views of some of the country's most prominent TV news figures.
Our comments were sent off and we all thought nothing more of it.
Then the bomb dropped on Sunday morning.
There we were on page 9 laughing and joking in one of Justin Lloyd's great photos but the headline above screamed:
The Men Of TV Vent Free Speech Outrage
Readers could easily be forgiven for thinking we had, as the paper put it, 'united to share their… concerns about the Government's controversial media reforms.'
Except, well, no we hadn't.
We had united for a photo shoot and to share our views on the ups and downs of our jobs. The media reforms at that stage were but a twinkle in Stephen Conroy's eyes.
By all means quote us on the reforms but don't misrepresent this gathering of the country's 'most trusted TV faces' as a council of war on what the Government is up to.
Only eight of the 32 present were quoted on the reforms and while I understand that could have very well been a space issue it's not exactly a united industry front against the Government.
I know for a fact that three of my colleagues involved in the shoot didn't express any view about the planned changes. And, although it didn't make the cut, my contribution to the debate was to welcome the proposed updating of the ABC charter to reflect the strength and popularity of online platforms.
Other journalists involved have also moved to distance themselves from the manufactured story.
Yes, strange indeed the Telegraph of all papers overlooked that particular insight.
So not only was the story misleading but the slant of the piece also buried, until page 112, some really good insights and experiences of men, like Hugh, that I personally hold up as industry role models.
In this case, Mick, you haven't.
Michael Rowland has presented ABC News Breakfast since the launch of ABC News 24 in July 2010. View ...here.
read more; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-18/rowland-media-regulation-stitch-up/4578648