The Australian media is one of the least diverse in the world. At what point does the dominance of a single player become so great that our democracy is at risk? How, at a time of accelerating convergence in media and the slow death of traditional business models, can we encourage a multiplicity of voices while preserving and encouraging press freedom? And why is no-one asking these questions in the mainstream media space?
When the global financial crisis exposed excessive risk-taking by deposit taking institutions operating under an implicit (and now explicit) government guarantee, Queensland economist and blogger John Quiggin said that if this public subsidy was to continue, banks should return to being basic public utilities. Why, after all, should these institutions indulge in dangerous speculation, privatising the profits and socialising the losses, while creating massive exogenous effects in the real economy from their casino-like behaviour?
While not having recourse to taxpayers’ money in a crisis the way the banks do, the mainstream media nevertheless operates under a kind of public subsidy through a regulatory system that works against the entry of new players and encourages monopolistic behaviour that circumvents reasoned debate.
The dominance of the Murdoch press (it controls 70 per cent of the metropolitan newspaper market and its only major competitor Fairfax is struggling for survival) is such that Australia languishes at 41st position in the world in terms of media diversity. The dominance of one company – and one individual – in our media landscape has real costs for our democracy as we are now seeing, with The Australian and the Murdoch tabloids in Sydney and Melbourne regularly using their dominance to press the commercial and ideological imperatives of their owner.
In the meantime, with the national broadband network set to accelerate the development of new media platforms and opportunities for content creation, Murdoch and other established players are pushing for a monopoly in pay television through Foxtel’s $1.9 billion takeover of Austar.
All this is happening at a time of increasing disillusionment with our media and our politics, resulting in what former Labor Minister Lindsay Tanner has described as a dumbing down of democracy – the mindless reporting of predictable political utterances, the obsession with conflict over substance (the fight itself rather than the issues), the twisting and distortion of public interest issues to fit a pre-determined narrative and outright lies and manipulation of public opinion.
No less than that bible of conservatism, The Economist magazine, has this past week laid part of the blame for the banality of Australian political discourse on a media obsessed with short-term biff, opinion polls treated like TV ratings and the ‘Punch and Judy show’ of the daily story cycle that is largely a media creation. While some of The Economist’s prescription is questionable (it still ritually adheres to the Washington consensus), it rightly slams Australian politicians for dragging their feet on climate change and failing to use the opportunity of prosperity to widen the discourse behind xenophobic hysteria over refugees. Perhaps this debate is so circular because a concentrated media would rather keep pushing those buttons than talk about bigger possibilities.
The next great hope for increased diversity is the federal government’s public review of media policy, now underway. The intention of this inquiry is to look at how regulation needs to change to accommodate the rapid convergence of media and communication technology to ensure the public goods of an open and diverse media are protected. But anyone who has witnessed the evolution of Australian media ownership laws and regulation will not be holding their breath for any significant change out of this review. It is a brave politician, after all, who stands in the way of a Murdoch, Packer or Stokes. And attempts at tighter regulation usually backfire.
In the mainstream media space, one can only hope that an enlightened entrepreneur (Eric Beecher perhaps?) makes a bid for the Fairfax radio stations, now up for sale. In a market saturated by right-wing shockjocks and newspapers that ritually co-opt the public interest as that of narrow corporate interests, it seems hard to believe there is no commercial place for a progressive media outlet.
But if there really is no possibility of a media that is both commercial and responsible, perhaps we should be looking at not-for-profit ventures like US investigative journalism venture ProPublica that serves the public good by employing the traditional journalistic values of accuracy, balance, context, fairness and publicly spirited inquiry. That, after all, is what a properly functioning democracy demands from the media.
Irrespective of the commercial ambitions of media proprietors, the journalism they fund plays a vital function in a democracy. And for that reason, it should be a public good in itself, like banks. People need and want reliable information from trusted intermediaries. If the government insists on regulating media ownership, it should ensure that licensees and owners meet certain public interest tests. The question is how do you enforce those without threatening press freedom. Alternatively, the government could get out of the way completely and let market forces prevail. But we saw what happened when banks were allowed to run amok.
If this is all too hard, if we cannot imagine what journalism could be beyond the partisan Murdochracy we are now imprisoned within, then the Fourth Estate really will be a Failed Estate.
