The largest media corporation in Australia is the government owned and funded ABC, which constantly runs an anti-Coalition line and uses its current affairs programs to malign the leader of the Opposition. This is, of course, in direct contradiction of the ABC Charter. Strangely, Senator Conroy's "reforms" exempt the ABC from any independent scrutiny.

Not so strangely, Alan, a former ABC staffer now resident in the French socialist paradise sees harm only in the Murdoch press and its major share of the Australian print media, a share incidentally, granted to Murdoch by a former Labour government which saw Murdoch as an ally at that time.

Ho Ho HO.

Nice one Alan, when did you decide to join the comedy circuit?

Cripes; Austin's crusade against Perry White, sorry Rubert Murdoch, arch villan, continues apace.

Disguised as a gentile wine imbiber Austin, situated in a salubrious part of Chateau de Plonksville, at night, or day, or anytime really, doffs his wine appreciation apparel and goes out into the night, day or any time really to press his campaign against the ineluctable foe.

Armed only with a pen, rose-coloured glasses and an indomitable asininity he presses his case against Murdoch, Bolt and anyone who doesn't want to live under the gentle yoke of a CO2 tax, the ABC or Gillard.

"Can anything be done?" cries Alan.

To which we reply: yes, don't buy his bloody newspapers you twit.

Hi Alan, So News corp is not without sin. What else is new? The ABC is guilty of grievous sin and uses my taxes to pay for it. Conroy's cure is a direct attack on freedom of the press and should be rejected outright by all citizens that value one of the corner stones of democracy. Very little is perfect in this world - Conroy's cure is far far worse than the disease. Furthermore it comes very soon after Roxon's attempt to strangle free speech. This Government is dangerous and must go asap.

Agree Alan:
What actual changes are advocated?
That the self regulation News corporation and others have signed up to, is finally and transparently enforced, by entirely independent oversight!
That no editor or owner can influence any outcome, or that body's independence, by threatening to withdraw financial support, for their own self regulated organisation.
The Govt has no influence here, any more than it can dictate to a judge or an ombudsman.
I simply don't understand all the fuss over the additional protection to free speech, this legislation will provide; and not just for large powerful corporations, but Mr average Joe public as well.
Who's rights as Alan has pointed out, are routinely ridden rough shod over, by those now screaming the loudest, over their perceived rights to reveal all?
The public interest test or morbid curiosity, needs to be truly tested by the public's actual right to know, or should that read, the publicist's right to reveal?
Or indeed, any person's inherent right to inviolable privacy.
I believe, the "press", killed Princess Diana, with their constant attempts to breach her privacy, just as surely as if it had held a loaded gun to her head?
We ought to have rules to prevent this from ever happening again to anyone.
Given we don't, we need to ensure such as we do have, to protect our rights and our freedom of speech, are at least enforced on those, who voluntarily sign up to them.
I mean, there's no compulsion, and they remain free to opt out; given there is no obligation to sign up or on as a press council, rule obeying member!
The proposed legislation is, as I understand what is actually proposed, only asking them to observe their very own rules or self regulation!?
Just what is the problem with that?
Rhrosty.

If there is one thing that the ABC does well, it is the Leftist brainwashing of its reporters and journalists.It stays with them for life.

Of course the Murdoch press has its biases and hang-ups. So does the ABC, Fairfax and every other news out let? Incidentally, can you think of a more biases publication then “Left Green Weekly?”

The secret is to read widely and form your own views. Personally, I get very annoyed with Barrie Cassidy and his “Insiders.” Just look how they treated Piers Ackerman on yesterday’s program.

My greatest criticism with Australian is this: In 2007 they advised their readership to vote Labor. There is no doubt in my mind that the Australian was acting with the full approval of Rupert.

Once again we have a left wing whinger confirming that the sole purpose of the media legislation is to allow the government to punish a newspaper critical of it.

Allan,

Given that the "independent" media advocate is a fixed term (one year I believe) beauracrat How would you feel when the stooge appointed by Labor is replaced with a Liberal stooge? (say Bolt)

Newscorp attained its market share under a series of mergers approved by the Labor government of the time, and has retained its dominance by its aggressive investigative reporting. Its pursuit of Juliar AFTER the AWU resurfaced showed clearly that Gillard had been extremely economical with the truth to cover up her unethical behaviour.

The series of bad policy announcements by Labor in a desperate attempt to garner votes has lead to Labor and Juliar being slightly more popular than an STD.

Alan, love your work, especially when you get the rabid rightwingers frothing at the mouth.

Whatever may be the sins of NewsCorp, they are no excuse to penalise the people of Australia by restricting the right to free speech.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/supergrass-identifies-800-potential-new-victims-of-phonehacking-8538285.html

I love the ABC bashers who whinge without evidence that they are left wing when in fact under Mark Scott they have become an arm of the Murdoch criminal gangsters.

Murdoch's ranters want to be allowed to spew out as many lies and as much hate as they can against their victims of the month and Fairfax these days is little better.

And the only ones who claim it is an assault on free speech are the likes of Akerman and Bolt who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the bum.

Marilyn
Under the proposed laws, a government appointee will be able to remove a media organisation’s privacy law exemptions if it is not deemed to meet acceptable standards. That seems like an attack on free speech to me

Plenty of criticism of this article made in the comments but no-one seems to be disputing the "facts" presented regarding the on-going distortions/misrepresentations etc published as "news" by News Corp outlets in Australia. Re the endless whinging about left-wing bias in the ABC. As many ex-ABC journos have gone on to represent or work for the Liberal/National Parties as have gone to work for/represent the ALP. Again can we stick to the facts. Please check http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=33&m=7854&ps=50&dm=1&pd=3

Only if they are proven to be lying over and over again Rhian.
Why would anyone in their right mind support a mafia media outfit though?

What an outstanding article by AlanAustin and what a disheartening attempt by a commentator to blame the ABC for a kind of similar bias. What nonsense. I saw the four media moguls today on TV pretending to complain about the "draconian" draft legislation today. This proposed legislation is about the freedom to stop media abuse. What we need here is more media diversity common in just about every other OECD country. The domination by News Limited over the Australian media, 70% ownership of all media, looks like being tested somewhat by the Federal ALP. That would be a great contribution to Freedom of Expression! The so-called Freedom of Expression that News Limited wants to defend is like the deplorable, provocative Daily Telegraph treatment of Minister Stephen Conroy. Editorial Director Campbell Reid on the ABC's 7.30 Report portrayed it as "creative journalism". To compare Conroy with Joseph Stalin and other dictators is merely sordid abuse. Presumably he believes that by now Australians are sufficiently conditioned to accept such nonsense as the norm. The extreme right in Australia seems to admire this abuse greatly.

However, most Australians were not at all impressed by the abuse of press freedom by the tabloid press of News Limited in Britain. Clearly "self-regulation" was a disaster there.They couldn't handle it there though. It was grossly abused as Alan's article makes perfectly clear. But it is not even the issue here. The daily attacks by News Limited on the Gillard Government is actually the main reason why her government is under severe stress. The often vitriolic attacks generally lack substance. A good Government could be destroyed this way to be replaced by a Government that makes a virtue of complaining and rubbishing everything. The new draft legislation, clearly aiming to limit this trend, should be welcomed by all Australians. It is also hard to believe that the proposed legislation is criticised by the Sydney Morning Herald in a recent editorial. Greg Hywood is failing his paper. He has missed the opportunity to stand up and be counted!

Klaas Woldring,
6 Tourmaline Avenue,
Pearl Beach, 2256

4341 5170

As I observed here last week, the worst excesses in the Australian mediascape are perpetuated by tabloid tv shows ACA and TT, and the radio shock jocks. This does not absolve News Ltd of their sins. Nor the ABC and Fairfax of theirs. However, Mr Conroy already has the power to properly regulate tabloid TV and the shock jocks and has failed to give ACMA the requisite powers.

The 12th point of the Code of Ethics of the MEAA (of which I am a proud member) is “Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors”. The Australian Journalists Association was absorbed into the MEAA in 1992. For the record, the MEAA is also critical of Mr Conroy’s frolic saying: “the government has adopted a package that threatens a heavy hand without improving the handling of complaints.”

