As with everything in Australian politics these days, debate over the federal government’s media inquiry has become just another coat-hanger on which ideologues of every stripe can drape their off-the-rack worldviews. It’s why we’re hearing market forces are the fix for dodgy journalism.


So, knock me over with a feather quill, here’s Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs (an organisation whose KPI  is promoting corporate interest as the public interest) saying that rather than the government spending big bucks on public broadcasting, they could save the money and just let it rip, so to speak.

“The profit motive is one of the most powerful forces in our society precisely because it delivers consumers what they want,” Berg wrote on, um, the ABC’s website. “(So), the profit motive seems like a pretty good way to deliver journalism which people want to read, watch and listen to. But, otherwise, the government spends a billion dollars a year on the ABC – specifically to address an assumed failure by the market to provide quality media in the absence of a public broadcaster.”

That’s it! Sell the ABC and let the market decide! Why hasn’t anyone else thought of that before? That’s clearly what’s skewed journalism in Australia – an army of fearsome basket-weaving, beard-stroking, lentil-munching public broadcasters are wrecking the opportunity for Rupert’s brave rear-guard of freedom fighters and culture warriors to cement complete dominance of the Australian media landscape and run more fanzine-style stories about Shane Warne and Liz Hurley or manufacture dishonest beat-ups about carbon pricing.

Not Enough Market on this world view is just another synonym for Not Enough Murdoch. If the old biddies want to watch lawn bowls on Sunday afternoon or if the navel-gazing wankers in Balmain really are interested in the politics of Third World Aid, let them pay for it. The taxpayers’ role is not to subsidise the idiosyncratic desires of obscure urban tribes, but to ‘remove the impediments’ to global media magnates making even more moolah. ‘The People’ are the ultimate arbiters of good  journalism and it’s the job of the media to satisfy their curiosities, not matter how base. So if one needs to hack into the phones of murdered teenagers or pass off photos of a half-naked model as that of a former politician, so be it. It’s what the market wants.

As Mr Berg says, everyone knows that free market forces deliver the best solutions. Just look at the global banking system and the enormous growth of securitisation in the past decade and a half. Err, no, wait.  Anyway, the thing is – as that hugely successful Fairfax publisher Fred Hilmer once said –  journalists are really just content providers for advertising platforms.  Their job consists of making the news widget thingies that occupy the white spaces between the clients’ advertising collateral. As such, their mission is to generate sufficient click bait to get people looking at the ads. We want more of ‘Gordon Ramsay’s Dwarf Porn Double Dying in a Badger’s Den’ and less of why billionaire miners might be so keen to co-opt the public interest as their own in blocking attempts to secure a bigger share of a commodity windfall for public education and health.

But seriously, if you genuinely believe that ‘unfettered market forces’ will rescue journalism, you’ve been asleep for the last 30 years. The whole story of my lifetime in journalism is the gradual encroachment of bloodless managerialism and the liberal market worldview into a craft whose greatest practitioners have always lived outside the business world, not within it. Editors in recent years have been more focused on ‘wages and pages’ (the cost of people and the cost of print and distribution) than on the content, which is mostly an after-thought. We are living with the consequences of that trend.

No-one is saying journalists should not be aware of the need for their proprietors to make a profit. And more government regulation is not the answer either. But journalists’ output should not be seen as a commodity to attract eyeballs to ads. And it is not profit-making that motivates good journalism. Instead, journalists excel when they keep a foot outside the market and see as their first priorities to safeguard the interests of readers, to retain commitment to the truth and to maintain a level of independence in the face of commercial pressures to cater to the lowest common denominator. If journalists spent less time fussing about the business model or the technology or the distribution platform or ‘exploring the synergies from the multi-media interface’ and concentrated on their craft, the profits might follow.


16 Comments

Anonymous · November 14, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Bang on the money Mr Denmore. When I started in journalism the ed/ad divide was clear. The salesmen, who never ventured near the newsroom, sold our product on the basis of its integrity. Since editorial could not be bought, people trusted the paper, therefore it was worth advertising in. It's always been a slippery slope, reliant on the character of the proprietor. Nuff said?

