tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/acma-2745/articlesACMA – The Conversation2023-07-14T05:33:34Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2095992023-07-14T05:33:34Z2023-07-14T05:33:34ZMore stick, less carrot: Australia’s new approach to tackling fake news on digital platforms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537437/original/file-20230714-19-aosiso.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1000%2C667&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>An urgent problem for governments around the world in the digital age is how to tackle the harms caused by mis- and disinformation, and Australia is no exception.</p>
<p>Together, mis- and disinformation fall under the umbrella term of “fake news”. While this phenomenon isn’t new, the internet makes its rapid, vast spread unprecedented. </p>
<p>It’s a tricky problem and hard to police because of the sheer amount of misinformation online. But, left unchecked, public health and safety, electoral integrity, social cohesion and ultimately democracy are at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us not to be complacent, as fake news about COVID treatments led to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8611855/">deadly consequences</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-misinformation-is-a-health-risk-tech-companies-need-to-remove-harmful-content-not-tweak-their-algorithms-175364">COVID misinformation is a health risk – tech companies need to remove harmful content not tweak their algorithms</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But what’s the best way to manage fake news spread? How can it be done without government overreach, which risks the freedom and diversity of expression necessary for deliberation in healthy democracies?</p>
<p>Last month, Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland released a <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/communications-legislation-amendment-combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2023">draft exposure bill</a> to step up Australia’s fight against harmful online mis- and disinformation.</p>
<p>It offers more stick (hefty penalties) and less carrot (voluntary participation) than the current approach to managing online content.</p>
<p>If passed, the bill will see Australia shift from a voluntary to a mandatory co-regulatory model.</p>
<h2>Following an EU model</h2>
<p>According to the draft, disinformation is spread intentionally, while misinformation is not.</p>
<p>But both can cause serious harms including hate speech, financial harm and disruption of public order, according to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).</p>
<p>To date, <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/236986/1/Regulating_misinfo_Meese_Hurcombe.pdf">research</a> shows countries tend to approach this problem in three distinct ways:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>non-regulatory “supporting activities” such as digital literacy campaigns and fact-checking units to debunk falsehoods</p></li>
<li><p>voluntary or mandatory co-regulatory measures involving digital platforms and existing media authorities</p></li>
<li><p>anti-fake news laws.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The Albanese government’s draft bill will bring us closer to the European Union-style model of mandatory co-regulation.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1558751024965472259"}"></div></p>
<h2>Platforms remain responsible, not government</h2>
<p>Initial opinions about the bill are divided. Some <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/chris-kenny/acma-agency-being-given-position-as-the-official-censor-of-the-internet/video/ac27a65a775b137318dd0954851312a6">commentators</a> have called the proposed changes “censorship”, arguing it will have a chilling effect on free speech. </p>
<p>These comments are often unhelpful because they conflate co-regulation with more draconian measures such anti-fake news laws adopted in illiberal states like Russia, whereby governments arbitrarily rule what information is “fake”.</p>
<p>For example, Russia amended its <a href="https://cpj.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Guide-to-Understanding-the-Laws-Relating-to-Fake-News-in-Russia.pdf">Criminal Code</a> in 2022 to make the spread of “fake” information an offence punishable with jail terms of up to 15 years, to suppress the media and political dissent about its war in Ukraine.</p>
<p>To be clear, under the proposed Australian bill, platforms continue to be responsible for the content on their services – not governments.</p>
<p>The new powers allow ACMA to look under the platform’s hood to see how they deal with online mis- and disinformation that can cause serious harm, and to request changes to processes (not content). ACMA can set industry standards as a last resort.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-public-trust-in-elections-is-being-undermined-by-global-disinformation-campaigns-181825">Why public trust in elections is being undermined by global disinformation campaigns</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The proposed changes don’t give ACMA arbitrary powers to determine what content is true or false, nor can it direct specific posts to be removed. Content of private messages, authorised electoral communications, parody and satire, and news media all remain outside the scope of the proposed changes. </p>
<p>None of this is new. Since 2021, Australia has had a voluntary <a href="https://digi.org.au/disinformation-code/">Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation</a>, developed for digital platforms by their industry association (known as DIGI).</p>
<p>This followed government recommendations arising out of a lengthy Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) inquiry into digital platforms. This first effort at online regulation was a good start to stem harmful content using an opt-in model.</p>
<p>But voluntary codes have shortfalls. The obvious being that not all platforms decide to participate, and some cherry-pick the areas of the code they will respond to. </p>
<h2>The proposed changes</h2>
<p>The Australian government is now seeking to deliver on a <a href="https://www.paulfletcher.com.au/media-releases/new-disinformation-laws">bipartisan</a> promise to strengthen the regulators’ powers to tackle online mis- and disinformation by shifting to a mandatory co-regulatory model.</p>
<p>Under the proposed changes, ACMA will be given new information gathering powers and capacity to formally request an industry association (such as DIGI) vary or replace codes that aren’t up to scratch.</p>
<p>Platform participation with registered codes will be compulsory and attract warnings, fines and, if unresolved, hefty court-approved penalties for noncompliance.</p>
<p>These penalties are steep – as much as 5% of a platform’s annual global turnover if repeatedly in breach of industry standards.</p>
<p>The move from voluntary to mandatory regulation in Australia is logical given <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package#:%7E:text=The%20DSA%20has%20been%20published,later%2C%20after%20entry%20into%20force.">the EU</a> has set the foundation for other countries to hold digital technology companies responsible for curbing mis- and disinformation on their platforms.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1639198227647066112"}"></div></p>
<h2>Questions remain</h2>
<p>But the draft bill raises important questions to address before it’s legislated as planned for later this year. Among them are: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>how to best define mis- and disinformation? (at present the definitions are different to DIGI’s)</p></li>
<li><p>how to deal with the interrelationship between mis- and disinformation, especially regarding election content? There’s a potential issue because <a href="https://benjamins.com/catalog/jlp.21030.car">research</a> shows the same content labelled “disinformation” can also be labelled “misinformation” depending on the online user’s motive, which can be hard to divine</p></li>
<li><p>and why exclude online news media content? Research has shown news media can also be a source of harmful misinformation (such as 2019 election stories about the “<a href="https://benjamins.com/catalog/jlp.21030.car">Death Tax</a>”).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>While aiming to mitigate harmful mis- and disinformation is noble, how it will work in practice remains to be seen.</p>
<p>An important guard against unintended consequences is to ensure ACMA’s powers are carefully defined along with terms and likely circumstances requiring action, with mechanisms for appeal.</p>
<p>Public submissions <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_term=&utm_content=https%3a%2f%2fwww.infrastructure.gov.au%2fhave-your-say%2fnew-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation">close</a> August 6.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Carson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She has also received research funding from Meta Inc. Professor Carson is a member of Facebook's global Misinformation Interventions Working Group.</span></em></p>How can fake news be managed without government overreach? Under the draft bill, platforms continue to be responsible for the content on their services – not governments.Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2006442023-03-20T04:45:51Z2023-03-20T04:45:51ZScammers can slip fake texts into legitimate SMS threads. Will a government crackdown stop them?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515987/original/file-20230317-16-etb4gn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4500%2C2775&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Are you tired of receiving SMS scams pretending to be from Australia Post, the tax office, MyGov and banks? You’re not alone. Each year, thousands of Australians fall victim <a href="https://theconversation.com/being-bombarded-with-delivery-and-post-office-text-scams-heres-why-and-what-can-be-done-167975">to SMS scams</a>. And losses <a href="https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/scam-statistics">have surged</a> in recent years. </p>
<p>In 2022 SMS scam losses exceeded A$28 million, which is nearly triple the amount from 2021. This year they’ve already reached A$4 million – more than the 2020 total. These figures are probably much higher if you include unreported losses, as victims often won’t speak up due to shame and social stigma. </p>
<p>Last month, the federal government announced plans to fight SMS-based scams by implementing an SMS sender ID registry. Under this system, organisations that want to SMS customers will first have to register their sender ID with a government body. </p>
<p>What kinds of scams would the proposed registry help prevent? And is it too little, too late? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-have-filed-a-case-under-your-name-beware-of-tax-scams-theyll-be-everywhere-this-eofy-162171">'We have filed a case under your name': beware of tax scams — they'll be everywhere this EOFY</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Sender ID manipulation</h2>
<p>One of the more concerning types of SMS scams is when fraudulent messages creep into legitimate message threads, making it difficult to differentiate between a <a href="https://7news.com.au/business/finance/major-aussie-banks-warn-of-new-text-message-scam-c-6257180">legitimate service and a scam</a>.</p>
<p>SMS is an older technology that lacks many modern security features, including end-to-end encryption and origin authentication (which lets you verify whether a message is sent by the claimed sender). The absence of the latter is the reason we see highly believable scams like the one below.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514108/original/file-20230308-14-5zv41z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514108/original/file-20230308-14-5zv41z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=694&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514108/original/file-20230308-14-5zv41z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=694&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514108/original/file-20230308-14-5zv41z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=694&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514108/original/file-20230308-14-5zv41z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=872&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514108/original/file-20230308-14-5zv41z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=872&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514108/original/file-20230308-14-5zv41z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=872&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An example of a scam SMS message ending up in a legitimate message thread.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Luu Y Nhi Nguyen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are two main types of SMS:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>peer-to-peer (P2P) is what most people use to send messages to friends and family</p></li>
<li><p>application-to-person (A2P) is a way for companies to send messages in bulk through the use of a web portal or application. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The problem with A2P messaging is that applications can be used to enter any text or number (or combination) in the sender ID field – and the recipient’s phone uses this sender ID to group messages into threads. </p>
<p>In the example above, the scammer would have simply needed to write “ANZ” in the sender ID field for their fraudulent message to show up in the real message thread with ANZ. And, of course, they could still impersonate ANZ even if no previous legitimate thread existed, in which case it would show up in a new thread.</p>
<p>Web portals and apps offering A2P services generally don’t do their due diligence and check whether a sender is the actual owner of the sender ID they’re using. There are also no requirements for telecom companies to verify this. </p>
<p>Moreover, telecom providers generally can’t block scam SMS messages due to how difficult it is to distinguish them from genuine messages.</p>
<h2>How would sender ID registration help?</h2>
<p>Last year the Australian Communications and Media Authority introduced <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/articles/2022-07/new-rules-fight-sms-scams">new rules</a> for the telecom industry to combat SMS scams by tracing and blocking them. The Reducing Scam Calls and Scam Short Messages Industry Code required providers to share threat intelligence about scams and report them to authorities.</p>
<p>In January, A2P texting solutions company Modica <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/Direction%20to%20Comply%20-%20Modica.pdf">received a warning</a> for failing to comply with the rules. <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/Investigation%20report%20-%20Modica%20Group%20Limited_0.pdf">ACMA found</a> Modica didn’t have proper procedures to verify the legitimacy of text-based SMS sender IDs, which allowed scammers to reach many mobile users in Australia.</p>
<p>Although ACMA’s code is useful, it’s challenging to identify all A2P providers who aren’t following it. More action was needed. </p>
<p>In February, the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/proposed-sms-registry-could-block-scams-that-cost-australians-over-1m-a-day-20230212-p5cjw2.html">government instructed</a> ACMA to explore establishing an SMS sender ID registry. This would essentially be a whitelist of all alphanumeric sender IDs that can be legitimately used in Australia (such as “ANZ”, “T20WorldCup” or “Uber”).</p>
<p>Any company wanting to use a sender ID would have to provide identification and register it. This way, telecom providers could refer to the registry and block suspicious messages at the network level – allowing an extra defence in case A2P providers don’t do their due diligence (or become compromised).</p>
<p>It’s not yet decided what identification details an Australia registry would collect, but these could include sender numbers associated with an organisation, and/or a list of A2P providers they use. </p>
<p>So, if there are messages being sent by “ANZ” from a number that ANZ hasn’t registered, or through an A2P provider ANZ hasn’t nominated, the telecom provider could then flag these as scams.</p>
<p>An SMS sender ID registry would be a positive step, but arguably long overdue and sluggishly taken. The <a href="https://mobileecosystemforum.com/2020/04/22/industries-unite-to-tackle-sms-fraudsters-exploiting-covid-19-text-alerts/">UK</a> and <a href="https://www.sgnic.sg/smsregistry/rules-of-registration">Singapore</a> have had similar systems in place since 2018 and last year, respectively. But there’s no clear timeline for Australia. Decision makers must act quickly, bearing in mind that adoption by telecom providers will take time.</p>
<h2>Remaining alert</h2>
<p>An SMS sender ID registry will reduce company impersonation, but it won’t prevent all SMS scams. Scammers can still use regular sender numbers for scams such as the “<a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-warning-of-suspicious-messages-as-hi-mum-scams-spike">Hi Mum</a>” scam.</p>
<p>Also, as SMS security comes under increased scrutiny, bad actors may shift to messaging apps such as WhatsApp or Viber, in which case regulatory control will be challenging. </p>
<p>These apps are often end-to-end encrypted, which makes it very difficult for regulators and service providers to detect and block scams sent through them. So even once a registry is established, whenever that may be, users will need to <a href="https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2019/10/11/how-to-stay-safe-online.html">remain alert</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-lost-more-than-10-million-to-scammers-last-year-follow-these-easy-tips-to-avoid-being-conned-109728">Australians lost more than $10 million to scammers last year. Follow these easy tips to avoid being conned</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200644/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new proposal aims to prevent SMS scams by introducing a national SMS sender ID registry.Suranga Seneviratne, Senior Lecturer - Security, University of SydneyCarol Hsu, Professor of Business Information Systems, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1718422021-12-14T19:10:32Z2021-12-14T19:10:32ZForget calls for a royal commission into Australia’s big media players – this is the inquiry we really need<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437479/original/file-20211214-19-j01jn4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C335%2C3898%2C2329&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Mediadiversity/Report">deeply partisan</a> report of the Senate Inquiry into Media Diversity, tabled on December 9, is a disappointment.</p>
<p>The main report by the Greens and Labor endorsed the campaign by former prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull for a royal commission into media diversity and ownership, which they want to examine the influence of News Corporation and its owner, Rupert Murdoch. </p>
<p>The dissenting reports by Coalition senators Andrew Bragg and Sam McMahon opposed any inquiry and recommended the Australian Press Council reform itself and that the ABC be subject to stronger regulation.</p>
<p>Among these predictable and largely unhelpful proposals, the report identified genuine problems I have placed in three groups and grappled towards solutions. </p>
<h2>Getting enough public interest journalism</h2>
<p>The bargaining code proposed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has the Government has enacted goes some way to address the excessive power of digital platforms, ensuring they make a financial contribution towards the production of public interest journalism. </p>
<p>The government has also taken some initial steps to fund local and regional news gathering and the AAP wire service. </p>
<p>As the ACCC has argued – and the behaviour of media giants News and Nine has shown – there is market failure that limits the production of news about local courts, local government and other local and regional activities. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437471/original/file-20211214-15-1obwlc5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437471/original/file-20211214-15-1obwlc5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437471/original/file-20211214-15-1obwlc5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=967&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437471/original/file-20211214-15-1obwlc5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=967&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437471/original/file-20211214-15-1obwlc5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=967&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437471/original/file-20211214-15-1obwlc5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1215&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437471/original/file-20211214-15-1obwlc5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1215&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437471/original/file-20211214-15-1obwlc5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1215&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">AAP needs government support.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dean Lewins</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some ongoing government support would lower the cost for new entrants into the news business, allowing them to compete with the larger organisations. </p>
<p>The Australian Communications and Media Authority’s suggestion that proceeds from the sale of broadcast spectrum be used to finance an independent trust might help, but first we need an assessment of how much is needed.</p>
<p>There is also a case for concessional rates of tax for new ventures investing in public interest journalism, and for extending deductible gift recipient status for appropriate philanthropic ventures, as suggested by the Public Interest Journalism Initiative and recommended by the committee.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the Coalition senators’ attacks on the ABC and SBS, those media outlets play an important role in the collection and dissemination of news, including in local and regional areas.</p>
<h2>Regulation of professional standards</h2>
<p>In a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-journalism-needs-more-than-better-protection-it-needs-better-standards-171117">previous article</a> I argued that more needs to be done to ensure adequate and consistent regulation of the media. As the Finkelstein and convergence reviews a decade ago revealed, the current fragmented arrangements are no longer fit for purpose. </p>
<p>While the 2012 Finkelstein review’s proposal for a statutory authority goes too far, relying solely on industry self-funding is a recipe for continued weak regulation and insufficient capacity to update and promote standards. </p>
<p>The Senate report’s proposal for an independent and permanent trust to assist emerging news ventures might be a suitable vehicle for such funding, avoiding any risk of government interference.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-protection-australian-journalism-needs-better-standards-171117">More than protection, Australian journalism needs better standards</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In focusing on a couple of Press Council judgements, the report fails to acknowledge the challenges involved and the need to invest resources into reviewing and updating standards. The council revised its general principles some years ago, partly in recognition of the increased blurring of news and comment. </p>
<p>It strengthened its <a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/GENERAL_PRINCIPLES_-_July_14-1.pdf">Principle 1</a> concerning accuracy to ensure it applied to “factual material” wherever it occurs, even if it is in commentaries. </p>
<p>It retains a requirement that factual material be distinguishable from opinion, but that is increasingly problematic: many online publications are nothing but commentary.</p>
<p>Other challenges for the council (and for any organisation that replaces it) include regulating “fairness and balance”, and whether it should consider patterns of articles rather than simply each article complained of in turn. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437473/original/file-20211214-25-f2di61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437473/original/file-20211214-25-f2di61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437473/original/file-20211214-25-f2di61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437473/original/file-20211214-25-f2di61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437473/original/file-20211214-25-f2di61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437473/original/file-20211214-25-f2di61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1216&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437473/original/file-20211214-25-f2di61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1216&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437473/original/file-20211214-25-f2di61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1216&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Commentary and reporting are getting blurred.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Societal developments also need to be considered, as the council has done by introducing new guidelines for reporting sexual identification.</p>
<p>The ABC and SBS face additional challenges because of their need to be “impartial”.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how the inquiry into the ABC’s complaints process – conducted by former commonwealth and New South Wales ombudsman John McMillan and former SBS news and commercial news director Jim Carroll – addresses the issue.</p>
<p>Perhaps the thorniest issue is the regulation of the digital platforms. As the Australian Communications and Media Authority indicated last year, they need more than a disinformation code. </p>
<h2>Media diversity</h2>
<p>Action on the first two issues should enhance the production and quality of public interest journalism and the range of voices involved. </p>
<p>Ownership controls are no longer central, although proposed mergers should be examined carefully to ensure they are in the public interest as former ACCC Chairman Allan Fels suggested to the committee. </p>
<p>For the foreseeable future, the ABC and SBS also remain essential to an informed public and to avoiding reliance on sources that push only certain views.</p>
<h2>What would be better than a royal commission?</h2>
<p>That News Corporation has campaigned vigorously for political purposes is clear. In doing so, its publications have at times breached Press Council standards, and at times condemned council adjudications. </p>
<p>The best way to address such behaviour is to address the three issues mentioned in order to shift the environment in which that company (and the others) operate. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/press-council-chief-fires-parting-shot-at-news-corp-44841">Press Council chief fires parting shot at News Corp</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are better options than a royal commission led by lawyers and established by politicians wanting to pursue Murdoch and News Corporation, or having no inquiry at all.</p>
<p>The best approach would be have an inquiry into how to build on the new bargaining code, led by the Productivity Commission or another independent body reporting to the treasurer and minister for communications.</p>
