Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Wednesday 21 December 2016

So where did you say your news was coming from?


An interesting snippet from Australian Newspaper History Group, Newsletter, No 90, December 2016, pp.

90.1.3 China (1): Supplement to SMH and Age

On 23 September both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age carried an eight-page supplement entitled China Watch, which contained China news and views.
The supplement clearly indicated that it had been prepared by the China Daily and that there had been no editorial involvement by the Sydney Morning Herald and Age.
This follows a precedent where in recent years the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age have regularly carried similar sponsored supplements containing news and views of Russia.

90.1.4 China (2): Australian media

Yan Xia, the editor of Vision China Times, a Chinese-language newspaper published in Australia, says a Beijing-based immigration agency was forced to pull an advertisement from his paper because it was regarded as an “anti-China” paper (Australian, 10 October 2016). The Ministry of State Security, the agency in charge of counter-intelligence and political security, had allegedly harassed the agent.

Yan Xia said, “Our lost client illustrates but one of the mounting pressures faced by independent Chinese media in Australia. Tensions have heightened over recent months, with Australia’s Chinese media under pressure to support President Xi Jinping and Beijing’s foreign policy. That pressure is part of China’s exercise in ‘soft power’. Broadly speaking, there are three types of Chinese-language media in Australia.

“The first consists of those that rely on the Chinese government and Chinese commercial ties for revenue. These outlets tend to echo and take their cues from state-run mouthpieces. The second group consists of media directed by religious groups aiming to expose China’s political, educational and socio-economic situation while promoting human rights and religious freedom. And the third is independent of political and religious influence. Its reporting is largely in line with the ideals of Western mainstream media and generally gives holistic views of Canberra’s policies and sentiments.

“Our outfit fits this last category. While independent media outlets are standard in the West, a one-party state cannot accept that media outlets “do not follow directives” and, by its reckoning, do damage to ‘national interests’. In China, national interests are synonyms for ‘the party’s interests’.

“In recent months it appears the Chinese government’s influence in Australia has become more open and, thus, more easily observed. For Chinese media platforms whose goal is to serve as the bridge between the Chinese community and the Australian mainstream, the challenge lies in reporting fairly and accurately on matters of conflict between the two countries. We choose to remain unyielding in our approach, reporting according to Western journalistic ideals. This has been tested during recent times, which have seen a deluge of articles examining issues that Beijing considers unpalatable.”

Tuesday 20 December 2016

On the problem of fake news....


Digital Trends, 6 December 2016:

It’s been half a decade since the co-founder of Avaaz, Eli Pariser, first coined the phrase “filter bubble,” but his prophetic TED Talk — and his concerns and warnings — are even more applicable now than they were then. In an era of fake news, curated content, personalized experiences, and deep ideological divisions, it’s time we all take responsibility for bursting our own filter bubbles.

When I search for something on Google, the results I see are quite different from yours, based on our individual search histories and whatever other data Google has collected over the years. We see this all the time on our Facebook timelines, as the social network uses its vats of data to offer us what it thinks we want to see and hear. This is your bubble…..

Filter bubbles may not seem too threatening a prospect, but they can lead to two distinct but connected issues. The first is that when you only see things you agree with, it can lead to a snowballing confirmation bias that builds up steadily over time.

They don’t overtly take a stance, they invisibly paint the digital landscape with things that are likely to align with your point of view.

A wider problem is that with such difference sources of information between people, it can lead to the generation of a real disconnect, as they become unable to understand how anyone could think differently from themselves.

A look at any of the left- or right-leaning mainstream TV stations during the buildup to the recent election would have left you in no doubt over which candidate they backed. The same can be said of newspapers and other media. In fact, this is true of many published endorsements.

But we’re all aware of that bias. It’s easy to simply switch off or switch over to another station, to see the other side of the coin.

Online, the bias is more covert. Google searches, social network feeds, and even some news publications all curate what they show you. Worse, it’s all behind the scenes. They don’t overtly take a stance, they invisibly paint the digital landscape with things that are likely to align with your point of view…..

This becomes even more of a problem when you factor in faux news. This latest election was one of the most contentious in history, with low-approval candidates on both sides and salacious headlines thrown out by every source imaginable. With so much mud being slung, it was hard to keep track of what was going on, and that was doubly so online, where fake news was abundant.

This is something that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has tried to play down, claiming that it only accounted for 1 percent of the overall Facebook news. Considering Facebook has near 2 billion users, though, that’s potentially a lot of faux stories parroted as the truth. It’s proved enough of an issue that studies suggest many people have difficulty telling fake news from real news, and in the weeks since the election, both Google and Facebook have made pledges to deal with the problem.

