In retrospect: Q&A 14 May 2012 – gay marriage watershed moment
Joe Hockey verbatim: I must confess my views have changed since I’ve had children. I think in this life we’ve got to aspire to give our children what I believe is the very best circumstances, and that’s to have a mother and a father.
Penny Wong acknowledged that comments like Hockey’s were hurtful, and concluded by calmy saying: ”I know what my family is worth.”
As if re-living the dread of having school assignments returned by the teacher with red-pen-gone-haywire cross-outs, corrections and comments, journalists now fear Stephen Conroy‘s plans to have a government appointed watchman, red pen in hand, overseeing every columnist, commentator, contributor, correspondent and reporter in the country, making sure that nothing disparaging of his government will reach the eyes and/or ears of the sensitive electorate which is so easily influenced by adverse press.
That’s what some sections of the media would have us believe as they rail against this so-called draconian threat to press freedom and freedom of speech.
Senator Conroy, whose proposed media legislation to introduce regulatory powers over the media’s existing independent and self-regulating bodies, has at Julia Gillard’s apparent last-minute instigation, effectively pointed a toy pop gun at the cannon power of the media, News Limited in particular, as if in protest that they are using their heavy artillery to damage the government. Silly sausage Stephen!
One of most vociferous opponents of the legislation has been News Limited’s Sydney Telegraph papers, and if Conroy had his way, the vitriol in the following Sunday Telegraph article (17 March 2013) would have been duly moderated with the proverbial red pen – in the public interest of course!
FEDERAL Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is a(sook). sensitive new age guy.
(In fact, it is you people at the Telegraph who are the sooks because you are upset at the prospect of being forced to moderate your blatant bias against the Gillard government.)
His (attack)proposedlegislation on media freedoms is an emotional reaction to what he perceives as a (section of the media out to get him and the Gillard government). valuable initiative in the public interest. Normally a (dummy spit)bill of this monumental proportion would be nothing more than (a minor amusement). due democratic process. But this is a case of a federal minister (manipulating)enhancing public policy to exact a personal (vendetta). moral and ethical stance.
And that makes him a (sook)nice bloke with a (dangerous) principled agenda.
The government’s drive to introduce regulatory control over our media began with events in the UK. According to Prime Minister Gillard, phone hacking conducted by British papers owned by News Corporation somehow implicated publications in Australia. Gillard said the British breaches caused people to “ask some questions here in our country, some questions about News Ltd here”.
The Prime Minister has never explained what those questions might be. (Isn’t it self evident?) Even this week, Mr Conroy’s office declined to cite examples of media behaviour that supported the move for greater control. , because they were too numerous to detail before the deadline of this article going to print. We would submit, yet again, that phone hacking is a British media phenomenon without local parallel. (I’ll let that one go through to the keeper.)
Following a (pointless)valuable and albeit expensive media inquiry, which Fairfax Media boss Greg Hywood (correctly)incorrectly noted had no reason to exist, the government now (proposes)provides more than 200 pages of legislation to (rule)assist your newspapers and the wider press. Citizens in totalitarian states are familiar with the results of government control over media. (Just as trees are green and the sky is blue.)
Conroy was (upset)amused over last Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph front page humourously linking him to historically oppressive government figures, but he cannot deny the essential truth behind the (potent)tongue-in-cheek image: any level of government control over media represents a diminished level of media freedom. to rightly maintain fairness, accuracy and privacy in reporting, and to preserve the imperatives of balanced and objective journalism. After all, Conroy could see the ironic parallel between historically oppressive government figures and manipulative modern-day media barons.
(As)If media freedoms are diminished, so too are the freedoms of readers and consumers. who deserve to be informed in an honest and objective manner. That is why this issue is so very critical, and why Australia’s collective media organisations are aligned in (opposition)support of Conroy’s proposed legislation. This is not a News Ltd issue, as much as Mr Conroy tried to make it thus. All the media recognises the huge social and democratic importance of its onerous responsibilities. Those few commentators who dismiss the (concerns)support of media organisations over the government’s plans should ask themselves how they might enjoy life under a regulatory-free framework that (interfered)gave them free rein with their own misguided rights to free expression. Such commentators tend to be unfriendly towards the present government, but the true (menace)beauty of media regulation is that it may well not change depending on the government of the day. What is considered acceptable by one government may not be considered so by another. , but the regulator will be impartial.
