Australian Energy Regulator: Australian homes leading switch to…

The Climate Council: Media Release The Australian Energy Regulator’s latest State of the…

The Price of Eggs: Why Harris lost to…

It takes some skill to make Donald J. Trump look good. Two…

Clean energy progress won’t be Trumped

Climate Council Media Release DONALD TRUMP can act like a cheerleader for the…

Australian experts lead global push in Lancet Commission…

Black Dog Institute Media Alert A landmark Lancet Commission report reveals cultural and…

How Bad (or Good) is it Today?

I do love my morning beach walks. Between 6 and 7, ride…

To Putin or not to Putin

By Daniel Raynolds A fierce debate has been ongoing within the international community…

Unleashing the potential of the rural and remote…

National Rural Health Alliance Media Release The long-awaited final report Unleashing the Potential…

Aged Pension in Australia Makes Life a Struggle

By Denis Hay Description Living on the aged pension in Australia is challenging. Discover…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Stephen Conroy

The NBN: Worth voting for

We’ve heard every argument for and against the National Broadband Network (NBN) from the moment it was launched. It’s fairly blatant that those who oppose it do so for political reasons, whereas the most vocal support in favour of it comes from industry experts down to just about everyone who knows how to turn on a computer. That’s an argument that has been debated fiercely since the launch of the Liberal Party’s broadband plan – considered by everyone bar Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull to be a dud – but with the strong likelihood of an Abbott victory in September we look like inheriting a dud, in more ways than one.

This speech in Parliament by Independent MP Rob Oakeshott on 19 June represents one of the best arguments I’ve heard in favour of keeping the NBN plan rolled out by the Labor Government. His message no doubt fell on deaf ears in the Press Gallery. We in the independent media are not so deaf, so here is Oakeshott’s speech:

There is a view and mythology that loiters in Australia and in the corridors of this place, that the National Broadband Network build is some sort of expensive luxury spend. The urgency of this debate today, proved by a laugh received from a parliamentary colleague, is that this is an urgent, essential item and an investment with a rate of return for the Australian taxpayer. I raise it as a matter of public importance today, not just to make that point again but based on the most respected and most accurate report that comes out on a triennial basis, known as the Cisco Visual Networking Index. That is the global guidance for all governments around the world on global intranet traffic and what is happening with regard to the uptake and movement of data.

This is the most respected and the most accurate index that we have internationally. It normally errs on the conservative side, and it is indicating in its most recent report that we in Australia, regardless of the policy options on the table, have a problem of congestion that will emerge in the next five years. There is no question that by 2016 our network, if we continue to rely on copper, will be overwhelmed. The idea, the analogy, of pushing a pumpkin down a hosepipe has to start being the driver of policy solutions from all parties in this chamber. That is why this is urgent. This is not some long-term vision splendid and splash of money; there is an urgency about building this now to deal with the exponential growth in data that has been exposed by the most respected and accurate global index that we can get our hands on.

I am not lining up just one side of this parliament. This is going to be an issue for all policy. We should have addressed a failed, redundant, waterlogged, asbestos-riddled network a long time ago. By rolling out the NBN as per the corporate plan and the shareholder minister’s letter we are going to have transition issues on the back end of a 10-year deal, as exposed by this VNI – this virtual networking index from Cisco, the most respected index that we can get our hands on. We will have issues with transition on the back half of the current corporate plan and of congestion in communities which are not yet on the rollout list. That should not be denied and there should be a consideration from the existing corporate plan and NBN Co., right now, on those issues of transition and congestion.

The answer is not to go backwards. The answer is not to continue to rely on copper in any form. That is why this most recent information from the global index really is a call for the Liberal and National parties to reconsider their position on this last-mile copper-to-the-node policy; to look at the exponential growth that is happening in global internet traffic and reconsider relying on copper. That is quote after quote, evidence after evidence, that that policy simply will not work.

The vice president of Cisco global technology, a gentleman called Dr Robert Pepper, currently sits on the board of the Federal Communications Commission of the USA and its UK equivalent, Ofcom. In these roles, he briefs governments and network operators from around the world on infrastructure and what to expect from future data requirements and modes of broadband usage based on the reality of traffic statistics and growth curves. He is an American; he has no dealings in Australia or with Australian politics whatsoever. This is what he said when releasing these most recent Cisco VNI figures. There are about eight items.

He has said that all roads point to the requirement of optic fibre being implemented deep into both wired and wireless networks. He does say the future is indeed wireless but it will be mostly wi-fi and not 4G, and he emphasises that this is complementary to a fixed-fibre network as the skeleton of the communications network in any country. He says that Australian mobile networks will soon have to join the US and the UK in the concept of offloading data onto local wi-fi networks in order to avoid congestion, which is the emerging issue of our failing communications network. He said that, as an example, a 4G mobile user – and there are many in this room – uses 28 times more data than a 3G user. That is part of the lead-in to this exponential growth in data demand. He says that the new wireless spectrum needs to be opened up as quickly as possible. I would say that is urgent to cope with the growth that we are seeing. He says that as much wireless traffic as possible needs to be seamlessly offloaded onto the wired networks to avoid congestion. Again, this is the emerging issue of this moment. He also says there is a huge increase in requirement for low-latency data transfer and high upload speeds. People have been listening to this issue of download speeds.