HillbillySkeleton · November 14, 2011 at 10:28 PM

If you want to know about the sort of system the cuddly Mr Berg is advocating for, then just read this and become informed about just how 'Political Capitalism' manifests itself, and what these 'Let the Market Rip' types would impose via a Coalition government under Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, who would sell everything that waasn't tied down to their corporate political pork swill-guzzling mates:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/rick-perry-the-best-little-whore-in-texas-20111026

Of course, these $70 Billion of 'Savings' are just to get the Budget back into Surplus,doncha know?

grace pettigrew · November 15, 2011 at 1:26 AM

It is worth watching the way The Market is increasingly personified in the mad rantings of privately funded right-wing think tanks, in the nightly financial reports from excited spikey-haired bank salesmen with facial bumfluff, and in the increasingly demented scribblings of the rightard commentariat. The Market behaves like a frightened child on red cordial, stacking on greedy tantrums and refusing to buy, or jumping with joy at a rising nasdeck, or taking its bat and ball and going home in a big sulk. Every day, its either up or down, its either sad or happy, and there don't seem to be any grown-ups around to give it a good spanking and send it to its room. Frankly, I don't think The Market is worth paying much attention to in the grand scheme of things, and even less the silly twisted economists who invented it.

SimsonMc · November 15, 2011 at 4:11 AM

Mr D

Katharine Murphy in the National Times summed up the problem of the media beautifully in these 2 paragraphs

“And the worst of it is we deserve this whole discussion. We've brought it on ourselves. We have soiled what should be an open-and-shut case for self-regulation by abusing the privilege, by arrogantly failing to accept that the freedom of journalism carries with it significant responsibility: to get it right, to be fair, to understand the difference between fact and contention.

Not all of us, of course. In fact, only a few of us. But the people who have blown it carry the biggest megaphones. They might succeed in bringing down the house on all of us.”

Government role is to correct market failures. Even if you look at the straw pole on the website or if you dig a little deeper and review comments on many a website, the vast majority of Australians believe that the journalistic model has failed.

The current journalism environment can be summed up like a petulant Teenager (the Media). The Parent (the Government) bestowed upon them trust and allowed them the freedom to go to a party under the condition that they would act appropriately. Unfortunately the teenager gets hog swilling drunk, gets into a fight and ends up in the watch house where the Police (Australia Press Council) is unable to do anything except give him a slap on the wrist and send him home.

It this situation what should the Parents do? Well the Teenager is arguing that despite the misdemeanour, he should still be allowed his freedom because it is his right. The viewers of ACA and Today Tonight who witnessed the Teenagers behaviour on uploaded videos on YouTube are calling for the Parents to give him a good kick up the backside. Those of an ABC/SBS persuasion are saying that grounding the Teenager will bring untold damage to his psychological well being and the implications to the wider community would be catastrophic, but they never offer an alternative solution. And Tony Abbott just blames the Parents.

People talk about whether to regulate or not to regulate but the real debate should be as it is with the above child is about setting boundaries. Those boundaries could be as I have argued before, something similar to Canada’s truth in media or making defamation laws more accessible and punishment more severe for those found guilty. The goal is not to infringe on what the media can and can’t report. The goal to set up an environment where the boundaries for the Media are clearly defined and the Media knows the consequences when they step outside those boundaries. The Media can say or do what it likes but it has to be truthful and it has to be in good faith.

Just another point Mr D – why does the journalistic profession continue to allow a small minority to trash its reputation? As an Accountant (Doctors, etc would all be the same) I know someone like Bolt would not survive in our profession because the reputation of our profession is sacrosanct. Yet not only is someone like him tolerated, he actually thrives despite the damage he inflicts on the perceptions that the wider community has of their profession. Let’s face it survey after survey shows that journalists have as much credibility as politicians and used car salespeople yet they appear to be doing nothing to change that. Why?

Another point missed is the fact that as an Accountant (or Consultant as I now practice) if I don’t agree with management’s direction or decisions, I have the option to walk and there are thousands of jobs that I can go to. However (especially for a News Ltd employee) if you have a disagreement with management and walk, suddenly you have cut off 70% of your future employment market. There are not too many other professions that have that problem. From the journalist point of view, that is a good reason to break up the Murdoch monopoly.

Mr D · November 15, 2011 at 5:28 AM

Thanks for the comments SimsonMc. The lack of alternative employers for journalists (and their resulting timidity in speaking out) is yet another consequence of market concentration. If you burn your bridges with Rupert, there aren't many places to go.

By the way, I don't think of Bolt as a journalist. He's an entertainer, a circus act, a stirrer whose job is to amass a crowd and outrage them. He's very good at that and succeeds in terms of his performance indicators.
Most everyday journos – the serfs who slave away on the subs desk or the reporters who aren't pursuing celebrity status – think he is appalling. But what can they do?

The point of my piece above is that what was once a crisis in the media business model has now become a crisis in journalism itself because the Chinese walls which once separated the commercial and editorial arms of media companies have been torn down. That's encouraged journalists to think of themselves primarily as commercial beasts/profit generators, which is a dangerous way of looking at the craft.

Having said that, I'm as sceptical as anyone at News Ltd about the effectiveness of government regulation. That nearly always backfires and merely creates unintended consequences. Ultimately, this will be fixed by journalists themselves insisting on higher standards within their craft and speaking out more. It will be achieved by journalists talking more with readers and viewers and stopping thinking themselves as somehow above it all.

We have to get back to seeing our primary purpose as servants of the public interest, not pursuers of private profit.

Anonymous · November 15, 2011 at 7:03 AM

Great article again Mr D. But the way you ended it off being so dismissive of 'govt regulation' – why is it that some v fine writers such as Jonathan Holmes, Bernard Keane and now yourself set out the problem so devastatingly only to recoil from possibly the only way to fix it? If unregulated 'market farces' is the problem, and govt Intervention is out, then what else is left?

It ultimately depends what you mean by 'govt regulation'. While we absolutely don't want govts to tell us what is and isn't correct to say, or who can say things, what about the other options like beefing up the Press Council's role & powers, setting up another form of independent complaints body, strengthening defamation laws, or redesigning laws on media concentration or abuse of monopoly power? Are these all off the table? They are all forms of govt intervention.

SimsonMc · November 15, 2011 at 7:16 AM

Mr D

The concept I struggle with is that across all media enterprises there appears to be a broad acceptance of a set of standard code of conduct principles which generally entail truth, acting in good faith, fairness, etc. So if these principles are agreed to as to how a journalist and a media organisation should conduct its activities, then why shouldn’t a government set these up as boundaries in which journalism should conduct its activities? They all bang on about how they abide by these principles anyway so putting it in some form of regulation with sanctions for breaches shouldn’t make a difference. Unless of course they are just a bunch of rent seeking, self serving, interest group trying to protect their patch but then again that just might be the cynic in me.

As an Accountant there is a generally accepted standard which the public expect as to how I and my peers should conduct our activities. The same with Doctors, Lawyers, etc. Why are journalists any different? They are a profession are they not? Well that is what they keep telling us although I don’t think they quite grasp what being a professional really means. Being a profession entails higher standards and a system where boundaries are set to give the public confidence that those boundaries are understood and work carried out is confined within those boundaries. I understand the argument about regulation may have unintended consequences but self regulation had unintended consequences which we are dealing with now. And as far as I can tell all the media appear to be doing is putting up an already proven dysfunctional model as a solution. So if I was in the government I would be telling them that we will be regulating the media until such time as you can come up with something better than the rubbish solution you are pushing at the moment.

At least it might get them actually thinking about a workable solution rather than just blindly defending the indefensible.

Denis Wright · November 15, 2011 at 8:12 AM

I know I shouldn't be, but I am always stunned when people I take to be intelligent seriously propose the dismantling of the ABC. I find it hard to believe that they would be happy to consume without something to balance it what the commercial media serve us up. I'm so naive.

Everyone has entertainment with Survivor, Dexter, and Sons of Anarchy. But look at news, and current events programmes… can anyone seriously argue that's telling it like it is?

I also note the vicious attacks on the ABC from some quarters and gasp at the fact that with the overwhelming share of the media in private, politically conservative hands, it's not enough. They want the lot. 100%.

I wouldn't want our media to be all ABC, or controlled as it is in Beijing. I just want someone to be able to publish points of view from anywhere – rather like the ABC publishes on platforms like the Drum, even (maybe especially) ones suggesting the country would be better off without that very opportunity for diversity.

Anonymous · November 15, 2011 at 8:29 AM

No, I'm sorry people but I think you are at least partly wrong [and I say that with considerable respect for both your integrity and experience].

Not in saying that things are bad in the way you describe now but that they were markedly significantly better in the 'good ole days'.
I don't think they were and I suspect your hindsight of the past golden era has been coloured by nostalgia and selective memories.
Remember the movie “Network” by Paddy Chayefsky? That was made in 1976 and is an illustration of your theme.
But the dominance of market forces in media was obvious even well before that, even pre-Murdoch.
I remember doing a study of propaganda in metro newspapers in one Aussie city in the mid 1960's.
In those days both daily papers here were:
pro-monarchy and anti-republic
misogynist
homophobic
imperialist
anti-worker and particularly anti union
religious where religion = christianity
racist [eg indigenous issues]
capitalist
anti-environment
and so on.
The views, the ideology of the prevailing ruling socio-economic classes were largely unquestioned.
OK the tone and degree of the polemic against the non corporatist/WASP world view may not have been so crude and strident as now [I'm not convinced that was so but without archival material I'll leave the issue open] but that media existed to serve advertisers and corporations was clearly evident from the consumer side of the divide.
Really I suggest a good long look at archival material, a major project I know, but I would suggest to you you are looking backwards to a golden era that did not exist as you remember it.
Sorry.

fred

Mr D · November 15, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Anonymous,

You're right – newspapers have always been on the side of capital. But that's not what I'm arguing about. I'm talking about the marketisation and commoditisation of journalism itself. That's a different phenomenon to the traditional criticism of the Fourth Estate just being another arm of the establishment. This is about the encroachment of commercial values into editorial values (Nine News shamelessly plugs Underbelly; the Daily Television flogs Anzac memorial medals on its front
page). The creeping sponsorship of sport, then finance news; chequebook journalism; celebrity 'interviews' that are little more than product placement, half-arsed 'Market research' to plug product. This is what has changed and intensified, particularly in the last decade. And it reflects the wholesale 'enclosure of the commons' by the Market culture where everything exists purely as a commodity to be bought and sold.

Anonymous · November 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

What can we do?

I know I want better protection than the press council now gives. However, I don't really want some unwieldy 'bureau of truth' trying to filter my news for me.

As such, I was very interested in the viewpoint put forward by Mark Pearson at Journlaw that:

“A legislative solution already exists – and just requires an amendment to the existing news organisation immunity from prosecution under the ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’ provisions at Section 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.”

Is this apparently efficient solution to the present issue of a sometimes feral news media workable?

http://journlaw.com/2011/11/07/consumer-law-holds-solution-to-grossly-irresponsible-journalism/

Fran · November 17, 2011 at 1:30 AM

It seems to me that it would be a very good thing if news outlets were subject to a probity scorecard. Their output could be tested for accuracy and salience by some independent third party upon complaint. Findings against the outlet would go on “scorecard”, for the journalist, the outlet and the newsgroup. The industry standard would be beside it. Minor errors of fact might be passed over, but more serious errors and commentary likely to be mislead would count and be rated between significant, serious and egregious. There would be notes for prompt correction before a complaint was heard.

Outlets could choose to make parts of their copy non justiciable (by using a yellow wash) (or in the case of TV, a ticker disavowing credibility) or in the case or radio a disclaimer at regular intervals). They could make all of their copy “for entertainment only” if they wished. They could also opt out of the system perhaps dubbed “the Responsible & Professional Media System” — RPMS.

People in the RPMS would give by-lines to all justicable copy and put on probation those whose record in any 12 month period fell below a certain standard — sort of like the points system on the roads.

Mr D · November 17, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Fran,

I like that idea! My problem with the so-called think tanks like the IPA is that their supposed 'free market' solutions are so often just 'pro-business', which is a different thing altogether.

My viewpoint is we are going to have a free market, let's have a real one then – no more government kowtowing to plutocrats and carteliers like Packer and Murdoch. Break up their monopolies and stop making laws to suit them. No business should ever get that big that its influence is such that it distorts good policy-making.

The problem with official media regulation is it will always be three steps behind the market and the technology. You end up with a cumbersome bureaucracy staffed by cardigan-wearing duffers who have rings run around them by smartypants in the media and their highly paid legal counsel.

The better solutions are anarchistic ones. One blogger in the UK started distributing yellow post-it notes for people to stick on newstand billboards and newspapers themselves:

“This publication is 90% recycled PR material”
“Your Herald Sun today is 99% fact-free”

The other solution is to use or strengthen existing laws to curb Murdoch's power. I can't believe there is not a case for the ACCC to go News Corp on market dominance grounds or at least, as Anon describes above, a finding of misleading and deceptive conduct under Section 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

Disney is on the right tracking with giving the Press Council some real muscle. But those calling for greater government power over the media need to think carefully about what that would mean under an administration less ideologically aligned to their own views.

In some ways, blogs like this are a small part of the solution by stimulating public debate and at least making people aware of the issues.

But my general response to submissions to the media inquiry to date can be summed up as “Well, they WOULD say that.”

Fiona · November 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Apropos of absolutely nothing, isn't it wonderful that the origin of “farce” is “stuff” (as in what happens to turkeys)?

730reportland · November 20, 2011 at 3:21 AM

Oh Mr-D, you anti-market forces screeching is way over blown. We can see my ABC vigorously competing in the market-place with Limited News for `Bulldust` and `Dullards`, hence Berg. Meanwhile Quadrant competes with the Libs for `old-ideas` and `visionless` over Telstra. Of course sell it. In a fast moving age of technology, its not like we need a comms network, or will have to build another comms network from scratch. The market can solve everything, don`t you know. It`s not their fault you and I don`t like these impoverished `commodities` Mr-D.

PB · November 20, 2011 at 8:26 PM

I was amused by the Quadrant article you linked to (by patrick mcauley). Every piece of right wing nuttery you can imagine gets a run. However what really amused me is Quadrant – an organisation which for its entire life has depended on government support of one form or another – railing against publicly funded media. Oh the irony, it burns…

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *