It’s “Reds under the beds” at the Daily Terror as Miranda Devine wades into the discussion of whether or not we need parliamentary scrutiny of the media, by taking a shot at The Greens.
Bob Brown is now in an unprecedented position of power…..
So suddenly he is copping media scrutiny. The kid glove treatment he has previously been afforded as some sort of genial tree-loving uncle has ended.
Yet, instead of accepting that robust coverage is part and parcel of his newfound influence, and the duty of a free press, he falls to the instinctive position of the despot.
Ah yes, those despotic Green, who call for typical authoritarian tools like Human Rights charters. And as for the “kid glove treatment”, does that usually include calls for “destruction at the ballot box” like we saw from The Australian?
The core of Miranda’s rant is that the Greens call for scrutiny of the Australian media is an attack on a free press, so let’s see how that stacks up.
Miranda compares Brown’s actions to the Chinese government of the 1950s, pointing out that the strict control of information, particularly information that might embarrass the government, exacerbated the effects of the famine of 1958-61. In Miranda’s nightmarish vision, it seems that any government oversight of the media is akin to an Orwellian, Ministry of Truth type scenario.
At one level, Devine makes a good point, without a well informed electorate it is impossible to have a robust, effective democracy. However, the question that has plagued Australian governments for some time is how well is our media doing its job of keeping people informed, particularly in light of our hugely concentrated media ownership? A Nielsen Poll reported by the Sydney Morning Herald found that:
I may be sceptical, but that doesn’t sound like an informed electorate. Is this result just a signal that voters don’t like the package, or that many genuinely don’t understand it? If it’s the latter, do Miranda, Piers, Andrew and the editorial staff of our mass media organisations have an obligation to provide accurate information, or does their role as “opinion” writers exempt them from the goal of informing people?
Has the problem become journalism itself, as suggested by George Monbiot?
Journalism’s primary purpose is to hold power to account. This purpose has been perfectly inverted. Columnists and bloggers are employed as the enforcers of corporate power, denouncing people who criticise its interests, bullying the powerless.
The squealing coming from some sections of our local media about the dangers of government scrutiny bring to mind a principle that they’re usually quite fond of; if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to worry about. It appears that some animals are more equal than others.
59 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Mondo: “More restictive rules on what people are allowed to say in the media – ABSOLUTELY NOT”.
Sure Mondo, how about we vigorously pursue News under our existing laws, through an inquiry that has the power through substantial examination and questioning of News operations culture, to try and assure the Australian people that say, their dead soldiers’ families haven’t been phone tapped? How about that?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with media outlets having an opinion and stating it on their editorial pages. Problems arise when their opinion leaks into their news coverage – so that important information is left out, context is omitted, facts are distorted or manipulated to make a case or outright lies are told. This is what is happening at News Ltd, for all it’s high-minded talking about “telling truth to power” and undertaking “robust” journalism.
The problem is the journalism is not actually very good. It is more about pursuing the corporate interests of News Corp than it is about representing the readership.
See my latest post on The Failed Estate for more on this.
http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/2011/07/if-crap-fits.html
Two things about this statement mondo
1 – I am sure you meant to type Hell, I don’t even really care when they brazenly lie to their audience – it’s a free country and people can do what they want. Because I am sure you would agree that it is hardly a question of if, and,
2 – Why don’t you care? The miss/diss-informing of millions of Australians is fine with you? When the consequences of those very lies could result in the impoverishment of our nation and a reduced quality of life for our children? How bloody magnanimous of you. Personally I’m appalled by the lies and even more appalled that you condone them and by extension the misinforming of our people.
I’m all for free speech, but I believe that there is less of that through corporate dominance. As such, an inquiry that uses the quality of journalism, inherent bias, and adherence to codes of practice as input into media diversity regulation sounds like a reasonable compromise.
It is pretty hard not to argue that the 70% ownership of news print media has demolished the credibility of the media overall. In the US there is a wide diversity of opinion in print, so much so that one can honestly, and regardless of political persuasion, find a major paper that is is consistently biased against your views. Here, that really only applies to those with a left-wing ideology.
There are very few papers in the US that don’t consistently offend genuine left-wingers and even radical liberals, though some are sympathetic to slightly left liberal humanists. Over here, there’s no national paper that is sympathetic to slightly left-of-centre opinion.
On the Gold-Coast this afternoon I got some petrol and the attendant offered me a “free Gold Coast Bulletin”.
This is a town where you can get 4 papers and they’re all News Ltd. Interestingly, the Fairfax papers are usually only available at newsagents and in such small numbers that they always sell out fast.
Not only do we have a massive market failure with media diversity, but they can’t give away their rubbish.
mondo, it is quite evident that stereotyping particular groups in the media has a very damaging effect on those groups – ask any Aboriginal Australian. That’s why outlets such as the ABC have a set of very clear protocols on representation of those groups.
I cycle to work every day and I can tell you that it’s obvious when a negative news story that denigrates cyclists has been on TV or in the papers, because the abuse you cop from motorists is pretty thick for several days afterwards.
Hello All
There’s a lot to get through here, and I apologise that I won’t be able to respond to everyone directly.
But as a summary I’d have to say that I don’t disagree with most of what people have said here. It is obviously not ideal to have such concentration of media ownership in Australia, and News Limited certainly wields too much power on behalf of its private owners. I think Fran said it best above when she described the best outcome as one in which News Ltd is “delegitimised” as a news operation.
But in a sense this is all a distraction to the issue being discussed here – which is the Greens proposal for more “scrutiny” of how our media reports the news.
Both Jeremy and Dave have, through their articles and comments, shown that they understand this proposal to include increased scrutiny of what is being reported – i.e. the content of the news. That’s also my understanding, and I dare say it’s Miranda Devine’s interpretation too.
In my opinion there is a HUGE difference between regulating how the media collects its news (e.g. illegal phone tapping, bribery etc) and regulating what the news is allowed to include as content. I have no problem with the former (so, Eric, I have no problem with the investigation you have proposed above), but we should all have a big problem with the latter.
It’s not that I condone deliberate lies masquerading as news coverage – what I’m saying is that it’s far preferable to have a free media environment in which news outlets are able to report the news as they see fit (including the ability to lie to their audience) than it is to give Government any increased ability to influence what the media can and can’t report. Because once you hand that lever of power to the Government you can’t take it back.
You’d all like to give the current government better tools to control the fucktards at News Limited, and to stop them campaigning so efffectively against the Labor/Greens agenda. I understand that instinct. But you should not forget that any “media controlling” tool you give the current Gillard/Green government will, in all likelihood, be wielded by a Tony Abbot governemnt within two years.
Can those here not see how they might come to regret creating such new powers? Is anyone here comfortable with the idea of an Abbott government regulating “truth” in the media?
“Both Jeremy and Dave have, through their articles and comments, shown that they understand this proposal to include increased scrutiny of what is being reported – i.e. the content of the news. That’s also my understanding, and I dare say it’s Miranda Devine’s interpretation too.”
I think the call for whats basically some teeth for the press council isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In that sense I dunno if “new powers” are that bad a thing if they are basically strengthening the press council guidelines.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All