Peter Beattie on press censorship

The present standing of state and federal governments in the polls is not due to media bias.

Politicians and the media need each other, one to communicate with their employers, the people, the other purportedly to raise our consciousness and make their employers a whole lot of money.

But there is a problem with society that no media inquiry will change. We are our own worst enemies and it has been that way since the beginning of time. Our obsession with the secret lives of the rich and famous has evolved into the reality television phenomenon and when we are sick of that we’ll settle for tragic stories about down and outs. The sad reality is that we only have ourselves to blame for the rubbish in the tabloid newspapers and on reality TV. If we stopped reading and watching this nonsense the media outlets would drop them or go out of business.

From The Australian

Beattie is pointing an issue that many in the media itself seem to ignore. Here is Jason Wilson making the point

it’s very difficult to see who would subject News Limited to this kind of scrutiny.

But what does this really mean? Consumers scrutinise the media very critically every day. Shareholders and investors scrutinise the media everyday. Advertisers scrutinise the media every day. Finally the police and the judicial system enforce the laws of the land that bind the media. To be blunt the private sector has more continuous scrutiny than does the public sector.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Peter Beattie on press censorship

  1. The ABC and Fairfax media are profoundly biased. What should be done about them? Who should subject them to scrutiny?

    I would like to see the media more willing to admit mistakes and issue corrections. And I’d like to see a return to a clear separation between news and commentary. Commentary masquerading as news, written by ignorant lazy journos, really annoys me.

    But do I trust anyone to impose these? No way.

  2. twostix

    I wonder if The Green Left Weekly will be subject to The Greens “fit and proper” tests?

    Dark times ahead.

  3. daddy dave

    The present standing of state and federal governments in the polls is not due to media bias.

    This is so obvious it shouldn’t need to be said.

  4. Gabrielle

    I wonder if The Green Left Weekly will be subject to The Greens “fit and proper” tests?

    lol Short answer: no.

    And what does Milne say on the subject of media control via government? From Q&A:

    The Murdoch press has been running a very strong campaign against action on climate change. The bias is extreme, in the Australian in particular. You’ll see column inch after column inch of every climate sceptic in the country…

    You’ll find day after day a real attempt at regime change…

    And one of the useful things about the hacking scandal in the UK is that It will lead to an inquiry into the media in Australia…

    We are at least going to see some real discussion …around issues such as the level of ownership and dominance of the Murdoch press in several capital cities in Australia. We’ll also have a look at a range of other issues including who are fit and proper people into into whether we need that test into people to be running media outlets…

    It’s time we had a good inquiry and certainly bias is going to be one of the things that’s certainly to be looked at.

    She’s made it very clear that it will be an inquiry into Murdoch’s assets.

  5. papachango

    This is getting frightening.

    Where’s David Marr when you actually need him anyway? He squealed like a stuck pig about Howard’s supposed ‘silencing of dissent’. JWH was obviously pretty inept at censorship as Marr got a book deal and a lecture tour criticising him, and I don’t ever recall Howard trying to regulate the media content, apart from appointing a couple of token right-wingers to the ABC board.

  6. No Worries

    Tubby couldn’t go straight if she was shot out of a rifle. Her words “enquiring into bia” will translate into terms of reference : “get Murdoch”. Just another expression of the left smear and sneer paradigm.

  7. papachango

    Kind of contradicts and undoes the work they did opposing Internet censorship, doesn’t it?

  8. twostix

    Kind of contradicts and undoes the work they did opposing Internet censorship, doesn’t it?

    If the Greens lose the mythos that they have conjured of a party that cares supremely about social liberalism (pro free speech, etc), and instead are shown as the grubby, authoritarian, power hungry, opportunistic and very sinister group of extremists that they are, their end will come shortly.

    Lots of people give their votes to the greens purely as a faux-protest vote thinking them harmless “pro-freedom” idealists. This is brought about by the fact that they have simply had to oppose everything that governments implement. People think they are kind of a Green Democrats.

    We are rapidly seeing the truth of the matter.

  9. Myrrdin Seren

    No point in corralling the proles within a controlled/constrained MSM, if they can leak out into the wilds of the Internet.

    So the logical conclusion must be internet regulation – and so it begins:

    “However, had he ( the mad Norwegian fiend ) instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe’s loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different. Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.”

    link

    Note – “forced to receive his information…”

  10. papachango

    If the Greens lose the mythos that they have conjured of a party that cares supremely about social liberalism (pro free speech, etc), and instead are shown as the grubby, authoritarian, power hungry, opportunistic and very sinister group of extremists that they are, their end will come shortly.

    Bingo. I’m thoroughly sick of people spouting the bullshit that thre Greens are somehow supportive of ‘social freedom’ just because they’re for gay marriage or drug decriminalisation. Thta’s all well and good, but the drug stuff doesn’t apply to the legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and they don’t exactly stand up for the social freedoms of 4WDers, hunters and anglers do they?

