Media inquiry response -- what should I say?

[Renai]

As you might have heard, the Federal Government has invited responses to its media enquiry. The terms of reference are here:

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry

I'm thinking of making a response to the inquiry from Delimiter. So I thought I'd ask you readers what you think I should say Post responses below.

[Renai]

Note that I will likely use some of your responses in Delimiter's response document -- but not naming names -- just saying "Delimiter's readers say this" etc. I want to make this a collaborative process as I believe Delimiter is more of a community rather than a publication.

[mwyres]

I say "b00bs"...

Seriously though, will have a ponder about it...sure I can come up with something...

[Renai]

I was thinking something along the lines of calling for more protection for online journalists and bloggers, etc -- but not sure what else atm.

[voradams]

1. High Speed Bacon delivery.
2. I wish the urban deployment was faster. You could use income from internet heavy regions to fund faster expansion,
3. Fibre to the node will only work if the last metre stuff is up to snuff, some of the copper is over a century old!

[HubertCumberdale]

I believe online publications should be forced to color code text in their articles.

Green = Verified fact
Blue = Opinion
Red = Unsubstantiated claim

This will allow readers to view at a glance exactly how much crap they are reading. Of course you should be able to toggle it on or off.

[Renai]

lol @ both suggestions

[rockinrobstar]

I saw comment about this the other night on ABC's Media Watch. The host seemed to suggest that the print media's self-regulation body and respective code of conduct isn't worth the paper its written on. (Renai are you signatory to any such codes of conduct or regulatory bodies ?)

I guess its a balance of, on the one hand - the need to be able to publish freely as would be expected in any modern western democracy, against on the other hand - the need to deliver facts, present both sides of a story and not show particular bias.

The reality is that the internet allows anyone to publish be it good, bad or indifferent. (Don't worry Renai - I think your of the former :P ). But I imagine I'm just stating the obvious.

I guess I have often wondered if television should have a ratings body that, rather than giving a rating based on age appropriateness, rated shows on scales of scientific reputability, literary value and historical accuracy. Something that is able to rate crap what it is. Do you think most people know they are watching and reading rubbish or do some people take A Current Affair for real ?

[Renai]

I'm not a signatory to any codes of conduct -- as I believe the only real code of conduct which matters is the trust relationship with readers. If I started behaving unethically, readers would abandon Delimiter, and then I wouldn't have a business

Given the Press Council's complete lack of understanding of the online medium, demonstrated to great effect here:

http://mumbrella.com.au/press-council-boss-in-push-to-regulate-reader-comments-and-sign-up-serious-bloggers-58681

I would be extremely reluctant to sign up to work with it, unless it started to focus much better online and display an understanding of that medium (pre-moderated comments? Yuck!! Censorship!). In addition, I would object to having to help fund its activities ... it just doesn't seem reasonable that the thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands?) of bloggers in Australia should fork out for a group to regulate us, when we seem to be doing a pretty good job without it already.

What I mainly think is important in online publishing is not presenting the right facts or being transparent about bias etc. Rather, I think it's important to label content correctly. So, for example, if you're claiming to write a news article, label it news, and then let readers judge whether your facts are accurate or biased. If they are inaccurate, pretty soon someone will notice and point that out on their own site. If you have bias, the same will happen.

What I don't like seeing, however, is opinion disguised as fact, for example -- as I think that muddies the waters. In a similar vein, advertising should always be labelled, so that people know what they are dealing with.

[socrates]

Dead right, Renai. The push to 'licence, codify and regulate' is coming from people who:
a) are from the political class and want to control every source of information;
b) are from the legacy media corporations who want to see as many curbs as possible put on alternative feeds (but not on their own old media operations); and
c) are pushing some social or religious barrow, and want to promote their beliefs while suppressing the views of others.

The official line that 'some media are irresponsible, and therefore all media should be licenced' is a non sequitur, and a perversion of definition that would be appreciated by George Orwell.

[deteego]

The media enquiry is a charade from a party that is under intense political pressure, and they are scapegoating the problem onto the media, just as the Greens are starting to do since they have attracted more attention

If you can't deal with the Media, then get out of the kitchen. The media is only as effective as the amount of ammunition you give them

[dettol]

The media enquiry is a charade from a party that is under intense political pressure, and they are scapegoating the problem onto the media, just as the Greens are starting to do since they have attracted more attention

If you can't deal with the Media, then get out of the kitchen. The media is only as effective as the amount of ammunition you give them

This coming from an Abbott/Murdoch fanboy.