Diversity and Democracy: The View Across the New Media Landscape
Free-to-air television, local radio and daily or bi-weekly newspapers still dominate the regional news and advertising markets, and the likely concentration of ownership allowed under the new laws, means fewer operators, fewer choices for listeners, viewers and commercial buyers, where more will really mean less.
In beginning any assessment of media ownership laws and government media policy, one should always begin at ‘what’s the public benefit?’ The media operators and governments choose to forget, if they ever conceded, that the ownership of a newspaper or any other communications outlet, especially a licence to operate a television or radio station, should be a privilege and not a right.
The Government certainly wasn’t serious about diversity of media ownership when it began drafting changes to current laws several years back. At first it intended that broadcast owners could have as many media outlets as they liked. This was pared back to two out of three ‘traditional’ media in the one market.
On top of this the new laws now remove limitations on foreign ownership of our media and transfer any questions of foreign investment from the parliament to the treasurer. This change alone is completely contrary to the public interest.
Already private equity groups with no public good incentive are jockeying to exploit the new market, where quick profit rules. The haste in which these changes were implemented through a compliant if slim Senate majority, with deals underway before the parliamentary debate started, suggests a policy outcome totally driven by the industry. It will be worth checking the media political donation lists when next they are reported. Unfortunately donations up to $10,000 need no longer be declared. How convenient.
The former cross-media ownership restrictions guaranteed separation of editorial and commercial control and a reasonable diversity of ownership. They also restricted the need for the sort of lobbying that occurred prior to the new laws, because, quite simply, there were limitations on who could own what.
A classic example of the concentrated media ownership now allowed came from Prime Television’s submission to the senate inquiry on the new legislation. Prime said: ‘If the proposed legislation were passed, and Prime was allowed to acquire a radio station (in addition to Prime’s television station that covers the Bunbury area), local radio news for Bunbury could be sourced from Prime’s Bunbury newsroom…’ And no doubt if Prime owned the local paper the whole local news output could come from one source, one editor, and one point of view.
Prime TV is correct when it asserts that a wide range of media access is now available across regional Australia and is likely to improve with advances in broadband technology, online publishing, community radio, pay TV, and ABC services. However free-to-air television, local radio and daily or bi-weekly newspapers still dominate the regional news and advertising markets, and the likely concentration of ownership allowed under the new laws, means fewer operators, fewer choices for listeners, viewers and commercial buyers, where more will really mean less.
The possible ownership combinations in the cities are now almost limitless. For the first time in 20 years, newspaper publishers are now able to own a television or radio station in the same city. Broadcast licensees can also now own a newspaper. Imagine a common editorial theme from front page morning newspaper through to radio shock jocks, or to breakfast television hosts. At least the morning radio spruikers have to date only pinched the editorial line from the tabloid newspaper. Now they’ll probably have it written for them!
In Perth Kerry Stokes is marking out his turf increasing his share in West Australian Newspapers, the state’s only newspaper, where he already holds a TV licence. This, says one commentator, will enable Stokes to make a full bid for WAN – ‘because that would give him dominance in Perth’. The public must ask in who’s interest is ‘dominance’ in any media market?
With hugely cashed up foreign private equity groups now holding major stakes in Seven and Nine networks there’s no doubt cost cutting will be the order of the day. These are investments for profit not quality TV. Local media shares are skyrocketing, which is exactly what the equity groups are looking for, but worryingly the push for cost cuts bodes ill for the quality of news and other programming in the years ahead.
The so-called ‘voices’ test in the new laws to allegedly protect diversity in Australia media is a nonsense. Where there were about a dozen ‘voices’ in each of the Sydney and Melbourne markets until these changes, that can now officially be reduced to five. They will be loud voices too and no doubt will have the ear of government.
I live in hope that this threat to diversity of views, access to traditional media and undoubted cultural erosion will be countered at a local level by outlets such as community radio and the growing number of independent community news-sheets. New media technologies, especially the internet with its endless potential for disseminating the excellent (as this site does) as well as the banal, may also encourage a healthy switch from mass to mindful media.
About Peter Andren
Peter Andren, MP was the Federal Member of Parliament for Calare in central NSW from 1996, one of three Independent Members in the House of Representatives.
He previously spent thirty years in radio and television broadcasting and three years teaching. He was a graduate of Alexander Mackie Teachers College and Macquarie University.
After entering parliament Peter led the debate on parliamentary reforms including public accountability and MPs entitlements. He challenged the government’s policies on asylum seekers, especially during the Tampa crisis, as well as questioning Australia’s involvement in Iraq.
Peter used the forum of parliament to advocate matters of human and civil rights including Native Title, abolition of mandatory sentencing and protection of the freedom of speech.
He died on 3 November 2007 after being diagnosed earlier in the year with inoperable pancreatic cancer. He was 61.
Articles