What's wrong with this page?

If this page appears normal, you need to detox.

Avoid Murdoch publications for a week

It's your ABC, so don't be afraid to question them

We've contacted them many times. Usually we get ignored, but sometimes we get an answer.

Here's our latest effort:

Re: Deaths in custody in Queensland

I refer to your 'Deaths in custody in Queensland' story of [9/7/10], and particularly the following:

"...KATHY MCLEISH: They were devastated and media headlines added to the horror but it turned out there had been no car-jacking. The coroner found a communication error had led to that report, but the Kealtons say the police didn't return to straighten out the mistake and it was days before a witness contacted them to tell them there was no car-jacking.

LEIGH KEALTON: The police knew that didn't happen so there was really no excuse for them to put out that sort of story first to us under those tragic circumstances and secondly to the media because all of our friends and family both here and overseas were aware of that report in the newspaper. So it was a pretty hard pill to swallow. ..."

Is there an ABC editorial policy that dictates when the ABC mentions the Murdoch press they don't mention them by name, unless it's putting them in a positive light?

UK campaign to Stop Murdoch

From '38 Degrees':

Rupert Murdoch has his sights set on gaining complete control of BSkyB and increasing his stranglehold on a free and independent media in the UK. He currently owns 40% of the company but wants to increase his stake to 100%.

This would be a disaster. It would give Murdoch even more political influence and it could open the door to biased, right-wing news like Fox News in the US.

A free and diverse media is a huge part of what makes democracy work. We can't rely on big business to make the right decisions about Murdoch's plan to buy BSkyB. It needs full and proper scrutiny by government. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary, has the power tell regulators to investigate the purchase before it goes ahead.

If thousands of us e-mail Vince Cable, we can persuade him to make the right decision and oppose Murdoch’s master plan.

Please sign the petition now, then ask your friends to get involved too.

Murdoch's Staff Are Directly Responsible For This Country's Xenophobia

The Prime Minister's suggestion that Australia needs to freely and openly debate the issue of asylum seekers got us wondering where she thinks this debate is going to take place?

Which of our lily livered commentators will dare point out how the xenophobia in this country has been cultivated by the Murdoch Press, and is being painted as a general national feeling rather than a minority point of view?

Reminds us of a couple of 'Spring Hill Voice' posts from three years ago:

Media Miss The Boat

Last week's Walkley Media Forum at the Regatta Hotel marked World Refugee Day by considering the topic, 'Missing the Boat? Reporting on asylum seekers and refugees'. The forum was moderated by Cathy Border from Channel Ten, and included presentations by Dr Angela Romano, Senior Lecturer In Journalism at QUT, David Costello, Foreign Editor of the 'Courier-Mail', Peter McCutcheon from the ABC's '7.30 Report' and John Murungi from the Refugee Claimants' Support Centre.

Dr Romano emphasised that the public is reliant on the media for information on this issue. Yet her studies on the media's reportage of asylum seekers revealed a disturbing use of biased and inflammatory language in news media stories. Examples included, 'Boatload of illegal refugees seized' (from the 'Courier-Mail'), and another in
'The Australian', about "refugees" in the New Orleans superbowl in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina, which was juxtaposed with a report about Jesse Jackson pointing out the inaccuracy of describing people in their own country as refugees.

As for who dominates the agenda, she found that in 2003, 61% of the 'Courier-Mail's' stories were based on government sources, while in 2007, this has dropped to 22%. Dr Romano said the negative stereotypes and common and simple concerns that people had about refugees and asylum seekers could be easily addressed by the media.

"Antipathy comes about because people don't know who they are," she said.

Dr Romano explained that the Federal Government are sophisticated in understanding people's prejudices, and that journalists are being left behind in
the wash.

"Journalists are missing the boat because governments have the resources
and journalists don't," she said.

Referring to the years between 1999 and 2001 as a "wild period" encompassing the riots at Woomera and Port Hedland, David Costello said that now is a good time to be talking about refugees, given we are experiencing a period of calm.

"We don't lock up kids anymore," he said.

Mr Costello defended the 'Courier-Mail's' coverage of refugee and asylum seeker stories. Singling out a particular "hard-working" 'Courier-Mail' journalist, he said, "If you're looking for demonization of asylum seekers, you won't find it in Margaret Wenham's stories, or in the rest of the 'Courier-Mail's' pages."

Mr Costello undertook "newstext" searches, which he said showed that the 'Courier-Mail' was "out of step" between 2001 and 2002. But he pointed out that a 1999 editorial stated that most refugees are genuinely seeking refuge. He later added that the coalition government have overreacted. "We are not faced with a full scale invasion," he said.

"The media should work to dispel myths about boat people."

Citing the "children overboard" example as a "moral lowpoint" for Australia, Peter McCutcheon expressed concern at the manner in which governments can affect and distort items of public interest.

"Why are journalists still talking about it?" he asked, later explaining that the "children overboard" affair highlights a "broader systemic problem" which has resulted in the diminished quality of public debate.

He said he has experienced "stonewalling and obfuscation" when attempting to obtain straightforward information about various operational matters. He made it clear that this is evident at all levels of government.

Reflecting on the past eleven years, and Australia's inhumane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, John Murungi said, "I've come to realise it's not personal."

As for what it means to be a refugee, "We are talking about human lives," he said.

"And nobody ever chooses to leave their home."

And

Haneef - News Ltd disgraces itself, as usual!

The Sunday Murdoch papers would lead a fool to the conclusion that Dr Haneef was going to blow up the Q1 tower on the Gold Coast.

Today's [22/7/07] 'Sunday Mail' (and its inbred cousins) gives the impression that there could possibly be some kind of justification for the undemocratic and extra-judicial treatment of Dr Haneef. Their police reporter invokes innuendo as journalism without shame or remorse to vilify and demonise "them".

There has been a great deal of unexpected support for Dr Haneef from all quarters. This is possibly because of the blatantly political motivation behind the whole episode. When the AFP shamelessly becomes a tool of the Federal Executive, as has happened with the behaviour of Australia's (your) Federal Commissioner with Dr Haneef, it is time to wonder how the concentration of media power in the hands of Mr Rupert Murdoch could possibly benefit Australia, we Queenslanders, or our general security and well-being.

The Sunday Murdoch rags were at it again from dawn today (i.e. Saturdayafternoon's policy planning sessions) and it took until all the feathers had been spread to the four winds before the AFP called the lie at 4pm. The AFP only bothered to call that lie AFTER the doctor's Solicitor appeared at the very public Forum at Griffith University. You could assume the lie would have been left out there but for SBS and other non-mouthpiece outlets.

The Murdoch article was, as is their fashion, based on anonymous (but very senior!!) "sources" and conjecture. So, a "source" says the AFP is wondering whether there may have been a plan and if there was a plan whether people may be involved in that plan etc...... You know how it works. If this is the best the Feds can do, I want my money back!

If only Mr Murdoch's operatives had been so judgmental of the flaky evidence that ended up in the illegal invasion and failed occupation of Iraq, instead of concentrating
on religious differences within Australia.

Since Mr Murdoch is not even an Australian, why do all our politicians care so much about his opinions, you may ask.

Make a point of publicly rubbishing the Murdoch Press at least once a day, and don't allow anyone who refers to the Murdoch press as if it were credible source go unchallenged.

Dear Mr Adams, It's a Matter of Principles...

Broadcaster, writer and film-maker, Phillip Adams, was one of a cast of characters who appeared in Murdoch's advertisement's for 'The Australian' which were screened on SBS Television last September

Mr Adams writes in his weekly column in 'The Australian' [3/7/10], that he has resigned from the ALP (emphasis added):

... Rudd and I talked regularly. The last time we spoke he was urging me to resign from The Australian to protest its editorial line, advice I declined to accept. And we argued about his climate change strategy. I by no means agreed with other policies and tactics. But nothing would have persuaded me to support a move against the leader who'd defeated Howard, made that superb "sorry" speech and handled the GFC with such skill. The right to dismiss a PM belongs to the electorate at an election, not to a drunken governor-general or factional bullies drunk with power. Rudd goes, so I go too. Seems the lethal Latham was right.

So, as a matter of principle, you resign from the ALP after 50 years because: "thugs now dismiss leaders at their whim. In cowardly conspiracies."

But you happily continue to work for the Murdoch machine despite the "thugs" and "cowardly conspiracies" at every level of his machine doing everything to appoint, dismiss and control the leaders of your country (and the rest of the world for that matter). Despite the inestimable damage they are constantly doing to this country's democratic process and media.

Why is that? What's the difference?

Principles?

[Thanks to public libraries for free access to the unprincipled rag used as the source for this piece.]

Geoff wants to help

Geoff Provest MP has made it easy for his constituents to contact him with a full page "Geoff-o-gram" in this four-page "Community Newsletter" which appeared in this week's 'Tweed Border Mail [1/7/10]

Australians need to reclaim their democracy. This involves holding our elected representatives to account, and getting them to represent OUR interests rather than those of multi-national corporations.

An important aspect of this will require big changes to our media.

So whenever you get the opportunity, let your politicians know that you are unhappy with the current state of media ownership in Australia, and would like them to do something about the Murdoch media's unhealthy stranglehold.

First Murdoch Ignores You, Then Murdoch Ridicules You, Then Murdoch Buys You - Then You Lose

Another one bites the dust!

Now that Rupert Murdoch owns him outright this should provide an interesting tinge to his the outcome of his The changing relationship between federal politicians and the media in the internet age project.

How did working for Murdoch work out for people like Tim Dunlop? For FFFFS, why do you town bikes think Murdoch is going to finally 'Luuurve' you when he has tossed over so, so, so, many of your kind before you? Do you really think that you are the 'one', somehow different? That maybe he'll leave those nasty tarts like Glenn and Andrew and Dennis and Piers and move in with you and start an honest life putting his powers to good instead of evil?

"This time it's different, babe. I've never felt this way about any writer ever before. Babe, I promise I'll never interfere in your work. I want you for your mind...I want you for your freedom to say exactly what you feel without any fear or favour."

"Hmmmm, brains! Yummy!"

Fucking idiots.

Do some homework before you sell your credibility to Rupert. Read one of the many books written by your predecessors who also thought they were 'the one' for Rupert.

Remember, he's about 100 years old and despite the myths, he can't live forever. One day he'll be dead and you will be alive. And a lot of very, very, very pissed off people are going to be wandering around with pitchforks looking for the people who allowed people like him to do this to our world.

Arsehats!