The issue that has been identified by the experts on global internet traffic is not download speeds; it is upload speeds that are the political and policy issue of the moment. He also said – again, not knowing anything much about Australian politics – that fibre needs to be very nearby every internet connection, whether wired or wireless. Here is the killer blow. Again, talking about internet trends generally – not just in Australia, but really making this point about last-mile copper – he has said that fibre-to-the-node infrastructure which relies on a last-mile premises connection using Australia’s current copper infrastructure – its current HFC networks – or fixed 4G-like wireless will not have the symmetry, the contention ratio, the bandwidth or the latency to keep up with demand by 2016. He makes that point, but under the coalition’s policy within four years the network will be overwhelmed. He makes the point that it will be overwhelmed before it is complete.

That is why this is urgent before this chamber. We have three months before a very significant decision will be made at the ballot box, on a policy difference in how we build our communications technology for this country. There is a corporate plan in place and a shareholder minister’s letter that is currently delivering the rollout. It has a rate of return of over seven per cent. It delivers on telecommunications industry separation, which is long overdue in Australia. It drives an upgrade of the pits and pipes that were identified only a fortnight ago as being absolutely rubbish. This corporate plan actually drives an upgrade of this network of pits and pipes that was not necessarily built by Telstra and maybe not by Telecom, but maybe even by PMG – a long, long time ago. It is rubbish infrastructure that needs to be upgraded before we get into the issues of speed, reliability, pricing and rate of return to the taxpayer.

It absolutely does my head in when I hear members of parliament, who should know better, in conversations with their communities trying to spread the fib that this is a $90 billion spend or even a spend at all. This has a rate of return on investment to the taxpayer. It is an investment, not a spend. It is not a luxury item; it is an essential service for the future of this country. If we do not do it, we are going to have congestion on our internet in this country like we have never seen before. And it is going to be an enormous problem in business and in all forms of communication: health, education, personal, entertainment, whatever. Congestion is going to be our issue from 2016 and beyond.

The current government plan at least tackles it on the back-end of its 10-year rollout. If we allow this last mile of copper to be the winner of the day we are going to set ourselves up as the country that wants to put pumpkins down a hosepipe, that wants to build a one-lane Sydney Harbour Bridge and all the analogies you can think of. What are we doing even having a policy debate on this when the most respected, the most accurate global indices are saying we are going to have exponential growth and are going to hit a zettabyte by 2016? I am scared someone is going to ask me what a zettabyte is. My only response is that it is a lot. And it is a lot more than what is happening now.

A zettabyte, I am told, is over 11 times more than all the internet traffic globally in 2008. That is the type of exponential growth we are seeing. I am told that in 2016 or 2017 alone—depending on who you want to listen to – the NBN will deliver as much if not more global internet traffic than all the years of internet traffic before it. That is the exponential growth. We are becoming more and more reliant on and are grabbing the opportunities that are provided by the internet in all aspects of our personal and business lives.

The best we have got is saying we need to build fibre as deep as we possibly can into the infrastructure. Why are we arguing the toss on what is as deep as we possibly can when we get a rate of return by building it to the home? It just does not make sense that we are still stuck in the bog of a political debate when this is the opportunity for some really good visionary nation building.

I know everyone in every pub talks about what this country should do and what this parliament should do. Why are we blinking? Why are we falling for some sort of argument of max speed of download below what will be the international average speed? Why do we choose to set ourselves up so that by 2016 we will only just be ahead of Africa on the average speeds that are being offered by the Liberal and Nationals parties? We will just be ahead of the Middle East and Africa. We will be rivalling South America but we will be blown out of the water by the US and Europe. Why as a first world country can we not demand better than that? Why are we choosing the African model of fibre to a node that is going to be overwhelmed before it is complete?

Yes, many think this is a waste of money. Yes, many think this is a luxury item that we plucked off some top shelf of luxury items of policy and do not understand why we are delivering an upgrade to a 60-year-old redundant network that is going to blow its lid in the next four years unless we upgrade it. I urge the government to consider all those issues of transition that in my view are not as explicitly dealt with in their corporate plan and by NBN Co. on the back-end of their 10-year rollout. Post-2016 is going to be a problem if the policy settings stay as they are.

I urge my friend at the table, the shadow minister, to really do more to drag your side from blowing up this NBN network, and I give you credit for doing that, but to drag it that last mile of copper and get it to the home. That is what delivers ubiquity, delivers the rate of return and delivers on the issue of congestion that is emerging quickly.

