So long freedom of speech.

[Arwon]

It is, but it's been struggling to keep its regional network going. Big empty country, remember. In many places ABC local news is the only media source being produced locally (a lot of the regional papers are done centrally

Its in-depth and investigative journalism has also noticably declined in the last few years (with some exceptions), descending into a lot of the same he-said she-said reporting and false balance that a lot of other journalists have fallen into. Telling and repeating instead of explaining and informing. But I put this down more to the speeding up of the media cycle and maybe some decline in the quality of journalists. This is more noticeable in some areas than others - their new 24 hour station is very patchy, their morning radio show is basically reading out the morning's newspapers (ie, the Australian), and the online content is a basket case at times. Other than that though, it's still pretty decent.

We also have SBS, a niche but generally decent multicultural broadcaster with a hybrid funding model. It spends its mornings broadcasting news services from a dozen countries in different languages. In terms of Australian news it's basically the ABC with accents.

Crikey is probably the biggest online-only player. It does subscription emails and does a good line in more in-depth reporting and comment, but it's a niche operation at best. It's easily the most informative news source in the country, though. Generally it can be relied upon to bring in expert reporting on whatever the issues of the day are.

We've also just had a couple of rich philanthropists start up the Global Mail last month, but as long as they have the awful formatting they currently have, I can barely bring myself to read it. I suspect it won't last.

Edit: Also:

 

[GinandTonic]

Luiz, the problem with News Internationals criminal practices and it's size and influence were very much mutually constitutive. The organisation had/ has so much influence that politicians and the police were afraid of crossing it. Whilst it is easy to deride the tabloid end, the organisation had vast resources and a lot of investigative reporters of every kind. Remember the "It was the Sun wot won it" election headline was hyperbole but not completely inaccurate. News International would not switch to a more pro-Blair stance until he agreed to support the UK's exemption from european anti monopoly media laws.

An organisation that has such a large role in picking governments and writing international treaties has very little trouble in bending a detective or two over a barrel. It's a case of take the cash or be destroyed with no protection from on high. So convinced of it's own power and invulnerability was News International they followed/ hacked the lawers representing the victims of hacking and the members of parliament sitting on the inquiry into the hacking. And their children too for good measure.

The excessive influence of News International/ News Corp and their criminality went hand in hand.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, it isn't. And the public did read the outlets which were shut down.

Yes, but they were allowed to start. What happens after that point is a matter for the court. It certainly would be wrong to get the government involved further, by passing further regulations against this sort of thing, or having a parliamentary hearing.

 

[Quackers]

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

I don't think government has to do anything with the intergrity of journalistic standards, but when journalistits start paying crooks to hack into people's mobile phones the government should intervene but thats a matter of privacy and it's a criminal act.
I think the way "journalistic intergrity" is being used in the article is to encompass the retractions, apologies and misattributions which can happen in media.

 

[luiz]

Luiz, the problem with News Internationals criminal practices and it's size and influence were very much mutually constitutive. The organisation had/ has so much influence that politicians and the police were afraid of crossing it. Whilst it is easy to deride the tabloid end, the organisation had vast resources and a lot of investigative reporters of every kind. Remember the "It was the Sun wot won it" election headline was hyperbole but not completely inaccurate. News International would not switch to a more pro-Blair stance until he agreed to support the UK's exemption from european anti monopoly media laws.

An organisation that has such a large role in picking governments and writing international treaties has very little trouble in bending a detective or two over a barrel. It's a case of take the cash or be destroyed with no protection from on high. So convinced of it's own power and invulnerability was News International they followed/ hacked the lawers representing the victims of hacking and the members of parliament sitting on the inquiry into the hacking. And their children too for good measure.

The excessive influence of News International/ News Corp and their criminality went hand in hand.

I think their influence is blown out of proportion by people who don't like their political line. They're only as influential as people allow them to be. How many elections go their way, out of all elections held? And how do they force people to vote their way?

If they bribe or otherwise coerce policemen and MPs those are crimes and should be treated as such. From what I gathered of the News of World case they are being prosecuted and the prosecution reached the people who actually directed the hacking, not only the journalists and crooks who performed the crimes.

