This is extremely concerning. One might not agree with various parts of the media, nor its journalists, but banning a media outlet is one of the first things totalitarian governments do. These are not actions of a government in a democratic nation.
There should be consequences for the NT government as it is clear they represent only their own interests and not that of the people. I wonder if the Commonwealth can ‘sack’ the NT government and call fresh elections, like states seem to be able to do with local governments.
Disclaimer: I personally know Peter Greste and his family and totally agree with his opinion.
As the NT is a Territory and not a State, I believe that the Commonwealth has overriding powers just as when they overturned the volutary euthanasia laws.
They should use it more often - the NT has the population of a large rock concert, not even that in some cases … the case for so-called ‘statehood’ is nothing short of terrifying given the pool we have to choose from for so-called ‘leadership’. We’d probably be better off run by some committee in Canberra …
An alternate source suggested it’s subject to ongoing discussions and not certain. Just one thought that probably in 2-3 months time it might happen.
Why even bother reporting on it. Slow news day?
Like many showmen it’s not just the art of deception to make the ordinary look amazing, it’s how it ends that leaves the greatest impression. Nothing to see here.
It will be quite a sell to get his “own” network whether TV or web as he doesn’t have the money. Will somebody fund him, allow him naming and bragging rights and keep his secrets?
If it happens it will be an interesting indicator of future trends. So far star attractions tend to not also own the medium. If his ownership is only nominal I guess that is but a small variation on the status quo.
It would be nice but do not expect more than at absolute worst (best?), Fox going chapter 11 in the USA and continuing its entertainment business (appearing to be news to those who do not understand its mode of business) as normal.
For those not familiar, chapter 11 cancels debts and allows the company to continue operating under creditors’ supervision. Creditors usually get pennies on the dollar and shareholders are usually wiped out.
While I don’t watch or necessary support the views of Fox News, I don’t support the end of Fox News. Why, I have just finishing reading Peter Greste’s Book ‘The First Casualty’. I now understand how dangerous this could be. Note: Peter Greste discusses the risks of movement towards only one view within the media (removing views to that of a singular view of a government or particular group)…and what this does/means to society as a whole. It is a place where there has been a shift to in recent years worldwide (some countries more than others) and where we don’t want to end up.
Not as if Australia has a great diversity. There is a difference between ‘one view’ with propaganda/lies dominating vs conservative and liberal views based on factual information. Many feel some Murdoch ‘publications’ have crossed the line, Fox being front and centre. Keep in mind one of Fox’s defence arguments has been they are so over the top nobody would reasonably believe them - it is only entertainment (in the same vein the 6 Jan insurrectionists were only tourists). A great defence and justification for their being?
Without Fox there are a number of conservative as well as liberal leaning media who are respected for being truthful with a spin, unlike Fox presenters led by the likes of Hannity and Carlson where truth seems coincidental and only used when it suits.
Therein lies a difference between one view and essentially making lies and misrepresentations into mainstream ‘facts’.
No, they in effect are the same thing. Example is national security laws introduced (and used) by the Obama administration were also used by Trump administration. The effect was to squash those news organisations which didn’t align with the Trump administration view on the world. The Trump administration also banned journalists from regular briefings which had non-complying views. This was done to to try and only get out one message (as journalists who wanted to report had in the back of their mind that their access could be restricted if they stepped over what the administration thought was the line)…one view is when a government locks up those who dissent or have different views. not vastly different.
Peter Greste provides some interesting examples around the world from dictators/authoritarian regimes to Australia and US. The examples are used to try and understand why the three Al Jazeera (including himself) were banged up in Egypt. At the time of their incarceration, attempts to get them released were based on press freedoms (which had been violated in this case).
In relation to press freedom, he also considers and discusses some of the recent changes associated with ‘national security’ in the US (and to a lesser extent on Australia and other western democracies). These laws principal purpose is sound (to protect citizens from acts of terrorism), their drafting and application are less to be desired. It is very concerning as these laws have been used to suppress criticism of government decisions/press freedoms under the ‘national security banner’. This has occurred in many countries around the world.
In relation to alternative views, democracies were built on different or alternative views…whether factually correct or not. In a democracy one has the opportunity to challenge alternative views (whether factually correct or not). Not allowing diverse views and discussion is also somewhere we also don’t want to be as it will be exploited by those who wish to ‘brainwash’ society with the view that want (like in a dictatorship or authoritarian regimes). This is also broadly discussed in the book.
While sections of the book are a little repetitive (principally the number of examples to get to the same point), it is very thought provoking in relation to press freedoms and where things have headed in recent times. It might change one views on some of the public criticisms of various news/press agencies in Australia and around the world.
Wasn’t it one of our pollies who proudly stated every crackpot and conspiracy monger deserved equal time and respect with the most learned expert, or something to that effect?
It only works when the audience is intelligent enough to discern veracity from BS, which is not the case when they hear the latter 24x7 as if it was factual. That 24x7 megaphone is a comparatively new ‘tool’ in the equation where once upon a time it was written and people could put it down and reflect.
We probably shall forever disagree on some aspects.
There are always limits to what most of society accept as being diverse. Of note that limit varies considerably between community groups. This might be described as societal tolerance or intolerance.
Fox has taken the opportunity to put it’s credibility on the line by aligning with those refusing to trust their appointed electoral officials, many of whom the GOP and it’s supporters approved. The same system and officials who gave Trump a victory (albeit not the popular majority) 4 years prior.
Fox News wouldn’t be troubled by some legal actions about their reporting being ‘fake news’. They are just reporting the information as given to them and wanted by their demographic base to support their confirmation biases.
Just as the GOP has swept into their core supporter base the conservatives, the homophobes, the racists, the anti-government types, and the conspiracy theorists, Fox has become the go to place for those same people to get their ‘truth’.
And there is a lot of money to be made pandering to that huge demographic base.
That sounds like the ABC charter…that they are now required to have balance in their reporting and get all sides. Remember their anti-vaccination program allowed to be broadcast as they were required to provide balance.
There are possible two sources of factually incorrect information:
direct reporting of the view of others or government
the news agency/journalist having a view or opinion, often not based on fact
No news/press organisation is immune to either of these two. Some handle it better than others. Some it is obvious, while others it is discrete. It may be the discrete ones which are more worrying than those which are obvious.
The first is what should be reported by independent news organisations either to allow the public to decide the information or to have respondents when broadcast/published. The second possibly should never happen but has creeped into all news where opinion of journalists is now published/broadcast along side or within news (look at any media site and some have a large number of articles labelled analysis or opinion). This has changed the role of journalists from being reporters to reporting views.
My own belief is this practice should be stamped out as the line between factual information and opinion have been blurred and many in the audience are likely to struggle with the difference (maybe this is why news or press organisations are seen to have biases. Yes they all have biases.
Peter Greste touches on is bias within news/press organisations. He raises the issue early in the book and states that no organisation is unbiased. He says bias occurs all the time from what stories are allowed to be broadcast and what angle is placed on the story. It is impossible to have a press/news organisation which doesn’t have biases. This did challenge my thinking and after long hard think, he is right. The press/news organisation is driven by readership/ratings. It impacts on their revenue/funding. They won’t have news which the audience doesn’t want, otherwise readership/ratings will suffer.
It is human nature to seek out those which have similar views to oneself. Unfortunately, this has become easier with the internet and also with news/press organisations. The biases they have align generally with sectors of the community and those with similar views are attached to such publications/broadcasts. Those which don’t align are considered unacceptable, biased or pushing particular agendas.
It is unfortunate that all news/press organisations have degraded themselves in such ways, along with their journalists. I hope that since Peter Greste has more time (lecturing) in academia, he looks into media biases in more detail and provides his thoughts on how to resolve. If it isn’t addressed, it is likely that singular views will become more the norm and that journalism will be about opinion than news.
