Noticed how everyone is a passionate champion for “freedom” nowadays? In fact, among Australia’s pinstriped and share optioned media executives, there is more chest beating on this subject than in a Tarzan movie – but without the pecs.
Every second day in the mainstream media, some corporate media poohbah or IPA lackey comes swinging through the 24/7 news cycle to holler about the virtues of a press that stands up for the rights of the little guy and guyette by speaking “truth to power”.
It is indeed heart warming how all these arch capitalists are willing to take time out of their busy schedule of editorialising about cutting workers’ pay and conditions, defending tobacco companies against the ‘nanny state’ or promoting unregulated gambling to stand up for the powerless.
But what’s interesting is the close correlation between the mainstream media’s concept of “freedom” and the commercial interests of those who pay their bills – their clients, the advertisers. It’s why the television networks recently refused to air an ad from activist group GetUp that highlighted the reliance of the major grocery chains on substantial revenue from the pokies.
Consider this: Of the nation’s top 25 advertisers in 2010, Woolworths, Wesfarmers (owners of Coles) and Harvey Norman were the biggest spenders. So it seems that the media’s pious defence of “freedom” of expression stops at the point their own revenues become threatened.
Or look at the so-called ‘Big Switch’ campaign, analysed recently by Media Watch, in which the media grandstands about ‘supporting our readers’ to get discounted power bills, while promoting the commercial interests of people harvesting consumers’ private details and earning commissions.
Interestingly, when a genuine threat to personal freedom emerges – as in the bid by our over-zealous security agencies to get access to individuals’ internet history and Facebook accounts – the chest-beating press barons go strangely quiet. It seems privacy comes second to the preferred narrative of keeping the population fearful of ‘the other’.
At the heart of all this self-glorification and myth-making, once again, is the decreasing relevance of the media and its desperate attempts to get noticed in a climate where people have other choices in their information sources. So the more marginal establish media becomes, they more pompously they pontificate about their inflated role as the Voice of the People.
But is it too much to ask media executives just to reflect for a moment and ask themselves a couple of simple questions. If they are so in the corner of the little powerless people, why is public trust in the Australian media among the worst in the world? If they are such effective advocates for the voiceless, why are fewer and fewer people buying their product? And why does their concept of freedom bear such a striking resemblance to their commercial interests?
Any takers? Man without a shirt:
14 Comments
Noel · July 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Perhaps mainstream media wouldn't be in such dire straits if papers hadn't sold out their readers so blatantly. Perhaps readers that felt they were getting something real, something of value, they might think it was still worth paying a dollar a day for a newspaper or its digital equivalent.
Perhaps not. It could be that papers were doomed from the moment the first modem was connected, but they certainly made it easy for us to abandon them.
Noel · July 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Perhaps mainstream media wouldn't be in such dire straits if papers hadn't sold out their readers so blatantly. Perhaps readers that felt they were getting something real, something of value, they might think it was still worth paying a dollar a day for a newspaper or its digital equivalent.
Perhaps not. It could be that papers were doomed from the moment the first modem was connected, but they certainly made it easy for us to abandon them.
Anonymous · July 16, 2012 at 2:20 PM
I'm all for press freedom. Give them all the freedom they need to alienate themselves into utter irrelevance.
Anonymous · July 16, 2012 at 2:20 PM
I'm all for press freedom. Give them all the freedom they need to alienate themselves into utter irrelevance.
Sooz · July 16, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Far from being the voice of the people, Ltd News actually practices censorship. As a reader it is impossible to have a comment published on an article that does not agree with the editorial line. I have had comments either not published or edited to the point where they bear no resemblance to my original meaning. They get away with this outrageous practice by use of the conditions of commentary which state they may edit your comment 'for clarity'.
Sooz · July 16, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Far from being the voice of the people, Ltd News actually practices censorship. As a reader it is impossible to have a comment published on an article that does not agree with the editorial line. I have had comments either not published or edited to the point where they bear no resemblance to my original meaning. They get away with this outrageous practice by use of the conditions of commentary which state they may edit your comment 'for clarity'.
Doug · July 16, 2012 at 11:18 PM
The mainstream media, particularly News Ltd, is very selective about which b@stards it purports to keep honest. Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds is not a long-term strategy for pretending to maintain integrity. The problems the common person has with those in power, particularly those who abuse their power, are across the board and not confined to institutions and organisations that are not aligned with the self-interest of the media.
Doug · July 16, 2012 at 11:18 PM
The mainstream media, particularly News Ltd, is very selective about which b@stards it purports to keep honest. Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds is not a long-term strategy for pretending to maintain integrity. The problems the common person has with those in power, particularly those who abuse their power, are across the board and not confined to institutions and organisations that are not aligned with the self-interest of the media.
Anonymous · July 18, 2012 at 2:50 AM
Agaunst my better judgment I still occasionally look at The Australian's web site (Usually to see if Patrick Smith has something interesting). yesterday my intterest was piqued by a headline that said Gillard was being urged to sack Fitzgibbon. That might be news, I thought, another rat in the ranks. ASo I clicked and there it was: the call to sack the whip had come from CHRISTOPHER PYNE!.
How anybody who is serious about journalism could even bother reporting that Pyne had said that and how any editor could do anything other than spike it (or whatever they do in the digital age) is just beyond me.
The mind is more than boggled.
Anonymous · July 18, 2012 at 11:46 AM
It isn't just News Ltd that practices censorship.
A comment I once submitted to the ABC was censored. They did publish the bulk of the comment. But toward the end where I mentioned that Abbott had been in his office asleep while a vote on the second Stimulus Package (2009) took place in the HoR, the ABC chopped out.
Anonymous · July 20, 2012 at 5:49 AM
FYI Readers.
There is a petition calling for the ABC to be accountable for its bias to the IPA.
You'll find the link at ABC Gone To Hell.
http://www.abcgonetohell.net/
Anonymous · July 20, 2012 at 5:49 AM
FYI Readers.
There is a petition calling for the ABC to be accountable for its bias to the IPA.
You'll find the link at ABC Gone To Hell.
http://www.abcgonetohell.net/
Aaron Fenwick · July 20, 2012 at 6:14 AM
They all do, Fairfax has blocked a number of my comments on their more stupid articles… The Online editors of The Age don't like the word “Clickbait” 😛
Aaron Fenwick · July 20, 2012 at 6:14 AM
They all do, Fairfax has blocked a number of my comments on their more stupid articles… The Online editors of The Age don't like the word “Clickbait” 😛