They squibbed it. Given the chance to tackle News Ltd’s stifling  dominance of the metropolitan newspaper market in Australia, the federal government has left ownership issues out of the remit of its independent inquiry into the media.

That was really the only reason for holding an inquiry in the first place. Instead, the inquiry – to be led by former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein – will focus on print media regulation, including online publications, and the operation of the Press Council – a body generally considered to be next to useless. This is akin is calling an inquiry into the liquor licensing board in Capone-era Chicago. Until you tackle the gangsters running the show, the Keystone cops appointed to police the precinct are going to prove plod-like in their pursuit of wrong-doing.

Competition lawyers would know better, but it seems to this blogger that News Ltd’s cartel-like dominance of the media landscape could be dealt with through existing competition law and its provisions covering abuse of market power.  Alternatively, as shareholder activist Stephen Mayne has suggested, there is ample evidence to attack the Murdoch empire on corporate governance grounds.

As it is, it is hard to imagine how the Press Council can be given any additional teeth when it is run by the newspaper industry, which in turn is dominated by Murdoch. In the meantime, this inquiry will just be more grist to the mill for the  poobahs in the News Ltd papers and the libertarian shills at the Institute of Corporate Public Affairs as an “attack on our freedoms.” Yeah right.

It would be a lot easier to take seriously these blowhards’ shrieking about attacks on the Fourth Estate if they followed a couple of the key principles of free market economics themselves – namely support for a multiplicity of voices and the encouragement of competition.  Instead, they cast as the put upon victim the world’s biggest and most powerful media company – a company that pays off police, uses its news pages to lie about public policy in support of its commercial interests and bullies politicians.

Agreed, there is no evidence of News’ Australian operations behaving illegally like their UK counterparts, but the corporate culture here is the same – bullying, self-obsession, hyper-sensitivity to criticism and the hijacking of proper journalistic standards to fight manufactured culture wars, to serve tax-dodging agents of international capital and to pursue self-serving blood vendettas.

But don’t take my word for it. Even some of News Corp’s shareholders – aghast at nepotistic practices and lousy corporate governance – are taking legal action, claiming a failure by the company to “exercise proper oversight” and “gross mismanagement, waste and abuse of control”.

As goes the corporate culture, so goes the editorial culture.  News Corp is rotten – and until its empire is broken up and/or Murdoch himself dies – nothing will change.

(See also Tim Dunlop: An Inquiry that Ignores Ownership is Pointless)


11 Comments

Wayne · September 14, 2011 at 11:38 PM

I find your comments on breaking up the power brokers interesting but believe the enquiry parameters dont include this due to the difficulty involved. My issue has been reckless remarks by journalists using rumour , innuendo and misleading statements to attack without foundation. Such does affect public opinion in a negative fashion and as such should be stopped. The Australian is a prime example with statements of alleged fraud by the PM. Once out there the thought festers in the peoples minds, and a retraction does not remove the full stigma. Murdoch does have too much control, but the short answer may be to simply give less levarage to journalists to spead vague statements without ramification. You wish to say somebody is corrupt, fine, now wheres your proof and if you dont have any then your screwed.

Thats as it should be but isnt, any doubts read this journalistic pearl of vomit.

BOLT- IT’S too early to blame the Gillard Government for these Christmas Island deaths, we’re told.

But why? And if not now, when?

Before the next boat sinks, or after?

BOLT- When exactly can we point out that these latest 28 or more people to drown were lured to their deaths – just like up to 170 others – by a Government that recklessly weakened our boat people laws, despite repeated warnings it would lead to just this kind of tragedy?

What, the Government lured people to their deaths, you reckless irresponsible hateful man.
This is the garbage damaging the medias reputation and destroying informed public opinion. Bolt and many like him across the country need pulling up. They are journalists, not king makers, not policy writers and sure a shit not the morale and ethics police free t use terms like the above with impunity.
What happened to accountability in journalism when this type of hate statement can be regarded as impartial reporting?

And this type of scurrolous defaming is what needs to be stopped.

Hillbilly Skeleton · September 14, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Mr Denmore,
I understand your concern but feel that you may be missing the wood for the trees here. I think it behoved Sen Conroy to tread softly and carry a big stick hidden behind his back on this one, and I think he has got it right in the way he wants to, essentially, get rid of The Press Council and merge it with ACMA, who would have beefed-up powers to bring the media to heal. That is, if Murdoch wants to own 70% of the media in this country, fine, but he should be prepared to be fully accountable to an independant oversight body with real teeth to bite him back, should he choose to let loose his political dogs of war upon this or any other government, or particular individuals, or political parties like The Greens.
Sen. Conroy's argument yesterday at his Press Conference was that it was wrong to have a blaring 50pt headline on page 1, which was wrong or misleading, then put the Correction in a little box a few days later on p27.
So, I just think that, rather then kowtowing to News Ltd., he is boxing clever.

