Mr Gobbels would have been happy
Mad internet and news legislation is being considered in Australia.
We assume it will not pass the senate.
Basically, the government wants to regulate all web sites hosted in Australia, as well as newspapers that provide views that are in contrast to "consensus" views on science, environment, politics etc.
The mad report is here.
4.25 To deal with the difficulties of identifying and measuring bias the polls reported here attempted to measure bias as diversions from fairness and diversity of opinion, on a scale presenting bias as a polar opposite to ‘balance’. On this basis:
• bias is much more commonly perceived to exist in the conduct of newspapers than in television or radio
• the ABC is perceived to be the least biased media organisation in Australia, and
• there is perception of persistent bias against the Labor Party particularly in polls conducted in the earlier years of the period covered by this analysis.
• .33 One of the conclusions reached in the report was this:
• The two biggest News Ltd tabloids—the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph—have been so biased in their coverage that it is fair to say they ‘campaigned’ against the policy rather than covered it.
4.40 For instance, the Inquiry heard from Professor Robert Manne who, earlier in 2011, had written an extensive critique of The Australian newspaper in Quarterly Essay entitled ‘Bad News: Murdoch’s Australian and the Shaping of the Nation’ that examined seven case studies of the newspaper’s coverage of issues.
4.41 One of his case studies concerned coverage of climate change policy and his findings mirrored those of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. Professor Manne’s research found that articles unfavourable to action on climate change outnumbered favourable articles by a ratio of four to one.
4.42 In his response to Professor Manne’s work, Paul Kelly who is The Australian’s editor-‐at-‐large, did not refute Manne’s statistics. Instead, he argued that Manne’s position was based on a ‘rejection of debate’ about the science of climate change:
One reason for the public’s backlash making carbon pricing so unpopular was the precise attitude [Manne] took. While pretending to be rational his rejection of debate was really faith-‐based dogmatism and the Australian public didn’t like being told what to think by patronising experts.
FreeSpeech Australia has a petition against it here
We assume it will not pass the senate.
Basically, the government wants to regulate all web sites hosted in Australia, as well as newspapers that provide views that are in contrast to "consensus" views on science, environment, politics etc.
The mad report is here.
4.25 To deal with the difficulties of identifying and measuring bias the polls reported here attempted to measure bias as diversions from fairness and diversity of opinion, on a scale presenting bias as a polar opposite to ‘balance’. On this basis:
• bias is much more commonly perceived to exist in the conduct of newspapers than in television or radio
• the ABC is perceived to be the least biased media organisation in Australia, and
• there is perception of persistent bias against the Labor Party particularly in polls conducted in the earlier years of the period covered by this analysis.
• .33 One of the conclusions reached in the report was this:
• The two biggest News Ltd tabloids—the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph—have been so biased in their coverage that it is fair to say they ‘campaigned’ against the policy rather than covered it.
4.40 For instance, the Inquiry heard from Professor Robert Manne who, earlier in 2011, had written an extensive critique of The Australian newspaper in Quarterly Essay entitled ‘Bad News: Murdoch’s Australian and the Shaping of the Nation’ that examined seven case studies of the newspaper’s coverage of issues.
4.41 One of his case studies concerned coverage of climate change policy and his findings mirrored those of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. Professor Manne’s research found that articles unfavourable to action on climate change outnumbered favourable articles by a ratio of four to one.
4.42 In his response to Professor Manne’s work, Paul Kelly who is The Australian’s editor-‐at-‐large, did not refute Manne’s statistics. Instead, he argued that Manne’s position was based on a ‘rejection of debate’ about the science of climate change:
One reason for the public’s backlash making carbon pricing so unpopular was the precise attitude [Manne] took. While pretending to be rational his rejection of debate was really faith-‐based dogmatism and the Australian public didn’t like being told what to think by patronising experts.
FreeSpeech Australia has a petition against it here