Unsurprisingly The Australian did not publish my letter to the editor below defending Malcolm Turnbull.
Your editorial ‘Malcolm’s excellent adventure’ (The
Australian 6 June) contained the most extraordinary claims about the
Minister for Communications, namely that he has been something other than a
team player as Minister.
A fact used as evidence for the claim is the disloyalty to
conservatives displayed in launching Morry Schwartz’s The Saturday Paper. This
is the Minister who is proposing to weaken cross media ownership laws in a move
widely perceived to favour the interests of News Corp.
The Minister on launching the paper sought to make the case
that the current laws are not required to ensure diversity. This is the case he
needs to make if reform is to occur.
The Australian has long made the case that it
is entitled to be a conservative newspaper. So too are Schwartz’s stable of
publications entitled to be ‘left-wing’. The Australian has feasted on a
series of NBN stories largely provided by Mr Turnbull’s office
Mr Turnbull might add to his list. Why with friends like The
Australian do the Liberals need enemies.
The simple fact is that Mr Turnbull at least recognises the importance of diversity in news coverage, a diversity that is important to the operation of democracy. This piece in On Line Opinion captures the essential elements of that argument. However its conclusion is wrong - the media doesn't need to be "impartial" (which is not the same as accurate or even objective) so long as it is sufficiently diverse in the range of partiality represented.
I have also previously commented that the actual influence of the Murdoch press is probably over-rated. The difficulty is that it is Mr Murdoch himself that wants us all to believe how influential he is.
So on this day as Mr Abbott has dined with the person I think the PM has called Australia's greatest businessman (who has chosen to live in what Mr Abbott calls the world's greatest country) let us hop that the conversation might have been two way. Let us hope that Mr Abbott explained that any change to cross media ownership laws has to be based on preservation of diversity rather than Mr Abbott just turned up to take orders.
Showing posts with label Murdoch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Murdoch. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Murdochs big show
I did not watch all of the Murdochs' appearance before the UK Parliamentary committee overnight. From what I did see I reach the following conclusions.
1. If the scenario painted by Rupert and James that the UK issues were all at the delegation level of the CEO in the UK then Rupert should have declined to appear.
2. Rupert clearly revealed that there is no effective managerial risk management process. There are things that occurred that were not notified to News Corp's senior executives that should have been.
3. Rupert Murdoch is now old - you could not reach a conclusion from watching his performance that he should be the CEO and Chairman of a major listed company.
4. News Limited's approach to the ethical questions has been to deal with them exclusively as legal questions, hence the excessive reliance on investigations by police rather than their own investigations.
From my purchase point the travesty would be if James takes a fall and Rupert survives. The problem of culture and governance that befell the company and resulted in its need to close NotW starts and ends with Rupert.
How can the shareholders, including his own family, not see that?
But really this video says it all...
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
1. If the scenario painted by Rupert and James that the UK issues were all at the delegation level of the CEO in the UK then Rupert should have declined to appear.
2. Rupert clearly revealed that there is no effective managerial risk management process. There are things that occurred that were not notified to News Corp's senior executives that should have been.
3. Rupert Murdoch is now old - you could not reach a conclusion from watching his performance that he should be the CEO and Chairman of a major listed company.
4. News Limited's approach to the ethical questions has been to deal with them exclusively as legal questions, hence the excessive reliance on investigations by police rather than their own investigations.
From my purchase point the travesty would be if James takes a fall and Rupert survives. The problem of culture and governance that befell the company and resulted in its need to close NotW starts and ends with Rupert.
How can the shareholders, including his own family, not see that?
But really this video says it all...
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, July 11, 2011
I feel sorry for Kerry Stokes
Let's be clear, Sky News in Australia is a JV that not only includes News Ltd (through BShyB) but also Kerry Stokes' Seven Network and the Nine Network. So in the consideration of the Australian Network TV tender Stephen Conroy has to deal with not one but three powerful media interests - two still being "mogul" controlled.
I'm not one of those who immediately see Conroy's interest as being supporting the ABC's bid. Successive Communications Ministers have often sided with the political imperative of satisfying the moguls before supporting the public broadcaster.
But how, one asks, could the Government seriously contemplate awarding a contract for the flagship of soft-diplomacy, our broadcast of "Australian values" to the region and beyond be tainted by the involvement of an empire that is now in such disgrace.
Let's be clear this is a Murdoch issue, not a News of the World one. as the referred article notes;
The hacking scandal currently shaking Rupert Murdoch’s empire will surprise only those who have willfully blinded themselves to that empire’s pernicious influence on journalism in the English-speaking world. Too many of us have winked in amusement at the salaciousness without considering the larger corruption of journalism and politics promulgated by Murdoch Culture on both sides of the Atlantic. ...
Private detectives and phone hackers do not become the primary sources of a newspaper’s information without the tacit knowledge and approval of the people at the top, all the more so in the case of newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, according to those who know him best.
As one of his former top executives—once a close aide—told me, “This scandal and all its implications could not have happened anywhere else. Only in Murdoch’s orbit. The hacking at News of the World was done on an industrial scale. More than anyone, Murdoch invented and established this culture in the newsroom, where you do whatever it takes to get the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify the means.”
It is worth noting that the ownership in Sky News is NOT by the local News Limited, but by BSkyB - which in turn is part of News International (only controlled though - Murdoch is currently seeking full ownership).
Quite simply Sky News should no longer be considered on ethical grounds - which seems harsh to Seven and Nine, but unavoidable so long as Murdoch shows no contrition - or even understanding about his moral bankruptcy. Murdoch's attitude is telling as this report notes;
David Cameron was given a personal guarantee by Rupert Murdoch that Andy Coulson was safe to take on as his Downing Street press chief, The Independent on Sunday learnt yesterday, as the fallout from the News of the World phone-hacking scandal threatened to escalate into all-out war between the UK's two most powerful men.
Rupert Murdoch has survived a number of "near death" experiences in the past - all previously near financial crises. This time the stakes are even bigger - it is his own credibility that is at stake. My personal bet is that Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch will not be senior executives at News Corp by the end of August.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I'm not one of those who immediately see Conroy's interest as being supporting the ABC's bid. Successive Communications Ministers have often sided with the political imperative of satisfying the moguls before supporting the public broadcaster.
But how, one asks, could the Government seriously contemplate awarding a contract for the flagship of soft-diplomacy, our broadcast of "Australian values" to the region and beyond be tainted by the involvement of an empire that is now in such disgrace.
Let's be clear this is a Murdoch issue, not a News of the World one. as the referred article notes;
The hacking scandal currently shaking Rupert Murdoch’s empire will surprise only those who have willfully blinded themselves to that empire’s pernicious influence on journalism in the English-speaking world. Too many of us have winked in amusement at the salaciousness without considering the larger corruption of journalism and politics promulgated by Murdoch Culture on both sides of the Atlantic. ...
Private detectives and phone hackers do not become the primary sources of a newspaper’s information without the tacit knowledge and approval of the people at the top, all the more so in the case of newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, according to those who know him best.
As one of his former top executives—once a close aide—told me, “This scandal and all its implications could not have happened anywhere else. Only in Murdoch’s orbit. The hacking at News of the World was done on an industrial scale. More than anyone, Murdoch invented and established this culture in the newsroom, where you do whatever it takes to get the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify the means.”
It is worth noting that the ownership in Sky News is NOT by the local News Limited, but by BSkyB - which in turn is part of News International (only controlled though - Murdoch is currently seeking full ownership).
Quite simply Sky News should no longer be considered on ethical grounds - which seems harsh to Seven and Nine, but unavoidable so long as Murdoch shows no contrition - or even understanding about his moral bankruptcy. Murdoch's attitude is telling as this report notes;
David Cameron was given a personal guarantee by Rupert Murdoch that Andy Coulson was safe to take on as his Downing Street press chief, The Independent on Sunday learnt yesterday, as the fallout from the News of the World phone-hacking scandal threatened to escalate into all-out war between the UK's two most powerful men.
Rupert Murdoch has survived a number of "near death" experiences in the past - all previously near financial crises. This time the stakes are even bigger - it is his own credibility that is at stake. My personal bet is that Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch will not be senior executives at News Corp by the end of August.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, July 08, 2011
The power of Social Media - the new News of the World
News International has announced the closure of News of the World.
