No matter which side of the fence you sit on, no matter what you read, and no matter who you\u2019ll vote for next, there is an issue unfolding in Australia this week that begs the attention of absolutely every one of us. <\/p>\n
It has roused one of the most qualified voices in the country on the topic of censorship. <\/p>\n
Peter Greste knows a thing or two about powerful people trying to control the narrative.<\/p>\n
The Aussie journalist\u2019s plight became a global story in 2013 when he was imprisoned in Egypt, convicted on \u201cfalse news\u201d charges that were widely condemned. <\/p>\n
Working as a fill-in while a colleague was on leave, Mr Greste woke one morning to police in his hotel room accusing him of aiding a terrorist organisation. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
He would spend the next 400 days behind bars as governments and campaigners around the world rallied for his release.<\/p>\n
The story was so captivating that it was made into a movie. Billed as a political thriller featuring Richard Roxburgh in a grimy cell dealing with furious foreign cops, it may as well be put in the horror section.<\/p>\n
To the casual observer, those stories might feel a world away \u2014 the unfortunate tales of people suffering in far off lands. But unfortunately, no country is immune from setting bad precedents. <\/p>\n
This week, Mr Greste spoke with news.com.au about something he says he\u2019s never seen before in his home country.<\/p>\n
When One Nation leader Pauline Hanson banned journalists from publications she deemed too critical of her campaign this week, red flags went up for the man who once paid an enormous price for simply being associated with the press.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it\u2019s a dangerous precedent, and I hope it doesn\u2019t become the norm,\u201d Mr Greste said.<\/p>\n
\u201cPoliticians have always moaned about critical coverage, and they\u2019ve always got their journalists and outlets who they think are being unfair. But I certainly can\u2019t recall \u2014 it may have happened \u2014 but I can\u2019t recall other politicians explicitly banning certain news organisations. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s really a public issue, not a journalism issue.\u201d<\/p>\n
He argues that a political party that wants to run the country overtly picking and choosing who gets to report on them was bad news for everyone, full stop. <\/p>\n
Wait, we\u2019ve seen this before<\/p>\n
The US has given us a glimpse of what intense polarisation does to a country for a solid decade. <\/p>\n
Australia appears to be slowly inching towards the same new normal, and Ms Hanson\u2019s party has quite clearly planted its flag \u00e0 la Trump 2016, haphazardly labelling huge portions of the established media as \u201cfake\u201d.<\/p>\n
Mr Trump understands the public forum is where nuance goes to die, and masterfully capitalised on it by oversimplifying what may have initially been reasonable issues to criticise. <\/p>\n
Through defiant demeanour alone, he wrote the new playbook for getting bums on seats and copycats are now emerging all over the place. <\/p>\n
The slanging match against an institution that deserved criticism as much as any other made for great entertainment for the disaffected, and it appears One Nation has taken that leaf out of the MAGA book and run with it.<\/p>\n
The only problem is, history suggests that when the press loses its freedom, the public usually starts losing theirs.<\/p>\n
Mr Greste fears if we accept the precedent, the slope could get very slippery, very quickly.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt happens incrementally,\u201d Mr Greste says. <\/p>\n
\u201cLike that famous remark about bankruptcy, it happens very slowly, then quickly.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese incremental hits against the media, against freedom of speech, they chip away at public confidence and concentrate more and more power in the hands of politicians.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey create an atmosphere that politicians can leverage to turn a country into an authoritarian state. That\u2019s really dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n
News.com.au is not suggesting that is the goal of One Nation.<\/p>\n
But these are the fundamentals you\u2019d hope veteran politicians would understand in 2026. After all, we\u2019ve only had a few thousand years to learn from.<\/p>\n
Glassy-eyed humanitarian concerns aside, Mr Greste says Ms Hanson\u2019s approach works to undermine both those who are denied access, and the ones who are allowed through the door.<\/p>\n
\u201cBy shutting some outlets out, she\u2019s implied those allowed inside the tent are effectively friendly media,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere will inevitably be a public perception about that. That means everyone involved is going to be compromised. That\u2019s not good journalism and it\u2019s not good for democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nobody wins in the end. Well, except maybe the party for a little while.<\/p>\n
At that point, Mr Greste says, the notion of \u201cjournalism\u201d begins to whittle away, with only a select few getting access to the full picture. Discontent continues to grow, only at a faster pace.<\/p>\n
It also works to deepen the divisions in society, where many ordinary people, who may share very similar values, are encouraged by certain respective political influencers to belittle and ignore their opposition. Vicious battlegrounds over the minutiae emerge, all while core, bipartisan issues lay begging for co-ordinated attention.<\/p>\n
Ms Hanson\u2019s decision is clearly a reaction to what she believes is unfair, but even after 32 years in the game, it appears the Queenslander is ignoring a key principle inherent to the democracy she purports to preserve. <\/p>\n
The principle applies across the board, where certain industry norms might generate hesitancy to question policy.<\/p>\n
Whichever way you want to cut it, a healthy democracy depends on a culture that tolerates scrutiny of its leaders, particularly when pressure is at its peak.<\/p>\n
To give Ms Hanson her due, she has said the excluded outlets engaged in \u201cspin\u201d and \u201cgotcha moments\u201d and treated One Nation differently from the major parties. She later said the ban was temporary and the organisations could return once the party received \u201ca fair go\u201d. <\/p>\n
To her supporters, that may seem a reasonable response after years of hostile coverage prompted by her polarising positions on issues like immigration. <\/p>\n
But to press freedom advocates, singling out particular outlets or reporters crosses a fundamental line.<\/p>\n
\u2018This is about the public\u2019<\/p>\n
Discussing this issue is exhausting. Nobody really wants to be a preacher. Your friends will probably get tired of you, and nobody really wins. <\/p>\n
But Mr Greste\u2019s story serves as a very recent reminder of what a country can lose when it completely gives up trying to make sense.<\/p>\n
He remembers sitting in prison trying to work out if he\u2019d done anything wrong. Then another inmate said something he still hasn\u2019t forgotten. <\/p>\n
\u201c\u2018It\u2019s got nothing to do with you\u2019,\u201d Mr Greste recounts. \u201c\u2018This isn\u2019t personal. It\u2019s about what you represent.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt wasn\u2019t about us,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was an attempt to intimidate not just the three of us who were arrested, but all journalists in Egypt.\u201d<\/p>\n
So forget your party allegiances for a moment, whatever they might be, and play One Nation\u2019s idea out.<\/p>\n
Play any overreaching policy out.<\/p>\n
Now put it in the hands of the party you trust the least. <\/p>\n
The carousel will continue to spin and the precedents we set today are the ones we\u2019ll feel tomorrow.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of the reasons we have a free media is because there\u2019s an imbalance of power,\u201d Mr Greste says.<\/p>\n
\u201cPoliticians and governments have enormous power, and there is the potential to wield that both responsibly and irresponsibly.<\/p>\n
\u201cA free media is a check on that power. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a way of holding that power back. It\u2019s a way of monitoring them, ensuring that the power is used responsibly.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen the ability of journalists to scrutinise the powerful is suppressed in some way, then power gets concentrated in the hands of politicians at the expense of the public.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s really a public issue, not a journalism issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not special pleading for journalists themselves. This is really about the public, about the voters.<\/p>\n
\u201cI know that sometimes it can seem very self-serving \u2014 and sometimes it is \u2014 but in this case it\u2019s not.\u201d <\/p>\n