# data[].attributes.body
David raised in the lecture that neoliberalism has given rise to the cultural phenomenon of "tabloidisation"- increased sensationalism, entertainment values at the centre of "soft news" as opposed to "socially concerned" journalism formats such as investigative, current affairs documentary formats, keeping the "public interest" at its centre.

# data[].attributes.body
The increased freedom of expressing ideas in the public
Authority controls the trending stuffs
Much higher accessibility to the news, both nationally and internationally

# data[].attributes.headline
Cultural sense: the glocalisation. For example, the Voice (Holland) sells their copy right all over the world.

# data[].attributes.subject
Cultural sense: the glocalisation. For example, the Voice (Holland) sells their copy right all over the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
Globalisation ⬆️：the global events go to the local context and the local and personal events go virus among the worldwide.

# data[].attributes.subject
Globalisation ⬆️：the global events go to the local context and the local and personal events go virus among the worldwide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the wonderful things MECM40007 has made

# data[].attributes.headline
This guy doesn't like neoliberalism either

# data[].attributes.subject
This guy doesn't like neoliberalism either

# data[].attributes.body
"
So insidious is Neoliberalism that I cannot guarantee that after reading this engrossing essay you will know exactly what Neoliberalism is but I can guarantee that you will have a greater understanding.

"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image from saveourschoolsnz.com

Like rust the insidious hand of neoliberalism spreads itself through every dimension of society.

Neoliberalism is an often used term but what does it mean? Most people I think use it to describe what they see as the new right. The extremes of liberalism of conservatism. But are they correct.

In a piece titled ' Neoliberalism - the ideology at the root of all our problems ' (The Guardian, April 16, 2016) George Monbiot attempts to define an elusive ideology.

Such are its many facets that describing it as a singular ideology by bringing all its concepts together is difficult. At one point he says:
"Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has - or had - a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?"
In this very expansive, even worrying work Monbiot suggests that we are ignorant of Neoliberalism mainly because its components work separately and because they do we treat every facet in isolation and therefore fail to recognise its harm as a political philosophy.
"So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power".
He goes on to explain Neoliberalism's effect on growing inequality.
""Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty". Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve". Unfortunately the rot is deep and to look to conservatives for meaningful change and stability is a total waste of time. No-liberalism is inherently unstable leading to endless cycles of boom and bust. Who may I ask is challenging this entrenched farce? Economics is not a science it is what the ruling elites can shape into a system of inequality with themselves way at the top. Labor seems to have learned well.'' Turnbull is Faust and beyond redemption because we, and in fact he, no longer know who the hell he is. One thing is certain he will surely sell his soul for power. Moral people make a stand. He is lost. Many very informed academics have been trying to get Labor and the Greens interested in Modern Monetary Theory which offers a viable alternative whose chief advocates in Australia are Professor Bill Mitchell, Steve Hail and AIMN with the many post by John B Kelly. The Labor right is unshakably neoliberal and have not offered a viable alternative to supply side trickle down economics. Shifting the deck chairs is no solution. The debt myth and balanced budget are a recipe for recession, shrinkage and boom/bust not growth. The empirical evidence is in however this investment in an economic theory that only increases inequality cannot bring about real change. The point is forty years of failure must be telling us something. We can have a job guarantee and literal zero unemployment which would provide the capital for aged pension, disabilities, homelessness etc. There would be huge savings for a job guarantee feeding jobs into the private sector as low income spending stimulates the economy and consumption. Whitlam would turn in his grave at the lack of innovation and viable revisionary social policy. Labor has been stuck for decades in a system of lies and until it breaks out all we will get is nominal improvements in some social sectors until the conservatives get back in and wipe them out. That is not structural change that is habituated thoughtless conformity. Labor party members can either rise to the challenge or pretend Labor's minimal policy adjustments is any sort of real structural change. Time is running out for the low income, poor and marginalised while the architecture of the system remains locked into supply side stupidity". My thought for the day. "The word 'f rugality' is one of the most beautiful and joyful words in the English language, yet one that we are culturally cut off from understanding and enjoying and a consumption society has made us feel that happiness lies in having things, and has failed to teach us the happiness of not having things".
So insidious is Neoliberalism that I cannot guarantee that after reading this engrossing essay you will know exactly what Neoliberalism is but I can guarantee that you will have a greater understanding.

I cannot be sure if Stephen Tardrew, a commentator and thinker on this blog has read Mobiot's piece but this comment he posted in response to my writing on Wednesday very aptly sums it up:

" When a political movement forgets the people leaving them to their own devices while extracting every bit of wealth for themselves the outcome is predictable. Your kindness and tolerance shines through however we are dealing with the dogmatic and intolerant fully immersed in a magical, mythical realm of judgement, blame and retribution. The obvious facts are they simply get worse as Labor leans more and more right embracing Thatcher and Reagan's dystopian neoliberal lies. We cannot event stand against absurd wars destroying the fabric of the world simply for greed and political hubris sanctimoniously labelled democracy. Democracy my arse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Day to Day Politics: Explaining Neoliberalism - The AIM Network

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Friday 26 August 2016 Like rust the insidious hand of neoliberalism spreads itself through every dimension of society. Neoliberalism is an often used term but what does it mean? Most people I think use it to describe what they see as the new right. The extremes of liberalism of conservatism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Neoliberalism is bad mmmmkay .... or is it??

# data[].attributes.subject
Neoliberalism is bad mmmmkay .... or is it??

# data[].attributes.body
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has - or had - a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages - such as education, inheritance and class - that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.

***

The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism - the Mont Pelerin Society - it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as "a kind of neoliberal international": a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement's rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way - among American apostles such as Milton Friedman - to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.

Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes 's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.

But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'

After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed - often without democratic consent - on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, "it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."

***

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile - one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied - "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in New Orleans.

Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating " investor-state dispute settlement": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one

Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.

The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all phone services and soon became the world's richest man. Photograph: Henry Romero/Reuters

Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world's richest man.

Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort". As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Slogans, symbols and sensation ... Donald Trump. Photograph: Aaron Josefczyk/Reuters

Chris Hedges remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them".

***

Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.

The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".

The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed

The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment", as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.

A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

The anonym

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neoliberalism - the ideology at the root of all our problems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sophie Barat: political news now seems to often focus on specific aspects of a politicians personal life. And sometimes 'policy' seems to be secondary.

# data[].attributes.subject
Sophie Barat: political news now seems to often focus on specific aspects of a politicians personal life. And sometimes 'policy' seems to be secondary.

# data[].attributes.body
Neoliberalism is inextricably linked to processes of economic globalisation. As a result local media markets are de-regulated to integrate into global markets, and it is in this way that news and audiences move transnationally

# data[].attributes.headline
Neoliberalism has shaped media ownership laws in Australia, but to what extent?

# data[].attributes.subject
Neoliberalism has shaped media ownership laws in Australia, but to what extent?

# data[].attributes.body
Here's a useful article...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal communications minister, Mitch Fifield, has rebuffed Labor's call for an independent review before removing longstanding media ownership controls designed to stop moguls such as Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Stokes owning television, radio and newspaper assets in the same market.

Federal parliament is set to resume on Tuesday after an eight-week post-poll hiatus and the Turnbull government is expected to bring forward its media reform package in the opening week. The legislation would dump the media regulations known as the 75% reach rule and the two-out-of-three rule.

The reach rule now prevents Nine Entertainment, Seven West Media and the Ten Network from owning their regional affiliates. The two-out-of-three rule restricts cross-media ownership, preventing moguls from controlling a free-to-air TV station, newspapers and radio stations in the same market.

Labor is supportive of scrapping the reach rule but has thus far resisted entreaties from the government to bulldoze the cross-media ownership regime because of concern that Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the developed world.

In an interview with Guardian Australia earlier this month, the shadow communications minister, Michelle Rowland, urged the government to have an independent review of media ownership in Australia to establish the basic facts before moving to scrap regulations that have the specific purpose of maintaining some diversity in media ownership.

But Fifield has rejected that call and confirmed his intention to bring forward the package. "The last thing Australia's media companies need is another review," he told Guardian Australia. "It is time for action."

Labor has offered to split the package to allow the reach rule to be scrapped as a priority while further consideration of ownership is undertaken. Regional media companies have been lobbying extensively around the reach rule issue.

When he took the leadership from Tony Abbott last September, the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, hinted the Coalition might consider splitting the package. But the government is no longer interested in splitting the bill.

Labor has been briefed on the package and the Coalition will use the resumption of parliament to offer briefings to the new crossbench.

"Our media laws need urgent reform to secure the future for Australia's media industry," the minister said. "It is vital that this package be considered and passed as a whole."

Fifield has argued consistently he doesn't believe diversity is a problem in the Australian media market, citing new entrants in recent years, such as Guardian Australia, to argue the case that the internet solves the diversity problem by removing the traditional barriers to entry, and by allowing consumers to gain access to a huge range of media products both in Australia and around the world.

The minister repeated that argument while signalling his intentions to press ahead with media reform as an all-or-nothing proposition.

"Most Australians would be surprised to know that our media ownership laws ignore the existence of the internet," Fifield said. "A proliferation of news sources, including online publications like Guardian Australia, mean there is now more diversity than ever before."

