So, as I predicted months ago on this site, here it finally comes.

Stephen Conroy has been busier than a rat chewing its way to freedom with the new bundle of Media Laws.

You can read this as, the Government are legislating freedom of speech out of existence.

I can't wait to read the fine print on this one and I wonder just how long, sites like this which are truly FREE will last.

Is Labor going to incorporate the Swastika in their emblem and start rounding us troublemakers who dare to tell the truth up?

Won't be long before we will see brown shirts on the street (Hitler's bash goons) rounding up anyone who challenges this crooked bunch called Labor.

labor = stalinists. Remember the policy of assault on free speech just 2 months ago.

Trust Tea Baggers to defend a multi billionaire media mogul whose only freedoms he cares about is his own.
Its looks like Murdoch has plenty of puppets in Australia's Tea Baggers.
Freedom and diversity of the media is a joke when it comes to Murdoch and his sniveling boot licking cronies.

Yes adelcrow and they'll most probably offer you a job as one of the censors, a job for which you are admirably qualified.

Conroy is a dope

The current media standards are a disgrace to put it mildley.

Media Moguls think they can choose Australias Government - problem is that they are probably right.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

Conroy is a dope The current media standards are a disgrace to put it mildley. Media Moguls think they can choose Australias Government - problem is that they are probably right.

The truth Labor knows this will never get past Murdochs lick spittles so they're only throwing it out to show how much Abbott and his Tea Bag supporters are in Murdochs pocket.

Let's face it adelcrow, Labor will always be a chance when you have a Prime  Minister who is willing to do whatever it takes to keep power including the breaking down of Freedom of Speech in this Country.

Like i said, it wouldn't surprise me, not in the least if Gillard unleashed her own version of the Nazi Brown Shirts.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Trust Tea Baggers to defend a multi billionaire media mogul whose only freedoms he cares about is his own. Its looks like Murdoch has plenty of puppets in Australia's Tea Baggers. Freedom and diversity of the media is a joke when it comes to Murdoch and his sniveling boot licking cronies.

No-one is stopping the media from being diverse except the nutty lefty ranting that goes on with media that cant survive.

There is more diversity in media than ever before. You are just upset that the main stream of people dont want to pay for your kind of crap.

Red we may not know the fine print but we know the basic details.

How is this an attack on press freedom?

Every previous government has done one of two things when dealing with criticism from the press - either ignore it or prove them wrong (or try to, at least). Labor goes for a third option - attack anyone who disagrees with them, even if it means demanding the sacking of journalists. If this were Russia in the 80's, no one would even raise an eyebrow on this issue. Sadly, yet not surprisingly, I think Gillard, Swan and Conroy would be most comfortable living in what was once Communist Russia. I guess they can always find work in North Korea this October!!!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

Every previous government has done one of two things when dealing with criticism from the press - either ignore it or prove them wrong (or try to, at least). Labor goes for a third option - attack anyone who disagrees with them, even if it means demanding the sacking of journalists. If this were Russia in the 80's, no one would even raise an eyebrow on this issue. Sadly, yet not surprisingly, I think Gillard, Swan and Conroy would be most comfortable living in what was once Communist Russia. I guess they can always find work in North Korea this October!!!

Its not about agreeing or disagreeing it has been a 3 year concerted campaign against the Government, it has been a deliberate campaign aimed at driving regime change.

It has been only telling one side of the story, never being critical of one side always being critical of the other re enforcing negative statments day after day year after year.

It has been using propoganda tactics specifically to drive public opinion and not reporting on it.

They are not reporting the story but a major player in creating it.

The Media have been a disgrace.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:42pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:35pm: Every previous government has done one of two things when dealing with criticism from the press - either ignore it or prove them wrong (or try to, at least). Labor goes for a third option - attack anyone who disagrees with them, even if it means demanding the sacking of journalists. If this were Russia in the 80's, no one would even raise an eyebrow on this issue. Sadly, yet not surprisingly, I think Gillard, Swan and Conroy would be most comfortable living in what was once Communist Russia. I guess they can always find work in North Korea this October!!! Its not about agreeing or disagreeing it has been a 3 year concerted campaign against the Government, it has been a deliberate campaign aimed at driving regime change. It has been only telling one side of the story, never being critical of one side always being critical of the other re enforcing negative statments day after day year after year. It has been using propoganda tactics specifically to drive public opinion and not reporting on it. They are not reporting the story but a major player in creating it. The Media have been a disgrace.

Yep, absolutely right. Murdoch press is fairly right-wing, while Fairfax press is fairly left-wing. They balance each other out. Gillard is just throwing a hissy fit because there are some of us too smart for her smoke and mirrors and lies and broken promises...

No newspaper should rely on another to provide balance. There are places where the only papers you can buy are all Murdoch owned.

There is nothing left wing about Fairfax, it's just less conservative than the Muroch stable. Australia doesn't have a leftwing paper.

This is an Editorial from yesterday's West Australian:





: Media laws plan comes under fire






Communications Minister Stephen Conroy epitomises the sort of ideological zealotry that is never far from the surface in the Australian Labor Party. Senator Conroy, egged on by the Greens, has long been threatening vengeance on the newspapers he sees as unfair critics of the Federal Government.

Now, faced with the almost certain defeat within months of the most dysfunctional Government in Australia's history, he has wheeled out a package of so-called reforms aimed at bringing those newspapers to heel and has demanded that the Parliament pass it into legislation by the end of next week.

He will introduce the Bills tomorrow and has made it clear he will brook no discussion, no argument and no amendments.

Senator Conroy said the Government, in consultation with the Opposition, would appoint a Public Interest Media Advocate to authorise independent self-regulatory bodies for dealing with standards and complaints.

He says there are community concerns about media quality and how press complaints are handled, and the legislation will address these. Not only did he fail to produce evidence of these concerns, but he also admitted that the print media have lifted their game and that the system of self-regulation is now working well.

Why then does he need to superimpose a government-appointed Public Interest Media Advocate?

Senator Conroy says he is proposing "a press standards model which ensures strong self-regulation of the print and online news media". What he is actually proposing is government regulation of the media, backed by the threat of removal of the media exemptions under the Privacy Act.

Loss of those exemptions would make it virtually impossible for media organisations and their investigative journalists to operate.

The choice for media companies is clear: Submit to a government-approved regulator or go out of business.

Shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull has rightly identified that freedom and democracy are at stake and has promised that the Opposition won't be bullied into passing any legislation. Mr Turnbull says the media should be able to form its own views about ethical standards and compete in the marketplace.

The other role of the advocate will be to administer the Government's public interest test for media ownership. This is just another means by which the Government can punish media companies it doesn't like.

At a time of rapid change in the media industry and the emergence of new platforms and global access to information, the notion that we need government intervention to protect media diversity is nonsense.

Access to traditional print and broadcast media, subscription television, online publications, blogs and social media means people are able to read and hear - and express - a wider range of views than ever. But the changes announced by Senator Conroy ignore the realities of modern media.
Despite Senator Conroy's suggestion that the Opposition would be consulted on the appointment of the advocate, it is clear that whoever holds this post will be beholden to the Government and totally political.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

We have come to expect legislated TRUTH in ADVERTISING - and RIGHTLY SO Should we DEMAND anything LESS from JOURNALISM ?

Obviously quoting yourself ends the argument.

The Emperor has spoken.

It is kind of amusing to find the common tea baggers defending Rupert Murdochs media empire because good old Rupert has always been fond of destroying anyone and everything by any means possible that gets in his way.
Lets be honest Murdoch doesn't give a rats tossbag about freedom, democracy or honesty.
Maybe it makes these "common" people feel closer to multi billionaire media barons if they jump up and down about their freedom to print any old rubbish no matter how big a lie it is.

red baron wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

So, as I predicted months ago on this site, here it finally comes. Stephen Conroy has been busier than a rat chewing its way to freedom with the new bundle of Media Laws. You can read this as, the Government are legislating freedom of speech out of existence. I can't wait to read the fine print on this one and I wonder just how long, sites like this which are truly FREE will last. Is Labor going to incorporate the Swastika in their emblem and start rounding us troublemakers who dare to tell the truth up? Won't be long before we will see brown shirts on the street (Hitler's bash goons) rounding up anyone who challenges this crooked bunch called Labor.

I'm sure that the Canberra Press and our ABC won't be prosecuted for any sh*t that they throw at the conservatives.

Gillard will approve, clapping her unclean hands.

By "unclean", I don't mean honest dirt but various signed documents.

Buzz and Diddg - who is going to be the chosen one then who decides what is truthful and what is not truthful

You guys should know better than  anyone that Censorship is. sh.t and the opposite end of the spectrum to a vibrant and free press...whatever the opinion.

What is that American saying, "I vehemently disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Stephen Conroy's Totalitarianism for Dummies

1984 is possibly the definitive dystopian novel, set in a world beyond our imagining. A world where totalitarianism really is total, all power split into three roughly equal groups--Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania. 1984 is set in Oceania, which includes the United Kingdom, where the story is set, known as Airstrip One.

Winston Smith is a middle-aged, unhealthy character, based loosely on Orwell's own frail body, an underling of the ruling oligarchy, The Party. The Party has taken early 20th century totalitarianism to new depths, with each person subjected to 24 hour surveillance, where people's very thoughts are controlled to ensure purity of the oligarchical system in place. Figurehead of the system is the omnipresent and omnipotent Big Brother.




But Winston believes there is another way.

1984 joins Winston as he sets about another day, where his job is to change history by changing old newspaper records to match with the new truth as decided by the Party.

"He who controls the past, controls the future" is a Party slogan to live by and it gives Winston his job, but Winston cannot see it like that. Barely old enough to recall a time when things were different, he sets out to expose the Party for the cynically fraudulent organisation that it is. He is joined by Julia,(No not Gillard!!! She is Big Brother!!) a beautiful young woman much in contrast with Winston physically, but equally sickened by the excesses of her rulers.

Red, I am still waiting for you to stop regurgitating conservative propaganda and explain the threat to press freedom!

The schmedia have opened themselves to an attack on their self declared 'freedom.'  Whatever that 'freedom' really is does not extend to political manipulation as we so obviously now have.  We also see a stepping over the line in their reports on other matters.  I give you two recent examples in Queensland.  The first was the 'Dr Death' incitement, and the second is their utterly disgraceful activity concerning those girls who were the subject of an international custody dispute.  The 'Courier Mail' contrary to Law, published their photographs....and there is alleged to be a prosecution about that.  Do we hear about it in the schmedia?  No way.  They keep their transgressions unreported while at the same time swoop like vultures on the alleged transgressions of others.

They have attracted the flies with their own sh1t. 

On the Federal level.....the Ashby/Slipper and Rares Judgement is the most momentous in judicial/political relevance.  There, the Judiciary declared that conspirators sought without foundation, to bring down the Government of the day.  Various political figures were fingered, and a member of the schmedia was barely spared.

A truly independant and free schmedia would have been all over this, relentlessly unleashing their investigative section to bring us the truth.  What did we get?  Nothing.

Okay.....the Judiciary will do the job as it always does, and where will the schmedia be when the sh1t hits the fan? 

