November 8, 2011

Inquiry to stop public buying Murdoch papers commences

Now that our hyper-powers-that-be have all figured out that Murdoch does not own 70 per cent of print media in this country, everyone is being hyper-pedantic so as to be able to continue quoting the 70 per cent figure without - you know, LYING.

It's an extraordinary deception, one which our inadequate media is yet to bang on about; is yet to hold politicians to account; the latter, supposedly being their core job.
High-profile Melbourne academic Robert Manne, author of a highly critical Quarterly Essay article focusing on The Australian’s political coverage, told the inquiry it was indefensible that "that one company owns 70 per cent of print circulation’’.

 "I think that would be regarded in the English-speaking world as laughable,’’ he said, arguing that the group should be broken up.
That's right, Manne, along with Bob Brown, no doubt, can't figure out how to stop so many people purchasing, on average, 70 per cent of their print media of choice.  They have a genuine belief that 32 per cent ownership - as opposed to circulation, that is, members of the public choosing to purchase particular newspapers - warrants a monopoly, or presents limited choice, and a legal business entity should, therefore, be torn apart.

That is distorted, biased, immoral use of the political process.

Unbelievably, within this context, Manne is opposed to further statutory limits on "freedom", but he didn't go to the trouble or specifying "freedom" - of what ... speech, running a multinational business? 
"The owner (Rupert Murdoch) is a highly political animal,’’ he said, adding his newspaper editors were well aware of the proprietor’s views.

 Professor Manne was, however, cool on the idea of sweeping regulatory reform for the newspaper industry. Fines for breaches of industry codes would be a ‘‘waste of time’’. More productive change would be the capacity for the Press Council to force corrections ‘‘with sufficient prominence’’ when newspapers made factual errors.

"I would be worried about further statutory limits on freedom,’’ Professor Manne said.
It is also, as we've come to understand it, c/o Bob Brown, the ALP, and this inquiry, highly questionable as to what constitutes "factual errors". 

Manne makes a good fist of presenting himself as an almost reasonable man, while being utterly manipulative and deceptive.  For an academic, it's not a good look.

Murdoch papers accused of bias as media inquiry opens

3 comments:

  1. geoffff9:52 PM

    It really is disgraceful. You've got to wonder why an old judge or whatever he is would take on a job like this in the first place. I'm hoping it's because Julia has done the deal and now expects the Greens to cop the results they deserve.

    The Bolt thing was bad. This is far worse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If not him, some other retired judge. But yes, you do have to wonder what a former judge is prepared to do for a bit of loose change.

    Gillard believes that Murdoch is out to get her, she did support this inquiry, and the perverse justifications for it. She has done no deals.

    I will be foaming at the mouth and howling at the moon if action of any substantial kind is taken as a result of this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. geoffff8:40 AM

    Indeed. And I will be foaming at the moon and howling at the mouth.

    ReplyDelete