Australia's Media Laws

The Howard crusade to stamp out any dissent in Australian public life continues at apace. First, he got rid of those annoying leftwing types at Australian unions by abolishing VSU fees, then he started to stack the ABC board with extreme anti-ABC conservatives like Keith Windschuttle and Janet Albrechtsen. Now he has turned his attention to the commercial media sector. Now what does he see before him? A country whose media is completely and utterly dominated by PBL and News Ltd - both big supporters of the Liberal party. But hang on, what's this?! Two widely read papers exist in Melbourne (The Age) and Sydney (The Sydney Morning Herald) that don't churn out Liberal propaganda on a day to day basis - they must be crushed!! That's clearly too much diversity and opposition for our John - TWO broadsheet papers not toeing the line in a country of 20 million.

And so this is how we have got to today's media laws which are being rammed through the senate with Barnaby Joyce meekly capitulating as usual and deciding to vote with the government.

The current laws, introduced by Keating, do not allow one media owner to control more than one medium ('mediums' in this instance being free to air TV, free to air Radio and newspapers) in a particular marketplace. So Murdoch can only own a newspaper in Sydney and Melbourne but not a free to air TV channel or a radio station. Packer can own magazines and a TV channel in Perth but not a newspaper as well. These restrictions ensure a diversity in the local media marketplace and more importantly ensure a diversity of opinion. Why the hell is there any public interest imperative in relaxing these restrictions so that media conglomerates can own 2 out of 3 mediums in one market?

Well, it's obvious. When the leash is taken off, the Packers will be making a beeline for Fairfax, owner of The Age & SMH, and suddenly the only mainstream voices in the Australia media that offer any serious criticism of the Liberal government will be gutted and transformed into yet more Conservative rags.

Who exactly has demanded these changes? The Australian public? I don't think giving yet more power and money to the Murdochs and Packers was on top of most people's national priorities. I can't see many people thinking 'Well I know the public education system is a mess, interest rate rises are crippling me, Iraq is a disaster and my job security has disintegrated since the IR laws BUT my number one priority is that that nice Mr Murdoch and that lovely Mr Packer be given more control over the information I receive. I mean the other things are kind of important but I would rather parliament use it's precious time to help those two fellows out...'

I have written before about the scandal that is media law in Australia and this is more proof of the pudding. It's clear that the consumer is utterly irrelevant in media regulations and that the laws are shaped purely for the benefit of the Liberal Party and its media mogul chums and benefactors.

It's nothing less than a scandal and I would like to hear a single reason given by the government as to why these new laws are in the public interest. You won't hear a simple reason given and any spin trotted out by Coonan and her bunch of cunts will be vacuous nonsense banged out simply to deceive and fool the Australian public into thinking that the government is acting in their interest.

Pffft.