Media enquiry.

 What do we want?

Do we want a Murdoch witch-hunt?

Do we want a better print media?

Is the media OK as it is now?

If we believe the media is dysfunctional, why is that so?

Is Murdoch the only offender or is it across the board?

What does one expect from modern day print media?

Do we have any newspapers that we trust?

How can the print media be improved?

What is the role of the print media?

Is it OK for the print media to take sides in politics?

Should the print media be honest at all times?

Does the print follow the what the public opinion or do they create public perception?

If so, is this OK?

Does questioning the print media by government threaten free speech?

If so, how?

Finally, will the enquiry achieve anything?

37 comments on “Media enquiry.

  1. While I wish they had looked at media ownership, it is probably best in the current climate that they didn’t, as it blunts considerably this cry of ‘witch-hunt’ from you know who.

    I am glad that, in the terms of reference, the code of practice is referred to a few times. I just hope that something does come out of it to help enforce those codes.

  2. Terms of Reference

    An independent panel will be appointed to inquire into and report on the following issues, while noting that media regulation is currently being considered by the Convergence Review:

    a) The effectiveness of the current media codes of practice in Australia, particularly in light of technological change that is leading to the migration of print media to digital and online platforms;

    b) The impact of this technological change on the business model that has supported the investment by traditional media organisations in quality journalism and the production of news, and how such activities can be supported, and diversity enhanced, in the changed media environment;

    c) Ways of substantially strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the Australian Press Council, including in relation to on-line publications, and with particular reference to the handling of complaints;

    d) Any related issues pertaining to the ability of the media to operate according to regulations and codes of practice, and in the public interest.

    The panel will be required to provide a report to Government by 28 February 2012, while working with the Convergence Review committee to ensure that findings are able to be incorporated into the ultimate report of the Convergence Review by end March 2012.

    http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2011/254

  3. All I would like to see, is an obligation to tell the truth and the onus of proof to be put on the media.

    Mr. Conroy has stated that this is about the print media. He is also extending the concept to how it performs on line as well as what is put into print.

    Mr. Conroy seems to see on line as being the print stories and how journalist use blogs.

    Could he be after the likes of our Mr. Bolt?

  4. I would like to see the same coverage for an apology as the false accusation.

    Eg The recent front page accusation by the Australian on the PM. The apology should be front page and same length, fonts etc.
    The false pictures of Hanson, apology using word like ” we deceived you” should be the same coverage. Also the money from the sales of that issue should be advertised and donated to a charity, all that being separate from any defamation action.

  5. Canada already had a media honesty policy, which is why Murdoch hasn’t set up there in any big way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

    Though in looking for the wiki link I come across the fact there is a move to deregulate the broadcasting media there with a movement to stop that deregulation. http://www.petitiononline.com/stopcrtc/petition.html

    Now I wonder who could be behind the deregulation to allow dishonest media reporting to be legal?

    More reading on the Canadian Broadcast Media Honest regulation: http://tinyurl.com/4l6z8nc

  6. The Chairman and Chief Executive of News Ltd, Mr. Hartigan, said this in his reponse to the announcement of the Governments media enquiry:-

    “This inquiry started life as a witch-hunt by the Greens and has morphed into a fairly narrow look at a mixed bag of issues ostensibly focussed on print journalism.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPGpPtvN_oySkKPFjvWpuvlPOpobDmRb4h8wySJ2ulo/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1#

    That statement is a classic “Look. Over there! ”
    It is also the height of hypocrisy, because the Greens did NOT start it at all.
    This is what was printed for the world to see:-

    The Australian announces that it wants to “destroy” the Greens
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/needed-a-policy-for-julia-direction-for-labor/story-e6frg71x-1225916087426
    September 9, 2010 – 6:00 pm, by Jeremy Sear

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/09/09/the-australian-announces-that-it-wants-to-destroy-the-greens/

    “WE WEAR SENATOR BROWN’S CRITICISM WITH PRIDE.
    WE BELIEVE HE AND HIS GREEN COLLEAGUES ARE HYPOCRITES;
    THAT THEY ARE BAD FOR THE NATION;
    AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE DESTROYED AT THE BALLOT BOX”

    Until today, I’d never seen a national broadsheet with pretensions to fair and balanced reporting actually admit that it wasn’t just biased against a party supported by 14% of the country, it wanted to “destroy” it. But that’s just what The Australian did in its editorial today:

    Greens leader Bob Brown has accused The Australian of trying to wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor. We wear Senator Brown’s criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box. The Greens voted against Mr Rudd’s emissions trading scheme because they wanted a tougher regime, then used the lack of action on climate change to damage Labor at the election. Their flakey economics should have no place in the national debate.
    Well, there you are. You can take pretty much everything The Australian says about the Greens in that context: they are not interested in giving them a fair hearing, or listening to what they have to say, or presenting their arguments for public assessment: they want them “destroyed”.

    Everything you read about The Greens in that paper can now be almost completely discounted by that fact. You can only conclude that if there’s a smear, they’ll run it. If there’s a positive story, they won’t. If there’s a way of presenting the Greens’ policies in the most damaging, least accurate light, that’s how they’ll be presented. The Greens will not be given fair opportunity to respond to critics’ claims about them (including the asinine ones made in that editorial). It will be relentless, one-sided, hostile propaganda.

  7. Oh dear, the Australian has had its widdle feelings hurt, just because it never prints the truth. Those naughty Greens, wanting balanced, truthful unbiased, and honest reporting. Bloody sauce!

    As for destroying the Greens, I laugh in the face of the stupid Murdoch knights. I spit in their general direction. Petty liars and con wo/men who have abandoned any standards they may once have had for unconditional support of Liealot and the Liars Party. They have no respect or principles.

    ME Canada has knocked back the Emperor’s attempt to infiltrate their msm by establishing Fox Lies.

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/canada-refuses-broadcast-license-to-fox-news-cuz-lies-misleading-news-against-canadas-radio-act/question-1573555/

    I hope they also go after Dolt, Anal, Hadley and the other shock jocks. If they refuse to disseminate the truth, they should be pulled and they and the station management should be subject to a grovelling public apology in prime time and a GREAT BIG FINE. If they refuse to comply, their licence should be revoked.

    And NO MORE self regulation. It obviously doesn’t work.

  8. The Oz playing the Manne: why it’s a barracker and a bully
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/14/the-australian-robert-manne-quarterly-essay/

    by Margaret Simons

    Robert Manne’s Quarterly Essay on the impact of The Australian has been out for more than a week now. It was much anticipated, yet has hardly been mentioned in the mainstream media.

    This is perhaps partly because the publishers kept it under close wraps until the release date, and reading the densely argued 25,000 words takes time.

    When they’ve finished their big read they WILL retaliate in their usual fashion.

  9. Jane from your link
    “Canada’s Radio Act requires that “a licenser may not broadcast … any false or misleading news.”
    As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage
    Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism”

    Gee that doesn’t sound too hard

    But they were worried when
    ” Stephen Harper moved to abolish the anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non-partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio.”

  10. Pip
    I think it just was!
    But they would probably think it was from a movie script, as it is so unbelievable to Australians.

  11. Sue, hear hear Canadians, I say. They have demonstrated what this country is too gutless to say. We should hang our heads.

  12. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, look, I don’t see why newspapers should be regulated. I mean, they have to comply with the defamation laws and contempt of court laws and a bunch of other laws, but really what is the point?

    Let us – let’s assume that the Daily Telegraph in Sydney or the Melbourne Herald in Melbourne is bitterly biased and opposed to the Gillard Government. Let’s say it’s doing everything it can every day to bring down the Gillard Government. I’m not saying it is, but that’s what they think. Let’s say that’s true.

    They’ve got every legal right to do so. There’s no law that says that newspapers have to be fair or balanced. Now, you and I both think it’s a good thing for newspapers to be fair and balanced, but they’re not obliged to be, any more than members of Parliament are obliged to be fair and balanced in their speeches or informed or anything else.

    So, you know, the reality is, Tony, that in a free society, a free and vigorous media is as vital as the legislature.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-15/turnbull-responds-to-media-inquiry/2901484

    He forgot to mention that a balanced media is also required, because, unless it is, the legilature can be (and is) swayed to one side of an argument, because the voters are not getting a clear picture of both.

    And, while there might not be a legal requirement for fairness and balance, there certainly is a code of ethics (spouted by ltdnews whenever they are challenged) which is not being adhered to.

    I hope this inquiry can come up with some method of enforcing this claim of theirs.

    And I just repeat: if people are unhappy with biased, vitriolic, malevolent material in the newspapers, the answer is don’t buy them.

    People aren’t dopey. It is funded political tool of murdoch, nothing more. malcolm just doesn’t mind cos it’s his politics it is supporting.

  13. Yes Tom, Turnbull quite conveniently forgets to mention that in its right to be biased it engages in outright lies, deceits and distortions.

    The argument isn’t against its right to be biased, but against it lying and making up stuff because of its bias. It can be as biased as it likes, as long as whilst being biased it is reporting the facts whilst conveying the correct and real information to its readers/listeners/watchers. That is where they are so badly failing, and as you point out Tom this is also against their own written standards and ethics that they like to flaunt given the opportunity.

  14. Turnbull said this in his speil last night,
    “Is there a risk that we have a proliferation of new outlets but insufficient revenues to pay for anything other than endless (and cheap) opinionating?”

    The cheapest opinions can be found in the comments section of any ltd news publication.

  15. Had to leave to watch the PM make her speech to the Chifley Research Centre….no transcript yet.

    The very first line in Malcolm Turnbull’s article says of newspapers
    Often disrespectful, sometimes inaccurate, occasionally malicious.

    Yet, he doesn’t see the problem.

  16. I wonder what the likes of Mr. Turnbull would say if the bias went the other way.

    Of course we know. We have only have to recall their continuous criticism of and desire to get rid of the ABC.

    I am not so sure the outcry is against bias. I think it is against lies, manipulating and unfair reporting.It is against bulling and attempts to destroy legally elected government.

    The same can be said of the sexist and disgraceful behaviour towards the PM. Of course those who have had not had the :she” and other derogatory language aimed at them cannot see any wrong.

    The question I asked, why is it necessary. I suggest is that they are incapable of mounting a more adult attack that is based on fact.

  17. Malcolm, it’s not just the disrespect, “inaccuracies” and occasional malevolencies. It’s the outright lies, distortions and unrelenting malevolence.

    If media is biased, it should be made to publicly acknowledge it, so readers know where it’s coming from.

    Creatures like Anal and the other shock jocks should be made to declare on every program that they are biased and towards whom.

    They should also not be allowed to tell a pack of lies without being subject to consequences. If they are not being truthful, they must be forced to tell their listeners that they’re just a pack of liars, in whom people cannot place their trust.

    Perhaps it should come as a disclaimer, not just taking the soft option that the views expressed are the shock jock’s opinion, but that the listener should understand that all or a large part of the shock jock’s “opinions” are not based in fact and that the shock jock would have to advise listeners every time s/he lies. Wouldn’t Anal love having to read that out every time he came on air?

    Yes having to read out the government’s talking points before each brain fart would provide just the right amount of humiliation. It would be worth monitoring his hate flecked bile, report every infraction and force him to apologise every half hour!

  18. The same as usual, the positive linked by lines of negative that has naught to do with the speech.

    Did not Mr. Turnbull make his name with Packer.

    What I want is only truth to be printed.The onus of proof be on the media concerned.

    I would like to see the media have to justify breeches of privacy.

    I want each story printed in it’s own right.

    I do not want recycled negatives attached to new stories.

    Bias does not worry me, as long as one does not claim to be balanced.

    I would like to see the media admit they are not above scrutiny or investigation.

    I would like to see a independent body that accepted and investigates complaints.

    I would like to see this to apply to all media.

    I would like to see a mechanism that makes it cheaper and easier to sue the media.

  19. From Mr. Denmore at The Failed Estate

    The Untouchables

    http://www.thefailedestate.blogspot.com/

    They squibbed it. Given the chance to tackle News Ltd’s stifling and anti-democratic dominance of the metropolitan newspaper market in Australia, the federal government has left ownership issues out of the remit of its independent inquiry into the media.

  20. I am not so sure it can be kept out if it comes up as an issue.

    Terms of reference can and are often widened if the circumstances warrant it.

  21. I’ve always thought that Malcolm Turnbull was on a promise from News Ltd and some very powerful people and that’s why he came back after that very definitive resignation last year. . I think that’s why he’s held his tongue with Abbott’s deliberate sidelining of him most of this year. Those very powerful people know that Abbott is really not electable as PM. When the time is right, and bully boy has sufficiently wrecked the government they’ll oust him somehow. And Lord Malcolm will step in to lead the next Coalition govt. all shiny clean and respectable..

  22. Patricia, Mr. Turnbull is sure relaxed and comfortable. He is not burning many bridges either.

    I refuse to believe that Mr. Abbott will ever be PM. He is being used by the party and will be dumped quickly when the time comes.

    There must be some talent in the Liberals but I must agree, it is being kept well hidden.

  23. There must be some talent in the Liberals but I must agree, it is being kept well hidden.

    I hate to disagree with you, CU, but I think the opposition is a talent-free zone.

    Turnbull has compromised himself utterly by allowing himself to be Liealot’s lapdog. I never thought he was leadership material. And that opinion was confirmed by his rash, ill considered, bullying during the Grech affair. He emerged from that exposed as the hollow vessel he is.

    He has a very high opinion of himself, but that doesn’t make him chairman material.

    I still can’t believe people think Turnbull would make a good PM; in his own way, he is as incompetent, unprincipled and lazy as Liealot.

  24. CU and Jane, I have a feeling that T’bull thought that the leadership would fall into his lap once the public worked out just what sort of person Abbott is. However, due to Abbott’s friends in the media so far this hasn’t happened.

    Sadly with the government’s lurch to the right on the asylum seeker issue this has allowed Abbott to come forward and appear ‘humanitarian’ in comparison.

  25. Jane, most, all in the party have tabs on themselves. If they don’t,who else is going to admire them.

    As for Mr. Abbott being humane, he is going to have problems with the main leg of his three legged policy.

    What is humane about turning the boats around, back to Indonesia and Malaysia.

  26. Min, I agree the government’s lurch to the right hasn’t been at all helpful. However, The latest news that the government has quietly allowed 1200 asylum seekers to live in the community while their claims are processed is good news, especially as a further 1880 will also be living in the community while their claims are processed. Good news and a boot up the jacksi for Liealot.

    And saying Liealot is even remotely humane is like saying Rupert Murdoch is a human. Clearly incorrect and an insult to the Salvos and all the other NGOs on the planet, and quite probably the known universe.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s