What to say to the media while checking their privilege

“What exactly do the media want to say that they can’t say already?”

“I support freedom of the press, but …”

“Do the media really care about ‘freedom’ or just their own corporate interests?”

“Freedom of the press has to be balanced against other important considerations.”

“You can’t just say anything you like in this country. There are plenty of ways we already limit press freedom.”

“You can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre.”

“If the media have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.”

(HT: Gideon Rozner, Pat Hannaford)

UpdateI tweeted:

First they came for the free speech activists and the journos remained quiet. Then they came for the journos and the free speech activists laughed and laughed.

 

This entry was posted in Media, Sink the Fink. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to What to say to the media while checking their privilege

  1. stackja

    MSM don’t have a good reputation.

  2. Roger

    You’re right, freedom of speech is crucial to democracy.

    Together, let’s get 18C repealed.

  3. Art Vandelay

    It’s a bit rich for the ABC to be arguing for free speech (for journalists) and government transparency when their own record on both these issues is so poor. Try lodging an FOI to the ABC for example and see what response you get.

    The ABC have denied all requests for public disclosure the salaries of their on-air ‘talent’ even though taxpayers pay these salaries.

  4. thefrollickingmole

    Is there a free speech issue their ABC hasnt been on the side of the woke-tards?

    Only one i can think of off the bat is Assange, and that reversed once ‘Illaries stuff was leaked.

    A few of their ABCs headlines on “hate speech”.

    Hate crime laws rarely used by Australian authorities, police figures reveal

    Plus one of their own favorite go to persons agrees speech must be deformed to fit “current year” narratives.

    https://www.pennywong.com.au/transcripts/abc-am-9/

  5. Iampeter

    The problem is that this rings very hollow given how hopelessly confused so many so-called “free speech activists” are with respect to free speech.

    Most conservatives, for example, are so lost that they advocate censorship while thinking they are advocating free speech without realizing they have it backwards.

    Where were the tweets mocking Prager’s appalling lawsuit of YouTube or Ted Cruz’s appalling grilling of Zuckerburg?

    People this totally ignorant of the subject aren’t really in a position to be laughing at anyone.

  6. Tintarella di Luna

    Professor Sinclair – Well done for calling out the hypocrites — I so remember when Red-Underpants and Ranga were looking to license the press — most tiger-riders were wery, wery quiet thinking if it doesn’t hear us it’ll eat us last.

  7. First they came for the free speech activists and the journos cried ‘Here, Here!’.

    Fixed.

  8. billie

    oh my, clutches pearls and feels faint .. ahh ha ha ha

    I am amused when the ABC is outraged and quite rightly everyone points out how silent they were, and others, when they had the opportunity to stand for the principle of free speech

    the left always cherry picks and is never consistent

    what was that TV media fool’s name who tried to stitch up PM Tony Abbott, Riloy or Riley (?) asking The Great Liar Julia how the media should behave, that was a epic grovel on a par with what’s her name from the ABC with her “I salute you PM Rudd” Geradline Doogie was it?

    She shall live forever .. I will never forget that moment at the thousand fool gathering in Canberra

    now there was a missed opportunity for a B Ark moment

    much shadefreud about today

  9. The BigBlueCat

    The MSM want free speech without consequences. But they can publish whatever they like now, but certain things will have consequences – either defamation, racial vilification, incitement to violence, and the publishing of state secrets all come with a consequence.

    Asking what it is the MSM want to publish without fear of consequences is an important question. But the issue is one of national security, and if certain things should be published in the first place. While there is no doubt many things that are of interest to the reader, that does not necessarily translate into “in the national interest”. We’ve seen Wikileaks dump extraordinary amounts of government documents onto the internet … much of it banal but a whole lot that isn’t. We should be asking “what has the government got to hide”, but equally the MSM shouldn’t be breaking the law to obtain said documents.

    We do need to be wary of a government that seeks to conceal certain matters from those who elect them, or wish to act in certain ways that are detrimental to the reputation of the nation and the rights of individuals concerned.

    But the MSM (newspapers in particular) are scratching for readership – their sales have slumped, and they are looking for ways to excite people into reading their newspapers. Frankly, very few of them are worth reading or watching. The managing editors are flogging a dead horse.

  10. Rococo Liberal

    Iampeter,
    Yours was the silliest bit of tu quoque nonsense I’ve read since the last time I had the misfortune read some of your bilge.

  11. “Where were the tweets mocking Prager’s appalling lawsuit of YouTube or Ted Cruz’s appalling grilling of Zuckerburg?”

    Are you sure you have the right medication at the moment?

  12. John A

    “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre.”

    Of course you can! But you had better have a very good reason, such as a fire actually endangering people.

    However, if there IS a fire and you say nothing…beware!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.