Also consider that 61 percent of millennials use Facebook as their main source of news, and you can see how this issue could be set to worsen if it’s not stoppered soon…..

While Zuckerberg may not think fake news and memes made a difference to the election, Facebook employee and Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey certainly did. He was outed earlier this year for investing more than $100,000 in a company that helped promote Donald Trump online through the proliferation of memes and inflammatory attack advertisements. He wouldn’t have put in the effort if he thought it worthless.

Buzzfeed’s analysis of the popular shared stories on Facebook shows that while fake news underperformed compared to its real counterparts in early 2016, by the time the Election Day rolled around at the start of November, it had a 1.5 million engagement lead over true stories.

That same analysis piece highlighted some of the biggest fake election stories, and all of them contained classic click-baiting tactics. They used scandalous wording, capitalization, and sensationalist claims to draw in the clickers, sharers, and commenters.

That’s because these sorts of words help to draw an emotional reaction from us. Marketing firm Co-Schedule discovered this back in 2014, but it’s likely something that many people would agree with even without the hard numbers. We’ve all been tempted by clickbait headlines before, and they’re usually ones that appeal to fear, anger, arousal, or some other part of us that isn’t related to critical thinking and political analysis. Everyone’s slinging mud from within their own filter bubbles, secure in the knowledge that they are right, and that everyone who thinks differently is an idiot.

And therein lies the difficulty. The only way to really understand why someone may hold a different viewpoint is through empathy. But how can you empathize when you don’t have control over how the world appears to you, and your filter serves as a buffer to stories that might help you connect with the other side?

Reaching out to us from the past, Pariser  has some thoughts for those of us now living through his warning of the future. Even if Facebook may be stripping all humanity from its news curation, there are still human minds and fingertips behind the algorithms that feed us content. He called on those programmers to instill a sense of journalistic integrity in the AI behind the scenes.

“We need the gatekeepers [of information] to encode [journalistic] responsibility into the code that they’re writing. […] We need to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility. They need to be transparent enough that we can see what the rules are and […] we need [to be] given some control.”

That sort of suggestion seems particularly pertinent, since it was only at the end of August that Facebook laid off its entire editorial team, relying instead on automated algorithms to curate content. They didn’t do a great job, though, as weeks later they were found to have let a bevy of faux content through the screening process.

While it may seem like a tall order for megacorporations to push for such an open platform, so much of a stink has been raised about fake news in the wake of the election that it does seem like Facebook and Google at least will be doing something to target that problematic aspect of social networking. They can do more, though, and it could start with helping to raise awareness of the differences in the content we’re shown…..


Wednesday 19 October 2016

Just three weeks to go until the U.S. presidential election and America is getting worried


Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ), statement:
New York, October 13, 2016--In an unprecedented step, the Committee to Protect Journalists today released a statement recognizing that a Donald Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom. In response to Trump's threats and vilification of the media during his campaign, the chairman of CPJ's board, Sandra Mims Rowe, issued the following statement on behalf of the organization:
Guaranteeing the free flow of information to citizens through a robust, independent press is essential to American democracy. For more than 200 years this founding principle has protected journalists in the United States and inspired those around the world, including brave journalists facing violence, censorship, and government repression.
Donald Trump, through his words and actions as a candidate for president of the United States, has consistently betrayed First Amendment values. On October 6, CPJ's board of directors passed a resolution declaring Trump an unprecedented threat to the rights of journalists and to CPJ's ability to advocate for press freedom around the world.
Since the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign. Trump has routinely labeled the press as "dishonest" and "scum" and singled out individual news organizations and journalists.
He has mocked a disabled New York Times journalist and called an ABC News reporter a "sleaze" in a press conference. He expelled Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a campaign press conference because he asked an "impertinent" question, and has publicly demeaned other journalists.
Trump has refused to condemn attacks on journalists by his supporters. His campaign has also systematically denied press credentials to outlets that have covered him critically, including The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, TheHuffington Post, The Daily Beast, Univision, and The Des Moines Register.
Throughout his campaign, Trump has routinely made vague proposals to limit basic elements of press and internet freedom. At a rally in February, Trump declared that if elected president he would "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." In September, Trump tweeted, "My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting."
While some have suggested that these statements are rhetorical, we take Trump at his word. His intent and his disregard for the constitutional free press principle are clear.
A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States, but the consequences for the rights of journalists around the world could be far more serious. Any failure of the United States to uphold its own standards emboldens dictators and despots to restrict the media in their own countries. This appears to be of no concern to Trump, who indicated that he has no inclination to challenge governments on press freedom and the treatment of journalists.
When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked him in December if his admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin was at all tempered by the country's history of critical journalists being murdered, his response was: "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country... Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too."

