John, what is the benefit to the Australian people of this change?

"It's not the business of government to determine whether a city has one, 10, or 100 local newspapers."

"The ability to determine how the media operates is too great a power to allow a government to exercise."

If the government doesn't regulate how the media operates then it will be left to the corporate executives who's only interest is profit. If you think the media consumers will keep the corporations in-line, you are grossly underestimating the potential profit in deceiving or controlling the opinions of the Australian public. The impact of this is even greater if foreigners gain a controlling stake in key media assets.

"According to our present media laws, if every media outlet in the country was owned by a different proprietor, our media would be "diverse"."

If every media outlet is owned by different proprietor then there is a greater potential for diversity. Conversely, there is no hope of diversity when all media outlets are owned by the same party, particularly if that party has an interest in a publicly debated issue. The greater the diversity in ownership, the less chance that a particular view point is restricted or ignored by all media outlets.

As for the role of the ABC, it is important to ensure alternative opinions are heard and discussed. If the media companies are only publishing one view then it is the ABC's role to fill the gap. Without allowing alternative views to be heard, the national will head down the dangerous path of "group think".

The diversity and open discussion of issues within the media is a critical component required for our democracy to operate. A small increase in corporate profit is not worth the risk to our democracy.

Is John in favour of governments ensuring some media diversity or not ?
He seems to be for in the case of the ABC and and against for commercial outlets.

The source of funding is irrelevant to me.
As "consumers" we pay for both the ABC and commercial electronic media (which cost us a lot more).
I simply want more choice from quality local providers.

If the commercial outlets fail in an important area, of course the ABC should fill the gap! It's been doing it since I wore nappies.
Listeners who wanted string quartets on radio in the 1940s could find them nowhere else. (one tiny example)
The question of who decides what is important enough should not be left to governments alone but professionals and listeners should be involved too.

John seems to be saying consumers should decide.
Sounds like G W Bush talking about freedom.
Meaningless without the detail.

I'm a consumer and I want at least fifty more Australian foreign correspondents posted around the world - especially in neglected areas like South America and Eastern Europe.
Where do I go, John ? The Packers ? Canwest ? The internet won't help me - I want Australian perspectives through professional journalists. The ABC seems to be my only hope. It's the only decent local source of news about large areas of the globe now. (e.g. the Pacific Island states). We can afford to pay for it to do more.

The ABC offers a lot for the money it spends. Hugely so in comparison to other Australian radio and TV outlets which usually pale in comparison.
Where is the commercial version of Radio National ? (The right wing version if you feel impelled to say that ? )

Where is commnercial radio/TV rural news now, John ?

Saying that the internet is an alternative is a cop-out.

"The Federal Government's new media laws came into effect last week - and the sky didn't fall in. Australians haven't been reduced to having only one newspaper to buy, and one television station to watch"

This is the same crap the Federal Government peddled a mere couple of weeks into the WorkChoices legislation being introduced.

No one is saying all the effects will be immediate. In fact, the real danger lies in the slow, corrosive, potential that the slackening of these regulations allows for.

This is like dropping a jar of Ebola on the ground and immediately exclaiming that there's obviously nothing to worry about!

Yes, John Roskam, the sky didn’t fall in the day Howard’s new media ownership rules came into effect. Nor did the sky fall in when computer games hit the market years ago, but TV programming has been forever transformed. Look for the long-term consequences.

Roskam tells us, ‘The idea that politicians should regulate the media to ensure "diversity" is like saying that there should be censorship to encourage free speech.’ Why is these alike? I see no legitimate analogy; besides your trick of changing the verbs (‘’ensure’ and ‘encourage’) is too obvious a debating ploy.

As Roskam advised, I considered the reaction if every bookshop in the country was required by law to ensure that one-quarter of its stock was by an Australian author. What a marvellous idea! Now if only government really seriously interfered in the same way with television and radio, as an Australian consumer, I’d be ecstatic.

The only test of the health of Australia's media sector, says Roskam, is whether providers are free to meet the demands of consumers: ‘What consumers demand is a matter for consumers, not for government.’ So if consumers demand on-screen child porn, that’s OK is it? What if consumers want government to regulate media? OK too?

Roskam asserts that the ability to determine how the media operates is too great a power to give to anyone, let alone a government. ‘The only solution,’ he says, ‘is to allow the consumers of the media themselves to decide what they want to read, watch, and listen to.’ Are not ‘consumers’ ‘anyone'?

Now the Aunt Sally tactic: ‘The claim is that because the commercial media are "conservative" and "right-wing", the national broadcaster should be "radical" and "left-wing".’ But Roskam doesn’t tell us who (if anyone) makes this silly claim.

And out of nowhere, Roskam decides that ‘The point is that the ABC picks and chooses the issues on which it will challenge public opinion.’ Even on the days you free-lance on 774, Mr Roskam?

Jees you posters should get out into the real world a bit more. I’ll bet you’re all public servants or living off government funding in one way or another.

“If the government doesn't regulate how the media operates then it will be left to the corporate executives “
No, as even John has explained, it will be the viewers/listeners/ readers. Unlike the bosses at the ABC, media corporate execs. don’t have a guaranteed regular advertising income and so they must always be subservient to whatever the public desires. Perhaps you have notices the Don Imus ruckus in America recently? He got fired at very short notice because his radio network feared he would suddenly be bad for ratings because of his insensitive remarks.
“Without allowing alternative views to be heard, the national will head down the dangerous path of "group think".”
Go back to Economics 101. The nature of business is to create a separate identity from your competitors. News and current affairs shows want to talk about something new or different. They won’t go into some story that specifically offends the values of its clients, but there are enough websites, niche magazines and community radio and TV stations for that anyway.
What publisher is going to explain to his shareholders that he will ignore a gap in the market (capitalism is bad, Americans are imperialist bastards, global warming, the evils of the WTO ) because he thinks the politics of this is just not right.

What really gets me about this diversity argument is that in Australia we have a two party system (due to single member voting rather than proportional representation). So for something as important as elections we generally only have a choice of two viable alternatives (OK four for the less influential upper house) and yet people dare to complain because we have ‘only’ ten TV (with subscription) 15 radio, two or three newspapers, numerous magazines, internet, etc etc

Me again

“As "consumers" we pay for both the ABC and commercial electronic media”
If you mean because of ads then just think a minute please. Whenever you buy a Mazda or a Big Mac you are paying the least on offer for a car or sustenance of required value. The supplier doesn’t arbitrarily set the price. It charges whatever it thinks it can get, immaterial of whatever its overheads are. You are not specifically paying for its advertising. If sales were so good that it decided to dispense with advertising the price would remain the same. If ads were kept but sales were bad the price might drop just to move stock. If a minister pays a plumber $1000 to do work on the church gutters and drains and after the job is done the plumber proceeds down to the brothel, would you say the local Baptist congregation is financing boozing and whoring?

“[I want my string quartets on the radio, fifty more Australian correspondents around the world]”
At whose cost?? Why have other Australians got to pay for your wants?

“Where is the commercial version of Radio National ?”
It would probably be there, subject to potential ratings, if, as well as subsidised competition, all government restrictions were removed. Currently you still have to fork out mega bucks to get a radio licence and in fields like TV (not sure on radio) you are actually not allowed to have a 100% reach believe it or not. I think 75% max.

“Are not ‘consumers’ ‘anyone'?”
Actually no. The point John was making was that power like this should not be in the hands of a single or small number of entities as it will, over time, obviously be abused (Lord Acton and all that.).
Consumers are everyone. Seventeen million whatever of them. Seventeen million people sharing power means that no oligarchy has power.