Censor ship, can be a Cowards tool.
Before debating our current process, Luke warm that it is we must confront some truths.
Media, all of it, is private property.
Do we have the right to control other than who owns it and how much they own.
Now see that bucket over there? put your current opinion in that.
Then tell us, if most of our media was owned by me, and I slanted it toward Labor would your view change.
My heading Censorship is heart felt, any of us, yes ever single human on the face of the planet, who thinks their view alone is right, is quite wrong.
News papers, we all can chant, free press free speech free investigative and free to protect sources.
Is it still like that.
Is it true one media giant, will public very few comments and opinions they do not support.

im all for media spying on those in power
im only upset they dont report the full facts

they follow 100.' of leaders
lets hear what they found

bet the guy dies and we hear nuthin
as for alp bias..[lol]

peter beatup beaty fixed that..he gave all advertising to one news paper..and the one he hated shut down[went broke]

mate its all alp bull in qld
you want an alp bias..come to sunny qld

you chose who you read
i chose to get my info from tv/magazines/books and the web

i dont give a penny for biased reporting
was writing dont give a fk
..but thought better of it

mate it only fools those who love to be fooled
[its a confirmatiional bias]

just like you love alp/unions and carbon tax
thus refuse to question either

yet you hate tony
so want all of us to hate him too

no one is going to buy a paper
that defends those issues you dont like

so start your own
and you can do the same

Robert Manne has suggested that any controversial article, presumably published in The Australian, should be accompanied a right of reply, a contrasting view. So an article SHOULDN'T be published UNLESS it is accompanied by a contrasting view ?

So all 'the other side' needs to do is to herd its cats and make sure that a 'contrasting view' is not forthcoming, and any article must thereby remain unpublished ? Apart from the inevitable delay in publishing anything even if a 'contrasting view' was forthcoming, whose 'contrasting view' would take priority ?

Ah, I see - that of some designated 'public intellectual' - all other views would be ruled inadmissible, ignorant, uninformed. So we would have to rely on Robert Manne, Clive Hamilton and David Marr ? And if they did not deign to put forward a 'contrasting view' ?

Oh well, so much for freedom of expression :(

Joe

Well we differ again OUG, inventions often take the place of reporting.
And our media is in festered! with commentators expressing their own views, in the form of questions.
I agree with right of reply, but would rather we step with care, I want the media to always look for truth.
So we should, in this case, see handcuffing them is dangerous, but no more than not monitoring them.
I doubt this inquiry, this government, wants a true review.
And have no doubt, not a bit, as bad or worse takes place here as phone hacking and questionable closeness of Conservatives and NI.
The influence and power, even contracts, given and gained are a concern.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I'm surprised at your reasoning concerning
Rober Manne. I would never have picked him as
arguing about shutting down any debate. On the contrary,
I would have thought that he'd be a staunch supporter
of freedom of expression (one of the cornerstones of
a democracy).

What I think Manne objected to in the
past was that "no single proprietor should be able
to own 70% of print circulation."

Anyway, I'll have to do a bit more research on this topic
before I can comment further.

Lexi,

Yes, I was as amazed and shocked by Robert Manne's reported proposal as you are.

After all, what's sauce for the goose, etc., and imagine the effect of such a requirement being imposed on the National Indigenous times or New Matilda or Green Left Weekly.

Or on OLO, for that matter - how would Graham cope with such a requirement ? Would he have to scout around for counter-opinions of every article put up for publication ?

Obviously, if this report about Robert Manne is true (it is so out-of-character and oppressive of freedom of speech, I can scarcely believe it), it would shut down discussion on all serious topics, except Kim Kardashian's every movement. No, sorry, you're right, that's not a serious topic :)

Joe

Belly as you intimate there is nothing wrong with the government resticting media ownership so a handfull do not control information.

But the reason for this media shake up is because Brown and Gillard do not want the truth of their failures widely broadcast, end of section.

what is disgusting is that the National Broadcasters are the most blantantly bias media organisation in this country. They defend and promote their secular human hating dogmas on a regular basis hence supporting strongly the Greens and Labour. This is all done on the tax payers purse. No wonder they want to shift the focus on to Murdoch and others who expose their socialist hypocrisy.Murdoch might be bias but at least the tax payer does not fund it.

runner:>>Murdoch might be bias but at least the tax payer does not fund it.<<

You have a no bullsheiser logic, luv ya runner.

Dear Joe,

Who's Kim Kardasian?
(joking). ;-)

Well I'll bite Lexi.

Who is he, she or it, as the case may be.

There's a difference between publishing opinion and publishing lies dressed up as facts.

A real journalist gathers together all the facts and comes to a conclusion based on all those facts.

Pundits (such as Bolt & Devine) start with a conclusion, present only those facts that support it and deliberately ignore the rest.

I can expect such views in independent magazines where you know what sort of publication you are buying but not in what is supposed to be a newspaper. Opinion pieces should be labelled as such and are basically unpaid political advertisements or tools for lobbyists pursuing their own agendas.

It was never going to be an easy walk in the park for me.
I may say the enjoyable silliness of runner and Sonofglion gave me a grin.
Hard sometimes being me,just can not bring myself to take the easy path.

I stand firmly against ANY MEDIA BIAS, for me the Murdock media, every last crumb of it, is purely dangerous to Democracy.
Now sorry all, green left weekly, New Matilda, are only mirror images.
I need no crafted hand molded stuff to define why Labor is a better bet than the others.
A path exists, weed over grown that it has become, that most want to read or follow,truth in reporting, not histrionics, not shouted headlines known to be constructed or even lies.
The recent High court judgment against Bolt, a Grub in my view, both highlighted him as he is, a right wing media Tart, and challenged his view, to in some respect say what most Australians have said at one time or another about others.
My request to leave opinions in the bucket was, in retrospect , silly.
It would do us no harm however to understand both sides.
I wounder? have others, as I did felt shame and embarrassment,at the Murdock medias efforts to influence when its support went to the ALP.
Is bias only bad when it is not your side receiving the support?
for too many the answer is yes.

I watched the James Murdock fronting that British Parliament panel last night.
I too watched the changes and maneuvering in News Internationals Australian branch yesterday.
I read the flagships front page this morning.
I had promised not to, not to let another click show advertisers one more number was visiting.
So I until today, do not read or visit the Sydney Telegraph or Australian.
Had to today.
See I think, honest, 80% of us share common values/fears/concerns.
I think that number to some extent are concerned about BOTH SIDES of Australian politics.
I think our politicians, in close conflict with each other, forget us first.
And yes, it may upset you,but I see a DEADLY dangerous denial of truth balance,and an intrusion of self interest, in our media.
I think we, if not blinded by anti Gillard feelings, if given the full story, would understand.
We do not yet,not enough of us, our MEDIA world media is little more than propaganda factory's.
Rest assured,do not wallow in the hot tub of News International anti Labor stance.
If NI survives it will at some future date,do what it always has,see the English Suns headline, it was us that did it, installed a government.
Labor will again be the pony NI rides in its never ending search for power and self interest.
Mafia? todays Mafia is and always will be big money big power.
If that hat does not fit I must be mad!

All media outlets have a particular viewpoint. All the government has the right to do is ensure that what the papers publish is factually correct. Trying to control political opinion pieces by focussing on those organisations that give you a hard time is essentially state censorship.

Already we find view points censored because they can be construed as causing offence, but this is a very slippery slope, as almost any view point can cause offence to those that disagree.

On reading posts like the SOG one, and the more settled but totally biased one of Shadow Minister.
I would once, maybe, responded with a bitterness or maybe anger.
It is sorrow that drives this post.
I first am sorry that the subject is unloved.
Many threads started even in articles section.
Not much response.
Or interest it seems.
Yet it is of immense interest to me, the basic principle of freedom of speech and a free press.
Free to do what, say what?
Surely others know? after a record is gained of LABOR voting, two Australian newspapers, do not let you link and vote in polls.
Those polls ARE CRAFTED TO BE BIASED such as, do you trust Gillard, the other answer will be some thing like is Gillards record a trust worthy one, my answer is no twice but owners of media use it like a club.
The LIE Deliberate LIE they act in the publics interest is for fools to believe.
I again challenge conservatives, did you think the presses love affair, blind supporter Keitting was ok?
Is it the job of REPORTERS to have headlines like England's readable toilet role the Sun , * it was us that done it* change a government?