Sunday 9 October 2016

ACCC: "If the proposed acquisition proceeds, News will own both The Courier Mail and the local paid newspaper in nearly every city or town in Queensland"


The Australian Securities & Investment Commission’s preliminary view is that the proposed acquisition of Australian Regional Media (part of APN News and Media) by Murdoch’s News Corporation may be likely to substantially lessen competition in the supply of local news and information and/or advertising opportunities to consumers/readers/businesses in Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Gympie, Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Ipswich, Warwick, Caboolture/Bribie Island, south west Brisbane, Brisbane northern bayside, Logan, southern Gold Coast in Queensland and Tweed Heads on the Far North Coast in NSW.

The matter of competition is not an issue in the Clarence Valley at the southern boundary of Far North Coast as there is only one local paid newspaper, The Daily Examiner, and News Corp’s existing substantial shareholding in APN News and Media ensures that articles from its existing media platforms already dominate much of that local paper’s column inches.

Australian Securities & Investment Commission
News release
6 October 2016


The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released a Statement of Issues on the proposed acquisition of Australian Regional Media (ARM) from APN News and Media (ASX: APN) by News Corporation (ASX:NWS).

The proposed acquisition would combine the two main newspaper publishers in Queensland, adding ARM’s community and regional publications in Queensland and northern New South Wales to News’ extensive portfolio of community, regional, state, and national publications.
The ACCC is investigating the effect that this would have on competition for both readers and advertisers.

“One area of focus is the loss of competition between ARM’s paid regional newspapers and News’ The Courier Mail.
If the proposed acquisition proceeds, News will own both The Courier Mail and the local paid newspaper in nearly every city or town in Queensland.
This may result in a reduction of quality and diversity of content available to readers. Reinforcing that concern is that both News and ARM have a strong presence in online news through their websites associated with the Queensland newspapers,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“The ACCC is seeking to understand whether the competitive tension between News and ARM is an important factor in maintaining quality and range of content, or whether the threat of readers shifting to alternatives, particularly alternative online news sites, will competitively constrain News after the acquisition.”

ARM publishes paid daily regional papers in Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Gympie, Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Ipswich and Warwick.
The ACCC will be looking closely at these areas.

“In particular the ACCC will test how important diversity of content and opinion is to readers when assessing the extent of competition between papers,” Mr Sims said. ARM and News both also publish overlapping community papers in Caboolture/Bribie Island, south west Brisbane, Brisbane northern bayside, Logan, and Tweed Heads/southern Gold Coast.
These are mostly free papers with a strong local focus. The ACCC is seeking to assess the effect on readers and local advertisers in those areas, and to assess whether the reduction in competition is significant.

“The ACCC will be assessing the importance of diversity of local content in these competing community publications.
The ACCC is also seeking to understand whether advertising opportunities on other media platforms, such as local radio, pamphlets, and online, will constrain prices for advertising in the ARM and News community newspapers,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC invites further submissions from industry participants in response to the Statement of Issues by 27 October 2016. The ACCC expects to announce its final decision on 1 December 2016.

Background
News is a global media company with subscription television, magazines, newspapers and publishing operations and interests.
In Australia, News publishes a number of state, regional and community newspapers as well as its national publication The Australian.
It also publishes websites associated with many of its newspapers as well as news.com.au.
APN is an ASX-listed Australian company with media, radio, publishing and digital assets in Australia, and outdoor advertising assets in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong.
The ARM division of APN, which is proposed to be sold to News, includes a large number of mostly regional publications in Queensland and northern NSW, including 12 paid daily, 14 paid non-daily and 32 free non-daily community newspapers.
APN's radio and outdoor assets are not part of the proposed acquisition and will be retained by APN.


Sunday 14 August 2016

NOAA/NASA reports leave Australian Communications and Media Authority with egg on its face


This is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space StudiesAnnual Global Analysis for 2014: 2014 was Warmest Year on Record, published January 2015:

Global Highlights

The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880.* The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.
The 2014 global average ocean temperature was also record high, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F), breaking the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). Notably, ENSO-neutral conditions were present during all of 2014.

The 2014 global average land surface temperature was 1.00°C (1.80°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record….

In January 2016 the following year National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies published Annual Global Analysis for 2015: 2015 was by far the warmest year in the record:

Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).* Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much.
The 2015 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York (GISTEMP). NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2015 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data. Because weather station locations and measurements change over time, there is some uncertainty in the individual values in the GISTEMP index. Taking this into account, NASA analysis estimates 2015 was the warmest year with 94 percent certainty…..
While this was the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) ruling in Investigation report no. BI-185 on 8 July 2016:

In April 2016, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 170 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into a segment on The Bolt Report broadcast on Southern Cross Ten by Southern Cross Communications Pty Limited (the licensee) on 8 November 2015.
The ACMA received a complaint alleging that a statement about the interpretation of a graph broadcast during a segment on global warming was inaccurate and misleading.
The ACMA has investigated the licensee’s compliance against clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code)…..
Despite some contestability about this issue[1], Mr Bolt’s specific comment about there being no real warming of the atmosphere over the last 18 years is consistent with the surface air temperature records for this period referred to in the 2013 IPCC report and by Remote Sensing Systems*…..

Current affairs programs such as The Bolt Report are not precluded from taking a position on any matter and are not required to be balanced or to include all information about a particular issue.
It was clear from the excerpts of the comments of environmentalists, scientists and political leaders in the segment that Mr Bolt’s opinions were contentious and the evidence provided to support his views was selective. However, of itself, the factual material was accurate.*
The ACMA therefore finds that, in the context of the segment in its entirety, Mr Bolt’s statement about there being no real warming of the atmosphere over the last 18 years, and the graph used to support that statement, comply with the code.
Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code. 
* My red bolding

Monday 11 July 2016

On the subject of professional journalism - using Leigh Sales as an example of the disconnect between citizens and reporters


Excerpt from Tim Dunlop writing at medium.com on the subject of professional journalism and the very real, deep disconnect between citizens and reporters, 8 July 2016:

These differences are not merely minor quibbles: they point to a fundamentally different understanding of what role journalists play in a democratic society.
And here is a key point: What they point to is not just a disconnect between the expectations of audience and journalists, but to the lack of power that audiences feel in regard to their elected representatives.
This is something that goes much wider than this exchange on Twitter and it is something that I don't think very many journalists really understand, so it is worth lingering on: audiences — citizens — feel powerless. They feel that events are outside their control and that they are forever being manipulated, lied to and pushed around by people with more power and influence than them, and that that includes journalists.
Outside of voting, and maybe the odd protest, citizens feel that they can have very little effect on the political process, and they therefore expect the media — who they see as powerful compared to themselves — to fulfill that role and exercise that power on their behalf. This is a view that is encouraged by journalists themselves when they describe their work as a profession, or boast about their "insider" connections, or when they describe themselves in terms of being a watchdog on power, a fourth estate in the national polity. It is doubly reinforced when voters see journalists and politicians on a first-name basis with each other (as happened in much of the television coverage of election night) or when they see them all attending the same parties.
This is the real disconnect at the heart of the criticism Sales copped on Twitter, that her audience understood her comments to indicate, not just a failure to act properly, but a failure to understand what her job even was. Their own powerlessness — they will never get a chance to question John Howard — turns into a frustration with the profession who they see as having the power to do something about their concerns, and failing to do it. To them, Sales' Tweet was saying, no, that's not our job.
The question that arises is obvious: who is right here? Well, in one sense, there isn't an answer. No-one is right or wrong, both sides just have different expectations about the nature of the job.
But that isn't really good enough. In fact, to leave it at that would be a very journalistic response. It would be to avoid the judgement that I am saying I think is at heart of the disconnect I am trying to describe.
So I don't think there is any doubt. Sales, and any journalist who agrees with what she said, is wrong. The audience is right. Not in any sort of the-customer-is-always-right sort of way, but because what is the point of a journalism that so fundamentally contradicts the expectations of the audience for which it is created?
What a significant section of the audience heard when they saw the original Tweet by Leigh Sales was: I am on his side, not on yours. I have more empathy with his point of view than I do with my audience's. In expressing admiration for John Howard's press conference, she was telling her audience that she approaches her entire job in a way that gives politicians the benefit of doubt and she was confirming what many in the audience feel in their bones, that journalists too often come across as siding with power rather than challenging it.
That mightn't be what she meant, but she and every other journalist needs to realise that that is how it was understood. And that that underlying approach goes to the heart of how they do their job.
It is all very well to say, well, this is just how we do it, but that would be the worst sort of professional hubris, tantamount to saying, we don't care what you, our audience think.
Leigh Sales has one of the most high-profile political jobs in the land, but in Tweeting what she did she was telling her audience that she is maintaining standards and practices that fundamentally contradict their expectations.
She and other journalists can, of course, simply dismiss all this as yet another example of the Twitter "echo chamber" and reassure themselves with declarations that Twitter is not representative of the wider audience, and that the views expressed there can be safely ignored.
But I think that would be a mistake.

Another perspective on the issue from Jim Parker…..

The Failed Estate, 7 July 2016:
There’s a lesson for Australian media here. Journalists need to stop seeing themselves as players. Their job is to represent the public to decision-makers, not the other way around.  We don’t want them to make forecasts; we want to them to demand answers to simple questions. We want them, beyond rare exceptions, to stop reporting self-serving anonymous scuttlebutt and to insist that people go on the record. We would prefer that instead of guessing and surmising and speculating, they just said “I really don’t know what will happen next. But here are the facts.”  And we would prefer their editors to stop asking them to issue “hot takes” on every little brain fart in Canberra and leave them to get their teeth into a story once in a while.
As Russell Marks writes in The Monthly, in perhaps the best analysis of the media’s failures this election, journalists can do us all a big favour by giving up the pretence that they are god-like electoral analysts or judges of spin. Stop the second-hand running commentary on how the management of issues will ‘play’ in the electorate, turn your bullshit detectors up to 10 and start testing the “perceptions” against the facts.
“While intelligent journalists are running themselves ragged acting as unglorified public relations assistants for politicians, they’re not testing statements and checking claims,” Marks writes. “News reportage becomes quite literally a matter of ‘Turnbull said A, while Shorten said B’, which is close to entirely useless without context. In the end, we are told, the voters get it right. But that expression of faith in the democratic process depends on faith in the fourth estate to present political realities so that voters can make sensible choices.”
Journalism is a tough job, even tougher when your resources are constantly being cut, the bosses are asking you to file constantly and social media is bagging you. But journalists can make it a lot easier for themselves by giving up the pretence that they are all-seeing political sages and focus instead on asking good questions, reporting facts, placing those facts in context and admitting that neither they, nor anyone, has any idea about what happens next.
In journalism at least, god is dead.

Tuesday 5 July 2016

Explaining the 2016 federal election result


The mainstream media is currently indulging in a political post mortem orgy and, in the end what its bloody dissection reveals is less about the political processes involved in the federal election campaign and more about the media itself.
Even given the official polling day fell within school holidays, one would have thought that the MSM would have paused to wonder if the record number of voters marching towards the prepoll stations in June might have indicated that the electorate was about to flex its muscle.
In recent years journalists have ignored the fact that in Australia the electorate has always had a contrary mind of its own. 
That the only truism that holds in every election is that it does not vote to install one particular political party in government – it votes in the hope of keeping a political party from either gaining government or gaining enough power to control both houses of parliament.
Hence the current state of play in the national ballot paper count.
Malcolm Bligh Turnbull is learning to his cost that he could change the rules on voting at Senate elections or he could call a double dissolution federal election – he just couldn’t do both without punishment.
Anthony John Abbott is learning that passive-aggressive election campaigning and failure to appear genuinely contrite for past failures also imposes a real political cost on the party he once led.
William Richard Shorten’s lesson is that it may just possibly take not one but two election cycles before Labor is fully forgiven for its self-indulgent federal in-fighting between 2007-2013.

