The MSM fact-impaired, and politically active bullies are screaming their lungs out. Let them, so that Australia finally wakes up to their true agendas.

Bring on the Guardian! The timing for its entry into this monopolistic market of incestuous and biased commentary and reporting can never be better. These guys led the charge against Murdoch in Britain, and hopefully they will do so here as well. Let 2013 be the year of life changing consequences for News Ltd, Fairfax and the ABC. Their stewardship will be questioned and the fifth estate will invade the public conversation as they retreat into the cesspit of falsehoods of their own making. I want my democratic right to truth and objective political analysis back! I want it now!

This morning's Daily Turd was genuinely spectacularly shameful - and they are past masters of shamelessness.

At the risk of straying a bit off topic, what has happened here beautifully illustrates my growing belief that there is absolutely no point in attempting to compromise, when players of the aggression of Murdoch have skin (actually money, but that seems to be the same thing to him) in the game. It's like trying softer, more 'don't mention the war' approaches to climate change - it ends up being a loss in practice and, worse, a loss of credibility.

It's the old delusion of believing that you can negotiate with the vikings. The modern version is believing you can reason with Rupert Murdoch or Gina Rhinehart.

In practice, it's very simple: if you do anything effective, no matter how it might be presented, you will be attacked, regardless of how inconsistent the basis of that attack may be in terms of the attacker's espoused worldview or 'principles'. The only way to avoid attack is to be useless.

Remember the Spanish Civil War: it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

The media have for a long time been incapable of self policing, and reporting in a fair and reasonable way. They make the story profitable, not correct. And who cares about those they hurt and defame along the way. Who can afford to fight them? I have heard, from a friend suing Fairfax for defamation, that to bring a defamation case against an organisation like this is $150,000. If you can't afford that, you have no legal avenue of restoring your credibility. Hopefully these reforms will see media that reports fairly and truthfully, and a media that are accountable to what they say. Props to Conroy!

For a typically succinct summary of the issue, see David Pope's cartoon in this morning's Canberra Times:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/david-pope-20120214-1t3j0.html

A good article ,noting the importance of an informed public in a democracy. Conroy's reforms are weak and it could be that the over-the-top reaction by News Ltd might actually work in the govt's favour.

What are we to make of Turnbull's parroting the News Ltd line - then adding that the defamation laws are there to protect the citizenry . The issue is not defamation - though it's fime for the well-heeled such as Gina, Clive Palmer and others to be forever in the courts. Malcolm in his silver-tailed way just misses the point that the ordinary person doesn't have his resources;and the debate is whether the media have any intention of upholding their proclaimed journalistic ethics or not.

Those who say the internet replaces the "old " media are ignoring the fact that print and free to air TV are where most citizens absorb their info about the performance of the govt and opposition. And it seems the old media want everyone but themselves to be accountable.

As others have noted News Ltd censors its on-line comment - and it's almost impossible to get criticism of Age journalists printed as contrasted with readers' comments on "guest" opinion writers .. Even errors like a headline branding Bob Hawke "the Silver Budgie" ( true!!) don't get acknowledged.

I think this attack on freedom of speech is an hysterical reaction to perceived media hostility!
It is last gasp of a Government that is "on the nose" with an extraordinary number of Australians, and the so-called "reforms" are being introduced with incredible insensitivity to an electorate sick of various "reforms" that seem more and more to restrict freedoms.
The media in Australia is fairly robust, as it should be. We need a media absolutely fearless, totally free to say anything, to research Government decisions, to expose waste and corruption at all levels.
Introducing the "reforms" at this time is seen as crude "pay-back" for what labor perceives as hostile reporting.
However, the Left in Australia tends towards a totalitarian Shdanov-like attitude when confronted with any opposition.
I'm sure both parties hate the press at times, and this is as it should be.
We need more freedom, not less, and no bureaucratic control.
Bad policy, anti-democratic, and incredibly stupid timing!

I have occasion to read both The Australian and The Daily Telegraph quite often (pity me not!). I don't think any fair-minded person could find either of these News Ltd publications anything but virulently against the Gillard Labor government. Every negative is magnified, headlined and sustained. Every positive is either ignored, relegated or downplayed. It is not subtle. These papers are engaged in a project to change our government by blatantly influencing electoral opinion. I think if we look at the actions/morality/influence-peddling of other News Corp publications around the world (over 100 editors/executives charged in the UK so far), and consider Murdoch's vice-like grip on his media empire's policy and content, it's not a bridge too far to suggest this.

And what I would love to see is a single word in all of the hysteria and sanctimonious dribble emanating from these publications, and the mouth of News Ltd CEO Kim Williams (freedom of speech! press censorship! stalinist restrictions!), that acknowledges the pivotal role that News Ltd publications have played in making enquiries such as Finkelstein and Levenson necessary in the first place. Indeed, in putting media reform on the agenda at all.

I shall dream on.

Whether you like the people criticising the reforms and whether the reforms are weaker than the recommended reforms, does not take away from the fact that these reforms limit free speech in an unacceptable way.

What the reforms do

The reforms will result in an Minister-appointed body deciding the control of media organisations, based on a concept of public interest. The new body, the Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA), will have the ability to prohibit media transactions. If a media transaction is likely to result in a 'lessening of diversity' in opinion, then it must be shown that:

the change of control is likely to result in a benefit to the public.

What constitutes a 'benefit to the public', however, is undefined, and will be up to PIMA, the members of whom are elected by a Minister. Therefore, we are allowing a Minister-appointed body to decide media control, based on their view of the 'public interest'.

An example: Company A wishes to take-over Company B. Company A may only have a small per centage of the market. But in taking over Company B, it will lead to a lessesing in diversity in the market. So you need to have PIMA say that it is in the public interest before doing so.

Why is this bad?

The assumption within the article is that if the government does not control the media, then only the media will, is incorrect, and the major flaw of the article. The people control the successes of the media. In the age of the internet, there are a plethora of viable choices for people to access information. There are 'low barriers to entry' in the market of political communication. If we accept this, then the argument that we need to revert to government control of media is much weaker.

The 'free-market' ideal of policital commentary fits in with liberal ideals, which Western society are built upon. These ideals include that the government is accountable to the people, not the other way around. The people, through their choices, control the media, and the media provide information and opinions to the people. This prevents arbitrary authority over people's choices.

On the other hand, the government controlling the media (incuding these reforms), has inherently negative characteristics, as a government group, almost arbitrarily to public opinion, decides what is in the 'public interest' is and decides how information should be available to the public upon this decision. In the context of these reforms, this means that popular companies are unable to grow and improve their products, which the people have decided that they like. This limits their ability to spread their opinions, as they should be able to do.

Lastly, the shallow and hysterical nature of this article does not contribute well to what is a serious debate.