Any reform that Labor brings to the national debate is
met with a Liberal-led lie-infested scare campaign,
amplified by their media mates and walked past by the
rest of the media.

When lying is framed as a clever campaigning strategy,
and the victims of those lies are criticized for not
countering them well enough the media adjudicators show
they don't have the ability to inform a healthy democratic
debate, and instead contribute to its destruction.

If anyone wants to really know about the misinformation
Labor Bill - do your own research. It just may surprise you
as to what it really entails.

"Any reform that Labor brings to the national debate is
met with a Liberal-led lie-infested scare campaign,
amplified by their media mates and walked past by the
rest of the media."

This is nonsense. There is nothing 'reforming' about restricting freedom of speech. There has been no "national debate" on the matter. And the non-Labor side does not have "media mates", most of the media being a megaphone for the Left.

What "lying"? What lies have been told about the 'Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023'?

If lies can be identified, who are the "victims of those lies"?

The "media adjudicators"? Who are they? Since when did the media adjudicate anything? The media is a leader in the area of 'misinformation'; that’s why they would be exempt from censorship; the Bill would suit them; they broadcast misinformation for the political class. The Covid lies were put about by the media. We haven't seen the media pushing for a Royal Commission into all the now obvious lies they aired during Covid. The media is far too cosy with the political class - something common in totalitarian states.

"If anyone wants to really know about the misinformation
Labor Bill - do your own research. It just may surprise you
as to what it really entails."

If you want to be a shill for the Bill, you really should be able to tell us what your own research of it reveals, and what it is that might "surprise" us.

Once again the myths need to be separated from the
facts. Why is Labor's disinformation bill so
controversial? Because as the Voice Referendum has shown,
we have a toxic, broken media institution where lies are
not only excused but are characterized as clever political
campaigning - and even worse, the victims of the scare
campaigns are blamed for its effectiveness.

The Voice Referendum was not the first time the Labor Party
has met a Liberal-News Corp scare campaign. The mining
tax, the carbon price, fracking credits, electric vehicles,
industrial relations, the list goes on.

We all saw the questionable activities both on this forum and
in the media. The length of the Uluru Statement, Uluru's
"hidden pages," and plenty of "stuff" of hidden agendas, treaties,
of compensations, land rights, dividing the country by race,
and again the list went on.

So as stated earlier - any reform that Labor brings to the
national debate is met with a Liberal-led lie-infested scare
campaign - amplified by their media mates, shock jocks and
supporters. This bill is no exception.

The fact that this bill does not impinge on any freedom of
speech. It does not grant powers to silence anyone and merely
calls media platforms to account seems to have been missed
by those opposing the bill. But that's the way the political
game seems to be played by people who have nothing else to
offer.

If I may be permitted to weigh in here Foxy,

I'd like to argue that the Labor party lead an actual shambles of a campaign that had little hope of succeeding anyway.

I argued several things right in the beginning.

1. That the government brought the referendum to the people.
- And that it was their job to SELL IT TO US on it's own merits.
It was no-ones obligation to buy what they were selling, that's democracy.

2. As far as merit was concerned...
They didn't even hash out the details or want to give / show us the full details of how it would work before it even passed.
Without meaning to offend, I think only a foolish person would sign on the bottom line of any contract without reading the fine print.

On merit, what hope did it really have?
- No matter what level of 'we need to do this' 'once in a generation opportunity'.. emotional manipulation campaign on the 'Yes' side?

And without bi-partisan support it was doomed.
We COULD all say 'Yeah Albo's a decent bloke, he's a man of principle and he kept his word in regard to election promises made to the people of Australia'
(though many wouldn't)

But in truth it was still a fools errand from the get-go.
Essentially what they wanted was an Indigenous advisory body enshrined into the constitution.
My concern was what would happen when our elected leaders and this advisory body disagreed.
High court challenges at huge expense with a risk that now our elected leaders would themselves would be overridden by this body.
It would've meant the END OF DEMOCRACY.

Having Ray Martin jumping up and down like a crazed chimpanzee screaming about 'If you vote no, vote no' is such a horrible slogan demonstrates just how poorly the whole thing really was.

The onus was on the government to sell it on it's own merits, and they failed, simple.
That wasn't the 'No' sides fault in any way whatsoever.
- No matter what the 'Yes' side claims when they want to attribute blame.

How did the failure of the Voice referendum show that "we have a toxic, broken media institution where lies are not only excused but are characterized as clever political campaigning - and even worse, the victims of the scare campaigns are blamed for its effectiveness".

. What lies were told?
. Who excused these lies?
. What scare campaigns ?
. Who were the victims of these scare campaigns?
. What do you mean by the alleged victims being blamed for its effectiveness? It's assumed that you mean the effectiveness of what you allege were scare campaigns.
. Was it not a majority of Australian voters who rejected the Voice; made up their own minds?

How is the "Liberal-News Corp reporting on unpopular proposals such as a mining tax, a carbon price, a "scare campaign", when it was the Labor Party doing the 'scaring' by threatening to put further burdens on industry and the economy?

Why cannot fracking credits, electric vehicles, industrial relations, and the list that you claim goes on, be discussed by the media?

Why can't the media put an opinion different from the Labor Party's to its readers?

Why is it that the Opposition cannot have opinions other than those of the Government without being accused of conducting a "lie-infested scare campaign - amplified by their media mates, shock jocks and supporters", just because the 'media mates', 'shock jocks' and 'supporters' are not your ABC, your Guardian or other ALP supporters such as yourself?

Are you that naive that you really believe social media will not suppress freedom of speech on their platforms and risk enormous fines?

Will you demonstrate your knowledge, citing the appropriate sections of the Bill, proving your claims about its 'innocence' when you answer the above questions?

AC

Very good points. Let's see if we get some answers.