Citizen Journalism

Posts Tagged ‘News Limited’

The MSM’s NDIS: Make the frame, change the frame, WTFs the frame?

In Federal Election, Health, NDIS, Tony The Geek on May 4, 2013 at 9:53 PM

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

By Tony ‘The Geek’ Yegles

May 4 2013

I was fascinated by the media’s framing of the NDIS debate this week. Within 48 hours it moved from reporting a naked tax grab by the Prime Minister, to a worthy initiative when Mr Abbott put the national interest ahead of his political interest. Update below May 15 2014


November 29 2012 – NDIS Bill is introduced in Parliament with Coalition absent.

NDIS Bill Introduction 29/11/2012

Tony Abbott: “We have supported the NDIS every step of the way.” NDIS Bill Introduction 29/11/2012 with only 6 LNP MPs present.


December 6 2012 – NSW signs on to the NDIS

PM Julia Gillard, NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell and NSW Disability Services Minister Andrew Constance at NDIS press conference in Canberra on Thursday 6 December 2012. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

PM Julia Gillard, NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and NSW Disability Services Minister Andrew Constance at NDIS press conference in Canberra on Thursday 6 December 2012. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen


In the lead up to the NDIS Medicare Levy announcement, Joe Hockey and News Limited were the fiercest critics.

Falling revenue forecasts mean Gonski and NDIS reforms are unaffordable: Joe Hockey


Monday April 29: Government leaks the possibility of Medicare Levy

Economists say levy needed to fund NDIS

Levy on table to fund $15bn NDIS

Picture2

Interestingly the above story and headline in the print edition of The Australian was changed online from Abbott blasts plans for a levy to fund the NDIS to Julia Gillard expected to reveal NDIS levy details Read the rest of this entry »

@sortius on how and why the Coalition’s NBN policy is designed to fail

In Kieran Cummings, NBN, Telecommunications on April 12, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Created by BushfireBill @BushfireBill

Created by BushfireBill @BushfireBill

By Kieran Cummings (@sortius)

April 12, 2013

Since the release of the Coalition’s broadband policy on Tuesday it has become clear that the policy is designed to fail. Even if taken at face value it is clear that the plan will not be able to meet its targets. So why devise a policy destined to fail?

One simple answer is to keep the ‘free market’ free – free from regulation, free from anti-monopoly legislation and free from responsibility.

The policy itself is made redundant by the three separate reviews the Coalition is planning for the NBN – a strategic review, an ‘independent’ audit and a cost/benefit analysis. Having these codified into the policy ensures that no matter the promises made, the Coalition can build a case to limit or even cancel the rollout, or cancel it in line with its 2010 election policy, using its long-running austerity narrative.

Who will do the reviews?  I’d guess Peter Costello. After his Queensland Commission of Audit, we can assume that the Coalition intends to use the same tactics to remove any case for change to Australia’s telecommunication network.

This will set Australia back decades under the guise of ‘economic management’. With broadband speeds barely reaching 13Mbps on average in Australia, & Akamai’s data transfer caps reaching a measly 4Mbps, the Coalition cancelling the NBN would have dire consequences for Australia’s digital economy.

Who will benefit from a negative outcome? The people who benefit from slower broadband speeds are legacy content providers like Foxtel. With over 70% of the population covered (but only 30% subscribed) to Foxtel’s pay TV service, the NBN is a direct threat to their business model.

Recent developments in the IPTV (Internet Protocol Television)/OTT (Over The Top) market in the US and Europe mean Foxtel can see that its days are numbered as a virtual monopoly. The only way to prevent ‘cord-cutting’, a term used to describe disconnecting pay TV services, is to stymie broadband development.

The NBN’s plan to decommission Telstra’s HFC network that Foxtel runs on ensures that competition is fostered amongst smaller players in the content delivery market. Murdoch’s press has been very vocal against the ‘wasteful’ NBN since 2010, leading me to believe there’s more to the Coalition’s plan to deliver substandard services to Australian consumers than meets the eye.

The main take-away from Murdoch’s speech at the IPA last week was less regulation, less fostering of development and more ‘freedom’ for corporations. The idea that developing national infrastructure is ‘placating a nation’ is laughable, as there has been little to no development of broadband markets by private organisations over the past decade (transcript of Murdoch’s speech below).

