Wow ! Retired Federal Court Judge Roy Finkelstein has issued a 470 page report on media accountability . The long and short of this report is to recommend a News Media Council be set up to license the press and to censor news reporting and political commentary.

This new 'Ministry of Truth ' would consist of a judge or lawyer as its chairman, appointed by the government, and 20 censors . They would be responsible for altering content or even going so far as to ban news and editiorial .

Not only would the print news come under their jurisdiction ;but they would also have the power to control the content of every magazine with a print run of 3,000 copies ,and censor major net sites that could be described as publishing "news, information and opinion of current value.".and has more than15,000 hits a year.

The judge pretty much admits in the report that he thinks the people of Australia are too stupid to be allowed to see the truth ,and that is why free speech should be repressed because "Often...., readers are not in a position to make a properly informed judgement." . (paragraph 4:10 of the report)
http://www.justinian.com.au/storage/pdf/Finkelstein_Report.pdf


This is intellectual arrogance at its most breathtaking. And it’s a great argument against democracy. If, as Finkelstein claims, people aren’t smart enough to decide for themselves the merits of what they see in the media then they’re certainly not smart enough to decide who to vote for.

This is the totalitarian fallacy: don’t let the people decide (because the people are too stupid), let judges and academics decide for them.
A failure to defend liberty (http://afr.com/p/opinion/failure_to_defend_liberty_wAJSn9pqMROKLz9sLhFrbM)

The report secifically targets government critics ;especially ones opposed to green policies like the carbon tax. Obviously their opinions needs to be suppressed and expunged from the public debate .

The publisher of the conservative publication Quadrant has reacted strongly to the report :


Finkelstein recommends that publishers who distribute more than 3000 copies of print per issue, or news internet sites with a minimum of 15,000 hits per year, would be subject to the dictates of his News Media Council. Quadrant falls well within this range. We currently print 8500 copies of the magazine per edition and in the past twelve months Quadrant Online had no less than 1.4 million page views (with more than 5 million hits) from 613,483 visits by 276,179 unique visitors.

So we come well within Finkelstein’s scope. If his oppressive scheme is ever implemented, we would feel compelled to defend the long tradition of press freedom by engaging in civil disobedience. While ever I am editor, Quadrant would not recognise the News Media Council’s authority, we would not observe its restrictions, and we would not obey its instructions, whatever the price. We hope other publishers will take a similar stand.

Quadrant Online - Keith Windschuttle (http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/4/keith-windschuttle)

Good for him ,free thinking people around the world should stand in solidarity with him. Australia is the 'canary in the coal mine' . As we have seen already this year... our 1st Amendment Rights are far from secure.

I wonder if this will soon be a underground group more world wide?

Radio Free China (http://radiofreechina.wordpress.com/)

This is what comes from abuses of freedom by the media. The inquiry which made these recommendations was set up to determine whether Australians were subject to the same abuses observed in the UK. As opposition leader Abbott has said the inquiry did excellent work but made inappropriate recommendations. Its recommendations could only be recommended by a government wanting to oppress its people and would be electoral suicide.

They would repress a free press because they don't like Murdoch..

They have not liked Murdoch for a long time but have not repressed anyone. The concerns here are whether the behaviour is isolated to the UK or is general corporate practice by the Murdoch press. The Murdoch press gets a great deal of milage out of being confrontational towards the government of the day although they tend to favour the conservative side of politics. The recommendations are the result of the ratbag side of socialist politics gaining a forum, a response to a socialist government instituting a witchhunt in the first place. Because of the size of the market, Australians don't enjoy the wide ranging spectrum of the press available in other places. Here basically we have Fairfax or Murdoch dominating the news media although we are largely free of the tabloid excesses common in the UK

They would repress a free press because they don't like Murdoch ..

No, they would repress Newscorp because their record shows they are not a fit and proper to hold a broadcast license.

If they have violated your rules then their license should be pulled. But this goes WAY beyond that . You will have all the news the government deems worthy of printing .

Fr Chuck is right . We will have to set up the equivant of Radio Free Australia .

Yes you should then your own people would be better informed. I frequently compare the news offerings of the Fairfax and Murdoch press and the ABC, I find little difference between them indicating they source much of their content from the same place. Is this indicative of government censorship? No, just laziness on the part of the journalists

We have an interesting program here called Media Watch which looks closely at the content of various articles pointing out where vested interests have interferred with reporting

But this goes WAY beyond that . You will have all the news the goverment deems worthy of printing .



Hi Tom,

Ok, you've got us. We are a totalitarian nation.

Tut

Yes Tom we are subversive, you should break off your association now before you are contaminated, you have been warned.

Oh wait a minute, I forgot, yours is the nation that elected both BO and Bush so you can hardly talk about us.