As Anti-Disinformation legislation gets thrashed about in the House of Representatives, news outlets like News Corp and in particular Sky News Australia and the Seven West Media Group are claiming blue murder, and also claiming that this legislation if passed would be Orwellian. Perhaps they fear that if such legislation was passed, they they might have to be partly accountable for the nonsense that they publish. However, upon actual inspection of the proposed legislation, it looks like government would be able to do no more than apply for retraction of individual pieces and not much else. It is certainly not censorship as Sky News Australia suggests but then again, for an organisation which openly lies to the public, I wouldn't expect anything less. Although having said that, I personally think that this is yet more proof that Australia is increasingly incapable of having any real policy of its own and must import both military and cultural policy from the United States.
Something that came out of a United States Governmental Enquiry into political interference, both of foreign actors and domestically (particularly looking at Russian interference in the 2016 Election), was looking at the nature of Fox News in US Politics. Unlike Sky News Australia which is hidden behind the paywall of Foxtel in most of the country, Fox News in the United States can either be transmitted via Fox's terrestrial free-to-air networks, or via basic cable-TV services which have a far greater take up rate than in Australia. Fox News was successfully able to run the line that it is not actually a news outlet but an opinion service; and that is perfectly fine due to the United States' semi-anarchist interpretation of the right to free speech which springs from the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The United States' lurching towards ever more semi-anarchist interpretation of law as it applies to whomever happens to win the political argument of the day, is in my increasingly bewildered opinion, the reason for the polarisation of politics. "Free Speech" and "Freedom" are the war cries of the unhinged on both the authoritarian right and the libertarian right. (There is very little actual economic left to speak of.) Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of many voices speaking into the town square; it's just that I do not believe that it is a moral good that any right be absolute, and I also believe that there should be adequate remedy and equity which is capable of being sought, as a result of a right being abused.
Australia is of course a different legal environment and instead of Roman law being the die from which law is cast, Australia has retained a Westminster style legislatory process and couples it with a very long chain of English Common Law using equity as its central pillar. In Australia, we have several pieces of legislation and pieces of law which affirm the right to free speech. The Bill of Eights Act (1688), the Socttish Claim of Right (1688), the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1945), the Australian Human Rights Commission Act (1986) and Schedule 2 therein, as well as case law which includes X v ABC (1997 et cetera, and James v Commonwealth (1936), again and again and again confirm that not only is there a right to free speech in Australia but that it has just limits. Liberty unchained is tyranny by the powerful and anyone who says that they do not believe in any limits to liberty is tacitly admitting that they are perfectly happy from harm to come to people who are not them.
All of that aside, Sky News Australia in my not very well paid opinion, exists not as a news service but as an opinion service and bully pulpit which deigns to have the concession of news bulletins in order to maintain the open façade of pretense that it is a news service. Sky News Australia probably runs the bare minimum of news bulletins in order to maintain that façade but just like ABC News Radio, filling up 24 Hours with news bulletins is a Herculean task. However unlike Hercules who had as one of his tasks the cleaning out of the (cows stalls), Sky News Australia has decided that it quite likes manure and has made it its aim to fill up every single possible stall with the stuff.
One of the criticisms of government is that there are too many pigs with their snouts in the trough. However, when you fill up the stalls of democracy with as much manure as you can possibly find, what ends up happening is that weeds grow everywhere and flies and maggots arrive. Sky News Australia is perfectly happy to have weeds and flies and maggots in democracy because its sponsors and backers, can then play outside and occasionally accuse their political enemies of not dealing with the weeds and flies and maggots in democracy.
It doesn't have to be particularly profitable to work properly. Running an opinion piece service, means that you can hire a very small cabal of opinion writers, who don't have to do very much research into any of the news at all. You do not need to be in possession of any facts in order to have an opinion. You do not have to understand any facts in order to have an opinion. Sky News Australia knows this. In fact, it knows this so well that every single one of its Tweets, Twooshes, Blorps, Sploots, Xeets, and Splinks, all use the framing device that their opinion haver has that opinion.
"Caleb Bond says...", "Sharri Markson says...", "Andrew Bolt says...", "Rita Panahi says...", "Paul Murray says...", "Erin Molan says...", "Banana McGee says..."
It is perfectly truthful to report that Banana McGee says a thing, and not be subject to any standards of journalism. Remember, we have a wealth of statute and case law which confirms that a right to free speech exists within just limits and just because someone says a thing which is neither grounded in facts, reality, or common sense, does not mean that those limits have been crossed. To wit: reading through those Tweets, Twooshes, Xeets and Sploots, if taken to be read in the light of various mental health acts, is likely grounds enough in order to get someone sectioned.
I do not voluntarily watch Sky News Australia, though I have been subject to Sky News Australia while waiting in line at the bank, for more hours than I care for. In some respects it is a little bit like listening to a series of lectures on BBC Radio 4's "The Unbelievable Truth" in which during a lecture full of lies, contestants attempt to smuggle truths past the panel. Points are awarded for smuggling truths that go unnoticed and other panelists can win points for spotting a truth or lose points if they mistake a lie for the truth. The difference between The Unbelievable Truth and Sky News Australia is that as Sky News Australia has no explicit commitment to the truth, because opinions are not dependent on the truth, then the audience who is left to flounder has to play the game for themselves; with the added bonus that they do not get any points for mistaking a lie for the truth.
Perhaps the shiniest current example of an absence of commitment to the truth is Sharri Markson's glorious return to blaming China for the Covid-19 virus. I have read her book "What Really Happened In Wuhan" and to be honest, even taken at face value, one would still actually have no idea of what really happened in Wuhan. The book is replete statements where if A and B, then P; except that P is unrelated to A or B. It is guffaw and hogwash but it is heavily researched guffaw and hogwash. The thing is that I think that she has come to genuinely believe her own guffaw and hogwash and just like any decent piece of theatre, one can always find wingnuts, jackdaws, and unicorns who will go on television because they all love engaging in confirmation bias. Sharri Markson's show on Sky News Australia doesn't actually present itself as a news program, so a commitment to the truth is not even necessary, because opinions are not dependent on the truth.
The thing is that where the facts themselves are ultimately unknowable and even scientific papers in either direction can be written off and dismissed, then opinion (albeit very well dressed opinion) is about as close to fact as you're going to get; even if looks like guffaw and hogwash. It is perfectly truthful to report that Professor Apple O'Reilly says a thing, and not be subject to any standards of journalism. Even if the Anti-Disinformation legislation gets up, Sky News Australia is completely safe because reporting that someone has an opinion is not disinformation, even if that opinion is factually wrong.
Unless there were actual incitements to violence, or running foul of the various discrimination acts, then opinions even in a legislative environment with Anti-Disinformation legislation are safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment