The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Freedom of Information laws needed for media companies?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 7735
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Freedom of Information laws needed for media companies?

Post by Greta » January 2nd, 2019, 5:15 pm

In Australia, Sky News interviewed and promoted a Nazi but quickly backtracked after there was more outcry than expected. ... y-news-ban

Sky placed an FOI request with the Victorian Government, which played about as fair with Sky as Sky plays the game.
The Victorian government falsely claimed it held no internal records on its decision to ban Sky News from train stations to block a journalist’s freedom of information request.

The state Labor government found itself under immense scrutiny in August for banning Sky News from train station screens following the broadcaster’s interview with far-right extremist Blair Cottrell.

Soon after the decision, the independent researcher William Summers lodged a freedom of information request with the then transport minister, Jacinta Allan, asking for “all documents held by her office, including emails, regarding the decision”.
I am disturbed that the government is bound by such accountability while a player with similar power and influence remains almost completely unaccountable. Surely it is time to stop pretending that these are just "private companies" - these are powerful political blocs that act as unelected ersatz government policy makers.

It is time for the public to be able to probe major media organisations to make them at least somewhat accountable, given the inordinate unelected power they grabbed.

I think the public deserve to know the decision making behind Sky's promotion of a known Nazi. Also I'd like confirmation that Sky only acted after the public outcry rather than via internal review. Alas, no one has the means means to find out without a being part of a legal case where a judge places an order to release information.

Would others agree that this is an imbalance in the system? Perhaps limits could be placed on such laws to prevent loss of source confidentiality or prevention of government authoritarianism?
Last edited by Scott on January 3rd, 2019, 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: "lws" changed to "laws" in title

Posts: 290
Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm

Re: Freedom of Information lws needed for media companies?

Post by Woodart » January 2nd, 2019, 6:17 pm

In today’s world most media outlets are an extension of corporate consciousness. Most corporations today are guided by their stomachs. Their motives are guided by appetite for profits – which can translate into a variety of behaviors that enhance and protect their bottom line. Money bends government – most of the time in secret – to enhance and protect the forces which have the money. The money can come from narcotics, agro-business, defense industry, petroleum, pharmaceuticals, electronic tech and a lot more places. Money is a type of grease that is put on the wheels of the “cart of state”. How the cart moves and where it is directed to go – is many times a function of grease. Most of us little people are just “on board” for the ride. Sometimes a Don Quixote or two makes a difference. However, it takes extraordinary courage to be a Don Quixote. Most people flee in terror from the idea of being a Don Quixote. And the world marches on.

What I think we need is a good biological plague to eliminate 99.999% of all people. We need to start over. Hopefully, those who remain will see the error of our passed deeds. We need a reboot – and maybe more than one.

User avatar
Posts: 97
Joined: November 26th, 2018, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Myself
Location: Wokeville, California

Re: Freedom of Information lws needed for media companies?

Post by Intellectual_Savnot » January 2nd, 2019, 8:45 pm

Response to Greta: I don't think we need more laws, no matter in which aspect we wish to apply them. I believe a more stable system would have but a few laws and some other things, but more importantly I would rather defend the existence of Freedom of Information for governments. The government is the institution made in the trust that the people who within it will selflessly serve the people of their domain and through a system that will ensure a greater existence for all involved. This requires great scrutiny for the sake of all involved because a government has the power to act with all the people-given power within it, in any way that the people have given them room for. If a government were to make at any step the wrong decision with great force, a whole era might be stained by failure in the most influential level. A government has power to command and ours has the power to enforce the will of the majority and the will of the politician. If ours were to be corrupted, the direction our nation would be lead to would be most likely terrible and most likely unstoppable by anything but fierce opposition. In all strata of government there must be ( I forgot the word but it's close to verification) of the actions and fulfillment of duties or else we must assume these things have been corrupted. As for news, this is just another player in the game accidentally invented in the East after the invention of markets, the game where people and groups compete for the most resources and items of want. News is a very powerful player for once upon a time it was not corrupt and people have become so lazy that despite our full knowledge of corruption, just like in every other aspect of existence, we choose inaction. This question should answer your question: If you knew your government was corrupt would you act (hopefully yes)? If you knew (as we all so well know at this point) that companies are corrupt, would you truly with half the ferocity go to act against them? Amazon is 880+ billion dollars rich, collects tax money from cities, and doesn't donate a dime, so corrupt, right? Nobody really cares. People who know don't act and people who don't know probably can't walk or talk yet. What I mean is, there is no reason for laws if it wouldn't change anything. We could show everything corrupt in every business and the only difference would be businesses making a profit off of it. Nobody would do anything with it, I know this because nobody does. I might seem like a hypocrite if I knowingly consume and give to big businesses, but I actually do plan on action in the future so I don't want any high-horsing.
Response to Woodart: This is a terrible idea for all intensive purposes. If we kill people, what will stop the radiation leaks in the East (or all the consequential leaks everywhere but Africa since all the power plants would derelict). How does this stop humanity from 1 immediately failing at survival and dying 2 going "The Road" style and then becoming a prosperous waste-land of tyranny and chaos? or 3 bouncing back in some act of low probability and then becoming corrupt again? And my favorite reason why: What morals that allow for this genocidal murder of a species not allow for corruption in government until we figure ourselves out naturally?
Stay woke and have a good day! 8) 8) 8) 8)

Post Reply