Rache,

You have just spouted a collection of half truths and rubbish. I guess that this is labor's version of "balance".

Note that everything you mentioned was reported in great detail in the newspaper, except that in the Ashby case, what was done was not criminal, inferring that Thomson's arrest was timed to coincide with Abbott's speech is bordering on paranoid, and the "allegation" that Abbott has weekly meetings with News limited is just sad.

I'll ask you Shadow Minister, do you believe in media ownership being concentrated in the hands of a few or do you believe in a spread of diverse views. The public interest test as it relates to media ownership is not new and the LNP has argued for similar.

If the Press Council is under pressure by senior media players who have tried to influence outcomes of adjudication as evidenced by letters provided to Finklestein (some read out this morning on ABC's Insiders) smacks of undue influence and attempts to manipulate outcomes.

I don't know whether an oversight body who protects the Australian Press Council (it does not adjudicate on newspapers) from corruption is a bad thing depending on what powers it is given. One can argue the risk of creeping powers which is a valid concern, however in its current form (if you read it carefully) the reaction and comparision to dictators is laughable.

Pelican,

I believe that you should have diverse views in the media, pretty much like we have now. People have access to a wide variety of news via TV, blogs, newspapers etc. Even where one organisation attracts a large share of the market, the consumer has various choices.

SM
As an aside to the reforms discussed, a positive media reform any government could implement is enabling people affordable avenues to sue when treated poorly by the media (ie. false information) or in cases of defamation. While we have defamation laws it is a privilege of the rich as nobody else can afford to take on the big end of town in the Courts. I don't think this has been included in the reforms but would be worthy of consideration by either party

Gillard! You can't handle the truth!

(Tony Abbott imitating Tom Cruise imitating Jack Nicholson).

Pelican,

I think that there needs to be made available redress without involving lawyers.

Most newspaper falsehoods are a result of errors in reporting with a reporter getting it wrong in spite of his best efforts. Today, printing a retraction immediately could be seen as an admission of guilt which would certainly not be in a paper's best interests if there is a chance of a law suit.

A proposal made by Turnbull yesterday that news organisations be given immunity from lawsuits if a suitable retraction is printed quickly. This would not cover malicious or deliberate falsehoods, or where damages were caused by the falsehood.

The man on the street could achieve redress, and newspapers would have an incentive to rectify errors. The only losers would be the lawyers.