Australians pride themselves on the freedoms they enjoy and how freedom of the press [aka the media] is live and well. Perhaps that belief is more than somewhat misplaced, as Richard Ackland so cogently points out in his op-ed piece in the SMH:
"It is heartening to know that the media organisation Reporters Without Borders ranks Australia below Ghana, Bolivia and Bosnia in the international pecking order of media freedoms. We've slipped two spots to No. 35, equal to Bulgaria.
The oppressions in this country include non-existent freedom of information laws (thanks, High Court), secret, non-reportable trials, prosecution of public servants who blow the whistle on the Government to the media, and prosecution of journalists who won't sing the names of their sources."
Things aren't looking better for the future, either:
"The latest small but important step in this increasingly decaying landscape is a discussion paper released last week by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, that calls for new provisions to ban literature and film that "advocates terrorism".
But what does that embrace? Is this chipping away at freedom of the press under the guise of the over-worked "war on terrorism?"
Read what should be of considerable concern to those who value freedom of the press - in the truest sense of the word!
"It is heartening to know that the media organisation Reporters Without Borders ranks Australia below Ghana, Bolivia and Bosnia in the international pecking order of media freedoms. We've slipped two spots to No. 35, equal to Bulgaria.
The oppressions in this country include non-existent freedom of information laws (thanks, High Court), secret, non-reportable trials, prosecution of public servants who blow the whistle on the Government to the media, and prosecution of journalists who won't sing the names of their sources."
Things aren't looking better for the future, either:
"The latest small but important step in this increasingly decaying landscape is a discussion paper released last week by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, that calls for new provisions to ban literature and film that "advocates terrorism".
But what does that embrace? Is this chipping away at freedom of the press under the guise of the over-worked "war on terrorism?"
Read what should be of considerable concern to those who value freedom of the press - in the truest sense of the word!
Comments