Dr John Harrison
Program Director Undergraduate Studies
UQ School of Journalism & Communication

Interesting discussion. Thank you all.

@Senior Victorian: Re the ABC “constantly runs an anti-Coalition line …” Maybe. Not sure. But that’s not the issue, is it?

Murdoch, Fairfax, the ABC, the Green Left Commie Weekly are all perfectly free to run whatever line they like, express whatever opinion they like and condemn whatever political party they like. The more divergent lines run the better.

The issue here, however, is falsification of information.

You should be more concerned, SV, at the ABC – along with Fairfax now – following the Murdoch lead in broadcasting distortion and fabrication. This is happening now with increasing frequency.

@Pliny of Perth: Re “Conroy's cure is a direct attack on freedom of the press and should be rejected outright by all citizens that value one of the corner stones of democracy.”

Are you sure, Pliny? Have you read the draft legislation? If so, what section bothers you?

@Shadow Minister: Re “sole purpose of the media legislation is to allow the government to punish a newspaper critical of it.”

Really, SM? Have you read the draft legislation? What section allows ‘punishment’ for being critical of a government?

@Shadow Minister: Re: “Its [News Ltd’s] pursuit of Juliar AFTER the AWU resurfaced”.

No, SM. That saga proves the point of this article, don't you think?

After several years of digging, paying dodgy ‘witnesses’ and writing baseless accusations, all they have come up with are two grovelling apologies to the PM for false allegations.

Plus Glenn Milne sacked. So there was one positive, I suppose.

@Kipp: Thanks. Yes, one of life’s recurrent amusements.

@Hasbeen, Rhian, Coges: have you read the draft legislation? Or just the Murdoch misrepresentations thereof? They are liars. They are laughing at those of you who believe what they write. Not laughing with you. At you.

Cheers, AA

What a ridiculous article by Austin and comment by his fan Klaas.

1 Murdoch employees hacked illegally in GB; they have not done in Australia; in fact Fairfax has:

http://www.vexnews.com/2012/10/can-they-hack-it-victoria-police-refer-age-hacking-evidence-to-federal-prosecutors/

2 There is always a fine line between obtaining 'scoops' within and without the law which is why we have Whistle-blower protection and why Assange is the darling of the left even though his 'scoops' caused deaths. And this is the point which drones of the left like Austin, Shepherd and Klaas can't accept; for them breaking the law to expose their 'enemies' is ok, but when their enemy does it then the whole of the media has to be constrained; what hypocrites!

3 Klaas repeats the oft expressed nonsense that Murdoch has 70% ownership of the media; this is not only wrong but because it has been done so many times it is malaciously wrong: Murdoch publishes 32 per cent of all Australia’s newspapers. Parliamentary library figures show News’s share of circulation - as distinct from ownership - is 68 per cent in the capital cities and 77 per cent of the Sunday market.

That's right, over 70% of the Australian public read Murdoch; no wonder Klaas and other left drones have to twist that fact!

4 For little censorious tyrants like Austin, Shepherd and Klaas, "abuse of the press' simply means criticising their left 'heroes' in government; for them freedom of the press is freedom to support the government and nothing more. They regard the Australian population which do not share their hypocrisy as fools who need to be protected from being led by the untruths of Murdoch; it is this condescending rubbish which informed Finkelstein.

This pathetic diatribe and the equally despicable comments show that a large minority of Australians despise not only the rest of Australians but the inherent freedom of Australian society

Alan, these are the bits of the Bill I object to:

From the simplified outline (section 3)

“Under this Act, the Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA) may declare that a specified body corporate is a news media self-regulation body”

“A news media self-regulation body must have a news media self-regulation scheme that is binding on the news media organisation members of the body”

“Under subsection 7B(4) of the Privacy Act 1988, a news media organisation will not be eligible for exemption from that Act unless the organisation is a member of a news media self-regulation body”

From section 11:

