Nov 7, 2011

Mayne: News Ltd launches pre-emptive attack on Finkelstein inquiry

News Ltd is working hard to discredit the Finkelstein media inquiry before it has even begun public hearings in Melbourne tomorrow.

Stephen Mayne — Journalist and Founder

Stephen Mayne

Journalist and Founder

News Limited is working hard to discredit the Finkelstein media inquiry before it has even begun public hearings in Melbourne tomorrow. Mark Day used his regular column in The Australian’s Media section today to dismiss the likes of Robert Manne, Eric Beecher and myself as predictable Murdoch critics.

In the column, headlined “Inquiry’s focus on manipulation is a joke”, Day ran a line that satire and jokes are the big media growth area, as if to suggest a society should not take media regulation seriously. He then did this very interesting segue towards the end:

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

7 thoughts on “Mayne: News Ltd launches pre-emptive attack on Finkelstein inquiry

  1. Mike Flanagan

    Dont hold your breath Stephen!
    But we all await with baited breath for the contents of Rebecca’s
    trashed computers.

  2. David Allen

    Godd on you, Stephen. I wish you well tomorrow. Just listened to your recent IQ2 debate contribution and thoroughly enjoyed it. Pity you lost, but:-)

    Better luck in the real world.

  3. John Bennetts

    Mike F:

    You are presumably awaiting with bated breath. Avoids fishhooks…

  4. zut alors

    Stephen, you really must publish a warning at the beginning of pieces where you quote B0lt. It’s my habit to avoid his crud but you led us, unprepared, right into it.

    I assume the B0lt excerpt was accurately reproduced – if so, it’s about time one of the highest paid journos in this country undertook a basic course in punctuation.

  5. Mike Flanagan

    John B
    Yea Thanks! I just reached for the fresh bread.

  6. klewso

    If we’re only going to be told one side of the news, by a troupe of demagogues who think they are imbued with some sort of infallibility, just because they appear in print and the competition is kept to a minimum, served up by a company that plays politics, spinning a narrative and agenda, with their market share of that “service”, how can we be expected to form “well-informed opinions”, come voting time?
    Of course when “we” do vote their way, shaped by our perceptions of reality, based on “evidence” presented, no matter how selective, and the vacuum of competition, and alternate opinion, it doesn’t matter how severe the outcome for “Joe Blow” – because we’d never get to read that sort of negativity in their sort of controlled “news”. that sort of “electoral perspicacity” will be lauded by these “shapers of public opinion”, acting more as political PR hacks. While vested interests – sponsored and spun by these same “servers” – prosper.
    Of course “conservative government” is their aim, through influencing voter perception of fitness to govern – positive conservative spin and negative for the left – and they don’t have to face the electorate themselves!

  7. AR

    I cannot imagine any mechanism for cleaning up mendacious, partisan bias in the meeja that will NOT lend itself to the far greater danger of government censorship – if a power is available, it will, inevitably be abused.
    The only way to ensure a truly ‘free’ press is to ban monopoly – lotsa luck with that.
    As Adam Smith pointed out, and experience has demonstrated for the last several centuries, … those of similar trade rarely meet even socially without it resulting in a conspiracy against the public. ‘scuz the paraphrasing – I eschew google on principle – but, for accuracy, here is the exact quote –
    People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details