The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > News Media Council proposal: be careful what you wish for #ausmedia #MediaInquiry #Finkelstein > Comments

News Media Council proposal: be careful what you wish for #ausmedia #MediaInquiry #Finkelstein : Comments

By Mark Pearson, published 5/3/2012

The law already satisfactorily covers any actions of the media that might need oversite.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Thanks for a thoughtful piece, Mark.

Your point about internal appeals or review by an administrative tribunal looks right to me – I wonder whether it is still possible to lobby the government to include an affordable means of appeal, especially for the sake of non-corporate publishers you identify – but I don't think it justifies your plea to keep the legal status quo.

When the news media mount attack jobs on people, they do not always breach the defamation laws. (I'm talking about ad hominem attacks on individuals here, not the 'robust policy analysis' that some politicians have called 'writing crap.') That does not mean the attacks are fair. Perhaps more importantly, it does not mean they comply with the various formal codes of ethics that journalists often claim to be bound by. Bound by until it is convenient to forget them, with no recourse for the aggrieved parties.

I am closely familiar with one such case: a certain newspaper syndicate published untrue and hurtful allegations about someone in my family who had died. The family's only recourse was the Press Council, but its rulings are of course unenforceable. The journalists involved have all gone on to bigger and more lucrative jobs since they ignored the Council's judgment against them — no retraction, no apology, and blithely re-airing the allegations from time to time.

Some countries already have models of 'enforceable self-regulation' in the news media, comparable to what Finkelstein has proposed. Most of them are in north-western Europe. Those countries do not tend to be more oppressive or less democratic than Australia. Many have also enshrined stronger legal protections for journalists who behave ethically (e.g. the protection of whistleblowing sources, which still gets some Australian journalists jailed) than Australia has. It seems to me that a free press gets freer when we go further down the self-regulation road even than Finkelstein has suggested.
Posted by Tom Clark, Monday, 5 March 2012 12:23:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent analysis.

It is quite obvious that appointees to the News Media Council will tend to have similar political views and outlooks to the government doing the appointing.This situation has always been the case in such instances.
So how could rampant bias then be eliminated-just impossible!

It could even be argued that some examples contained in the Report supporting the new Council are themselves biased ,such as paragraphs 4.31-4.42,in regards to climate change

The suggestion that the ACCC should be the arbiter seems open to question,in view of their strange actions lately.
In any case why should they be any less biased and petty?

Maybe the ACMA can be to be reinvigorated to deal with these matters.

Bias is a tricky subject,I know that I'm not biased,but of course everyone who disagrees with me is biased in the extreme.
Posted by mik, Monday, 5 March 2012 5:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes it sounds more like the creation of Frankinstein,the creature from our worst nightmare.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 5 March 2012 5:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark, there is so much of this proposal from Finklestein, that is from far left field.

The consequences seem likely to clash with basic assumptions about fundamental principles of truth and objectivity.

Take for example the climate debate and the role of skepticism in advancing understanding of the natural world.

Some 'climate scientists' employ mathematical models, which predict atmospheric warming, sea level rise, change to a generally drier climate and other unusual weather events.

The Australian Government has accepted these projections and has enacted legislation, which in their judgement, will mitigate the impact of these projections.

Other, well credentialed physical scientists have pointed out that some, perhaps even most, of these predictions have failed all attempts to observe them in the real world.

Who then will decide what should be communicated to the public?

Up until now ‘truth’ required evidence, and in science this involved a rigorous 'scientific method' which required speculation (such as an hypothesis) to be verified through observation before it could be accepted.

Will the Finklestein proposal impose an additional obligation on those who wish to report their scientific observations?

Could a properly credentialed scientist be required to publicly deny what the scientist observed, if the observation offended a sector of public opinion, or ran contrary to government policy of the day?

Indeed, could a researcher fall foul of this system by simply announcing an investigation to test a matter, or a scientific principle, upon which the government of the day had already taken a position?
Posted by CARFAX, Monday, 5 March 2012 5:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This site http://www.freespeechaustralia.com has just been created because of this assault on our freedoms.So log on and sign the petition to end this growing fascism.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 5 March 2012 7:01:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Media Watch gave a good review of the report tonight.

While much of the Finkelstein report raised valid points about the media and lack of self-regulation there is only one thing that could be worse and that is some form of government body having influence over the media. It is rare for a government body to be truly independent when it's survival depends on the government of the day.

The dodgy journalists and media outlets expose themselves all too often with the best adjudicator of all - the reader. Either the totally biased will agree with what is written factual errors and all, or the rest, the equally totally biased will disagree despite good research and factual data.

The problems of false reporting and defamation can be redressed through the Law but a better government response would be to make this redress affordable or free, otherwise those protections offered by Law are only available to the few.

Make legal action more affordable and perhaps that will result in a better standard of journalism characterised by improved fact-checking.

Perhaps in the same way that a $25 fee will ensure an unpaid bill is paid, the same could apply in raising the standard of journalism. Just think of all the extra jobs for law graduates who currently outnumber jobs available. Or make it easier to advocate for yourself by presenting documentation proving allegations are false.

It could be so simple couldn't it...?
Posted by pelican, Monday, 5 March 2012 11:44:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy