Regulating free speech and belting the digital economy

Dolly says:

07:29am | 19/02/12

Eric, after watching the Rudd video outburst I wish we were like China or Iran than a liberal democracy. We wouldn’t have to endure the daily crap happening about who should be our PM because we wouldn’t have the power-mad fools making out they are governing for the best interest of the people and the nation.

I am sick of all the bullshit we are fed daily from this government.

Bertrand says:

07:59am | 19/02/12

@Dolly - Surely seeing things like Rudd’s meltdown on YouTube is good for democracy as it helps voters see the true faces of the people they are voting for?

John says:

08:30am | 19/02/12

There is difference between a democratic media and subversion.
My last interesting not was when the democratic west was carpet bombing Libya and how it was just pure silence, blackout for 14 days from the western media. It goes to show that the western media and government seem to always synchronize with america’ foreign policy agenda, which is leads back the policy’s of the gang of criminals.

So many human rights violations in Libya by NATO backed rebels, heads literally torn from bodies and what did we hear? silence!. You look at the garabe they spew today and how all the west seems to dancing to same tune, Iran is evil, Syrian regime is evil. This is all propaganda, subversion by a western media, western politician who marched to order of their hijackers. Then you have that bin laden was behind 9/11, laughable! Then they killed him! Laughable

There isn’t a word of truth from our lying stinking west.

The majority of people are living in fictional reality, it’s all fantasy, we are the good guys, they the bad guys. Look at the facts lemmings, were the ones invading, bombing, and killing. We justify all this stuff on the notion that what our government tells is truth, but it’s not! 

The west is run by gang of criminals, they run the media, the politicians and our financial system. They have caught everyone and use immorality, lies, money to keep everyone in check. The west is under occupation and you people don’t even know it. There is democratic society! Wow you get to vote on voting day! You still have a dictatorship four years after it.

Dolly says:

08:34am | 19/02/12

@ Bertrand

You are correct, just the way I am feeling at the moment. I want it to cease for some certainty that the nation has a government governing for the best interest of the people and the position of PM is respected and trusted.

This Labor party has trashed that honourable position and I have had enough. The faceless men started all this, stop being egotistical buffoons and for a change put the country and the people before self interests.

Mack says:

08:45am | 19/02/12

@Bertrand - Surely seeing things like Julia Gillard lying through her teeth on the ABC’s 4Corners is good for democracy as it helps voters see the true faces of the people they are voting for

Durr Rick says:

09:30am | 19/02/12

“More than ever, we need to kick out the power-mad fools who are currently in charge.”

Only so we can replace them with your preferred power-mad fools. Oh Erick you’re so wise.

Bertrand says:

12:43pm | 19/02/12

@Mark - indeed it is. Labor did not come away from that episode looking good, which is interesting because many commenters on here seem to think the ABC is nothing but the mouthpiece of the ALP.

Bevan of Qld says:

02:23pm | 19/02/12

Perhaps media ethics went the way of personal ethics, social ethics, political ethics, and business ethics. The way of self interest. Individual rights demands that we look after number one first and stuff everyone else. In business that is translated as maximising profit for shareholders, in politics that equates to a need for extreme Socialism. The more internal ethics there are, the less Government regulation and restrictions required, the more democracy we have. Looking at the level of Government intervention points to a very low ethical standard in the country. Media are not responsible with the truth, but then neither is anyone else these days, the liability-shifting, deny-all-responsibility culture we currently have will self destruct if the Government does not over regulate. We are all heading in the wrong direction, It won’t end well.

Disco stu says:

04:54pm | 19/02/12

That’s ridiculous. The Internet filter wasn’t about censorship And news limited IS the liberal parties cheer squad.

OchreBunyip says:

01:12am | 20/02/12

@Disco stu, a select few adults deciding what other adults can read, watch or listen to is censorship no matter how you try to dress it up as something else. A government internet blacklist that is secret doesn’t sound like something I want to trust any government department with.

Al says:

07:25am | 20/02/12

Disco Stu - so you are happy for the government to have the power to block any website they choose, with no oversight and no ability to appeal a decision to be placed on the blacklist. (And you could only discover this by inference of people not being able to access your website and no issues with access via the provider).
It may have a specific aim as it is, but the problem is that government policy almost ALWAYS expands its scope far beyond what was originaly intended.
If they want a filter in place there must be oversight, very strict provisions of what may be blocked and a right to appeal a decision to be placed on the blacklist, none of which Labour want and have specificly excluded from being contained in the proposed legislation.

iansand says:

06:54am | 19/02/12

“News Limited” and “trust me”.  Hmmm.  Two phrases that require a negative to appear together in the same sentence

The best argument against this proposal is its utter futility.  The worms are well and truly out of the bottle, and no one will get them back in.

acotrel says:

04:16pm | 19/02/12

‘Media ethics’ - another oxymoron ?  Surely it’s a strange democracy when it can be overtly manipulated in several countries by one newspaper owner ?  It’s the same stuff we get when there is a gerrymander, but on a global scale.

Chris L says:

08:53am | 19/02/12

Absolutely agree. The only regulation I would care to see added would be penalties for producing deliberately misleading content.

I’ve seen several articles shown on Fox News in the US proven to be wrong due to lack of research (one time even running with a story from the Onion News Network because they couldn’t tell it was sattire!) and many times even proven to be deliberate lies. They could be easily dismissed as hacks if there weren’t so many people who believe their every statement.

David C says:

07:25am | 19/02/12

Geoff, they dont own 70% of the media.

Ben says:

07:47am | 19/02/12

“Basically trying to justify that it is OK that your boss owns 70% of the media in this country.”

Yep, it’s not surprising that someone peddling that line would also believe the NBN will bring a commercial return.

Tator says:

07:51am | 19/02/12

Another confusing circulation with ownership,  News Limited had: 48 per cent of print revenue, 60 per cent of newspapers sold in Australia, 32 per cent (owned fully or partly) of newspaper titles (printed at least weekly)

Kurisu Sonsaku says:

07:55am | 19/02/12

@ Geoff
“your boss owns 70% of the media in this country”

No his boss owns 32% of the print media - Try not to confuse market share with ownership.

“And then claiming that it is taxpayers who are paying for the NBN.”

SO who is paying for it if not the mug taxpayer? Oh wait….......itis the mug taxpayer not the money pixies.

” the facts that the NBN is ‘off budget’, an investment that will bring a commercial return to the goevernment. “

Off budget merely means that the clowns in Canberra don’t factor in the cost of the white elephant into the budget. As for a commercial return, have you seen the takeup rate - it’s pathetic.

Geoff isn’t it a bit early in the day for you to be wandering around in your floppy clown shoes getting fisked.

TimB says:

08:00am | 19/02/12

“Basically trying to justify that it is OK that your boss owns 70% of the media in this country. “

What News Limited has is 70% of *circulation*. That’s very different from 70% of ownership.

For someone so insistent on ‘facts’ it seems you haven’t done much fact checking yourself.

Bill says:

08:01am | 19/02/12

Geoff - typical lies from the labor side. The 70% figure refers to the number of newspapers bought by the public. That’s right - 70% of Australians prefer to read news corp publications over the left wing rags put out by fairfax.

Bertrand says:

08:04am | 19/02/12

Surely if the NBN is going to bring a commerical return, the government should be willing to complete and release a cost-benefit analysis?

I generally support the idea of an NBN, and feel that those who are arguing it is a complete waste of money are backwards looking Luddites with little imagination about the importance high speed internet will play in our future,  but the government simply saying it is off-budget and then not releasing any actual details of projected earnings, benefits, etc is a bit dodgy?

Anthony of WA says:

09:25am | 19/02/12

Geoff, please explain to us what “off budget” means?

Craig2 says:

10:26am | 19/02/12

@geoff: the NBN will never see a commercial return unless our population rises substantially, this NBN is a monster and a project with no cost benefit analysis, you have to wonder about its real cost. The government won’t release it because it knows it has built the biggest white elephant in the history of Australian infrastructure works.

Tracker says:

04:46pm | 19/02/12

I must say I have come around to the benefits of the NBN (it will give a bandwidth boost to my offshore private encrypted proxy and my VPN that keeps Conroy’s grubby nose out of my business) but… at what cost ?  The current Government just has too many brown paper bags to hand out like that $695 or whatever silly price for $100 set top boxes to hand out to pensioners or whoever. I guess what goes around comes around so at least the ALP will have a healthy political donation pool come election time… at our expense.

James In Footscray says:

06:58pm | 19/02/12

Geoff, you suggest you can’t trust the motives of anyone who works for Murdoch. So no doubt you also mistrust anyone on the ABC, as they have a financial vested interest in supporting Labor?

PsychoHyena says:

09:06am | 20/02/12

@Kurisu Sonsaku, the take-up rate is so poor at the moment because most people will wait until the entire system is established, high-speed is pointless once you hit the older copper-wire system. Also many people (and this is what people who look at the take-up rate don’t get) are just waiting for when they are automatically swapped over to the NBN.

The NBN WILL make a profit, even if everyone switches to wireless, because the NBN will be the ONLY wholesaler of the fibre network, which is still required for providing service to and from the towers.

I’m pretty certain when it was originally established people claimed that Telecom would never be profitable and that it was a waste of money, because “not everyone would have a telephone and telegraphs are the best service.” The same thing was said about mobile phones “Oh who’s going to need a phone when there are phone-booths?”

So given the level of support that this project has from IT providers and ISPs, don’t you think the general layman should accept that there are people who know better than them? There was an article last week about immunisation, and many of the people who were in support of immunisation (because experts say it’s good and you should listen to experts not anecdotes) are also against the NBN (even though the experts say it’s good).

I bet when the NBN starts making money and the MRRT and CPS actually start making a positive difference, Liberals will likely be in power then and they will claim that all the increased income is because of their “superior economic skills” (that by the way saw their party nearly bankrupt)

Dieter Moeckel says:

09:37am | 20/02/12

The reason it “off budgets” is because there are still small minded people who can’t get their head around large government figures - like $150 million for a single JSF-35 of which we are taking 20 odd.
People who squeal - “Geeze the foreign minister spent $10 000 on traveling - why couldn’t he just ring?” People who believe the lie that a household budget is an analogy for the national budget.
Shit some of them are so bloody pathetic.
The media is still the shaper of public opinion and the gatekeepers for news and fact. To get a balanced view subscribe to a balanced spruce of news. The majority I read here is welded on Liberals who eschew socialist but demand all the socialist benefits.

Andrew says:

01:15pm | 19/02/12

Do they get given the things outline in the article?

marley says:

03:17pm | 19/02/12

I don’t think it’s actually possible for journalists to write “balanced” stories.  We all have our views, our values, our experiences, and they affect the way we frame our world.  You see an event one way, I see it another, yet we’re both seeing the same event.  We can’t detach ourselves from our own mindset.  We may try to be objective, but we always carry with us our inbuilt filters.

And I think that’s why the concern about Murdoch exercising editorial control over his papers is misplaced.  He hires people who have a similar view of the world, or they naturally congregate together, so there’s a certain cohesiveness to the stories they tell, just a the Guardian in the UK or the Age have a certain internal consistency as well.  I don’t think it’s possible or practical to eliminate that.  The best we can do is ensure that alternative versions, perceptions, whatever, are available. And to my mind, that probably means less regulation, not more.

wearestardust says:

08:04pm | 19/02/12

I agree with you, Marley; on reflection “balance” doesn’t go to what I was truing to say.  Indeed, faux balance, where ‘experts’ are dug up to present a side that doesn’t exist, is one of the problems.

I think probably what I meant was more by way of wishing for honest appraisal of information.  By this I again don’t have in mind some unattainable idea of objectivity, but looking at all the relevant information to form a view - not just presenting what suits, or making stuff up if there is no actual supporting evidence for a view.

Or a bit less reckless disregard for reason, logic and facts, to put it more pithily.

stephen says:

11:34am | 19/02/12

So what is that owner’s ‘world view ?’
If it means a propensity to sell newspapers ...  then that’s business, and business is not, the last I looked, illegal.

Ethical avoidance says:

12:11pm | 19/02/12

If you have to ask that question stephen, you obviously know nothing about Murdoch or the history of political influence enjoyed by newspaper proprietors. Why do you think Rinehart wants to buy into the loss making media empire that is Fairfax? Tax write-off, or to give the right wing a totally dominant position in the press? Why would she want to do this? Because putting a price on CO2 and Mining super profits affects her bottom line. She is interesting in buying policy that is good for her and the right is more than happy to deliver the policy she desires in return for newspaper endorsement. Power at any cost for the right.
The Labor government is interested in implementing policy that is good for Australia, not a few mega rich and off shore miners.

Read a biography of Murdoch and you will see his “world view”. Or read the Telegraph if you can’t afford a book.

Bertrand says:

12:33pm | 19/02/12

@stephen - it is fair to say that Newscorp acts to promote the conservative ideology of Rupert Murdoch. The focus on climate change denialism by his papers, or the anti-refugee stories that constantly appear aren’t a mistake. They reflect the views of the owner, or at the very least, his understanding that confecting outrage over stories (such as yesterday’s story about asylum seekers being moved into houses with *gasp* televisions) shifts papers.

Is it moral? I would say not.
Should it be illegal? Certainly not.

The day we allow the government to dictate the editorial slant of the news would be a dark one indeed.

Sender says:

01:32pm | 19/02/12

Betrand
“The day we allow the government to dictate the editorial slant of the news would be a dark one indeed. “

But it is OK for the opposition to dictate the editorial slant of the news?
Twisted logic indeed.

John says:

02:30pm | 19/02/12

Murdoch is just another vassal to a greater power. It’s not his world view, it’s his masters world view. The Western media isn’t just Murdoch it’s other’s also, who also push the greater power’s fine line. The western media is pretty much lead by demonic force, the left is the left hand of the demon and the right the right hand of demon.

It’s all controlled, but the left don’t realize is that they nothing but useful idiots, pawns used to keep society divided and give a society a false reality of democracy. Feminism, Civil Rights, Civil Rights is all tools and games to keep the people divided and distracted.

Bertrand says:

02:31pm | 19/02/12

@Sender - I meant influence through laws, not simply through argument, verbal censures, etc. An opposition party has no ability to influence media editorial slants through laws, so my comment didn’t include them.

To be clear, my comment was not aimed specifically at the current government, just a general statement that the *government* in general shouldn’t be creating laws that attempt to influence editorial slant.

Andrew says:

03:14pm | 19/02/12

Sender, what twisted logic would that be. Were does bertrand say its ok for the opposition to dictate editorial content.. And for that matter what evidence do you have of the opposition dictating editorial content. You lefties are so use to reading left leaning papers and opinions if you see something that goes slightly against your beliefs you think there is some conspiracy going on. Didnt the murdoch papers champion Rodd as PM in 2007, didnt they give him a 2 year honeymoon with no criticism what so ever, but now they offer some criticism they are bias, they are a right ring paper that lies etc etc, in the meantime fairfax papers continue to put out the same old drivel and fail to offer any alternative views whatsoever, then they complain about murdoch having 70% share of circulation.

marley says:

02:02pm | 19/02/12

Perhaps you might take your comment over to the Drum, which is far more selective at publishing comments than the Punch, at least in my experience.

Tracker says:

02:35pm | 19/02/12

Where is the selective publishing of comments on this post ? I post a lot of comments on news.com.au, Punch, China Peoples Daily and Times of India.

news.com,.au - publishes sometimes
Punch -  publishes most times (over 99%)
China Peoples Daily - publishes sometimes (news.com.au’s mediator must be the same person..lol)
Times of India - always

..and I gave up on Fairfax and ABC a long time ago - published never

I have found The Punch to be about the most reasonable of all media in Australia if you want to say something.

One more thing..  You write in relation to News Ltd…. “Your selective publishing of comments mirrors…” then you say “If you don’t like the criticism….then don’t publish the comments.”

That sounds weird.

marley says:

02:08pm | 19/02/12

Well, I don’t know about that. I get my news from The Oz, the ABC, sometimes the SBS, a couple of Canadian news websites, occasionally The Independent and the BBC.  And I’m grandparent age.  Most folks my age are old enough and wise enough to know that no one is telling the whole truth.  And that’s why trying to regulate the media is a nonsense. 

Let them go at it, tooth and nail, let them fight it out in the papers, on the TV and on the net with as little interference as possible.  It’s the only way the real truth will ever out.

stephen says:

09:19pm | 19/02/12

People who are smart and have influence, well, they are going to be influential, and the owner of News Ltd. is quite within his right to exert influence of his media’s empire, so long as he is honest and does not, in the transmission of the news, tell lies.
If the bias is open and direct, that’s fine because the facts of a matter can be dealt with and if they are incorrect, then they can be argued and refuted in print.
The Australian is indeed anti-global warming.
I disagree with the thrust of its opinion pages in this respect, but its attitude to this matter and others is out in the open, it encourages many viewpoints and many good writers are given space to voice their opinions.
It is not the point of newspapers to be completely neutral in important topics which are of the public interest.
It is, however, necessary that the Editor be responsible for the truthfulness of a paper’s content and to ensure that a broad cross-section of opinions is printed.
This, The Australian, is guilty of.

TH says:

07:06pm | 19/02/12

Marilyn, take a pill and lie down.Get the Herald out,there"s no real news in there,articles and calm down. There is no “refugee bashing”, rather articles criticising government waste.One would think genuine refugees would be happy to be on safe ground,but apparently they were promised more for their bucks. I’m also sick of you calling anyone who disagrees with you ‘bogans”.

Bertrand says:

08:02pm | 20/02/12

This comment seems to have hung around.