<p>Such an inquiry ought to be able to come up with improvements that promote freedom of speech rather than constrain it, and promote media responsibility.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Andrew Podger was a public member of the Australian Press Council from 2012 until 2021 and continues to sit on some council adjudication panels.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Response from Kevin Rudd</h2>
<p><em>Subsequent to this article’s publication, The Conversation received the following response from former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, which we have published here in full.</em></p>
<p>Andrew Podger’s call for a narrow media inquiry behind closed doors may appeal to academics, but it is politically naïve in the extreme. It is simply unrealistic to expect any substantive media reform to occur without the driving force of a royal commission.</p>
<p>Media policy is especially difficult for three main reasons. First, because the most powerful vested interests – chiefly Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation – have extraordinary power to shape public perceptions about any inquiry. This power is turbo-charged when the people cannot watch the inquiry’s proceedings firsthand. We saw this with the Finkelstein Inquiry, whose representations were misrepresented by Murdoch as totalitarian on the scale of Stalin and Mao.</p>
<p>Second, Murdoch has an impressive track record of thugging politicians into cherry-picking the recommendations of any report that suit his bottom line, and junking the rest. The new News Media Bargaining Code is a case in point; Murdoch’s News Corporation is now booking more than A$100 million each year in payments from Facebook and Google, while smaller rivals are left behind.</p>
<p>Third, media policy is diabolically complex. Decades of piecemeal reform have resulted in a weak and disjointed series of laws, regulators, self-regulators and co-regulators. There is no mutually agreed base of evidence from which a government could begin to make decisions. Media reform also requires the balancing of competing values that go to the heart of our democracy. When is a citizen’s right to privacy more important than the rights of media companies to publish their secrets? When should national security be used as an excuse to block freedom of information? These are not questions for the number-crunchers of the Productivity Commission, as Podger suggests, or something for a handful of elites behind closed doors.</p>
<p>This same philosophy gave us the Abbott government’s Financial Systems Inquiry. Its highly credentialled panel of experts, when asked to investigate consumer protection in the banking industry, failed to hear the voices of the people most affected by their abuses. It wasn’t until the Hayne Royal Commission – which was bitterly opposed by not only the finance sector, but the upper crust of financial journalists – finally lifted the lid on rotten behaviour for all to see that substantive change became possible.</p>
<p>An open public inquiry with a broad remit, proper resourcing and a commissioner of unimpeachable integrity can give proprietors, journalists, editors and others the opportunity to each be heard and have their assertions tested in real time. It would have the legitimacy of an open process with daily exposure of its revelations that keep the public informed and engaged throughout. It would serve as a lightning rod for Australians, including former and serving Murdoch employees, to give evidence fearlessly. Since it would be a proper investigation – not a partisan trap of the kind set by Tony Abbott’s royal commissions – it could also test the Murdoch media’s gripes about anti-siphoning laws, social media and allegedly endemic left-wing bias at the ABC. Its recommendations, whatever they are, would carry the force of that legitimacy.</p>
<p>We don’t need another boutique review to be ignored or manipulated. We’ve tried that too many times, and it has delivered us the most concentrated media industry of any democracy on Earth.</p>
<p>– <em>Kevin Rudd, 26th Prime Minister of Australia and Chair, Australians for a Murdoch Royal Commission</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171842/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Podger was a Public Member of the Press Council until July 2021 and still occasionally sits on its adjudication panels.</span></em></p>Rather than a royal commission focused on News Corporation, the best approach would be an inquiry into ways to maintain standards and better fund public interest journalism.Andrew Podger, Honorary Professor of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1711172021-11-08T23:16:35Z2021-11-08T23:16:35ZMore than protection, Australian journalism needs better standards<p>Australia may be <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-2018/media-releases/accc-mandatory-code-conduct-govern-commercial">leading the world</a> in measures to protect public interest journalism from the threats arising from media restructuring and news aggregators such as Google and Facebook, but it has yet to properly address the related need for firm professional standards.</p>
<p>At the moment the <a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.au/what-we-do/">Australian Press Council</a> deals with complaints about the print and online content of the newspapers, magazines and journals that fund it.</p>
<p>Among those publishers are the two biggest: <a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.au/who-are-our-members/">Nine and News Corp</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/pressure-mounts-on-australian-press-council-to-change-strategy-20210421-p57l70.html">Other big publishers</a> are not or cannot be members, among them Guardian Australia, The Conversation and the ABC.</p>
<p>A separate <a href="http://www.independentmediacouncil.com.au/">Independent Media Council</a> deals with complaints against newspapers operated by Seven-West media, which funds it. The Independent Council handles about 30 complaints a year, whereas the Press Council handles more than 1,000.</p>
<p>Complaints against the news content of licensed radio and television stations are handled by the government’s <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/investigations-tv-broadcasters">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a>.</p>
<h2>There have been attempts to lift standards</h2>
<p>It is nearly a decade since </p>
<ul>
<li><p>the government’s Finkelstein Review recommended a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1205_finkelstein.pdf">government-funded statutory body</a> take over the role and functions of the Australian Press Council and the news-related functions of the Communications and Media Authority</p></li>
<li><p>the government’s subsequent Convergence Review recommended an industry-led body with some government funding to oversee journalistic standards for news and comment <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140321214755/http://www.archive.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/147733/Convergence_Review_Final_Report.pdf">regardless of the platform</a> on which it is posted</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Neither recommendation was implemented, though the threat of government regulation did lead to significant <a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.au/apc-update-issue-7/">reforms</a> to the Press Council on which I served between 2012 and 2021.</p>
<p>The reforms the Council Chair Julian Disney drove strengthened its independence from the organisations that funded it, and its ability to not only to consider complaints but also to review its general principles, develop new standards and guidelines and to establish education and promotion activities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/10-years-after-finkelstein-media-accountability-has-gone-backwards-159530">10 years after Finkelstein, media accountability has gone backwards</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Publisher members agreed to double their fees and to enter into contracts requiring them to give four years’ notice should they leave. A more rigorous approach was introduced for handling complaints with adjudications being made by panels of members representing the pubic and journalists only.</p>
<h2>The government is inching towards more</h2>
<p>The government has raised the possibility of trying again, its <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/media-reform-greenpaper-december2020_0.pdf">green paper</a> last year on broadcasting promising to “implement a staged program of reform towards ‘platform neutral’ media regulation”.</p>
<p>The legislation that set up this year’s <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code">mandatory bargaining code</a> with platforms including Facebook edged down this path by requiring news organisations that wanted to use the code to pass a “<a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021A00021">professional standards test</a>”.</p>
<p>But the test required little more than that they be subject to one of the existing bodies or have internal standards.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430699/original/file-20211108-10108-uix4yl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430699/original/file-20211108-10108-uix4yl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430699/original/file-20211108-10108-uix4yl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430699/original/file-20211108-10108-uix4yl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430699/original/file-20211108-10108-uix4yl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430699/original/file-20211108-10108-uix4yl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430699/original/file-20211108-10108-uix4yl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430699/original/file-20211108-10108-uix4yl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021A00021">Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Act 2021</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At best the requirement is weak. At worst it might deepen fragmentation.</p>
<p>Another step is the <a href="https://digi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Australian-Code-of-Practice-on-Disinformation-and-Misinformation-FINAL-PDF-Feb-22-2021.pdf">Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation</a> issued by the Digital Industry Group Inc in February in response to a <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/articles/2020-06/acma-releases-guidance-digital-platforms-voluntary-misinformation-and-news-quality-code">discussion paper</a> issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.</p>
<p>Despite its title, the code focuses only on disinformation not “misinformation and news quality” and “empowering users to identify the quality of news and information” as <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-06/Misinformation%20and%20news%20quality%20position%20paper.pdf">asked for by the authority</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/press-council-chief-fires-parting-shot-at-news-corp-44841">Press Council chief fires parting shot at News Corp</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Last year’s green paper also suggested the establishment of a <a href="https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/fletcher/media-release/public-interest-news-gathering-program-opens-business">Public Interest News Gathering (PING) Trust</a> which would issue grants funded by proceeds from the sale of broadcast spectrum. </p>
<p>There is also a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Mediadiversity">parliamentary inquiry</a> into media diversity which is yet to report.</p>
<p>Meantime, the Press Council has had to freeze its fees in response to the financial positions of the publishers that fund it. It is financially dependent on just two big ones. News Corp alone provides more than half of its revenue.</p>
<p>The journalists union, the <a href="https://www.meaa.org/mediaroom/journalists-union-gives-notice-to-quit-australian-press-council/">Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance</a>, gave notice of its intention to withdraw from the Council in April. </p>
<p>It said “despite media convergence being a lived reality for journalists and the public for a decade, the regulatory framework had failed to keep up to date”.</p>
<h2>Here’s how better regulation could work</h2>
<p>The Council has its critics, whether related to slowness in handling complaints (a legitimate concern) or seeming insufficiently independent or insufficiently (or overly) critical of the work it examines. But its work is important. </p>
<p>One way a platform-neutral regulatory framework could work would be to separate the media into three categories, applying different standards to each:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The vast majority of individuals and organisations who communicate publicly, exercising their freedom of speech limited only by the laws of defamation and anti-discrimination etc.</p></li>
<li><p>Non-government organisations providing public interest journalism, expected to meet professional standards including “accuracy, fairness and balance”</p></li>