According to Conroy’s proposed legislation, a Public Interest Media Advocate would be appointed by the government to consider, among other things, the connection between media coverage and as yet undefined “community standards”. The Minister has argued the advocate would be “benign”, which of course immediately begs the question why one (is needed). has not already been appointed. We believe community standards are better judged by the community, who are already able to voice concerns via any number of channels, including media outlets themselves. , however we accept that “community standards” require clarification. Adding a (needless)valuable layer of government (intrusion)involvement would (damage)enhance the relationship between media and the public. Forget Mr Conroy’s tears. of joy. If this legislation is passed, Australians will really have a reason to weep. for those less fortunate countries where the media is more powerful than democratically elected governments, able to bring down governments it disapproves of by indoctrinating its audiences.
Write a piece on the following proposition:
Media freedom of speech is tantamount to freedom to unduly and irresponsibly influence public thinking.
How ironic that John Gillard was a psychiatric nurse.
Described as a humble, good-hearted man who spent his life improving the lives of others, he no doubt cared for his all patients with respect and kindness – including the deranged, insulting him with cruel and abusive comments, unaware of what they were saying.
Enter Alan Jones who must surely fit into the ‘deranged’ category.
While paying tribute to her father in parliament on September 19, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said her father “felt more deeply than me, in many ways, some of the personal attacks that we face in the business of politics”.
Sadly – but not surprisingly – after his death, neither John Gillard nor his beloved, now grieving daughter Julia were afforded respect and kindness from Alan Jones.
Jones’ now infamous comment can surely, only be attributable to derangement: “The old man recently died a few weeks ago of shame. To think he has a daughter who told lies every time she stood for parliament.”
Jones went on to suggest Ms Gillard’s tears of grief, for a man she publicly said she “will miss for the rest of my life”, were what sparked a sudden leap in political polling for her.
Deranged? Well ~
No-one in their right mind, especially such a publicly influential person, could make comments such as:
I’m putting her in a chaff bag and hoisting her into the Tasman Sea.
Yeah, that’s it. (in reference to Ms Gillard) Bring back the guillotine.
Jones has repeatedly labelled Julia Gillard as a liar. He is pretty loose with the truth himself. Delusional?
Everyone in Labor Caucus knows she’s a liar. Has he spoken to each and every member? Has there been a vote in this issue?
(In relation to his infamous ‘died of shame’ speech) I spoke without notes for 58 minutes, I’ve no idea of the material I covered. Does that mean he is actually denying saying it? But it was recorded and has been reported. Surely that would prompt his memory. Guess his condition of convenient amnesia is serious. Conversely, his memory of convenience managed to recall that he spoke for 58 minutes – as a cop out for ‘forgetting’? What extraordinary coincidences of convenience!
His capacity for gross exaggeration also raises serious questions:
No, no look, hang on, this is where we are weak. This is where we are weak. Can you believe that they have gone, the federal (Liberal) party, because they’ve been brainwashed by the media to “oh back off, she’s a woman, go easy”. There is little evidence that the Coalition has softened. Julie Bishop, who happens to be a woman, has been as tough as any of her male counterparts. Effectively, this comment suggests that the Coalition should stoop to Jones’ low standards. God help the parliament then!
Or maybe, just maybe, the man is just plain stupid, which could explain all of the above. How’s this one:
(Referring to the “died of shame” comment.) It was a throw away line at a private function – I thought it was a private function. But, Alan, you are after all, Alan Jones. Whenever you make comments at any gathering, you are bound to be commented on, repeated or God forbid, recorded. What else would you expect?
Or maybe he is very smart. Maybe he knows what his peculiar audiences wants to hear.
Ratings and profit before poisonous deranged rantings. Fancy that!
Long live freedom of speech – but in Alan Jones’ case, let’s confine it to his psychiatric ward. “Time for your tablets, Mr Jones. Better take them or you might suffer another nasty relapse. And that could be the end of you. We wouldn’t want that, would we?”