Well Peter it's the C word I'm worried about...you know C..e..n..s..o..r..s..h..i..p, oh bugger, now I've really spilled the lollies!

Perhaps we could get the new Pontiff to do the censoring in his spare time. Can you imagine the bunch of Gillard cronies that would walk into that job?

Red, that's a statement not an explanation. Conroy's legislation only kicks in AFTER publication......how the bugger can that be censorship?

red baron wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

Well Peter it's the C word I'm worried about...you know C..e..n..s..o..r..s..h..i..p, oh bugger, now I've really spilled the lollies! Perhaps we could get the new Pontiff to do the censoring in his spare time. Can you imagine the bunch of Gillard cronies that would walk into that job?

Can you please explain in detail (or in 'retard' if you like) this 'censorship?'

:-?

That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this.

There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating.

red baron wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this. There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating.

Yes....we all know 'you' are stating it.  Show me the detail.......show me documents which back up 'your' statements.  Is that too hard a task for you?

:-?

Your Thread RB.  When will I get your answers?

:)

red baron wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this. There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating.

Once an article is published it cannot be censored. Surely you understand that?

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 5:54pm: We have come to expect legislated TRUTH in ADVERTISING - and RIGHTLY SO Should we DEMAND anything LESS from JOURNALISM ?

truth in advertising is a bit easier to define than truth in journalism. There have been relatively few articles that have been factually incorrect and certainly no more than were back when the media loved rudd and the ALP. What seems to annoy the labor party is that they have been a govt that has lurched from one diastrous policy to another punctuated by scandal and corruption.  newspapers and meida in general tend to only print the bad news and the juicy scandals and screwups. Perhaps if labor provided less fodder for the media then there would be less to complain about.

the media is not biased. they generally do not like labor, but incase you are not reading the polls, neither does most of the voting public either.

you didnt see a hissy fit from howard over anti-liberal sentiment during 2006/7. he has too much class for that. that kind of pitiful whining is always the labor way and in particular Conroy who seems to have a particularl love of censorship per se.

red baron wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Buzz and Diddg - who is going to be the chosen one then who decides what is truthful and what is not truthful You guys should know better than  anyone that Censorship is. sh.t and the opposite end of the spectrum to a vibrant and free press...whatever the opinion. What is that American saying, "I vehemently disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

im fascinated by how buzzard can defend media censorship but vehemently opposed internet censorship.  But alas, the explanation is so disappointingly obvious. While I originally thought that the buzzard was opposing censorship as a principle, I now see that he was merely opposing censorhip on what HE reads. he doesnt read newspapers or much of the MSM so therefore censorship is okay. but touch his beloved internet???  never!

principled positions are rarer than honest labor politicians.

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:28pm: That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this. There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating. Once an article is published it cannot be censored. Surely you understand that?

An article is printed.

Under the new legislation some arse decides it's inappropriate.

Makes them retact maybe?

Makes sure the paper won't print that sort of stuff again.

Censorship.

:)

Aussie wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:28pm: That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this. There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating. Yes....we all know 'you' are stating it.  Show me the detail.......show me documents which back up 'your' statements.  Is that too hard a task for you? :-? Your Thread RB.  When will I get your answers? :)

.Bump.

FriYAY wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:41pm: red baron wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:28pm: That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this. There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating. Once an article is published it cannot be censored. Surely you understand that? An article is printed. Under the new legislation some arse decides it's inappropriate. Makes them retact maybe? Makes sure the paper won't print that sort of stuff again. Censorship. :)

Bump


Bump

.

red baron wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

What is that American saying, "I vehemently disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Voltaire -  was "American" ?

FriYAY wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:41pm: red baron wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:28pm: That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this. There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating. Once an article is published it cannot be censored. Surely you understand that? An article is printed. Under the new legislation some arse decides it's inappropriate. Makes them retact maybe? Makes sure the paper won't print that sort of stuff again. Censorship. :)

You obviously have very little faith in the courage of newspaper editors.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

labor = stalinists. Remember the policy of assault on free speech just 2 months ago.

Yes, and I remember a female minister resigned over this proposed farce. Her excuse was that she wanted to spend more time with her family.

Politicians can't even be original!

I guess that there comes a point when even a  politician's gut gives up.

There are few right venues as it is so how can Labor ministers be such cowards?

olde.sault wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 1:49am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:33pm: labor = stalinists. Remember the policy of assault on free speech just 2 months ago. Yes, and I remember a female minister resigned over this proposed farce. Her excuse was that she wanted to spend more time with her family. Politicians can't even be original! I guess that there comes a point when even a  politician's gut gives up. There are few right venues as it is so how can Labor ministers be such cowards?

Did the Minister assault anyone?

"it's just a jump to the left" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This is a perfect example of the lack of intelligence that exists in the Gillard ministry. The last - very last - thing any government seeking re-election should do is piss off the very people who you need to spread your message. One would think that the government would be bending over backwards to make everyone happy at this point in time. But noooo, Labor seems intent on pissing off everyone - single mums, miners, private health policy holders, people who play pokies, families who oddly like using electricity to power their homes, and the entire ethnic community. Now they wanna piss off the media! I'm starting to wonder if this government is the modren-day equivalent of a kamikaze pilot hellbent on killing himself.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 8:06am:

This is a perfect example of the lack of intelligence that exists in the Gillard ministry. The last - very last - thing any government seeking re-election should do is piss off the very people who you need to spread your message. One would think that the government would be bending over backwards to make everyone happy at this point in time.

Sections of the media have been spreading a dishonest anti government message for over 3 years with the aim of driving regime change, nothing Labor do will change that.

While I don't trust Conroy and believe in freedom of the press there is no doubt that the media need to be bought to some reasonable standard. They are currently out of control ferals who believe that can get away with anything. Their behaviour has been abominable

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 8:06am:

This is a perfect example of the lack of intelligence that exists in the Gillard ministry. The last - very last - thing any government seeking re-election should do is piss off the very people who you need to spread your message. One would think that the government would be bending over backwards to make everyone happy at this point in time. But noooo, Labor seems intent on pissing off everyone - single mums, miners, private health policy holders, people who play pokies, families who oddly like using electricity to power their homes, and the entire ethnic community. Now they wanna piss off the media! I'm starting to wonder if this government is the modren-day equivalent of a kamikaze pilot hellbent on killing himself.

Labor knows full well it will never get fair coverage from the media so what have they got to lose?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 8:44am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:06am: This is a perfect example of the lack of intelligence that exists in the Gillard ministry. The last - very last - thing any government seeking re-election should do is piss off the very people who you need to spread your message. One would think that the government would be bending over backwards to make everyone happy at this point in time. Sections of the media have been spreading a dishonest anti government message for over 3 years with the aim of driving regime change, nothing Labor do will change that. While I don't trust Conroy and believe in freedom of the press there is no doubt that the media need to be bought to some reasonable standard. They are currently out of control ferals who believe that can get away with anything. Their behaviour has been abominable

Just copying the GIZZARD GOVT     ;)

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 11:34pm:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 7:30pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:41pm: red baron wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:28pm: That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this. There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating. Once an article is published it cannot be censored. Surely you understand that? An article is printed. Under the new legislation some arse decides it's inappropriate. Makes them retact maybe? Makes sure the paper won't print that sort of stuff again. Censorship. :) You obviously have very little faith in the courage of newspaper editors.

You wanted an example of how it could be censorship and against freedom of press.

So i showed you a very simple one.

You're welcome.

:)

The newspaper coverage of this issue is a great example of why they need to be regulated.

The Smellograph is one thing it is all you could expect from a trash tabloid you wouldn't wipe your arse with.

But the Ostraylyan is a lot more subtle. All its news coverage is slanted and its commentary section is all one way.

They are running scared. What a shame.

An ethical, fair and balanced media outlet has nothing to fear from this proposed legislation. But the Oz is so thin skinned any criticism is met with outrage. Remember when a Sydney academic wrote a treatise pointing out the paper's many faults?

Rather than trying to learn something the paper devoted four pages to slamming into the guy and getting really personal. They apparently think they are perfect.

I can remenber the days when Journalists reported the Facts!!

And bloggers were amateurs and confined to ONE page to give their opinions.
The Letters to the Editor page.

Now the bloggers are paid to spout their opinions throughout an entire newspaper, provided it agrees with management, even spilling onto the sports pages at times.

:)

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Trust Tea Baggers to defend a multi billionaire media mogul whose only freedoms he cares about is his own. Its looks like Murdoch has plenty of puppets in Australia's Tea Baggers. Freedom and diversity of the media is a joke when it comes to Murdoch and his sniveling boot licking cronies. No-one is stopping the media from being diverse except the nutty lefty ranting that goes on with media that cant survive. There is more diversity in media than ever before. You are just upset that the main stream of people dont want to pay for your kind of crap.

The Crow is just dirty because he can't find any excuse for Labor's doings since 2007 when those of union class, business-arid idiots got in.

Fancy Gillard being that moronic not to realise that jobs would be lost because of the carbon tax and that this would not be forgiven by the jobless also,

boat illegals getting better treatment than our own who have lost their homes and live on the streets.

Julia's brains should be dissected and examined at a university!

Conroy's sneak attack on Freedom of Press


It must be really really sneaky ... no one can tell me what this legislation is.

John Smith wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Conroy's sneak attack on Freedom of Press It must be really really sneaky ... no one can tell me what this legislation is.

Ask your buddy CRAIG THOMPSON    He says its bad  ;)

FRED. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 12:21pm: Conroy's sneak attack on Freedom of Press It must be really really sneaky ... no one can tell me what this legislation is. Ask your buddy CRAIG THOMPSON    He says its bad  ;)

so you cannot say what it is? how do you know it is bad then?

Katter backs media reforms to curb 'biased' press
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/katter-backs-media-reforms-to-curb-biased-press-20130312-2fymv.html#ixzz2NZUkYm1V


A key crossbencher has provided qualified support for the Gillard government's proposed media law reforms, with Bob Katter saying that he was concerned about ''biased'' and ''irresponsible'' reporting.

Mr Katter told Fairfax Media on Wednesday that while he would wait to see the legislation before deciding how he would vote, he agreed with Communications Minister Stephen Conroy that ''something needed to be done'' about an often irresponsible press.

The reforms, which stop short of some of the more radical recommendations from the Finkelstein review a year ago, include a public interest test on media mergers to be administered by a government-appointed bureaucrat dubbed the ''public interest advocate''.

As well as approving mergers and acquisitions, the ''public interest advocate'' would oversee the existing press councils and judge whether media companies met their own standards.

Labor would need five of the seven crossbenchers to support the legislation for it to pass parliament.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/katter-backs-media-reforms-to-curb-biased-press-20130312-2fymv.html#ixzz2NZVIShyx

Quote:

Senator Conroy's reforms propose a government-appointed enforcer and sanctions which, if utilised, would remove exemptions from the privacy act for media organisations - effectively gagging reporting.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cabinet-rolled-in-conroy-media-reform-ambush/story-e6freuy9-1226597699255

Wow how terrible the media may not be exempt from the privacy act, that is outragious imagine if the media were not allowed to do what we would be breaking the law if we did.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Quote: Senator Conroy's reforms propose a government-appointed enforcer and sanctions which, if utilised, would remove exemptions from the privacy act for media organisations - effectively gagging reporting. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cabinet-rolled-in-conroy-media-reform-ambush/story-e6freuy9-1226597699255 Wow how terrible the media may not be exempt from the privacy act, that is outragious imagine if the media were not allowed to do what we would be breaking the law if we did.

Isn't this what Murdoch thought he had the right to do in England?

;)

Lobo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 12:37pm: Quote: Senator Conroy's reforms propose a government-appointed enforcer and sanctions which, if utilised, would remove exemptions from the privacy act for media organisations - effectively gagging reporting. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cabinet-rolled-in-conroy-media-reform-ambush/story-e6freuy9-1226597699255 Wow how terrible the media may not be exempt from the privacy act, that is outragious imagine if the media were not allowed to do what we would be breaking the law if we did. Isn't this what Murdoch thought he had the right to do in England?

You really believe they don't do it in Australia too?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Lobo wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 12:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 12:37pm: Quote: Senator Conroy's reforms propose a government-appointed enforcer and sanctions which, if utilised, would remove exemptions from the privacy act for media organisations - effectively gagging reporting. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cabinet-rolled-in-conroy-media-reform-ambush/story-e6freuy9-1226597699255 Wow how terrible the media may not be exempt from the privacy act, that is outragious imagine if the media were not allowed to do what we would be breaking the law if we did. Isn't this what Murdoch thought he had the right to do in England? You really believe they don't do it in Australia too?

I REALLY believe that they DO do it here.
They just haven't been cornered yet.

Perhaps this is why the media are so uptight about anything that may expose any wrongdoing on their part.

;)

So these laws might stop phone hacking?

No wonder the Murdoch press is having such a whine about it.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

So these laws might stop phone hacking? No wonder the Murdoch press is having such a whine about it.

I don't really know if they would, but it would be hoped that the legislation would make the media think twice before doing so.

:)

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

Red, that's a statement not an explanation. Conroy's legislation only kicks in AFTER publication......how the bugger can that be censorship?

how the hell is that NOT censorship? you get punished after-the-fact once and after that... you toe the line as indicated by the govt censor. It is as effecitvely a censorship regime as if someone had to approve articles pre-publication.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Katter backs media reforms to curb 'biased' press Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/katter-backs-media-reforms-to-curb-biased-press-20130312-2fymv.html#ixzz2NZUkYm1V A key crossbencher has provided qualified support for the Gillard government's proposed media law reforms, with Bob Katter saying that he was concerned about ''biased'' and ''irresponsible'' reporting. Mr Katter told Fairfax Media on Wednesday that while he would wait to see the legislation before deciding how he would vote, he agreed with Communications Minister Stephen Conroy that ''something needed to be done'' about an often irresponsible press.

so now the arguable mentally unbalanced lunatic Bob Katter supports it... well do you need a better indication of how bad it must be then???

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Quote: Senator Conroy's reforms propose a government-appointed enforcer and sanctions which, if utilised, would remove exemptions from the privacy act for media organisations - effectively gagging reporting. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cabinet-rolled-in-conroy-media-reform-ambush/story-e6freuy9-1226597699255 Wow how terrible the media may not be exempt from the privacy act, that is outragious imagine if the media were not allowed to do what we would be breaking the law if we did.

they already have those exemptions. where have you been?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Lobo wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 12:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 12:37pm: Quote: Senator Conroy's reforms propose a government-appointed enforcer and sanctions which, if utilised, would remove exemptions from the privacy act for media organisations - effectively gagging reporting. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cabinet-rolled-in-conroy-media-reform-ambush/story-e6freuy9-1226597699255 Wow how terrible the media may not be exempt from the privacy act, that is outragious imagine if the media were not allowed to do what we would be breaking the law if we did. Isn't this what Murdoch thought he had the right to do in England? You really believe they don't do it in Australia too?

a bit of evidence wouldnt go astray in an accusatiion like that. the UK tabloids have been terrible for decades. it has never been like that here - except of course when the media supported labor. then it was all ok.

Here's what I don't understand - why the rush to get this passed into law next week??? What is so urgent that it needs to be passed so soon?

Besides that, if it does pass then it'll be the most short-lived legislation ever as Abbott will destroy it when he becomes PM in September...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

Here's what I don't understand - why the rush to get this passed into law next week??? What is so urgent that it needs to be passed so soon?

CFMEU braces for next chapter to ICAC probe

By Nonee Walsh

Posted 8 hours 8 minutes ago



- Terms of UseiiiMapi






Map: Sydney 2000
The coal miners' union is bracing itself for a damaging series of revelations from an anti-corruption inquiry involving a well respected former leader.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption's probe into the granting of mining licences to entities connected to the family of New South Wales Labor Party powerbroker Eddie Obeid has already damaged the ALP.

Now the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is bracing itself for a reputational hit in the next part of the inquiry due to begin on Monday.

The CFMEU's former national secretary, John Maitland, is staying out of the public eye at the moment and has cancelled today's public auction of a $1.6 million farm near Kempsey on the NSW north coast.

However the former union veteran still has $5 million worth of property on the market, including a $3 million dollar property in Victoria owned through his family company Jonca.

Mr Maitland bought the farms after he became a multi-millionaire just four short years after retiring as CFMEU head.

That wealth came on the back of an investment of less than $200,000 and a mining licence issued by his friend, the then NSW mining minister Ian Macdonald.

It was the same year Mr Maitland became a Member of the Order of Australia, in recognition of his services to international and Australian industrial relations.

Now the unravelling of the story of the rise from union man to rich mining investor threatens to drag in his former union colleagues.

The ABC understands that a number of mining union officials have been called to give evidence to the ICAC about the Doyles Creek coal exploration licence, and the associated $10 million share price windfall to Mr Maitland.

Just two months after he left the union Mr Maitland began buying shares in a company called Nucoal. A $1 shelf company was also established, which became Doyles Creek Mining.

Among Mr Maitland's plans was for an operation to train people to work in underground mines.

Some time after his first approach to Ian Mcdonald about his training mine, Mr Maitland became a director and later chairman of Doyles Creek Mining.

The training mine idea had been proposed a decade before, when Mr Obeid was minerals minister, and it had been a strong interest of Mr Maitland in his time in the CFMEU.

A plan for a large coal mine to fund it between the town of Jerrys Plains and the Wollemi National Park was rejected between 1999 and 2000 by the state government because the area was environmentally sensitive.

But the licence for a training mine and exploration licence was issued by Mr Macdonald in late 2008, against departmental advice, to Doyles Creek Mining.

Doyles Creek was then taken over by Nucoal and, when the company was publicly floated in 2010, John Maitland sold almost $6 million worth of shares. After that he began buying up the farms which he is now selling.

The veracity of letters of support for the Doyles Creek licence sent to government is likely to be examined by the ICAC.

The apparent authors are Labor politicians including Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, along with a who's who of union officials and entities associated with the mining union.

When John Maitland retired in 2006 the union's then national president Tony Maher lauded "the Maitland effect" on the reputation of the union and the labor movement.

"Wherever he goes he is hailed as a long lost brother and treated as a king. And rightly so." he said at a farewell in 2006.

Now Mr Maitland's name cannot be found on the CFMEU website. According to sources in the union, the reaction he now prompts is shock and disappointment as the union nervously awaits the latest ICAC revelations.

A union spokesperson said officials are unable to comment based on legal advice.

Topics:courts-and-trials, corruption, unions, states-and-territories, sydney-2000, jerrys-plains-2330, nsw



THIS IS THE REASON  OR 0NE OF MANY   ;) ;) ;)

Of course, let's all ignore the obvious here.....

The real issue is that far too much of the 'media' has been concentrated into the hands of FAR too few people.

You CANNOT have a diverse range of opinions (political, social, moral or otherwise) when two or three men
control everything that's written/broadcast.

If THEY are biased, it follows that the news they deliver will also be biased.

The more players in the news game, the better. Too few is a disaster, and is one that govt legislation helped
to create.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

Here's what I don't understand - why the rush to get this passed into law next week??? What is so urgent that it needs to be passed so soon?

in any normal situation and with any other govt or PM the following would be just nonsense. But with Gillard the perennial liar and abuser of process, it is plausible.

Who is to say that the govt doesnt want what is effectively a gag process in place just in time for the election campaign? Can you imagine how a gillard-appointed censor would treat the media duing a campaign? This disgrace of a PM who has already orchestrated a riot against abbott certainly has the form to try a fiji-styled attack on freedom of the press. You can see it now... an election campaign where media is not permitted to publish anti-labor articles.

Likely? not really. But unfortunately, you can no longer discount it as impossible. the depths this woman will go seems bottomless.

Here's the rub. If this legislation is passed. The Government will appoint a Committee to oversee the new media regulations.

And that Committee will report to the Government Committee.

And therein lies the conundrum.

Once you appoint people to Censor the media the rot starts right there.

Any form of censorship is bad,bad, bad, bad.

I understand and agree about the dangers of a concentration of ownership in the media.

But controlling what is  published is a no, no, a bloody big one.

red baron wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 8:34am:

Here's the rub. If this legislation is passed. The Government will appoint a Committee to oversee the new media regulations. And that Committee will report to the Government Committee. And therein lies the conundrum. Once you appoint people to Censor the media the rot starts right there. Any form of censorship is bad,bad, bad, bad. I understand and agree about the dangers of a concentration of ownership in the media. But controlling what is  published is a no, no, a bloody big one.

Who is saying that the oversight group has the ability to censor anythng?

THey seem to report on the media publications meeting the self regulation standard, it seems to be more making sure that the existing regulator is doing its job to its current required standard.

Excellent question. Let's hope we get some insightful answers.



Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

Red we may not know the fine print but we know the basic details. How is this an attack on press freedom?

Shame the details never seem to be discussed. If there are flaws in Conroy's legislation, you wouldn't be any the wiser about them after reading this thread.

Dnarever and Peter, you are both experienced and should recognise this what it is, the thin end of the wedge.

Once you start something like this there is no going back. A huge problem with this is the grey areas and its more like a black cloud. All this sh.t being frantically rushed through in a week and short, short, short on detail

I don't trust politicians they are the slimiest dogs in the land, almost up there with lawyers.

Once they give themselves power to muzzle what they don't like there will be no end to it.

Surely, you can see the inherent dangers in this set up which is designed to muzzle criticism of Labor which is crippled.

My hope is that Malcolm Turnbull has promised to repeal the  law when the Liberals get in, and they will get in.

I believe Turnbull's word on this.

red baron wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

should recognise this what it is, the thin end of the wedge.Once you start something like this there is no going back

seem to remember this argument being used a lot in regard to police powers ... do yu support police having more powers Red?

Or are you going to actually tell us what the supposed legislation is and comment on that? Having gone through this thread I've found no actual reference to the legislation apart from the sort of bullshit you put up above.

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

red baron wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 10:45am: should recognise this what it is, the thin end of the wedge.Once you start something like this there is no going back seem to remember this argument being used a lot in regard to police powers ... do yu support police having more powers Red? Or are you going to actually tell us what the supposed legislation is and comment on that? Having gone through this thread I've found no actual reference to the legislation apart from the sort of bullshit you put up above.

