Thank goodness for US leadership on corporate malfeasance, because without the US lead it is unlikely that anyone in any government elsewhere would ask the hard questions. What has happened in Australia this week is evidence for this incredible claim for US public interest exceptionalism in Congress. (Wow, did I just write that?)
The link Closing in? indicates that Apple has not told the entire story about its financial arrangements, its corporate structure, its unpublic culture or its active duplicity in poisoning civil society ideals.
As they say on the streets: pay your taxes you bastards! As they do not say enough in university political science departments, this is the time when interdisciplinary political theory is needed - bringing together IT business, industry policy, cultural policy and convergence-technology theory, with organisational theory, accounting, finance, ethics, history and criminal justice. "Secrecy jurisdictions" used by Apple and other IT firms, according to the article, include research on subsets of all these disciplines.
There is no kind way to discuss Apple. It has been engaged in tax avoidance within an illegal corporate structure for years. Will we get a story about how Steve Jobs was part of this scam? He has been sainted by true believer fantasists on technology as part of the blind spot associated with technology promotion. For an uncompromising view on corporatisation through technology see Michael Adas Dominance by Design.
Furthermore, theorists of neo-liberalism will recognise the long tail unmaking social democracy in the actions of Apple and according to Adas, the role of the technology industry in diminishing public social life in favor of private interests.
On the same continuum, charity promotion by technology mavens who spend their massive wealth deciding on their pet projects - often freighted with emotion by appealing to suffering children, which makes their opponents seem mean spirited - is part of the larger picture of corporate malfeasance. Billionaire IT gurus avoid discussion of privilege, poverty at home or the matters that should be dealt with in everyday life in the US or elsewhere, as they promote private choice as superior to public decisions making. It is degrading public culture by any other name.
The culture of deceit that accompanies Information Technology is an unfortunate part of global corporate business culture. As I note in my recent article about drones, there is a distressing default of wilful neglect in the culture.Killing The Thing You Love As long as we are not directly impacted by events, we are encouraged not to care.
Life mediated by digital devices constructs disinterest in participating in the lives of others, even while we "observe" with more intensity than ever before. We are more interested then ever.
The is the key philosophical move that the internet has produced. The contradiction extraodinaire, if you like.
The Internet allows pixilated people to populate the everyday. The visual turn that manifests every human attribute on the computer monitor, allows us to see with intense detail. Yet what we do is diminished. Those who have benefited most from the rise of the industry decide who gets a share in their riches - it's bye bye to the state as IT funded charities step in. Should the term charitiers be invented if it does not already exist?
It is a mirror of the worst of Corporate America. It has taken the public for a ride. Corporate acolytes, sycophants and business school copy cats around the world follow suit. They offer computer users the "luxury" of more intense pixiliation in digital technology, then take the money and refuse to contribute to governance. Apple is just another corporation, cut from the same cloth as the rest of the double talkers, scam agents and monopoly players. (Hi, Bill Gates).
Banana republics are made of this. It would be correct to assume some US politicians do not like that option. Curiously, some Australians politicians and politicians elsewhere are pleased to follow the US lead in asking questions about the rotten apple.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
IT companies and tax evasion - what can be said?
A stunning story about the Information Technology industry. Those of us who have followed the industry, indeed been a part of it, are right to feel cheated and sullied by knowing that the corporations we have assisted and in some cases developed from the ground up, are not paying their way. Apple has $100billion USD stored outside the US with no plans to repatriate it for taxation purposes. This article Apple is non-tax indicates that this non-taxed revenue kept by Apple in Irish tax havens will not be going anywhere near the US or countries that apply standard economic policy settings.
This is a major challenge to civil society. It may also prove to be a major consideration to all those holier than-thou people using Apple in the belief that it was a virtuous enterprise. Clearly it is not.
One fascinating complication is the suggestion in the article by Rand Paul, the libertarian Republican, that the US Senators opposing the Apple strategy were somehow unreasonable in their challenges to Apple's tax avoidance scheme.As more is understood about the political theory driving libertarianism, it is possible to gain insights into the ideals of freedom that informs this philosophy. In particular, the belief that the state should not have a role in financial transactions, indeed the strong view that the state should not tax profits or revenue, suggests a world turned upside down.