Anonymous · September 15, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Wayne, please do not use the words Andrew Bolt and journalist in the same sentence. He may have been one once, but what he does today is not journalism

Oscar · September 15, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Very annoying to see the Opposition screeching about this. The activities of News Corp as happened in the UK are every reason for them to be 'investigated' here as any other company that had engaged in criminal activity would be.

However if-in this enquiry some unpleasant things are uncovered it could led to a proper investigation and changes down the track. I tend to agree with Hillbilly that perhaps Conroy is treading warily to begin with.

Hopefully I am not being too optimistic.

Mr D · September 15, 2011 at 12:33 AM

HS, I'm not sure merging the Press Council with ACMA will change much. ACMA has proved extremely ineffective in policing commercial radio. When you have shockjocks calling for the assassination of public figures and repeating disproved defamatory statements – without any sanction bar a token suspension – there is something deeply wrong. ACMA is as toothless and cowed as the rest.

Weaver · September 15, 2011 at 4:04 AM

Too right.

I see some people arguing Conroy avoided an inquiry into market concentration because of fears of annoying Newscorp. It probably has more to do with other media players, particularly TV networks. It's been bipartisan policy since forever to protect existing dominant companies from the dangerous possibility of media diversity, simply because politicians would rather tug the forelock to a few magnates than be confronted with a multiplicity of outlets that can't be bargained with as a whole (god! it would be like the sodding internet!). I mean, look how they bent over backwards to white-ant competition in digital television. Conroy knows that, if the govt starts talking about media diversity in relation to Murdoch's holdings, the likely reaction of the rest of the media will be to think “there but for the grace of God go us” and where newspaper antipathy is pretty much irrelevant, and talk-radio antipathy pretty much a given, Labor would really prefer not to find themselves at war with 7, 9 and 10. And, yes, TV political coverage could be worse.

Hillbilly Skeleton · September 15, 2011 at 5:55 AM

Mr Denmore,
ACMA and the Press Council may be toothless now…but isn't that the point? A merged entity, as a result of this Inquiry, may at last be given some teeth. You would hope so, else why bother with the Inquiry in the first place? You know the rule, 'Never launch an Inquiry unless you know the outcome', or words similar.

Mr D · September 15, 2011 at 6:17 AM

Hillbilly, it comes to political will. While weakened, the MSM can still make life very hard for an elected government.

I stand by the line that regulation won't fix this. Diversity of choice will.

Hillbilly Skeleton · September 15, 2011 at 7:28 AM

Mr Denmore,
It's not a matter of more regulation wherein regulation per se, as you seem to imply, is the bogeyman who must be avoided at all cost. If that were the case then the Libertarians would have won the argument back in Ayn Rand's time.
What, instead, I think that those of us not entirely embittered by the political process are hoping for is a reconstruction of the media landscape that will strenghten our, the citizen's, right to privacy from the media, which in an increasingly technologically-convergent world would be a good thing to have enshrined in legislation. Also, to have our protective mechanisms beefed-up. I have faith that only a Labor government would do this for us. The Tories, on the other hand, wouuld not mind one bit that their mates who own the ISPs and the media, would do their spying on us, for them.
Until proven otherwise, therefore, I remain of a positive disposition about this Inquiry. Especially as The Greens will be intimately involved.

reclaimfreedom · September 19, 2011 at 3:15 AM

It would be different if News Ltd promoted progressive policies though, wouldn't it? I mean, nobody wants to break up the monopoly of the ABC or Fairfax, do they?

Mr D · September 19, 2011 at 4:32 AM

reclaimfreedom, I don't care what policies News Ltd promotes. They just need to base their reporting on something approximating the truth. Then they're free to sound off about it.

I dispute also that Fairfax champions 'progressive' policies. Have you read Paul Sheehan lately? I'd say the major preoccupation of SMH and Age readers is inner city real estate prices and private school fees.

As for the ABC as a bastion of progressive feeling, give me a break. They're the Big W of broadcasting, working on the assumption that if they air ever shade of wingnut opinion – from right to left – the politicians will leave their budget allocation alone.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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