Excellent article by Dr. John Wright. Australia should resist and prevent oligopolies to develop in the market of ideas. Democracy is at stake here and we need systems in place which limit the abilities of special interest groups to work against Australia's national interests in the media, mining and elsewhere.

Editorial control is a very important issue that needs to be managed carefully as it can have significant positive or negative impact on society. The good news is that with the emergence of on line communication and web 2.0 society has access to new and emerging sources of credible information generated by the community.

I don't think that there is any member of OLO who is against free speech or doubts its merits, but how is this related to the issue of Fairfax shares?

While we should be allowed to speak freely, nobody is obliged to facilitate it for us, including Gina: there are always other avenues (including OLO) - and if there aren't enough, then nothing stops us from creating new ones.

If Gina takes over, then she can turn the papers into whatever she likes and it's not that the editors must obey her orders - they can resign or be sacked, receive their package and go for a different paper, or create a new one.

Personally, I think that what Gina is doing is a shrewd business maneuver: once she owns 51% of the papers, she will throw hints and take minor steps in the direction of directing the editorials - the other 49% will then believe that the papers are doomed and sell their shares very cheaply to Gina, who will then... do nothing, so confidence in the papers remain and Gina can then sell back her shares at a good profit!

Thanks to 20 years or more of dismal mismanagement, Fairfax is effectively broke. Since it is basically a print medium company in an increasingly digital age, it is unlikely to survive unless someone is prepared to be its patron. Gina Rinehart apparently is prepared to be that person. Not surprisingly, she wants to take some steps to ensure that the losses she will inevitably incur are minimised and that the company is run efficiently and in a manner designed to maximise revenue. Part of that process will involvee not endorsing the editorial and journalistic practices which have contributed to declining readership of its flagship papers. So far, I'd have thought, so self-evident and nothing to do with democracy or freedom of speech. Indeed, the latter is under far greater threat from racial vilification laws.

If anyone wants the sort of political analysis The Age and the SMH offer, it's freely available on the ABC and SBS. Indeed, one of the problems Fairfax will have in entering the digital spectrum is that it will have to charge for digital product, product which anyone can get free from the ABC. Democracy saved!!

One final point. The most heavily funded media company in Australia is the governmnt owned ABC/SBS conglomerate. 2010/11 government budget allocations reveal that ABC/SBS is funded at $1.2b compared with News Limited at $800m and Fairfax at $400m in round figures. No threat to democracy with a government owned media conglomerate dominating the media landscape and running a predominantly Green-Left agenda 24 hours a day? If you're looking for a real problem, that's where it lies.

I'm not sure that one can agree with the article?
So-called freedom of speech is limited; and or, rationed?
It seems to me the only time we are really free to express a view, is through a referendum, or on sites like this one, where the only real constraint is word limits?
Most of the private media, seems to have a right wing bias anyway, as seems the case for multi millionaire Malcolm (return bill) Turnbull?
And it is London to a brick that Media owners will select employees, whose views most closely reflect their own?
Take Gay marriage. A reported 80 something percent, seem to be in favour of finally formalising already existing committed relationships? Yet, the print media seem either stridently opposed, or strangely silent.
Moreover, we have seen in recent years a media that has gone from reflecting public sentiment to trying to mould it?
A trim taut and terrific, lean and mean Gina laboured mightily, for many years in the face of many obstacles, including the flies, the sweat, the heat and the dust.
This being so, she deserves every last centavo, of her hard earned wealth, and should therefore be able to reap the fruits of all those years of gut busting effort and personal deprivation!
She should be free to purchase what she may, be it a right wing rag, or a seemingly covertly compliant parliament?
Money after all, speaks all languages.
If she wants to bring pressure and influence to bear, through her "editorial" investment to say vastly simplify the tax act? She should be entirely free to do so?
After all, it is HER HARD-EARNED and therefore deserved lot!
Moreover, it is hard to see where she would be any or very different from the sort of highly opinionated dictatorial die hards, at the helm of any of the capital city dailies? So why all the fuss, NOW?
Rhrosty.

Footnote; seriously, if you and your boss invariably share the same opinion, then one of you is clearly redundant! Quote unquote.
Rhrosty.

The Australian main stream media is a joke, as is the guvment's censorship and d-notice powers.

Look at ABC24, with largely the same simple handfull of simplistic moronic dribble that goes round and round all ...'ing day and night.

..

I want murdoch out, and his holdings broken up into as many viable small chunks as possible and owned by Australians. If Gina wants a chunk, good on her.

And, I want time and date stamps on each piece of footage by original shooting date with live stamp overlay being reserved exclusively for real live broadcast.

Further, I want to see the journalist asking the question, and to be able to clearly hear and discern the question being asked.

For political coverage, I want to hear firstly from the people who are making the laws, and other wise far less from the opposition, with all simplistic politician clap trap to be cross referenced by at least 2 additional expert opinions.

Once the NBN is up, I want each guvment department to have its own interactive multi media broadcast site for the purpose of servicing the educational and legal needs of the people and 1 secure and private Australia card to intergrate the whole lot so as not to have to register, and re-register the same crap over and over with every other set of muggles that we are forced to deal with.

The assumptions made by the author of this article are:

1 The sole reason GR has bought into the newspaper is to spruik her right wing ideals

2 A 19% ownership will enable her to do so

3 That a change in 20% of print media (or about 2% of total media) will spell the end for free speech.

GR bought when Fairfax was at its lowest, and now after the restructure announcement, the shares have increased dramatically, She has just made a motza. For all that is said of GR she is not a financial idiot. Having spent in the region of $100m she is not likely to flush it away.

Given its falling market share, perhaps the SMH and the age need a kick up the editorial backside before they fade into obscurity.