I cannot believe this guy, there is a mountain of empirical evidence and an endless number examples of proprietors and senior management officials interfering with editorial content.

Every single editor of News Corps 73 newspapers worldwide supported the invasion of Iraq.

Democracy in the west has taken another giant leap downwards

I am truly curious to know what motivates someone as intelligent as David Flint to make such comments. It is not possible that he is ignorant of how much influence an owner can have over what goes on in their business - is he involved in some Machiavellian manipulations to help see the value of his portfolio soar or is he just screwing with the Australian public?

Rob513264 and Carl,

Evidence of a very senior journalist, the late Alan Reid, one-time doyen of the Canberra Parliamentary press gallery, having had an article editorially doctored nearly 31 years ago may exist in a thread to a topic on this very forum at the moment. Sir David Smith has meticulously noted details of content and publication chronology relating to a Bulletin article published on 3 December 1975 in his topic "Rex Connor: the other Dismissal"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5018

Posts in the topic thread point out inconsistencies that may indicate editorial tampering with the article as written by Reid. A possible consequence of such editorial doctoring of Reid's article was to have cast Reid at the time as having attributed actions to the Governor-General that in fact were never taken. Whether the tampering, if tampering it was, was proprietorial, is a matter for judgement. Was The Bulletin in the same ownership as The Australian in 1975?

Don't know if this helps you.

Forrest'

It is interesting you mention Alan Reid. A man I worked with and admired. (his wife made great cakes as well).

Alan Reid had written a novel that, in a legal first, had been judged to be defamatory without ever being published.

As another anecdote from ancient history Rupert Murdoch had a fetish against "Hush Puppy" suede shoes. The rumour is that he sacked anyone who wore brown shoes. Guess what nobody who worked for him ever wore brown shoes again.

Just knowing what the boss likes is enough to change the opinion of journalists who naturally want to advance their careers.

Just knowing what the boss likes is enough to change the opinion of journalists who naturally want to advance their careers.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 20 October 2006 5:22:23 PM

This reminds me of a story I heard about Goebbels going into an 'outlaw' newspaper office in Berlin in 1936. He took with him a gang of SS. He didnt need to say a word. He just walked around looked at everything and then left. The editors, journalists and even the tea-ladies knew that the paper would have to toe the party line or those guys would be coming back after dark.

People who say there is no pressure because there is no evidence of anyone specifically ordering anyone to say anything specific are avoiding the fundamental reality. Normal people are well and truly smart enough to know what is wanted and what the consequences will be if the people in power are not happy - without a word being said.

On Thursday night's 7.30 report Kerry O'Brien ran this .... "To capture a rare insight into the lives of US troops in Iraq and their meshing with their Iraqi allies, London Guardian photographer Sean Smith spent two months with the 101st Airborne north of Baghdad. Peter Marshall from the BBC Newsnight team provides the commentary for the story. " and then in the interview with John Howard directed him to comment on this "rare insight into the lives of US troops in Iraq". Now our "champ" John Howard made little attempt to address any of the serious issues highlighted in this report BUT was quick to point out the connection with the London Guardian and dismiss it completely on that issue with his very own bias.

This example alone makes it quite clear that media ownership is very much a real 21st century issue and it is preposterous for Soapy Flint to assume otherwise. ps ... (He in fact belongs in some distant age hundreds of years ago, sucking up to nobility, kings, queens and ponces)