“Those who want less scrutiny”
Andrew Bolt on Leveson, calling out those complaining about holding a powerful media organisation to account, those
…giving every appearance of sympathy to those who want less scrutiny…
Good on Andrew for standing up against the shameless self-interested bleating of those who think no law, no regulation should apply to them. Those who think “scrutiny” is something for other people, not them. Those who…
Oh, wait. No, he’s complaining about the idea that anyone should dare to hold his employer to account. I take it back.
But surely, if Andrew and his employers have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from any level of scrutiny, no matter how draconian.
I take it back.
Now don’t be too hasty there.
An antipodean News Corp-subsidiary employee egging on a former News Corp employee who is now a British MP with questions over his taxpayer-funded expenses and whose wife happens to be a current News Corp employee in a stoush with a British judicial officer inquiring into the appalling conduct of employees of News Corp.
All perfectly above board, isn’t it?
Those who want less scrutiny….
Simply hide the truth from others. That’s what the professionals do, anyway:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160545/Former-News-International-chairman-James-Murdoch-executives-secret-second-mobile-phones.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
You wouldn’t normally associate Bolt with nuance,
but this particular post had me considering the various definitions of the word “embarrassment”.
Of course, one can be embarrassed without actually being aware of it.
Bolt is embarrassed by everything he has written or said in recent memory – whether he realises it or not. Isn’t that interesting?
Many have described him as ‘an embarrassment’, but that is a slightly different usage.
If it wasn’t for all the dead people caused by such embarrassments, I’d propose some humourous discussion.
As it is, I’m just sickened.
When and how can we dismantle the Murdoch monopoly on our media?
I’m reminded of a conversation I had many years ago about why regulation matters. It occurred to me that in any given country, there will be competing interests with varying degrees of influence and power – and the ones who can will determine the rules to suit their interests.
The point of democracy is that we’re supposed to be able elect the people who have the power to make the rules. Because somebody WILL make those rules.
The government IS supposed to be powerful. If it isn’t, somebody else will call the shots. The role of the press isn’t push the government around and govern by proxy, it’s to investigate and report on what the government is actually doing and hold it to account, so that the voters themselves can decide if and when it’s time to kick them out. The press isn’t supposed to be more powerful than the state, or even supposed to try.
If it ever GETS more powerful than the state, then it becomes one of the problems we need to elect governments to deal with, because as much I might not like everyone it government at any given time, at least they can be voted out. Mining and media companies can’t.
None of these inquiries is the slightest threat to free speech. NEWS corpse will go on as ever – it will (ideally) just be less able to bully and threaten. Its ability to investigate, report and hold to account doesn’t seem to me to be in any actual danger. The absolute worst consequence of our own media review is that a body will have the power and ability to call them out when they write crap. They can still WRITE crap, but they’ll have somebody pointing out when they do it. It’s not too surprising that it’s really only one company that’s got itself in a frenzy over this.
This is, apparently, what constitutes totalitarianism in the fevered minds of
journa..media workers – accountability.Is it the ‘free’ or the ‘rambunctious’ bit that permits the ‘media’ to hack people’s phones, enter into ‘commercial’ arrangements with police, etc?
In one stupid post, Andy has demonstrated why he should be let nowhere near any process that espouses free speech. It’s not just a question of his obvious lack of impartiality. It’s his corporatist instinct that is laid bare, to his shame.
Fairfax announces massive job cuts, closing down presses, switching to tabloid format for it’s main papers, cutting assets and introducing paywalls.
Explect lots of gloating from the usual suspects.
Which leaves a few questions.
1 – Why the (anticipated) gloating when all dead-tree empires are in the same situation? Rather like the lions gloating because all the tigers have been hunted to near-extinction. Couldn’t happen to them as well, surely?
2 – Why is Gina investing so heavily in Fairfax? This must pose a dilemma for the News hacks. Fairfax is going down the toilet (gloat, gloat), but our Gina can’t do anything wrong.
Plus of course it presents a massive opportunity for distraction from News’ own problems eg. Leveson etc.
Well Jeremy – can I get away with this as my Ern O’Malley suggestion?
Just out of interest, let’s imagine an episode of Hustle which involves a journalist as the mark.
You need a mark who is greedy, needy, and willing to cut a few corners for a quick gain – which could be reputation, money, revenge or influence.
You need some convincing bait that panders to the mark’s need and greed. Maybe the inside scoop on corrupt Greens blackmailing Labor to topple Julia? Or the ‘outing’ of a senior minister?
You need a hook and a closer. Some documents, maybe some intercepted emails and phone calls. The fixer provides this.
And you (usually) need a plan B for contingency. Recorded payment made for the incriminating evidence would be good as a back up. Or bug the conversations by those party to the agreement.
Nah – reckon it’d be too easy.
Not that I’m suggesting any possible marks. Just a theoretical idea.
Bolt appears to have let that thread sink into the morass of his septic archives: comments haven’t been updated for about 18 hours; probably because the replies were generally favouring Leveson: an amusing contradiction in a rant about press freedom.
Scrutiny: who needs it? Mr Denmore is right