16 Comments
Sue · May 28, 2011 at 9:51 AM
Thank you for the aricle Mr D. Is it likely that the phone hacking issues in England will have any input in the federal government's public review?
Although I note you say it would take a brave politician to stand in the way of the big media players, just maybe the phone hacking scandal has highlighted the perils of such dominance of the media.
Mr D · May 28, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Hi Sue, the government's media minders routinely over-estimate the power of Murdoch media, well The Australian at least which has a very small circulation.
Ironically, the more they adopt the Murdoch framing, the more power they give him – which is why if I were in government I would stop hiring former Murdoch hacks as press secretaries. In fact, I'd stop employing journalists full stop. Just perpetuates the problem.
Anonymous · May 28, 2011 at 11:11 AM
I'm convinced there is a market for progressive talk radio. With the current commercial talk operators moving to the extreme right, and the ABC just a step or two behind them, the vacuum in the centre/left is overwhelming.
There are millions of progressive Australians, with effectively nothing for them to listen to that reflects their views. I predict that when an operator supplies them with resonating content, they will swamp its sponsors out of sheer relief at being catered to at last.
Cuppa
Anonymous · May 28, 2011 at 4:34 PM
Perhaps in their review of the media, the government could look at the Canadian model, which forbids 'fabrication' in news items. This could be a welcomed amendment.
Mike Hopkins · May 29, 2011 at 4:32 AM
Good example today (Sunday) of the Murdochcracy putting a spin on a story and the ABC obediently following.
The Adelaide Advertiser online: “CATE Blanchett has been labelled “out of touch” for deciding to front an ad campaign promoting the Federal Government's carbon tax, along with Castle star Michael Caton.”
The ABC News on the web: “Nationals Senate Leader Barnaby Joyce has criticised the appearance of actress Cate Blanchett in an advertising campaign urging Australians to “Say Yes” to a tax on carbon.”
Agnes Mack · May 29, 2011 at 4:59 AM
On the money, again, Mr.Denmore.
The power of the Murdocracy is even greater and more pernicious than its 70% control of metro dailies would suggest. While Fairfax has been laying off journalists,News Ltd has been recruiting, with the result News Ltd, the Australian in particular has broader news coverage than Fairfax. This may partly explain why the ABC, and commercial radio and TV regularly take their news stories from Murdoch headlines. On some days almost all the news most Australians receive follows the Murdoch line.
With non-Murdoch employment opportunities shrinking, it's probably unfair to expect journalists, inside or outside the News stable, to kill their future prospects by bucking Murdoch. Although there are a few who are brave and/or self confident enough to respond to the murmurings of their professional consciences.
The vitriol and misrepresentations passed off as news in recent times don't leave much room for optimism about the media's role in the democratic process.
Anonymous · May 29, 2011 at 5:03 AM
Given the hours and hours of free publicity that AM talk radio stations have given to the anti-carbon tax campaign, in the name of balance and fairness they should be required to run saturation levels of the “Say Yes” ads for free.
gaycarboys · May 29, 2011 at 5:21 AM
I agree totally. I know someone who thinks it is a good idea to let industry regulate itself. This is in spite of the BP disasters, all of which were for profit over safety, and the GFC which we all saw coming except, it would seem, for the people who were making the most money from tings as they were. At some stage, big business takes on a life of its own. In a way, we are getting what we ask for, then don't like it when we get it. The media is only one example, still no one can explain why we pay double or triple for our cars and why our fuel prices don't seem to come down when the doallar goes up. This prices rising are blamed on the dollar but they don't want to give up the profits when the dollar goes down. In a way, Murdoch is the same in so far as he has built a Microsoft-like dominance in Australian Media and if you think he will give up his profits easily you are mistaken. When you have as much power as he does, you too can dictate government policy. If this was not the case, surely the government would never have relaxed media laws such that Murdoch could buy everything he sees. Murdoch has no right to complain his newspaper revenue is down because people are getting their news from the net. Thank god he doesn't own that as well!
Mr D · May 29, 2011 at 5:30 AM
Gaycarboys, he'll ending up owning the NBN, you watch – or least controlling the content, which is what the deal for Austar is all about.
JJ Heinlein · May 30, 2011 at 12:23 PM
The fact that you're writing this kind of proves you wrong. We're not imprisoned.