The PIMA can revoke a declaration that a body is a news media self-regulation body if it deems there has been “a change in relevant community standards”

In other words, the government appoints the PIMA. A publisher only gets to maintain its privacy law exemption if it belongs to a PIMA-approved body with power to compel it to print or not print certain things. The criteria the PIMA can consider when authorising a body are broad, complex and subjective and include: privacy, fairness, accuracy, the professional conduct of journalism, and the extent to which those standards reflect community standards (section 7(3)). The PIMA will, through that authorising process and its interpretation of section 7(3), have considerable influence on how that body configures its rules and addresses breaches: this is not just a licensing formality. Furthermore, Clause 11:3 (ii) seems to me to give the PIMA considerable discretion to change the rules whenever it feels like it. This implied threat is likely to result in a self-regulating body striving to apply and intepret its rules to please the PIMA in order to maintain its authorisation.

The article fails to acknowledge the utter dominance of the left leaning ABC in media coverage in Australia as many posters have noted. The author is keen to suppress free speech and appears supportive of the Govt's lame attempt to link the completely unrelated breaches of the law by News Corp in London to a need to control The Australian in particular.

The Left have an almost religious like belief in own their moral superiority to the point where alternative views are seen as evil heresy to be destroyed.

Suppressing all opposition and is evidence of the Lefts underlying disdain for democracy and freedom of speech.

'They have constantly attacked the Treasurer Wayne Swan, who according to external assessment, has done a better than average job.

yep Alan, u have been in Europe to long. Swan and co have adopted the Euro models (ie debt and more debt). Thankfully come September most Australians will see the end of him and his incompetent team.

Morning all,

Thanks for this further input.

@cohenite: You are doing it again, Anthony. This article is tightly focussed on the Australian phenomenon of newspapers fabricating news. It is about lies, dishonesty and misinformation. I am against them.

The article is not about political philosophy or preferred parties at all. The subject is clear.

Why do you accuse those who advocate for truthfulness and honesty as being ‘of the left’? That’s quite an admission, Anthony.

@Rhian: Thanks for that considered analysis. Agree with your summary of the likely application of the legislation.

Not sure why those observations are problematic, however. If they deal with the rampant distortions and fabrications currently so widespread, would that be a bad thing?

Why would the dangers here be different from those with any other ombudsman-like appointment?

@Atman: Re “The article fails to acknowledge the utter dominance of the left leaning ABC in media coverage …”

Correct, Atman. It also fails to deal with media cross ownership, Australian content and the influence of mining magnates. News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013 is the issue of the moment, Atman. Focus, please. It won’t take long.

Re: “The author is keen to suppress free speech …” No, not at all. Have you read the article?

Re: “… lame attempt to link the completely unrelated breaches of the law by News Corp in London to a need to control The Australian …”

Hmmm. They are operated by the same company, Atman. Both have been found multiple times by independent tribunals to have breached acceptable standards. No?

@runner: Hello again. Missed you last week in the chat about the Shadow Treasurer.

Never mind. If you wish to discuss economics, some questions for you here:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/03/15/could-you-be-treasurer-take-quiz

Finally, there have been scurrilous comments here about wine-drinking in the South of France. Who has been spying on me?

Cheers, AA

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-admits-accessing-messages-from-labour-whips-stolen-phone-while-ni-was-under-investigation-over-phone-hacking-8538812.html

Further criminal behaviour by Newsltd. in Britain and yet here they squeal as if they are not part of a criminal gang.

The author says:

“This article is tightly focussed on the Australian phenomenon of newspapers fabricating news. It is about lies, dishonesty and misinformation. I am against them.”

That is unmitigated rubbish; the examples given are both puerile, hopelessly biased and ignore the avalanche of valueless practice and policies of this government. For instance the Milne example is a joke compared to the McTernan planned obscenities and tactics which include under his watch, the multitude of Howard insults and slurs at ALP functions, the race riot organised from within the PM’s office, the absurd misogyny tirades; as well as the machinations of the trade union activities ranging from Thomson to the NSW ICAC process which looks likely to ensnare Combet through his recommendation of his mate Maitland’s coal-mining interests.

