The Road to Censorship is Paved with Good Intentions

Distinguishing between balanced coverage and freedom of speech has become a recent trend in Australian political discourse.  The News of the World phone hacking scandal in Britain has generated calls for an inquiry into media ownership in Australia from Bob Brown and The Greens.  These calls were initially welcomed by Julia Gillard, a tactical blunder Labor would be wise to backtrack from.  Difficult and complicated media reform would be a distraction in the current climate while the government desperately tries to sell its other difficult and complicated reform: the carbon tax.

The political dynamic has shifted, particularly on the left, against debate and towards intimidation and group-think.  Andrew Bolt, one of Australia’s most talented columnists, is currently on trial for expressing his opinions in a hurtful manner.  Left-wing activist group GetUp! successfully campaigned to silence a speech by prominent climate sceptic Lord Monckton at the Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club.  GetUp! are also behind a planned boycott of companies that dare to speak out against the Government’s carbon tax.  Even a government with good intentions must tread cautiously through media reform or risk encouraging these un-Australian trends towards censorship and intimidation.

It is hard to understand why Australia needs the sort of media reform Mr Brown and Privacy Minister Brendan O’Connor propose.  Australia’s media does not have the same aggressive culture as Fleet Street and nobody is seriously suggesting otherwise.  The current scandal is more excuse than justification for a tort of privacy that Australia does not need.  A statutory cause of action for privacy breaches might sound good in theory, but it is difficult to draw a line between privacy protection and public interest stories. 

When Ms Gillard was recently asked at the National Press Club what the media should do to help sell Labor’s carbon tax, the Prime Minister’s response to this gratuitous question was ‘don’t print crap’.  But what is ‘crap’ and who decides if not the Australian people?  Australia already has strong libel laws and a remarkably successful self-regulating media industry.  Restricting the number or operation of newspapers through a licence to print, as Mr Brown suggests, does not serve the public interest.  Newspapers and the opinions they express, unlike television and radio stations broadcasting over the airwaves, are limited by the market rather than spectrum. 

That News Ltd is the target of so much criticism while Fairfax and the ABC remain relatively unscathed should highlight the problem with media reform.  The Daily Telegraph and The Australian have received particular criticism for bias.  All governments hate to be held accountable, so it is no surprise that accusations were levelled against two of the Government’s biggest critics.  The media is not responsible for the Governments catastrophic polling; Ms Gillard’s strongest supporters are inside the Canberra Press Gallery.  Ms Gillard’s unpopularity is the result of bad policy and a shift from Labor’s traditional blue collar base to a radical Greens’ agenda.

While Mr Brown’s calls for an inquiry are a reaction to the so called ‘hate media’, the closest we have come in recent years to a similar scandal occurred when staff of Fairfax Media’s The Age, including senior editor Mark Baker and editor-in-chief Paul Ramadge, unlawfully accessed Electrac, the ALP’s constituent database.  However, even The Age’s hypocritical glee reporting the scandal involving News Corp is no more justification for such an inquiry.  That road is too fraught with danger.

Ben Kunstler works as a political staffer while finishing an Arts (Hons)/Law degree at Monash University.  He is also Chairman of the Victorian Liberal Students' Association and Treasurer of the Australian Liberal Students' Federation.

Comments

[Tee]

1.

If there's nothing wrong then why worry about an investigation?

[Vikas Nayak]

2.

because it makes government the arbiter of news accuracy in the country?

I dunno. There was a lot of backlash against Jeff Kennett when he threatened the ABC after they got into a fight with him.

[Marksouth]

3.

Independence of the media and freedom from government intervention should be sacrosanct. It's the only way to prevent one side or other from using it to push their agenda and silence opposing views.

The internet is really the only free media we have, and note the ALP is still trying to 'fix' this as well.

[Georgina]

4.

Another knee jerk reaction??? Follows on the live cattle export fiasco. Or is it just a diversion tactic as seen over the past 12 months.

[SignedIn]

5.

Privacy recommendations have been sat on for some time now.
Is it politically expedient for them to be looked at now in the wake of the News of the World phone hacking scandal? Probably.
However does that change the facts that the recommendations made three years ago still carry weight?
You don't want governments intruding upon your freedom, but its ok for corporations and news organisations to intrude? Isn't that a little hypocritical?
And how does a right to privacy stifle free speech?

[Marksouth]

6.

No, no, 'privacy' is just the excuse they'll use to implement draconian media restrictions. You know, like every move to censor the internet is supposed to be about protecting us from terrorism and paedophilia? And then, oh surprise, some political sites have slipped onto the blacklist too.

Note that there has been no evidence of any wrongdoing by any media company in Australia. They're simply jumping on the bandwagon while some foreign story has people's attention.

[SignedIn]

7.

"Note that there has been no evidence of any wrongdoing by any media company in Australia."

Well you would be wrong.

Last night on Lateline:

TONY JONES: Have you heard of this kind of thing happening in Australia?

JULIAN DISNEY: Yes. Not from an enormous number of sources, but of course we also know that, leaving aside whether journalists are doing this, there've certainly been indications I think that other people are obtaining this kind of information by these kinds of methods.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3275136.htm

Last year:

Herald Sun caught trying to entrap Victorian MPs
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/25/herald-sun-caught-trying-to-entrap-victorian-mps/

I wonder what else goes on we haven't heard of?

[pk]

8.

"or risk encouraging these un-Australian trends towards censorship and intimidation"

Oh, I'm sorry I thought we had the freedom to protest and boycott that which we do not agree with in this country. I didn't know these rights were now considered unAustralian.

You blame GetUp for not being able to move Mr Monkton's speech event to a venue more willing when the first place fell through - that's piss poor organisation, not some evil move to censorship.
Oh well - keep blaming GetUp instead of running your own successful campaigns and blame tyranny when you fall short of carrying out the most simple tasks. Remain ineffectual, sideline whingers.

[Marksouth]

9.

@SignedIn: I said EVIDENCE. Disney's talking about 'indications' (he thinks). The other is an allegation of 'unethical, possibly illegal' behaviour, maybe. Perhaps other stuff does go on. Let's see the proof. Until then, all I see are flimsy excuses designed to beat up on the media and attack free speech as a diversion from the current government's atrocious poll figures.

[Ben Kunstler]

10.

Because any inquiry is likely to do more harm than good. The line between media reform and censorship is too fine for a Government that has seriously over reacted on grocery prices, fuel prices, the live cattle trade etc.

[Ben Kunstler]

11.

There's a clear difference between a political protest and intimidation. The former is perfectly legitimate, but the later has no place in Australian society. The recent protests outside Max Brenner chocolate stores are examples of this unacceptable, intimidating behaviour. Those scenes were eerily reminiscent of the last time people violently protested outside Jewish businesses.

If GetUp! members did not want to hear Lord Monckton that would be perfectly fine. But when they act to restrict the political discourse by not allowing others who did want to hear him from attending, that is both un-Australian and unacceptable.