<li><p>government-funded media organisations such as the ABC and SBS, expected not only to be “accurate, fair and balanced” but also politically neutral overall in their news coverage</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Radio and television broadcasters licensed to use spectrum could be included in the second category, though some might argue they should have the higher standards of the third category.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384361/original/file-20210216-22-11ig87o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384361/original/file-20210216-22-11ig87o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384361/original/file-20210216-22-11ig87o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384361/original/file-20210216-22-11ig87o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384361/original/file-20210216-22-11ig87o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384361/original/file-20210216-22-11ig87o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1216&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384361/original/file-20210216-22-11ig87o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1216&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384361/original/file-20210216-22-11ig87o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1216&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nine would have its television stations regulated like its newspapers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dean Lewins/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The obvious starting point for the second category is to replace or restructure the Press Council.</p>
<p>The ambit of the new or expanded body would include the news and current affairs responsibilities of the Australian Communications and Media Authority.</p>
<p>That way Nine would have its television stations regulated in the same way as its newspapers.</p>
<p>There was a good reason for rejecting the Finkelstein inquiry’s idea of a government-funded statutory authority to replace the council: self-regulation is more consistent with press freedom. </p>
<p>But government funding is almost certainly needed (on top of industry funding) if the council or a body like it is able to do its job properly.</p>
<p>Using spectrum revenue for funding as is proposed for the PING Trust would be one way to providing government funding without government interference.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-tv-networks-holding-back-the-future-155220">The TV networks holding back the future</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Regulating digital publishing is more difficult because much of it is international, although there is a strong case for some form of independent oversight of algorithms to limit the risk of social harm.</p>
<p>One thing that could be done in Australia is for digital platforms and publishers to voluntarily adopt an improved version of the Digital Industry Group’s code.</p>
<p>Users would be able to better assess the quality of information on platforms or sites if they knew whether the source was a member of the Press Council or its replacement and how they could take part in its complaints-handling processes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171117/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Podger is affiliated with the Australian Press Council. I was a Public Member of the Press Council until July 2021 (mentioned in the article), and I still occasionally sit on its adjudication panels. </span></em></p>Regulation is fragmented, and the Press Council is short of funds.Andrew Podger, Honorary Professor of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1595302021-04-25T20:08:54Z2021-04-25T20:08:54Z10 years after Finkelstein, media accountability has gone backwards<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396727/original/file-20210423-16-1tubcj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In September, it will be ten years since the Gillard government established the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1205_finkelstein.pdf">Independent Inquiry into Media and Media Regulation in Australia</a>, otherwise known as the Finkelstein inquiry. In the succeeding decade, media accountability in Australia has, if anything, got weaker.</p>
<p>The latest sign of this is the decision last week by the journalists’ union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, to <a href="https://www.meaa.org/mediaroom/journalists-union-gives-notice-to-quit-australian-press-council/">quit the Australian Press Council</a>.</p>
<p>The MEAA said in its announcement that Australia’s media regulatory framework had failed to keep up to date with the effects of media convergence. It also said its members had become increasingly frustrated by the council’s inconsistent adjudications and poor governance.</p>
<p>The MEAA represents about 5,000 of Australia’s journalists.</p>
<p>It said the press council had lost credibility with journalists, and even with the publishers who make up its membership. This had been shown by the way adjudications were mocked or ignored.</p>
<p>Media regulation in Australia has always been weak, fragmented and lacking in public visibility. Even before the internet age, it was fractured along ownership, industrial and technological lines.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a> is the accountability body for the newspaper publishers and their online platforms – though not individual journalists. The accountability body for commercial radio and television and their online platforms is the <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a>, though once again not for individual journalists or broadcasters.</p>
<p>Neither of these bodies has any credibility among journalists. As the MEAA said in its announcement, its members are more concerned about getting a going-over on ABC TV’s Media Watch program than about anything the formal regulators do.</p>
<p>Journalists told me the same thing as long ago as 2003, when I was researching my <a href="https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/39200">doctoral thesis on the issue</a>. “No one wants a guernsey on Media Watch,” one respondent said, echoing the sentiments of many. </p>
<p>It is easy to see why. Media Watch names and shames, and does so weekly. It is highly visible and fiercely independent, giving the ABC as much scrutiny as anyone else.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6q-N5twiEeg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>By contrast, the Press Council and the ACMA processes are sluggish and opaque, and their sanctions are derisory – or at least the use of them is. The press council’s only sanction is a negative adjudication, which many newspapers place as far back in the paper as possible under a jam-label heading such as “Press Council Adjudication No 1357”. Not a verb in sight.</p>
<p>As for the ACMA, it turns itself inside out trying to find ways to excuse bad behaviour by broadcasters. So even though it has powers to impose licence conditions on broadcasters or suspend or cancel a licence, it seldom uses them.</p>
<p>A good example was the way the ACMA handled the grotesque conduct of some Australian commercial television channels in their coverage of the Christchurch massacre in March 2019.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2019-09/report/acma-investigation-coverage-christchurch-terrorist-attack">It found</a> Australian television broadcasters screened discrete excerpts of the terrorist’s bodycam footage, and that some also included survivor mobile phone footage that showed dead and injured people inside the Linwood Islamic Centre.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-watchdogs-report-into-christchurch-shootings-goes-soft-on-showing-violent-footage-120577">Media watchdog's report into Christchurch shootings goes soft on showing violent footage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Its sanction? To have “a productive conversation” with the television industry about whether its codes were adequately framed to deal with this type of material in the future. The answer to that question was clearly “no”, although the code had been signed off by the ACMA.</p>
<p>The whole episode was typical of the ACMA’s approach over many years.</p>
<p>In New Zealand, meanwhile, the <a href="https://www.bsa.govt.nz/">Broadcasting Standards Authority</a> found Sky News New Zealand’s use of clips taken from the terrorist’s bodycam footage was <a href="https://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/all-decisions/uj-and-sky-network-television-ltd/">in breach of the broadcasting standards</a> governing violence and law and order. It found the degree of potential harm that could be caused to audiences was greater than the level of public interest, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/20/sky-news-nz-fined-for-broadcasting-live-stream-of-christchurch-massacre">imposed $NZ4000 in costs</a> against the broadcaster.</p>
<p>It is notable Sky News NZ took its feed from Sky News Australia.</p>
<p>The Finkelstein inquiry proposed a statutory authority to run a unified system of media accountability covering all media. It was howled down as tyrannical by the media organisations, and went nowhere.</p>
<p>The contemporaneous <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leveson-inquiry-report-into-the-culture-practices-and-ethics-of-the-press">inquiry in Britain by Lord Leveson</a>, following the phone-hacking scandal embroiling Rupert Murdoch’s News International newspapers there, proposed a statute-based system. That, too, fell foul of media antagonism and government gutlessness.</p>
<p>More recently, in 2019 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-finalised/digital-platforms-inquiry-0">recommended</a> what would require a statute-based unified accountability mechanism as part of the government’s response to the challenges posed by the global tech giants such as Google and Facebook.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-files-accc-seeks-to-clip-wings-of-tech-giants-like-facebook-and-google-but-international-effort-is-required-121359">Media Files: ACCC seeks to clip wings of tech giants like Facebook and Google but international effort is required</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This recommendation has been sedulously ignored by the federal government, even though it has implemented the recommendation that the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/16/google-and-facebook-the-landmark-australian-law-that-will-make-them-pay-for-news-content">global platforms should pay </a>Australian media organisations for news the platforms take.</p>
<p>At the present time, the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee is <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Mediadiversity">inquiring into media diversity</a> in Australia. The issue of media accountability has been a recurring theme in the submissions sent to it.</p>
<p>What will come out of the inquiry is yet to be seen. But given the present government’s track record, especially concerning its relationship with News Corporation, it would be surprising if any recommendation to strengthen the existing threadbare system were to result in substantive policy action.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159530/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller worked as a consultant to the Independent Inquiry into Media and Media Regulation. </span></em></p>Media regulation in Australia has always been weak, fragmented and lacking in public visibility. It has also never had a government bold enough to do anything about it.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1205772019-07-24T20:00:53Z2019-07-24T20:00:53ZMedia watchdog’s report into Christchurch shootings goes soft on showing violent footage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285264/original/file-20190723-91840-c1za1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The ACMA and media outlets will now have discussions about how to cover violence attacks like that in Christchurch, in future.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Coverage of the Christchurch terrorism by Australia’s television channels raised “serious questions” about whether they had breached the television codes of practice, <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/acma-christchurch-terrorist-attack-investigation">according to</a> the broadcasting regulator, the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA).</p>
<p>However, it has declined to make specific findings that the codes were in fact breached.</p>
<p>Instead, it proposes to discuss with the television industry whether the codes are adequately framed to deal with the kind of material generated by the atrocity, especially the footage from the terrorist’s bodycam.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-news-outlets-should-think-twice-about-republishing-the-new-zealand-mosque-shooters-livestream-113651">Why news outlets should think twice about republishing the New Zealand mosque shooter's livestream</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The ACMA launched its inquiry into the coverage in the immediate aftermath of the March 15 attacks, reviewing 200 hours of coverage spanning March 15, 16 and 17.</p>
<p>It found that no material had been broadcast explicitly showing a person being shot, injured or killed.</p>
<p>However, footage had been shown of</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a person being shot at</p></li>
<li><p>a victim who had already been shot</p></li>
<li><p>the scene inside the Al Noor mosque, where most of the victims were killed.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The report is open to the interpretation that the threshold for violence acceptable for broadcast in these circumstances is footage that does not show someone actually being shot.</p>
<p>That is likely to be a central point of discussion between the ACMA and the television industry in the discussions that the report says will now take place.</p>
<p>The most relevant clause in the existing <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/content_common/pg-code-of-practice.seo">Free TV Australia code of practice</a> says a broadcaster cannot show material that is likely to seriously distress or seriously offend a substantial number of viewers unless there is a public interest in doing so.</p>
<p>Of course there was a very strong public interest case here. However, ethically speaking, a test of necessity is also required: how much and what level of violence is it necessary to show in order to convey to the audience a comprehensive account of what has happened?</p>