Not to mention the case the PM has to answer about her associations [sic] with the cream of the union movement.

Most of the MSM has not touched these examples of political corruption and yet the author castigates those few outlets which have.

All the ‘examples’ given by the author such as “the campaigns against the economic stimulus packages during the GFC, against climate change, against the mining tax, against the carbon tax, against internet security, against changes to discrimination laws and against the National Broadband Scheme”, as well the astounding mess of the boat people are justified criticisms of failed policies and in the case of AGW, failed science.

Given this when the author says this:

“Most Murdoch publications seem now primarily spruikers for conservative political causes. The frequency and viciousness of these crusades increased markedly after Labor came to power in late 2007.”

The author is obviously not living in France but in a parallel universe. After all the Murdoch press recommended voting for the current gang in 2007!

When you add to this the absolute bias of the ABC and the fact that it is not included in the Conroy abomination one can only wish that the author not only return to his parallel universe but take this wretched, destructive government that he shills for with him.

Focus, Anthony. Focus. Please.

And please calm down, for goodness sake. You sound distraught.

All the links in the original opinion piece here are to news items with proven fabricated content. That is is the target of the News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013. And that is the point of this discussion.

The incidents to which you refer may or not have happened - some did, some didn't - but they are not at all relevant to:

1. How widespread is the practice of Australian 'journalists' fabricating news reports?

2. How damaging is this to democracy?

3. Will the News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013 deal with this satisfactorily?

4. Can the Bill be improved? Are there hidden dangers?

5. Are there other options the nation could pursue to remedy the rampant lying by the Murdoch and Fairfax media - and now increasingly the ABC also?

These are the issues of the hour, Anthony. Happy to discuss machinations of trade unions and John Howard having been insulted at the appropriate time, if these are important to you. Pretty sure we will agree on those, Anthony. So will be a short chats.

But if you wish to join a discussion on the pressing issues of the day, as Rhian, Klaas, THE DOCTOR, anti-green, bondi_tram and others are doing, then please do.

But if you wish only to hurl insults, then that simply confirms that you have no sound intellectual arguments to advance.

Now I need a Collines du Bourdic merlot cabernet.

Cheers, AA

AA,

The government control of the legislation comes where an "independent" bureaucrat is appointed for a fixed time. Given that Juliar's latest "independent" appointments to regulatory bodies have almost exclusively been ex trade union officials or ex Labor lackies, the chance of the watchdog being independent and unbiased is zero.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/03/18/1226600/119514-130319-kudelka.jpg

Alan
I see in the processes the Bill proposes many opportunities for the suppression of free speech and a free press. Governments are likely to pick a PIMA that shares their worldview, and ministers could lean on their appointee to set or re-set the media rules in the government’s favour. An over-zealous PIMA could choose to interpret such subjective and imprecise terms as “fairness” in a way that suits their own, of the political masters’, ideological agenda. A craven press council or equivalent could over-police the media for fear of losing its authorised status. If a newspaper losing its privacy law exemption it will be unable to function as a newspaper; such a threat is so serious it could intimidate editors into not publishing information critical of the government.

More fundamentally, I think we should always treat government attempts to control the media with deep suspicion, whatever the political flavour of the government. Free speech, like any worthwhile freedom, necessarily entails the possibility of abuse. I’d rather live in a society in which the press is sometimes unfair and misleading, than one where a government appointee is charged with preventing such transgressions.

"All the links in the original opinion piece here are to news items with proven fabricated content."

Let's see.

"Examples since are the campaigns against the economic stimulus packages during the GFC, against climate change, against the mining tax, against the carbon tax, against internet security, against changes to discrimination laws and against the National Broadband Scheme"

The climate change link is to Robert Mann being interviewed and where the introductory remarks include a repeat of the 70% ownership lie! Robert Mann an authority on AGW! If I had a sense a humour I would be smiling at the grotesqueness of it.

The mining tax was an abysmal failure; regardless of where you stand on the issue, the tax cost more than it raised; it is a striking example of Gillard's incompetence.

The carbon tax is predicated on the lie of AGW and needs to be revealed for what it is, an attack on Australia's economic viability by green zealots and an immoral government.

Discrimination laws; Roxon, Finkelstein and now Conroy; what a joke. Invent a problem and then legislate away freedoms.

The NBN is a disaster.

And then this:

"Murdoch outlets have attacked the PM ruthlessly over her alleged involvement with a union two decades ago. They have produced no evidence whatsoever of anything amiss and were forced to retract and apologise at least twice."

The PM has a case to answer; full stop. As for Milne, an apology for saying Gillard shared a house with Wilson. That more than anything shows how cowered the Australian MSM is by this thuggish government. Of course she shared a house with Wilson; he was her paramour. She stayed over, she shared the house.

None are fabrications; what a joke; take up scotch; you'll need it when the electorate deals with this mob.

It seems doubtful that the Gillard media proposals will be passed. However, some very useful points have emerged.
As we can see from a deep reading of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four", propaganda subtly manipulates people. Some high-sounding , plausible motive will be put forward. We are defending our freedom of the press! Or: we are removing instruments of mass destruction ! People are distracted by the propaganda to do what its author wants.

Why is the Murdoch press so furious that there should be any restriction on its freedom to say whatever IT wants to say? (Not what us ordinary people want to say).

A careful reading of the News Ltd papers shows that there is an editorial line being pushed. The front page says it. The cartoon follows up. Various eminent people are marshalled. Commentators thunder. All are mouthing the same plausible slogans. What chance is there of someone having a contrary view published in their papers? Or even a single voice to say "Yes, I agree with some of this, but.." Isn't this like the one-line "Pravda" the paper is caricaturing in such a blunderbuss fashion, in which everyone agrees with the party line?

As John Stuart Mill pointed out, one person may be contradicted by the whole world. And she or he can still be right.

The proposed media changes seem ill-thought-out. But should the Murdoch Press be allowed to do whatever it likes, after the barbarous ways in which people have nbeen treated?

And of course, we need a tighter rein on the silly shock jocks of the media. This may well include some of the odder ratbags in the ABC.
Freedom of the press is fine, as long as there is some responsibility in the press.

Bronte; noone makes you or any other person read Murdoch or any other media outlet; and if you do read Murdoch or any media outlet noone makes you agree with the 'editorial' position of that outlet.

If a media outlet commits a crime such as what happened in the UK then there are existing laws to punish that.

All media outlets which subscribe to a particular view will push that view; I don't think the Murdoch press is as biased in its editorial view as the fairfax press or the abc; after all Murdoch recommended voting for Rudd in 07!

At the end of the day anyone can set up their own web-news on the internet and proselyse to their hearts content; as long as they do not break a law such as defamation.

Given this there is no need for regulation beyond what we have now because any regulation is tantamount to censorship which is repugnant because it always assumes the censor is more capable than the censored.

As for "shock-jocks" consider what happened to Jones when he made a slight error in AGW sensitivity:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/alan-jones-and-facts-about-co2.html

And consider what has happened to Kruszelnicki who continues to promulgate an egregious error:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_science_expert_dr_karl_makes_more_false_warming_claims/

Nothing.

I think the treatment of the "shock-jocks" under the current oppressive regime generated by the intimidation of this wretched government shows us already what it would be like if Conroy has his way.

Good afternoon all,

@Shadow Minister: Re “government control of the legislation comes where an "independent" bureaucrat is appointed for a fixed time.”

Really, SM? All Westminster system governments appoint magistrates, judges, auditors-general, ombudsmen, police commissioners, taxation inspectors, customs officers, Reserve Bank governors, Treasury officials, health inspectors, intelligence operatives – all to ensure accepted standards the community requires are maintained. No?

Have there been any problems appointing these under the current Government?

Both media codes of ethics – the AJA one and the Murdoch one – are now routinely trashed by the mainstream media. Correct?

Why do you believe the government’s ‘control’ would be any more of a problem here than with other watchdog appointments?

Thanks, SM.

@Bronte,

Yes, all fair points. I suspect ex-pats see the problem more clearly than Australians who have not known other media regimes. Does a fish know it is wet?

