Skip navigation

It must be a slow news day because once again the Herald is making itself the story again:

“THE Herald is breaching state law today, risking a $55,000 fine by comparing the test results of three schools.” (http://www.smh.com.au/national/breaking-the-law-the-exam-results-they-dont-want-you-to-see-20091111-i9zt.html)

Absolutely sodding useless. They clearly didn’t even have a point in comparing these three schools specifically. They just wanted to flagrantly flaunt the law to show the government they can.

I can hardly agree with laws banning free speech, but the Herald’s self-serving actions hardly commend itself.

PS: I was wrong about it being a slow news day. The front page story of the online SMH is about council rates for rubbish collection: http://www.smh.com.au/national/wharf-residents-join-battle-over-waste-fees-20091111-ia0e.html

The SMH’s editorial standards slip lower and lower. There was a time when it did genuine reporting and was a quality paper. Now it just bitches about how FOI laws aren’t strong enough without doing the hard investigative work it once did.

It pushes real stories to the last page, like this story about the Government deciding to keep the protectionist policies regarding books: http://www.smh.com.au/business/author-arguments-cant-hide-this-fact-the-import-monopoly-means-dearer-books-20091111-i9xn.html

This is an important shift towards protectionism just when the economy needs deregulation the most. That is what the Herald, should be reporting on as a responsible newspaper. It should not push it onto the Op-ed page and give us a single viewpoint, their job is to provide fair and balanced reporting.

I used to like the Herald, but when its editorial standards keep dropping and dropping, good men must stand up and say no. I refuse to pay to read the Herald, honestly I am going to get a subscription to the Australian next year so I can be properly informed as to what’s going on.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. John, the parallel importation decision can’t be considered a ‘shift towards protectionism’ seeing as – it’s merely a decision to remain with currently held import standards, aaand – it’s currently the same policy as pretty much every other developed nation has on its book import/export rules.

    Does this constitute (widespread) protectionism? Yes. Does it constitute a ‘shift’, or is unilateral action to create (artificial) trade asymmetries the right way to deal with these problems? No, and probably not.

  2. Yeah, you’re right that it isn’t a shift but keeping protectionist policies. But it is somewhat more important than the other crap the SMH put in its top news section.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: