Well I can't say I'd be dissapointed to see half of Australia's news industry wiped off the map.

:-S

I'd welcome a government owned newspaper/news site.
Do people on here choose 7, 9 & 10 over the ABC & SBS for their tv news and current affairs? :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's the role statute plays and the role it has played in the past. Although with social media and electronic mediums they're generally considered publication just as the print media would so there isn't a huge deal of confusion there.

There's also other questions into privacy that statute may have a role to play in but I'm not clued up on that (currently, there's no right to privacy as a layperson would recognise it).

Personally I think statute may have a role to play in helping these libel cases move along. It's just so expensive and time consuming though.

Changes need to be made to common law actions to allow for social media and movement to electronic medium as primary means of communication.

Libertarians are typically pro-common law as it's judge made law. It's consistent, you know where you stand, it generally won't change unless new factual circumstances which haven't come before the courts in the past demand it. It's not mindless bureaucratic nonsense, it's a much more consistent form of law by people who have had a lifetime involved in it. Obviously it has it's faults and I certainly don't class myself as a libertarian but there are some points to be made here.

I really think the common law action for libel is sufficient enough to protect people from having their reputations damaged while allowing Fleet Street to have its free expression or publish news in the public interest.

I sucked at defamation law, it's a very awkward, factually circumstantial basket of law but I think it's got the right idea overall.

Well...all i have to do is grab this lil screen while im watching the tele...and boobies (or boners) galore... :P

The Press council is set up to deal with different things to regulating the access to boobies via various media platforms. The classification board and acma are more dealing with this and it is self regulation basically....and something the market supports which is fine. The Press council has a reputation for being useful to add a veneer of a process for dealing with complaits, but little else. They cant even make this attempt at regulation effective, how on earth will more regulation on the media fare any better.

But in this current media landscape it is ultimately more up to the consumer than ever. They have to regulate their own media diet from any number of sources around the world. Which also is making foreign ownership and cross media restrictions irrelevant. And limiting job prospects for local journos as it limits the level of foreign capital investing in our media. Odd for straya given the role inbound investment has in most other industries.

Its hard to see any media regulation aside from classification that is workable. And thats because the market likes it ...but even then is only selective when viewed in the context of what is on the internet. The next regulation battleground, no doubt...

I'm preeeeeeeeeeety sure they are. That's why you don't get tits in your 6 o'clock news.

:roll:

Well for starties ...the rules are not enforced now...the press council is window dressing...and ....ummm...the whole idea of regulating the media is absurd and unworkable unless u live in some regime state...

The answer is more media DIVERSITY not attempting to control the media that is there...

Oh no, that can't work. Because Blacka just said you can't change the rules because it won't be implemented fairly and consistently.

I think he's got a point. Maybe more time and effort should be spent on making libel claims a much cheaper process, the ACCC litigates on behalf of citizens surely a similar process could be in place for defamation. I certainly don't think current regulations are working, if you told me where to look I wouldn't know where to start.

So what you're saying is fuck rules and laws, let people do whatever they want. Anarchy is the only system to live by.

You're an idiot, Blacka.

Thats EXACTLY what i am saying :)

There are rules there already that are basically window dressing to give the appearance that there are rules. The Press Council and ACMA of whateva the fark its called these days....are toothless tigers as they should be. They should abolish most or all existing media regs as they are not enforced or enforceable, barring maybe classification labelling. But even then NC material cannot even be enforced in reality given online distribution.

You're confusing the existence of regulation with the application of regulation...the rules may be there but they mean nowt...

The standards were set arbitrarily to begin with. I don't see the issue with them being changed to accommodate modern social trends and social media. Basically what you're saying is that there shouldn't be any rules or laws because they can't be consistently enforced and because someone could come along and change them at will anyway.

What obtuse logic.

Oh agreed, that is exactly what they are saying. I just think, they have let their vulnerabilities surrounding the upcoming election cloud their judgement on a serious issue. There is a desire to have the press get back to reporting on the news but this announcement doesn't seem to address that.

This exactly. This government can't stand criticism even when it has been generously warranted.

It's more like "We've noticed News Ltd content makes it harder for us to win the election so we'll try to force them to cooperate."

public interest equates to profits in the world of media. Tabloids sell crap because people buy crap. So there really isnt any reason to call this a body working "in the public interest". They should just say, "we've notice journalistic standards are going down the drain, what we want to do in punish journalists and editors who publish blatant lies. Newspapers should be held to account on the quality of their content, otherwise they have no right to call themselves a newspaper. Just as banks have to act appropriately to be able to call themselves a bank."

I am left-wing and I think this is an attack on freedom of the press. I understand the problems but I'd rather the government leave it alone it's too risky to involve government in the media, I'm with the conservatives on this one. This is the same bloke who wanted to filter the internet for christs sake and a lot of people on the left of politics argued vehemently against that. This is dangerous territory indeed.

It's never an attack on freedom if the left wing do it.

Sounds nice in theory...by whose measures do u re-write those arbitrary standards and practices by?

Fact is even with these unworkeable standards and measures the market will do what it will. Unless you're a fan of totalitarianism which is the only way to enforce such standards...remembering of course that the next bunch to take the reins may either interpret them differently or rewrite them completely once the precedent for regulated media has been set. Dangerous territory...

I woud have said it was time for the relevant governing bodies and powers that be to re-write the Australian Media Standards and Practices with a 21st century society in mind - especially pertaining to social media practices and evolving definitions of 'good taste'.

There's very little that can "be done" aside from reduce the size of govt so people are more free to pursue their own endeavours and build prosperity.

You cannot control media anymore than u can control tastes...just reduce the potential for the majority of people....who are largely idiots...to lord over the rest. Folks get the media they deserve which is entirely fine...the only issue is when govt gets so big that the media can be warped to try and control the power wielded by govt.

People complaining about poor journalism and media are barking up the wrong end of the argument imo...

Also with the barriers to entry so low for media proprietors these days, it is very easy for people to get more diversity... or even band together among like minded media professionals to broaden the choice further.

Controlling the freedom of press is absurd. It's an antiquated, political extremis concept.

That said, something needs to be done to improve the standard of reporting and media publications in this country.

The media know that they're the king makers so they will try and destroy people for there own benefit . Sadly we re going thru muck racking politics and media these days

Exactly this is the problem with the to and fro and majoritarian big government...they forget that the next people holding the reins of power can use it to their ends. Its the most compelling argument for small government types...

Its way over the top yes, but its not a politician's job to pursue personal vendettas. He isn't the first pollie to get canned by the press and won't be the last.

Irrespective of political allegiance this is a dangerous avenue for our country to take.

Edited by sydneyfc1987: 13/3/2013 04:14:53 PM

Can you blame him for having a vendetta against the trash that is News Limited when they come out with shit like this

Very true, but no doubt Conroy is using this legislation as a personal vendetta against News Limited because of their criticism of him and the Labor government. Very scary situation and we should all cross our fingers that this doesn't get passed, because I don't see any government willing to rescind it.

While some might not see this as a problem, the constant and incessant failures of the mainstream media to fact check (see The Australian re NBN), their constant attempts at the creation of 'narratives' that do not follow the truth, and skewed, biased ownership concentrated in the hands of a very few elites who push national discourse in favour of events or policies that line their own pockets is to me.