So long freedom of speech.

[classical_hero]

If this is put into law into Australia it would severely curtail free speech in the name of "journalistic integrity".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/media-fears-for-freedom-as-watchdog-unleashed/story-e6frg996-1226287844862

PRINT and online news will come under direct federal government oversight for the first time under proposals issued yesterday to create a statutory regulator with the power to prosecute media companies in the courts.

The historic change to media law would break with tradition by using government funds to replace an industry council that acts on complaints, in a move fiercely opposed by companies as a threat to the freedom of the press.

The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.

Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled "seriously dopey" by one site operator.

If you want to see the proposal yourself, you can view it here. http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry

Yet more madness in the this realm from the current Government.

 

[Tee Kay]

If only Stephen Conroy gets even half the attention GillaRudd gets from our resident far right pundits.

 

[azzaman333]

I hate Conroy so much.

 

[Camikaze]

As much as I don't like Conroy, this is completely sensationalist. It's a standardisation and revision of existing laws to bring them into the 21st century, under a new body to replace multiple current ones. We all know how much of an impact ACMA has in improving the 'journalistic integrity' of the Telegraph, amirite?

 

[luiz]

It's not the job of the government to promote "journalistics integrity", though. If anyone feels wronged by the papers, that's what the courts are for. Content should not be subject to government approval.

 

[Quackers]

When did ensuring "journalistic intergrity" become a part of the government mandate?

 

[Masada]

As much as I don't like Conroy, this is completely sensationalist. It's a standardisation and revision of existing laws to bring them into the 21st century, under a new body to replace multiple current ones.

eh, it does that. it also proposes new stuff. like making the New Media Council compulsorily, including digital and tv in the mix, giving the NMC the power to force media outlets to publish apologies, corrections, retractions or right of reply. essentially though its a self-policing agency that will still fail miserably to do anything, which to my mind is unambiguously a good thing.

Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled "seriously dopey" by one site operator.

this would be seriously dopey. but i don't have time to check tonight.

 

[Arwon]

Should probably just help beef up the Press Council instead. I'd be surprised if they follow through on much of anything out of this inquiry, though. Particularly the new media stuff.

I would like to see a truth in media law along the lines of Canada's. Our newspapers' tendency to just outright make stuff up is pretty appalling.

 

[aelf]

When did ensuring "journalistic intergrity" become a part of the government mandate?

Really? So you must not be very happy about the investigations on News of the World's unethical practices.

 

[GoodGame]

Why don't you impeach/recall the proponent?

 

[Arwon]

It's an independent inquiry, not conducted by elected officials.

Also this isn't that big a deal despite the OP's sensationalism. And even if it was an MP, that's also not how parliaments work.

 

[civ_king]

Wait, does 15,000 hits mean 15,000 unique visitors or a total of 15,000 visits?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

How would they measure how many hits a website gets? Not everyone installs Google Analytics (or something similiar) to their website. Will the government enforce installation of something like that? What if they only get 14,000 one year?

I have a feeling the technicalities of this will make it unenforced.

 

[aelf]

It's an independent inquiry, not conducted by elected officials.

Surely the popular conception of government encompasses more than just elected officials. Anyway, I doubt the people I'm looking at would be fine with an independent regulatory body that ensures journalistic integrity as opposed to a body of elected officials that does the same.

 

[Arwon]

Certainly, but it means you can't really recall or "impeach" them.

 

[aelf]

Oh, I thought your post was in reply to me. I didn't get that it was a response to the impeachment comment.

 

[Arwon]

Ah gotcha.

Leveson in the UK is actually a parliamentary inquiry, which is rather a different process.

 

[Evie]

Journalistic integrity is something this society needs more of. If the press is the "fourth estate", then like the other three it needs checks and balances, which it is lacking now.

The industry hasn't been doing a good job of it lately, and non-mandatory industry practices tend to be evaded by the biggest culprits anyway (see Québecor Media here in Quebec, who just walked out on the press council).

Of course, the government has its own severe issues.

 

[aelf]

Leveson in the UK is actually a parliamentary inquiry

That's what I thought, but I got confused. So, yeah, people who are in principle against government intervention to ensure "journalistic integrity", should definitely be unhappy about the Leveson inquiry as well. But the latter would be a more difficult opinion to defend than a bald statement against government intervention.

 

[luiz]

Nope, I don't know what the hell was Leveson but I am against government intervention in the press, in the UK or in Australia or in Madagascar.

I don't trust the government to define the criteria for journalistic integrity. There are courts for anyone who feels wronged go to. Regulating content is censorship.