<p>The various Australian television channels answered this question differently.</p>
<p>Sky News, Seven and Nine all showed footage of someone being shot at.</p>
<p>Ten showed footage of gunfire more generally.</p>
<p>All four – Seven, Nine, Ten and Sky – used moving footage from the terrorist’s bodycam.</p>
<p>The ABC was the most cautious. It used stills from the bodycam.</p>
<p>SBS showed largely unedited footage from overseas in which the smoke from the gunfire was the only thing obscuring the view of people who had been shot.</p>
<p>A further issue that caused the ACMA concern was what it called the high degree of repetition of certain high-impact depictions within a short space of time. It stated that “excessive and gratuitous repetition may not be proportionate to the public interest and may have the effect of heightening distress or offence to the audience”.</p>
<p>These high-impact depictions included actions that killed a person, strongly implied that a person would be killed, or a person who had just been killed.</p>
<p>The ACMA also questioned whether the broadcasting of the bodycam footage from inside the Al Noor mosque, some of which included the sound of injured people, could be “properly justified”.</p>
<p>In this context, it suggests that in reviewing its code of practice, the television industry take account of the provisions of the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-04/facebook-youtube-social-media-laws-rushed-and-flawed-critics-say/10965812">new laws against the online streaming</a> of abhorrent violent material, passed by federal parliament in the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch terrorism.</p>
<p>The ACMA drew an important distinction between footage from inside the mosque taken from the terrorist’s bodycam and the footage from a survivor that was also shown.</p>
<p>The distinction was that while the bodycam footage was propaganda, the survivor’s footage was not seeking to glorify the violence but to show the horror being experienced by the victims.</p>
<p>The overall effect is of a report that is nuanced but very tame.</p>
<p>It takes a particularly narrow reading of the relevant clause in the code of practice to avoid saying it was breached.</p>
<p>A breach of the code should be based on a broad reading because the codes are designed to provide broad guidance to journalists making big decisions in a hurry. They are not designed to be parsed for legal niceties, but too often this is exactly what the ACMA does.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/christchurch-attacks-provide-a-new-ethics-lesson-for-professional-media-113840">Christchurch attacks provide a new ethics lesson for professional media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At the very least, the stations should be told that the mistakes identified in the report — even if they are called “questions” – will attract a penalty if repeated in the future.</p>
<p>Of course this was a difficult story to cover and mistakes were made.</p>
<p>But the ACMA is wrong to say that it was uniquely difficult.</p>
<p>The genuinely unique feature of it was the use of the bodycam by the terrorist to propagandise his atrocity.</p>
<p>There have been many propaganda videos made by terrorists, although not from a bodycam.</p>
<p>When a British soldier, Lee Rigby, was run over and stabbed to death in London in 2013, there was a long propaganda video showing one of the assassins holding a bloodied knife and making a propagandising speech.</p>
<p>To minimise the propaganda effect, many channels cut off most of the sound and did a voice-over. Many also pixillated the bloodied knife.</p>
<p>And there have been many cases where footage has been taken from inside a scene of carnage, notably the <a href="https://theconversation.com/carnage-at-ariana-grande-concert-in-manchester-a-suspected-terrorist-attack-78187">Paris Bataclan dance hall terror attack</a> in 2015.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120577/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Australian Communication and Media Authority’s report into the conduct of Australian media in the aftermath of the Christchurch shootings is nuanced but very tame.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1027222018-09-07T04:17:52Z2018-09-07T04:17:52ZMedia watchdog’s finding on Sunrise’s Indigenous adoption segment is justified<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235324/original/file-20180906-190665-164t3v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protestors rally outside Channel 7 studios in Sydney following the controversial segment on Aboriginal adoption.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Crowdspark</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In March this year, <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/morning-shows/you-should-know-better-sunrise-breakfast-show-slammed-over-aboriginal-adoption-segment/news-story/ba50b71635590779999f1ac684990f4a">Sunrise</a> aired a panel discussion about the removal of Indigenous children from dangerous or abusive family situations. </p>
<p>It wrongly claimed that Indigenous children could not be fostered by non-Indigenous families and one panellist, commentator Prue MacSween, suggested that the Stolen Generation might need to be repeated in order to save children from physical and sexual abuse.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.bandt.com.au/media/sevens-sunrise-cops-viewer-backlash-appalling-blatantly-racist-segment">reaction</a> was swift and fierce: the segment was condemned as racist and insensitive, with many questioning why the panel featured no experts or Indigenous people. There were <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-16/sunrise-protest-held-in-martin-place/9554832">protests</a> at the show’s Sydney studio, and multiple complaints were made to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.</p>
<p>This week, ACMA <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/channel-seven-in-breach-for-sunrise-segment-on-indigenous-children">announced</a> that the Channel Seven breakfast show did indeed breach the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice in airing false claims that Indigenous children could not be placed with white families.</p>
<p>It was also found that the segment provoked “serious contempt on the basis of race in breach of the Code as it contained strong negative generalisations about Indigenous people as a group”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/barnaby-joyces-decision-to-sell-his-story-is-a-breach-of-professional-ethics-97458">Barnaby Joyce's decision to sell his story is a breach of professional ethics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Seven has <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/morning-shows/seven-breaches-code-over-sunrise-segment-on-indigenous-children/news-story/68dbfb600717bd02d3cab883067f7b09">defended</a> their actions, labelling the ACMA’s decision as “censorship” and “a direct assault on the workings of an independent media”. They are also considering seeking a judicial review of the decision.</p>
<p>However, it is not correct to assess ACMA’s decision, nor its role, as censorship. Rather, the ACMA monitors and enforces basic journalistic principles governing ethics and responsibility.</p>
<p>The decision is more symbolic than material – Channel Seven will not be forced to pull the segment from online; indeed, it is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/so-many-mistruths-sunrise-cops-heat-over-aboriginal-adoption-segment-20180313-p4z46h.html">widely available</a>. ACMA also has no power to order any compensation to be paid to a wronged party or fine the broadcaster; nor can it force Channel Seven to apologise or correct its error.</p>
<p>This dispute is but one of many examples that raises questions over the power of the media and what happens when media make a mistake, deliberately bend the truth or publish information that may cause harm to people, especially from marginalised groups.</p>
<p>In his research on the media portrayal of Indigenous people and issues, and the difference between sensitivity versus censorship, <a href="https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=980100566;res=IELAPA">Michael Meadows</a>argues the media are resistant to admitting there is a problem with racist or insensitive coverage. He writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Aboriginal Australians have had to be content with a portrayal which is mostly stereotypical, sensational, emotional or exotic, with an ignorance of the historical and political context in which these images are situated.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While “censorship” is a <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/03/18/latham-andrew-bolt-lover-of-censorship/">label</a> that is often used by the media in response to criticism, actual censorship in Australia by government or media watchdogs is thankfully rare to nonexistent. Other issue such as <a href="https://pressfreedom.org.au/defamation-ea5115c44036">defamation law</a> are greater sources of censorship.</p>
<p>In a 2018 report released by <a href="https://rsf.org/en/australia">Reporters Without Borders</a>, a worldwide organisation that advocates for a free press, Australia ranked 19th out of 180 countries on press freedom. This was a fall from ninth in 2017 due to of media restrictions on reporting on asylum seekers and refugees in offshore detention centres, not the role of ACMA. In fact, ACMA and the Australian Press Council were not even mentioned.</p>
<p>Australian journalists are expected, although not obliged, to abide by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s <a href="https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/">Code of Ethics</a>. This states that journalists should “report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts” and to “do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors”.</p>
<p>ACMA’s finding on the Sunrise segment that featured sweeping claims such as “children left in Indigenous families would be abused and neglected”, is simply holding those responsible to the minimum standards expected, not just within the industry, but from the public, too.</p>
<p>In the era of “fake news”, it is not surprising that the public’s trust in journalists is low; a <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7244-roy-morgan-image-of-professions-may-2017-201706051543">2018 survey</a>found only 20% of Australians deemed newspaper journalists as being “very” honest and ethical, with television reporters fairing even worse, at 17%.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-bill-would-make-australia-worst-in-the-free-world-for-criminalising-journalism-90840">New bill would make Australia worst in the free world for criminalising journalism</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The ACMA was created in 2005 following the public outcry over the infamous “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_comment_affair">cash for comment</a>” scandals in 1999 and 2004. At the time, the then-Australian Broadcasting Authority was criticised for being “<a href="https://radioinfo.com.au/news/mediawatch-ignores-aba-and-judges-jones-guilty-cash-comment-anyway">too soft</a>” and <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/flint-resigns-as-broadcasting-boss-20040607-gdxzqg.html">ineffective</a> in response, the ABA was abolished and replaced by the ACMA.</p>
<p>It’s incorrect to label the ACMA’s role as playing “censor” when they do no such thing. In fact, there is <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/sandilands-saga-demonstrates-again-that-acma-is-a-toothless-tiger-in-need-of-new-powers-81514">criticism</a> that ACMA, like its predecessor, is a “toothless tiger” that lacks any power to actually hold the media to account.</p>
<p>No media can operate without a basic framework that places public interest, a commitment to accuracy and responsibility to the public.</p>
<p><a href="https://acma.gov.au/theACMA/channel-seven-in-breach-for-sunrise-segment-on-indigenous-children">In a statement</a> released on September 4, ACMA chairwoman Nerida O’Loughlin highlighted this important distinction: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Broadcasters can, of course, discuss matters of public interest, including extremely sensitive topics such as child abuse in Indigenous communities. However, such matters should be discussed with care, with editorial framing to ensure compliance with the Code. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>With “clickbait” and inflammatory opinion increasingly finding a home in the media, it’s more important than ever that the media respect and abide by their responsibilities to fairness and the truth. And when they cannot or do not do this, regulatory bodies such as the ACMA are essential.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102722/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alana Schetzer is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. </span></em></p>ACMA’s finding on the Sunrise segment is simply holding those responsible to the minimum standards expected.Alana Schetzer, Sessional Tutor and Journalist, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/753942017-04-26T20:14:09Z2017-04-26T20:14:09ZThe slow death of Australian children’s TV drama<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166743/original/file-20170426-13395-1nbyc2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ebonnie Masini and Rian McLean in Round the Twist (1989), one of Australia's most fondly remembered children's TV dramas.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Australian Children's Television Foundation</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian children’s TV may have recently picked up an <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/newsroom/news/2017/mr-170405-doodles-international-emmy-win">Emmy Kids award</a> for the ABCME animation Doodles, but otherwise kids’ TV in this country is in a dire state. </p>
<p>Free-to-air TV networks have to commission certain amounts of children’s programs each year. But in recent years there’s been a dismaying lack of new live action shows, or recognisably Australian content. Instead, local children’s TV has become dominated by animation with little sense of place. </p>
<p>This is a shame, because Australia’s most fondly remembered children’s TV shows are live action productions such as <a href="http://actf.com.au/news/10249/lasting-memories-of-australian-children-s-television">Mortified, Playschool, Blue Water High, and Round the Twist</a>. When asked in a 2015 survey to name their favourite childhood TV characters, most people chose Round the Twist siblings Linda and Bronson, followed by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTvypS-bI58">Mortified</a>’s Taylor Fry.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KPxJ6RR40ZU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Before the <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/speeches/abc3-launch/">2009 launch</a> of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/abc3/watchnow/">ABCME</a> (originally ABC3), the vast majority of the children’s live action drama produced here was commissioned by advertiser-funded networks Seven, Nine and Ten. Series such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112174/">Spellbinders</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68IuqSiABSs">Ocean Girl</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491603/">H20: Just Add Water</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQO-gNclTYQ">Lockie Leonard</a> proved popular with Australian children, many of whom still remember them as adults. </p>
<p><a href="http://actf.com.au/news/10249/lasting-memories-of-australian-children-s-television">The people we surveyed</a> as part of the 2015 Memory Project, recalled how much they enjoyed watching stories set in Australian locations and told in Australian accents, by characters to whom they felt they could relate. They also liked their humour, quirky storylines, the portrayal of a range of Australian lifestyles, and their values, including mateship and egalitarianism.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3ln5p04_bos?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Since <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByob-5pPEs">Skippy</a> debuted in 1967, Australian children’s television has also sold well overseas. International sales are crucial to the funding of Australian TV, because the local market is too small to allow producers to cover their costs. But high quality live action drama is expensive to produce. <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/TV-Radio/Television/Kids-and-TV/c-and-p-programs-i-acma">Restrictions</a> on scheduling and what can be advertised to children further limit revenue.</p>
<p>Although kid’s drama isn’t particularly attractive for the commercial networks, <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Community%20Broadcasting%20and%20Safeguards/Information/pdf/ACS%2023%20March%202016%20-%20F2016L00392%20pdf.pdf">content quotas</a> in place since the 1970s ensure that each commissions 32 hours of new Australian children’s (classified “C”) drama each year. These are part of broader quotas for children’s TV, administered by the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> (ACMA).</p>
<h2>Relying on animation</h2>
<p>But since the mid-2000s, networks have increasingly used animation to fill their quotas, rather than live action drama. Both are allowed under the rules. From 2013–15, animation made up on average <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/Australian-content/australian-content-compliance-results">77% of the networks’ C drama hours</a>. In 2015–2016, not one live action show was <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Community%20Broadcasting%20and%20Safeguards/Information/Word%20Document/Table%20of%20programs%20granted%20C%20and%20P%20classification%20-%202015-2016%20docx.DOCX">submitted to the ACMA</a> for classification as children’s drama, although there were a number of light entertainment programs such as game shows.</p>
<p>Animation is generally cheaper to produce than live action drama, attracts international investment more easily and can be re-voiced for global markets. These give it a significant competitive advantage over live action.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/quf9wQvtfHg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Without a doubt, there have been some fine Australian-made animations in recent years. Some, like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msd9KOSgsyA">Bottersnikes and Gumbles</a> or the latest reboot of the venerable Blinky Bill are based on Australian stories and have an Australian look and feel. </p>
<p>However the vast majority of animated series produced to fill the C drama quotas carry no recognisably Australian content. Kuu Kuu Harijuku, for example, a show about an animated girl group, was created by US pop superstar Gwen Stefani, yet was classified as C drama by ACMA in 2015.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yrW9qyF0HGY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>What about ABCME?</h2>
<p>Unfortunately even though it has Australia’s only free-to-air dedicated children’s channel ABCME, the ABC cannot necessarily be relied upon to fill the gap in making local live action kids’ drama. In a <a href="http://actf.com.au/assets/submissions/actf_submissions_2017_House_of_Reps_Inquiry_into_Australian_Film_and_Television_Industry.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ACTF%20eNews%20-%2010%20April&utm_content=ACTF%20eNews%20-%2010%20April+CID_6d40bfecb45f15db27a309dd476f3ff7&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=READ%20MORE">submission to the 2017 parliamentary inquiry</a> into the film and TV industry, the Australian Children’s Television Foundation indicated that the ABC’s children’s budget has been cut significantly, possibly by more than a third. </p>
<p>(Asked about this, a spokesman for the ABC said budgets regularly fluctuate internally to meet schedule and production requirements. “The budget for ABCME has been slightly reduced from the previous year to meet these demands across ABC TV.”)</p>
<p>The ABC’s local content targets (not quotas) for ABCME were reduced to <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-dramas-what-budget-cuts-signal-for-homegrown-childrens-shows-on-abc3-50004">25% from 50% in 2015</a>. The ABC also has <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/how-the-abc-is-run/what-guides-us/legislative-framework/">no charter obligations</a> to produce Australian content for Australian children. It is free to pull funding from the children’s television budget whenever it wishes, without public consultation or transparent processes.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166746/original/file-20170426-13391-3u6ud7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166746/original/file-20170426-13391-3u6ud7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166746/original/file-20170426-13391-3u6ud7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166746/original/file-20170426-13391-3u6ud7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166746/original/file-20170426-13391-3u6ud7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166746/original/file-20170426-13391-3u6ud7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166746/original/file-20170426-13391-3u6ud7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jordan Rodrigues and Thomas Lacey in Dance Academy (2010).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Werner Film Productions</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the years following the 2009 launch of its children’s channel, the ABC commissioned a number of live action drama series, including <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1468557/?ref_=nv_sr_1">My Place</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1551948/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2">Dance Academy</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2761354/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Nowhere Boys </a>and <a href="http://blackfellafilms.com.au/project/ready-for-this/">Ready for This</a>. These were very well received by local audiences, indeed a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5834660/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">spin off movie</a> of Dance Academy has just been released. But with the cuts to its budget, ABCME is relying more heavily on repeats to fill its schedule and reducing the scale of its live action drama commissions. </p>
<p>While the channel has two live action dramas currently in production (Mustangs FC, about an <a href="https://tv.press.abc.net.au/girls-kicking-goals-on-abc-me#">all girls soccer team</a> and a third series of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2761354/">Nowhere Boys</a>), both will be 13 rather than 26 episodes long. And the recent announcement of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-20/monkey-magic-to-get-a-reboot/8457782">reboot of Monkey Magic</a> hardly contributes to local content for children, given it is to be shot entirely in New Zealand and is a re-make of a non-Australian original series.</p>
<p>ABCME may have plans for more original children’s drama, but the lack of information about its budget and where the cuts to local content are falling make it impossible to tell what it has in the pipeline.</p>
<h2>Reflecting kids’ lives back to them</h2>
<p>Of course, animation is a perfectly legitimate genre, and enormously popular with children all over the world. Nonetheless the C drama quotas were legislated for in the early 1980s at a time when very little local television was being produced for Australian children. The quotas were intended to provide identifiably Australian television that would reflect kids’ lives back to them. These led directly to series like Round the Twist, Mortified and Lockie Leonard</p>
<p>The question for parents, producers and policy makers is: do Australian children deserve to see high quality drama series that reflect their own lives back to them? If we think they do, clear outcomes and objectives will need to be set for Australian content, particularly C drama. </p>
<p>ACMA will have to do more than rubber stamp animation as C drama (out of 38 programs put forward for C drama classification between 2013 and 2016, <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/annual-report">only two were rejected by the regulator</a>).</p>
<p>If we are to preserve identifiably Australian children’s screen content we need to ensure that it actually looks and sounds Australian, and safeguard funding for children’s television, particularly at the ABC.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75394/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Potter receives funding from The Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Huw Walmsley-Evans does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>TV networks must produce new local children’s TV drama each year - but they are increasingly making animation, with little sense of place. We need shows that will reflect kids’ lives back to them.Anna Potter, Discovery Early Career Research Award (DECRA) Fellow, Senior Lecturer Screen and Media Studies, University of the Sunshine CoastHuw Walmsley-Evans, Researcher, School of Communication and Creative Industries, University of the Sunshine CoastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/636952016-08-09T23:17:55Z2016-08-09T23:17:55ZAndrew Bolt and ACMA: should ‘hyperbole’ get in the way of accuracy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133429/original/image-20160809-18034-1wiam62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A recent ACMA investigation found Andrew Bolt did not breach the commercial TV code of practice.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Andrew Bolt is a living media ethics case study who just keeps giving. </p>
<p>After a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918">2011 court case</a> in which Bolt was successfully prosecuted for breaching the Racial Discrimination Act, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Investigation%20reports/TV%20investigations/Word%20document%202016/BI185%20%20The%20Bolt%20Report%20Southern%20Cross%20Ten%202%20docx.docx">recently found</a> his TV show, The Bolt Report, did not breach the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Regulation/pdf/Commercial%20Television%20Industry%20Code%20of%20Practice%202010.pdf">Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (2010)</a> for its handling of a graphic representing a “warming pause”.</p>
<p>Although quite different in substance and topic from racial discrimination, the ACMA case raises similar questions of fair and accurate reporting, the clash over facts, fair comment and the right of readers and viewers to be fully informed.</p>
<h2>Fair and accurate reporting</h2>
<p>Expectations of fair and accurate reporting are <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/investigation-concepts-series">deeply embedded</a> in the fabric of Australian media regulation. The first clause of the <a href="https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/">journalists’ code of ethics</a> is the most visible expression of this standard in Australia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Australian Press Council’s first <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/statements-of-principles/">“general principle”</a> goes to accuracy and clarity:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Regulation/pdf/Commercial%20Television%20Industry%20Code%20of%20Practice%202010.pdf">2010 Commercial Television (Free-to-Air) Code of Practice</a>, now superseded by the <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/media/Code_of_Practice/Free_TV_Commercial_Television_Industry_Code_of_Practice_2015.pdf">2015 code</a>, continues the theme:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:</p>