Todays Australian and British newspapers say 14 have been charged by police, and 26 implicated.
Phone hacking is just a part.
Once we, here could listen in to Mobile phones, all analogue, illegal but as easy as turning a receiver on.
Not so now, or in this case,a warning should be given, your walk around the home phone,and baby monitors,do let people listen in on you.
An intrusion of privacy? yes.
But this is far worse .
How can we not see past the partisanship, say its ok they support my party/team.
How can we be so unconcerned about the endless quest for power behind this.
And last,why do we convince our selves it is only done in Britain.

Belly,
Here is something that may interest any ALP member.

'Police delve into fairfax hacking crisis targeting reporters of thhe Age'

And this is in Melbourne, not overseas, and the hacking was into the ALPs electoral data.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/police-delve-into-fairfaxs-hacking-crisis/story-fn6b3v4f-1226193575504

Lets see if this makes a scandal.

Banjo, your thought pattern is proof.
It supports my concerns.
IT IS WRONG always.
News International, is wrong,quite wrong.
If it was owned by the ALP or Australian conservatives it would be wrong.
I ask you this mate, if you or I owned it we would, tell me, use it to push our wishes, now we would yes?
But is it ok to do things so criminal, as this mob have done.
Are you and I playing Euka? is that all there is, you throw the left bower On my ace.
Or is the proposed crime, of one journal.
Enought to get NI of the hook.
Public life demands truth NI is muddying the waters, to slip away in the cloudy mud.

In this mobile phone hacking case, actually it is not hacking as they
used a facility provided by the mobile phone company, no one thinks
to put any blame on the mobile phone company.

They could have prevented the eavesdropping by simply not allowing
two phones with the same number on the network at the same time.

Bazz the practice how ever is/was quite illegal.
The results the same,.
And you above all will know of my advice re privacy in the home.
The use of any tool to criminally invade the privacy of any one should be a concern.
Multi millions of dollars, paid so far, speak of that.

Belly, I never said that it let the reporters off the hook.
What I said was that the phone company has some responsibility in the
matter because they provided the facility that was used to access
other peoples message bank. It was deliberately designed in.

I have just been for a surf in the waters of the British press.
Part of this subject is getting much more exposure there.
It seems the inquiry will almost for sure set new boundary's and see some go prison.
The Australian NI ,and for that matter most of our papers, are facing?
Well just what are they facing and us too.
I like a lot of others,remote livers for sure, read my news online.
But it has always been advertising ,not the cost of the paper that paid the bills.
It no longer is.
NI leads, in biggest loss, but our media can not survive without change.
ABC TV in back ground.
And it played take outs from our nations shock jocks .
I can not but ask,did I truly hear that?
The hatred against Gillard, defamation and hate.
Look I want her gone, but this was infamous.
Very, very, hard but can we put our biases away and ask what is the roll of the media.
Are the likes of Alan Jones free to say these things?
I have a good voice, anyone want an ALP biased shock jock, promise to slander a lot, draw a crowd may even get a lynching under way.

Let's face it, discussing the fate of the mainstream press here is like the fleas discussing what's to be done with the dog.

If that was or is true Anti, then every subject is the same.
Are we fleas any more productive in debating anything.
We could expand this to cover very much more, future generations will look back and see this as the time of change, the media is in flux.
It struggles to stay viable, it is not under every arm on the way to work any more and that hurts it.
Hurts it by reducing and replacing the way advertisers spend there dollars.
We are living at the start of very real change.
Not related to the inquiry in Australia, or England.
The English one, this mornings papers say will be more than 12 months long.
Ours a face washing with a cooling rag, no party other than greens is brave enough to take Murdock on.

Belly, this site and others like it produces no news, yet it discusses issues that are raised in the mainstream press almost exclusively. It republishes items that have mostly appeared in the mainstram press in the articles section.

I don't decry any of that, but I think my comment is very apposite. On reflection though, I'm not sure that fleas are a good analogy: they tend to be able to jump on and off their host as the whim takes them. Perhaps the tick is a better metaphor.

Belly, you could help but show your partisan colours.

Firstly when I make a statement defending free speech that is general and applicable to all parties, you immediately accuse me of bias. I can only assume it is because you support the right of the government to sanitize the media.

People buy papers and listen to radio not only because they want information, but because they want to be entertained, and often they are interested in particular topics and viewpoints. The papers and radio stations that provide this get the sales and ratings. Allan Jones is the most popular presenter for a reason.

Murdoch's press dominates the print media because of what it is, and because people want to read it, not for any other reason. The call to reduce the holdings while punishing RM for not being Labor friendly is unlikely to have much effect on what is reported.

This media inquiry is already painting Australia in a bad light on top of the poor rating on media freedom it already has with the attempt to censor the internet.

Belly,
A couple of posts ago you said people hated Gillard and indicated this was being promoted by the media.

I would suggest you are wrong. People are contempous of Gillard, and her government, simply because of incompedence.

You may be aware there is an email circulating that lists 50 Labor Lemons. Now you may well be able to take issue with a couple on the list, but with such a record how could people be anything else but contempous and you cannot blame the media for that.

It is all the governments own doing. Surely you do not expect the media not to report these stuff ups or comment about them.

Shadow Minister Sir you first.
As my post history will show I am a Labor voter.
It however will show thousands of words in hundreds of posts, that insult and bitterly attack? MY PARTY.
Any search, intense as it may be will find such in yours.
No poster, not ever shows More fixed and sometimes warped views.
You must remember glass houses.
Anti, hold on, could I not say your often seen hurt at your experiences in the family court are flea bites too.
Do we come here expecting to change the world, is free speech only on subjects some approve of.
Banjo, you know of my opinion on Gillard, you have seen My insults toward policy's and people in my party.
I believe, News International, Rupert Murdock, his father before him, use their papers to promote their views.
And in 2007 it was Kevin Rudd who carried their handkerchief.
Bias? can you think I a near out cast from my life's work because I continue to demand leadership change,explanations for the NSW right, My faction, drowning my party in both the state and federal, .
Policy's like cash for clunkers, can you think if I think differently on an issue it is bias?
MATEEE! I promise, true, I do, Abbott is going to be worse, than Gillard, much worse.
Last are those saying I am biased the owners of the portrait I have here.
I look at it often and question again, is comment truth or fabrication.
My portrait is named *The Mirror*

It would be nice to get answers from my concerned questioners to a few things.
Any of you doubt this at least in Britain is about three things.
Phone hacking/bribing police/and too close relation ships with last two governments, sure I missed something
Yes computer hacking in America, helping criminal sabotage of one firm.
14 charged some been in prison, is that of concern.
America has anti trust laws that, if it is found true would kill NI in America,should we know that.
Should we stop our inquiry, if so why.
Do we have a right to know acts England has already found to be criminal are or are not taking place here.
Or do different rules exist for pro conservative press.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/investigation-of-political-favours-against-news-ltd-20111122-1nszb.html
A link to this mornings Sydney morning Herald.
It quotes not the Greens, not Labor.
It tells in the words of a former National Senator, of attempts to bribe him.
In doing so he justifies my concerns, power privilege influence.
Those are the intentions, weapons, wanted out comes of this Mafia like international Media power house.
We ignore it at the peril of a true free,but responsible, press.

From the article:

"Investigation of political favours against News Ltd
Dylan Welch
November 23, 2011
Ads by Google
The 2011 Crash is Coming

www.Fool.com.au

Read This Before the Stock Market Crashes!
Photo illustration shows some of the newspaper mastheads published by News Limited

Investigation ... into allegations a News Ltd executive offered political favours. Photo: Tim Wimborne

FEDERAL police are investigating allegations that News Ltd offered a then-serving federal senator a ''special relationship'' involving favourable coverage if he crossed the floor on a vote of financial interest to the company.

