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.