I agree with Rob Oakeshott. The National Broadband Network is worth voting for.

 

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

Donate Button

Vote ‘Yes’ for the News Media (Self-Regulation) Bill

As you are no doubt aware, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy wants his News Media (Self-Regulation) Bill 2013 passed by both houses of parliament by Thursday – the last sitting day before the May 14 budget. While the Coalition opposes the package of six bills, Labor is in talks with the Australian Greens and independent MPs to get it through the lower house. Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie has expressed concern about the freedom of the press and there was no change in his public stance after he met Senator Conroy. Mr Wilkie appears not to have much of a grasp on the legislation. If he refers to the Second Reading Speech he might recognise that the Public Interest Test does not suggest that the freedom of the press will be restricted. Do his fellow parliamentarians share his ignorance?

To the undecided MPs I might suggest you listen to Barry Tucker as to why we need this Bill passed (whether you understand it or not). After the disgraceful attempt to compare Senator Conroy with history’s most despised despots, Barry wrote:

The audacity! The hypocrisy! Shame! The Daily Telegraph’s front page protest linked federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy to some of history’s hideous dictators.

Bit over the top, don’t you think?

All because the minister introduced some new Bills to mildly beef up the existing news media complaint procedures. Oh, and some independent review of ownership, or “diversity”, via a “public interest advocate”.

There’s the real rub. Independent overseers are only as “independent” as the government that appoints them — which means “not”. In my opinion, a very dangerous move in the case of media ownership.

In other corners of the community the minister has been criticised for pussy footing on the news media regulation, for giving politicians too little notice, for lack of sufficient discussion beforehand, for imposing a “no bargaining” deal — take it or leave it — and for insisting on a deadline. It does sound dictatorial, for such pathetically weak legislation.

In the UK, where News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch is fighting to save his business interests, it’s worse. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has shut down debate on news media regulation. He will introduce his own measures — by regulation — an amendment to a Royal Charter.

Some say he’s letting Rupert off the hook. It’s no secret that Rupert is universally despised as a muck raker following revelations of the ‘phone hacking scandal in the UK — and fears that the same thing is happening elsewhere in his empire.

It’s also spreading to other organisations, with two journalists and two former journalists of The Mirror group being arrested two days ago.

In Australia, News Limited CEO Kim Williams AO accused the minister of attempting to stifle Press freedoms. What really worries him is the Bills, if they become Acts, will hamper his boss’s plans to expand his already suffocating news media empire in Australia.

News Ltd boss attacks ‘Soviet-style’ media reforms

Mr Williams’ address was also reported in full in News Limited papers and on Michael Smith’s website.

Why wouldn’t any reasonably civilised community want regulation to prevent what was happening in the UK (tapping the ‘phones of murder victims, bribing police, politicians and military personnel) and regulate rubbish newspapers like the one above?

Veteran political journalist and ABC Insiders presenter Barrie Cassidy discussed the irony, or the hypocrisy, of Mr Williams’ bleatings with the ABC News24 Breakfast presenters. Mr Cassidy said Mr Williams had called for a public revolt.

I call for a much more severe limitation of the ownership of all newspaper, radio and TV media, in line with some other leading Western countries, and for tougher legislation to enshrine the public ownership and the impartiality of the ABC.

Australia has the most constipated news media ownership (apart from that controlled by a real dictatorship) and our democracy is paying the price for that. The politicians have allowed this to happen and it’s up to them to fix it properly and permanently with some appropriately stiff legislation. If they don’t they’ll pay the price because Social Media and the Fifth Estate is building up a head of steam and already has some victories in its belt.

It’s my bet digital media will be severely regulated long before print media.

Catch up with Mr Cassidy’s comments on the ABC’s YouTube channel

You’d agree that Barry raises far better reasons why we need those laws than the arguments raised by those who oppose it. Barry raises honesty and integrity, whereas the media empire’s argument is clearly based on power and money.

We, the people, want them stripped of that power. We really on you to represent the voice of ordinary Australians.

To everybody else, we can do our bit to get in the ear of the MPs who hold the balance. Tell them what you think. Tell them you support this Bill and the reasons why. Here’s where you can contact them (again, thanks to Barry):

Adam Bandt Twitter @adambandt

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Adam.Bandt.MP

email adam.bandt.mp@aph.gov.au

Canberra (02) 6277 4775

FAX ACT (02) 6277 8583

Rob Oakeshott Twitter @OakeyMP

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Oakeshott/1415774696

email http://www.aph.gov.au/R_Oakeshott_MP

Canberra (02) 6277 4052

FAX: (02) 6277 8403

Andrew Wilkie Twitter @WilkieMP

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/andrewwilkiemp

Canberra (02) 6277 4766

FAX: (02) 6277 8579

Tony Windsor Twitter @TonyWindsorMP

emails www.aph.gov.au/T_Windsor_MP |

Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au

Canberra (02) 6277 4722

FAX: (02) 6277 8545

Craig Thomson @DobellThommo

No Facebook

Website http://www.aph.gov.au/C_Thomson_MP

no email !!!

