Twitter reminds media moguls about stones in glass houses

New Daily Telegraph front page, posted by a Twitter user.In the wake of the Daily Telegraph’s front page comparing Stephen Conroy to Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim, Mugabe, and Ahmadinedjad, Dr Mumbo has been watching the reaction of social media quite intently.

One of his favourites so far has been a slightly modified poster tweeted by No Fibs Geek (@Geeksrulz) early this afternoon. Instead of comparing the minister to dictators it compares him to media moguls.



  1. Dan Ilic
    13 Mar 13
    5:27 pm

  2. GREAT!!!!

  3. Heather
    13 Mar 13
    5:28 pm

  4. Brilliant. Keep it up.

  5. Lucio
    14 Mar 13
    8:01 am

  6. Indeed.

  7. John Hay
    14 Mar 13
    8:42 am

  8. Stupid.

  9. Encyclic!
    14 Mar 13
    9:43 am

  10. Today’s “apology” is possibly the best argument for media regulation.

  11. Neil Stollznow
    15 Mar 13
    10:08 am

  12. Given how restricted advertising is – and how irritating that can be – I’m surprised that people aren’t a little more bothered by this. Sure the Tele cover is stupid; and that’s what a free media environment allows – publications to be stupid, irreverent and irrelevant. As a society we seem to be very concerned that we only allow the “right” values.

    And I miss that Fiat ad too….

  13. John Hay
    15 Mar 13
    1:28 pm

  14. @ Neil: By stupid I meant the edited version shown above. Comparing Conroy to Stalin, Mao, Fidel and company was perfectly relevant, since they all controlled the press editorially.

  15. Rhys
    15 Mar 13
    2:57 pm

  16. I’m appalled that any Australian could ever defend Conroy’s proposals. This may be in poor taste, but I’d much rather have poor taste in the Media than some ‘progressive’ (irony) ‘regulator’ determining what I can and cannot view for myself.

  17. Media Smoguls
    18 Mar 13
    11:25 am

  18. The press needs to be regulated from the sinister dictators that are corporate media moguls – for surage(.)

  19. Rump Roast
    18 Mar 13
    12:30 pm

  20. @Rhys, is that really what the regulation is? And if so, what is different from the regulator deciding versus an editor deciding what you should see, specifically which facts to present and which to suppress and which to make up on the spot?