I guess the media has left them unarmed for such a debate. Perhaps they need to inject a little more media diversity into their own lives.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:16pm: Red, that's a statement not an explanation. Conroy's legislation only kicks in AFTER publication......how the bugger can that be censorship? how the hell is that NOT censorship? you get punished after-the-fact once and after that... you toe the line as indicated by the govt censor. It is as effecitvely a censorship regime as if someone had to approve articles pre-publication.

In 1951, during the waterfront lockout in NZ a conservative government made it illegal to publish the wharfies' side of the story.

A policeman was stationed in the print room of major newspapers to check the edition before it could be sold.

Now that is censorship. This isn't.

red baron wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

Dnarever and Peter, you are both experienced and should recognise this what it is, the thin end of the wedge. Once you start something like this there is no going back. A huge problem with this is the grey areas and its more like a black cloud. All this sh.t being frantically rushed through in a week and short, short, short on detail I don't trust politicians they are the slimiest dogs in the land, almost up there with lawyers. Once they give themselves power to muzzle what they don't like there will be no end to it. Surely, you can see the inherent dangers in this set up which is designed to muzzle criticism of Labor which is crippled. My hope is that Malcolm Turnbull has promised to repeal the  law when the Liberals get in, and they will get in. I believe Turnbull's word on this.

Red, you say there is no going back, then in the next breath tell us the Liberals will repeal any legislation.

I, too, believe Turnbull. First because he seems an honourable man and, second, because his party knows they must retain the support of the newspapers in whose pocket they nestle.

The Coalition are always very careful not to say or do anything that might upset the Murdoch press.
They know the consequences if they dont.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

The Coalition are always very careful not to say or do anything that might upset the Murdoch press. They know the consequences if they dont.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

Here's what I don't understand - why the rush to get this passed into law next week??? What is so urgent that it needs to be passed so soon?

It's because Labor does everything in a hurry except call an early election to put a halt to the wreckage.
Is there one Labor politician equipped with common sense?

Yes, Simon Crean who has been treated with scorn.

Kat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 7:35am:

Of course, let's all ignore the obvious here..... The real issue is that far too much of the 'media' has been concentrated into the hands of FAR too few people. You CANNOT have a diverse range of opinions (political, social, moral or otherwise) when two or three men control everything that's written/broadcast. If THEY are biased, it follows that the news they deliver will also be biased. The more players in the news game, the better. Too few is a disaster, and is one that govt legislation helped to create.

I don't think that most hosts on 2GB are biased - whatever they say happens to be the truth.

If Labor had been ruling sensibly, I'm sure that they would have been commended.

We, on the right, are not just being snobbish, far from it! We just expect a PM and his treasurer to govern for the good of their people, not for the good of UN or by another word, communism.

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:39pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:16pm: Red, that's a statement not an explanation. Conroy's legislation only kicks in AFTER publication......how the bugger can that be censorship? how the hell is that NOT censorship? you get punished after-the-fact once and after that... you toe the line as indicated by the govt censor. It is as effecitvely a censorship regime as if someone had to approve articles pre-publication. In 1951, during the waterfront lockout in NZ a conservative government made it illegal to publish the wharfies' side of the story. A policeman was stationed in the print room of major newspapers to check the edition before it could be sold. Now that is censorship. This isn't.

Right, that, in 1951 was censorship and the same is being threatened by Labor bast*rds today.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

If Labor had been ruling sensibly, I'm sure that they would have been commended.

Bwahahahhha

funniest thing I have heard all year

red baron wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

Dnarever and Peter, you are both experienced and should recognise this what it is, the thin end of the wedge. Once you start something like this there is no going back. A huge problem with this is the grey areas and its more like a black cloud. All this sh.t being frantically rushed through in a week and short, short, short on detail I don't trust politicians they are the slimiest dogs in the land, almost up there with lawyers. Once they give themselves power to muzzle what they don't like there will be no end to it. Surely, you can see the inherent dangers in this set up which is designed to muzzle criticism of Labor which is crippled. My hope is that Malcolm Turnbull has promised to repeal the  law when the Liberals get in, and they will get in. I believe Turnbull's word on this.

Why are you so sure that Turnbull will be in the position to repeal anything?

I'm sure the Coalition, in one body will do so.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

The Coalition are always very careful not to say or do anything that might upset the Murdoch press. They know the consequences if they dont.

Indeed, conservatives don't go in for legal battles - too costly!

olde.sault wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:03pm: The Coalition are always very careful not to say or do anything that might upset the Murdoch press. They know the consequences if they dont. Indeed, conservatives don't go in for legal battles - too costly!

so they are worried about big business taking them to court? So rather than fight for the good of the country  they run away and hide? is that what you are saying? I think it's a pretty sad reflection on you when you chose a PM you know hasn't the balls to fight for what he thinks is right . I can only hope that if Abbott becomes PM no other country decides to challenge us over some obscure territory ... Abbott will give them the whole country.

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:22pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:03pm: The Coalition are always very careful not to say or do anything that might upset the Murdoch press. They know the consequences if they dont. Indeed, conservatives don't go in for legal battles - too costly! so they are worried about big business taking them to court? So rather than fight for the good of the country  they run away and hide? is that what you are saying? I think it's a pretty sad reflection on you when you chose a PM you know hasn't the balls to fight for what he thinks is right . I can only hope that if Abbott becomes PM no other country decides to challenge us over some obscure territory ... Abbott will give them the whole country.