We all know this is the result of the hacking scandal - but why close?
Ultimately the masthead was being rapidly abandoned by advertisers - in part fuelled by a Twitter campaign.
And Facebook provided a place for others to vent anger. I heard a freport but can't find it that a Facebook group was encouraging people to confront anyone with a copy of NotW to get them not to buy another.
The interesting question is whether NotW is the only British tabloid to engage in the hacking, with one Australian academic speculating that others were at it too.
This is another example of "mob-rule" this time potentially positive. But in a highly connected world everyone in business and politics needs to understand how what once might have been a mere legal problem or embarrassment can turn into complete devastation very, very quickly.
Meanwhile the question remains how far up the tree there was knowledge of these practices?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
We all know this is the result of the hacking scandal - but why close?
Ultimately the masthead was being rapidly abandoned by advertisers - in part fuelled by a Twitter campaign.
And Facebook provided a place for others to vent anger. I heard a freport but can't find it that a Facebook group was encouraging people to confront anyone with a copy of NotW to get them not to buy another.
The interesting question is whether NotW is the only British tabloid to engage in the hacking, with one Australian academic speculating that others were at it too.
This is another example of "mob-rule" this time potentially positive. But in a highly connected world everyone in business and politics needs to understand how what once might have been a mere legal problem or embarrassment can turn into complete devastation very, very quickly.
Meanwhile the question remains how far up the tree there was knowledge of these practices?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Payback
High Grant has suffered at the hands of the paparazzi and celebrity journalism and has paid back in an article in New Statesman.
On one level it simply feels like payback - a topic on which I'll return to in this post.
But while he's used the tools of payback by secretly recording the conversation he has used the interview to skillfully reveal the moral question at the heart of this. As Hugh Grant says his job is acting not being a celebrity, the intrusions cannot be justified on the grounds that his job is being a celebrity.
The former journalist's other defence is based on the wealth of the celebrities - which feels like it is some kind of "social interest tax" argument. It is the same kind of distorted morality that I outlined in an itNews story on copyright.
As I'm want to actually spend time considering morals, this is an opportune time to consider the theory of "payback".
The biblical adage of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is often used as a justification for an approach to justice that extracts direct revenge. As first introduced in the bible at Exodus 21:24 it reads just like that, that the punishment is to be exactly that.
But it is interesting to note that the verse before basically carries the instruction that (in a case where a woman miscarries due to being injured) the victim (well, being patriarchal, the husband of the victim) can set the penalty.
In this context then Exodus 21:24 can be read as an instruction on the MAXIMUM penalty that can apply. That is, you should not exact two eyes for an eye (or cut off the hand of a thief, etc).
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount used the text in one of his "you have heard it said..." pieces. He repudiates the general tenor and introduces the concept of "turning the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38).
Justice is not retribution. Justice is not about the psychological gobbeledy-gook of "closure" nor about "victims rights". Justice is about the process of getting everyone to follow the rules and having appropriate consequences for not following them. The twin biblical invocations are that the punishment should never be more extreme than the crime, and that the punishment should not be motivated by revenge.
This is the version of "judeo-christianity" that has been successful in building the modern democratic market economy state. But to get there you have to accept that you need a system of rules. That's what the newspapers and their staff in the UK seem to have completely forgotten.
Finally, we return to the question of Murdoch. I've noted the weazel words that News Limited has used thus far. The question remains "did Murdoch know"? If the answer is "yes" he needs to be far more direct about owning up and admitting the error. If the answer is "no" he needs to explain the failure of governance in the corporation and what he is doing about it. But he can't just stay silent.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
On one level it simply feels like payback - a topic on which I'll return to in this post.
But while he's used the tools of payback by secretly recording the conversation he has used the interview to skillfully reveal the moral question at the heart of this. As Hugh Grant says his job is acting not being a celebrity, the intrusions cannot be justified on the grounds that his job is being a celebrity.
The former journalist's other defence is based on the wealth of the celebrities - which feels like it is some kind of "social interest tax" argument. It is the same kind of distorted morality that I outlined in an itNews story on copyright.
