Democracy and diversity: media ownership in Australia
“To protect democracy, governments have an obligation to detect and remove political bias within the media” writes David Vadori. We couldn’t agree more. David, a Year 11 student, analyses the Australian landscape in this guest article.
The democratic ideal of a media which is impartial, and designed to inform citizens, is inevitably compromised as media ownership becomes more concentrated. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights unequivocally states that everyone has the inalienable right “to hold opinions without interference…”[1] However this right is undermined as media ownership becomes more concentrated and the number of proprietors is reduced. Concentration of media ownership is frequently seen as a problem of contemporary media and society[2]. The fundamental threat that concentrated media poses to any society is that, as the influence of privately funded media increases, the democratic capacity of the media as an instrument to inform and educate citizens is diminished. This is due to a reduction in the number of perspectives that are available to citizens on any given issue, at any given time; and this interferes with an individual’s ability to formulate an opinion, as access to information presented in an unbiased and balanced fashion becomes more and more restricted. In Australia, this problem is markedly more acute than elsewhere in the world and thus governments should strive to ensure that the Australian media is impartial and informative.
An International Media Concentration Research Project, led by Professor Eli Noam of Columbia University, found that Australian newspaper ownership was the most concentrated of 26 countries surveyed, and among the most concentrated in the democratic world[3]. For example, News Corp titles account for 59% of all sales of daily newspapers, with sales of 17.3 million papers per week in Australia, making News Corp Australia’s most influential newspaper publisher by a considerable margin[4]. In comparison the two most prominent daily newspapers owned by News Corp in the United Kingdom, ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Times’, have a combined average daily circulation of 2.6 million, or approximately 24%[5] of the total number of all daily papers sold. Therefore, by world standards the circulation and ownership of Australia’s print media is largely monopolistic and this undermines the democratic ideal of a pluralistic society in which a range of views are presented to citizens.
In Australia increasing concentration of media ownership has been a historical trend. For instance, print media ownership has shrunk ever since it reached its zenith in 1923 when there were 26 daily newspapers, with 21 independent owners. This reduction in the number of proprietors may be attributed to the relatively small size of Australia’s market when compared with economies of size and scope in more traditional media markets, such as the United Kingdom or the United States[6]. This has consistently been a restrictive factor on the competitive potential of Australia’s print media landscape. However, this should not be allowed to form the basis of an excuse by which concentration of media ownership in Australia can be dismissed as something which is understandable or even unavoidable. For wherever media ownership is concentrated, commercially driven, mass-market media dominates and democracy is threatened.
Photo sourced from smh.com.au
The 2013 federal election demonstrated the corrosive effects of concentrated media ownership on democracy. Individuals and corporations with vested commercial interests in the outcome of the election, such as Rupert Murdoch, the founder and CEO of News Corp, used the media to sway” voters with headlines such as: “Australia needs Tony” and “Kick this Mob [Labor] Out”. These headlines appeared on the front pages of some of Australia’s most widely circulated newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph and The Courier Mail. This type of media coverage is contrary to what is expected of the media in a democracy where citizens should be protected from individuals and corporations that use the media to further a particular political agenda. For example the political agenda of Rupert Murdoch at the last federal election was clearly to secure a Coalition election victory; this sort of partisanship is damaging to the democratic process as it contradicts the media’s obligation to report fairly on facts and to avoid opinion wherever possible. Thus, the 2013 federal election has shown that opinion has become the defining characteristic of mainstream-media coverage, with newspapers making no attempt to conceal their political biases.
In a move to cement the prevalence of their own media empires, commercial media conglomerates have sought to stifle the growth of new-media and mitigate its ability to connect with consumers. For example, Kevin Rudd has suggested that the motivation behind News Corp’s partisan coverage of the 2013 Federal election was to ensure that Murdoch-owned News Corp and Foxtel were protected from a faster broadband network, promised by Labor, which would have provided ordinary Australians with greater means to access alternative media content for free online[7]. At present, there is an evident disparity between the power and influence of large media corporations such as News Corp and new emerging media platforms such as social-media. This disparity undermines the democratic ideal of a media which is able to present a range of views to its citizens.
The difference between the influence of mainstream media platforms, such as newspapers, and the influence of new-media platforms, such as online blogs, is evident when for instance, the reach of the Australian Independent Media Network is contrasted with that of The Herald Sun. The Australian Independent Media Network is a less well-known, but nonetheless vocal source of online news that publishes content regularly and has an audience of around 15,000[8], whereas, The Herald Sun, an established Murdoch-owned paper, has a daily circulation of over 500,000[9]. Primarily it is this disparity between the influence of mainstream-media and new-media that is detrimental to the democratic process, as the alternative, but equally relevant perspectives conveyed through alternative media are inevitably dwarfed by their mainstream counterparts.
Government policies over the last two decades have reinforced rather than challenged, the concentration of media ownership in Australia. Both sides of politics have shied away from moves which might increase media diversity, such as strengthening public service broadcasting or encouraging initiatives that might pave the way for smaller companies to become more significant and influential players. Successive governments have failed not only to acknowledge the public’s interest as citizens, but also to protect them as consumers; their policy actions have frequently invoked free-market rhetoric, but this only obscures just how imperfectly and partially market forces operate, and masks the extent to which government policy has played a role in shaping those markets[10]. A more direct and honest approach is needed to address the problems associated with concentrated media ownership and the government should investigate the ways it can better respond to claims of bias within mainstream media.
In order to avoid partisanship within the media, whilst simultaneously protecting free-speech and fostering the growth of a healthy democracy, measures designed to reverse the current trend towards concentration of media ownership, and encourage diversity and pluralism within the media need to be developed. Currently the primary safeguards that exist against media monopolization are the specific controls over media ownership contained in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992[11]. These safeguards prevent the common ownership of broadcasting licenses that serve the same region. The justification for these laws is that, the effective functioning of a democracy requires a diverse ownership of the daily mass media to ensure public life is reported in a fair and open manner.[12] However, Australia needs tougher laws to combat the undemocratic consequences of concentrated media ownership.
A report of the independent inquiry into the media and media regulation released in 2012, otherwise known as the Finkelstein report, conducted by the Hon R Finkelstein QC, made sweeping recommendations for legislative reform within the media. The Finkelstein report described the Australian media as: “too concentrated in ownership, biased, vindictive, sloppy and at times unethical in its coverage of people and events.”[13] The report proposed that a government-funded regulatory authority be created to pass judgment on news reporting. This hypothetical government-body would have the legally enforceable power to adjudicate on journalistic fairness and make the media answerable to the courts[14]. The creation of such a body must be regarded as an important first step towards greater transparency and accountability within the media, however more needs to be done.
Provision must be made for alternative forms of media. For example the growth of the internet has been instrumental in the development of new-media and the emergence of some new globally powerful operators.[15] Advocates of the internet’s potential to offset the power of mainstream media, claim that the internet naturally fosters an environment where a variety of views are both tolerated and accepted, and that for this reason the internet should be considered an appropriate medium through which to equipoise the influence of mainstream media. However the internet has only been an ostensible solution to the effects of concentrated media ownership and has had little measurable effect in terms of diffusing the power of mainstream media. The internet has failed to seriously challenge the influence of global media oligopolies such as Fairfax and News Corp, both which own and preside over extensive online networks. For instance, News Corp owns Kidspot.com.au, taste.com.au and homelife.com.au and holds 50% stakes in CareerOne.com.au and carsguide.com.au.[16] Furthermore News Corp also runs websites for most of its 172 daily, Sunday, weekly, bi-weekly and tri-weekly newspapers, magazines and publications. Developments such as this ought to be considered in the process of developing policy relating to media ownership, and Governments should investigate ways that the editorial impartiality of online media can be effectively monitored and regulated.
Furthermore, besides the immediate adoption of the recommendations made by the Finkelstein Report relating to the establishment of a government-funded regulatory authority to preside over matters relating to media integrity, the government should also increase funding for its public broadcasters, instead of cutting funding as the current Federal Liberal/National Coalition Government has announced. Australia’s public broadcasters provide an invaluable alternative to the concentrated and oligopolistic corporate media that dominates in Australia. Moreover, our public broadcasters are consistently hailed for their editorial impartiality, and despite claims of bias in the ABC’s coverage of news and events, a recent independent audit conducted by Gerald Stone concluded that: ‘As an independent observer, [there were] no grounds for concern…’[17]. Therefore Australian governments should use public broadcasters as a model by which to monitor and scrutinize the editorial impartiality of privately owned media.
To protect democracy, governments have an obligation to detect and remove political bias within the media. It is essential that the media act as a safe-haven for political neutrality, and partisan media coverage should not be tolerated. Citizens must be allowed to form opinions free from the undue influence of corporations or individuals that express particular ideological, commercial or social interests through the media. Ultimately, Governments ought to make ensuring the integrity and neutrality of the Australian media a priority. After all, it is in the best interests of any democracy to have a robust, independent and impartial media that is free from encroaching corporate interests.
References:
[1] UN General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948)
[2] New Internationalist, “Global Media”. New Internationalist. (2001)
[3] Franco Papandrea and Rodney Tiffen, ‘Media Concentration in Australia’ (2011)
[4] The Conversation, ‘FactCheck: does Murdoch own 70% of newspapers in Australia?’ (2013).
[5] ‘National daily newspaper circulation January 2014″, The Guardian, (February 2014)
[6] Op Cit. Media Concentration in Australia
[7] Financial Review, ‘It’s Rudd v Murdoch in NBN slugfest’, http://www.afr.com/p/national/it_rudd_murdoch_in_nbn_slugfest_oZXFoHEQiPOHyYBK932O2O (Accessed 28 May. 2014)
[8] Lee, K. and Kelly, The Australian Independent Media Network, https://theaimn.com
[9] Australian Bureau of Circulation (2009)
[10] Tiffen, Rodney, ‘Political economy and news’ (2006)
[11] Parliament of Australia, Media Ownership Regulation in Australia, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/mediaregulation
[12] Ibid
[13] Ray Finkelstein QC, ‘Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation’ (2012)
[14] Cameron Stewart, ‘Finkelstein Report: Media’s great divide’, The Australian (2012)
[15] Op cit. Media concentration in Australia.
[16] Columbia Journalism Review,http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=newscorp
[17] Gerald Stone, ‘Breadth of opinion and impartiality in select TV current affairs coverage of the asylum seeker issue’, (2014)
Related articles:
Can ‘The Australian’ stoop any lower?
Where is the outrage when the media lie?
Independent media: the sleeping giant and the MSM’s response
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
45 comments
Login here Register here-
John921Fraser -
DanDark -
-
DanDark -
mark delmege -
June M Bullivant Oam -
Margaret-Rose Stringer -
robert lawson -
corvus boreus -
Kaye Lee -
Dan Rowden -
TeddySea -
Terry2 -
Lawrence Winder -
mark delmege -
Anomander -
Terry2 -
Kaye Lee -
sdrawkcaB -
John Lord -
Winifred Jeavons -
MIssPamela -
Kaye Lee -
corvus boreus -
mark delmege -
mark delmege -
Stephen -
mark delmege -
corvus boreus -
corvus boreus -
mark delmege -
DanDark -
mark delmege -
mark delmege -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Return to home page<
I am keeping a close watch on the hacking trial in England and when the guilty verdicts come in I will be using the internet to lobby the U.S. government to take action against News Corp (registered in Delaware) under the Corporations Act.
The U.S. Federal government can take action against U.S. Corporations who are found guilty of corruption in overseas countries.
Murdoch is unfit to be a media owner.
Yes I reckon the best bit of that was the guy who went Rupie, after he crapped on about it being the most humble day of his life, what a big fat liar Rupie is too, and his wife Ms Dang stood up to protect him,
The same thing happened when guy charged towards Tones the night of election, Margie and co protected him, and Molly coddled Tones after event, made me sick,, they are both gutless men, and are a victim of their own making, and need women to protect them it’s really bizzare to see, but great at same time. 😉
Pingback: Democracy and diversity: media ownership in Australia | OzHouse
The mindless Murdochs have been running the show in this country for far to long, bringing gov decisions down, to suit their needs,b they need an iron bar pushed through the spokes of their wheels, they need to be pulled up, slammed into reverse even,way over due, decades overdue
“The Shrine went through a prolonged process of development which began in 1918 with the initial proposal to build a Victorian memorial. Two committees were formed, the second of which ran a competition for the memorial’s design. The winner was announced in 1922.[5] However, opposition to the proposal (led by Keith Murdoch and The Herald) forced the governments of the day to rethink the design, and a number of alternatives were proposed, the most significant of which was the ANZAC Square and cenotaph proposal of 1926. In response, General Sir John Monash used the 1927 ANZAC Day march to garner support for the Shrine, and finally won the support of the Victorian government later that year. The foundation stone was laid on 11 November 1927, and the Shrine was officially dedicated on 11 November 1934.[6]”
The last paragraph kills the whole story. I want bias, I want opinion – I want variety, I want copy that threatens the status quo, that embarasses the powerful and challenges everyday reality and I don’t want neutrality (to dominate) but I do want good reporting – as well.
There was a very nervous bloke interviewed on the ABC radio ‘Books and Arts Daily’ a week or so ago. I used a quote from him in a facebook post ‘war is an archaeology of lies’ but he made a better point about how so much of the media is in fact ‘didactic’ ; not that most people see it but I think he was 100% correct. The ABC is forever didactic in how it restates all the prejudices of neoliberal american centred values. Not only of course but substantially with the contemporary LOOT (lies of our time) repeated ad nauseam.
Frankly I want minimal government interference in the media – the government is the last entity we need to monitor our reading content or habits.
Twenty five years ago I suggested to a then ALP senator that the Labor movement should be producing its own daily publication – as they do in so many countries. Like so many of his (bourgeois) ilk he preferred a safe road and dismissed the idea.
(Just as an aside I have been in rich poor and developing countries. I have come to the conclusion that part of the problem of Australian society is our urban sprawl – which I suspect makes the production of numerous small publications an economic impossibility.)
Balanced reporting is sadly lacking, you know which paper you have picked up even if you don’t read the name, the letters to the editor, only print one side of the debate.
Bravo, David ! – an article much better written than many others I’ve come across.
This is exactly my thoughts ,Murdochs media had a big majority of the Australian public swayed into thinking Labor were complete Idiots .And are still at it. For one man to control an election like this is to destroy democracy of an equal chance .THIS IS CHEATING OF THE WORST KIND .
Bias, I can deal with, it’s the patent inaccuracies(possibly lies) that makes the Newscorp output so thoroughly offensive to the principles of journalism to factually inform a society.
The “kick this mob out” headline was obviously lopsided, but factually supportable if you view the electoral process as more a refutation of one party than an endorsement of another.
The “straya needs tony!” bray was unsupportable, subjectively opinionated, editorialising bullshit that had no place on the front page of an alleged news publication. There is no way to objectively defend the standpoint that Antony Abbott is essential to Australia’s well-being.
The actions of the Murdoch papers in pre-empting the release of the latest IPCC report with misinforming headlines sourced from foreign , Rupert owned tabloid was, at best, lazy and incompetent journalism, and, at worst, a deliberate conspiracy to spread falsehoods.
The repeated, consistent inaccuracies in the Murdoch press, combined with their entrenched involvement in corruption and criminality, renders a malignancy to their influence on the national dialogue.
Worse is that this incendiary, misinforming filth, with attendant advertisements for prostitution(just b4 tha sport) is left as free copies in junk food outlets where it’s prejudice and distortions are absorbed as a form of idiocy by osmosis.
Worthless slimesheets spreading bigoted bullshit to propagate social division and advance the interests of amoral, rapacious scum.
Well done David. Our young people must know the truth and spread the word.
“Australia’s only national daily newspaper, the Murdoch-owned Australian, promoted “misleading” stories giving credence to climate denialist views, outnumbering those accepting climate science by 10-to-1, according to a report in the Quarterly Essay.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/how_rupert_murdoch_created_the_worlds_newest_climate_change_villain/
From 2010
“Below is the number of media mentions (c/o Media Monitors) this year of scientist James Hansen (currently in Australia) — head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University — graphed against media mentions of Christopher Monckton — 3rd Viscount Monckton of Benchley, British business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, puzzle inventor and climate sceptic:
I would encourage David to submit this excellently written article to Verum.Post. It’s the sort of thing they’re supposed to be about.
