big money has unfair unhealthy influence

3. Packer influence spreads to ban Crikey at Sky News


By Terry Television

The Packer empire's censorship of Crikey has now ensnared The Seven Network and the Murdoch-controlled BSkyB group of Britain in its coverage.

Our web site and daily email newsletters are already banned around the country at Packer-owned groups such as Channel Nine, ACP and Crown Casino, but Crikey is now also effectively banned at Sky News in Sydney, a news service which used our political editor Christian Kerr on numerous occasions during the recent federal election.

The ban has not been introduced by Sky News management, but by virtue of its computer links to Nine. Sky News uses the Nine computers for its news editing and management systems. Its feeds and other information come through Nine.

A lot of the arguments between the Nine and Seven newsrooms over 'stolen' vision often centre on the transfer of news stories and vision to and from Sky.

It is the way Nine has cleverly gripped Sky's operations more closely than Seven could ever do. All the Sky computer links to the outside world are controlled by the Nine Network computer facilities at Willoughby.

So when Park Street stamped its tiny little foot and said "Ban Crikey", Nine CEO David Gyngell said "how high Kerry?" and the big fella obviously replied, "as high as Sky!"

So the ban Crikey filter means no access to the site from Sky News, which is also 33 per cent owned by The Seven Network, which hasn't banned us, and 33 per cent by News Ltd's UK associate BSkyB, neither of which have banned Crikey.

Therefore, the influence of Kerry Packer and Nine extends to banning Crikey at Sky on the basis of only a one third interest. Now that's called throwing your weight around.
And remember that Nine, ACP and PBL believe they are committed to free speech!

Also remember that Sam Chisholm, a director of PBL, is now chairman of Sky News and met the Sky News management late last week in his new capacity.
Was a ban on Crikey discussed or mentioned?

PBL seem to have the same level of understanding of free speech that its chairman, James Packer, seems to have of the duties of being a director, as detailed in the One Tel Court hearing in Sydney last week.
That's when ASIC's head of enforcement, Jan Redfern, was forced to confirm statements critical of James Packer's understanding of his role as a director made by ASIC investigators in a report tabled in the court hearing.

For some reason The AFR has decided it won't cover the One-tel hearings which were intensely embarrassing to both James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch last week. Can anyone explain this one?

A plaintiff cry for support from the Crikey editor

Stephen Mayne writes:

The media world is a competitive game and we've made plenty of enemies along the way, but it really is disappointing that this sort of thing can happen in Australia and no-one seems to give a hoot.

We have 150 email addresses on our data base from Federal Parliament House and not one person in the political process has chosen to publically (or in private emails to us) condemn this ludicrous ban by the richest and most powerful man in Australia. Go on, can someone show a bit of spine here?

The MEAA mentioned the ban in passing in one of their media bulletins but we've heard nothing from any working journalists, academics, lawyers or general advocates of free speech in Australia.

John Howard says "choice" is the golden thread of everything he stands for yet thousands of employees in Australia's biggest media company are being told they cannot access what is a legitimate and serious media service.

If any savvy lawyer out there reckons we might have grounds to take legal action we'd love to hear from them.
Or why can't ACCC chairman, keen Crikey reader and aspiring media regulator Graeme Samuel take a public position on this?



Think about it for a moment.
Earlier this year, Nine's flagship current affairs program Sunday did a profile on Crikey in which it repeated the line that Crikey is arguably the most advanced independent ezine in any market in the world.

Six months later, how can Kerry Packer be allowed to get away with then banning us on the dubious basis that we are a "gossip" site?