Thread by @GideonCRozner

Good God, I had a chuckle reading this - A real unhinged, paranoid, Murdoch derangement syndrome-infused, tinfoil territory rant. Then I got to the byline - This bloke is founder of the Australian Press Council and former editor of @theage!

independentaustralia.net/politics/polit…

@theage Anyway, most of his grievances are the standard lefty fare: 'Attacks' on the wonderful beacon of truth that is the ABC, the 'threats to democracy' arising from what is clearly opinion programming, and the 'takeover' of Fairfax by the right-wing (yeah, really) Nine Entertainment.

@theage But the fascinating thing is the mental gymnastics this Ranald bloke engages in in relation to the press freedom debate.

On the one hand, he complains about the 'increasing limitations imposed on reporting' under the guise of national security, which is fair enough.

@theage But then he immediately switches gears to: 'Journalistic freedom is a great catch-cry, but it can allow for unnamed or even fictional sources introduced to flesh out a good “tabloid” sensational story.'

@theage Leaving aside the unsubstantiated (and, ironically, probably fictional) claims of 'fictional sources' rampant in commercial media outlets, this artificial distinction between 'irresponsible' opinion and 'public interest' journalism sums up how out-of-touch the fourth estate is.

@theage The implication being, as always, that Australians are too stupid to distinguish between opinion, analysis and straight reporting.

@theage And of course, the subtext is this delusional notion that every democratic result that the left doesn't like - up to and including the rejection of Bill Shorten's shockingly left-wing policy agenda - is the electorate being hoodwinked by some kind of 'Big Media' conspiracy.

@theage Anyway, nekminnit, Ranald switches gears again with: 'We cannot allow our politicians to determine when sanctions are imposed or news is restricted.'

Again, fair enough. But that's a bit rich when Ranald is implying that 'irresponsible' opinion should be somehow restricted.

@theage And here we reach the old chestnut: How do we separate 'public interest' journalism from other journalism? And more importantly, who decides? And how is it enforced?

@theage Now, a free speech fundamentalist like me would be inclined to just open the floodgates - Wind back restrictions on speech (eg defo law, and of course 18C (you knew that was coming)) as much as possible and let the battle of ideas rip.

@theage But of course, that'll never wash with the chattering classes, for whom free speech is nothing more than a right-wing buzzword, not a fundamental and inalienable human right.

Because again, ordinary, mainstream Australians cannot be trusted to decide for themselves.

@theage This is why many conventional news outlets are dying, because the journalistic fraternity, by and large, is increasingly isolated from - and disdainful of - its audience, outside of a tiny well-heeled elite. Re free speech, it's one rule for them, and another for everyone else.

@theage Final thought: Despite what the left say, there will always be a market for quality journalism. But people know when they're being talked down to, and can see through the self-serving bias of self-proclaimed defenders of 'the truth'.