Wednesday, June 20, 2012


Labor can't win on Rinehart

The Australian's Paul Kelly explains why Labor is concerned about Gina Rinehart's Fairfax play.
LABOR caucus members are renewing their push for radical intervention in media standards as Gina Rinehart's newspaper ambitions spark a widening political storm over regulating the press.
A move is under way to punish media owners who breach editorial standards what is an ‘editorial standard’?, despite cabinet ministers claiming yesterday there was little they could do to stop Australia's richest person taking over Fairfax Media. –Notice that this story is being run in a Rupert Murdoch owned paper? Did you know that Murdoch is a minority shareholder in Fairfax? 
Wayne Swan yesterday sharpened his attack on the mining billionaire by suggesting her designs on Fairfax Media endangered democracy. –As opposed to Rupert Murdoch’s phone scandal, removing the BBC from Chinese t.v’s in order to make money with the Chinese government, the sensationalist lies & war propaganda published in The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, and Faux Fascist News. But of course, it all helps the governmental efforts to keep you in a perpetual state of enslavement. 
As Labor caucus members voiced fears that Mrs Rinehart would "trash the brand" and weaken journalism–Obviously, Rinehart has an anti-community, pro-mining agenda, but so does the Murdoch press, and both “sides” of Australian politics. Remember what happened to Rudd after he introduced the mining tax?? This is actually fear-mongering being spread about by a business competitor–, Victorian MP Steve Gibbons called for laws to empower a new authority to oversee media behaviour and impose harsh penalties on those who breached standards.
There is the answer to the aforementioned question. THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH & COMMUNICATION, AND TO READ WHAT YOU ARE TOLD, not the real news. This is actually a nazi communist wet dream. 
The motion, which Mr Gibbons wanted to be debated in parliament on Monday, argues that the media industry has lost its "social licence to operate" and must face greater government control. –Why is a Murdoch owned paper not jumping up and down about this assault on one of the fundamental assaults on our freedom? Are they 'in on it’?– "Concentration of news media ownership in the hands of a few represents, prima facie, a competitive market failure requiring compensatory regulation to ensure socially acceptable outcomes," his motion states. –Are you aware that it was a Hawke Labor Government that made the legislative changes that gave birth to the current situation which a Labor politician is trying to fix??? 
"I've no doubt it will gain selection for debate," Mr Fitzgibbon said. Labor whip Joel Fitzgibbon last night threw his support behind Mr Gibbons's motion, saying he expected it to spark debate on both sides of politics.
The selection of bills committee discussed Mr Gibbons's motion yesterday but could not arrange to debate it next week, meaning it would be put off until after the winter recess. That could bring media debate to a head at the same time Communications Minister Stephen Conroy moves to implement media changes, given his commitment to act on the government's wide-ranging media inquiries before year's end.
Mrs Rinehart's plans have reignited Labor fears over the media, first sparked by the British phone-hacking scandal and fuelled by a push by the Greens for an Australian inquiry to toughen regulation. The caucus moves indicate a hardening in sentiment as cabinet ministers consider a response to media inquiries, one by former judge Ray Finkelstein on news standards and a broader Convergence Review led by former IBM Australia managing director Glen Boreham.
The Acting Prime Minister yesterday attacked Mrs Rinehart for disregarding the Fairfax charter of editorial independence –when they really should be using the Murdoch one, which Fairfax will, if Murdoch can have legislative changes made that allow him to buy out Fairfax instead of Rinehart– and planning to use her stake in the company to advance her conservative political views and mining interests. "I think that has very big implications for our democracy,” –yet politicians attempting to overturn the original lore of this land & community made laws through inferior statutes, rules, by-laws & regulations doesn’t– Mr Swan said yesterday. "I think we should all be very concerned at this turn of events.”
I am more concerned that these public servants are getting more and more brazen in their assertions that they exist between 'we the people' and Yahuwah or the Divine Creator. 
Doubts arose over whether the editorial charter had the authority claimed by its supporters, given current board members had not signed it. Agreed on and signed by the Fairfax Media board of directors 20 years ago, the Charter of Editorial Independence is a document still adhered to in principle by the board and new directors.
It has not been signed by any director since the original signatories, and this includes the current Fairfax chairman Roger Corbett.
