:: Wog Blog ::


:: Welcome. This blog will present a wog perspective on matters. And this wog will decide what matters.:: ::bloghome:: | ::contact::
::WOG FROG(&SPAIN) 2006::
:: Day 1 of 14 - Start Here
::WOG MOG LEJOG 2005::
:: Day 0 of 14 - Start Here
::WOG ON THE ROAD 2004::
:: Day 1 of 10 - Start Here
:: Wog Blogger Profile
::A Few Recommended Oz Blogs::
:: Tim Blair
:: Belmont Club
:: Silent Running
:: Bernard Slattery
:: Tony the Teacher
:: Yobbo
:: Adrian the Cabbie
:: Andrew Bolt
:: Romeo Mike
::A Few Recommended News Sites::
:: News Now
:: Sydney Morning Herald
:: The Daily Telegraph
:: The Australian
:: The Financial Review
:: Atlantic Monthly
:: Drudge Report
:: Counterterrorism Blog
::A Few Recommended US Blogs::
:: Jules Crittenden
:: Glenn Reynolds
:: James Lileks
:: Little Green Footballs
:: The Corner
:: Matt Welch
:: Ken Layne
:: Stephen Green
:: Eugene Volokh
:: Iraq Now
:: Jeff Goldstein
:: Powerline
:: Opera Chick
::A Few Recommended Italian Blogs::
:: 1972
:: I Love America
:: Il Foglio
:: Il Nouvo Riformista
:: Wind Rose Hotel
:: Libero Pensiero
:: Beppe Grillo
::A Few Recommended UK Blogs::
:: Oxblog
:: Harry's Place
:: Theo Spark
:: Tuscan Tony
:: Biased BBC
:: Melanie Phillips
:: Oliver Kamm
:: Samizdata
:: Harry Hutton
:: Norman Geras
:: Tim Worstall
:: Freedom & Whisky
::A Few Recommended Other Blogs::
:: Gates of Vienna
:: EurSoc
:: Iberian Notes
:: Healing Iraq
:: Baghdad Burning
:: The Messopotamian
:: Mahmood's Den
:: No Pasaran!Merde in France
:: Dissident Frogman
:: The Head Heeb
November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 April 2006 June 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 May 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 November 2008 April 2009 May 2009 October 2009 April 2010 May 2012

:: Friday, 20 June 2003 ::


Ken Parish posts 6 paragraphs on the topic of proposed changes to media ownership laws in Oz and they go like this:

1. The laws might change.

2. If they do it will be a devastating blow to the future of democracy in Oz.

3. If Packer K and Murdoch R die, who knows what will happen.

4. No one else has laws like this.

5. It is crazy and frightening because it is inevitable the media will be owned by one person or maybe two.

6. When you put it all together the ongoing campaign to 'gut' the ABC is important because if it succeeds at the same time as this media laws are changed, there will be no democracy in Oz.

He actually types these words:

"Does anyone seriously think that an Australia where citizens' ability to exercise democratic freedom of speech is totally controlled by 2 billionaires (or even worse by 2 foreign mega-corporations) is in the public interest? Australia would have ceased to be a liberal democracy in any meaningful sense."

What a patronising and loaded question.

Oz Citizens' ability to speak - and be spoken to - the democratic freedom of speech referred to - has never been and is not controlled by media or media owners. Media is a mere part of that speech. Oz citizens consume that media and engage in a discourse about it. And who owns the media is a freakin' irrelevance to me and my thoughts and just about everybody else. Some Canadian guy? Do not care. Some former Oz guy now American citizen? Could not give a stuff. Some Brit tabloider? Not interested. My eyes and ears are firmly on the content. End of story. If one bloke on the whole planet was the employer of every single journalist on the planet, there would still be a variety of views getting published. Know why? Cos there's a variety of consumers and they are not sheep and they wanna consume different stuff. And the guy is in the game to make money and that means selling the variety to the consumers who want it.

Ken must think Italy is not a functioning democracy, after all Berlusconi owns an awful of media. (You knew I was gonna here.)

Get. Far. Away.

It functions beautifully, and there is robust discourse going on which is more often contrary to Berlusconi's own views and that of his party, meaning it is contrary to its owners' (one of 'em, anyway - it's not like he's resonsible for signing cheques) views at the same time. Incredibile, eh? Who knew Italians could walk and talk and think for themselves at the same time when nearly all the media is wrapped up for them in one man's hands?

I did. Ken does not, though. On his reasoning he's gotta think: Poor little Italians. Got no democracy no more. Aw.

Democracy does not end if media ownership is concentrated in commercial hands (and before you start whining about Berlusconi's role in government, the media interests are owned by companies - so we are not in danger any time soon of finding a friggin' Saddam-like Rome, where govt is media is govt, so don't argue) and to imagine it does is absurd, I reckon.

Jeez. The hysteria, the false reasoning.

The main game is to make sure governments do not get there hands on majority media ownership. Cos they make the laws too. And that's a lousy mix. Cos they can legislate that government is the only media that is allowed to be consumed.

Commercial interests are not the problem. And opening up the media to competitive commercial interests is a great way to keep government permanently uncompetitive and therefore unlikely to get control of media.

And as for 'no one else has these laws' - the last refuge of the scoundrel without an argument. Change is not per se bad. Difference is not per se bad.

:: WB 7:56 pm [link+] ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?