The primary role (and it should be the only role) of a government is to protect its citizen’s rights (either from internal threat or external). It should have no business in running (commercial) businesses or trying to nanny its citizens. It should not interfere in the market or should tell it what it should or shouldn’t do, whether it is about internet or private media companies. The government should stay that hell out of interference, but just concentrate on its primary role which is to protect its citizens’ rights.

I agree with the criticism by Clayton Cosgrove of current budget cuts for our Police force. This cuts is unacceptable. No money for police ammo and weapons training, but $50million for a cycle way.

This is where all of you politicians get it wrong. You concentrate of non-core government issues such as $50 millions for cycle way, but ignore the Police (including other law & agencies), which are the very foundations of what a government should exist in the first place. To fund these agencies for the protection of its citizens’s rights. Forget about digital media, cycle way, blah, blah, blah. Protect our rights, and then get the hell out of our way and stop nannying us citizens. If there is a demand in the market for specific services/goods, then just leave them to the market to provide or supply those.

I think that it should be taught to politicians who enter parliament, that the first role (and should be the only legitimate role) of the government is to protect its citizen’s rights and not become busybodies, wealth distributors, market interferences, etc,…

Back in March I posted about Shirky’s comments http://bit.ly/1ObY0J, plus those of others, such as Keen and Johnson. In addition if you read that post you will find several otheres both before and after on the question of the impact of new media.

Shirky and Johnson suggest

“Their media may have been different, but their shocking messages were the same: newspapers are history, the two visionaries agreed. The traditional business is no longer viable, Shirky and Johnson both announced; newspapers are being replaced by futuristic digital news networks that will barely resemble their archaic print ancestors.”

Neither Shirky nor Johnson necessarily see the demise of journalism or media, but they do see transformational change in how news is gathered and disseminated.

My inference from your post is that somehow you see a role for government in supporting old media.

It is not in my opinion the role of government to subsidise one form of media over another, nor should government own and control media – that is in itself a contradiction with your stated comment of the need for a professional and principled Fourth Estate.

Your post seems to be a plea for some form of state interference in the media. Whilst no doubt well intentioned it is to my mind an initial step on a very slippery path.

Nor can any government hold back the tide of change, neither can Rupert Murdoch. The Internet is proving to be a transormational technology, that is disruptive as well in the sense that it has triggered sesimic shifts in society and economics which are still underway and not fully understood I suggest by any of us.

Where I do see a potential role for government is ensuring broad, efficient, fast and unfettered access to information for all. That does not necessarily mean free, though if that could be acheived to a considerable degree then good. Aspects of Chris Anderson’s Free concept may well come into play here.

Happy to discuss further

With regard to getting the news out you might find this of interest, a presentation by Shirky

http://bit.ly/34naST