[LINK] Alligators in the sewers, moon made of cheese, etc

[Paul Montgomery]

david higgins wrote:

> AAAARRRGGHH! When will you see how dunderheaded these comments are:
> 
> "Just another example where the business pages of the major metro newspapers
> are used as tools to try to further the commercial interests of the
> proprietors."
> 
> "And of the journalists themselves, Paul. A "declaration of sharholding" is
> an
> irrelevant joke. Journalism is as compromised by its practitioners' own
> behaviour as by the interests of proprietors."
> 
> For the record, once again, I have NEVER experienced, nor have I heard of a
> journalist -- during my time at the SMH or The Australian -- being told what
> to write at the request of management.

> Use your brain here, rather than jumping directly to the urban myth. The
> vast majority of those involved in the Internet industry are against DCITA's
> regulatory policies. It is hardly surprising that someone like Tom Burton
> (who is in charge of the SMH's Web site) and the management of Fairfax would
> have the same opinion on this matter.
I didn't say that that was the case, nor did I try to imply it. I said 
that the papers were being "used as tools", meaning the journos were 
using them, not the proprietors. I am sorry if what I wrote was not 
clear enough.

The argument that no one influences you to write these things is far 
from the point. The problem is not so much in what is written, but what 
is not included: the sin of omission. Tom did not present both sides of 
the argument. I have seen dozens of press comment pieces, and I have not 
seen a cogent and full explanation of the arguments from both sides, 
although the excellent Lateline panel on this topic several weeks ago 
went some way to rectifying that. If Tom wants to be seen to be 
impartial in this matter - and I'm not sure that he does - then perhaps 
he can answer the stinging criticisms made by Packer in his letter to 
the AFR about the agenda of Fairfax and News being to get a 
broadcaster's license by the back door. Where are we going to get a 
balanced view of this? Not in the papers. Again, we have to look to TV, 
with Media Watch presenting the facts very well on Monday.

All of this is related to the very interesting piece in the Australian's 
Media section today by Michael Kirby. I am a Lefty from way back, and 
Kirby works for the right-wing think tank, the Institute for Public 
Affairs, but I have to say I agreed with him when he said that the 
Left-leaning journalist establishment refuses to acknowledge 
conservative points of view. In this case, the conservatism relates to 
the concept of broadcasters having a degree of market protection to 
ensure quality in output of local cultural content. In the tech media's 
eyes, this is an evil monopoly which must be smashed, and Alston is the 
stick in the mud who is thwarting progressive ideals. Again, I'm not 
saying I agree with Alston's policies, but he's not getting a fair go 
from what constitues the IT press gallery.

> Furthermore, both today (Thu) and tomorrow the SMH is running negative
> pieces about f2 (the restructure and, well, you'll have to wait and see for
> the other).
No one questions the diligence with which Fairfax reports internal 
movements. I remember the day Sold.com.au was launched...

--
Paul Montgomery, CEO @ AusBONE, the ISP peering co-operative.
Land: not yet  Mobile: 0410 622 589  mailto:monty@ausbone.net