Canberra (02) 6277 4460

FAX: (02) 6277 2123

Warren Truss

Personal website http://www.warrentruss.com/

PARTY website http://www.nationals.org.au/

Canberra (02) 6277 4482

FAX: (02) 6277 8569

Senator Barnaby Joyce

Email senator.joyce@aph.gov.au

Personal website http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/

Canberra (02) 6277 3244

FAX: (02) 6277 3246

Bob Katter @RealBobKatter

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/bobkattermp

email Bob.Katter.MP@aph.gov.au

Personal website http://www.bobkatter.com.au/

Party website http://www.ausparty.org.au/

Canberra (02) 6277 4978

FAX: (02) 6277 8558

Darren Chester

Canberra (02) 6277 4029

Fax: (02) 6277 8402

George Christensen

Twitter @GChristensenMP

Canberra (02) 6277 4538

Fax: (02) 6277 8508

John Cobb

email John.Cobb.MP@aph.gov.au

Canberra (02) 6277 4721

Fax: (02) 6277 8543

John Forrest

email J.Forrest.MP@aph.gov.au

website http://www.jforrest.com/

Canberra (02) 6277 4550

Fax: (02) 6277 8532

Luke Hartsuyker

email Luke.Hartsuyker.MP@aph.gov.au

website http://www.lukehartsuyker.com.au/

Canberra (02) 6277 4447

Fax: (02) 6277 8410

Michael MCormack

Twitter @M_McCormackMP

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-McCormack/100002102184276

Website http://www.michaelmccormack.com.au/

Canberra (02) 6277 4725

Fax: (02) 6277 8563

Mark Coulton

email Mark.Coulton.MP@aph.gov.au

Personal website http://www.markcoulton.com.au/

Canberra (02) 6277 4607

Fax: (02) 6277 8504

Paul Neville

email P.Neville.MP@aph.gov.au

Canberra (02) 6277 4940

Fax: (02) 6277 8559

Ken O’Dowd

Personal website http://www.kenodowd.com.au/

Canberra (02) 6277 4380

Fax: (02) 6277 8495

Bruce Scott

email Bruce.Scott.MP@aph.gov.au

Personal website http://www.maranoa.info/

Canberra (02) 6277 4949

Fax: (02) 6277 8421

Peter Slipper

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/PeterSlipperMP

email Peter.Slipper.MP@aph.gov.au

Website http://www.peterslippermp.com.au/

Canberra (02) 6277 4490

FAX: (02) 6277 8405

Tony Crook

email http://www.tonycrook.com.au/contact.aspx

Kalgoorlie Office

Phone (08) 9021 1241

Mobile 1300 772 061

FAX (08) 9021 1506

 

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

Donate Button

“See this front page story on Labor’s leadership tensions?”

“See this front page story on Labor’s leadership tensions?”

“Yep!”

“Well, I heard from a guy down at the pub that his brother-in-law knows somebody in Canberra who empties bins and he heard from another bin emptier that the guy who empties Kevin Rudd’s bin had a look at what was on one of the scrunched up bits of paper, and do you know what he saw?”

“No idea, mate!”

“There were numbers. So I can confirm this article about Kevin Rudd looking at the numbers is 100% correct.”

“Gees, you reckon that guy’s the ‘unnamed source’ quoted in the article?”

“Nah, he had a name. I think it was Barry, but I probably shouldn’t say that.”

“So there really is going to be a challenge to Gillard’s leadership this time.”

“What you mean, this time.”

“Well, they’ve been saying that Gillard won’t last the month since 2010.”

“Have they?”

“Yeah.”

“First time I heard anything was from the guy at the pub.”

“Rudd’s probably going to challenge her over this media thingy.”

“What media thingy?”

“Well, apparently the Government’s trying to shut down free speech by subjecting the media to some sort of regulation.”

“Probably to stop them publishing stories like the one about Rudd doing the numbers.”

“And also to hide the fact that Conroy’s related to Joseph Stalin.”

“Whose that?”

“He was a Russian dictator that killed his political opponents!”

“No, who’s Conroy?”

“He’ s the guy trying to stop free speech:”

“And how is he related to Stalin?”

“Don’t know exactly, but I heard someone in the ALP saying that relating Conroy and Stalin was just ridiculous. You know when they deny something that it has to be true.”

“Yeah, like when they say that the leader is safe. You know that they’ll be gone within the week. So how are they actually going to stop the press from publishing articles they don’t like?”

“They’re going to introduce some sort of standards thing that the press have to sign up to.”

“And if they don’t they’ll be taken out and shot?”

“Nah, they’ll lose some of their protections.”

“And then they’ll be shot.”

“Nah, they’re not going to shot at all.”

“Oh, so how is Conroy like Stalin?”

“Well, the stifling free speech thing. Like with Andrew Bolt.”

“Yeah, I remember that front page article by him where he said he wasn’t allowed to say anything ever again. And all because he’d suggested that some aborigines were pretending to be white.”

“No, what he said was that these Aborigines were pretending to be black, and they shouldn’t because they weren’t dark enough, and that they were doing this to get some of the enormous benefits that go with being an aborigine, such as getting an acknowledgement that they used to own the land before a lot of events. Anyway, the court decided that they were actually aborigines, and that Bolt wasn’t allowed to say they weren’t because that was incorrect.”

“That’s ridiculous. You mean, people can’t write things that aren’t true?”

“That’s right. My grandfather was a digger and he fought so that we’d have the right to say whatever we liked about any group of people whether it was true or not. That’s what freedom of speech means.”

“You’re grandfather must be turning in his grave.”

“Yeah … Well, he’s not actually dead, but he would be. He’s very upset about this Government and how they’re taking away his rights.I mean, he doesn’t mind that Gillard’s a woman, he just objects to her being prime minister. He says that if God had meant women to be in charge, he would have made them men.”

“Exactly, I mean, I’m not sexist, but I was expressing the same view the other day, and my daughter told me that I was wrong. I said that it’s a free country and I can say whatever I like. Then she told me I was stupid bastard. So I said if she was going to talk that way, she could get out of the house. I won’t have my free speech stifled like that!”

“Yeah, if I was in power, I’d make sure that those teachers and uni didn’t indoctrinate our kids.”

“How would you do that?”

“I’d make it illegal for them to comment on anything political!”

“I’d vote for you. Well, do you want another drink, or do you have to get going?”

“I have to get going. My radio program starts in a few minutes, and the producer gets upset if I can’t read the screen.”

 

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

Donate Button

News Limited and self-regulation

News Limited’s tawdry campaign proves Conroy’s point.

After Rupert Murdoch’s chickens came home to roost spectacularly in the UK, his emus are scuttling about in Australia.

The entire Australian organisation is attacking the federal Government over proposed legislation to strengthen media self-regulation.

Absolutely predictable. News Limited is the main perpetrator of media abuses in Australia. And hence the strongest proof the current self-regulation system is useless. Naturally it will squeal when called to account.

Intriguingly, we are seeing precisely the same tactics deployed against the Minister for Communications Senator Conroy and his proposed rule changes as gave rise to the need for them in the first place.

News Corporation in the UK now admits to having hacked the phones of a murdered schoolgirl, and of countless public figures, and of deceased servicemen and their families. All this they denied for years with point blank lies.

They have been found to have fabricated damaging stories about their enemies and suppressed stories damaging to their friends. They have been caught using criminal means to obtain information, including pay-offs to police. These they also lied about for years.

Several British editors and executives have now been sacked, others jailed or charged, and a newspaper shut down in shame.

In the USA, Murdoch’s Fox News is notorious for distortions, omissions and fabrications in political reporting. Outlets there bow to the whims of Rupert Murdoch regarding content. But the man himself is unaccountable.

Downunder, Justice Bromberg found Australia’s most widely read columnist Andrew Bolt guilty of multiple fabrications in Melbourne’s Herald Sun. The Federal Court judge found Bolt had no evidence for more than 19 damaging lies in his racially-motivated attacks against vulnerable Aboriginal people.

This was not a first for Bolt. For years he has waged campaigns against Aborigines and others based on falsehoods. He has been admonished by academics regarding his persistent refusal to write accurately about climate. He was found guilty of “very, very serious libel” in 2002.

No other media organisation in any other civilised nation would employ Bolt as a journalist.

Just a year earlier, Justice Stephen Kaye in the Victorian Supreme Court slammed Murdoch executives for lying to the court. In the matter of Bruce Guthrie’s wrongful dismissal the judge said he “had reservations about a number of features” of the evidence of News Limited’s then chief executive John Hartigan. “In my view Hartigan was an unreliable witness …”

Kaye was even more scathing of Herald and Weekly Times chief Peter Blunden. “The explanations given by Mr Blunden in evidence,” the judge said, “do not survive scrutiny”.

In the matter of Eatock v Bolt, Justice Bromberg also rejected the testimony of Murdoch executives.

The conclusion is inescapable: it is an organisation run by liars who employ lying editors to supervise lying reporters.

The Australian Journalists Association has a 12-point code of ethics. All twelve are now routinely violated by Murdoch employees.

In 2010 Herald Sun reporters lied about their identity to ensnare politicians in a British tabloid-like sting. They had the support of editors and executives – despite explicit condemnation in the code.

Most Murdoch publications are now merely spruikers for conservative political causes which they advance with distortion and lies. The frequency and viciousness of these crusades increased markedly after Labor came to power in late 2007.

In 2008 Glenn Milne in The Australian attacked PM Kevin Rudd over a risqué play in Gippsland which the local Labor candidate had promoted in his newsletter. Milne failed to disclose, however, that the tawdry theatrical event was actually approved and funded by the previous Howard Coalition Government.

Glaring examples since then are the relentless campaigns against the economic stimulus packages during the GFC, against climate change, against the mining tax, against the carbon tax, against internet security, against changes to discrimination laws and against the National Broadband Scheme.

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph was found by the Australian Press Council to have used false customer figures in a news story on the NBN. Other Telegraph articles were found misleading by serious omission. The Council expressed concern that “within a short period of time three articles on the same theme contained inaccurate or misleading assertions.”

The Daily Telegraph ran a front-page story headed “Thousands of boat people to invade NSW”. The Australian Press Council found elements of the story to be “gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive”. The Council condemned the newspaper for “an especially serious breach of its principles.”

Murdoch outlets have attacked the PM ruthlessly over her alleged involvement with a union two decades ago. They have produced no evidence whatsoever of anything amiss and were forced to retract and apologise at least twice.

They have constantly attacked the Treasurer Wayne Swan who, according to external assessment has done a better than average job.

The last four years “have been disastrous for Australians,” claimed The Daily Telegraph in 2011. “There have been broken promises, billions lost in wasteful spending and economic mismanagement and sheer incompetence.”

This was the month Australia gained its triple A credit rating with all agencies for the first time ever. And shortly after The New York Times reported “Australia’s economy has been booming”.

In February this year, The Australian ran a cover story headed “Mutiny kills PM’s Bob Carr plan”. It contained at least six “revelations” relating to the appointment of Bob Carr as Foreign Minister. All six were soon proven fabricated.

Murdoch publications have campaigned against all Labor state governments. News reporters at Brisbane’s Courier-Mail were instructed to use the news pages to drive a campaign targeting then Premier Anna Bligh.

The campaign against the Greens, and former leader Bob Brown in particular, has been particularly vicious.

An editorial in The Australian declared “We believe he (Brown) and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.”

These are not just vigorous campaigns confined to the opinion pages, which would not be so objectionable. But crusades fought with distortion and lies in the news content.

Can anything be done? Ex employee Bruce Guthrie who defeated News Limited in court in 2010 believes “you can bite back against Murdoch”.

Senator Conroy seems to be attempting exactly that. Will he succeed? We shall see.

Guest post by Alan Austin.

Alan is an Australian freelance journalist currently living in Nîmes in the South of France, but who returns to Australia regularly. His interests are religious affairs, the economics of development and integrity in government and the media. He has been published in many print outlets and worked for eight years with ABC Radio and Television’s religious broadcasts unit. He has also worked as a journalist with the aid agency World Vision and the Uniting Church.

 

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

Donate Button

This is so wrong

Overnight, elements of the mainstream media (MSM) displayed the gutter journalism and sensationalist crap that Senator Conroy admirably wants to tackle head on in this country. He rattled a few cages and the MSM are squealing like stuck pigs. They are behaving like pigs too. The front page of The Daily Telegraph (above) deserves nothing better than to line the kitty litter tray (as should the whole paper, if you’re brave enough to buy it). I cannot find enough words to describe my utter disgust at this piece of filth. It is so wrong.

Senator Conroy, to his credit, shrugged it off. I don’t think too many other decent people will.

He has certainly hit a raw nerve and the more restrained responses have that guilty look about them. Take these sentences in today’s editorial in The Australian:

The minister has never hidden his dissatisfaction with News Limited, publisher of The Australian, or his warm relationship with other media proprietors. Indeed, free-to-air television networks are the winners.

The removal of the “75 per cent rule” will allow the Nine Network to buy its affiliate, Southern Cross, thus reducing diversity. At the same time, regulations governing free-to-air television remain the same.

To me, this sounds like The Australian has voluntarily put its hand up as the nasty guy while stressing they need to be the major player in Australian print media. To continue on unabated.

Even the Sydney Morning Herald, on their web site were playing the same fiddle:

The chief executives of Australia’s biggest print and online news media, including Fairfax Media, publisher of this website, have come out against the reforms announced by Mr Conroy on Tuesday, saying they were unclear and would introduce uncertainty into the media landscape.

Yes, let’s keep the certainty. Let’s keep having a media that publishes front pages that compare an elected politician to mass murderers. Pathetic.

But now to the crux of my post. Up until 2007 the media barons controlled the Government. Losing this control is more the issue here. Let’s take a look at a few significant moments from the Howard years, thanks to the Centre for Policy Development:

Pre-1996 election

•Opposition Leader John Howard is rumoured to have reached an understanding with Kerry Packer to remove the cross-media ownership restrictions that mean he is prevented from buying Fairfax. Packer appears on his Nine Network to endorse John Howard for Prime Minister. The Coalition promises a full public review of cross-media rules.

