I am disappointed that politicians are listening to media companies about media reform. Here is another issue where the voters are ignored in favour of conflicted special interest groups. One only has to look at how the media companies are reporting on reform to see why at the very least a public interest advocate is a good thing.
These media companies have a vested interest – profit. The reform is about a balanced media we can trust. Trust is not part of the profit equation.
Every time I see another story about a media owner or manager lobbying a politician I wonder why smokers don’t get to lobby on tobacco or fat people on food laws or communities on fracking. Hang on, the companies that stand to profit get to do the lobbying.
Politicians go where the money is for counsel. Media companies go where the money is on lobbying.
The reporting of the debate on media reform in and of itself demonstrates the need for reform. The sad thins is that many Australians will not see this as they have been told otherwise – by some of the media companies most in need of more oversight.
We need a Public Interest Advocate! Someone infallible, Stephen Conroy? maybe Frank The Pope? Mark Fletcher?
Your point ‘May’?
Just think we’re on a dangerous path with govt appointed media umpires. News has been pretty disgraceful recently but prior to that they were nothing more than a very harsh critic. You might remember the Fairfax kiddies being fairly tough in their criticism of Jeff & Little Johnny in earlier times. What goes around comes around, if News get too feral they’ll alienate enough people to damage themselves more than anyone else.
‘May’ many businesses have regulators. Media companies have a position of trust that is often abused for their own political and business purposes. Some of the agendas run by News, for example, are disgusting. Their holier than thou preaching seeks to drive voters for the political and financial gains.
News commentators flip flop on this issue as some genuinely independent media outlets have demonstrated this week.
I wrote this post as an avid news consumer. I want to see news I can trust, news that can be challenged through a process.
The media concentration in Australia is greater than many other first world countries and we are the lesser for this. The media companies want greater concentration facilitated.
“Media companies have a position of trust that is often abused for their own political and business purposes. Some of the agendas run by News, for example, are disgusting. Their holier than thou preaching seeks to drive voters for the political and financial gains.”
The exact same things can be said about politicians, people vote them in based on trust which is abused more often then not for self serving interest ( see Oakshott and Windsor). The current bills are designed by a morally corrupt Govt to avoid criticism come the sept election, this is the reason they need it pushed through so fast.
Freedom of speech is vital or we are no better then North Korea or Iran.
Luke I am suspicious of the freedom of speech News Limited espouses when they do not actually facilitate this on their pages.
The current government is not morally corrupt. That said, they are as bad as the Howard government that abandoned newsagents.
Luke,
If Oakshot and Windsor are abusing the trust placed in them to serve their own interests then they’re doing a shit job of doing a shit job. They were elected to exercise their judgement as independent members of parliament and that is exactly what they have done. One may disagree with the policy positions but that in no way reflects on their integrity.
Look at what is actually being proposed. Freedom of speech is not under attack. Many would say it does not go far enough. News Ltd uses their might to drown out anyone and everyone else. One could easily argue that freedom of speech is under attack when people are limited in their choice to hear what is being said.
May,
News has been far more than just a harsh critic for a long time. Look at their coverage of climate change. It is not the veracity of the critique that needs to be questioned, but the critique it. Is it fair and balanced? Does it seek to present information in an unbiased manner?
Mark,
I agree something needs to be done with media reform but do you really think the Govt of the day will not try and influence the pick of a political buddie or ex pollie to oversee the process?
Whay about radio who are the main offenders who come out with absolute bile and push a biased agender especially in Sydney morning radio. Have not heard anything about them.
Remember the old saying, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
This could apply to some media outlets and our current crop of pollies of all parties.
its a very cynical approach by the govt, and i have no doubt it is politically driven hence the need to rush it thru with no proper debate. The reason news is hitting the ALP so hard is because they are doing an absolute crap job at running the country. I believe the govt is morally corrupt and is driving the country into an economic train wreck by prostituting itself to cling to power. Name one thing they have succesfully managed in this term, and i will name a dozen that have been grossly mismanaged.
Rick the economic indicators as assessed by the World Bank, the OECD and the IMF disagree re the job being done. Unemployment is down. Interest rates are down. Many assessments of their actions during the GFC are that Australia is a stand out. No recession here. Look at the US. The Bush administration did little and caused economic havoc in the economy.
The core economic performance is more important as it plays to the long term future.
I don’t see the current government being any more morally corrupt than the Howard government. Both governments have failed us. Personally, their race to the right on immigration disgusts me. Just as the Liberal attack on the carbon tax disgusts me as the model is that planned by the Howard government.
On the media issue, Finklestein released his report a long time ago and debate ensued. We need diversity in Australia and we don’t have it right now. One only has to look at the reporting on climate change to understand the corruption of news in Australia.
For me, this is not about politics. I don’t want to be presented with Gillard and Abbott as the leader choice. Both are leaders I do not respect, do not trust and do not want leading Australia.
I agree Mark, the one sided pro Climate change alarmism of the Fairfax media and the ABC is a bit concerning.
A bit of diversity and balance on that topic from those organisations might go some way to a more informed debate.
James there was an independent assessment of climate change reporting recently that showed something like 80% of all published content as denying or close to us.
I don’t care so much what people think, only that there is balance in coverage.
James,
Don’t confuse equal words or time with fair and balanced coverage. When the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts climate change that should be reflected in the reporting.
If one wants to debate the scientific intricacies of the subject then they should publish a paper for peer review.
Rick,
Comments regarding the economy are a clear indicator that there is something wrong with the current state of affairs in the media. The data simply does not support the claim that the country has been economically mismanaged, yet many people still believe it.
It is also forgotten that a significant amount of economic policy is influenced by advice from an independent treasury.
I can tell you now that the economy is not as rosy as you would make out, try living in rural australia and say the economy is strong .As far as the govt stimulus during the GFC, most of the money was wasted and has had no or little long term benefit for the very large amount of money dished out. Low interest rates are in place to stimulate a weakening economy. not convinced the unemployment figures are not somewhat fudged as employment growth has not been strong. One thing this govt has been good at is spin, dont worry i dont think we have a strong team in opposition either so am not pushing either barrow, The media debate has been skewed to the media magnates because of the very poor effort by Conroy to articulate the govt position, been too busy trying to bully it thru parliament without due process.
And Rick what about due process in some news outlets? It’s missing in many stories.
The OECD, IMF, World Bank and others say the handling of the GFC was best practice and the money spent well.
I agree there are parts of Australia doing it tougher than others. Some challenges I see are structural and go back to decisions made decades ago.
Let’s consider policy. We have the greatest media, supermarket and mining concentration of ownership of just about any country according to reports I’ve seen. Yet successive governments pander to these power brokers and let the voters down.
At its core the media regulation changes are about testing for public interest. I think this is good thing and I’d like to see more of it.
This is exactly the point, one man’s fair and balanced is another man’s biased and one sided.
And I suspect it is human nature to believe that the person with the best judgement on that is one’s self.
Its exactly why commercial media works as it does. Consumers have a choice and they back that choice with their hard earned. Dont like the product, don’t consume it, dont support it with your money.
Brisbane as I understand it is an interesting conundrum. A one paper town with a News Corp product which from all accounts is more sympathetic to the labor side of politics. Perhaps your Brissy readers could comment either way. I guess if the US is anything to go by, there are likely to be more rather than less one paper towns.
Nothing discussed here has altered my views that the media has never in its history been unbiased, and that with the changes in the media environment, future media will be dominated by public broadcasters.
did they also vote Wayne Swan as the worlds best treasurer? Just not sure how well the international money organisations are placed to make calls on what is worlds best practice, they are basically large organisations full of political wannabe’s. I just cant see that the BER or Pink Batts were worlds best practice no matter how hard I squint. I think that Australia is in a real political talent drought The whole issue has been played badly by Conroy, and he is coping a hiding in the press, which they must have realised would happen surely.
Rick we can agree to disagree. At least we’re demonstrating we can have a civil discussion unlike politicians.
The economic data of unemployment down, economic growth up, interest rates down etc has all happened on the watch of this government.
I agree insulation is a bad story. Not sure about BER given the value of the stimulus. Every government has scandals. The Howard government had a few including AWB, children overboard, Tampa, Cornelia Rau and Mufamed Haneef.
We need media diversity to pursue truth in stories like these.
Rick,
The organisations Mark lists are certainly not full of political wannabes. They are some of the most well resourced financial organisations in the world and a number of them are often criticised for being too neo-liberal. Governments, banks, financial institutions and large corporations listen when they speak and take their advice seriously.
That is not the say they economy is booming ahead. You can’t measure the economy in a bubble, it has to be done comparatively.
Your jibe that unemployment figures may be fudged is without basis. The data is collated by the ABS, not the government.
The stimulus was handed out on advice of treasury – the same treasury that would advise whichever government was in power. It done what is was supposed to do. It was not intended to directly provide long term benefit.
It is my understanding that the BER provided stimulus during the GFC and was a long overdue investment in school infrastructure.
It is also my understanding that the pink bats scheme did what it intended to do. It reduced electricity usage. The issue with fires is one projected by the opposition and the media. While there were a larger number of fires overall (something one would expect with an increase in installations), the rate of fires (i.e. the number of fires per installation was significantly less under the scheme.
I will agree that the government is trying to push the legislation through the parliament too quickly – but that’s politics and not necessarily a reflection on the legislation itself.
James,
An individual’s opinion on what is fair and balanced is irrelevant. There are a number of ways that fair and balanced can be measured. It is not beyond us as a society to develop a set of tests of what is fair and balanced.
The consumer argument is flawed because media is simply not just another good. It plays a role over and above its status as product. It is an integral part of society, politics, the economy and significantly influences how and what people think.
People may like a newspaper that hyperbolises everything, fabricates rumours and intentionally misinforms their readers because what they get is a more exciting, possibly easier to understand product. The problem with allowing a media organisation to essentially publish whatever they like unchallenged is that it ultimately other people – not just the ones who choose to read it.
I know what you mean Jarryd. How about the Age fabricating that rumour and intentionally misinforming their readers about Bob Carr withdrawing support for Jullia Gillard. All lies and fabrication. They didnt even bother going to Mr Carr to confirm the story. The PM has his full support, according to Mr Carr.
Where is a good regulator when you need one to pull these rogues into line.
Im having a bit of a stab and suggesting that in how ever long the media has existed, society has struggled to develop a successful set of tests on what constitutes fair and balanced, or what constitutes the public interest for that matter.
James the regulation changes do not cover this area as there is an existing, toothless, regulator covering published content.
What disgusts me is lies, fabrication and agenda running by media companies.
I disagree
We are over governed and over regulated in Australia.
Do not take away freedom of speach from an authority that has existing powers anyway.
The Pres is a mantle of democratic freedom as it stands today and the Joolia Government are endeavouring to quieten the media due to the fact we may be having an election this year.
Oh and that will end years of lies and incompetant governing as well.
And there is the damage of a biased self-interested media. The reforms as proposed did nothing to damage or harm free speech. But you wouldn’t know that from the reporting of some media outlets.
Media Bills withdrawn – for now.
More haste, less speed.
#23 “What disgusts me is lies, fabrication and agenda running by media companies.”
cant help myself, could take out the words “media companies” and slot in “politicians” and the statement would still ring true
please dongt take me too serious all the time 🙂
James,
As society changes so do the tests they apply. If we took the same ‘it’s too difficult’ approach to law then we’d live in an anarchistic society.
We apply tests of fairness and balance via the justice system every day. The idea that we can’t develop legislation to do the same with published media is farcical.