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 12:19 PM
Where are you debra ? late for lunch again . me and mummy are waiting X-(
on 17-03-2013 12:20 PM
Do you have any ideas about how to get them reporting the truth?
who decides what the truth is.....the government or the reader?:|
i know which i prefer
on 17-03-2013 12:21 PM
Do you have any ideas about how to get them reporting the truth?
who decides what the truth is.....the government or the reader?:|
i know which i prefer
yeah i know what you prefer slurrrrp.. :-x
on 17-03-2013 12:24 PM
on 17-03-2013 12:26 PM
Do you have any ideas about how to get them reporting the truth?
who decides what the truth is.....the government or the reader?:|
i know which i prefer
Why should the reader have to research every article to find out if there is any truth behind it?
The approach at the moment is to make up a big story, slap it on a few front pages, then when forced to they issue an apology in small text half way through the paper where most people won't see it.
There is nothing honest or ethical in this sort of behaviour.
on 17-03-2013 12:31 PM
The Australian press are not allowed ,BY LAW, to print lies.
The Australian press had no questions to answer as JG said, the Australian press DID NOT HACK PHONES. The inquiry was set up was a witchhunt to gag criticism of themselves.
There is no defence for any of this & it won't pass the smell test in Parliament.
on 17-03-2013 12:31 PM
Why should the reader have to research every article to find out if there is any truth behind it?
i learned to read between the lines long before the internet
but that's just me
on 17-03-2013 12:36 PM
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.
Terms of reference and consultation
The terms of reference for the inquiry were:
The effectiveness of the current media codes of practice in Australia, particularly in light of technological change that is leading to the migration of print media to digital and online platforms.
The impact of this technological change on the business model that has supported the investment by traditional media organisations in quality journalism and the production of news, and how such activities can be supported, and diversity enhanced, in the changed media environment.
Ways of substantially strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the Australian Press Council, including in relation to online publications, and with particular reference to the handling of complaints.
Any related issues pertaining to the ability of the media to operate according to regulations and codes of practice, and in the public interest.
on 17-03-2013 12:39 PM
some love it as it is 'please lie to me' 'it suits my world view'
conroy was only going through the motions of implementing watered-down recomendations of the convergence review. he knows that murdochs comics decide what public opinion is, but he had to be seen to make some kind of effort to address corrupt media organisations.. its his job.
that's what he was saying from the beginning .. 'take it or leave it, even if its a waste of time'
on 17-03-2013 12:42 PM
Do the ACCC, ACMA, TIO, ACCAN, CA amount to Communism ?