Jul 27, 2012

News Ltd versus Gillard: a tale of two letters

Yesterday, Bernard Keane untangled some of the false arguments behind opposition to a public interest test for media ownership. Today, David Salter reviews the parallel campaign against content regulation.

It’s looking very much as if News Limited may have overplayed its hand in the fight it has picked with the government over media regulation. Indeed, there are signs the Holt Street heavies are now being taught a subtle lesson that the corporate sword of “government relations” pressure can cut both ways.

The Murdoch battalions fired their first salvo last month with a letter to the Prime Minister signed by News CEO Kim Williams and six other media executives (three of whom head companies owned, or partially owned, by News). The letter robustly protested any form of statutory content regulation for the print media.

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

4 thoughts on “News Ltd versus Gillard: a tale of two letters

  1. klewso

    To be fair, “Limited News” does seem to exist in a “state” removed from ours?
    Where some things seem to appear to happen differently than they do here – going on their accounts.

  2. Boswell Jim

    I hope that the Prime Minister stands her ground. There are enough examples of the abuse of power by some media for our Government to earn many “Brownie Points” by standing up for “RESPONSIBLE Free Speech” which Murdoch Press has NOT portrayed!

  3. Aaron F

    The real threat to our democratic society is a lack of diversity of media ownership, and the subsequent control of information and thus power over politicians.

  4. Gary Scanlan

    The lack of an accurate description of Justice Finkelstein’s proposals in
    News Ltd papers should be warning enough. There is no proposal that
    journalists can be fined by the NMC (para 11.76) and the only way a
    journalist or editor can be jailed is if they commit contempt of court
    (para 11.77). We all can be jailed for the same offence. What is most
    disconcerting is the supposition that this is all about the media and
    politcicans. Without any doubt, the proposals would mostly benefit
    those private citizens who have been defamed (but can’t afford to risk
    $500,00 on a defamation case) and many more pepole whose reputations
    have been assaulted but in cases where the defamation laws wouldn’t apply.

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