- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
We should reject Finkelstein's proposals, not to defend the media but to defend a fundamental liberal principle: no government should have power to decide what constitutes ''fair'' or ''balanced'' speech. Freedom of the press is just too important.
Doug Cameron said in November: ''The Murdoch press are an absolute disgrace, they are a threat to democracy in this country and we should absolutely be having a look at them.''
No, this crap has to end. This is why we need a media watchdog - there is nothing wrong with it nor nothing undemocratic.
The fact that Starcrafty and loony left ratbag Doug Cameron think alike, speaks volumes about both. Cameron is a bigger "threat to democracy" and the truth, than the mediaTo me, this says it all:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-03/cameron-launches-attack-on-news-ltd/3616902A senior ALP faction leader branded Rupert Murdoch's News Limited "a threat to democracy" today as the feud between the newspaper group and the Government intensified.
Left faction convenor Doug Cameron's extraordinary outburst was sparked by a story in News Limited's Daily Telegraph reporting that former PM Kevin Rudd is being urged by his backers to challenge Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Our freedom of speech is being attacked. If the recommendations proposed become law then our ability to talk about what is on our mind is eroded even more than it is now.
Forget about the political threads on this forum (they would become one sided if not exstinct), imagine not being able to make comments about Telstra, BHP, Alcoa, AGL etc etc because it did not suit the current government.
This media censorship must be stopped in its track. Any party advocating it should be
shoved out the door!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...for-political-retribution-20120303-1u9vk.html
IMO we dont need a watchdog as such, just some sort of professional qualification, such as CA, CPA, CFA etc but related to journalism and then those journalists who are found to be constantly lying will have their qualification removed.
This would (should) ensure quality, realistic journalism is adheered too and other people (blooggers etc) would still be able to publish their thoughts, but readers would know that if they dont have a journalistic qualification as such then it may just be the bloggers opinion and not facts
I'm in favour of this.
Thanks dutchie,
The Greens and the ALP are trying to muzzle News Corporation, so it is good to have you onside advocating freedom of speech against the voracious controlling instincts of the Left.
gg
+1 x 10.You really are cognitively dissonant Starry.
I've never seen anyone with such conflicting beliefs.
You really are cognitively dissonant Starry.
I've never seen anyone with such conflicting beliefs.
Some people here seem to be confused as to what freedom of speech means and how it relates to the media.
No, the media should not have the freedom to publish whatever crap they want - they should be held accountable to publish only truthful facts and objectively neutral articles without bias.
According to whom?
(who... whom... FIIK)
Neutrality is subjective.What do you mean according to whom? Do you support a biased media which plays only to one side of the story thereby undermining democracy?
I for one favour neutrality within the media.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?