Information Technology has been an engine for advanced economies and the global economy for a couple of generations now. That it has generated the parallel universe of non-statism as a default position is its business problem. Much more work is required to hold the light of democratic interests on the IT industry, as the US Senate has done this week.
That David Cameron the Tory Prime Minister of Great Britain has also spoken out about the impoverishment of national accounts because of non-tax paying corporations says something about the impact of avoidance. At Davos in January 2013, Cameron said tax avoidance is "not appropriate." Cameron video He has a way to go, but raising what he calls "moral questions," was not a bad start for a Tory.
The IT industry was never pristine. Now it is known as sleezy for not contributing to the public good. An appropriate public response is difficult to imagine.
This is a major challenge to civil society. It may also prove to be a major consideration to all those holier than-thou people using Apple in the belief that it was a virtuous enterprise. Clearly it is not.
One fascinating complication is the suggestion in the article by Rand Paul, the libertarian Republican, that the US Senators opposing the Apple strategy were somehow unreasonable in their challenges to Apple's tax avoidance scheme.As more is understood about the political theory driving libertarianism, it is possible to gain insights into the ideals of freedom that informs this philosophy. In particular, the belief that the state should not have a role in financial transactions, indeed the strong view that the state should not tax profits or revenue, suggests a world turned upside down.
Information Technology has been an engine for advanced economies and the global economy for a couple of generations now. That it has generated the parallel universe of non-statism as a default position is its business problem. Much more work is required to hold the light of democratic interests on the IT industry, as the US Senate has done this week.
That David Cameron the Tory Prime Minister of Great Britain has also spoken out about the impoverishment of national accounts because of non-tax paying corporations says something about the impact of avoidance. At Davos in January 2013, Cameron said tax avoidance is "not appropriate." Cameron video He has a way to go, but raising what he calls "moral questions," was not a bad start for a Tory.
The IT industry was never pristine. Now it is known as sleezy for not contributing to the public good. An appropriate public response is difficult to imagine.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Public Interest and Architecture - Contest in Sydney
Discussions about The Public Interest usually revolve around communication and media policy and rightly so, as I have noted on this blog on a number of occasions. In Uprising I made the following points:
As liberal democratic governments around the world stepped away from their
claims to represent “the public interest,” private interests came to dominate
the Internet in a broad ranging social and economic discourse that was and
is new, driven by the forces of unregulated economic interests and entrepreneurial
ideology, largely sponsored by business innovators and their promoters
in political parties of all persuasions. (8)
later in the book I suggested that:
The public interest became a sort of de facto ideological system of meaning
for citizen idealism in the US. (121)
The application of Public Interest principles was given another helpful iteration recently when Joe Agius the New South Wales President of the Australian Institute of Architects criticised a proposed Sydney casino building at Barangroo. According to Joe Agius, the casino would amount to "an assault on the public interest."
Why? Because according to Agius, the proposed new buildings were "unconscious of their context." They had no claim to be like the Sydney Opera House, "a public cultural building that is highly responsive to its context." Sydney Opera House reference
The complete comments from Agius offer a strong statement on this topic. Agius Statement
For those of us who have a stake in theory around this subject, it is reassuring to see ideals from The Public Interest being contested - at least.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Boston Bombing - Amy Osborne, a 23 year old on Social Media
Amy Osborne is a former student of mine in Boston. Here are some thoughts from her on the Bombing and Social Media.
April 18, 2013
We
Stand Strong Generation
I am a 23 year old young professional. I
was in 7th grade when two planes struck the Twin Towers in September
of 2001 and have been a Boston resident since 2007. Despite this fact, I am not
naïve enough to say I’m a Bostonian, or to believe I ever will be.
I am not a product of the 1960’s – an era
synonymous with peace, love, and tolerance.