Anybody is free to be a journalist now, and anybody is free to get their news or opinions from anybody they wish. Murdoch's media empire is so large simply because people choose to buy news and opinion from him.
I should also note that you're twisting the meaning of “public good” in the pernicious way so common these days, to mean anything that is good. Yes, it's good. it's not a 'public good' in that it's a commons or something that the state should run. Similarly, milk is also 'a good' but not a 'public good.' Don't abuse long standing words and phrases, please.
Mr D · May 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM
JJ Heinlen,
You don't think an accurate, balanced and fair media is a public good? Interesting.
As for Murdoch, you say people choose to buy news and opinion from him. That would be true if they had a choice, which is sort of my point.
Finally, thanks for the free advice about how to use the Queen's English. When I need you to tell me how to write, I'll contact you.
JJ Heinlein · May 31, 2011 at 3:05 AM
“You don't think an accurate, balanced and fair media is a public good”
No. It would be good (not a “public good”) – but it is unachievable. How do you enforce accuracy, for example, or fairness?
News information is like any other commodity and you're going to have big players and little players, kind of like Telstra versus Three, or something. (I don't recommend “Three” btw, they're terrible).
The only way around that is by government decree that “there must be diversity”; and that road leads to all kinds of bad things.
Furthermore, you'll probably scoff at this, but I believe it anyway, prior to the internet and the rise of Murdoch, the media was definitely skewed toward a social democrat take on things. So bias will always be there – it just shifts around. True objectivity is impossible.
No organisation can be free of its own institutional culture, and since media will always be dominated by a small number of organisations, it will be dominated by a small number of institutional viewpoints. There's no escaping that. Incidentally, this is why the ABC is biased and it's okay – I hasten to add that it's okay – because robotic, machine-like processing of the facts is not a human capability.
By the way, the language thing wasn't a quibble. By labelling everything a public good, the left are reclaiming lots of territory away from the market. That trend is NOT a 'public good.'
Mr D · May 31, 2011 at 5:33 AM
JJ Heinlen,
I'm not sure it's an either-or principle – naked partisanship in news coverage on the one hand versus robotic, machine-like processing of facts on the other.
There is a middle ground in journalism that encompasses a fair hearing for all sides of an argument while still presenting a point of view.
I am NOT arguing for some Platonic ideal of objectivity, but for a return to fairly basic journalistic standards of accuracy, brevity, balance, context, clarity and fairness – most of all fairness. And I agree, you don't achieve that by government decree either.
But markets do not operate in isolation. There needs to be anti-trust regulation to protect against the developments of monpolies and ensure a diversity of voices. If you are a print journalist in Australia now (and seeking to make a living out of it rather than being a blogger), you really only have two choices – News Ltd or Fairfax. And that is really just one and a half. That rather limits your options.
There IS the ABC, but broadcasting is a whole separate career path in my experience.
Commercial radio and television – there are only a handful of people there you could actually call journalists.
Philosophically, I disagree with your about the benign nature of “the market”. I think markets left unfettered tend to lead to dominance of one or two players and the encroachment of commercial pressures on editorial. For evidence of that, look no further than what happened to commercial radio after its deregulation in the 1990s. All need is for ACMA to actually enforce the licensing laws.
For a properly functioning market, in any case, people need a proper choice. They don't have it now. And until such time as they do, I'll keep writing about a Failed Estate.
JJ Heinlein · May 31, 2011 at 6:54 AM
I think markets left unfettered tend to lead to dominance of one or two players
Oh, that's absolutely true, least in the medium term. We don't disagree about that at all (although with the caveat that you do get new entrants and market disruption). But while it's not ideal, it might be analogous to Churchill's quip about democracy – the least worst option.
Anonymous · June 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM
@ jj
“The fact that you're writing this kind of proves you wrong. We're not imprisoned”
Just like to add that this comment is a little short sighted, and if you care to take a look the the very real move by government in both Australia and Europe to curtail what these respective government consider 'inappropriate' web content. With the rise of Wikileaks as a catalyst, and the move away from mainstream media to the web, it is only a matter of time before restrictions are placed web, all in the name of public 'protection' of course. Mark my words, it will come.
Anonymous · June 20, 2011 at 10:03 PM
Try Living in Brisbane where we have one News Limited newspaper,The Courier Mail, and the ABC radio mornings “current affairs” host is the wife of the newspapers editor !!!!!!!!