    As frightening as their new-found power is, with nutters like Milne and Rhiannon running loose, it will debunk that myth pretty quickly

  11. Viva

    Watched q and a last night. Never has the show’s leftist bias been so naked – but more than that, now the left in this country is so on the nose, we see their teeth bared as never before. Christine Milne was unmasked as a potentially dangerous fanatic. In comparison Tasmanian Premier Giddens came across as a reasonably safe pair of hands.

  12. Token

    I’m sure this heartwarming approach to reporting the deaths of 40 people due to government negligence, care of Tim Blair, is more to Senator Milne’s liking – GREAT LOVE IN THE FACE OF GREAT TRAGEDY

    Chinese officials have instructed the media not to sensationalise the accident, and fresh instructions sent to reporters yesterday said: “Do not report the accident too frequently. Report moving stories about people donating blood or taxi drivers not taking fares from victims. Do not investigate the cause of the accident.

    The instructions added: “The name of the Wenzhou accident will be ‘The 23 July Wenzhou Line Railway Accident’. From now on, use the headline: ‘Great Love in the Face of Great Tragedy’. On television, provide the relevant information, but be careful of the music used.”

  13. Tiny Dancer

    That Beattie would whine about the Courier Mail, when they wilfully went out of their way to promote him, even when things were desperate for him, speaks volumes about this man and the left generally.

    Never has a premier been treated so well, yet he considered an “internal ombudsman” to correct innacuracies. It shows how the left hate scrutiny. At the same time the CM supported him they bagged the opposition. Bagging them was fine because they were hopeless.

    They failed on numerous occasions to ask hard questions, as did the opposition. This tool should not be given oxygen.

  14. Boris

    To be blunt the private sector has more continuous scrutiny than does the public sector.

    I think they are talking a different kind of scrutiny. Advertisers don’t care about political bias. They care about profits.

  15. Rococo Liberal

    papachango

    You are so right about the Greens and drugs. The reason they want to legalise drugs is because they could then heavily regulate their production and distribution. When you think about it, keeping drugs illegal is the real market-based solution.

    And, as Theodroe Dalrymple says, the left have used sexual liberation as a cover to decrease freedom in every other respect. Freedom for the vast majority of the oiks now comprises the freedom to shag whomever they want and go shopping afterwards.

  16. Sinclair Davidson

    They care about profits.

    You say that like its a bad thing.

  17. Rafe

    Gay marriage is not about “social freedom”, gays have all the social freedoms that they need, it is about getting in the face of religious believers and conservatives, and wedging libertarians (who dont really care about the issue) and non-left political parties who need to hold the conservative vote.

  18. FDB

    “gays have all the social freedoms that they need”

    What if they wish to marry? Any argument you might advance as to why they don’t “need” to marry could be just as well applied to heterosexuals.

    Just because it leaves you with no recourse but boneheaded conservatism, doesn’t mean that’s the purpose. The purpose is to allow gays to get married if they want to. I’m not sure why each individual couple wishes to do so, but I doubt many of them are thinking about you bunching your panties in indignation.

  19. Nanuestalker

    FDB –
    Stroking little ‘Stevie’ again?

    Most people here would say the State should have nothing to do with marraige.

  20. FDB

    That’s not what Rafe said though, is it Anustalker?

    It is to him that my comment was addressed.

  21. daddy dave

    What if they wish to marry? Any argument you might advance as to why they don’t “need” to marry could be just as well applied to heterosexuals.

    Indeed. What’s the purpose of a secular marriage ceremony? What does it achieve?

  22. .

    What’s the purpose of a religious one?

  23. daddy dave

    I should add that this is not pertinent to the issue of ‘gay marriage’ since they can already have the ceremony any time they like.

    It seems that they’re fighting for the right to register the fact that they love someone with the relevant government agency.

  24. .

    If you think it is trivial, look at end of life law implications.

  25. daddy dave

    I don’t think it’s trivial.

  26. .

    It seems that they’re fighting for the right to register the fact that they love someone with the relevant government agency.

    Well, you’re right. At a minimum ancillary laws i.e will law should be changed so that the wishes of the deceased are carried out. That’s the current theory of course…but it doesn’t turn out that way at present.

  27. Jim Rose

    Rafe,

    you said that “Gay marriage is not about “social freedom”, gays have all the social freedoms that they need” How times change!

    Back in the day, an old University mate of mine, Rodney Croome used to be protesting about the crimes act:
    • Rod even went into a police station a confessed to perpetrating abominations against nature, as the Tasmanian criminal code called it. It was a gender neutral 19th century prohibition.

    • The police said they could not prosecute without the other party coming forward as the witness. Nick did.

    • The Tassie DPP then declined to prosecute on public interest grounds.

    Now Rod is campaigning for the right to marry.

    All inside one generation! What a great country is Australia.

    I often use rapid social change such as gay rights when I must listen to someone drone on about how preferences, social and sex roles and identities are all socially constructed. They must have missed the 20th century, and the 60s and 70s at least!

    To tease, I sometimes ask if a polygamist has the right to marry a sdmany times as they want? Freedom of religion!?

Comments are closed.