Australia needs a parlimentary enquiry into media ownership.

[Guest]

While it may come as a surprise to some to see the Murdoch media empire exposed as the lying, corrupt, unethical, lawless and an organisation utterly without morals, it does not surprise me.

I have been saying for years that the Murdoch media is not one bit interested in the Australian people, our way of life, our values or our prosperity, it is interested in selling advertising and the influence it's media has on politicians. This has never been more evident than in the UK right now with both sides of politics saying the same thing - Murdoch and his media has had far too much influence on shaping public discorse through the influence it has on the politicians themselves.

This is evidence of this biased here in Australia. I watched "The Nation" on Sky the other day and they had both sides of politics represented at a round table on the carbon debate. On one side you had a Labor MP and an old speech writer for Kevin Rudd and representing the Coalition you had a liberal MP and an editor of the News limited Sunday Telegraph argueing for Tony Abbott.

If that is not blatant biased from our Murdoch press than I'm not here! I for one am watching the unfolding situation in the UK hoping to see the Murdoch's taken away in handcuffs as they deserve to be for their corruption and flagrant disregard of not only the law but of decency and democracy.

That is why we need an enquiry here. To ensure the same lack of morals, values and biased and blatant disregard for what it is the press is suppose to do is not happening here as well. It comes as no surprise to me that the Libs including Abbott and Howard have said they don't want to see the enquiry happen as they like the status quo. They like and welcome the fact News limited favours them and their idealogy at every turn and criticises and condemns all others in turn.

I for one despise News limited and their right wing biased agenda. And I despise them more for the fact they don't acknowledge that biased, they firmly believe they are centrists and represent the majority of Australians which is one big farking lie. And just another reason why we need an enquiry into this propaganderous sham of a media organisation.

Chook.

[Guest]

. On one side you had a Labor MP and an old speech writer for Kevin Rudd and representing the Coalition you had a liberal MP and an editor of the News limited Sunday Telegraph argueing for Tony Abbott.

.

Watch Fox News (america) to see how that can snowball.
Anyone see last weeks Sunday Roast where Gould (replete with white hair) thought it necessary to spew his vile over the Carbon Tax. Basically you had 3 minutes of pub rant on a footy show. On the footy show they had that fat carnt? asking a group of 6 year olds what they thought of Julia and what they thought of the Carbon Tax. Vautins face was superimposed on Gillards effigy.
So you either have powerful coorporations bending "news" or you have little Goulds influencing the little ppl.
You have the Dalai Lama appearing on Master Chef. Truth is media is God

[Guest]

While it may come as a surprise to some to see the Murdoch media empire exposed as the lying, corrupt, unethical, lawless and an organisation utterly without morals, it does not surprise me.

I have been saying for years that the Murdoch media is not one bit interested in the Australian people, our way of life, our values or our prosperity, it is interested in selling advertising and the influence it's media has on politicians. This has never been more evident than in the UK right now with both sides of politics saying the same thing - Murdoch and his media has had far too much influence on shaping public discorse through the influence it has on the politicians themselves.

This is evidence of this biased here in Australia. I watched "The Nation" on Sky the other day and they had both sides of politics represented at a round table on the carbon debate. On one side you had a Labor MP and an old speech writer for Kevin Rudd and representing the Coalition you had a liberal MP and an editor of the News limited Sunday Telegraph argueing for Tony Abbott.

If that is not blatant biased from our Murdoch press than I'm not here! I for one am watching the unfolding situation in the UK hoping to see the Murdoch's taken away in handcuffs as they deserve to be for their corruption and flagrant disregard of not only the law but of decency and democracy.

That is why we need an enquiry here. To ensure the same lack of morals, values and biased and blatant disregard for what it is the press is suppose to do is not happening here as well. It comes as no surprise to me that the Libs including Abbott and Howard have said they don't want to see the enquiry happen as they like the status quo. They like and welcome the fact News limited favours them and their idealogy at every turn and criticises and condemns all others in turn.

I for one despise News limited and their right wing biased agenda. And I despise them more for the fact they don't acknowledge that biased, they firmly believe they are centrists and represent the majority of Australians which is one big farking lie. And just another reason why we need an enquiry into this propaganderous sham of a media organisation.

Chook.

So your evidence is

that on SkyNews (owned by Murdoch)

they had a show with a panel with 2 people pro the governments policy and 2 people pro the Coalition policy

And wait for it

the host David Speers who is a rabid lefty pro the government policy

(I know this because this is what I have been told by a parent of one of the Sky News Readers who has worked with David Speers for years)

So thats 3 - 2 in favor of govt policy there.

Plus

Sky News regularly trot out the ex coalition leader,John Hewson current bankster and pro carbon tax and ETS to go up against a Labor person who is pro carbon tax and ETS. Yep they are really fair and balanced not.

You should be real happy with that chook but you want an even more biased left media.

[Guest]

Watch Fox News (america) to see how that can snowball.
Anyone see last weeks Sunday Roast where Gould (replete with white hair) thought it necessary to spew his vile over the Carbon Tax. Basically you had 3 minutes of pub rant on a footy show. On the footy show they had that fat carnt? asking a group of 6 year olds what they thought of Julia and what they thought of the Carbon Tax. Vautins face was superimposed on Gillards effigy.
So you either have powerful coorporations bending "news" or you have little Goulds influencing the little ppl.
You have the Dalai Lama appearing on Master Chef. Truth is media is God

Yeah I saw Gould with his "we need leaership in this country" and he was harping on about the poker machine gambling initiative. Which after having read the proposal I tend to agree will not achieve much in the way of stopping problem gamblers. It'll stop them putting their money through the pokies (as long as the national database is linked) but it won't stop them going over the road and putting a punt on the horses if they so chose. But then I've always said if people are stupid enough to knowingly put their money into a machine that is programmed to return only 87% then they deserve to eat out of carboard boxes.

Have you seen Australia's version of Fox News = The Bolt Report? I watched the first episode in it's entireity and was laughing my arse off by the end. Andrew Bolt is such a blatant farking idiot yet a glistening example of why the media in this country needs a enema. We are bloated with right wing gabbage in our media that needs to be exposed for what it is.

Chook.

[Guest]

So your evidence is

that on SkyNews (owned by Murdoch)

they had a show with a panel with 2 people pro the governments policy and 2 people pro the Coalition policy

And wait for it

the host David Speers who is a rabid lefty pro the government policy

(I know this because this is what I have been told by a parent of one of the Sky News Readers who has worked with David Speers for years)

So thats 3 - 2 in favor of govt policy there.

Plus

Sky News regularly trot out the ex coalition leader,John Hewson current bankster and pro carbon tax and ETS to go up against a Labor person who is pro carbon tax and ETS. Yep they are really fair and balanced not.

You should be real happy with that chook but you want an even more biased left media.

That loud wooshing sound you hear is the point you missed...as usual. My point was that the Murdoch media openly and blatantly side with the right wing in this country and yet claim to be a "voice of the people" WHEN THEY ARE NOT!!! They are a voice exclusively for the right wing.

I knew it was a bad idea looking at your post, there is a reason you are on my ignore list.

Chook.

[Guest]

That loud wooshing sound you hear is the point you missed...as usual. My point was that the Murdoch media openly and blatantly side with the right wing in this country and yet claim to be a "voice of the people" WHEN THEY ARE NOT!!! They are a voice exclusively for the right wing.

I knew it was a bad idea looking at your post, there is a reason you are on my ignore list.

Chook.

So are you proposing that only left wing views be expressed in the media?

[Guest]

So are you proposing that only left wing views be expressed in the media?

Yes, yes that's what I'm proposing! Does that satisfy your conspiracy theory?

Here's an article from Stephen Mayne that says it all, especially the bolded bits.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2798930.html

The biggest media scandal in the modern age is exploding and the world's most powerful family is under siege, yet some key players in Australia still don't understand that the media power game has changed forever.