All political parties across the world have internal rivalries. They are reported on from time to time when they are interesting – which usually means when the are close or when a challenge is imminent.

What is happening in Australia is just bizarre. One ‘contest’ – last decided by 71 votes to 31 – gets vast media, despite no hope of any challenge.

But the other – last decided by 42 votes to 41 – and where the winner has performed poorly since, and would almost certainly lose another vote – gets no coverage at all. Hilarious!

@cohenite: You are still missing the point of the draft legislation and this discussion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “editorial position” or “subscribing to a particular view”.

It is to do with the code of ethics. No?

Re: “I don't think the Murdoch press is as biased in its editorial view as the fairfax press …”

Yes. That is now correct. The number of baseless ‘news’ stories attacking the Gillard Government in Fairfax papers is now exceeding those in News Limited papers.

Cheers, AA

I think that the title of the thread should be changed to:

Juliar has no one to blame but herself.

It would appear that this draconian legislation is almost universally reviled and is going to sink along with the last shreds of Juliar's credibility.

As for AA's puerile comparison with judges etc, the huge difference is that judges, magistrates etc are recommended by a panel of their peers or similar, and the choice the government has is from a handful of vetted candidates. Judges are appointed for life and cannot be changed by a new government. The PMIA is to be directly appointed by the government for a short fixed term, and can be replaced if not bending to the whims of the government. Please point out where I am wrong.

"Re: “I don't think the Murdoch press is as biased in its editorial view as the fairfax press …”

Yes. That is now correct. The number of baseless ‘news’ stories attacking the Gillard Government in Fairfax papers is now exceeding those in News Limited papers."

Good, 2 down, now to get the ABC on side.

"It is to do with the code of ethics. No?"

Mentioning the Gillard government and ethics in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Well it was a useful article, Alan.

In today's "Daily Tele" from Sydney the editors have decided to print a whole page, apparently, from people who dislike their editorial slant. "See? We allow people to disagree!" they might as well be shouting.
I think this is called repressive tolerance. Like the private schools who allow the senior boys to express their opinions in small and insignificant ways.

Overall though, News Limited have been a force for dumbing everything down to the level that a ten year old can follow. A slow ten year old, perhaps. Bread and circuses to keep the populace quiet and happy, while important matters are decided elsewhere.

The usual ratbags appear (like spirits conjured by a magician out of the darkness) to comment on this article. What they say reflects their own concerns, and touch fairly tangentially on significant matters raised by Alan.

A good discussion nevertheless ; and way overdue. A big searchlight on News Limited and the causes it pushes needs to be our constant concern.

AA would have no problem with appointing one of the following Lefties as the PIMA:
. Ray Finkelstein, arch proponent of constricting freedom of the press. There are many precedents for appointing the chair of a government inquiry whose main recommendations are accepted by the government concerned;
. Robert Mann, socalled intellectual, who proposed that failure by News Limited and others to stifle the views of AGW sceptics was strong ground for establishing government-imposed control over media opinion;
. Bob Brown, retired Green, and founding member of the Hate News Limited Society.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/labor-to-withdraw-media-reform-bills/story-e6freuy9-1226602388201

I see that Juliar and Conjob have been forced to flee the fight with their tails between their legs after they failed to get even their Labor lapdogs of Oakeshott, Windsor, Wilkie, and Thomson to back their odious legislation.

I hope this abject defeat brings down the most incompetent government in decades and sends Juliar, Conjob and Whine Swan first to the back bench and then to the unemployment line.

Juliar,

Going, going, Gone.

Hip Hip Hooray.

"Overall though, News Limited have been a force for dumbing everything down to the level that a ten year old can follow. A slow ten year old, perhaps."

You'll be right then Bronte, just right for an arrogant little princess.

Dear oh Dear! The rightwing really do turn nasty when they are challenged!!

Kipp,

The left wing are even worse, they try to censor those that speak out against them.

"Dear oh Dear! The rightwing really do turn nasty when they are challenged!!"

I'm not rightwing, nor have I been challenged.