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 20-03-2013 11:22 AM
I don't know how Julian Disney can say, quote "It is true the timing of this policy is absurd and buying a huge fight with the media industry at this time is ludicrous
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry
Independent Media Inquiry
On 30 November 2012, the government announced a package of measures as part of its initial response to the Convergence Review to enable television broadcasters to continue to invest in and broadcast Australian content. The government also announced that it will continue to progress its consideration of the report with further announcements to be made during 2013.
further announcement were to be made during 2012.They shouldn't be unexpected
on 20-03-2013 11:23 AM
further announcements during 2013
on 20-03-2013 01:15 PM
Is it true that two of these changes have got the yes vote?
on 20-03-2013 02:53 PM
While all the luvvies have flocked on here to twitter & tweat about Gillards attempt to slur Abbott, Gillard was ordered into 2 humiliating apologies.
While the luvvies had a moment of delight that Gillard had again pulled the sexist card her party also dumped all Roxon's anti discrimination work, yes that's right, dumped it all.
Another day another policy failure, another day another humiliationg backdown, another day another look into the chaos that is the Labor party
luvvie, twitter and tweak, sexist card, policy failure, humiliating backdown, chaos ......... This is EXACTLY the kind of meaningless invective I was referring to when I said this thread was long on rhetoric but short on substance. Thank you Silverfaun for demonstrating my point so clearly.
I'll ask again, which specific clauses in the bill do you object to, and why?
on 20-03-2013 03:05 PM
on 20-03-2013 03:21 PM
Akerman!!! starts foaming at the mouth
Bolt!!! foams at the mouth
on 20-03-2013 04:21 PM
Goading for a response is hardly likely to get a result. A reasonable response to the subject rather than the poster is the accepted norm isn't it?
Reading some of the highly emotive posts on here it's a wonder you don't get any responses.
on 20-03-2013 04:27 PM
who are you talking to ?
on 20-03-2013 04:28 PM
Define goading - as opposed to asking.
on 20-03-2013 04:32 PM
I was thinking it may be a kind of a positive self affirmation ?