A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response. I don't care how biased and towards what wing.
The difference is not raiding journalists for reporting on matters of public interest.
It should represent the diversity of people that it in itself is there for. It should have diversity of political thought, culture and the ability to report on whatever it can fact check.
That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country.
That isn't (and shouldn't be) up to anybody else to decide.
This whole post has gotten too political and has already broken several rules. I'm bowing out.
That is not at all their role. That conspiracy theories are unverified is what makes them theories, that they take a pro-vax stance is based on the data, research and reaching out to experts in the field.
What you're describing is the propaganda arm of a regime, not a media outlet.
For or against the scientific arguments, there are some people out there that want to engage in stupidity and resentment. That is undeniable. The gov denies that outlet and you get it online. I'm not here to defend abject stupidity that you get online, merely to point out decision s are in fact being made by the media.
Yet and that's what every country in the west has. Watch the US media deal with NSA wiretapping laws in the 2000s. There are acres of examples of a value structure of stories imposed by governmental interest on gov broadcasters.
This is fundamental to what it does as an org.
> The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national broadcaster founded in 1929. It is currently principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian government, but is expressly independent of government and partisan politics. The ABC plays a leading role in journalistic independence and is fundamental in the history of broadcasting in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corpor...
If they own the corporation and can appoint board members they want, even political ones as listed on that wiki page, then they have zero incentive to actually raid the place to get anything done, they can simply do it.
So that takes away intent or motive for the "removal of rights" angle. They have a right to run the company as the government sees fit already. The raid may have been done for legitimate reasons, the simple fact it happened isn't enough to say that there was excessive foul play involved and we should distrust the face value story.
And in any case, what does this have to do with the critique of the raid? The previous commenter [1] argued that A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response.. How is ABC's government charter, or its perceived lack of independence, a mitigating explanation? If the government has the "right to run the company as the government sees fit already" – again, an assertion with no official basis – then why was there a police raid in the first place? As opposed to the government, who purportedly runs and operates ABC, spiking the story?
And even this is just a tangential and irrelevant line of argument. In the U.S., the attorney general is appointed and directed by the President. When President Nixon initiated the "Saturday Night Massacre" [2], you believe that the public and the press should have remained unconcerned because Nixon is the boss of his attorney generals?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_Ne...