The investigation was sparked by a statement given to them by the former Nationals senator, Bill O'Chee, who alleges a News Ltd executive said he would be ''taken care of'' if he crossed the floor.

The Herald has seen the nine-page statement, written by Mr O'Chee last month, after he was approached by a federal police agent inquiring into the matter.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The inquiry has been secret until today due to sensitivities around those involved.

Mr O'Chee, a Queensland senator between 1990 and 1999, has had a long and difficult relationship with the Murdoch press, which spent years reporting on his large parliamentary superannuation payout and an acrimonious split with his first wife."

Sour grapes make the best whine, eh?

That the media inquiry is focused on the Murdoch press, not because it has committed any crimes, or published falsehoods, but because some Labor MPs and the Greens don't like what it writes is the essential issue here.

Suppression of Press freedom is the first step to Authoritarian rule.

I see the South African government, long critical of the damning exposes in the press have also moved to muzzle the press.

I wish I could write poems.
If only.
The thread speaks and informs not a Labor or greens words but a National Party ex Senators.
Oh if only, if only that action he found so wrong had been done to a Labor politician.
The change in opinions we would see.
In 1972 this Mafia group, supported Labor.
The screams of indignation from the conservatives sounded like 100,s of Galas.
Hawk too gained favor and conservatives wallowed in indignation again.
If only.
If ONLY!
We, both sides, for just an hour ask our selves, was this wrong, forget who gets the benefit of the medias lolly bag.
Should ANY MEDIA GROUP try to bribe a politician? any politician?
Is our individual support for our side of politics, our total distrust to the other side.
A REASON TO ABANDON parliamentary honesty?
An unelected media, has it truly the right to criminal acts, then my Friends you sell honest government and cheaply.

i expect the media to do its job
get to the facts
find out secrets

[not gossip]
but fact checking..like wikileaks

i also noted the global thrust..to sghut down the media
[briton/south africa..au...trying to become totalitarian states?]

we need a media..that watches the watchers
[remember..its govt weho set uop these means to spy[on us all]
so of course the media has a right to do it for the public good...

but not for blackmail or oppression or suppression
free speaking..free acces to info..its a basic right

media needs to fact check
if it finds any crime..[no deals]
just publish..with a right of reply..[equal time]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/ochee-influence-claims-sent-to-news-lawsuit-20111123-1nv2b.html
This link like yesterdays, talks about the alleged act.
It talks about yesterdays story.
And it tells us the *shareholders*
Currently concerned.
About the impacts on their investments this world wide issue is haveing.
USA share holders currently suing, the company they invested in.
News International.
I fear, you too should the damage this confrontational hung Parliament has done.
Continues to do, to our country and its politics.

You need look no further than this thread, its responses, to see why the world is such a mess.
Post after post *TAKES THE MY TEAM FIRST* view.
Walking around growing evidence, ALL SIDES OF POLITICS have at times sold them selves to a Multi National without class, morals, we in every denial that any one supporting our team can do wrong.
Prove justice indeed is blind, to truth
Deaf to hones men,unless they have power
The crimes need attention.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/trolls-of-tv-and-radio-would-not-last-a-day-under-print-rules-20111124-1nwy5.html
A well written, if frighteningly true article.
It reminds me, I have called the inquiry wrongly a media one.
It should be, now do we truly say/want free press/media?
Is the grubby list of shock jocks ok to do what the current offensive grub has done?
Sorry but our apathy warns me the answer may be yes.

Belly,

I can well understand that people are offended by what some of these shock jocks say, and I personally think that most of them are pratts including Allan Jones. I avoid listening to him or KS, and admit that I mostly listen to the ABC simply because I prefer to hear all opinions.

However, I find the requirement to provide opinions from the other side of the issue extremely disturbing, as it is essentially dictating what the presenter has to say. Imagine a priest in the pulpit or a radio show having to give a "balanced" opinion from the "other side".

