It seems ,from comments from GODO, Paul and Kenny that a real threat to quality journalism might be a lack of reading comprehension among the the great unwashed. Of course, I am assuming that each of these respondents actually read Mark Pearson's explaination of the derivation of the RSF ratings.
Chaps, it is not about who owns what as much as the freedom of the media to report with factual integrity without government intervention or oppresive legal restrictions if you happen to offend someones elses personal views.
Transparency has not been the first priority for Governments in Australia for the last few years -so we shouldn't be surprised if others have noticed a decline our Press Freedom in Australia.

If SM says it's for reasons of good reporting, means it's one sided approach makes for good reading. Distorted facts, and biased opinion.
Stories that are cut short, or repeatedly repeated. Newspapers need to be restricted to press releases, only. As soon as it is touched by human hand, a natural bias takes over. Even reporting of parliament, takes on a swing, all depends who gets the kick backs i suppose.

It seems to me that there are two very important points that emerge from the article. there are undoubtedly others, but I want to comment on just two.

The first point is the observation that Australia is almost unique (in fact I don't know any other example) among nations generally listed as "western democracies" or a similar rubric that has neither a Bill of Rights or a constitutional guarantee of free speech. We need a serious debate on that deficiency.

The second point is the one of self-censorship; that is, where editors avoid publishing informed comment on a range of issues. The reasons for that are manifold. They include fear of ridicule (subscribing to so-called conspiracy theories) or, much more common in my view, simply avoiding topics because an honest appreciation goes against the received wisdom of those who hold the real power in our societies.

There are literally dozens of examples. The US Project Censored website is illuminating to say the least. Currently we are being subjected to a barrage of misinformation about, inter alia, Iran's alleged nuclear program; the unrest in Syria; and the Fukushima nuclear contamination.

Another common failing is to omit to provide context or relevant information. One example suffices. There was much manufactured shock/horror over Russia and China's veto of military intervention in Syria. Not one newspaper bothered to print the history of American vetos in the Security Council where they (the US) vote against the overwhelming weight of world opinion, as with Palestine motions, or removing the embargo from Cuba.

If Australia is to move up the rankings of the WPFI then there is a great deal to be done.

SM, Rupert's big 3 Melbourne's Herald Sun, Sydney's Telegraph and Brisbane's Courier Mail outsell The Australian by a factor of 10 to 1. They attract those that want to know if Blockhead is playing for the Wombats this weekend, front page news. When the reader has checked out the big news about Blockhead they are then told on page 2 how Julia bits the heads of chickens, when she's not ruining the country,they then proceed to tell you this is all taking place while dear Tony is tending the sick and needy of Calcutta, before he thinks of new ways to save Australia. All in a days unbiased reporting. At least the story about Blockhead is true.

I love a good index.

Even better an index from a Think Tank.

Actually I love a good think tank!

Just like Gittins' happiness index and the consumer confidence index, I see it as useful as trying to compare Tendulkar to Lara. Or even Bradman for that matter.

Still it brightens my day when I hear Kohler tell me that consumers are feeling confident. I think we all should feel confident. I anticipate eagerly the day when someone rings me and says 'Houllie, how confident do you reckon you feel today?'.

I'd say about an 8 out of 10, lock it in Eddie!

Then if I one day get a business, I can even be rung by the business confidence people. I reckon I'd just answer them with

'Well, I'm the backbone of the country, and these new regulations are killing me man! You just don't appreciate how hard it is to run a business. It'll cost jobs I'll tell you, I won't be doing everyone a favour forever if it's gonna cost me! I'm the heart and soul of the country, and if I have to fill out a new form I'll have to cut staff! Have you seen it out there, we're going to the wall, you ain't seen nothing yet! All for doing the country a favour. And being the backbone. And being misunderstood. And unnappreciated! Like my staff I suppose, but they're not the backbone like me and I'me doing them a huge favour and they'll never understand how hard I've got it and how if I have to fill out a form I have to make one of them redundant because they're killing businesses. I'm losing confidence baby! I'm losin' it and it's gonna cost jobs! You ain't seen nothing yet!'

Unbiased reporting to me is reporting the truth. Just because Tony Abbott says we have the worlds biggest carbon price, does not mean it is true. The unbiased reporter should check to see if this allegation is in-fact true, before he puts it in print. Two days ago Tony was told in parliament by Mr Rudd , we do not have the worlds biggest carbon price, and backed by figures. Tony has ignored this information and is spruiking deliberate lies to the media. Now read from the top again.