Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Thursday, July 21, 2005

Reading between the (not so subtle) lines

While Rupert Murdoch and John Howard engage in some mutually satisfactory back-slapping in Washington this week, letter writers to the Sydney Morning Herald explain the agenda better than any journalist from the Fairfax stable.

Peter Friend of Heathcote writes:

"Rupert Murdoch is a man who has never had any difficulty confusing his version of the world with reality. He was a supporter of the Keating Government until it wouldn't bend to his desires. His view of the relationship with the United States then was quite different to the way he sucked up to John Howard in Washington this week. He has joined Alexander Downer as a historian of political convenience.

"This latest analysis will rank with his confident prediction that the invasion of Iraq would be a great thing for the world because it would deliver a $US20 a barrel oil price.

"Maybe it's to do with the upcoming changes to cross-media ownership regulations."

And speaking of cross media changes, the Australian's lead Media article today goes a long way without saying very much. And how should readers interpret this line? "The federal Government is considering a way to ensure a minimum level of media diversity if cross-media restrictions are removed later this year."

So there you have it. The government cares enough about the media that they're determined to ensure "minimum levels" of diversity, though not necessarily ownership. Indeed, there's a fine line between minimum and minimal. Journalist Jane Schultze writes as if this decision by Communications Minister Helen Coonan is a concession. Surely a functioning democracy should demand a great range of media ownership? But then, Australia has the one of the most tightly controlled media environments in the Western world. We're an example to exactly nobody.

2 Comments:

Blogger Shay said...

"Maybe it's to do with the upcoming changes to cross-media ownership regulations."

Great letter, but is there any need to use the word "maybe"? Once Howard delivers Packer and Murdoch the payday they've been coveting since the tragic '80s, when all but Sydney and Melbourne were left without an alternative press, you can shut the gate for the next couple of elections, because they will owe Howard big time. The propaganda will be even more extreme than it has been since 9/11.

I would have expected the Fairfax press to be the beacon of hope in all this, but bizarrely they are supporting the changes, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are being delivered to Kerry in a handbasket.

Add to this the continued vandalism of the ABC, and in five years' time all that will be worth reading are blogs. What a frightening future.

Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:43:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

I agree, we can ditch the 'maybe.'
Fairfax are supporting all this because they no longer see themselves as a news company, but as a share price that could be higher. None of the board members have any media experience and they're hoping to increase their takings from any take-over.
The coming years are going to descent into more gross propaganda than before.
Soon, I hope, people will realise that their media outlets are increasingly propaganda tools for govt and business interests (more than now!)...

Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:12:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home