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.