'The hilarious implication – and secret terror of every Melbourne hipster - is that Rinehart will turn Fairfax into some kind of 24-hour Mining Channel, with endless re-runs of Red Dog and Wake in Fright, interspersed with ads for blue singlets. You won’t be able to so much as pick up a copy of the Age without finding your hands stained red with dust, as you search in vain for a single article that isn’t about the Hancock family, while averting your eyes from the topless pictures of Andrew Bolt on page 3. 
I don’t know about you, but given the uniformly mindless dross scraped up, warmed over, rehashed and then served as ideological bubble-and-squeak on the ABC (even drizzled with its jus of self-righteousness and dark-green sea foam), I long for alternatives. In fact, I long for the much-anticipated sale of the ABC under the most enthusiastic sort of Liberal government, and dismantled by an equally enthusiastic Mark Latham. During the Renaissance, it was the independently filthy rich – the oligarchs, bankers and popes – who sponsored the finest artists of the age. Let a new Renaissance bloom at the touch of button 2 on the remote: I hope Rinehart buys the entire Fairfax group, and then casts hungry eyes on the ABC itself...
Read more here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/06/one-woman-army
From 'One-woman Army' by Philippa Martyr
Published at Quadrant Online on June 20, 2012
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8489208
Jennifer,
Thanks for the full Ron Brunton PDF….. So it seems that not much has changed since he left the ABC in 2008. We all know how people still in employment tend to NOT rock the boat. In contrast, take for instance the big bunch of retirees from NASA recently that came-out with a big letter pleading for a return to science by NASA for the sake of reputations.
It would be nice if we could get a group of ex-directors and maybe a few pollies to study the way you were treated by the ABC on that Media Watch show and compare the entirely different sympathetic apology made to Prof Ross Garnaut earlier. I wonder if they could apply pressure to the current authorities. Do you or any readers still around have any lists of email addresses?
Incidentally, I’ve also been browsing the ‘ABC Act 1983’, and it seems that the most relevant section in a huge yawn is:
per the webpage ‘ABC Editorial Policies’ the Codes of Practice are derived from their self-regulated policies.
ACMA have previously email advised me that they can only rule on the Codes of Practice, not the Editorial Policies or the ABC Act which seems a bit strange.
But Mate,
You certainly wrote this:
As if Murdoch’s control of 70% of our print media wasn’t enough group think for right wingers....
Cohenite is correct to point out that Murdoch does not 'control' 70% of our print media he only has 32%
Maybe the others could consider why the READERSHIP circulation is at a SUGGESTED higher rate that his 32% ownership and LEARN FROM THAT?
I also question your vitriolic right wing/left wing statement.
You seem to have totally missed the point of the Quadrant article.
It is definitely saying that a new face could perhaps create a much needed and overdue shake up of MSM....you seem to have a very poor opinion of the new face.
You have actually used the same sneering tone that is highlighted and then laughed at in the Quadrant article.
"Parliamentary library figures suggest News’s share of circulation – as distinct from ownership – is 68 per cent in the capital cities and 77 per cent of the Sunday market.”
Who are you quoting there cohenite?
Bob,
I have trouble bringing myself to watch ABC TV and could not sit down and watch Media Watch.
Regarding the full article by Ron Brunton, I've just sent it to you by email.
Jennifer,
I have a morbid fascination for watching Media Watch on Monday nights and in one such programme Mr Holmes took-down the respected Chris Uhlmann on the show: “7:30”, formerly “The 7:30 Report”. I was shocked that Chris had reported stuff that evidently had critical information edited-out that clearly distressed a worker in that field, as seen when played back by Media Watch. It was brutal here:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3502653.htm
Anyhow I visited the website/transcript and was amazed to see this quote from Jonathan Holmes; the only time that I’ve known him to comment on his website including when I’ve addressed comments to him directly:
One can only wonder why he wrote this, but I would think that it was the result of a good smack-on-the-wrist from above for putting in doubt the integrity of what is generally a seemingly good programme.
I did reply to Mr Holmes’ comment, but there was no response.
And, of course, there was no such clarification/apology for Mr Uhlmann on air.