In defence of independent media

Look at all the right wingers attack the man, not the ball! (In defence of independent media, June 19).
Fraser has presented pretty much what most thinking folk believe to be true - access to information is important, especially via the written word, where analysis and argument can be more effectively communicated than via audio and video.
So, it is entirely reasonable to be apprehensive about the unfolding move towards a single voice (Murdoch's) and a few echos (Gina, Bolt and Plimer, to name 3).
We seem to be in for a rough ride for the next few years, until (I hope) better structures emerge on the Web for disseminating facts, opinion and analysis, which are the primary three legs of the information revolution.
At present, on-line information appears to me to consist of many opinions, few and disconnected facts and very little analysis. Here's hoping that the balance is improved before dead tree news disappears entirely, as it appears bound to do.

Why doesn't the Federal Government establish a public broadcaster that promotes this diversity? Oh, whoops, they already do (In defence of independent media, June 19). Nothing to see here, move along!

It strikes me as strange that a former prime minister overlooks a simplest real life fact: someone has to determine/control the contents (In defence of independent media, June 19).
Who can say that "an independent editor" would be less inclined to push their ideological agenda than the owner?
So, what is the difference, Malcolm?

I agree with Mr Fraser about the incompetence of the Fairfax Board and management – they were well placed to lead the digital age and are now very belatedly trying to catch-up (In defence of independent media, June 19).
However, The Age (the one I used to read) not only suffered from digital reader inroads, but forgot that the reader is its market. It gave up diversity of views to become a trendy and often self-righteously sneering propaganda sheet for the left. That is of course its right, but it lost a lot of readers like me who used to rely on it for a range of perspectives. That is the market talking.
I now read The Australian – I disagree with many articles but at least I get a wide variety of views.
And if I were an Age reader, I would welcome someone with money that would help keep it going, even if she wants to make it more commercially viable by attracting back readers like me.

Mr Fraser, are you advocating some form of control of media that attacks existing laws? (In defence of independent media, June 19.)
Under our system of government, paying the admission price of majority of equity allows the owner editorial freedom.
If readers do not agree they may say so, including by not purchasing the media output. Don't lose faith in the system.

Malcolm, another reason for the failure since the board doesn't control content, is that Australians are turning away from the Age and Sydney Morning Herald, and maybe that has to do with content or the physical size of the actual paper they are printed on (In defence of independent media, June 19).
If the people are speaking with their feet, who are you to demand that the status quo must be maintained, that Australians are dumb and can't determine that one journalist is from the right and another is from the left. And just why does left leaning journalism have some extra right to exist, we probably wouldn't be commenting if Gina was after the Murdoch press. Journalists of all persuasions only have the rights endoured by the people, and that is, the people, buy what is being printed and said, because they the are intelligent and and can decide good from evil, so give us that right, not legislate for what politicians like, as those within the Greens or Labor would have us beleive. Let's not fear the very fear itself.

I agree with Y. Volpert and add that yesterdays standards were applied to a media (print) which was the ONLY source of news that had depth. Sure we had wireless, howver we did not have the diversity taht we have today. Social media twitter, facebook and all the independent electronioc media provides and provokes tremendously the range of thought and intellect, much more than that of the print media alone.
Malcolm, we must embrace provocetive thought and independence if we are to have a mentally healthy and well informed society, and this I believe, is best achieved by having as many different types of media presenting as many differentview points as possible and this means not just mandating every publication's content as if the Governm,ent was the school master and the readership the pupils. The Government has its chance through its owned media to present what slant (and it does) through the "independent journalists it selects for employment without spreading their control any further.
We grown ups are capable of deciding what we want to read, it is called democracy.

Cheer up Malcolm! The ABC will still be around to offer (tax payer funded) left wing progaganda (In defence of independent media, June 19).

Malcolm, part of the problem you claim to identify is that governments of all persuasions make sweetheart deals with the press so why can they get virtuous now (In defence of independent media, June 19).

Alan Kohler pointed out recently that when he was an editor, Conrad Black was his owner (In defence of independent media, June 19). Black came and went and Fairfax is Australian owned again. Soon it will be owned by the Receiver. Everything changes - even Murdoch will change. Get used to it.

The Age and SMH lost readers due to its left leaning content, end of story. Trying to prop it up as it is pure folly. (In defence of independent media, June 19.)

The era of journalism, may have ended, its sad. However the internet allows people to access information, as they need it. It could be the destruction, of language skills. That's certainly one way to control society (In defence of independent media, June 19).

Lost Pants Man, you should be ashamed of writing such gibberish. There is plenty of diversity in this country (In defence of independent media, June 19). There's left of centre from the ABC, slightly left of centre from Fairfax and slightly right of centre from The Australian, although the Oz also gives a more diversified view with its commentary page publishing numerous articles from Labor politicians (e.g. Swan and Emerson). The wankers that attack the Oz always forget that it recommended voting for Labor in 2007.

Why is a media outlet independent when the editorial slant is obviously left, and not independent otherwise? (In defence of independent media, June 20.)
The reason Fairfax is such a basket case is because the editorial is not objective, largely biased to the inner city left and generally unreadable. It is precisely their editorial style that is the problem.
Would Malcolm have a problem if Therese Rein owned a percentage of the company?

Very interesting article. And as usual deep thinking and probity by our former PM (In defence of independent media, June 20).
Thank you.
We in this country continue to be fed with what Murdoch chooses and decides we ought to be fed.
I believe this country has been unbelievably "controlled" by Rupert. He has kept out/stamped out free thinking for years. In so doing Murdoch has:
1. controlled us;
2. kept the level of reading and understanding and probity at a lower level across average populations;
3. dumbed us down;
4. subtly and slyly controlled free thinking and played a big part in electing governments;
5. given us "average" journalism. An excuse to sell advertising space.
I picked it soon after arriving here in S. Australia in the late 80s. We have played into his business model. The cost of press advertising for example is phenomenal. He has tacitly gone along with many, many things. As long as it brought in his return.
Well said, former PM.

I agree with you Mr Fraser (In defence of independent media, June 20).Gina Rinehart's tekeover of Fairfax is not an investment in that company to make it profitable but a blatant grab at a very large piece of Australia's independent media to gain influence to advance her mining interests. This would be to the detriment of Australias democracy and free speech.

Malcolm, you should perhaps get a ladder if the grapes are too high (In defence of independent media, June 20).

Malcolm. I'm approaching 60 years old and my father still thinks I don't know how to think for myself (In defence of independent media, June 19). Your fatherly concern is overbearing and boorish.

This is yet another reason why we would be better off with non-partisan government (In defence of independent media, June 23).