Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Media Laws - ABC interview Conroy

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Ljiljan, Mar 19, 2013.

  1. Interesting vid, not sure where I stand. I think he makes good points on requirement for accuracy in media and an avenue for people that otherwise can't sue of libel to have a reasonable outcome. The way he says it, it's not stopping speech as much as applying consequences to blatant inaccuracies.

    It's certainly not the end of the world the murdoch muppets are proclaiming. Though still not sure I should be listening to a politician twisting words and only giving half answers to questions.
  2. He claims to be motivated by a desire to promote media diversity in the name of democracy, but it didn't stop the prick withdrawing a prior commitment he himself made on behalf of his government to support community radio through the horrendously expensive transition to into digital radio broadcasting. He's a liar and a hypocrite.

    For what it's worth, there is an online petition running to try and persuade the bastard restore this funding.

    (To put it in perspective, collectively, community radio broadcasters are only asking for the restoration of promised $1.2 million. The commercial radio broadcasters are presently lobbying for $5 million+.)

    More info can be found here, and I encourage all here to visit and sign the petition:
  3. Conroy is a fcuking disgrace and unfit to be a member of the Australia Senate.

    If he had his way, the internet, television and print media would all be subject to government censorship. He once boasted to a US conference that he has 'unfettered legal power' as communications minister and could make telco executives ' wear red underpants on their head' if they wanted to bid in the spectrum auction. The yanks thought he was a lunatic.

    Make no mistake, this bill is nothing other than payback against News Limited because the government feels like they have been too harsh on them.

    The idea that media needs to be balanced & fair is absurd - media is inherently subject to the personal biases of journalists and has been forever. It is up to the public to be able to identify such bias and make their own assessment of the facts.

    It also seems like some people think Rupert Murdoch sits in his office all day issuing orders to his journalists on what to write.....please.

    The Australian newspaper actually wrote editorial supporting Kevin Rudd & Labor before the 2007 election and gave Labor its backing against the Coalition. Didn't hear too many complaints from the Labor party and its supporters about the Murdoch media back then.
  4. Yes, this is just about a weak and wounded so-called Government trying to supress adverse comment. When he also decides to regulate the un-regulated (and tax-payer funded) ABC, more people MIGHT support him.

    But it's all irrelevant anyway; any legislation brought in by this mob of lying wastrels will be dismantled immediately after September 14th....
  5. On a side note I find it rather amusing that you made this very same comment about three years ago. :p
  6. if two men who'd been elected in conservative electorates hadn't sold their souls, I would have been right three years ago too....

    this time for sure, and they will be consigned to the garbage-tip where they belong.
  7. Oppositions tend to have a pretty bad track record at dismantling a previous government's legislation once they're in power. It's one thing to come out and publicly scorn legislation before it's implemented, but a lot harder to rip it up and put things back to how they were before. Not to mention that for all I hate Conroy, it's not like the Coalition have had wonderful Ministers for Communications in the past. Anyone remember Richard Alston?
  8. True. Workchoices would have been long gone if it were easy.
  9. *grin* Yeah, I was going to mention that as a notable exception. The sad fact is that communications policy in Australia is mostly stuck in the 1950s - except perhaps for the NBN, which from what I can tell mostly came about from Rudd looking around for something big to spend money on.
  10. Stephen Conroy...
    The guy has passionate fingers...fcuks whatever he touches..

    Sadly, Australia hasn't had a decent communications minister for decades.
    One after another they have been either douche bags lining their pockets, utterly technically ignorant, incompetent handbags, or religious zealots with agendas.

    No wonder this country is going backwards....
  11. Where does everyone get their information on the proposed changes? From the media, which of course has it's own barrow to push.

    What is proposed is similar to what the UK has just decided upon for their own media, and what other nations with a very free media also have already e.g. Finland. If it was payback against the Murdoch press, then it would be easy to regulate newspaper coverage to not more than 25% of the population for any one shareholder or owner.

    Realistically, I am concerned that there has been no change to the current aspect that allows the owner of the only daily paper in WA to also own one of the TV stations. It was not a shock that Colin Barnett got back in power in WA, even with the chair sniffing, bra snapping sexist pig of a deputy, treasurer, transport minister and more all rolled into one Troy Buswell. The Liberal Party Gazette currently published under the banner "The West Australian" made it impossible for any opposition to be heard. With channel 7 on board, it was enlightening to hear fellow colleagues views of events as they unfolded.

    But that is just my view
  12. Don't you have the ABC over there? I'm pretty sure the charter is to by all available means, including armed force, overthrow the international bourgeoisie media and creat an international news service as a transition stage to the complete abolition of entertainment.
  13. I'm not so certain about this. Of course it depends upon the composition of the senate, and the balance of power there, but much of the time it seems to me to be a lack of political will.

    Ha, ha! Interestingly, Workchoices is a case in point for it being will not contraint. Although it was largely rolled back under Rudd (with Gillard acting as minister for Workplace Relations), the central plank of workchoices - a drastic curtailment of how and when unions can legally strike - was left intact, much to the chagrin of the union movement. This was partly parliamentary Labor trying to ensure it would remain palatable to big business into a second term of government, and partly because Rudd and Gillard, while seeming to serve the unions' interest, deliberately acted to make the unions weaker in the longer-term. Their rhetoric about being 'balanced' was also intended to send signals to the electorate that they aren't the union's creatures. While parliamentary Labour relies on the union movement, many within it are also conscious of being constrained by the union power-brokers in their race for the broader electoral centre-ground. They rely on the unions, but they also want a freer hand.

    Not to rescind workchoices in toto, and to limit union's capacity to strike was an act of will, not because they were constrained.

    I think this sort of thing happens more often than politicians would have us believe. Same as its being will, not constraint, that has, since Witlam, seen governments happy to sit on their hands during their first term in office. (The current nutter in Queensland being the exception that proves the rule.)
  14. Soul selling upon entry is prerequisite for politicians...