Jones, KS, and even Pauline Hanson have the right to free speech. We have the right not to listen.

I am glad SM we agree my descriptive term is a bit worse than Pratt's but same thoughts.
But Sydney Telegraph front page this morning.
Once a Packer publication, long before that the Labor day,ly.
So not known for balance but once so very much better.
Its front page was? well mate it was inflammatory junk.
Australian? sorry it should be softer paper it is of use in only one small room.
Look at Sanderlands
Is that ok.
I bet you would jump into help me if he said it in public in front of us.
My hobby is radio, gee if I could get a few hours at his desk.

Newspapers with inflammatory headlines? gosh that's new.

What they said was exactly true. Gillard has capitulated to the greens and wiped the immigration slate clean of any deterrent, and the costs are going to be shifted from the federal budget to the state welfare budget. No wonder the states are P'ed off.

If Shadow Minister, you truly believe that Abbott and his close supporters do not share the blame you have my deepest sympathy.
I have however never questioned your intelligence.
So am forced to say I think you understand as well as I do Doctor No, wants his toy.
He wants this issue more than border control.
Tony Abbott his close supporters, a shrinking number, are putting the dream, an Abbott government, before AUSTRALIA.
A day will come, that puts a spotlight on his betrayal of LIBERALISM, and the push of Howard and others, including the Gutter press/toilet paper press.
All willingly betraying the Westminster system and our country.
It remains true Gillard is no leader but true too Abbott tells more lies in a day than she has in her life.

Any day Labor wants to use Nauru it can. The only thing stopping it is pride.

If Juliar tries it and it doesn't work, then she can legitimately call on Abbott to try the Malaysian solution. Until then she has the Pacific solution that worked spectacularly that she refuses to use because she will lose face.

Abbott if backing the Malaysian solution would then be guilty of the worst hypocrisy.

As both of us know.
Nehru is in grave doubt.
Can it be used without the passage of Labors bill?
As we both understand maybe/probably no.
The advice given, by the same people who advised Howard is no.
And we both understand the court of silly walks and silly law givers twisters, would see a flood of horse hair wig adorned rabbits challenge it, maybe likely win again.
I think Gillard has failed here.
If she had guts, if she had ever had an original thought, she would announce this.
As the coalition would not pass the bill.
She will rebuild Nehru, a multi million dollar cost, it is not ready to inhabit.
And send the boats there.
That failure would rest on Abbott, but as a cost saving measure she will re introduce the bill first.
It would put Abbott out to dry.
As both of us know, he would in government put a bill not unlike Gillards before the house.
We are not amused by the failure to pass truth on the way to scoring points against Labor.
But amused to see Abbott's rope has little left on its roll.

We of the Nation of she will be right mate seem uninterested in the inquiry under way in Britain.
Daily story's some if true pure criminal actions go unremarked about.
A thought pattern seems to block our considered thoughts,its those Labor/Greens it will go away.
A strange view a singer is offered $100.000 or a we will give you a favor offer.
We complain about our ex Polly's getting to spend thousands, but ignore the papers we buy fund a special form of crime.
I have little doubt a new tsunami will change forever our news the way we get it.
Australia, a much smaller country,will not bite the hand that may scratch or cane it, both sides content to be cowards.
But are we, Joe and Jane average unconcerned,well maybe not if it was us.

I am disturbed about a story in todays papers.
It talks of a former MLC from Tasmania.
His crime and walking away from it shows our law is indeed deaf blind and very dumb.
But why are we not told what party he represented, grubs and slugs from my side of the fence both dead and alive are named.
What is going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/30/leveson-inquiry-dowler-phone-hacking
While I am talking to myself this will not go away.
A serving police officer 30 years service breaks the rules to talk about his evidence of criminal acts not being acted on.
OUT OF FEAR, at the power of the press.
Not a Greens issue, Not a Labor one.
This criminal behavior can be shown to both favor then constructively oppose both sides of politics.
Power of the press,, not unlike the power of some Criminal groups fear provides power.
Our silence maintains it.