1996

October

•Communications Minister Richard Alston scraps the promised review and instead calls for private submissions to be sent directly to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) for analysis by Alston’s advisors.

1997

April

•Howard says he believes the cross-media rules should be scrapped, but favours retaining limits on foreign ownership.

The Coalition backbench says it is worried about media ownership and wants a role in formulating policy.

Howard meets with Murdoch and Packer. Network Seven owner Kerry Stokes accuses Howard of doing a deal with Packer over Fairfax.

May

•Howard says he won’t consider relaxing foreign ownership limits, claiming that “70-80 per cent of the newspapers of this country are owned by foreign interests”.

•Liberal MP Gary Hardgraves, deputy chair of the Coalition backbench communications committee, writes to Howard: “I have been contacted by several colleagues requesting no public announcement of any changes in cross-media ownership provisions be made until the committee has been afforded a full briefing with opportunity to comment. As a committee we are very concerned matters will be decided before we are consulted.” (The Age, 6/5/97)

•James Packer appears on the Nine Network and announces that he wants Fairfax for Christmas.

The Coalition backbench tells Howard it will not back change without partial relaxation of foreign ownership limits to keep the industry competitive. Hardgrave explains that “There was no one here who could take on Packer, so it had to be a foreigner. We went for diversity over xenophobia.”

•Howard again refuses to consider abolishing limits on foreign media ownership but, under pressure from his backbench, offers Murdoch a lift in foreign ownership limits from 15 percent to 25 percent.

•Cabinet considers Richard Alston’s plan and advises him to consult the backbench.

June

•James Packer lobbies backbenchers for relaxation of cross-media ownership restrictions.

•ABC Television hosts a debate on media policy. No one from the Murdoch or Packer companies participates.

August

•Murdoch says no to Howard’s offer, and threatens to fight any attempt to give Fairfax to Packer without the abolition of foreign ownership restrictions at the same time.

•Howard dumps the plan.

September

•Howard tells Cabinet he’s dropped the issue after the backbench committee announces “MPs would not accept any policy that allowed the Packers or Rupert Murdoch to own more of the Australian media”.

•Alston tells Parliament that Cabinet bailed out “because they well understood that the Australian public was interested in the real issues”.

2001

Pre-election, 2001

•The Government announces it will review media ownership laws after the election.

•Howard meets Rupert Murdoch in the United States just before the September 11 attacks. Insiders assume a deal was done whereby the Murdoch press would support Howard in the election campaign, and in return Howard would alter legislation to allow Murdoch to expand his media interests in Australia by buying a television network.

2002

January

•Richard Alston meets Rupert Murdoch in New York to discuss possible changes to media ownership laws.

•Alston dumps his promise of a review, and instead holds private talks with media players, obtaining majority agreement for his plan.

March

•Cabinet approves the Alston-Howard plan to abolish cross-media and foreign ownership restrictions on the media, which would allow Packer to buy Fairfax and Murdoch to buy a television network.

March 19

•Alston presents proposed legislation to the Coalition party-room meeting as a done deal.

•At least ten backbenchers protest, saying Alston hasn’t explained what the legislation means and demanding more time to consider it. Critics include National Party MPs Paul Neville, De-Anne Kelly and Ron Boswell, Victorian Liberal MPs Bruce Billson, Petro Georgiou and Sophie Panopoulos and NSW Liberals Bruce Baird, Bronwyn Bishop and Marise Payne.

•The Sydney Morning Herald reports: “They are concerned at the impact such a liberal regime would have on media diversity in the bush and the centralising of ownership that would result from a relaxation of the cross-media laws. A few backbenchers fear that in the absence of a strong cross-media regime foreign investors could buy up as many local media outlets as they liked.”

•Major media players arrive in Canberra to begin lobbying politicians to support the Alston plan. Critics claim that this is proof that they all knew the detail of the plan before the Coalition’s own backbench.

March 20

•A hastily formed new communications backbench committee agrees to the original plans after meeting with Alston. No committee members will reveal the reasons behind their about-face.

March 21

•The coalition party room approves the Alston-Howard plan and Alston introduces it into the House of Representatives.

June

•A Senate Committee inquiry rejects the Alston plan, but Western Australian Liberal Senator Alan Eggleston, Tasmanian Liberal Senator Paul Calvert and Victorian Liberal Senator Tsebin Tchen back it with two provisos:

1. Any company could own only two of the three media – TV, radio and newspapers – in any one region;

2. A media group should be required to disclose its ownership of another media group when it is reporting on the latter.

(http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ecita_ctte/media_ownership/report/report.pdf)

September

•Alston agrees to these changes and starts negotiating with the four independent / minor party Senators whose support he needs to pass the bill: South Australian ex-Democrat Meg Lees, Tasmanian ex-Labor Senator Shayne Murphy, Queensland One Nation Senator Len Harris and Tasmanian independent Senator Brian Harradine.