As I'm want to actually spend time considering morals, this is an opportune time to consider the theory of "payback".
The biblical adage of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is often used as a justification for an approach to justice that extracts direct revenge. As first introduced in the bible at Exodus 21:24 it reads just like that, that the punishment is to be exactly that.
But it is interesting to note that the verse before basically carries the instruction that (in a case where a woman miscarries due to being injured) the victim (well, being patriarchal, the husband of the victim) can set the penalty.
In this context then Exodus 21:24 can be read as an instruction on the MAXIMUM penalty that can apply. That is, you should not exact two eyes for an eye (or cut off the hand of a thief, etc).
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount used the text in one of his "you have heard it said..." pieces. He repudiates the general tenor and introduces the concept of "turning the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38).
Justice is not retribution. Justice is not about the psychological gobbeledy-gook of "closure" nor about "victims rights". Justice is about the process of getting everyone to follow the rules and having appropriate consequences for not following them. The twin biblical invocations are that the punishment should never be more extreme than the crime, and that the punishment should not be motivated by revenge.
This is the version of "judeo-christianity" that has been successful in building the modern democratic market economy state. But to get there you have to accept that you need a system of rules. That's what the newspapers and their staff in the UK seem to have completely forgotten.
Finally, we return to the question of Murdoch. I've noted the weazel words that News Limited has used thus far. The question remains "did Murdoch know"? If the answer is "yes" he needs to be far more direct about owning up and admitting the error. If the answer is "no" he needs to explain the failure of governance in the corporation and what he is doing about it. But he can't just stay silent.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, April 11, 2011
How not to admit your mistakes
Heaps of coverage of News International (the UK outfit of News Corp, the publishers of both The Times and News of the World) and its apology and compensation scheme over the phone-tapping scandal in the UK.
It takes some work to find it, but the full release makes an interesting read.
The key para reads;
That said, past behaviour at the News of the World in relation to voicemail interception is a matter of genuine regret. It is now apparent that our previous inquiries failed to uncover important evidence and we acknowledge our actions then were not sufficiently robust.
"Genuine regret" is probably the weakest apology that could be made, and it appears the greatest regret is about their investigation of the matter rather than the tapping in the first place.
The release goes on;
News International’s commitment to our readers and pride in our award-winning journalism remains undiminished. We will continue to engage with and challenge those who attempt to restrict our industry’s freedom to undertake responsible investigative reporting in the public interest.
There is no element here of the words one might expect to see. That is "News International's commitment is to the ethical standards of journalism and respect for the law." Instead it is to "praise" their journalists and to suggest that they are up for a fight on any attempt to restrict them.
News Corp globally, and Rupert Murdoch in particular, would be amongst the first to employ the standard right-wing littany that "rights come with responsibilities". But here they argue that their "rights" should not be infringed no matter how irresponsible they have been.
I hope this release gets a good airing on the ABC's Media Watch, or even the original Media Watch run by Gerard Henderson!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
It takes some work to find it, but the full release makes an interesting read.
The key para reads;
That said, past behaviour at the News of the World in relation to voicemail interception is a matter of genuine regret. It is now apparent that our previous inquiries failed to uncover important evidence and we acknowledge our actions then were not sufficiently robust.
"Genuine regret" is probably the weakest apology that could be made, and it appears the greatest regret is about their investigation of the matter rather than the tapping in the first place.
The release goes on;
News International’s commitment to our readers and pride in our award-winning journalism remains undiminished. We will continue to engage with and challenge those who attempt to restrict our industry’s freedom to undertake responsible investigative reporting in the public interest.
There is no element here of the words one might expect to see. That is "News International's commitment is to the ethical standards of journalism and respect for the law." Instead it is to "praise" their journalists and to suggest that they are up for a fight on any attempt to restrict them.
News Corp globally, and Rupert Murdoch in particular, would be amongst the first to employ the standard right-wing littany that "rights come with responsibilities". But here they argue that their "rights" should not be infringed no matter how irresponsible they have been.
I hope this release gets a good airing on the ABC's Media Watch, or even the original Media Watch run by Gerard Henderson!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)