HANG ON   THATS  the ITALIAN WAY    ;) ;)

FRED. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:25pm: olde.sault wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:22pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:03pm: The Coalition are always very careful not to say or do anything that might upset the Murdoch press. They know the consequences if they dont. Indeed, conservatives don't go in for legal battles - too costly! so they are worried about big business taking them to court? So rather than fight for the good of the country  they run away and hide? is that what you are saying? I think it's a pretty sad reflection on you when you chose a PM you know hasn't the balls to fight for what he thinks is right . I can only hope that if Abbott becomes PM no other country decides to challenge us over some obscure territory ... Abbott will give them the whole country. HANG ON   THATS  the ITALIAN WAY    ;) ;)

says the little girl hiding behind his keyboard.

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

FRED. wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:37pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:25pm: olde.sault wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:22pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:03pm: The Coalition are always very careful not to say or do anything that might upset the Murdoch press. They know the consequences if they dont. Indeed, conservatives don't go in for legal battles - too costly! so they are worried about big business taking them to court? So rather than fight for the good of the country  they run away and hide? is that what you are saying? I think it's a pretty sad reflection on you when you chose a PM you know hasn't the balls to fight for what he thinks is right . I can only hope that if Abbott becomes PM no other country decides to challenge us over some obscure territory ... Abbott will give them the whole country. HANG ON   THATS  the ITALIAN WAY    ;) ;) says the little girl hiding behind his keyboard.

;D ;D ;D  and what are you hiding behind big mommas skirt   ;D ;D

FRED. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:48pm: FRED. wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:37pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:25pm: olde.sault wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:22pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:03pm: The Coalition are always very careful not to say or do anything that might upset the Murdoch press. They know the consequences if they dont. Indeed, conservatives don't go in for legal battles - too costly! so they are worried about big business taking them to court? So rather than fight for the good of the country  they run away and hide? is that what you are saying? I think it's a pretty sad reflection on you when you chose a PM you know hasn't the balls to fight for what he thinks is right . I can only hope that if Abbott becomes PM no other country decides to challenge us over some obscure territory ... Abbott will give them the whole country. HANG ON   THATS  the ITALIAN WAY    ;) ;) says the little girl hiding behind his keyboard. ;D ;D ;D  and what are you hiding behind big mommas skirt   ;D ;D

Nope, I'm hiding behind your mommas skirt .... have you anything relevant to say dopey? perhaps you can tell us what this mysterious legislation is? no one else seems to know

Quote:

Nope, I'm hiding behind your mommas skirt .... have you anything relevant to say dopey? perhaps you can tell us what this mysterious legislation is? no one else seems to know

It didn't take you long to do it again Giovanni.

It looks like this may prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back for Gillard's leadership.

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 4:58pm:

Quote: Nope, I'm hiding behind your mommas skirt .... have you anything relevant to say dopey? perhaps you can tell us what this mysterious legislation is? no one else seems to know It didn't take you long to do it again Giovanni.

do what again Ky Gel? Ask a relevant question?

olde.sault wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 11:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:39pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:16pm: Red, that's a statement not an explanation. Conroy's legislation only kicks in AFTER publication......how the bugger can that be censorship? how the hell is that NOT censorship? you get punished after-the-fact once and after that... you toe the line as indicated by the govt censor. It is as effecitvely a censorship regime as if someone had to approve articles pre-publication. In 1951, during the waterfront lockout in NZ a conservative government made it illegal to publish the wharfies' side of the story. A policeman was stationed in the print room of major newspapers to check the edition before it could be sold. Now that is censorship. This isn't. Right, that, in 1951 was censorship and the same is being threatened by Labor bast*rds today.

Is it?????? can you show us how????

red baron wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

Dnarever and Peter, you are both experienced and should recognise this what it is, the thin end of the wedge. Once you start something like this there is no going back. A huge problem with this is the grey areas and its more like a black cloud. All this sh.t being frantically rushed through in a week and short, short, short on detail I don't trust politicians they are the slimiest dogs in the land, almost up there with lawyers. Once they give themselves power to muzzle what they don't like there will be no end to it. Surely, you can see the inherent dangers in this set up which is designed to muzzle criticism of Labor which is crippled. My hope is that Malcolm Turnbull has promised to repeal the  law when the Liberals get in, and they will get in. I believe Turnbull's word on this.

Dnarever and Peter, you are both experienced and should recognise this what it is, the thin end of the wedge.

Is it? seems a fair bit of a stretch.

Do you mean it is like electing the Liberals and getting workchoices V2 as the thin edge of the wedge?

Thin edge of the wedge - does that mean that the legislation probably does not do what the panic merchants are saying?

FriYAY wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:41pm: red baron wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:28pm: That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this. There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating. Once an article is published it cannot be censored. Surely you understand that? An article is printed. Under the new legislation some arse decides it's inappropriate. Makes them retact maybe? Makes sure the paper won't print that sort of stuff again. Censorship. :)

The  "arse" will be the Australian Press Council. This will continue to be funded and operated by the industry itself.

There will, in addition, be a Public Interest Media Advocate, whose role will be to examine Press Council decisions. Given that the press will continue to be judge and jury over itself, the existence of the PIMA is not just appropriate, but essential.

There will further be a public interest test applied to media mergers and acquisitions. It is hugely ironic that an industry which claims to operate in the public interest doesn't want this applied to itself.

The standards of conduct and ethics required of journalists does not change.

That, in a nutshell is Conroy's proposal.

The hysteria of the media itself, and of some posters here, one of which, at least, has the brains to know better, is farcical.

Agreed, Peter. If there are legitimate concerns, it's a shame those most worried don't seem to have the power to articulate them.

You've worked in the industry, Peter, how about you play devil's advocate for a spell. What bits of the legislation should we be most concerned about.