I did not protest the Vietnam War beside young, like-minded activists,
and I will not recall to my children where I was when one of our most beloved
President’s – John F. Kennedy - was assassinated. I often wish that these
memories marked my youth; because, however marred by their own misfortune, most
fondly recall these as much simpler times.
Four days after what is now called the
“Marathon Bombing”, I continue to process feelings of grief, anger, confusion
and anxiety. In the early mornings, as the city lays silent under the cover of
darkness, I feel vulnerable and the loss suffered by so many following Monday’s
tragedy hangs heavy on my heart. As I go about my day, I suppress these
unwelcome emotions as they arise in erratic succession. Boston Strong. I may
not be a Bostonian, but this week “we are all Boston” and I stand proudly with
my city.
For me, processing “the Marathon Bombings”
involves a lot of talking. Spontaneous and unfiltered discussion with
coworkers, friends, family, even the woman sitting next to me on the T. I
realize this is not an original response and it is largely necessary as we come
to terms with reality, cope with our grief and begin to envision how our world
– how our everyday lives – has changed.
But through these conversations, I am
surprised by a new awareness of myself and of my generation. I recount my
experience on Monday as a series of real-time tweets, incessant text messages
and startlingly graphic photographs taken from every angle of the bomb site.
Immediately following the news, I called my parents to assuage their fears for
my safety – but newscasters had not yet arrived at the scene, and so, they were
completely unaware.
Since Marathon Monday, I have vented my
frustration at the media’s relentless use of unapproved and unconfirmed
Facebook photos, tweets and bystander reports as the basis of their newscast.
The result has been repeated, erroneous reports and an embarrassingly public
display of widespread chaos; none more telling than 1,000 reporters besieging
the Moakley courthouse in hopes of being among the first to capture the suspect
who would never emerge.
As much of the nation turns on their
television to learn “what happens next”, I shut it off. I’ve fallen silent on
Twitter and Facebook for fear of glimpsing ‘trending’ photos of victims’ wounds
and hate statuses proclaiming America’s supremacy. I realize the resulting
chaos from this tragedy is homegrown. Our generation demands graphic imagery,
real-time reports and live-stream videos recounting and replaying every detail,
theory and ‘clue’. And we pride ourselves on personally submitting photos and
relayingnupdates because we believe we are key players in this evolving saga.
But our demands for immediacy and inclusion have very real consequences, and
can ultimately detract from the honor and integrity of those most impacted by
this tragedy.
In explaining my frustration to my father,
I tried to appeal to empathy: “Imagine I had died in this bombing, and they
went on my Facebook and broadcasted my face all over the globe!” Although I
believed this justified my outrage, his reaction was less poignant. And I
realized, perhaps he couldn’t understand - He just watches the news, he doesn’t
participate.
Growing up in the post-9/11 era, I know I
am not the only 20-something who has considered what picture might be used if
I’m ever a victim of a tragedy like this - or of a university shooting, a movie
theatre massacre or even a stray glass fragment at my favorite bar. “Times were
simpler then,” my parents remind me in their sweet, however futile efforts to
empathize.
What is it like to grow up knowing that my
city, my university, my hometown or my happy hour might be next? Are our
demands for immediacy and inclusion through social media really surprising, as
a generation plagued by constant, underlying fear and responsibility for our
own vigilance?
I am a 23 year old young professional. I
believe in the value of social media to connect, enlighten and empower, and
also in the power of print and broadcast media to challenge, inform, and
engage. I acknowledge the world is a dangerous place, but I refuse to succumb
to fear. I believe in the prevailing good of people and that as long as we
believe they will never win. I am a product of the “We Stand Strong”
generation. And I am both grief-stricken and proud knowing that today, we are
all Boston Strong.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Dynamics of Virtual Work - European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)
April 8-10, Darmstadt, Germany, first COST Action. Invited as a non-EU COST member, funded by the Australian Academy of Science.
