Scary viewing. Am only half way through the first segment and apart from Roskam, it’s like watching a bunch of commies figuring out how to restrict the media. All the words are very nice and polite, but the undertone is quite sinister especially as most of the panel have some sort of media background. They are all pushing for restrictions on all forms of media including blogging.
Completely irritating. Agree with Gab, above. With the exception of Roskam, these people are foolish or malign. Take your choice.
… and I have merely sampled the three offerings, I have a meal to cook!
Mild dissent against the idea of a govt regulator being a threat to free press begins around 18:25 part 1, it doesn’t last long though. Watch out for George Negus broadly describing the Australian public collectively as too dumb to understand ‘convergence’ and ‘regulator’ and what they are discussing on the panel. What a delightful character! David Vale (Australian Privacy Foundation) finishes off the first segment stating that basically there is no right to free speech in Australia.
part 2 – they explore whether the media has anything to fear from this government regulating the media. (haven’t watched it yet).
George Arrogant Negus thinks we are ‘unqualified’ to express opinions.
Basically a bunch of rent seekers trying to get protection against competition.
Julian Disney is a truly dangerous man to be placed in that position. He confuses everything and corrupts the ideal of free speech.
Julian, there are courts for people that have been wronged. You know that, but refuse to recognize it.
You should resign and take those other lunatics with you. You’re way past the due date son.
San Salvador is a dirty, dirty place.
The hookers are cheap though.
These people and those like them are the true enemy.
JC – Julian Disney is the Mickey Mouse of Australia
hahahahaha Disney or Mickey Mouse. Pretty close to being the same.
The regulator dude was really dishonest too. Even Disney caught him out on misrepresenting what his stupid ridiculous regulations were trying to achieve. However all that was about was a turf war.
There is something that was seriously disturbing to me though and I honestly don’t know about the final answer although I tend to go with the US system, in that if you’re a public figure shitty things can be said and done to you and there is little possibility of redress unless it’s really serious libel or slander.
This involved the story of Clive James and one of the rat hole commercial stations taking a woman over to London and having her accuse him of being his regular bonking buddy in Australia.
Now I don’t know what the solution is there if any.
James is a public figure who has made a great deal of money in the media. He ought to be more circumspect with who he associates with. If the woman made the accusation and he denied it publicly then I think she has a right to confront him publicly in the street. Perhaps he made promises to her that he later didn’t keep.
I reckon, it’s a rotten story, but too bad.
Real communication is a two-way- traffic of messages. With the internet we have come closer to that ideal with respect to mass communications.
Check out the non-verbal communication.
Let’s hope John Roskam can wipe that self-satisfied smirk of Negus’ face.
Where a right to privacy and a right to free speech come into conflict, my preference is for a default position of allowing free speech.
Privacy laws will be used – are being used now – to stifle information reaching the public. Laws designed to stop paparazzi will be used to stop investigations into the Thomson’s of the world.
What happened to Clive James was a disgrace but it is the price we all pay to have a free and unimpeded press.
When it comes to the issue of free speech you and Gab are front-line fighters – congratulations.
Part 2, the question asked “is there cause for concern” in policing news and commentary by a government body? (commentary, btw, this means you!) Richard Ackland says no, no cause for concern. ‘Breaches of privacy’ meaning the likes of Thommo would not be investigated.
Part 2 really gets into the heart of the matter.
Roskam at 8:43 “this self-regulation is a misnomer”, Absolutely. Trouble is none of them appeared to have apprehended the point of John’s message.
It seems the media will be finkelsteined based on three cases of media invasion of privacy and what might happen in the future.
Disney also wants bloggers regulated. At this point Roskam was just far too polite in response.
By their own comments, the ABC should be shut down.
George Negus just likes to hear himself speak and really was of no value to the discussion. I got the impression that the majority of the panel were not interested in discussing free press and more interested in determining how best to regulate what the media reports, be it news or opinion and how the govt body would go about policing such.
Oh yeah, and da Murdoch is evil.
Who holds the government to account if the media and ordinary citizens who comment on blogs are regulated by a government body?
Talking free speech and the meaning of free speech was like trying communicate with a dog in paragraphs with those moochers. They simply have no idea or refuse to have any understanding.
The regulator guy is a real slimeball and just wants a big job by the looks of things.
It was the wrong forum for John. He should go one on one with this idiots as he was the only one talking free speech. The others were simply concerned with regulating it.
If they did want to start regulating blog sites couldn’t the Cat just start hosting in the US or something? Or are foreign sites to be regulated/restricted as well?
Roskam as a free speech supporter was wasting his time with these people. The only language they understand is punitive, banning Leftism in particular and driving it from the public square. That might get their attention and perhaps even make them contemplate things, not wishy washy nonsense about free speech.
I’m a little late on this one. Almost reached the end of the first one and ran out of patience.
Goddammit the likes of Negus and Dempster are irritating and condescending.
Why do those who select the talking heads keep coming up with these hasbeens & wannabees?
John Roskam was the only one who had anything to offer that wasn’t completely insane.
I don’t mind Dempster. In fact, I showed him up once at a luncheon and he loved it.
I better not live the glory for too long, lest I become a “corridor power walker”.
Deliberately endured the whole lot in one sitting.
Ye gods! These nutters wre all talking about structure and hardly ever about content and the consumption of content.
It wasn’t till part 3 that there was anything about diversity of content, and the point was drowned out quick smart. Oh yes, there was some acknowledgement in part 2 about bias in the context of ownership controls, but there was absolutely nothing about the standard leftist bias of journalists (as a profession, ha!) vis-a-vis the general public.
Agree with other posters, poor John Roskam was trapped. Reminds me of the office poster “It’s difficult to soar like an eagle, when you’re surrounded by turkeys.”
How many others here have been to these staged debates before? I was “an audience participant” in the 1980s euthanasia debates. Nothing has changed, it seems.
Comments are closed.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.