“Considering the contributions to the public discussion by the Murdoch "press", can we legislate against deceptive journalism in the same way we have legislated against deceptive advertising? And how would we go about doing that in practice? ”
There are already defamation and slander laws but it seems media hs been exempted much like politicians enjoy parliamentary privelige. There is also in some states like Victoria laws for such but this is not federal. There should be laws against unfounded allegations and remarks, simply being a reporter or politician should never entitle you to deliberately insinuate, suggest or outright lie on a public medium to defame and destroy somebody out of malice with intent to gain advantage for yourself or another. Why legally support liars by permitting random malicious and unfounded allegations. Imagine the victim was you, would you wish for protection of your name, family and reputation from such if untrue?
There are already defamation and slander laws but it seems media hs been exempted much like politicians enjoy parliamentary privelige. There is also in some states like Victoria laws for such but this is not federal. There should be laws against unfounded allegations and remarks, simply being a reporter or politician should never entitle you to deliberately insinuate, suggest or outright lie on a public medium to defame and destroy somebody out of malice with intent to gain advantage for yourself or another. Why legally support liars by permitting random malicious and unfounded allegations. Imagine the victim was you, would you wish for protection of your name, family and reputation from such if untrue?
Pater, false advertising has been weeded out through litigation. Who decides what is false advertising? Court judges and juries on a case by case basis.
I ask how we might bring about a higher degree of honesty into the media. For asking the question I am being called a propagandist mass murderer. WOW! Defamation is already illegal Stephen.
o, you just wish to curtail or silence a journalistic voice of which you disapprove; one that presents a perspective (half of the time) which is not in accord with the left-wing worldview. Funny thing is, newspapers like The Australian are quite balanced. The Australian has opinion pieces from both sides of the political spectrum. No fair-minded person disagrees with this. But, sadly, for left-wing, little-totalitarians even this much dissent cannot be tolerated. It must be silenced. If we were living in East Germany before 1989 you would be in the Stasi and I would be fighting you. Have a look in the mirror my friend.
George Orwell used to be compulsory reading in schools.
Apparently no longer.
You might also forage through Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
In fact any sort of reading at all may be of benefit.
You do realise that would also apply not just to the "right wing press", but also to the likes of Marr & Carlton just to name a few.
Who decides what is deceptive journalism? A committee of people who lean to the left no doubt.
Contours Of Global Order 
Daniel Wilson
Sharing is caring
People who voted for this question