If Mrs Rinehart signed the charter, she would be the first director to do so since the original directors, including Zelman Cowen. The Australian understands the combined Fairfax house committees have at various times asked the board to re-sign the charter, but have been assured it still stands as an agreement between the parties. As Julia Gillard expressed concern about editorial independence, Senator Conroy accused Mrs Rinehart of planning to override Fairfax chief executive Greg Hywood and turn the company into a "mining gazette”.
That’s actually quite rich considering that the first thing Gillard did after she stabbed KRudd in the back was to acquiesce to the mining companies. As a staunch Gilard supporter, Conroy is doing Gillard’s dirty work. This is a tactic used often by the genocidal warmonger John Coward, who often had his ministers frame the boundaries of a “debate” before he would come in as an aloof fatherly figure to make the pre-determined decision.
Mr Hywood announced on Monday that the company would shed 1900 staff, –Did you know that News Ltd is also sacking staff?–  close its two biggest printing facilities and adopt a tabloid newsprint format for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, as it shifted its focus towards digital publishing.
Greens senator Scott Ludlam wrote yesterday to Senator Conroy and opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull, asking them to back legislation that would impose fines or other penalties on Mrs Rinehart if she breached the Fairfax charter.
Mr Turnbull rejected the idea, saying: "A free press above all means freedom from government influence and control.”
Turnbull may be the architect of the Liberal so-called inept confusion, inaction & inability to present a cogent & organised opposition to the revenue raising “carbon tax”, and these words were certainly only uttered because he is in opposition and there playing ’the role’ in the political charade designed to give you the feeling and belief that you are free, but, in this instance he is absolutely correct. 
Senator Conroy declared the government was not going to start legislating to interfere in any way with editorial independence.
This how dumb and powerless they think you are. The Australian & Conroy have the temerity to place this statement just a few paragraphs away from their declarations to have a new media “laws”–read legislation.
Mr Gibbons would not reveal what he intended to say on Monday but his motion attacks media owners in general for faults including "inappropriate relations" with politicians, "socially unacceptable" ways of gathering news and a failure to distinguish between factual news and editorial opinion.
"Falling circulations, declining sales revenues and failed business models are all evidence . . . of an industry that has lost its social licence to operate," the motion says.
According to this a ‘social licence’ is adjudicated against a business model & Rinehart would therefore be ‘good to go’ if the bottom line was healthier....hmmm, sounds like more lies to me.
The motion would support legislation to appoint a new regulator to oversee standards and impose sanctions on companies. –This appears just 3 short pragraphs after Conroy declares that "the government was not going to start legislating to interfere in any way with editorial independence.”– It would have adequate resources to enforce penalties on "financially and politically powerful news media owners”. but will more than likely use this supposed mandate to shut down political opinion that it disagrees with like this page,’centreflunk’ which was shut down by John Coward, and other independent news sources that support views that the government doesn’t like such as the Occupy movement, Originie rights, educational sites about fluoride, false flag op’s, currency creation and a whole pile of other stuff that you are lied to about each and every day. 
Labor MP John Murphy expressed fears about potential interference in the work of individual journalists, such as Michelle Grattan, who he said was an "icon" of the company. "I am very concerned about the future of Fairfax and its editorial independence because Mrs Rinehart hasn't given any commitment that she won't interfere in the independence of the papers," Mr Murphy said.
Oh dear, poor Michelle with her 30 odd year journalistic experience could not secure another job as a journalist?? This known as trying to create and use emotional leverage.
Fellow Labor MP Kelvin Thomson said Mrs Rinehart's moves on Fairfax threatened the company if she did not endorse the editorial charter.
That said. If she DID  join the freemasons, I mean endorse the editorial charter, then all these problems would melt away as if by magic and she will be re-embraced in the boys club freemasonry
Queensland Nationals MP Paul Neville, a key player in the Howard government's media reforms six years ago, questioned the assumption that Mrs Rinehart's plans were bad for Fairfax –but not that government interference in the media & freedom of speech is bad for the community–. He noted Mrs Rinehart had been successful with her business ventures and could be so with Fairfax.
All this brouhaha, and isn’t Gina looking at buying an amount that would take up to just under 20%???

No comments:

Post a Comment