You may say that too often they weasel themselves out of criminal investigation, but that is flaw of criminal investigation, not of the Law governing the media. I mean, our police and legal system fail to deal with murderers, drug dealers, rapists and etc. due to bribery, corruption and general incompetence. But that doesn't mean we need new regulations against murder or rape. We already have all the Laws we need, we just need to be better at applying them.

Yes, but they were allowed to start. What happens after that point is a matter for the court. It certainly would be wrong to get the government involved further, by passing further regulations against this sort of thing, or having a parliamentary hearing.

I don't know what you're trying to say, how that relates to anything I said and how it matters. And I think I don't want to understand.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And I think I don't want to understand.

You could have left out the rest if you were going to tl;dr all previous posts like this.
But admitting the problem is a good first step.

 

[luiz]

You could have left out the rest if you were going to tl;dr all previous posts like this.
But admitting the problem is a good first step.

I have admitted my problem with you a long time ago. Which is why it is my policy generally not to reply to any of your posts; a policy I heartily recommend to everyone else too.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I think their influence is blown out of proportion by people who don't like their political line.

You're just plain wrong here. The evidence that has emerged from within the respective political camps of Blair, Brown and Cameron is overwhelming.

Grabbing the first example that comes to hand, one of Blair's own media advisors has described Murdoch as being one of only three people whose opinion was seen to matter when it came to making big decisions (the other two were Brown and John Prescott, and them only for reasons of internal Labour Party politics). There are literally hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of other sources readily available which prove beyond the slightest doubt that Murdoch's influence has been massive.

In the past, you might have questioned whether that influence has necessarily been all that toxic, but now it turns out that many of his closest and most trusted underlings (including, let's not forget, his own son) are caught up in cases of criminality and outright corruption, I think we can safely put the 'mostly benign' argument to bed once and for all.

 

[GinandTonic]

I think their influence is blown out of proportion by people who don't like their political line. They're only as influential as people allow them to be. How many elections go their way, out of all elections held? And how do they force people to vote their way?

The Sun has a perfect record post Murdock IIRC. Of course since it claims to be the voice of the people there is a question of it having to back the winner. As to how far they can influence their readership who can tell, but those in power clearly believe they can - see Blair's deal on euro treaties and Cameron having News Corp as literally the first people into number 10 after his election. By the back door to avoid embarrassment.

If they bribe or otherwise coerce policemen and MPs those are crimes and should be treated as such. From what I gathered of the News of World case they are being prosecuted and the prosecution reached the people who actually directed the hacking, not only the journalists and crooks who performed the crimes.

But the point is that the politicians and the senior cops are scared of them. Too scared to go after them. It was a civil lawsuit and the Guardian that cracked the case open.

 

[luiz]

Again, we won't go anywhere if we don't attempt to answer the question of how they influence their readership.

If Cameron, Blair and co. treat Murdoch as some sort of prince that's their problem; it's a flaw of politicians and does not merit regulation of the media.

I insist, Murdoch is only as powerful as his readers want him to be.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Again, we won't go anywhere if we don't attempt to answer the question of how they influence their readership.

If Cameron, Blair and co. treat Murdoch as some sort of prince that's their problem; it's a flaw of politicians and does not merit regulation of the media.

I insist, Murdoch is only as powerful as his readers want him to be.

Murdoch's influence isn't derived from the loyalty or even the credulity of his readers; nobody reads the Sun or watches Sky because they think they have the most trustworthy coverage. Rather, it's derived from his ability to dig up - or, if necessary, create from nothing - dirt on anyone who gets in his way (hence his nickname, 'the Dirty Digger') and then to use his control of news media to force that information into the public consciousness. He's shown on many occasions that he's not afraid to get sued for making stuff up, because by the time anything comes to court, he's already ruined his target's reputation/career/life, making an example to the next fool who thinks about crossing him. A few million in compensation and legal fees over the years is nothing compared to the influence his empire of blackmail has afforded him since arriving here.