It’s clear that News Ltd’s market reach would be drastically reduced if smaller content providers were able to gain a foothold in this lucrative market. Users would no longer be subject to the whims of a monopoly and Foxtel’s ability to use lock-in contracts would be diminished. Read the rest of this entry »

Shanahan and Bolt doctor a quote to accuse Conroy of doctoring a quote: Welcome to Murdoch news:

In Margo Kingston, Media Reform on March 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM
Senator Conroy on Insiders

Senator Conroy on Insiders

By Margo Kingston
March 21, 2013

Stephen Conroy said on Insiders

R4OIPqn

Denis Shanahan 19 March

ZIixLPW

In his evidence to the Finkelstein Inquiry into media standards, Professor McKinnon… said:

“One editor jovially once remarked that he would rather double his annual contribution than have a complaint upheld.”

Andrew Bolt yesterday


hyByWh9

Headline: Labor uses doctored evidence to grab state control of the media

How despicable – and hypocritical. The deceitful Gillard Government itself doctors a quote to justify its attack on the free press…

That word “jovially” was omitted by the Government when it tried to argue it had reasons for demanding state control over the press…

A joke by an editor is presented by Conroy was a serious proposal. And it is done by Conroy omitting a crucial word.

Official Finkelstein inquiry transcript, 16 November 2011, page 48 

McKINNON: However, I have had an editor say to me, “If you promise not to uphold any complaints from my paper, we will double our subscription. Is that a deal?”  It was said over lunch, but the irritation, the consideration about personal reputation drives people more than money in that circumstance.

Thank you to Jacob Stam (@stamja) and Matthew from Canberra for alerting me to this matter.

So who is threatening our democracy?

In Journalism, Media Reform, MSM, News Limited on March 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Is that the truth or did you read it in The Daily Telegraph?

Daily Telegraph Front Page 19 March 2013

Daily Telegraph Front Page 19 March 2013

Daily Telegraph Front Page March 13, 2013

Daily Telegraph Front Page March 13, 2013

Daily Telegraph Front Page 18 March 2013

Daily Telegraph Front Page 18 March 2013

Is that the truth or did you read it in The Daily Telegraph? Read the rest of this entry »

Dear elected representatives, give the public a seat at the media reform table

In Media Reform, Noely Neate on March 19, 2013 at 4:12 PM
Alan Moir - Sydney Morning Herald

Alan Moir – Sydney Morning Herald

By Noely Neate
March 19, 2013

Open Letter to OUR Elected Federal Government Representatives from punter Noely Neate

Hi.Have you seen this excellent & thorough explanation of exactly what the reforms are and how they will affect the media? Explainer: Conroy’s proposed new media laws is by Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism and Media at Deakin UniversityDear .

I appreciate that you are most likely receiving an awful lot of correspondence in regard to this proposed legislation.  I also understand that not a lot of time has been allowed for it.  Please, seriously consider negotiating to allow the legislation to go through as it is in the best interests of the PUBLIC, us Australian Voters.

It is not perfect, obviously, and in my opinion does not go far enough. As someone who has tried to make complaints to the Press Council, I can assure you, that as a member of the public they are impossible to deal with and we are not treated with respect and are given the run around in regard to the basis of the complaint.  Yet it seems that other media companies and politicians can get satisfaction from the Press Council?  They are not supposed to be just an umpire for internal media spats, they should also be listening to the public, and they are not.  In fact, it is easier to deal with a Telco than the Press Council if you are a member of the Public, so what does that tell you?

We have independent umpires in many facets of business – Ombudsmen, ACMA and the RBA – and none of those industries have fallen over.  The television stations have not fallen over.

The hysterical nature of the News Ltd papers in the past few days are the strongest indicator that you need to vote for this legislation.

I would also suggest you review the Senate Enquiry held yesterday afternoon.  Mr Williams of News Ltd did not answer any question that had anything to do with the public at all. it was all about his business and his nose out of joint as he was not consulted. Nor should he have been, Government should not be going hat in hand to big business for legislation changes. MPs and Senators work for us, the public, and as far as we are concerned Mr Williams is only ONE voter.

I also ask that you be very aware of the opposition’s claim with regard to diversity in media and their claim that ‘the internet’ gives diversity.  This is very very cute, as any IT expert will tell you that the number of people getting their news from the internet is negligible as yet. Saying that TV has diversity in news is also dodgy. Every morning news show will repeat more than once, ‘What is on the front page of the newspapers’, the message from print press is spread further.

These two companies, Fairfax and News Ltd, have the power to bring down Governments and change public policy with campaigns to favour their own business interests.  They need to be reined in.  We need more diversity in this country (it is a joke if you look overseas) and we need the Press Council to do its job and we need an Independent adjudicator above them to make them do it!

