<< SCREAM DOWN UNDER ~ MAIN ~ MARGOWEAR WINTER RANGE ANNOUNCED >>
DEAD TREE JOURNAL WHIPS GREENS
Australia’s Press Council says the Melbourne Herald Sun was mean to the Greens. The paper disagrees. Hit the link to read the Herald Sun’s argument—which the Press Council has refused to hear in an appeal against the earlier finding.
Does the Press Council enjoy some sort of Government authority? Can the Press Council suspend or sanction the paper for this? Or can the Herald Sun run a series of investigative reports detailing other potentially biased “findings” of the Press Council.
Or should they just tell the Council to fuck off?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 03 30 at 01:22 AM • permalinkSo this Press Council has the power to take away the Herald Sun’s presses? (One assumes they have a very big truck parked behind Press Council HQ for just such a purpose, and a waiting list of more deserving publications who would be gifted with said presses?) Or do they just send around a squad of “news nannies” to wander the newsrooms of offending papers, looking over the shoulders of reporters and editors searching for heresy for the length of a probationary period? Tell me, man - who is this all-powerful Press Council?!
Posted by rick mcginnis on 2005 03 30 at 01:43 AM • permalinkThe Greens want to stifle debate on the contents of their policies. I would argue that the platform of the Greens has seldom been looked at critically, if at all, by the mainstream media
The loony policies of Hanson and One nation were jumped on immediately they were released, but the equally loony Greens have got away with murder for decades
Posted by arnienelly on 2005 03 30 at 03:51 AM • permalinkActually, the Greens actually did get critiqued in the last election campaign, but it was from the Family First perspective. Neither group ended up doing that well.
Actually I think the reference to PHON and the Greens is an interesting one because these seemingly disparate groups would agree on a lot of things (eg trade and population issues, albeit in the latter case for different reasons).
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 03 30 at 04:46 AM • permalinkPardon the phrase, but it sounds like this “Press Council” is nothing more than a kangaroo court.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 30 at 06:59 AM • permalinkDarlene, the Greens were ‘critiqued’ from a Family First perspective? Where?
And neither group did that well? That’s wrong. You may be thinking of the Democrats.
No broadsheet newspaper or supposedly ‘quality’ broadcast organisation provided as robust and comprehensive an analysis of Greens policy as the Herald Sun.
I like it how they say no coercion would be used to implement their transportation targets. If you didn’t need coercion you could do it privately and wouldn’t need to use the government.
Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 03 30 at 07:44 AM • permalinkWow. Does this “press council” have any actual authority? again, pardon my ignorance of australian law.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 03 30 at 09:35 AM • permalinkfrom the Press Council’s web site:
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apc.htmlThe Australian Press Council is the self-regulatory body of the print media.
....
it serves as a forum to which anyone may take a complaint concerning the press.
.....The Council is funded by the newspaper and magazine industries, and its authority rests on the willingness of publishers and editors to respect the Council’s views, to adhere voluntarily to ethical standards and to admit mistakes publicly.
Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2005 03 30 at 10:26 AM • permalinkthanks.
and when the council makes mistakes? will it admit them too?
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 03 30 at 10:30 AM • permalinkMr. Bingley — Unelected, unaccuntable regulatory bodies do not make mistakes. Just ask the UN and the EU. Of course, you may not be allowed to publish their answer.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 30 at 10:32 AM • permalinkoh, silly me; i always forget that part.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 03 30 at 10:42 AM • permalinkActually I think the reference to PHON and the Greens is an interesting one because these seemingly disparate groups would agree on a lot of things (eg trade and population issues, albeit in the latter case for different reasons).
Darlene, when One Nation was in its ascendency, a (small) few political commentators pointed out the similarities of its policies to those of the Greens and Democrats (trade, immigration, tax, nationalisation, over-regulation etc).
There was an uproar from the left but the best they could manage was a comment from either Cheryl Kernot or Meg Lees (they all blend into one):
“so what if our policies are similar to One Nation’s, we’ve actually developed ours over time whereas they made theirs up on the spot”
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 03 30 at 08:34 PM • permalinkilibcc, no I don’t think either the Greens or Family First did that well. Indeed, the latter failed to the required amount of votes to get any moolah.
I was thinking about the drugs policy actually.
Love that quote ArtVandelay, how revealing.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 03 31 at 08:51 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
So who are the dickwads on the Press Council, and who pays them?