Nanny State wants greater media control

The Gillard government has responded to press criticism with a very threatening tactic.To wit, an “independent” inquiry into the media initiated by Parliamentary bully boy and Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy.It will be run by former Federal Court Justice Ray Finkelstein, QC, with assistance from former journalist Matthew Ricketson, now a Canberra academic.

Some idea of the direction the judge wishes to take his inquiry can be gleaned from a letter he recently sent to editors around the nation in which he asks what consideration they give to “social responsibilities”. “But I am particularly interested to know more directly whether, and to what extent, you subscribe to the view that the press has social responsibilities. A follow up question is how this social responsibility is, or should be, implemented,” he wrote. In these challenging times, when print media is losing circulation as younger readers migrate to the various social media platforms, it would seem that it is not enough for an editor to publish a lively entertaining, informative and educational sheet, he must also be looking over his shoulder for society’s watchdogs. Conroy, through the judge, wants to ensure that the nanny state sits in the editorial conferences. The Australian Press Council, which has served the nation with better than average distinction since 1976, is responsible for one of three submissions thus far received by the Conroy inquiry. They can all be read here: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/consultation The APC is currently headed by Julian Disney, a noted reformer, who is a part-time Professor and Director of the Social Justice Project at the University of NSW, co-chair of Anti-Poverty Week, and has previously been Professor of Public Law at the ANU, coordinator of the Sydney Welfare Rights Centre, a president of the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) and the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS). In his submission to the inquiry he canvasses the possibility of creating within the APC a new position of Director of Standards; the power to impose fines up to a $30,000 and expanding the role and staff of the council with extra funding from non-media sources, including governments. He also wants it to advertise for more complaints, much as the useless State government anti-discrimination bodies do now. The beauty of the current council is that those who have sought redress through its offices have done so without lawyers, and often after signing waivers that might prevent them from taking further action. It provided accessible mediation and those publications which were found to be in the wrong generally published the council’s adjudications. The submission seeks to transform the role of the council. Standards, for starters, are very much in the eye of the beholder. Some people like pokies, some don't. Some like wine, some prefer beer. Some loath alcohol full stop. Fairfax, for example, was slow to publish alternate views on climate change. By its standards, there was just no discussion to be had about the so-called accepted science. The standards of a newspaper should be set by its editor who, properly, must have regard for the newspaper’s audience. They should not be set by a committee anxious to do a little apple-polishing for a nanny-state government. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the US Declaration of Independence had some trenchant views on the freedom of the press which Conroy, Finkelstein and Disney should read. “Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it,” he wrote in 1786. The following year he refined this thought some, saying: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” The important line is “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”. Free speech should be the guiding light of every government, it is the first thing so-called progressives wish to destroy.