News media: shifting ground

13 comments on “News media: shifting ground ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   19 March 2013 at 12:57 pm

   becoming an election issue in OZ as the gov’t puts forward legislation (with plenty of warts)( to curb ownership etc after the savaging Murdoch and Fearfacts gave them on the mining tax.

   Murdosch’s exiting beacause he’ll make more money elsewhere, it’s never been about power in itself with Rupert but rather if that power can make him money.
   • karol 1.1

     19 March 2013 at 7:45 pm

     Actually, power money and politics are all intertwined throughout Murdoch’s adult life. If you look at the wikip overview; (with copious links), you see he got involved in Aussie politics early on, then went on to forge an alliance with UK politicians. Then he moved on to the US, in relation to which,

     McNight (2010) identifies four characteristics of his media operations: free market ideology; unified positions on matters of public policy; global editorial meetings; and opposition to a perceived liberal bias in other public media.[95]

     And more recently he’s moved on to privatising education. One of his companies has also recently won a contract to develop core tests for schools in the US.
2. ghostrider888 2

   19 March 2013 at 12:59 pm

   FTP
3. red rattler 3

   19 March 2013 at 1:27 pm

   Under the rationale of policing un-mandated hacking of individual citizens, the state now takes away the citizenship of the political hackers and mandates more state spying.
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     19 March 2013 at 1:45 pm

     Basically the worst aspects and habits of the old Soviet Eastern Bloc.
     • karol 3.1.1

       19 March 2013 at 7:32 pm

       Although, it looks likely to be incorporated within a capitalist, individualist, celebrity culture ethos and system.
4. ak 4

   19 March 2013 at 3:28 pm

   It does not necessarily mean a revival of the critical, fourth estate ideal in the interest of the general public, especially the least powerful

   Certainly not. Mere tinkering with the left’s final hurdle: privately-owned control of public opinion via information censorship and selection.

   e.g.: considering the deluge of poll news in recent years, anyone seen the tiniest reference to the latest Roy Morgan?
5. xtasy 5

   19 March 2013 at 10:04 pm

   Karol – whether the private media is in the hands of some “moguls” owning corporate style businesses running media outlets, or whether it is in the hands of companies or corporations owned by various shareholders of whatever profit seeking types, it will not matter all that much, apart from the fact perhaps, that “moguls” may try to have a direct personal “input” at times.

   Once there is the strong profit focus and a substantial dependence on advertising, then privately owned media, even state run media, will in most, if not all cases, be of a “compromising” type.

   I appreciate your contribution here, and I like the reference made by Prof. James Curran to “coalitional journalism”, evident where media is concentrated in a few hands. Yes, we have this in New Zealand also, where print and online media are dominated by 2 mostly Australian owned corporations, where television is dominated by the likes of shareholder owners of TV3 and Sky TV, where TVNZ has been turned into a commercial type operation trying to compete for ratings with the other two, and where radio is also controlled in few hands.

   Having John Key become a “host” on Radio Live”, appear and chat regularly on “breakfast”, where having former politicians like Michael Laws allowed to push their personal political bias on air, having other former politicians, celebrities, and long term “popular” figures read news, present reports, offer infotainment and other stuff interspersed with endless commercials, does lead to “friendly” and “favourable” relationships between stations and political parties and lobby groups.

   In a small country like NZ the activities of one Steven Joyce and Maurice Williamson should raise eye-brows. Paul Holmes had his style and at times very biased comments, others do the same, and we have too much influence by powerful, famous personalities and certain business groups supporting them. Advertising naturally will have some influence on what will get broadcast, as media outlets depend on that revenue stream, so biting the hand that feeds you would not be a good idea. Product placement is rampant also. Listening to the news and sports on private stations where adverts are mingled in with news-bits is a real revelation (“promoted by”, “sponsored by…”).

   Journalism has deteriorated and degenerated, so the dumbing down continues, which will lead to more poorly informed voters and not sufficiently scrutinised politicians voted in to form governments that will of course also take advantage of and abuse the media for their own ends.

   The 4th Estate is only to be found in few remnants now, as the old breed of journalists makes room for the young, well-groomed, career minded, adaptable, self serving journo-school grads take over. Do not rock the boat too much, is the first things they learn, or you will have no access to, and information from, politicians and others.

   One only apparently privately owned leading television channel that somehow impresses and surprises me is Al Jazeera, offering rather good reporting and documentaries. But how long will that remain as it is?
   • karol 5.1

     20 March 2013 at 8:29 am

     Agreed, xtasy.

     There;s a current shift in the balance among the wealthy and/or powerful, but no strong hope for an emergent fourth estate.

     NZ is also too small to enable much diversity at the margins, unlike at the US and Europe.

     Al Jazeera is great but already has shown a shift toward a couple of specific powerful interests.

     The uncertain factor, though, is the internet. This is why corporates, financial institutions and governments like the US, are trying to gain control of copyright, ondemand, etc. And probably why the is a threat to the truth-telling of blogs and tweeters etc, as indicated in the reporting in my post of schedule 4 in the proposed UK deal.
     • xtasy 5.1.1

       21 March 2013 at 1:29 am

       karol: You have great insight and are onto it! I wish we could make more aware of what goes on!
     • Alanz 5.1.2

       23 March 2013 at 12:31 pm

       And also it would be farctastic for some political representatives to gag, bully and squash fellow party members from writing online

       🙂
       • lprent 5.1.2.1

         23 March 2013 at 2:13 pm

         The moderators are the only ones who can do anything effective, and we don’t moderate for political party reasons.

         We also seldom intervene when people are just arguing about politics. Which is why this is an equal opportunity anarchy. The moderators are a benign and lazy but quite dictatorial and over reactive police force who get real interested when commentators exhibit behaviours that attack the sites role in facilitating argument and discussion. Becomes a judgment call for commentators as to if what they are saying will attract a moderators attention.

         Tends to work quite well.

         Edit: Darn – I missed an important word – in italics. Commenting on a small pad is fraught.

Links to post

1. In the 4pm Daily Blog Watch « The Daily Blog: posted on 19 March 2013 at 9:23 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS