Belly,

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either Fairfax is balanced, and their absolute condemnation of the media reforms indicate that it is a vindictive attempt to control the press, or Fairfax and virtually every other print media is as biased as the "Murdoch" press.

Labour can either be a champion for openness and democracy, or act as heavy handed opressors of free speech.

The question I ask you is what would you say if the coalition stacked the "independent" panel with coalition supporters?

Too much interference by governments in media matters is not good for democracy. However, that said, in a democracy there has to be an affordable right of redress for people who have been falsely represented, accused or where false figures/facts have been provided in an article. Most of us cannot afford the huge legal fees to keep these media moguls to account - so they continue to get away with activities less deserving of the role of reporting.

The heading of this post "Labor can't handle the truth" suggests that the press is always truthful - naive at best, liberal spin at worst.

The Murdoch and Fairfax press are not as pure as the driven snow and the current status quo where media chieftans with their own agendas should be unreachable under the law, democracy is also not served.

Having some rules around media ownership is not unreasonable. Imagine the sort of press if Rupert and his comrades owned everything. We would be fed a daily diet of crapola to feed corporate interests. If people are that naive they don't believe that media corporations have an interest in who governs just read some of the Leveson Inquiry reports and the reach they have within governments. And woe betide any poor soul who crosses their path.

The ideal is to have "a variety of voices" which can only be served if media ownership is not concentrated in the hands of a few. Imagine Australia with the Rinehart family owning all media outlets in digital and print. Rinehart is already putting pressure on some journalist to reveal her sources. As long as the public interest test is fair to all viewpoints I can't see a problem.

The stamping of feet by some in the media is just horsepoo. One minute they are saying the reforms won't achieve the desired outcomes and then they are likening Conroy to a dictator because they think they will. Weird.

SM,

"The freedom of the press is not synonamous with the freedom to only print what Comrade Conroy believes is correct".

I see nothing in the proposed legislation that would give Conroy that alleged power.

Nor is it synonymous with what Rupert Murdoch believes is correct.

Rupert employs over 150 Editors and how amazing it is that they all believe in exactly the same things as he does.

That's not freedom of the press - that's just oppression of the truth.

"Don't print the truth, print what people are saying" is another print media philosophy. Most journalists are not reporting all the facts, they are reporting their (or their Editor's) opinions and that is not what the print media is supposed to do - otherwise it becomes nothing more than a political pamphlet.

Pelican, Wobbles,

Neither of you nor anyone in Labor, has actually specified what has happenned in Australia that justifies changing Australia's laws. Craig Emmerson and other MPs have been asked on TV for examples of why this legislation is needed and not one has been provided.

Actually there is already legislation that provides for redress for those wronged such as libel. The press council already caters to those that have complaints, and has been working well.

As for wobbles not understanding how Comrade Conroy can control the press, it does not take Einstein to realise that given that Juliar has stacked the "independent" FWA almost exclusively with ex labor and trade union heavies, the chance of the "independent" media body actually being independent is zero.

I dare say Labour don't like the fact that people like Obeid, Thompson, Gillard, MacDonald, IPCC data manipulators have all been reported on for corruption. They would be more happy to have the ABC report on Tony Abbott supposedly punching the air when he was twenty years old or so.

Yes Runner, or Abbott lying to the AEC about the establishment of his own "slush fund" - the only reason he wasn't charged being because Howard got the laws changed.

And then there was the ruling of a criminal conspiracy by certain individuals in the Ashby matter that implicates various members of the Liberal Party - why the silence?

Then there was the orchestrated and legally unnecessary arrest stunt of Thomson coordinated to be timed during Abbott's press conference for maximum political effect plus the subsequent abuses of legal power.

Where is the reporting of ANY matter (and there are many) that is critical of the opposition?

Where is the balance?

Why the allegation of Abbott's weekly strategy meetings in News Limited HQ? Perhaps because they seem likely.