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

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

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


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.

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

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.

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!!!

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


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...

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.