23 years after Arjun Appadurai's essay Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy appeared this COST Action offers a concerted way forward for the discussion of work and labour. Article link While Appadurai's five dimensions of global cultural flows are still relevant - ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, ideoscapes - the context has changed. The European Union and the US are counterbalanced by the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Multipolar economies operate at a ridiculously rapid speed, offering less rather than more space for comprehending how the systems fit together. That has produced rather less comfort for regulators and the public interest, as private interests sometimes with the active support of national governments have aggressively encouraged wage / labour arbitrage. Massive profits have become typical of this new context, while government oversight has been minimal.
One thing we know for certain is that labour is under stress and in desperate need of new theory, better insights and public policies that address the challenges of the connected world.
This meeting in Darmstadt marked the start of four years of deliberations. About 50 people attended the discussion. Ursula Huws, Professor of Labour and Globalisation from University of Hertforshire Business School and Christian Fuchs from Communication and Media at The University of Westminster are the chair and deputy chair of the Action.
Below are some of the key issues from the EU agreed Memorandum of Understanding.
A. ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS
ICTs have had a major impact on the content and location of work. Digitisation of information has
transformed labour processes whilst telecommunications have enabled jobs to be relocated globally.
But ICTs have also enabled the creation of entirely new types of 'digital' or 'virtual' labour, both
paid and unpaid, shifting the borderline between 'play' and 'work' and creating new types of unpaid
labour connected with consumption and co-creation of services. This affects private life as well as
transforming the nature of work. Because of the gender division of labour, this affects women and
men differently.
The changing geography of virtual work and the emergence of new value-generating virtual
activities have major implications for economic development, skills and innovation policies.
However these are poorly understood because they have been studied in a highly fragmentary way
by isolated researchers.
This Action will distil knowledge to enable policymakers to separate facts from hype and develop
effective strategies to generate new employment and economic development in Europe. It will bring
together experts in the fields of communications, innovation, management, digital media, creative
industries, technology, employment, economics, sociology, geography, gender studies and cultural
studies to consolidate theory, map this emerging field, support early stage researchers and develop
new research agendas.
Here are some comments I made before the meeting that were included in a Press Release from Bond University.
"A Bond University expert on the impact of the internet on society has been invited to take part in a newly established European Union policy group looking at how the virtual workplace will impact the labour market and in the future.
Marcus Breen, Professor of Communication and Creative Media in Bond's Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, will travel to Darmstadt, Germany next month to participate in a high level European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Concerted Research Action, looking at the emerging field of the virtual workplace.
The invitation is a significant accomplishment for Bond University, not only involving one of its academics in a major international collaborative discussion on an important global issue, but also establishing a formal connection between Bond and the European Union. Professor Breen’s participation is funded by the Australian Academy of Science under a special non-member agreement with the COST Secretariat in Brussels.
Professor Breen said the first meeting of the action group would be defining how it planned to operate and which areas of the international workplace it would cover.
"It will be trying to recommend effective strategies to harness the power of technology and communication businesses to generate new employment and economic development in Europe," he said.
"But we may also be looking at aspects related to the cost of labour and questions which arise about where low cost centres are located.
"It will be making a contribution to the development of policies for the European Union on what governments can and should be doing to regulate the virtual movement of labour from one country to another or one economy to another.
"It will look at how struggling economies are affected by the virtual movement of labour internationally and across borders."
The EU COST group has been formed to consider the impact technology has had on the content and location of the workplace, with digital information transforming labour processes and telecommunications enabling jobs to be relocated globally.
Professor Breen said the deliberations of the action group would have a major impact on government policies in Europe and the rest of the world within the next decade.
He said it had particular implications for the future of the workplace, the future of education, and for economic development, skills and innovation policies.
"These issues have not been studied in a cohesive way, and this group will distil knowledge to enable policymakers to establish facts and develop effective strategies to generate new employment and economic activity," said Pro Breen..
"The public debate has already started on questions about taxation that should be paid by major transnational technology firms and service providers such as Google and Yahoo and the impact of the virtual players on the real, material economies.
"Regional and national governments are already trying to work out how to regulate and manage labour and employment opportunities for working people.
"The objective of this project is to begin the process of delivering recommendations and ideas to the governments of Europe and other parts of the world about the best way to manage the impacts of virtual work."
Professor Breen is about to embark on his own virtual workplace, having been invited to be the editor of the International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, a US based publication which examines innovative theories and practices relating technology to society.
The journal provides a meeting point for technology researchers with a concern for social issues. Professor Breen's involvement as editor will complement his participation in the EU research group."
23 years after Arjun Appadurai's essay Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy appeared this COST Action offers a concerted way forward for the discussion of work and labour. Article link While Appadurai's five dimensions of global cultural flows are still relevant - ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, ideoscapes - the context has changed. The European Union and the US are counterbalanced by the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Multipolar economies operate at a ridiculously rapid speed, offering less rather than more space for comprehending how the systems fit together. That has produced rather less comfort for regulators and the public interest, as private interests sometimes with the active support of national governments have aggressively encouraged wage / labour arbitrage. Massive profits have become typical of this new context, while government oversight has been minimal.
One thing we know for certain is that labour is under stress and in desperate need of new theory, better insights and public policies that address the challenges of the connected world.
This meeting in Darmstadt marked the start of four years of deliberations. About 50 people attended the discussion. Ursula Huws, Professor of Labour and Globalisation from University of Hertforshire Business School and Christian Fuchs from Communication and Media at The University of Westminster are the chair and deputy chair of the Action.
Below are some of the key issues from the EU agreed Memorandum of Understanding.
A. ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS
ICTs have had a major impact on the content and location of work. Digitisation of information has
transformed labour processes whilst telecommunications have enabled jobs to be relocated globally.
But ICTs have also enabled the creation of entirely new types of 'digital' or 'virtual' labour, both
paid and unpaid, shifting the borderline between 'play' and 'work' and creating new types of unpaid
labour connected with consumption and co-creation of services. This affects private life as well as
transforming the nature of work. Because of the gender division of labour, this affects women and
men differently.
The changing geography of virtual work and the emergence of new value-generating virtual
activities have major implications for economic development, skills and innovation policies.
However these are poorly understood because they have been studied in a highly fragmentary way
by isolated researchers.
This Action will distil knowledge to enable policymakers to separate facts from hype and develop
effective strategies to generate new employment and economic development in Europe. It will bring
together experts in the fields of communications, innovation, management, digital media, creative
industries, technology, employment, economics, sociology, geography, gender studies and cultural
studies to consolidate theory, map this emerging field, support early stage researchers and develop
new research agendas.
Here are some comments I made before the meeting that were included in a Press Release from Bond University.
"A Bond University expert on the impact of the internet on society has been invited to take part in a newly established European Union policy group looking at how the virtual workplace will impact the labour market and in the future.
Marcus Breen, Professor of Communication and Creative Media in Bond's Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, will travel to Darmstadt, Germany next month to participate in a high level European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Concerted Research Action, looking at the emerging field of the virtual workplace.
The invitation is a significant accomplishment for Bond University, not only involving one of its academics in a major international collaborative discussion on an important global issue, but also establishing a formal connection between Bond and the European Union. Professor Breen’s participation is funded by the Australian Academy of Science under a special non-member agreement with the COST Secretariat in Brussels.
Professor Breen said the first meeting of the action group would be defining how it planned to operate and which areas of the international workplace it would cover.
"It will be trying to recommend effective strategies to harness the power of technology and communication businesses to generate new employment and economic development in Europe," he said.
"But we may also be looking at aspects related to the cost of labour and questions which arise about where low cost centres are located.
"It will be making a contribution to the development of policies for the European Union on what governments can and should be doing to regulate the virtual movement of labour from one country to another or one economy to another.
"It will look at how struggling economies are affected by the virtual movement of labour internationally and across borders."
The EU COST group has been formed to consider the impact technology has had on the content and location of the workplace, with digital information transforming labour processes and telecommunications enabling jobs to be relocated globally.
Professor Breen said the deliberations of the action group would have a major impact on government policies in Europe and the rest of the world within the next decade.
He said it had particular implications for the future of the workplace, the future of education, and for economic development, skills and innovation policies.
"These issues have not been studied in a cohesive way, and this group will distil knowledge to enable policymakers to establish facts and develop effective strategies to generate new employment and economic activity," said Pro Breen..
"The public debate has already started on questions about taxation that should be paid by major transnational technology firms and service providers such as Google and Yahoo and the impact of the virtual players on the real, material economies.
"Regional and national governments are already trying to work out how to regulate and manage labour and employment opportunities for working people.
"The objective of this project is to begin the process of delivering recommendations and ideas to the governments of Europe and other parts of the world about the best way to manage the impacts of virtual work."
Professor Breen is about to embark on his own virtual workplace, having been invited to be the editor of the International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, a US based publication which examines innovative theories and practices relating technology to society.
The journal provides a meeting point for technology researchers with a concern for social issues. Professor Breen's involvement as editor will complement his participation in the EU research group."
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Public Interest - a crucial discussion
The Public Interest is NOT what the public is interested in!
What is The Public Interest?
During the heated discussions about media regulation and a proposed Public interest Advocate in Australia over the weeks of March 12 - 21, 2013, the point has been made that there should not be a public interest test for Australian media, in part because no one knows what the public interest is.
The conservative Liberal Party shadow minister for communication Malcolm Turnbull made statements to that effect, while claiming to be a lawyer.
What is the public interest? (Minister) Conroy couldn’t even tell us what the criteria for public interest was. (ABC Radio Interview)
One would have to suggest that Malcolm Turnbull is not a very good lawyer because the law is driven by the concept of the public interest. All media regulation is driven by the concept that there is a public interest, and it needs to be defended by legally sanctioned institutions lest the excesses of the market be teh only game in town. No one really wants the market to only act in its own self interest.
Here is what Turnbull said in a different place:
To argue this case is to enter the world of the knowingly ignorant. As Malcolm Turnbull surely knows, the public interest is the basis not only for the law, it is also the basis for the entire regulatory apparatus of the state in liberal/social democracies. If it is not the basis for regulation the public interest is purely a theoretical smoke screen that does nothing. If that was to be the case, systems of law and regulation, including policing and justice in general would be inoperable. It is a dangerous game to suggest the public interest cannot be defined and that regulation should be denied because it might inhibit business, or "media freedom."
The Public Interest is not what the public is interested in. Unregulated media in a country such as Australia would give even more of this latter category of what the public is interested in- more socially irrelevant "news", more titillation, more opinion pretending to be news, less reporting...
Everyone benefits from a discussion of The Public Interest. To pretend it is too difficult, undefinable, irrelevant, is to leave everyday life to the cowboys, the criminals and the corrupt.
What is The Public Interest?
During the heated discussions about media regulation and a proposed Public interest Advocate in Australia over the weeks of March 12 - 21, 2013, the point has been made that there should not be a public interest test for Australian media, in part because no one knows what the public interest is.
The conservative Liberal Party shadow minister for communication Malcolm Turnbull made statements to that effect, while claiming to be a lawyer.
What is the public interest? (Minister) Conroy couldn’t even tell us what the criteria for public interest was. (ABC Radio Interview)
One would have to suggest that Malcolm Turnbull is not a very good lawyer because the law is driven by the concept of the public interest. All media regulation is driven by the concept that there is a public interest, and it needs to be defended by legally sanctioned institutions lest the excesses of the market be teh only game in town. No one really wants the market to only act in its own self interest.
Here is what Turnbull said in a different place:
... Every single person will have a different view about what is in the public interest. Everyone’s got a different view. Having media mergers dependent on such a subjective, highly political view is really bad law, it’s bad practice and when it’s produced by this Government who’s commitment to media freedom is very very questionable to say the least, it obviously has to be seen for what it is. It is an attempt to regulate the media because they don’t like what you’ve been saying and writing about them.