<ul>
<li>must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program; an assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.</li>
</ul>
<p>In broadcasting news programs (including news flashes) licensees:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>must present news fairly and impartially;</p></li>
<li><p>must clearly distinguish the reporting of factual material from commentary and analysis.</p></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>The codes embody a “news not views” framework. If is not news, it must be clearly distinct as such – in the words of the Press Council, made “distinguishable from other material such as opinion”.</p>
<p>Sometimes this is done through direct labelling of a piece as editorial, or even advertorial, but at other times the work of demarcation is felt to be done at genre or program level. That is, certain kinds of programs are not required to declare a departure from news because they represent an ongoing discussion of views, opinions and interpretations.</p>
<p>For example, under the <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/media/Code_of_Practice/Free_TV_Commercial_Television_Industry_Code_of_Practice_2015.pdf">2015 code</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Current affairs programs are not required to be impartial and may take a particular stance on issues.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fair and accurate reporting standards run deep, and not just in media regulation. It <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html">underpins several defences</a> protecting news reporting under wider Australian law.</p>
<h2>The clash over facts</h2>
<p>Facts don’t speak for themselves but are extrapolated in particular regimes so that they become truth. This particular Bolt case puts two systems into conflict: science and the quasi-judicial.</p>
<p>The science regime is one activated by the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Investigation%20reports/TV%20investigations/Word%20document%202016/BI185%20%20The%20Bolt%20Report%20Southern%20Cross%20Ten%202%20docx.docx">original complaints</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I would call into question the graph used by Mr Andrew Bolt on his program “The Bolt Report” aired on 8 Nov 2015.</p>
<p>It is a small section of a much larger graph that clearly shows climate change is increasing as predicted by science, taking small sections of larger graphs is neither accurate nor scientific.</p>
<p>It is a way to manipulate data to give a false impression of the overall problem. I would request that you seek good science-based evidence to check Mr Bolt’s claims that his graph shows a hiatus in climate change and ask him to correct his statements and apologise for what appears to be the deliberate spreading of incorrect information.</p>
<p>If the scientist who compiled the chart says that Mr Bolt’s interpretation of it is wrong then it is fairly obvious that Mr Bolt’s comments and the information he has given is wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Project host Waleed Aly <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/waleed-aly-takes-on-andrew-bolt-over-climate-change-let-me-nip-this-in-the-bud-20151210-gljuj1.html">activated this regime</a> in his discussion of Bolt’s comments. The show interviewed Carl Mears, the author of the graph Bolt used, who said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When you do real science you can’t just use the data sets that fit your pre-drawn conclusions, but you really need to look at all the data together. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In particular, Mears complains about the selective use of satellite data over surface data sets.</p>
<p>This regime takes offence at the provision of a graph that shows data from the last 18 years, but excludes the rest of the data set that goes back to 1979.</p>
<p>Advocates of this regime might pick up a flaw in a basic assumption made by ACMA:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ACMA considers that Mr Bolt used the term ‘warming of the atmosphere’ in a general, non-scientific sense, and that it is sufficiently broad in meaning to include surface air temperatures, which are a measure of the heat present in the atmospheric layer immediately above the land and surface of the ocean.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As someone who has discussed climate change extensively, it is questionable whether Bolt should be judged as using “the term ‘warming of the atmosphere’ in a general, non-scientific sense”. Similarly, should phrases such as “warming pause” be deemed to summarise the claim <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jn4mCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA769&lpg=PA769#v=onepage&q&f=false">gleaned from a report</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The observed global-mean surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The second regime is a quasi-legalistic one. The ACMA judgment has a clear procedural progression. First, you ask: “Was the material factual in character?” Then, you ask: “If so, was the (factual) material accurate?”</p>
<p>This legalism is in action in the ACMA judgment, in the requirement that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The accuracy requirements in the code only apply to statements of fact and do not apply to statements of opinion. The statement that ‘there has been no real warming of the atmosphere for around 18 years’ was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification. Mr Bolt’s concluding statement about choosing ‘facts over fear’ further indicated that the statement was an assertion of fact.</p>
<p>The statement was accompanied by a full-screen image of a graph. The words ‘as I keep showing you’ would have suggested that the graph was presented as evidence in support of the factual assertion about the pause.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bolt’s comments are situated as comments of fact, rather than opinion. This is the basis of the decision. However, ACMA’s “considerations for determining factual content” says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ACMA will have regard to all contextual indications (including subject, language, tenor and tone and inferences that may be drawn) in making its assessment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In considering this aspect, ACMA concluded:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Much of Mr Bolt’s language was hyperbolic, such as, ‘great global warming scare campaign’, ‘Australians aren’t stupid’, ‘can’t be fooled for long’, ‘all that propaganda’, ‘scaremongers’, ‘there’s been no Armageddon’ and ‘no wonder’. The use of hyperbole indicated that Mr Bolt was giving his subjective personal opinion about the matters being discussed and was not presenting a concluded scientific position about global warming in the segment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the finding’s most confusing aspect. Exploring hyperbole satisfies the requirement for determining factual content by looking at language and tone. But, at the same time, this exploration undermines the baseline decision to treat the project as statements of fact rather than statements of opinion. </p>
<p>It is no surprise Bolt <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/acma_and_the_age_go_hyperbolic_over_my_warming_facts_which_they_cant_fault">has taken umbrage</a> with the idea that his reports were hyperbole, meaning exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be literally. The reason he draws on a graphic in the first place is to impress a literal reading on the viewer. </p>
<p>Returning to ACMA’s treatment of hyperbole, readers may well wonder: are we dealing with fact or opinion, and where does that leave “the accuracy requirements of the code”? Indeed, ACMA’s guidelines say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Statements containing hyperbole will rarely be characterised as factual material.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ACMA decision sidesteps this issue by focusing on statements of fact:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ACMA therefore finds that, in the context of the segment in its entirety, Mr Bolt’s statement about there being no real warming of the atmosphere over the last 18 years, and the graph used to support that statement, comply with the code.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, Bolt’s claim of “no real warming of the atmosphere over the last 18 years” is sufficiently supported by the graph as to not breach the requirement that licensees:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The ‘hyperbole defence’ and responsibility to inform</h2>
<p>So, Fairfax Media is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/news-and-current-affairs/regulator-says-andrew-bolt-too-hyperbolic-to-be-factual-20160805-gqm7n9.html">not quite right</a> to report this matter as a question of the regulator saying Bolt is too hyperbolic to be factual. This observation was not core to the issue of Bolt’s use of “statements of fact”. But the introduction of hyperbole into ACMA’s reasoning introduces an ambiguity as to why exactly no breach was found – an ambiguity the Fairfax report captures nicely.</p>
<p>Several elements of the judgment are disquieting and raise further questions.</p>
<p>The first is the way the complaint is handled as a complaint about the use of a graph, when broader issues of accuracy and fair report are touched on by the code’s requirement that reports “must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly”. Why is the full graph not treated as a viewpoint in its own right?</p>
<p>A narrow focus on the graph rather than the views it embodies allows the licensee to argue “his comments correlate to the graph provided”. It allows ACMA to state Bolt is correct in saying there has been “no <em>real</em> warming” without any discussion of the “real” at all.</p>
<p>The second question has to do with the code’s requirement that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>ACMA could have looked beyond the graph to consider the matter of accuracy more broadly. It might have come to the same conclusion, but at least the logic of the argument would be more satisfying. The entire segment is a defence of the claim that “the great global warming scare campaign has failed” by referring to a CSIRO survey that confirms Bolt’s view that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have more sceptics now than believers … Nearly 46% of Australians say they believe humans are mostly to blame for the warming we’ve seen, but they’re outnumbered by the nearly 39% who say the warming is natural plus the 8% who think there’s actually been no warming, at least lately.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The graph is provided as an illustration of why Australians are thinking they way they are. Put this way, Bolt’s report could be defended as pure polemic: fair comment, honestly held, even if selective in its presentation of the graph.</p>
<p>A third, and perhaps most worrying issue, is the narrow picture of the relationship between facts and opinion that emerges from Bolt’s report and the ACMA case. The ACMA judgment focuses in on a particular claim, that “there has been no real warming of the atmosphere for around 18 years”, but there are other issues at play in the report to do with the handling of scientific data and viewpoints.</p>
<p>There is a wider responsibility to inform the public that is not being considered. A legal construction of statement of facts falls short of the complaints’ general expectations of accuracy.</p>
<p>Basic questions remain unanswered. These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Is it really OK to selectively present scientific research in this way? Does this satisfy accuracy? </p></li>
<li><p>Does a statement of fact really provide immunity to wider expectations of presenting factual material accurately and representing viewpoints fairly?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>As the Australian media move more toward “views” rather than “news”, these distinctions will become trickier to draw and navigate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63695/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Maras does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An ACMA investigation of Andrew Bolt raises questions of fair and accurate reporting, the clash over facts, fair comment and the right of readers and viewers to be fully informed.Steven Maras, Associate Professor in Media and Communication, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/601092016-05-29T20:59:01Z2016-05-29T20:59:01ZThe scandal of 60 Minutes: no broadcasting standards, no investigation<p>Last week, a small group of people held a protest outside Channel Nine in Sydney. They were objecting to the network’s treatment of Adam Whittington, the Australian man whose company “recovered” Sally Faulkner’s children on the streets of Beirut.</p>
<p>It’s clear there is a high level of concern within the community. Some concerns relate to Nine’s treatment of Whittington and his colleagues, who remain imprisoned in Lebanon. Others include Nine’s apparent involvement in arrangements for what might constitute the criminal act of child abduction, the payment of A$115,000 by Nine to Whittington’s company, and the crew’s close involvement on the scene and afterwards in Beirut.</p>
<p>What connects all of these aspects is that they relate to the conduct of 60 Minutes in setting up the story – in the “newsgathering” activities that precede it – not to anything Nine has broadcast.</p>
