There are some posters, I won't even bother to read such as Grant62, smiler and some others, even though I don't have them on ignore. They never have anything new or even amusing to say. However, when I see my old mate cortis pop up on the screen, Im torn....teddibly torn let me tell you!
What is it about her posts that I find so excruciating? Is it the whining petulant tone, the overdone (and false)bonhomie or just the sheer, amazing s t u p i d i t y of what she has to say? Here is a clearly intelligent woman who writes extremely well yet what she has to say is so ludicrous that she must be pulling our legs...
I know, I have a masochistic streak that makes me tremble with bitter sweet anticipation as I move the cursor over her name and give my mouse button a tremulous nudge. Let me see what gems can we glean today....?
Well, first we learn that when the general public were voting for the libs, they were clever yet when they appear to be expressing an intention to vote for the Labor Party they are stupid. Seems the collective public intelligence is very variable. I'm sure Eysenck and his colleagues would be interested to study this amazing lability of the National IQ. Perhaps there's a TV show in it...
Next we learn of a left wing media conspiracy that has all our papers and TV channels excoriating poor John Howard and exhorting the gormless masses (who are too stupid to know better) to vote for the dreaded union bosses and commies. Gee Cortis haven't we had the Murdoch/Packer mob for years now, the right wing rich kids, in monotonous mindstep with the Libs? Show me for just one instant any evidence that management of these media monoliths has has even the slightest leaning to the left and I'll give you a proposal of marriage... Of course I'm well aware that you know only too well that there has been not a single left wing media organisation that had any power in this country for the last 10 years but, as Goebells used to say "tell a big enough lie and the people might believe you."
Actually, what did give me one of those "whip me more please mistress" moments, a frisson of guilty delight, was when you said that dear old Michelle Grattan, the most boringly down the middle journalist that this country has, is a lefty. This is a woman who makes an art from of actually saying nothing that isn't so hedged around with qualifications that you are scratching to find meaning in her articles and you are calling her a lefty....Puhleeezzzeee!!!
Anyway Cortis, please keep posting so I can keep up with my guilty, furtive reading of your material. In the meantime, you might be interested to read what's really happening in the media.
Cheers,
Media freedom hampered by media irresponsibility Denis Muller writes:
An audit of the freedom of information available to the Australian media, released today, makes a powerful argument that free speech in Australia is being subtly whittled away.
The report was commissioned by a media coalition, Australia’s Right to Know, and examined attempts by government to control media reporting, and legal constraints on publication. The audit was led by Irene Moss, a former New South Wales ombudsman and commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
The factual basis for the proposition that the media’s freedom to obtain and published information is being whittled away is incontestable. The anti-terrorism laws alone are oppressive enough to justify this statement. Then there is other evidence:
Australia has slipped from 12th to 28th place on an international index of press freedom. There are 335 Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament with specific secrecy provisions to stop information on subjects ranging from gambling revenue to livestock disease. There are endless accounts of how the executive government perverts and frustrates the freedom of information laws in every jurisdiction. The whistleblower protection laws are narrow, convoluted and inconsistent across Australia. The courts are said to increasingly using suppression orders which prevent the media reporting the proceedings of the courts in certain circumstances. This is all generally deplorable. In particular, the oppressiveness of the anti-terrorism laws, the failure of the laws of contempt to provide journalists with privilege to protect their sources of information, the abuse of the FOI laws and the widespread use of secrecy provisions in legislation are all ground for concern.
But this cannot be taken in isolation from the overall picture of media performance. So long as there is low public trust in the profession of journalism and in the media industry, there will be strong pushback against extending media freedom, no matter how damaging to the democracy limits on media freedom may be.
It is not just the responsibility of governments and the judiciary and parliament to make this flow of information work in the public interest. It is equally the responsibility of the profession of journalism and the industry of the media.
The slaggier ends of the profession and the industry behave in ways that positively invite tighter controls on information. It is a matter of profound frustration to the responsible ends of the profession and industry that this is so, but the remedy lies in their own hands, as much as in the hands of government, parliament and judiciary.
A book to be launched on Wednesday, Reputation Matters, by Peter Keel and Norman Lucas, partners at the law firm Clayton Utz, is just one example of the legitimate pushback on media licentiousness that exists.
The near-certainty that the High Court will pretty soon create a legal right to sue the media for breach of privacy is another example.
It is right for the media to fight for their corner, and it is a part of their responsibilities to argue forcefully for free speech and media freedom. The Moss Report is an excellent example of how to do this. It is a fine piece of work and deserves to be taken seriously.
But efforts like this are undermined when the media do not shoulder their other responsibilities, particularly to be properly accountable for the use of their own powers and to put pressure on their more cowboyish elements to conform to minimal standards of ethical behaviour and truth-telling.
