Given the 'gouge from the hip' trampling of proper Democratic process, relentless spin-doctoring, and desperate 'stunt-pulling' that defines the governing of Labor under Julia Gillard, this kerfuffle about 'Media Rules' looks, acts and stinks like another giant Red Herring.
Time and again Labor drags these issues onto the beach, pokes them with a stick, kicks them about a bit, and then runs off because something shiny over there grabs their attention.
The issue is then left to fend for itself while Labor runs around in small circles playing 'Pin the Knife on the Leader'; their behaviour is selfish and in-appropriate...beneath contempt.
Again; these people are our employees, they work for us, not the other way round. Despite their clearly apparent sense of self-importance, it is their place to serve us; we were not put here to participate in their self-worship. But I digress, except for the 'Media Laws' fiasco of the past fortnight which has been left to flap about on the shore until it expired.
Some facts; Australian media is already highly regulated; I believe we are in the high 20s headed for thirty on a list of countries with 'best press freedom'. To the other extreme, the Australian Press Council is a toothless mullet that to my experience is grossly un-professional and deceitful.
Basically, for every genuine hatred within these political/press circles, there are a dozen mates writing whatever they like about their opponents; the relationship between government, vested interests, and media is more often complicit than conflict, eg, Gina Rinehart giving Andrew Bolt a TV show.
Not withstanding this, several journalists have stated to me the example that the current regulations mean that something like the 'Watergate' expose/scandal would not, could not happen in Australia.
My personal experience of the APC illustrates the other extreme where media (newspapers) can do what they like; the difference seems to be that strict regulations apply depending on who your mate is and/or how they may enhance or hinder your interests, and it's open season on plebs like me....the truth be hanged.
In January 2005 The Advertiser newspaper printed a pro-Lutheran, pro-Rann government story, relative to the St Martins Child Abuse issue, and despite multiple phonecalls, letters, and a personal meeting with a sub-editor, The Advertiser flatly refused to print anything from us parents...not one line...and my complaint to the APC was "lodged too late" (APC).
However, in March 2010 I lodged official written complaints with both the South Australian Electoral Commission and the APC regarding The Border Watch newspaper's grossly biased even corrupt Pro-Don Pegler coverage of the 2010 state election...in which I was a candidate.
I re-iterate; TBW senior political reporter Sandra Morello was printing Don Pegler's press releases (prepared by her husband and former TBW Editor Frank Morello) as actual news items under her byline, and therefore at the very least conflicted with guidelines on Electoral Advertising. (Sandra Morello tried to stop me lodging any information with TBW)
Electoral Commissioner Kay Mousley acknowledges my complaint (16/03/2010) but states that;
"I do not consider that a media release is electoral advertising when printed as an article
by a newspaper. I understand that it is common practice for news agencies to reprint or
broadcast information directly from a media release."
The concerns you make appear to be in relation to the journalistic ethics of the newspaper.
I note that you have now referred the matter to the Australian Press Council."
Ms Mousley words, "...the journalistic ethics of the newspaper."
Ethics...cue the APC.
My written complaint was acknowledged 18/03/2010 in an email from Jack R Herman, where he basically bounces responsibility back to the SAEC, but states that he will;
"...be contacting the newspaper immediately to see what, if any, action it might take to
ameliorate your concerns. When I have the publication's response I will write again to
you and you can determine what further action you want to take."
I faxed through all the articles as he requested, and waited.....but did not hear from Jack R Herman until I rang him Monday 26 July 2010. He stated outright that he had not heard from TBW, but then emailed me on the Wednesday 28th;
"Thank you for your phone call Monday. I have now had the opportunity of reviewing
the file on your complaint.
There was some confusion for which I have to accept some blame, and apparently a
misunderstanding, which has arisen as a result of the impression of my letter March 18.
In that letter I said I would be in touch when I heard back from the newspaper, but I
also said that I could not further process your matter as a complaint in the absence of
further information from you. That letter outlined the additional information I would
need in order to take up the matter further.
In line with the procedures detailed in the booklet you were sent with that letter, I
waited two months for further information from you. I received the informal advice of
the Border Watch that it stood by its coverage and had provided you with "reasonable"
coverage. I should have passed that along to you, and I apologise that I did not.
At this stage, with four months having elapsed since I sought additional material from
you, it would be too late to take the matter up again."
Jack R Herman lied to me not once but repeatedly, he openly admits it but tries to excuse it as "confusion" and "misunderstanding". On 26/07/2010 he stated that he had not heard at all from TBW, then two days later he claims/admits (who knows?) that he had spoken to them, and, oh gee whiz "I should have passed that along to you".
And all the while trying to blame me...and again, 'it's too late now'.
Accountability seems to be a matter of will rather than legislation, and I therefore do not support increasing 'restrictions on reportage', but rather much stronger legislation on Accountability.
This Arvo: TFTIM Mt Gambier CEO Mark McShane
Tomorrow: The SERDE Penola Rd Sale to Bill DeGaris
No comments:
Post a Comment