Well said. Gives me heart to hear young guys talking about the way to keep our hard earned democratic rights.
Thanks.
An excellent article, David and a credit to you and AIMN.
good stuff…
Come on folks show this young writer some respect and read his piece critically. Do you really want the Government to control our media? Do you really want bland, non biased, neutral journalism? I’m sure he doesn’t mean to present a fascist outlook but that is exactly what he is proposing.
Superb article David. It is a credit to AIMN to have you posting here.
Mark Delmege
I tend to look for balance and if a news organisation is going to portray itself as providing news it must do so without introducing bias. By all means have opinion and editorial comment perhaps reflecting the views of the owner and editors but let’s ensure that reporting news and opinion are segregated.
I have been disturbed at the direction that News Corp has taken in recent times when we get the sort of headlines that David has highlighted from the Telegraph during the pre-election period. But it goes further than that to include the wilful omission of news that doesn’t suit the political leanings of the owner/editor.
Opinion pieces are fine and I’m thinking of the position that the Australian has taken on such issues as climate change, plain packaging of tobacco products and more recently the occupied territories versus disputed territories issue : if competing opinions were published how much better would our national discourse be.
There is also the more sinister agenda that is on display, involving media outlets, print, radio and TV where the government of the day has freedom to push it’s policies without any probing questions or critical analysis and where letters to the editor are censored or talk-back callers abused if they don’t fit the political agenda being pushed.
I return to balance, in my view, being a necessary and fundamental feature of political discourse within a liberal democracy and for media organisations, the privilege to hold a broadcast license brings with it responsibilities.
mark,
I definitely want our media held accountable and self-regulation isn’t working. If they don’t like a finding they either just ignore it or leave the oversight group.
The number of articles supporting climate change denial compared to the articles supporting urgent action are disproportionate to accepted science. This has manipulated public opinion, aided by our mendacious government, to such a degree that we are now a world pariah. How do we police this?
We need an independent body who actually have some teeth. I have no problem reading opposing views but they should be presented realistically and factually and the quality of sources considered. We should have journalistic licences and people like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt, who continually broadcast lies, should have their licences suspended if they continue to offend. Let someone else take their time slot for a period.
A very small snapshot but from it I take heart…
I managed to get my kids to University where they studied professional degrees – something I could never do due to circumstance and lack of opportunity.
My kids have their network of friends from University also. In this network, the MSM is consumed for entertainment only. One watches Sunrise as background noise in the morning and scoffed at an adult friend who termed it as news.
Some have noted how the ABC is so unbiased its ridiculously biased. Evened out wordcounts and air time to both labor an liberal. One side can be in fantasy land and they are still guaranteed airtime to sprout their fables.
None of these young people buy a newspaper. Not one.
They all get their serious news from the independents on the internet.
All of them.
None of them put credence to anything a politician says and they do not care what side they are on.
All of them flit through ‘The Conversation’ at some point as they find that creditable.
Last year, my son argued with my brother over boat people. They sit on welfare and so should be sent back my brother stated. I am not interested in bogan commentary my son glowed. There 13 factors to this and you pluck out the one that suits you. Grow a brain he said.
My son got the fuller picture from ‘The Conversation’.
It is through my kids that I find myself here.
As dinosaurs like me either die off or are educated about media from our kids, Murdoch and his ilk become increasingly less influential.
I think media ownership is going to sort itself out. Its just going to take a decade or so.
Wonderful piece worthy of the widest possible distribution.
I buy a newspaper once a week, for the TV guide( not that there is much worth watching) It does not impart news, but, sport talk, celebrity gossip, right wing opinion and advertising stuff. It helps to start the fire in winter, and serves as puppy toilet. What is left is recycled- usually compost.
Great essay, David. Keep researching and writing.
sdrawkcaB,
Great comment. And if our young could educate more old people to use the same tools to have the same access to information it can only benefit all concerned.
mark,
I second what Kaye Lee said. Bias is ever-present, but the job of a news organisation is to garner facts and present them accurately to the public. Murdoch’s media consistently fails in this task. They stand accused of corruption and criminal activities. Their influence over the control of information should be diminished, not inflated. Incompetence or corruption should not be rewarded with increased powers.
The future of news information in this country looks bleak. I believe the ground is being prepared for a socially damaging series of media reforms delineated by the IPA agenda.
Already there are concocted rumblings to loosen our cross-spectrum and anti-monopoly laws, and privatise our public broadcasters. The main cheerleaders outside the government are the Murdoch hacks.
There are also calls to disband our regulatory media watchdog(ACMA).
I predict the ownership laws will be ‘amended’ next year, with the full privatisation campaign following.
This would potentially give a foreign moghul, who oversees journalistic bias, incompetence and criminality, effective unregulated control of our print and broadcast media.
The ‘strayan’ public seems easy enough to dupe despite having access to a reasonably diverse(including accurate, quality) media and a regulatory body publishing findings to reveal falsehoods. Imagine the agenda-driven lies that could be disseminated, and the travesties and infamies concealed under an unaccountable Rupert media monopoly.
Frankly F* Murdoch, The West Australian and for the most part the ABC. You know pretty much what you will get from them – and it’ll be dull safe manipulated status quo, empire maintenance bullshit. The best writing – the most timely and the most informed generally comes from blogs and speciality sites on the internet. But thats me – I like the international stuff and more and more we can find aussie news available too. Fortunately people like Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, ICH, RTNews, NSNBC, Global Research, Counterpunch, Moon of Alabama, the Vineyard of the Saker, Al-Akhbar and a shed load more – most of whom will deliver directly to your inbox are freely available for all you reading needs – and if you are active on FB and have some newsy friend more than enough to cope with. I just don’t care anymore what the old media do – they can’t be trusted anyway.
Kaye Lee you said
‘I definitely want our media’
It’s not our media – it is their media – always has been. And they won’t change. But you can.
I should have stopped reading when the author couldn’t seem to grasp the difference between ownership and circulation (readership) but I could go no further than when references 8 and 9 popped up in the article. If this site wants to be taken seriously as a news source then be serious.
Terry2 maybe I am older than you but I still remember Murdoch from the Whitlam years. The Australian has form and I just refuse to buy it. Although I did buy one not so long ago just to reflect – it was thin and ugly and I was happily able to maintain my prejudices.
Stephen,
I recommend you stop reading this site at all, or at least refrain from posting, since your comments are predictable, obscurely phrased, generalistic poo-poos.
If you object to the fact that 1 of 17 listed references in this article is collated from authors of this site(reference 9 came from an official, reputable source(no offence AIMN)), you should be utterly outraged that the ‘Australian’, followed by the ‘Telegraph’ referenced unsourced material from a pommy Murdoch tabloid to promote falsehoods to undermine the most recent IPCC findings(later retracted, upon ACMA demands, on page 17, in fine print), whilst charging punters for the privilege of digesting their plagiarised bullshit, published without the reference of a bibliography.
You offer nothing but throwaway spontifications, but, like all spit-wads, at least they pass quickly.
Line 5 ;”referenced unsourced” meant “sourced unreferenced”.
which one of you are taking the piss?
Lol Mark does it matter, I got a cackle out of it lol
Corvus is showing his inner ” bitch” 😉
You just have to get straight to the point with idiots and tell it how it is…
as long as we can still laff DanDark – so much shit so little time.
How about that ah? right on que
http://www.smh.com.au/national/murdoch-editors-told-to-kill-whitlam-in-1975-20140627-zson7.html?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Afac-13omn1676-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o
Pingback: 2015 The End of Australian Democracy? | olddogthoughts
Pingback: Can the Internet Combat Australia’s Media Monopolies? | connect uow
Pingback: Week 8 Play and Reflect – The Dystopia is Now | The Infomartian
Pingback: How should the media deal with issues of taste in areas where community values and ethics are out of kilter with the law?
Pingback: Comment l’Australie est devenu l’un des pays occidental, où quelques compagnies se partagent tous les médias | EJDG – Le journalisme en Australie
Pingback: Pretty Little Liars | briannaquine
Pingback: Week 4; Media Industries | jakethinksblog
Pingback: Control of the media – Ijumaa_is
Pingback: Featured Content – FDS
Pingback: Media Monopoly and Globalisation – Bel Mulready
Pingback: Big public meeting in Melbourne defends the ABC - The Pen