|
July 24, 2006
Does Murdoch really wield the unhealthy influence his enemies claim, skewing the Australian political debate thanks to the sheer number of his media outlets - or is he just one among many voices, and one that, so News Corp insiders protest, is often ignored by the Government?
Or is Murdoch dead as a political force? An old style media baron being left behind as an innovative media company? Or do Murdoch's tabloids still rule politics?
What is interesting about Coonan's media reforms is that they were concerned with the old infrastructure--more versions of the same free-to air-channelsb to keep the moguls happy. They were divorced from the new infrastructure of the internet and broadband. Surely it is only a matter of time before producers put television programmes straight on the internet. If that is the case won't what comes over free-to-air televison become ever more marginal to consumer's viewing habits?
Isn't broadband as an infrastructure issue – as an absolutely essential factor in the delivery of future digital media services to consumers. Won't the investment in this infrastructure will be recouped many times over from the services that can be provided over it.
|
The news cycle still dominates public attention. While the news outlets decide what the news cycle is, then yes they will remain in control of the political debate.
Does Murdoch's hand mean pass or failure for a government/opposition in today's world?
Dunno. The mass media has become so segmented, it isnt the cacaphony of voices that is the issue, I think it is the shrillness and sensationalist nature which is the turn off.
It is easier to be cynical when the delivery of the media is to troll, flame or incite the reader.