It appears the government has decided to conduct a media inquiry, with details to be announced this afternoon.
To be accurate, it’s conducting another inquiry. Its convergence review, chaired by Glen Boreham with Louise McElvogue and Malcolm Long, has been underway for months, and is intended to cover off not merely technical and regulatory issues, but media diversity as well.
Some weeks ago, as the phonehacking row embroiled Rupert Murdoch himself, the Government also promised a discussion paper on a right to privacy, following up the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2008 recommendations. The promised paper has never appeared. Presumably it will be rolled into the new media inquiry.
Inevitably there will be howls of outrage from News Ltd and the Opposition about an inquiry (although, oddly, not a peep was heard about the terms of reference of the convergence review). Tony Abbott has already said it “looks like a naked attempt to intimidate the media.” And, true, any time politicians set about purporting to inquire into the conduct of the media, they should be watched closely. Few politicians come to the issue of media regulation with pure motives. Nonetheless, there remain areas of concern beyond privacy, particularly around the capacity of the communications industry regulator to effectively and independently police the media, and the extent to which public policy should actively support diversity and quality journalism.
The longer-term question, however, is whether the report resulting from such an inquiry will end up gathering dust on a bureaucrat’s bookshelf — alongside all the over media inquiry reports of the last two decades.
Hows of outrage? As there should be from you mob too.
let the buggers howl, they have brought this on themselves, the Jones and Bolts of the world, who believe they are the real law of the land, are close to their day of truth about their disgusting behaviour,
Yeah, let’s censor those with disagreeable opinions. That’s not dangerous, is it?
Better still, why not just invent a law under the auspices of “hate crime” and then prosectute!
Brilliant. Bye bye, shock jocks, hello Adolf……er …… well you know what I mean.
Mr Stiffhausen, I live in a state that has only one newspaper. What is strange about my belief that media diversity is a good thing? As I rarely watch TV, the Internet is my major source of information. The print media available to me dominated by opinion rather than information. As a very long term Internet user, I have options and I know how to access them. There are many that only have that single newspaper with it’s limited scope. I believe this is not a good thing and that the domination of the print media in Australia by a single publisher is a bad thing. Surely your reference to known historical propaganda techniques applies equally in a corporate circumstance?
A desire for more diverse opinion somehow equates to “what” in your world view?
Define the difference between corporate propaganda and any other sort of propoganda for me.