Please, seriously, in this debate played out in the media there has been little attention paid to the actual PUBLIC!

If you care about you’re electorate and the voters in this country, support Media Reform.

Yours sincerely,
Noely
www.YaThink.com.au
email: seriously@yathink.com.au
Twitter: @YaThinkN
Twitter: http://www.facebook.com/yathinkn

NOTE: If you would like to do similar to me and contact people you think would support this reform please read the list of MPs and Senators to contact here. I also suggest you contact your own Federal MP to give him or her feedback as well 🙂 Read the rest of this entry »

@albericie debates @chriskkenny on media self regulation reform: And the winner is?

In ABC, Fairfax, Journalism, Margo Kingston, Media Reform, MSM on March 17, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Artist Martin Davies.

Artist Martin Davies.

Read the rest of this entry »

My conversation with a Murdoch press release

In Freedom of Speech, Journalism, Media Reform, MSM, News Limited on March 16, 2013 at 7:35 PM
Created by George Bludger @GeorgeBludger via http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgebludger

Created by George Bludger @GeorgeBludger via http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgebludger

By Margo Kingston
March 16, 2013

https://twitter.com/margokingston1/status/312463108075573248 Read the rest of this entry »

Media reform laws address abuses of long-fought for freedoms

In Democracy, Journalism, Media Reform, MSM, News Limited on March 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Aivev1L

By Matt da Silva (@mattdasilva)
March 15th, 2013
Source:Happy Antipodean

In a useful run-down on his blog, journalism law academic Mark Pearson outlines some objections to the government’s proposed media reform legislation. It is a little brief and although it starts out promisingly, political concerns quickly rush to the fore. Here’s his first objection, near the top:

Here we have a piece of legislation proposing a statutory mechanism for the supervision of industry-based self-regulation of print and online news media.

That, dear readers, is ‘regulation’.

Fair enough, and we’ll get to my reaction to this point later.

But for people interested in understanding the implications of the proposed laws in terms of the Privacy Act, Pearson’s blog post is very useful. There has been no explanation like his from the ABC, Fairfax or News Ltd. Kim Williams, the News Ltd CEO, appeared on Sky News, but he simply echoed the uninformative tropes that were spun on the media reform issue by the Daily Terror and the Australian. These kinds of rants merely use the public’s ignorance as a bludgeon with which to punish the government.

Pearson, on the other hand, goes through the detail of what could happen if the laws got through Parliament, and how they could materially affect publishers of news. He informs us, which is one of the things that journalists who go to school to study the profession are told is a key component of their craft. Please read his blog post if you have time – you will not regret it.

Pearson then looks back to what he says is the ‘politics that has cruelled this whole media regulation review over the past 18 months’.

What he’s referring to are reactions from politicians to the hacking scandal that engulfed the media in the UK, the repercussions of which continue to play out. As part of the debacle, News Corp’sNews of the World newspaper was shut down in July 2011.There was also Bob Brown’s famous “hate media” spray in May 2011 that took place in front of a group of reporters at Parliament House.

In essence, Pearson is saying that dissatisfaction among politicians on the Left combined with universal horror at what had happened in the UK motivated them to launch the Finkelstein Inquiry, which began in mid-September 2011 and reported to the government in February 2012. Between February 2012 and March 2013 the communications minister, Stephen Conroy, was also looking at the Convergence Review, which was about media ownership rules.

Or he wasn’t, I don’t know. It seems like a long time to make us wait. Waiting ensures that the original emotions associated with the issues drift away from popular consciousness and it dulls the debate, opening it up to exploitation by interested parties.

What a lot of people have completely forgotten about is Robert Manne’s Quarterly Essay on News Ltd’s Australian, which came out in September 2011. Titled Bad News, it made points that are extremely germane to how the current debate is panning out. But it’s old history, you might say. No, it’s not. Just listen to what Manne says, keeping in mind Bob Brown’s expressions of unhappiness.

It is an unusually ideological paper, committed to advancing the causes of neoliberalism in economics and neoconservatism in the sphere of foreign policy. Its style and tone are unlike that of any other newspaper in the nation’s history. The Australian is ruthless in pursuit of those who oppose its worldview – market fundamentalism, minimal action on climate change, the federal Intervention in indigenous affairs, uncritical support for the American alliance and for Israel, opposition to what it calls political correctness and moral relativism.