 

[Arwon]

You see it in this country a lot - the Murdoch Press obsessively running inaccurate stuff on a particular issue because an editorial decision has been made to campaign on it. Reporting of random low profile stuff is mostly fine, but anything they've decided to take a stance on, they'll twist and distort or make up stuff to fit whatever line they're taking. Part of the problem is they're so big and so omnipresent that when they do this it drags most of the rest of the press along with them because nobody else (ie Fairfax or the ABC) really has the resources to do in depth reportage and investigation any more.

 

[GinandTonic]

Apologies to the upsidedowners for any derailing. Interested but ignorant of the specifics of the situation down there, and there are already multiple threads on leverson etc.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

Yeah, I mean the a-political branch of government whose job is to uphold the Law. The Executive is certainly the last branch that should get involved in journalism.

So I take it you don't buy into the argument that the media is a fourth arm of the government. Speaking of which, how is an independent statutory organisation significantly different to any statutorily established court to the extent that the involvement of one is obviously sensible and the involvement of the other is evil executive repression?

The use of "Chávez-like folks" was very realistic. Complaints about "excessive media concentration" are exactly the excuse used by Chávez, Morales, Correa and Kirchner to shut down media outlets, arrest journalists and generally kill freedom of speech (to different degrees in those different countries).

There's a massive difference between Chávez types doing x, and people who do x all being Chávez types. We could make equally silly generalisations about people who rail against any and all sensible media regulation.

It's a good thing that it's difficult to win a case against journalists in courts. The "problem" is small and blown way out of proportion by people who would like to silence the media anyway. Only clear-cut cases of slander and defamation should result in a condemnation of the journalist/newspaper; dubious cases should always be ignored.

Why is a newspaper peddling lies so vastly different to any other business with a vested interest doing so? Need a corporation just start up a monthly publication in order to get away with putting out deliberately (or negligently) inaccurate info? There is a massive efficiency cost at stake, for starters.

 

[luiz]

Murdoch's influence isn't derived from the loyalty or even the credulity of his readers; nobody reads the Sun or watches Sky because they think they have the most trustworthy coverage. Rather, it's derived from his ability to dig up - or, if necessary, create from nothing - dirt on anyone who gets in his way (hence his nickname, 'the Dirty Digger') and then to use his control of news media to force that information into the public consciousness. He's shown on many occasions that he's not afraid to get sued for making stuff up, because by the time anything comes to court, he's already ruined his target's reputation/career/life, making an example to the next fool who thinks about crossing him. A few million in compensation and legal fees over the years is nothing compared to the influence his empire of blackmail has afforded him since arriving here.

Again, while this seems like an unfortunate situation, I insist it does not merit "regulation" of the media.

What you're saying is that there is this particularly crafty guy who can exploit other people's weaknesses and fears, not to mention the legal system, to remain unpunished for his crimes (if they exist; I am not familiar with the situation so for the sake of the argument I'm assuming everything the anti-Murdoch crowd here says is true. I know from personal experience, though, that at least in Latin America most of the crap thrown against so-called "media moguls" are nothing but inventions aimed at censorship).

Anyway, my point is that those crafty guys (who are usually rich and have good lawyers) also exist outside of the media. Every country has a notorious murderer who managed to escape punishment by exploiting the guarantees of the legal system. Think OJ Simpson (Brazil has literally hundreds of those cases; even murderer who confessed their guilt can manage to stay away from prison if they have a skilled enough lawyer). Do we get rid of the legal guarantees because of that? Nope. Do we create some sort of "parallel justice system"? Nope (hopefully not!). Do we try to punish murderers outside of courts? Not in the civilized world!

In synthesis, there is already a legal framework to deal with defamation by newspapers. If your legal system is failing to implement it, you need better prosecutors and judges.

Finally, I'll insist that the man is only as powerful as the British people allow him to be. If it was common opinion that "The Sun" or whatever tabloid is full of lies, people would not give it credence and it would have no influence. Any democratic country has its fair share of tabloids full of lies; whether the people believe in them or not is up to the people. Defamation is a matter for the courts, the government has no business in establishing an "official truth" and persecuting the papers that deviate from it.

 

[Arwon]

Defamation is a matter for the courts, the government has no business in establishing an "official truth" and persecuting the papers that deviate from it.

Lucky that's nowhere remotely close to what Finkelstein is puts forward in his report, then.