6 ms·

If you were from Australia I'd let your whole post go. Murdoch isn't that powerful. When the media tells people what they want to hear, it's very difficult fro

If you were from Australia I'd let your whole post go. Murdoch isn't that powerful. When the media tells people what they want to hear, it's very difficult from the outside to figure out who's the one pulling the shots. The AFP raided the ABC to ensure accuracy of a report about military action that was released under the reign of a far left management. Now that Ita Buttrose is in charge, you won't see that again. The Australian people trust their own government several orders of magnitude more than the foreign SV tech companies that put people out of jobs and push around politics which America can barely reign in.

rswail 7y ago
As an Australian, describing what the AFP did when raiding the ABC was intended as intimidation and nothing else. The report on the actions of the Australian military forces that may constitute war crimes. They know who leaked the information, he is already indicted for trial. Similarly, and in the same week, raids by the AFP on a reporter from News Corporation, shows that your slur of ABC management as being "far left" is complete rubbish. The management of the ABC has not changed. Ita Buttrose is the chair of the ABC board, which specifically does not involve itself in editorial decisions. So Australians do not "trust" their own government, particularly after the various "anti terrorist" legislation that has creeped and allows ASIO etc to detain people for increasing periods of time without charge, or even notification that they are held (ie no habeas corpus). The ACCC is one of the few Australian regulators that actually act on behalf of their stakeholders, ie the consumers of Australia. Other regulators and law enforcement have either suffered extensive "regulatory capture" (particularly APRA and ASIC) or mission creep (AFP, "Border Force" etc).
- friendlybus 7y ago
  If it were a slur of the ABC that it was far left, I would be happy. https://youtu.be/kxgeevlRElw?t=445 https://youtu.be/kxgeevlRElw?t=445 It was the managing director, Michelle Guthrie that was very quickly sacked and replaced. Turnbull in his Oxford Union address spoke about maintaining the ABC's accuracy. edit: Just to expand on Turnbull's point of view a bit here, because it applies with the social media angle. Turnbull's election run was plagued with fake phone sms's saying that he would privatize Medicare (gov health provider, loss making, impossible to run as private business). It scared some people to the point of voting the other way. He also struggled with social media stories about the way the world was run. The old thinking was to not dignify the stories with airtime. But that didn't work, so later on in his ministership, his party did what they could to get ahead of the stories and squash them, because social media gave them an infinite platform. Turnbull defended the ABC's accuracy as a virtue, even though it speaks the other side of the political table to him, precisely because having an accurate ABC was key to having a verifiably true source for stories. This is relevant to the discussion about the government wanting access to social media platforms that do not adequately restrict fake content. I also share a belief that the ACCC works well. >Other regulators and law enforcement have either suffered extensive "regulatory capture" (particularly APRA and ASIC) or mission creep (AFP, "Border Force" etc). I have family that have worked in the banking sector. The regulations in Australia (up until recently at least) are strict to the point of boring. Maybe things have changed in the last 10 years, but the cases of fraud that are being dragged through the royal commission at the moment pale in comparison to the recession that was prevented by having sane regulations pre-2008.
jacques_chester 7y ago
> The AFP raided the ABC to ensure accuracy of a report about military action that was released under the reign of a far left management. A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response. I don't care how biased and towards what wing.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  It's the government's broadcaster. This is not a private company. They own it.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    That's irrelevant. Police raids are not a proportionate response to inaccuracy, regardless of ownership, bias, wing, hair colour, day of the week, preferred cologne or any other criteria whatsoever.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? They can just do it behind closed doors and we wouldn't know.
      - jacques_chester 7y ago
        > I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? The difference is not raiding journalists for reporting on matters of public interest.
        friendlybus 7y ago
        So if they undermine reporting for matters of public interest in private it's okay? Just be aware you don't actually have control here.
  - sdwisely 7y ago
    It's a public broadcaster, WE own it. The idea that the government should set the agenda for it either as an organization or via intimidation is insanity. It should represent the diversity of people that it in itself is there for. It should have diversity of political thought, culture and the ability to report on whatever it can fact check.
neetle 7y ago
Murdoch owns 2/3rd of all newspapers and their associated brands in Australia. Arguing that he's "not that powerful" is disingenuous. IIRC, that raid was over an article that was a few years old at that point. If it was about national security, it wouldn't have been delayed that long. It was a political stunt and intimidation.
- matnewton85 7y ago
  Less powerful than you’d think. If you’re familiar with the zones of popularity of his main newspapers, you’d see that they correlate very nicely with Labor-held electorates. (Just think about your own personal experiences: in a typical Liberal electorate, which paper is the most read? In a typical Labor electorate, which paper is the most read?) You might call it the Murdoch Paradox.

