Murdoch’s Australian Media Empire

That power corrupts is old news. A big public show with some bad apples in jail, followed by business as usual is the easiest way out. News Corp shares are up, so stockholders must feel reassured that nothing will really change.

Murdoch got his start in Australia, and some politicians there are asking the important question. From Voice of America news…

The scandal has prompted a broader debate here about media ownership and regulation.

The Australian Greens are questioning News Limited’s domination of the domestic newspaper industry and want an official investigation into its operations. The party’s leader Senator Bob Brown says too much power lies in too few hands.

“We have the most concentrated newspaper ownership of any similar democracy and that means that two thirds of the metropolitan newspapers [and] two thirds of the suburban newspapers are owned by the Murdoch Empire,” said Brown. ” And it does not allow for the plurality of views that is healthy for a modern democracy.

These are the questions we should be asking here. Does a democracy need an emperor? Can a free press thrive when a monopoly increases its control year by year?

REPLY: Over at Buzzflash, CwV had this to say-

#1 We are not, technically, as concentrated as Australia, mediawise. There are seven corporations that account for something like 85% of American Media. That figure is a little misleading because in great expanses of this country, your media choices are limited so that sometimes, you can’t even find all seven Majors, and there’s nothing else in between, try to find local radio on a road trip anywhere between the Smokies and the Rockies.
Seven companies sounds like it should be a competitive environment, no monopoly here, right? Wrong. The Corporate line that all these media giants toe is so strict and so similar, it might as well be coming from one office. And it’s so far Right that Keith Olbermann is too radically Leftist for the “Liberal” MSNBC.
What’s needed (and I hope this will be the outcome of the collapse of FUX) is that 1) News Bureaus should be sheered off of the corporations that currently own them, 2)the rule about owning multiple media outlets in any given market must be reapplied and strengthened and 3) a preference for local ownership/programming should be built into the license process to encourage local media companies growth, limiting the dominance of the BigFoots.
The Supremes ruled that “News” media can lie without punishment and they have indicated that an attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine will not fly. It’s clear that regulating the content of Media is not a viable (or desirable) path. It makes more sense, tactically, to go after the corporate structure that concentrates that power in too few hands, regardless of their political bent.

Thanks CwV, I especially like #3 on your list. Rhode Island has some great local programming, from all sides of the issues. Long may it wave.

4 thoughts on “Murdoch’s Australian Media Empire

  1. Now you have really abandoned common sense.
    A free press means just that.If someone is successful at gaining more readership/viewership,there’s no violation of the Constitution.Just the opposite in fact.We are still a free enterprise society.
    A cafeteria approach to the 1st amendment is really dangerous.
    Who exactly,is to oversee the media?The government?That is a hallmark of every fascist/communist/socialist regime in the world throughout history.
    sometimes I think the blog owners here believe in managed speech.
    It’s perfectly okay on your blog because you own it and run it.
    The government needs to generally stay out of the media except for overseeingt he allotment of radio/tv space available to avoid total chaos.I haven’t heard you complain when General Electric,a mega-corporation owned NBC and MSNBC.
    Fox does better than NBC because more people like their content and presentation.
    I get the idea you’d like them shut down and yet never realizing how quickly that could get turned around and used against you or anyone.
    The 9th Circuit,in a decision written by Judge Reinhardt,the most liberal Federal judge in the US just reversed a man’s conviction for blogging that he hoped Obama got assassinated.
    I guess unless the threat is directly FROM the writer/speaker TO the target it’s okay.I am very uneasy with that decision because those words can definitely energize a demented person into action.It’s not like saying you hope he gets brain cancer or something because that is an act of God out of our control.
    So I’m not against some limits on the 1st amendment,but generally I am for truly free speech.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s