Here are two of The Guardian’s ‘best’ efforts to explain the 2 July election result….. 
The Guardian, 4 July 2016:
At the moment the Liberal party is a burnt and broken enterprise and to repair it may be quite impossible. 
Tony Abbott’s baton of failure has been passed to Malcolm Turnbull. The party is stuck in a miserable warp that locks out the country’s crying unresolved issues, and there’s no one in the wings with the integrity, intellect and command to drag it out of its pitiable state.
The great issues of the day that define who we are as a country were not part of the Coalition’s play sheet, and this includes: climate change, offshore imprisonment of refugees and marriage equality. Instead, we had the mirage of an economic “plan” for jobs and growth, which on closer inspection turned out to be trickle-down economics based on a bunch of tax cuts for the better off.  
Turnbull says he can form a majority government, in which event it will be a sour little victory – a victory without a mandate. The hard-right soul of the party is also in flames – just look at what happened in Tasmania where Senator Eric Abetz’s Christian regressives run the local machine. There’s no moral authority to be found there – all we might hope for is that now he sits quietly in a corner for a very long time. 
The party started to take a primordial direction under John Howard, who is now paraded as a patron saint. The Liberals failed to heed the message that was delivered in 2007 when the saint was flung ignominiously by voters out of his own seat. 
Turnbull and Scott Morrison crying foul on Saturday night about Labor party lies was a treat to behold. The “we wus robbed” line coming from the people who brought us children overboard, Islamic scares, the “intelligence” for the Iraq war and fake budget projections is an exciting new audacity. Even the party’s very name is a lie. 
The campaign was laced with warnings about “hung parliaments”, “vote sharing fiascos”, “chaos”. The obverse is that MPs should be puppets and parliament a rubber stamp for the party with the majority of seats, doing what the executive commands – yet “stability” has not been a uniform feature of the long history of Westminster-style parliaments. Indeed, the Senate has ensured that in Australia hung parliaments are the norm and minority governments are not unknown. 
Importantly, this state of affairs is not always unworkable. Julia Gillard’s government operated both as a minority and in a hung parliament quite effectively, even if chaotically. 
With the support of crossbenchers and the Greens, the Gillard Labor government passed 561 bills through parliament, not one of which was defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives, including the National Broadband Network, the carbon tax, the resource rent tax (even though it turned out not to be very effective), the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the household assistance package, and pension increases. Despite the raucous attacks from the Coalition, by any standard it was an effective government…..
The Guardian, 3 July 2016:
It hadn’t even got to 11pm before the campaign post-mortems and leadership speculation began.
On the Coalition side.
I confess: sitting on the Sky News election desk, I could barely believe the booth results as they started coming in. I had expected it to be close; I had even (bravely) predicted a hung parliament. But if I am honest, I had been dreading the election night desk duty just a little, expecting to spend my time explaining why Labor was not picking up enough seats in western Sydney.
In fact, I had expected that I would need to answer questions about the future of Bill Shorten’s leadership.
Instead, before either party leader had addressed their party faithful, Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership was under question, and the blue on blue violence was underway. Cory Bernardi was arguing with Mark Textor on Twitter, Peta Credlin was calling the double dissolution a strategic mistake, and Andrew Bolt was demanding Turnbull resign.
How did this happen?
Let’s start with an uninspiring and tactically foolish campaign from the Coalition. The proposed company tax cuts never excited the electorate, no matter how exciting it is to be alive in these times.
The Coalition’s superannuation policy divided its party faithful and disappointed their donors.
The predicted scare campaigns from the Coalition – on negative gearing, on border security, on unions, and on election costings – never materialised.
And Malcolm Turnbull, having seized the prime ministership, never seized the economic leadership as he promised to do. Turnbull’s economic narrative was incoherent, flip flopping between increasing the GST, allow the state to levy income taxes, fixing bracket creep, and giving companies a tax break.
His campaign slogan didn’t even include a verb, for goodness’ sake. “Jobs and growth” isn’t a plan, it’s a list.
Turnbull’s campaign events were orchestrated, low-risk, and low-key. Look at the Coalition’s campaign launch: I’ve been to christenings with more people in attendance and wakes with more enthusiasm. He never seemed to actually fight for the job; rather he sat back waiting for the people to elect him…..

And here is The Australian pretending the sky has fallen down about our ears….. 
The Australian, 4 July 2016:
Australia’s top corporate figures have reacted with dismay to the possibility of a hung parliament or wafer-thin Coalition majority, warning economic reform could be paralysed for years.
As business anxiously waits on the counting of postal votes that won’t start until tomorrow, Seven Group Holdings executive chairman Kerry Stokes described the uncertainty of the weekend’s result as “disastrous” and said the current landscape in Canberra was “bad for investment and business”.
Mr Stokes was joined by other business leaders, who told The Australian that key planks of the Coalition’s reform agenda — including company tax cuts and the re-establishment of the construction industry watchdog — will be hostage to a precarious lower house majority and obstructive new Senate crossbench. Economists have also warned of an increased risk of a credit downgrade for Australia, based on the likely difficulty of passing unpopular budget repair measures.
“I think it’s disastrous,” Mr Stokes said late yesterday.
“There has been uncertainty for eight weeks.”
Now, he said, “the facts are it’s more uncertain”.
“So that’s a disaster, whichever way you want to look at it. I don’t know any way of dealing with that now to gain stability.”….
The Australian, 4 July 2016:
The double dissolution has been a double disaster for Malcolm Turnbull. Not only is his grip on power hanging from the precipice but voters have wilfully ignored his plea for stability by deliberately voting for minor parties and independents.
With 13 seats still in doubt, it remains possible the crossbench could control both houses of parliament, making the task for whoever lives in The Lodge doubly difficult.
Even if Turnbull stumbles to victory, he will govern by a wafer-thin majority and must keep one eye on each crossbench in each chamber with no margin to lose a slither of support in his own partyroom.
As the count currently stands, the Coalition’s primary vote of 42 per cent is one of its three worst results in the House of Representatives since the party created by Robert Menzies faced its first election 70 years ago.
Labor are celebrating a performance under Bill Shorten they never dreamed of achieving three years ago when the party was punted from power in the wake of the Rudd-Gillard civil war, but the primary vote of 35 per cent is the ALP’s second worst in 82 years.
The combined vote of minor and micro parties and independents is 22.8 per cent — the highest it has been since 1934 and third highest since Federation. It is the preferences of these protest votes that will decide who wins many seats.
The major parties did not secure the confidence of the voting public. No wonder we still don’t have a clear election winner.
Both parties have a smaller share of the vote than they did in 2010 when voters delivered the last hung parliament.
It is a repudiation to both Turnbull and Shorten and their appeal to voters to give them a majority, making clear they would not strike alliances with minor parties.
Shorten said the Greens were “dreaming” if they hoped to form an alliance.
Turnbull repeatedly issued the reminder that a vote for anyone other than the Liberals or Nationals would be a return to the “chaos and instability” of the hung parliament under the Gillard government.
If that was supposed to scare people, it failed.
Voters not only ignored the Prime Minister but they have forced him to get on the phone to the lower house crossbenchers — some of whom were in this position six years ago taking calls from Julia Gillard.
Shorten has also been on the phone and Labor is not ruling out the possibility it might just be able to win enough of the undecided seats on the preferences of the minor parties and independents and strike a deal with the crossbench to govern.
It’s a horror flashback to the 17-day wait in 2010 to find out who would form government……

While The Sydney Morning Herald plodded its way through this…..

Especially with all the major polls predicting a tight result. I certainly did when I took a deep breath and hopped aboard the Turnbull bus to cover the final two weeks of the campaign. 
They turned out to be anything but. 
Rather than a man locked in the fight of his life, Turnbull looked like a footballer running down the clock. The pace of the campaign - already at a low tempo - grew positively languid. 
"We will win on July 2," Turnbull had declared weeks earlier and he was acting like it as he strolled towards the finish line. A busy day contained two events, some just one….  
Malcolm Turnbull has assured Australians he can deliver stability but after a stinging rebuke from voters, the fate of his government may not be known for days and the Prime Minister is staring down an internal push from conservative MPs for the return of Tony Abbott to the ministry.
With the final lower house seat count from the knife-edge election unlikely to be clear until the end of the week, anger is growing within the Coalition over its massive reversal of electoral fortunes, which has ended the careers of three ministers, stymied industrial relations reforms used to justify the double dissolution, and dealt up an even more unruly Senate crossbench.
Three outcomes remain possible from the election, including a razor-thin Turnbull majority if seats in doubt tumble its way, a hung parliament in which neither side has a majority, and another election is even an outside possibility if a clear winner cannot be determined.
On Sunday night, Labor took an unexpected lead in the two-party preferred vote after an update on the Australian Electoral Commission's website.
It showed the swing away from the Coalition had risen to 3.7 per cent, putting Labor in the lead by a wafer-thin margin…..

Tuesday 21 June 2016

Something died in the NSW Northern Rivers region today


APN News & Media has sold its regional newspaper business to its own shareholder, News Corp, for $36.6 million.
APN's shares reached $4.90 on the news after opening at $4.61, after jumping 11 per cent on Monday following media speculation about the sale.  
The regional assets include 12 daily newspaper, 60 community newspapers and dozens of news websites. 
News Corp already owns a 14.9 per cent stake in APN, which is currently shedding its traditional media assets but keeping its radio and AdShel divisions.  
The deal still requires shareholder and regulatory approval. Regional mastheads include the Daily Mercury in Mackay, Bundaberg's NewsMail, The Gympie Times and the Sunshine Coast Daily. 
The Australian Regional Media division would be handed over in August provided all the hurdles were cleared.…..

Echo Net Daily, 21 June 2016:
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp has signed a $36.6 million deal to buy APN News & Media’s Australian regional newspaper business, which includes The Northern Star and Tweed Daily News.
The deal – which is subject to approval from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, also covers the weekly publications, Byron Shire News, Ballina Advocate, the Lismore Echo and the Richmond River Examiner.
News Corp, already holds a stake of almost 15 per cent in APN, which means shareholder approval would also be required for what would be deemed a related-party transaction.
APN Australian Regional Media has a portfolio of 12 daily and more than 60 non-daily Australian regional newspapers.
Staff at the Northern Star and the other publications received an email just before 11am today confirming that the deal had been struck…..