rswail 7y ago

As an Australian, describing what the AFP did when raiding the ABC was intended as intimidation and nothing else. The report on the actions of the Australian military forces that may constitute war crimes. They know who leaked the information, he is already indicted for trial. Similarly, and in the same week, raids by the AFP on a reporter from News Corporation, shows that your slur of ABC management as being "far left" is complete rubbish. The management of the ABC has not changed. Ita Buttrose is the chair of the ABC board, which specifically does not involve itself in editorial decisions. So Australians do not "trust" their own government, particularly after the various "anti terrorist" legislation that has creeped and allows ASIO etc to detain people for increasing periods of time without charge, or even notification that they are held (ie no habeas corpus). The ACCC is one of the few Australian regulators that actually act on behalf of their stakeholders, ie the consumers of Australia. Other regulators and law enforcement have either suffered extensive "regulatory capture" (particularly APRA and ASIC) or mission creep (AFP, "Border Force" etc).

friendlybus 7y ago
If it were a slur of the ABC that it was far left, I would be happy. https://youtu.be/kxgeevlRElw?t=445 https://youtu.be/kxgeevlRElw?t=445 It was the managing director, Michelle Guthrie that was very quickly sacked and replaced. Turnbull in his Oxford Union address spoke about maintaining the ABC's accuracy. edit: Just to expand on Turnbull's point of view a bit here, because it applies with the social media angle. Turnbull's election run was plagued with fake phone sms's saying that he would privatize Medicare (gov health provider, loss making, impossible to run as private business). It scared some people to the point of voting the other way. He also struggled with social media stories about the way the world was run. The old thinking was to not dignify the stories with airtime. But that didn't work, so later on in his ministership, his party did what they could to get ahead of the stories and squash them, because social media gave them an infinite platform. Turnbull defended the ABC's accuracy as a virtue, even though it speaks the other side of the political table to him, precisely because having an accurate ABC was key to having a verifiably true source for stories. This is relevant to the discussion about the government wanting access to social media platforms that do not adequately restrict fake content. I also share a belief that the ACCC works well. >Other regulators and law enforcement have either suffered extensive "regulatory capture" (particularly APRA and ASIC) or mission creep (AFP, "Border Force" etc). I have family that have worked in the banking sector. The regulations in Australia (up until recently at least) are strict to the point of boring. Maybe things have changed in the last 10 years, but the cases of fraud that are being dragged through the royal commission at the moment pale in comparison to the recession that was prevented by having sane regulations pre-2008.

jacques_chester 7y ago

> The AFP raided the ABC to ensure accuracy of a report about military action that was released under the reign of a far left management. A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response. I don't care how biased and towards what wing.

friendlybus 7y ago
It's the government's broadcaster. This is not a private company. They own it.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  That's irrelevant. Police raids are not a proportionate response to inaccuracy, regardless of ownership, bias, wing, hair colour, day of the week, preferred cologne or any other criteria whatsoever.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? They can just do it behind closed doors and we wouldn't know.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      > I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? The difference is not raiding journalists for reporting on matters of public interest.
      - friendlybus 7y ago
        So if they undermine reporting for matters of public interest in private it's okay? Just be aware you don't actually have control here.
- sdwisely 7y ago
  It's a public broadcaster, WE own it. The idea that the government should set the agenda for it either as an organization or via intimidation is insanity. It should represent the diversity of people that it in itself is there for. It should have diversity of political thought, culture and the ability to report on whatever it can fact check.

neetle 7y ago

Murdoch owns 2/3rd of all newspapers and their associated brands in Australia. Arguing that he's "not that powerful" is disingenuous. IIRC, that raid was over an article that was a few years old at that point. If it was about national security, it wouldn't have been delayed that long. It was a political stunt and intimidation.

matnewton85 7y ago
Less powerful than you’d think. If you’re familiar with the zones of popularity of his main newspapers, you’d see that they correlate very nicely with Labor-held electorates. (Just think about your own personal experiences: in a typical Liberal electorate, which paper is the most read? In a typical Labor electorate, which paper is the most read?) You might call it the Murdoch Paradox.