Poll shows support for media regulation inquiry

THE Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and the Greens leader, Bob Brown, have discussed possible terms of reference for a parliamentary inquiry into media regulation, as a new poll shows 60 per cent of voters support the idea.

The negotiation will continue when Parliament resumes next week, when the government is likely to make a final decision about whether to proceed.

An Essential Research poll commissioned by a GetUp!-linked activist group, Newstand, suggests majority voter support for another media inquiry.

Sixty-one per cent of those surveyed ''agreed'' or ''strongly agreed'' with the proposition that ''a public inquiry into the Australian media is necessary so the public can better understand the relationship between politicians, corporations and media outlets.''

Sixty per cent agreed when the idea of an inquiry when read the proposition ''following recent revelations in Britain about phone hacking conducted by newspapers, there should be a public inquiry into the performance and regulation of the Australian media.''

On each question 69 per cent of Labor voters supported an inquiry, but a majority of Coalition voters also backed the idea.

The Greens and crossbench independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have backed an investigation. Andrew Wilkie has said he is ''open-minded'' but the Coalition has argued another inquiry is not necessary.

Newstand, which launched an online petition yesterday calling for an inquiry, says it is funded by ''GetUp! and some generous individuals'' and operates with ''a few staff and lots of volunteers''.

It consulted the Centre for Policy Development, the Australia Institute, Media Matters for America, the Centre for Independent Journalism, GetUp! and the international activist organisation Avaaz before starting its campaign.

The petition calls for a full parliamentary inquiry to examine ''how to promote higher standards, protect people's privacy while guaranteeing the freedom of the press, stimulate a more diverse media marketplace, and ensure that problems and complaints can be handled simply, fairly and effectively''.

The poll found 86 per cent of the 1200 people surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the proposition that ''it should be easier to make complaints against the media when there is a concern about biased and inaccurate reporting'', including 89 per cent of Labor voters and 84 per cent of Coalition voters, and 70 per cent agreed with the statement that ''too few people control the media in Australia.''

Any parliamentary inquiry would run alongside an existing review into media regulation in the digital age - the so-called ''convergence'' review. Senators Brown and Conroy met last week.

News Ltd has announced a review of editorial expenditure to ensure payments had been made for ''legitimate purposes''. There have been no allegations of wrongdoing in Australia.

Avaaz said it had 25,000 signatures on an online petition calling for a comprehensive review of media laws and practices.


http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/poll-shows-support-for-media-regulation-inquiry-20110811-1iox0.html

Under no circumstances would i support any inquiry that deals with media content. I may well think that our papers are full of bias self serving crap but thats there right, it's called free speech and though it may have a negative effect on democracy at times it is too important to play with, and in the end stiff sh*t for what i think.

i would be fully supportive of an inquiry into media ownership and editorial diversity of news information sources and the way information is distributed. We have a better range and diversity of content on free to air TV than a population of our size has the right to expect. This has been possible due to the concentration of ownership and national networking, it has been great for TV in this country. The problem comes when we consider the news media and the shrinking diversity in opinion and sources of information. We are receiving a narrow feed of information that is interpreted by a small group and then dispersed to a wide range of audience. How we improve that without hurting the great gains we have made in diversity is a very difficult question. I do see ownership as a key and the restriction of ownership of papers, TV and radio in any one area state and country as a percentage of population covered.

nairbe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 6:49am:

Under no circumstances would i support any inquiry that deals with media content. I may well think that our papers are full of bias self serving crap but thats there right, it's called free speech and though it may have a negative effect on democracy at times it is too important to play with, and in the end stiff sh*t for what i think. i would be fully supportive of an inquiry into media ownership and editorial diversity of news information sources and the way information is distributed. We have a better range and diversity of content on free to air TV than a population of our size has the right to expect. This has been possible due to the concentration of ownership and national networking, it has been great for TV in this country. The problem comes when we consider the news media and the shrinking diversity in opinion and sources of information. We are receiving a narrow feed of information that is interpreted by a small group and then dispersed to a wide range of audience. How we improve that without hurting the great gains we have made in diversity is a very difficult question. I do see ownership as a key and the restriction of ownership of papers, TV and radio in any one area state and country as a percentage of population covered.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/local/nightlife/nightlife_m2018190.mp3

Hi vegitamite, good to see you back around.

It would be good to have an enquiry into Murdochs roll in pushing this country into the Iraq invasion. Im sure we can all remember the constant headlines repeating the the lies pushed by Rumsfeld and Cheney even though we all knew it was nothing more than a grab for oil by the USA and had nothing to do with terrorism, WMD's or unknown knowns, known knowns or known unknown knowns  ;D
I also see the sale of Murdochs rags has plummented in this country..lets keep up the good work and boycott this evil trolls, lies peddling media empire.

PS..welcome back vegie  :)

Ironically 61% also reject a carbon tax. so what is Greens-lose position on  the carbon tax?

just hypocrisy....

ha ha , hi guys..

how long for I am not to sure...day by day here.  [smiley=dankk2.gif]


Interesting take  on media over at the political sword.

http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2011/08/08/Does-the-media-reflect-public-opinion-or-create-it.aspx

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 8:18am:

Ironically 61% also reject a carbon tax. so what is Greens-lose position on  the carbon tax? just hypocrisy....

Check out a AGW thread to find that out ... meanwhile try and stick to topic for once in your life.

____ wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 8:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 8:18am: Ironically 61% also reject a carbon tax. so what is Greens-lose position on  the carbon tax? just hypocrisy.... Check out a AGW thread to find that out ... meanwhile try and stick to topic for once in your life.

lol listen to the great pretender on here... hello woody..

tell me this everyone likes to read their own sides glorification on the world at large..

now your op says "media"... now what do we call the MEDIA???

is it newpapers.TV.radio.network.a particular journo or columnist.or owner of said media??


what exactly do they mean by that?..

I see where a lot of c&p is done from the likes of GETUP and CRIKEY and a few other sort of hardleft leaning network webs...

I am assuming those that post these items are in agreement with their philosophy.. just the same a anyone posting an item from the Australian.


so what is the difference... seem to me a lot of folks on here look only to the Murdoch pages for a enquiry... not unsurprising by any means..

however we dont hear from the right to have an enquiry into the likes of GETUP who seem to be able to influence not only the people that subscribe but the govt at large as well..

I wonder in this fair and honest country... where we draw the line for whom we concider may be twisting the truth and those that are fair dinkum and wouldnt dream of stepping over the line?

if we are going to have watchdogs.. or a witch hunt...personally I am for it including everything that is in a position of spreading the NEWS.. if thats what its called.


we live in a fast moving world as it happens, it is on the pages.. be that newsprint or the web.or even private mobilphones..

The essential poll, isn't that an online poll and not a poll that picks people out of the community on random. I am thinking less and less of this essential polling.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 9:31am:

The essential poll, isn't that an online poll and not a poll that picks people out of the community on random. I am thinking less and less of this essential polling.

dunno what that means at all..but what do you think we would have prog.. a witchhunt or selective enquiry

cods wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 9:34am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 9:31am: The essential poll, isn't that an online poll and not a poll that picks people out of the community on random. I am thinking less and less of this essential polling. dunno what that means at all..but what do you think we would have prog.. a witchhunt or selective enquiry

I have said it many times what I feel about getup. It is a false beast. It members are mostly either from overseas or people who had signed up on a single issue. To count real members that stick by getup, you would be looking at less than 10000.

I dont care for witch hunts, but inquiries can give you a better perspective of what is occuring and why.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 9:44am:

cods wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 9:31am: The essential poll, isn't that an online poll and not a poll that picks people out of the community on random. I am thinking less and less of this essential polling. dunno what that means at all..but what do you think we would have prog.. a witchhunt or selective enquiry I have said it many times what I feel about getup. It is a false beast. It members are mostly either from overseas or people who had signed up on a single issue. To count real members that stick by getup, you would be looking at less than 10000. I dont care for witch hunts, but inquiries can give you a better perspective of what is occuring and why.

ah here you are... didnt expect an answer from woody...UNUSUAL..heh.heh.

well having members can also me the same as having the newspaper delivered... c ant it??... they are all passing on NEWS>. maybe with a bland eye who knows..they could all be stirring which is what Murdoch is mainly accused of..so whats the difference? thats all I want to know...

does GETUP do recipes?

I dont remember any accusations against Get Up for tapping the phones of 9/11 victims, dead soldiers families or murder victims. In that aspect Murdochs trash media empire is in a league of its own  :)

cods wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 8:40am:

____ wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 8:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 8:18am: Ironically 61% also reject a carbon tax. so what is Greens-lose position on  the carbon tax? just hypocrisy.... Check out a AGW thread to find that out ... meanwhile try and stick to topic for once in your life. lol listen to the great pretender on here... hello woody.. tell me this everyone likes to read their own sides glorification on the world at large.. now your op says "media"... now what do we call the MEDIA??? is it newpapers.TV.radio.network.a particular journo or columnist.or owner of said media?? what exactly do they mean by that?.. I see where a lot of c&p is done from the likes of GETUP and CRIKEY and a few other sort of hardleft leaning network webs... I am assuming those that post these items are in agreement with their philosophy.. just the same a anyone posting an item from the Australian. so what is the difference... seem to me a lot of folks on here look only to the Murdoch pages for a enquiry... not unsurprising by any means.. however we dont hear from the right to have an enquiry into the likes of GETUP who seem to be able to influence not only the people that subscribe but the govt at large as well.. I wonder in this fair and honest country... where we draw the line for whom we concider may be twisting the truth and those that are fair dinkum and wouldnt dream of stepping over the line? if we are going to have watchdogs.. or a witch hunt...personally I am for it including everything that is in a position of spreading the NEWS.. if thats what its called. we live in a fast moving world as it happens, it is on the pages.. be that newsprint or the web.or even private mobilphones..

Cods you claim to be a debater then you write this crap. come on you even prod with dopy questions rather than making a statement.

Media is media you know all of it including internet. Media diversity is a genuine issue to be considered and debated, an inquiry is not a bad idea and if that means get up get a look at then fine but to consider a lobby group with very moderate coverage are somehow having the influence of a company like news corp that have been out for labor since Keating refused to change the media laws for him is plain ignorant bias rubbish and shows the inability to think independently.

The standard of the media in Australia is a disgrace.

The fact that our major player in the area has been caught out in corruption in an international market makes an inquiry almost manditory.