The Australian, 20 June 2016:
News Corp, publisher of The Australian, has long been seen as the natural owner of ARM due to potential synergies with its regional business and the fact that few people know the assets better than News Corp executive chairman, and APN’s former boss, Michael Miller.
The Queensland focused portfolio includes 12 daily newspapers such as The ­Sunshine Coast Daily and The Gympie Times, and includes more than 60 non-daily and community publications.
The sale was outlined by APN in February as part of efforts to make a more aggressive move into the radio and outdoor advertising ­sectors. The price of the portfolio is understood to have fallen short of the $50m APN had been chasing.
News Corp, advised by Aquasia, already holds a stake of almost 15 per cent in APN which means shareholder approval would also be required for what would be deemed a related-party transaction…..

VALE MEDIA DIVERSITY

Wednesday 15 June 2016

Clarence Valley Council caught trying to minimise IPART's rejection of much of its special rate rise application


Readers of North Coast Voices may recall that this blog posted on this subject in April and May this year.

The rate rise saga  refuses to die………

The Independent, 8 June 2016:

Councillor Karen Toms will challenge public statements made by Clarence Valley’s mayor, Richie Williamson, regarding IPART’s decision to grant Clarence Valley Council (CVC) a one-year-only special rate (SRV) increase of 6.5 percent, instead of 6.5 per cent for each of the next five years.

Councillor Toms’ motion of notice (NOM), which was forwarded to “all senior staff and councillors” on Friday June 3, recommends that: “Council receive and adopt the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s (IPART) Local Government’s Determination of Clarence Valley Council’s application for a special rate variation for 2016-17”; …, and “declare that the other reasons attributed to the Mayor Cr Williamson are not claims adopted or endorsed by Clarence Valley Council”.

“Unfortunately,” Cr Toms said, she had “not given enough notice to the general manager” to table the NOM at the June 14 Works, Civil and Corporate Committee meeting.

The council’s code of meeting practice requires seven working days’ notice, however, the Queen’s Birthday holiday on Monday June 13 means that Cr Tom’s NOM only gave six working days’ notice.

“The general manager has accepted the NOM for the July works civil and corporate meeting on July 12,” she said.

The meeting code states that the full seven days is required, “except in circumstances of great urgency or in the case of rescission motions”.

Councillor Toms writes in her NOM: “Mayor Williamson is quoted as saying in the Daily Examiner: “… while the council had consulted widely when it was proposing an 8 per cent increase for five consecutive years, IPART had said it did not consult the community enough once the proposed increase was changed to 6.5 per cent.

“Additionally, the Mayor is interviewed on NBN TV and made the following claims: ‘…We consulted with our community on an 8 per cent increase. Council resolved to apply for a six and a half percent increase and IPART have said to us, well you haven’t consulted on the six and a half percent; which we accept.’

“These statements by the Mayor are considerably at odds with the determination IPART published, in particular at odds with 2 criteria provided by IPART as reasons for refusal.”

The criteria state that CVC “did not demonstrate the need for, and financial impact of, the proposed rate increase in its Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) documents; and, the council did not adequately make the community aware of the extent of the rate increase, as the cumulative impacts were not communicated effectively.”

Citing a letter written to Clarence Forum’s convenor John Hagger, by IPART’s principal analyst, Tony Camenzuli, Cr Toms writes that Mr Camenzuli “specifically” refutes the “reason for refusal stated by Mayor Williamson”.

“The statements by the Mayor have the effect of reducing the importance of the IPART determination and serve to mislead the public as to the clear intent of the IPART criteria,” she writes.

“Council has not ‘accepted’ or adopted in any way the reason given by Mayor Williamson as the IPART reason for refusal. In saying that ‘which we (Council) accept’, Mayor Williamson creates a false impression of the council response to the determination, noting that Council has adopted, nothing in response to the determination.”

Mr Camenzuli’s letter states: “IPART’s report does refer to the council’s decision to reduce the size of the special variation from 8% pa (47% cumulative) each year over five years, to 6.5% pa (37% cumulative) over five years (pages 5, 16).

“This decision by the council was noted as background information.

“The report does not make reference to that decision by the council as a reason for the council’s special variation application not being approved in full.”

The Clarence Valley Independent is the only newspaper left in the Clarence Valley which is not part-owned by News Corp - please show your support for media diversity and this little weekly newspaper (delivered to the door free of charge) by occasionally clicking on to read its top stories online at: http://cvindependent.com.au/.