jack_ryder | OMG! Gillard does something I mostly agree with

OK, I agree with you, too (and have already been scolded by someone for it!). I guess if Gillard has one moment before the next toppling begins, she might as well give the post to someone who has put work in rather than someone who is backed by Forces Beyond Knowing (some of those forces masquerade as the NSW Right).

I thought you'd be happy about that. Although, Lundy was my choice for Foreign Affairs. Then again, I'm backing Penny wong for PM ten years from now.

One assumes that come the next election Carr will transfer to a lower house seat and become Leader of the Opposition.

Much depends on whether the government implements the recommendation of the Finkelstein Report, thus effectively silencing all opposition. With the media then rigidly controlled by the government they might have a chance of winning the election. After all such methods have worked pretty well in places like North Korea.

Edited 2012-03-04 04:38 (UTC)

Way to hijack the thread!

The Conversation commentators appears cautiously optimistic about the Finkelstein Inquiry (http://theconversation.edu.au/the-finkelstein-inquiry-into-media-regulation-experts-respond-5675) but, predictably, the first response I got in my e-mail was a comment based on this opinion piece (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/free-press-to-be-sacrificed-for-political-retribution-20120303-1u9vk.html) from one of the denizens of the Institute of Public Affairs (who are pretty much the mouthpiece of Murdoch and the mining industry - and one would imagine they have a vested interest in maintaining their "freedom of the press".)

The troubling part of that opinion piece (which doesn't appear in the Conversation summary at all) is this section:

"As if to emphasise just how radical his proposals are, Finkelstein says websites that get more than 15,000 hits a year should be brought under the council's jurisdiction. That's just 41 hits a day - in other words, pretty much every website publishing anything that could be described as 'news, information and opinion of current value' " which shows a basic (and typical) misunderstanding of the web - if true. I wouldn't normally quote from an IPA quisling, but then I don't normally drink my own vomit.

And - btw - I consider closing with a reference to North Korea to be just the latest variant on Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).

See how easy it is to link to stuff, rather than pollute threads with wild claims?

and one would imagine they have a vested interest in maintaining their "freedom of the press".

Freedom of the press and freedom of speech surely means freedom even for those you might disagree with, such as the Murdoch press and the mining industry. I personally despise the Fairfax press but I wouldn't want to see them silenced.

There's an increasingly worrying trend on the left to see freedom of speech as so valuable that only people on the left can be trusted with it.

The response to Gina Rhinehart's share-buying in Fairfax was instructive. There was shock and outrage on the Left that there was no law to prevent non-Labor supporters from buying shares in newspapers!

The funniest thing about the Finkelstein Report was the claim that the ABC was the most unbiased news source in the country! So at least the guy has a sense of humour.

I see "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech" to be two different issues.

Bias, of course, is in the mind of the beholder. It seems the right are always ready to call something biased if it doesn't agree with their position. The ABC's attempt at "lack of bias" (I would call it the least biased mainstream media outlet precisely because it has a feedback loop built into it - something the commercial media don't require or want) has reached the point where scientists are asked to justify being scientists. Thanks to the right for pushing them to that position.

I'm so glad you're happy that the mainstream media are "free" to print stories that only back the interests of their proprietors and that you must have welcomed the money = speech equation laid down in US law by the Supreme Court there.

Methinks you're projecting the rhetorical approach of the Right on climate change and other indisputable facts on to the Left.

BTW - why don't you use your own blog to express your political view, rather than co-opting those of people you disagree with? Or is that not a definition of "freedom" you accept?

why don't you use your own blog to express your political view

I do, or at least I will until the government shuts it down in the interests of "fairness."

When people start talking about the government needing to ensure fairness, accuracy and balance in the media what they're talking about is political censorship. Apart from being terrifyingly dangerous it also demonstrates a breathtakingly patronising and insulting view of ordinary Australians. The assumption is that ordinary Australians are too stupid to make their own choices.

People already have a choice. If you want a right-of-centre slant to your news you can read the Murdoch press. If you want a left-wing slant to your news you can read The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald or watch the ABC or SBS. People can make their own choices. It's called freedom.

And people are making their own choices. Readers are deserting the Fairfax press in droves. That's what terrifies this government - that given the choice people might make up their own minds. They should let Nanny make their choices for them. Nanny always knows best.

Do you have any evidence (a link would be nice) to back up that readers are deserting the Fairfax Press in droves? I was under the impression that newspapers in general are dying because their revenue model (classified advertising) is now outmoded.

Ah, I can't be bothered.

Let's just agree to disagree. Or is that too leftie for you?

From The Age, February 10, 2012.

"Circulation of The Age's Monday to Friday editions fell 5.99 per cent in the three months to December 31 to 184,156, compared with the previous corresponding period, while the Saturday Age fell 6.56 per cent to 263,047 and The Sunday Age dropped 3.77 per cent.

"At the Herald, circulation fell 11.94 per cent to 184,613, the Saturday paper fell 7.73 per cent to 314,683 while The Sun-Herald dropped 8.17 per cent. The Herald Sun's Monday to Friday edition also fell 4.56 per cent, while The Daily Telegraph stemmed the losses to 1.84 per cent. Circulation at The Australian rose 3.51 per cent Monday to Friday, while The Weekend Australian rose 1.63 per cent."

Thanks!

Let's just agree to disagree.

That's fair enough.

OMG! Gillard does something I mostly agree with

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject