Gina Rinehart

[Calliope]

The next ambition will be to effectively shut down the ABC by reducing funding like Murdoch agreed with the English PM to do to the BBC. (Luckily it didn't happen) ABC24 can shut down and we can all watch sky channel.
That way everyone can sing from the same song sheet..

Don't worry Knobby. You can always subscribe to The CPA Guardian (The Australian Workers' Weekly) for an update on idealogy.

 

[Julia]

So Gina Rinehart has nothing useful to contribute to Fairfax, despite it being on its knees as an organisation.

Her proven business skills count for nothing, apparently, because she doesn't have specific past experience in digital media.

I'd suggest she's pretty capable of learning very quickly what she doesn't know.

At least she has demonstrated that she can make money.

What makes me laugh is that if she were of a Left political bias, her experience would be hailed by Fairfax and the media in general as invaluable, and she'd be offered all the seats she could desire on the Board.

And Stephen Conroy's remarks: how transparently pathetic.

 

[Calliope]

Democracy in danger.

Swan warns Rinehart media ploy bad for democracy

Ms Rinehart is understood to have demanded three seats on the Fairfax board.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has warned that Gina Rinehart's push for unfettered control over Fairfax Media is a threat to Australian democracy.

The Deputy Prime Minister told reporters in Canberra today that the mining magnate's resistance to the media company's charter of editorial independence was deeply concerning.

He said no one had ever before "so blatantly and so publicly" declared that they intended to impose their commercial will on editorial independence.

"I think that has very bad impacts for our democracy," Mr Swan said. "I think we should all be very concerned about this chain of events."

And the Greens want to apply their own brand of democracy to muzzle Rinehart;

Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said there was now an urgent case for legislation that would bind media company directors and board members to stay out of editorial decisions.
"I think there is a real urgency with this and yesterday's announcement really sharpens the urgency of bringing such an instrument foreward

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...r-democracy-20120619-20l5l.html#ixzz1yDG8wu5C

 

[sptrawler]

Democracy in danger.

Good old Wayne saying Australian democracy is in danger.
IMO since this government came in, it is in tatters.
Any semblence of democratic decision making, or acting on behalf of the majority is the last thing these lot have undertaken.
Having a selfish pursuit of ones own interest isn't isolted to Gina, maybe Wayne could look in the mirror.

 

[Knobby22]

What makes me laugh is that if she were of a Left political bias, her experience would be hailed by Fairfax and the media in general as invaluable, and she'd be offered all the seats she could desire on the Board.

.

No she wouldn't.

Editorial policy should be independant. I don't want any owner telling us what we should think.
.......especially if she is going to use her power to advance her interests.

 

[numbercruncher]

Thankfully we live in the Internet age, those with half a brain or more can choose to ignore Fairfax media once it becomes the propaganda machine.

Unfortunately that still leaves millions who will believe whatever is force fed to them .....

Treasurer Wayne Swan says Gina Rinehart is the only media owner to blatantly declare an intention to ignore editorial independence


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...il-rinehart-20120619-20l5l.html#ixzz1yDmKVjv5

 

[MrBurns]

Democracy in danger.

Swan warns Rinehart media ploy bad for democracy

Ms Rinehart is understood to have demanded three seats on the Fairfax board.

And the Greens want to apply their own brand of democracy to muzzle Rinehart;

Yes everyone with money is a threat to democracy, Rinehart, Palmer, it's a conspiracy, what a bloody joke and national embarrassment that man is.:bad:

 

[BradK]

What makes me laugh is that if she were of a Left political bias, her experience would be hailed by Fairfax and the media in general as invaluable, and she'd be offered all the seats she could desire on the Board.

I rarely disagree with you, Julia - but I think you are off the mark on this one.

Has there been a case that you can highlight of something similar happening before from the left?

Cheers
Brad

 

[sails]

Thankfully we live in the Internet age, those with half a brain or more can choose to ignore Fairfax media once it becomes the propaganda machine.

Unfortunately that still leaves millions who will believe whatever is force fed to them .....

lol - lefties have had ABC and Fairfax and yet lefties are a small minority these days despite the unbalanced media in favour of the left.

So what if Fairfax become more balanced? That would likely put more pressure on Murdoch - I would have thought lefties would be happy about that?

 

[Miss Hale]

Democracy in danger.

Swan warns Rinehart media ploy bad for democracy

Ms Rinehart is understood to have demanded three seats on the Fairfax board.




And the Greens want to apply their own brand of democracy to muzzle Rinehart;



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...r-democracy-20120619-20l5l.html#ixzz1yDG8wu5C

For crying out loud Fairfax is a private company they make their own rules. If they want to have a rule about board members not having editorial influence fair enough but it's not something the government should have anything to do with. Just another example of how out of touch people like Swan and the Greens are.

Fairfax should be grateful anyone is interested in buying their shares. The only reason the current board doesn't have editorial influence is because they paper is doing want the current board wants editorially (even though it's to their detriment). It's not strictly true that they have no influnece though. Wouldn't the board appoint the Editor in Chief? They would have had editorial input then.

 

[Miss Hale]

I actually think The Age and SMH are doomed anyway. Maybe with Rinehart they might have half a chance but I'm still not sure they have not sunk so low that they can't be revived. The fact that they are not going to tabloid format until March is ridiculous. If they think that's a good idea to boost sales do it now! Why wait until March? - the papers may not exist by then if they continue on their current trajectory. Sound like the current board has no idea.

 

[Miss Hale]

No she wouldn't.

Editorial policy should be independant. I don't want any owner telling us what we should think.
.......especially if she is going to use her power to advance her interests.

But it's not really independent is it? The current editorial slant is left so we can assume that because the board do not interfere that they agree with that. Julia's point is valid IMO, if Rinehart was left leaning she would be welcomed on the board with open arms because she would make no waves.

 

[Julia]

Democracy in danger.

Swan warns Rinehart media ploy bad for democracy

Ms Rinehart is understood to have demanded three seats on the Fairfax board.

And the Greens want to apply their own brand of democracy to muzzle Rinehart;

Conroy has ruled out legislating for so called editorial independence.

I rarely disagree with you, Julia - but I think you are off the mark on this one.

Has there been a case that you can highlight of something similar happening before from the left?

Cheers
Brad

Happy for you to disagree, Brad. At least you do so in a civil fashion.
How about the ABC to answer your question. It has a clear Left leaning, especially Radio National.
And it's a taxpayer funded entity so surely should be entirely without bias.

Fairfax is a private company. As Miss Hale points out, we can assume the current board agrees with its present Left bias because if they didn't, they could quickly fire the Editor and related staff.

The taxpayers funding the ABC appear to have no such option.

 

[Glen48]

Ms Rinehart is understood to have demanded three seats on the Fairfax board.

Talk about over weight now!!!

 

[Julia]

No she wouldn't.

(This above was in response to my suggesting if she were politically Left leaning she would be offered whatever she wanted at Fairfax).
So could you explain why you disagree, Knobby? Fairfax is very clearly Left in political bias. Why would they not welcome someone who would endorse that?

 

[banco]

But it's not really independent is it? The current editorial slant is left so we can assume that because the board do not interfere that they agree with that. Julia's point is valid IMO, if Rinehart was left leaning she would be welcomed on the board with open arms because she would make no waves.

How is the editorial policy not "really independent" because they lean to the left?

 

[Miss Hale]

How is the editorial policy not "really independent" because they lean to the left?

If a paper was fairly evenly balanced with it's presentation of issues then you could say it is independent, but when it's obviously leans on way or another then it can't really be called independent. The Age has a left bias so the editorial policy can't be called independent.

 

[sails]

How is the editorial policy not "really independent" because they lean to the left?

So, if "independent" is neither left nor right, then where's the problem if Gina wants to see Fairfax become profitable?

 

[Knobby22]

But it's not really independent is it? The current editorial slant is left so we can assume that because the board do not interfere that they agree with that. Julia's point is valid IMO, if Rinehart was left leaning she would be welcomed on the board with open arms because she would make no waves.

I get to read all the regular writers and they are mostly deep thinking. From Costello and Vanstone(She's very good) to a wide disporia of others. That's what papers should strive to be!
Those from the northern states don't get the chance to compare. I don't like it when an agenda is run and I am fed propaganda disquised as news.

 

[sptrawler]

So how is it worse to have a newspaper taking the government to task, than have a government that enacts policy that the electors haven't voted on? Am I missing something, or is an action causing a counter reaction.