2003

June 22

•Alston announces a new offer to the independents, including cash to extend the reach of ABC news radio to the regions.

June 25

•The Senate passes Alston’s bill with Brian Harradine’s amendment, which bans a company owning a newspaper and a television station in the same capital city market.

June 26

•The House of Representatives rejects the Senate compromise and re-passes Alston’s legislation.

June 27

•The House of Representatives lays the bill aside.

•Alston announces he’ll demand the Senate pass his original legislation in October, and ensures that all the preconditions are met to make the bill part of a double dissolution election trigger.

July

•Alston starts negotiations with the Democrats to pass the legislation.

November 5

•The Bill is reintroduced into the House of Representatives.

December 1

•The house passes the Bill, in the same form as that introduced on 15 October 2002, with the addition of amendments passed by the Senate and agreed to by the House.

December 2

•The Bill is reintroduced into the Senate; the second reading debate adjourned.

2004

•The Bill lapses following the calling of the 2004 Federal election.

The Howard Government includes a commitment to “reform” media ownership laws in its election platform.

2005

•The Government commences consultations with stakeholders on possible approaches to media ownership reform.

2006

14 March 2006

•After months of unexplained delays, Communications Minister Senator Helen Coonan releases a discussion paper on media ”reform”, entitled Meeting the digital challenge: reforming Australia’s media in the digital age. The paper is open for public discussion and submissions for one month, until the 18th of April.

I don’t know about you, but I think some of that is rather damning. Howard consulting Murdoch on proposed media changes. Obviously Senator Conroy was unaware that Rupert had to be consulted first. In 1997 George Megalogenis caught a whiff of Howard’s backroom deals. George wrote:

Howard himself fed this perception by telling colleagues he thought the Fairfax papers lacked direction. Howard believed the Sydney Morning Herald, for example, was not fulfilling its potential of becoming a quality” small-c conservative” broadsheet like The Times in London.

Early on in the process, Howard and Communications Minister Richard Alston decided the way to counter the inevitable claims of bias towards Packer was to give Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited, which publishes The Weekend Australian, a share of the media spoils.

The economics, as well as the politics, of the issue demanded that the cross-media rules preventing someone could not be reformed in isolation.

The foreign ownership rules, which restricted News from expanding further in Australia, also had to be looked at. But unlike Keating, Howard could not strike a balance that placated both Packer and Murdoch.

Every model that Howard and Alston came up with gave Packer an easier run at taking over Fairfax than it gave Murdoch at controlling Seven. Insiders now agree that Howard effectively killed his own reform drive on April 30 when he went on Melbourne radio station 3AW to talk up the Packer cause. The Prime Minister said then there were three choices on media policy – do nothing; open up the media to all comers; or reform the cross media rules while retaining the existing controls on foreigners. (Interestingly, Howard did not mention option four which he had discussed with Murdoch – relaxing both cross-media and foreign ownership controls).

It certainly continues to be damning, not just for the Howard Government (and I suspect the current Opposition) but also for Murdoch. That’s Conroy’s problem: he won’t hop into bed with Murdoch so he’s rallied his troops. This too, is so wrong. Media Content is Influenced by Ownership, and that suited both the Howard and Murdoch to a tee:

Media companies are not solely a means to earn income. They are frequently also a vehicle for furthering the interests of their owners. Expression of an owner’s political interests is rarely as overt as it was in 1995 when Kerry Packer appeared on his own Nine Network and declared that John Howard, then leader of the Liberal National Party Opposition, would make a good Prime Minister. It usually occurs in subtle ways, through the
appointment of senior management and, in turn, the selection of stories and the way in which information is presented to the public.
The public is frequently unaware of information that should but does not come to its attention. For example, back when Nine promoted itself as the major television news network and was owned by the Packer family, which also had strong financial interests in casinos, it was highly unlikely that Nine would have screened weighty content on serious social problems that have resulted from the proliferation and promotion of legal gambling.
The editorial position of News Corporation’s newspapers around the world in support of the 2003 US led invasion of Iraq is one example of homogeneity of perspective on a crucial matter of public interest.Undertakings given by media companies bidding for AFL rights to support and promote the sport rather than ‘bag’ or ‘demonise’ it provide another one.
In his recently published book, ‘Rupert Murdoch: An investigation of political power’, David McKnight (Associate Professor and a Senior Research Fellow at the Journalism and Media Research Centre at the University of NSW) has described Rupert Murdoch’s use of his media empire to further his political agenda over decades.
There has been widespread speculation by media and business analysts and commentators that shareholdings which Gina Rinehart (mining magnate and Australia’s richest person) has recently acquired in the Ten Network last year, and recently in Fairfax are in pursuit of influence for her mining interests, not investment potential.

Murdoch has a Howard ‘mimi-me’ in Abbott, whereas Conroy won’t bend over.

That is so good.

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

Donate Button