But Rowland has previously countered that argument by noting digital has delivered an appearance of diversity while leaving the fundamentals of Australian ownership structures largely intact.

She has pointed out that seven of the 10 top websites in Australia are still owned by the traditional media companies. "While they are being delivered on different platforms it is clear the concentration of ownership is still there," Rowland said in mid-August.

Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coalition rejects Labor's call for media ownership review before changing laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal communications minister, Mitch Fifield, has rebuffed Labor's call for an independent review before removing longstanding media ownership controls designed to stop moguls such as Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Stokes owning television, radio and newspaper assets in the same market.

# data[].attributes.body
(This is also a good example of breach of some of the codes of professional practice)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ms Johnson had added a Facebook post and other potentially prejudicial information to the article "unaware by memory failure and by an oversight that there was a trial going on".

Noticing that her sub-editor was particularly busy, she published the article online herself without waiting for it to be reviewed.

Supreme Court Justice Lex Lasry said on Tuesday that the explanation "strains credibility" and referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions John Champion, SC, to consider charging the journalist with contempt of court.

Justice Lasry said the article risked causing an unfair trial, and discharged the jury in the case.

Ms Johnson's lawyer Justin Quill apologised to the court on her behalf, to the parties in the case, their lawyers and to the family and friends of the victim. He also told the court that the article was a result of "human error" and that his client was terribly embarrassed and felt ashamed about her mistake.

Ms Johnson had been called away to cover breaking news stories as she prepared her report on the case, based on materials including Australian Associated Press reports, Mr Quill said.

AAP has reported that it covered the filing hearing last year but not the trial opening, and did not provide material on the trial to Yahoo 7, which is a subscriber of the wire news service.

When she returned to finish writing the article, Mr Quill said she failed "to recall the earlier part of the report that had been prepared that showed that this was a trial running with a jury".

Mr Quill said the reporter had tried to provide as much information in the article as she could: "This is no case of a journalist being lazy but ... in fact ... being over-zealous," he said.

Justice Lasry accepted this was an error, and not malicious, but said that the explanation that she overlooked that she was writing about a murder trial "strained credibility". He said that he would refer the material to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but stressed "I make that referral without any indication as to what I think should occur".

Mr Quill said that Ms Johnson had already been criticised and in some cases vilified for her mistake in a wide range of reporting on the matter in mainstream and social media, and said that "there's nothing to be gained from referring this matter for a formal contempt of court proceeding".

He said that Yahoo 7 had organised for a law firm to train its journalists, and prepared a manual on legal issues surrounding court reporting to be given to all journalists.

Justice Lasry offered Mr Quill a copy of the Supreme Court's media policy, saying "it contained in one sentence the obvious rule which is if it didn't happen in front of a jury, you can't report it".

Prosecutor in the murder trial, Andrew Tinney​, SC, said that the matter had already begun to be considered by Mr Champion and other senior people at the Office of Public Prosecutions, who were concerned about it and the integrity of future trials.

Mr Tinney said he had seen the anguish caused to the jury, and said there would have been trauma to the accused, his family and the witnesses who would have to be re-called in when the trial came to court again before a new jury.

While this was an "honest mistake by a person who was trying to do her job", there had also been a failing of management, he said.

The media workforce was also contracting he said and a lot of people "who knew the rules" were no longer working at major media organisations.

The judge said that the murder accused in the aborted trial would be remanded until a new trial on December 7.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
krystal johnson yahoo 7 reporter murder trial aborted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yahoo 7 journalist Krystal Johnson may face contempt of court charges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ms Johnson had added a Facebook post and other potentially prejudicial information to the article "unaware by memory failure and by an oversight that there was a trial going on". Noticing that her sub-editor was particularly busy, she published the article online herself without waiting for it to be reviewed.

# data[].attributes.body
Neoliberalism made presses focus on the profit rather than social issues.

# data[].attributes.body
changes political economy by creating more of a focus on conflict between politicians. Move away from long-form/investigative journalism

# data[].attributes.body
enabled conglomeration of news ownership, which serves to reduce the diversity of perspectives in journalism

# data[].attributes.body
By basing news value on the "bottom line" rather than its original public service function

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 6: Neoliberalism affecting the news industry in both a 'political-economy' and 'cultural sense'

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 6: Neoliberalism affecting the news industry in both a 'political-economy' and 'cultural sense'

# data[].attributes.body
A genealogy of journalism: shifting the way in which  political relations are reorganised while neoliberalism in the field of journalism is not a democratic process.

Neoliberalism in journalism questions the reason of the government but still goes inbetween with the market and the government: 'journalism is relatively autonomous but still subordinate to market logic'. Additionally, neoliberalism stands with the authority and the so-called decentralisation is actually the legitimisation of elite power.