How can it not when News Corp shares have tanked more than 20 per cent since July 6, senior executives are being fired, the British PM is under enormous pressure, arrests are into double figures, the police chief Sir Paul Stephenson has quit and the UK is openly pursuing numerous inquiries into media conduct, ethics and ownership.

Only this morning, News Corp shares in Australia plunged another 5 per cent as investor confidence collapsed in response to all the weekend drama. A company capitalised at $44.76 billion two weeks ago is now only worth $35.8 billion. The Murdoch share of this $9 billion wipe-out is about $1.2 billion and now Bloomberg reports there are stirrings from independent News Corp directors such as Tom Perkins and Viet Dinh.

While it is the British Labour Party leading the charge against Rupert Murdoch, Conservative prime minister David Cameron also baldy called time on political kowtowing to media barons when he said the following last week:

Over the decades, on the watch of both Labour leaders and Conservative leaders, politicians and the press have spent time courting support, not confronting the problems. Well, it's on my watch that the music has stopped and I'm saying, loud and clear - things have got to change.

In future, politicians have got to stop trying to curry favour with the media, but instead regulate properly.

We were all in this world of wanting the support of newspaper groups and, yes, broadcasting organisations and when we are doing that do we spend enough time asking questions about how these organisations are regulated, the malpractices and the rest of it? No, we did not. We have to.

As part of this "new paradigm", David Cameron has already released full details of all his meetings with editors, executives and media proprietors since becoming prime minister and will continue to do so on a quarterly basis. Why don't Australia's current political leaders follow suit?

It would also help the debate if past Australian political leaders confessed to their own wheeling and dealing with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his minions.

Ray Martin was only half joking during last night's savage 60 Minutes assault on News Corp when he described Britain as a "Murdocracy".

When it comes to Murdoch media domination, Australia is even worse - the worst in the world, in fact.

A long line of Australian politicians have had unhealthy relationships with the Murdoch and Packer families through the decades.

The connections, deals, endorsements, donations and cross-fertilisation should now be retrospectively examined. For instance, why shouldn't former federal communications minister Graham Richardson be called to appear before a parliamentary inquiry to discuss the millions of dollars he was paid by the Packer family to lobby and comment after leaving parliament?

Similarly, Rupert Murdoch's replacement for the now-arrested Rebekah Brooks as CEO of News International is Tom Mockridge, who went straight from Paul Keating's office to News Ltd in 1991.

It was Keating's 1986 media ownership changes which cleared the way for News Corp to develop its ridiculous 70 per cent Australian newspaper market share courtesy of its 1987 takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times.

The Murdoch press backed Keating at key moments in his subsequent war of attrition against Bob Hawke, yet Keating has never given a full account of his dealings with Murdoch, let alone admitted the HWT takeover was a disaster for Australia's democracy.

On Lateline last Thursday, the best Keating could do was call for tougher privacy laws and confirm the blindingly obvious that News Ltd was currently "at war with the Gillard Government".

In fact, Keating defended the 1987 HWT takeover on the basis that his cross-media ownership laws forced Murdoch to sell his interests in Channel Ten in Melbourne and Sydney.

These days, the ASX-listed Ten Network Holdings is a much bigger national network with TV licences in every mainland state capital.

And who is a 9 per cent shareholder, director and CEO of Ten at the moment? None other than News Corp director Lachlan Murdoch, eldest son of Rupert Murdoch, who was backed into the job by his great mate James Packer.

Having controversially wound back Ten's investment in sport and news - something which critics point out assists the Murdoch-associated Foxtel, Fox Sports and Sky News - Lachlan abandoned Ten's Pyrmont headquarters to attend a conference with his father in Sun Valley two weeks ago.

He has now joined his father and siblings in London managing through the News Corp crisis, which points again to the inappropriateness of his current gig running Ten.

Since taking the long handle to Murdoch, British Labour leader Ed Miliband has seen his polls ratings soar by 7 per cent. On Sunday he made his boldest pronouncement yet, suggesting that media companies be limited to no more than 20 per cent of the British newspaper market. Given News Corp has about a 40 per cent share, Labour is effectively advocating a break-up of its UK newspaper interests.

Hmmm, where does that leave News Corp's 70 per cent market share in Australia? Such a dominant position Down Under allows this New York-based company to pick and choose which voices are heard by the masses in any public debate.

For instance, on Saturday I read Andrew Bolt's column in the Herald Sun railing against Bob Brown's call for a media inquiry and submitted a letter for publication in today's paper.

Alas, as occurs every time I submit a letter to the Herald Sun, the editor refused to publish. So, here it is:

Letter to the editor of the Herald Sun responding to Andrew Bolt column

Why is Andrew Bolt railing so hard (July 16) against Bob Brown, distorting his comments by claiming the Greens leader espouses views which represent a "first step to totalitarianism"?

Senator Brown is primarily concerned about the concentrated media power held by this paper's owners, News Ltd - a power that can enable the company to nationally promote and distribute a right wing reactionary commentator like Bolt, who the Herald Sun proudly declares is "Australia's most read columnist".

As a former business editor of the Herald Sun who spent eight years at News Ltd, I'm concerned about the global ethics of News Corporation after the British phone hacking scandal, and that the company has excessive and ever-growing power in Australia.

No other western democracy has a foreign-domiciled company which controls 70 per cent of the newspaper market. If British politicians can oppose News Corp moving to 100 per cent ownership of BSkyB, why aren't we having a debate as to whether News Corp managed Foxtel should be allowed to take over Austar for $2.7 billion and create an Australian pay-TV monopoly?

Similarly, I'm concerned that Rupert Murdoch's eldest son Lachlan Murdoch has been appointed a director and Acting CEO of Channel Ten whilst remaining a News Corp director.

This unhealthy concentration of media ownership and power is the core of the debate advanced by Senator Brown, not some desire to compulsorily acquire all privately owned media to create a government media monopoly, as occurs in totalitarian societies.

Stephen Mayne

Manningham

The events in Britain make it blindingly obvious that the Federal Parliament should review both media regulation and media ownership, just as News Ltd is commendably reviewing all payments over the past three years to check if News Corp's UK tabloid practices polluted its Australian division.

It was John Howard who last attacked media diversity when he secured control of the senate in 2005 and weakened ownership restrictions, triggering a wave of media takeovers.

News Corp wasn't particularly active in the consolidation, although in April 2007 it paid more than $200 million to buy the Sydney-based Hannan family's FPC stable of 25 magazines and 13 community newspaper, including The Wentworth Courier in Malcolm Turnbull's affluent seat.

However, the past two years has seen a sudden burst of Australian expansion activity by the Murdochs.

Firstly, in November 2009 Lachlan Murdoch paid about $120 million for a 50 per cent stake in the DMG radio business, which owns the Nova stable. This was followed by his move on Ten late last year.

You then have the long campaign that the Murdoch-influenced Sky News has run to knock the ABC off for the Government's $223 million Australia Television contract.

The biggest moves have been through Foxtel, which will grow its subscriber base substantially after agreeing to shell out almost $500 million for the live broadcast rights to every AFL game, except the Grand Final, over the next five years.

Foxtel is 25 per cent owned by News Corp which has management control and this AFL rights deal was quickly followed by the attempted $2.7 billion Austar takeover to create a pay-TV monopoly.

The ACCC is currently deliberating over this but it would be amazing if it didn't get dragged into some sort of parliamentary process as well.

Tony Abbott has predictably shown no interest in any media inquiry and why would he given that News Ltd has transformed itself into a war machine against the Gillard Government and carbon pricing.

John Howard, who remains Abbott's mentor and close adviser, made these very strong comments on Insiders yesterday:

I mean, the media has been inquired to death in this country. They'd better be careful. They might have a revisitation of that famous appearance of Kerry Packer before the media senate inquiry where he really bashed them up. I mean, heavens above. Let the media do its job. We don't want another inquiry.

Such sycophancy to media moguls is precisely what David Cameron is saying should end. British politicians are no longer afraid of powerful bullies like Rupert Murdoch, yet John Howard reckons our crop should "be careful" for fear of being "bashed up".

Such language makes you believe Hugh Grant when he told 60 Minutes last night that the Murdochs were almost running a protection racket in Britain.

British politicians have had enough, but it remains to be seen whether their Australian brethren will follow suit and openly investigate the question about whether News Corp, or anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to dominate the Australian media scene.

Perhaps the best way to focus the mind is to ask whether Coalition politicians would be concerned if someone else took control of News Corp.

Chinese government companies are buying up plenty of Australia's resource companies. Would News Corp be okay for Beijing to control?

After all, it was said to be News Corp's second biggest voting shareholder, Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who helped finish off Rebekah Brooks when he criticised her performance in an interview with the BBC last Thursday.

If King Abdullah's nephew added to his existing 7 per cent interest by buying the Murdoch family's 39 per cent voting stake, would anyone be concerned? Of course they would.

And given the revelations about the way News Corp systematically abused its power over British democracy and the police, we should also be having an inquiry as to whether this particular company is fit and proper to exert so much influence in Australia.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

The Murdochs have proven they are unfit to hold sway and influence a populace and it's high time they and their lackies were put under the microscope.

Chook.

[Guest]

Agree with you whole heartedly Chook. The fact is, when media is considered to be solely a commercial enterprise, backed by corporate interests, those interests will always 'infect' the news stream. That goes for fairfax, news corp, the different television channels etc. Despite the argument that every media outlet is biased to an extent, the danger occurs when a news channel advertises itself as being balanced, although it is anything but. Or they just sprout hysterical rubbish that has been proven to be completely false. And obviously, it's also dangerous for one corporation to own a large majority of news outlets. Out of interest rcptn, what is your take on 'the contriarians' on sky news, given you seem to think sky news is so 'left wing'? The host is a former Abbott staffer, and the majority of panelists are right wing. And even if sky has a supposedly left wing bias, it's not as though there aren't plenty of 'right wing' slanted channels, eg 7,9,10.

[Guest]

So chook should Bolt be allowed to have his own show?

[Guest]

So chook should Bolt be allowed to have his own show?

Yes. But the moment he says something that is blatantly and/or factually false, ie global warming is not happening, he should be shut down. Just like Alan Jones should be shut down immediately for the false and misleading information he spews forth on a daily basis and especially given the incendiary nature of his comments. I heard him the other day say that he would "tie Julia Gillard in a heshan bag and throw her into the Tasman Sea." And he also called for the gulletine to be brought back in reference to Gillard. This kind of hateful, violent and inflammatory comments have no place in Australian society.

Let me ask you this rcptn, if Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt commented that passive smoking was not harmful, or that CFC's were ok to use again in refrigeration, or that the sun doesn't cause skin cancer, or that lead was ok to digest and inhale, would you see those comments as their right to say them or that they were putting people at risk of harm if they believed them?

Chook.

[Guest]

Agree with you whole heartedly Chook. The fact is, when media is considered to be solely a commercial enterprise, backed by corporate interests, those interests will always 'infect' the news stream. That goes for fairfax, news corp, the different television channels etc. Despite the argument that every media outlet is biased to an extent, the danger occurs when a news channel advertises itself as being balanced, although it is anything but. Or they just sprout hysterical rubbish that has been proven to be completely false. And obviously, it's also dangerous for one corporation to own a large majority of news outlets. Out of interest rcptn, what is your take on 'the contriarians' on sky news, given you seem to think sky news is so 'left wing'? The host is a former Abbott staffer, and the majority of panelists are right wing. And even if sky has a supposedly left wing bias, it's not as though there aren't plenty of 'right wing' slanted channels, eg 7,9,10.

I never said there was a left wing bias at Sky News I was just pointing out some flaws in chooks point that all Murdoch controlled media has a right wing bias. As for the host of the contrairians I think you are referring to Peter Van Onselen who worked for Abbotts office briefly in 2001. Can't say I'm an avid viewer of that one but they have people on from both sides and PVO is certainly pro carbon tax and ETS.

I cannot understand how you can accuse 7,9 and 10 of right wing bias. 7 was known as Channel Kevin when Rudd was having his golden run. I could never see a bias at 9 and 10 has the 7pm project full young lefty progressive idiots with occasional appearances by Steve Price whom I consider a centrist and Bolt who is a righty. And lets not forget that old lefty fossil George Negus who has his own program 5 nights a week in prime time I'm sure Bolt would love that timeslot if given the chance(this from a network who has Lachlan Murdoch as his CEO).

If you want to talk bias how about taking a look at the ABC.

The Insiders program is always stacked 3 - 1 in favour of the left and during the last election they interviewed 4 government ministers compared with the Coalitions 1. Qanda is another case in point it's usually 4 - 2 in favour of left if you lefty host Tony Jones.

[Guest]

Yes. But the moment he says something that is blatantly and/or factually false, ie global warming is not happening, he should be shut down. Just like Alan Jones should be shut down immediately for the false and misleading information he spews forth on a daily basis and especially given the incendiary nature of his comments. I heard him the other day say that he would "tie Julia Gillard in a heshan bag and throw her into the Tasman Sea." And he also called for the gulletine to be brought back in reference to Gillard. This kind of hateful, violent and inflammatory comments have no place in Australian society.

Let me ask you this rcptn, if Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt commented that passive smoking was not harmful, or that CFC's were ok to use again in refrigeration, or that the sun doesn't cause skin cancer, or that lead was ok to digest and inhale, would you see those comments as their right to say them or that they were putting people at risk of harm if they believed them?

Chook.

I don't know whether Alan Jones really made those comments because I don't listen to his show. But just because somebody does not believe in man made climate change does not mean they should be shutdown and taken off air. Your Totalitariasm streak is showing chook.

If Jones or Bolt made such comments in yor 2nd paragraph(btw which they wouldn't)then listeners would be free to choose whether they agree or even stop listening. It's a matter of choice I would have thought a person of the left would be in favour of freedom speech and freedom of choice?

[Guest]

I don't know whether Alan Jones really made those comments because I don't listen to his show. But just because somebody does not believe in man made climate change does not mean they should be shutdown and taken off air. Your Totalitariasm streak is showing chook.

If Jones or Bolt made such comments in yor 2nd paragraph(btw which they wouldn't)then listeners would be free to choose whether they agree or even stop listening. It's a matter of choice I would have thought a person of the left would be in favour of freedom speech and freedom of choice?

Why wouldn't they? And where does their right to say something outweigh the affect of it?

I certainly have an issue if what they say is blatantly or factualy false, like man-made climate change. Because I see that in the same category as passive smoking and skin cancer just like the scientists that proved those things harmful.

Man-made climate change is no longer a matter of belief rcptn, and that is where you and Bolt and Jones get left behind in the debate. It has moved past you and that is why you are on my ignore list. You can't move past that point.

Chook.

[Guest]

Why wouldn't they? And where does their right to say something outweigh the affect of it?

I certainly have an issue if what they say is blatantly or factualy false, like man-made climate change. Because I see that in the same category as passive smoking and skin cancer just like the scientists that proved those things harmful.

Man-made climate change is no longer a matter of belief rcptn, and that is where you and Bolt and Jones get left behind in the debate. It has moved past you and that is why you are on my ignore list. You can't move past that point.

Chook.

No man made climate change is your belief(religion) and there are plenty of scientists who don't share your belief. Now you can put me back on ignore because you are losing this argument imho.

[Fairfax]

Speers is no left-winger... That is an hysterical assertion.

The Murdoch press are rabid free marketeers... Angelo Frangopoulos the boss of Sky News Australia is no friend of the left.

Kerry Stokes? Channel Kevin? They gave the same amount of time to Hockey... Absolutely anti-Labor.

Stephen Mayne? Apart from being a tool is a former Jeff Kennett staffer and no friend of the left either.

Our commercial media has stopped being an impartial voice and is purely the voice of commercial interests. Not much objective analysis, just carbon tax scare campaigns and and attack sexist attacks on red headed PMs.