Note that Manne was still working on the essay when Brown made his position plain in May 2011, but it’s no coincidence that they both sing from the same score. I wrote about Manne’s essay when it came out.  And I also wrote about the reaction from News Ltd a week later. That reaction mirrors in its tone and general character the reaction we’ve seen in the past few days of News Ltd newspapers to Conroy’s proposed media reform laws. Read the rest of this entry »

Sane analysis and comment on media reform

In Fairfax, Journalism, Margo Kingston, Media Reform, MSM, News Limited on March 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

au_financial_review.750

By Margo Kingston
March 15, 2013

In this post we’ve linked to sane analysis and commentary on media reform. We’ve also asked you to nominate a fair, accurate and balanced MSM news story  – the criteria print media groups tell their self-regulation body the Press Council they strive for. If you can bear it, here is Crikey’s wrap of the print media reaction.

I have been told by an informed source that Murdoch’s media have gone troppo on strengthening self-regulation as a bait and switch tactic. On this view, freedom of the press is a smokescreen for their real objection, that the proposed new laws would seek to limit even more concentration of media ownership by rolling Foxtel into News Ltd. Murdoch also wants all cross media laws abolished. ‘They are playing different game to the one everyone is watching’.

So questions for Abbott, if anyone in the MSM can be bothered – do you support the governments proposals on cross media ownership and strengthening provisions to protect Australians from more concentration of media ownership?

Abbott is a puppet of Murdoch. Be afraid.

Anyone seen anything on what the media reforms would mean for the size and reach of Murdoch’s Australian empire? Is there anything out there?

Here are the sane pieces we’ve found so far. More nominations welcome.

ABC The Drum

Tim Dunlop: Consumers won’t pay for news they don’t trust

The Conversation

Terry Flew: Low-key Conroy proposals are media reform lite

Martin Hirst: From ‘hate media’ to another fine mess: How media reform got derailed

Susan Forde: Media reform: hysterical attacks on weak Conroy suggestions tell the real story

Crikey

Bernard Keane: The Stalinist nightmare of the media regulating itself

Bernard Keane: If you want to see government control of journalism, try this:

Matthew Knott: Freedom of speech at risk? How Conroy’s advocate could hurt

Magaret Simons: Minimalist media reform that only starts the job (Paywall)

NewMatilda

Wendy Bacon: Conroy’s All Or Nothing Media Reforms

Ben Eltham: The Media And The Arts Both Need Diversity

The Global Mail

Mike Seccombe: The New Growth Industry: Fact Creation 

The Failed Estate

Jim Parker: The Real Despots

Macro Business

Of comrade Cconroy and the loon pond

Fairfax

Elizabeth Knight  Shrill response to media reforms

The Australian Independent Media Network

Alan Austin: News Limited’s tawdry campaign proves Conroy’s point

ABC

Barry Cassidy: ‘Breathtaking’ reaction from News Limited

Richard Aedy: Reporting on yourself – Media coverage of its own reform and regulations

aCWYu

The MSM won’t report this, so here’s Gillard and Conroy on media reform

In Freedom of Speech, Journalism, Media Reform, MSM, News Limited, Press Gallery on March 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Photo Alex Ellinghausen @ellinghausen  #thepulselive

Photo Alex Ellinghausen @ellinghausen #thepulselive

Question Time House of Representatives March 13, 2013

Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:29): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can she provide the House examples of published content in breach of the standards her government wishes to enforce through the Public Interest Media Advocate? Is the front page of today’s Telegraph such an example? If she cannot provide any examples, what exactly is the mischief, the problem, that her new media controls are intended to address?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:30): I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and I understand its motivations. I understand that the opposition have decided to seek some political advantage by bandwagoning with media interests and media organisations, transparent—and bordering on the laughable—as that is. Yes, it is.

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms GILLARD: I am glad the opposition have the good grace to laugh when their motivations on this matter are transparently exposed. To the member for Wentworth I would say this: before we get into any sanctimonious nonsense about freedom of speech, it was under the Howard government that two journalists—

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! There seems to be sanctimonious disrespect for the standing orders. I am not going to preside over, yet again, another day when not a word can be heard in this chamber. The Prime Minister has the call.

Ms GILLARD: Yes—this is the kind of hypocrisy that we see from the opposition. It was under the Howard government that two News Limited journalists faced jail for contempt of court. The reaction of the Howard government: do nothing. The reaction of this government: provide journalist shield laws. It was under the Howard government that churches would have their grants taken away—their services smashed—if they spoke out against government policy.

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not relevant. I am more than happy to debate freedom of the press. I have asked the Prime Minister—

The SPEAKER: The member for Wentworth will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Read the rest of this entry »