JOURNALIST:
Is this a basic philosophical issue for you Mr Turnbull and does that mean that if this does get through in the next fortnight that a Coalition government would repeal it?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well I have no doubt that we would seek to repeal any sort of public interest test on media takeovers. I think this is a bad idea at every level. It’s a bad idea from the point of view of freedom of speech. It’s a bad idea from the point of view of keeping governments out of regulating the media. We want the media to be as free as possible and I can say as a former lawyer who used to practice in the area of broadcasting law these sort of generally worded tests, whether you call it public interest or fit and proper person, are impossible to define. And all they do is end up creating very handsome incomes for the legal profession. So it doesn’t tick any box and it is a classic Stephen Conroy thought bubble. (emphasis added)
To argue this case is to enter the world of the knowingly ignorant. As Malcolm Turnbull surely knows, the public interest is the basis not only for the law, it is also the basis for the entire regulatory apparatus of the state in liberal/social democracies. If it is not the basis for regulation the public interest is purely a theoretical smoke screen that does nothing. If that was to be the case, systems of law and regulation, including policing and justice in general would be inoperable. It is a dangerous game to suggest the public interest cannot be defined and that regulation should be denied because it might inhibit business, or "media freedom."
The Public Interest is not what the public is interested in. Unregulated media in a country such as Australia would give even more of this latter category of what the public is interested in- more socially irrelevant "news", more titillation, more opinion pretending to be news, less reporting...
Everyone benefits from a discussion of The Public Interest. To pretend it is too difficult, undefinable, irrelevant, is to leave everyday life to the cowboys, the criminals and the corrupt.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Define The Public Interest - Australian hysteric
Blandishments, blather and bombast emanates from conservative politicians in Australia and their megaphone media organisation News Corporation.
As noted in my blog 13 March 2013: "The evidence is clear from this coverage why a Public Interest Test is needed in Australia. Surely the coverage by the News Corporation press proves how the public interest is rejected in favour of the status quo."
The opposition to The Public Interest Test proves the need for the test. There is every reason to believe that News Corporation wants to kill off the concept of the public interest. Maybe their extreme opposition arises from the knowledge that in their heart of hearts they know they are manifestly wrong, that they do not serve the public and as such fail to meet some of the standards that journalism seeks to uphold.
The Australian newspaper and the CEO of News Corporation (Australia) Kim Williams have proved themselves to be unregulated libertarian protagonists. They are seeking to maximise neo-classical economic essentialism: the market resolves everything, seems to be their mantra. They refuse to be held accountable. They should think about where this libertarianism got the News of the World, not to mention the unregulated mavens in the UK who are now facing criminal charges for hacking cell phones, allegedly paying off the police and pretending that they could behave without reference to professional standards of journalism, Oh and News International closed down the newspaper!
What happened to principles like accountability, public trust and responsibility in media ownership? Jettisoned by a self-serving over reaching colonial media pack, who operate in an uncompetitive marketplace, where there are entire Australian cities with only News Corporation newspapers (Brisbane for example) or in cities dominated by News Corporation (Adelaide).
The argument has been made by News Corporation and conservative politicians that there is a lot of media diversity due to the Internet where the public is served. So why have a Public Interest Test? This is a nice yet flawed legal manoeuvre. Because of its size and influence News Corporation sets the agenda for a considerable amount of discourse in Australia.
Then there is the former columnist Robert Mann's accusations that The Australian newspaper has a : "malign influence" and practices "intellectual dishonesty." Mann vs The Australian - nice summation
"First of all I would like to say how sorry I am...it's a matter of great regret to everyone these actions do not live up to the standards that our company aspires to everywhere around the world and it is our determination to both put things right, make sure these things don't happen again... and to be the company that I know we've always aspired to be... I have no knowledge... " James Murdoch. "The most humble day of my life." Rupert Murdoch. Both appearing before the Levenson Inquiry in the UK. Murdoch's answers
Watching the Murdoch evidence it becomes clear that he was not aware of what happens in some of his papers. It seems clear he believes his media organs are well run and ethically run...
The fight by News Corporation against the proposed Public Interest Test is undignified, More importantly it may indicate that the News Corporation neophytes in Australia are overcompensating for their anxiety about pleasing the boss. They are so totally opposed to the Public Interest test that I am embarrassed for them.
I have seen this before by high level media executives in Australia. It happened during the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) inquiry into the prices of sound recordings in 1990-1991. I saw and heard executives in public meetings screaming, hurling tirades of abuse at the chairperson the the PSA Inquiry, Professor Alan Fells, all part of a performance that reflected what their far-away superiors wanted them to say.Talk about extreme - some of these guys give new meaning to the phrase "corporate shill."
(A full exploration of the PSA Inquiry is available in my book: Rock Dogs: Politics and the Australian Music Industry. Rock Dogs).
The conservative political establishment in Australia is also railing against the Public Interest Test. News and conservative politician seem to be egging each other on. Who wants\the public interest when you can have the free market?
As noted in my blog 13 March 2013: "The evidence is clear from this coverage why a Public Interest Test is needed in Australia. Surely the coverage by the News Corporation press proves how the public interest is rejected in favour of the status quo."
The opposition to The Public Interest Test proves the need for the test. There is every reason to believe that News Corporation wants to kill off the concept of the public interest. Maybe their extreme opposition arises from the knowledge that in their heart of hearts they know they are manifestly wrong, that they do not serve the public and as such fail to meet some of the standards that journalism seeks to uphold.
The Australian newspaper and the CEO of News Corporation (Australia) Kim Williams have proved themselves to be unregulated libertarian protagonists. They are seeking to maximise neo-classical economic essentialism: the market resolves everything, seems to be their mantra. They refuse to be held accountable. They should think about where this libertarianism got the News of the World, not to mention the unregulated mavens in the UK who are now facing criminal charges for hacking cell phones, allegedly paying off the police and pretending that they could behave without reference to professional standards of journalism, Oh and News International closed down the newspaper!
What happened to principles like accountability, public trust and responsibility in media ownership? Jettisoned by a self-serving over reaching colonial media pack, who operate in an uncompetitive marketplace, where there are entire Australian cities with only News Corporation newspapers (Brisbane for example) or in cities dominated by News Corporation (Adelaide).
The argument has been made by News Corporation and conservative politicians that there is a lot of media diversity due to the Internet where the public is served. So why have a Public Interest Test? This is a nice yet flawed legal manoeuvre. Because of its size and influence News Corporation sets the agenda for a considerable amount of discourse in Australia.
Then there is the former columnist Robert Mann's accusations that The Australian newspaper has a : "malign influence" and practices "intellectual dishonesty." Mann vs The Australian - nice summation
"First of all I would like to say how sorry I am...it's a matter of great regret to everyone these actions do not live up to the standards that our company aspires to everywhere around the world and it is our determination to both put things right, make sure these things don't happen again... and to be the company that I know we've always aspired to be... I have no knowledge... " James Murdoch. "The most humble day of my life." Rupert Murdoch. Both appearing before the Levenson Inquiry in the UK. Murdoch's answers
Watching the Murdoch evidence it becomes clear that he was not aware of what happens in some of his papers. It seems clear he believes his media organs are well run and ethically run...
The fight by News Corporation against the proposed Public Interest Test is undignified, More importantly it may indicate that the News Corporation neophytes in Australia are overcompensating for their anxiety about pleasing the boss. They are so totally opposed to the Public Interest test that I am embarrassed for them.
I have seen this before by high level media executives in Australia. It happened during the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) inquiry into the prices of sound recordings in 1990-1991. I saw and heard executives in public meetings screaming, hurling tirades of abuse at the chairperson the the PSA Inquiry, Professor Alan Fells, all part of a performance that reflected what their far-away superiors wanted them to say.Talk about extreme - some of these guys give new meaning to the phrase "corporate shill."
(A full exploration of the PSA Inquiry is available in my book: Rock Dogs: Politics and the Australian Music Industry. Rock Dogs).
The conservative political establishment in Australia is also railing against the Public Interest Test. News and conservative politician seem to be egging each other on. Who wants\the public interest when you can have the free market?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)