Media self-censors to protest press freedom

Good morning, early birds. Major media companies have censored their front pages in protest of the government’s crackdown on press freedom, and infrastructure continues to lag despite repeated calls for a boost. It’s the news you need to know, with Rachel Withers.

READ ALL ABOUT IT

THE COMMENTARIAT

The question all Australians should be asking ($) – Michael Miller (The Daily Telegraph): “Every time a government imposes new restrictions on what journalists can report, Australians should ask: “What are they trying to hide from me?” Why has the government made rules to keep myself and other Australians in the dark? Why does it want to limit the ability of the people who elect it to assess what it’s doing? Why is it so driven to silence the media and whistleblowers? Overwhelmingly Australians should be shocked that we live in what The New York Times has described as possibly the world’s most secretive democracy. Put simply, our governments don’t want you to know a lot of what they are doing — and journalists are banned from telling many important stories you should know. And you have a right to be suspicious and concerned.”

Press freedom under threat from national security law spree – Jennifer Robinson (The Age/Sydney Morning Herald): “Australia has long been described as a liberal democracy. But we have a press freedom problem that raises genuine questions about whether we continue to deserve that title. Between police raids on journalists, unlawful accessing of metadata to identify a journalist’s source, and a spree of new national security legislation which criminalises journalistic activity, the recent actions of the Australian government sound less like those of a liberal democracy than of an authoritarian regime. This is dangerous not just for Australian journalists, but for journalists everywhere.”

Why I can’t tell you the full story ($) – Paul Maley (The Australian): “I’d love to be able to tell you about my most recent experience reporting on a sensitive national security matter, but if I did I might end up in jail. The story, you see, is the subject of a particularly onerous suppression order. Suppression orders aren’t strictly speaking the subject of today’s cross-media campaign, although perhaps they should be. Along with Australia’s arcane defamation laws they’re the legal obstacle the jobbing reporter is most likely to encounter as he or she attempts to bring you the day’s news. According to some excellent reporting by The Daily Telegraph some 855 suppression orders were issued by Australian courts last year. More than half — 443 — were handed down in Victoria, the jurisdiction that tried Cardinal ­George Pell in conditions of the most extraordinary secrecy. In many instances even reporting the existence of these orders is a crime. In other words, even the suppression is suppressed.”

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE