is not a conspiracy of course. It is unthinkable that rich and powerful people would come together and formulate a plan:

It's fundamentally undemocratic to allow media barons to promote their political agenda. The idea that just because someone can afford to buy a media outlet should give them a right to spout their own self interest is against the interest of society. Isn't it funny how idealistic that sounds, and it reminds me how far we've strayed from the basis of democracy when moneyed self interest can promote their agenda against the interests of the people........ and that ordinary working people often defend the "rights" of the tycoons by saying things like "so and so bought channel whatever so he can put on it anything he likes". Bull****! media outlets are licensed to use a medium of transmission(the airwaves etc)....and that's the domain of the Australian public, not some clique of self interest

Hows ol mate Clive's (Coal miner form Queensland) response to questioning on why he was entering the media ownership group along with our girl Gina. "I want to improve the integrity and honesty of the editors and their staff, lift the bar so to speak" Bawhawhawhawhaw. Ye good one Clive, with answers like that to a legitimate question, I dont fink soooo

There were a fair number on here who bleated away in unison. If a bloke was vindictive enough he could look it up and ram it down their throats. Had to have a fat old giggle when the Greens report on foreign ownership of the mining companies exposed the fact that 85% or whatever were foreign owned. Would not do to tax foreigners for our benefit And Doc, my young blokes girlfriend is the exec producer on one of those crying fat folk shows, don't know which one cos I don't have telly. I have to tread carefully but your point is taken. Telly is reality for most folk which is why it is so bloody easy to push over whatever agenda they want to.

Too few people sat on too many resources makes it easy for barons. Votes can be bought and it's worth buying them... Some sort of regulation has to be implemented. Can't see Abbott doing it to his former employers though...

how true this protesters sign is....

She may as well buy Fairfax and dictate her version of events through it. It'll make a change from hearing Murdoch's version all the time.

She wants to stop the mining tax so buys some media, she lost a whole heap of credibility in my eyes when twiggy and her got up on the stage to lobby against paying some tax.

not saying its good or bad ....but whats the alternative .....State Run Media ???? a propaganda machine ?

Her foray is to throw her considerable weight in influencing public debate on native title, taxation, environmental and other social policy issues. But for all her intentions, she will still have to get a seat on the board of Fairfax Media, then try to use that to cause some sort of editorial control. This is considered highly unlikely as the current board is quite hostile to her. Likewise, in Fairfax there is a very deep line that separates the management and the editorial staff - so getting her punch-drunk brand of politics into those newspapers will again be pretty hard. At present, the opposition is smart to stay out of this argument, but at some stage they will have to show their hand and you can bet that they won't be the ones arguing for tighter media ownership and code of conduct controls.

My guess is they will both promote their right wing views

No, just Australia And yes, the point of my post is completely ironic.

Tax the bejesus out of the old battleaxe - then tax her again when she buys up the media outlets