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.