<p>Nine has commissioned a review of the matter, resulting in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/27/60-minutes-producer-sacked-and-reporters-warned-over-child-abduction-story?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">departure of Stephen Rice</a>, the producer of the Sally Faulkner story. Other staff involved have received formal warnings, but it seems there will be no independent investigation.</p>
<p>This reveals a problem that goes beyond this program: there are no broadcasting regulations that apply in this case, and there is almost no scope for an independent review by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).</p>
<h2>Was it covered by the Commercial TV Code?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/commercial-television-code-of-practice-tv-content-regulation-i-acma">Commercial Television Code</a> says broadcasters must ensure that factual material in current affairs programs is presented accurately and that viewpoints included in a program are not misrepresented. Also, material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs must not be broadcast, unless there is consent or a public interest reason.</p>
<p>On these tests, it’s difficult to see anything wrong with the actions of 60 Minutes. To breach the code, a program would need to be factually inaccurate, or materially misrepresent the views of, say, the children’s father, Ali Elamine, or somehow breach his privacy or perhaps that of the children’s grandmother.</p>
<p>But there’s a more fundamental problem: the code only applies to material that goes to air. If no program is broadcast, there can be no complaint.</p>
<p>Even if it turns out 60 Minutes orchestrated key events – if it made arrangements with the child abduction company, paid for its services and then travelled with Sally Faulkner and her children around Beirut – the regulator cannot test the fairness of these actions unless Channel 9 broadcasts a report that misrepresents someone’s point of view.</p>
<h2>How does it work elsewhere?</h2>
<p>This almost exclusive emphasis on content differs from rules for other media in Australia and for broadcast, print and online content in the UK. For example, there are standards designed to ensure “fair and honest dealing” (the <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CodeOfPractice2011.pdf">ABC Code</a>), to limit the use of deception or misrepresentation (the <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/">Ofcom Broadcasting Code</a> in the UK), to prevent intimidation or harassment (the <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html">Editors’ Code of Practice</a> for print and online in the UK) and to avoid causing distress to participants and prevent a risk to health and safety (the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/statements-of-principles/">General Principles</a> of the Australian Press Council).</p>
<p>The MEAA <a href="https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/">Journalist Code of Ethics</a> says: “Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material …” while for privacy matters the Ofcom code adopts the concept of “proportionate means” to obtain material. Most codes also include rules on managing conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>Interestingly, program standards dealing with both “the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs” were developed by the former Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in 1991, but they were jettisoned with the introduction of the codes of practice in 1993.</p>
<p>Even more interesting is the fact that Nine’s own review clearly covers the activities of the producers and crew of 60 Minutes over “the course of developing and producing a story”. This is where the problem lies, and this is where the code of practice goes silent.</p>
<h2>Can the Australian Communications and Media Authority do anything?</h2>
<p>Community concerns were addressed by Communications Minister, Mitch Fifield, when he <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/nine-faces-fallout-from-60-minutes-beirut-saga/news-story/207a44b783bfdba081aacadac6a5f517">said</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ACMA, as the independent regulator, has the powers it needs to determine whether there have been any potential breaches of Australian broadcast regulation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, the Australian Communications and Media Authority has since indicated <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/recent-events-in-lebanon-involving-60-minutes">it is not investigating the matter</a> and, in reality, there’s little point calling for an investigation under the current code of practice. Nine’s own inquiry, though worthwhile, cannot be described as independent.</p>
<p>The minister’s confidence in the ACMA is looking ill-founded.</p>
<p>However, the ACMA could launch a broader investigation into whether the code of practice is failing the community. It has the power to initiate investigations and its functions, set out in legislation, include developing program standards and assisting industry to develop codes “that, as far as possible, are in accordance with community standards”.</p>
<p>The former Australian Broadcasting Authority used a similar approach to address an issue of community concern in 1999. The <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/aba/newspubs/radio_tv/investigations/documents/general/commradinq_fin.pdf">Cash for Comment</a> inquiry found there were insufficient rules to govern the conduct of commercial radio current affairs presenters who took money from sponsors and editorialised about their products without disclosing the payments.</p>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>As Whittington and his colleagues remain in prison in Lebanon, many in Australia consider Nine has an ethical obligation to assist the recovery team that formed a key component of the story it was constructing on Sally Faulkner, Ali Elamine and their children. </p>
<p>Nine’s review does not mention this aspect, but nor does it answer its own question, “were any of the staff of Nine participating in an unlawful activity in Lebanon?” It doesn’t ask whether the code of practice was considered and complied with; in fact, it doesn’t mention the code.</p>
<p>It’s only reasonable that our broadcasting regulator investigate the conduct of a TV program apparently involved in child abduction. And if it can’t because there are no applicable rules, there’s a convincing case that the Commercial Television Code does not fulfil its regulatory obligations to provide “appropriate community safeguards”.</p>
<p>In the end, a regulatory scheme – whether statutory or self-regulatory – is only as good as the standards it promulgates and the opportunities it offers for independent investigation of matters of community concern.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60109/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Derek Wilding does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When Channel Nine was implicated in an illegal ‘child recovery’ operation, many would have assumed the media regulator would investigate. Yet Australian broadcasting standards are so limited there will probably be no independent inquiry at all.Derek Wilding, Research Fellow, Faculty of Law/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578802016-05-18T03:46:55Z2016-05-18T03:46:55ZElection explainer: what are the rules governing political advertising?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122691/original/image-20160516-15899-1m3vzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There has been debate in recent times around placing caps or limits on some forms of political advertising.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-bill-shorten-stars-in-both-sides-election-ads-59076">Negative and positive advertisements</a> were quick to hit the airwaves in the early days of the election campaign. With many more weeks to come, one might be tricked into thinking the major parties can’t keep going at this pace. They must run out of money and get tired of the ads themselves, right? </p>
<p>Political advertising in federal campaigns is governed by a set of laws. Here are some of them.</p>
<h2>What are the rules around party-political advertising?</h2>
<p>The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) govern political advertising at a federal level. The AEC covers the legalities of political advertising, such as authorisation. ACMA covers the broadcasting side. </p>
<p>They do appear to overlap. However, the AEC would take precedence over ACMA. The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/">AEC legislation</a>, the Commonwealth Electoral Act, is intended to ensure a fair and free election outcome.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/">Broadcasting Services Act</a> covers actual broadcast rules. This includes identifying who authorised the advertisement, enforcing blackout rules, and recording details of political advertising and even polling and telemarketing calls.</p>
<p>The blackout period starts from the end of the Wednesday before polling day (in 2016, this will be June 29) and runs until the close of the polls on polling day, or 6PM on July 2. This means that you won’t see any ads in traditional media – TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. But anything online is exempt, so expect YouTube and social media sites to be full of messaging. </p>
<h2>Are there any rules about the content of ads?</h2>
<p>Both pieces of legislation cover content. The Broadcasting Services Act ensures the authorisation is inserted at the end of every advertisement, or in the right place for print advertisements. </p>
<p>However, the AEC legislation covers the big issues of concern of political advertising. This includes truth in advertising, misleading and deceptive conduct, and defamation of other people.</p>
<p>While there have been <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp13">parliamentary research papers</a> and <a href="https://jade.io/article/66896/section/140043?asv=citation_browser">High Court cases</a>, the broad consensus right now is that truth in advertising can be legislated for, but it is incredibly problematic to enforce and prosecute. </p>
<p>Misleading and deceptive conduct in ads is enforced only when it concerns promoting informal or incorrect voting. </p>
<p>Defamation is left up to common law. However, even here it is rarely actioned due to the length of proceedings. And the high-profile nature of cases means it can do more harm than good for those involved.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vEZ8QhOKXeA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">All ads contain an ‘authorised by’ line.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who pays for these ads?</h2>
<p>Advertisements are not taxpayer-funded, though paying for campaign expenses such as advertising is one of the purposes of funding given to political parties after elections, provided they gain 4% of primary votes in the division or Senate race they contest. </p>
<p>This is calculated on a formula of roughly A$2.60 per first-preference vote, although actual figures for this election have not yet been released. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Reports_On_Federal_Electoral_Events/2013/fad/funding.htm#payments">2013 election this amounted</a> to $23.8 million for the Liberals, $20.7 million for Labor, $5.5 million for the Greens, $3.1 for the Nationals, $2.3 million for the Palmer United Party, $1 million for the Liberal Democrats and $642,000 for Nick Xenophon.</p>
<p>How parties decide to spend this money is up to them. However, they must put in annual returns to the AEC. It usually takes nearly a year to work out how much has been spent on election advertising, and where exactly that money came from. </p>
<p>Campaign finance is in need of reform. There are many questions on what returns stakeholders expect to receive from parties and candidates in return for funding election campaigns.</p>
<h2>Are networks obliged to give major parties equal time?</h2>
<p>No. But they are required to ensure all parties that were present in the last parliament before the current election period have a reasonable opportunity to broadcast election matter. </p>
<p>Networks can screen an extra minute of non-program matter (ads) between 6PM and midnight provided they are political ads. So, during the election campaign, ad breaks may be a little bit longer.</p>
<p>However, the ABC as the national broadcaster does allow the government and official opposition 31 minutes and 30 seconds of free time on ABC1 TV and ABC local radio. This is split into 18 minutes (12 90-second policy announcements) and 13 minutes and 30 seconds for the final pitch. </p>
<p>Minor parties can qualify for free time based on their level of electoral support at the last election and if they are contesting more than 10% of seats at the current election. This time is only two 90-second spots on ABC1 TV and two 90-second spots on ABC local radio for policy announcements. They are not given airtime for the final pitch. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yb6iWiJXDkU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Networks are required to ensure represented parties have a reasonable opportunity to broadcast election matter.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Do we need limits?</h2>
<p>There has been debate in recent times around placing caps or limits on some forms of political advertising – especially negative advertising – due to the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J199v02n01_04">perceived harm caused to democratic institutions</a> and political engagement by this type of advertising. </p>
<p>There needs to be some limits on negative advertising, such as making up only 30% of total airtime of all political advertising. Political advertising should also be restricted to adult viewing hours to minimise potential negative attitudes and harm to children. </p>
<p>Advertising on the internet should also be part of the blackout period. Voters need peace and quiet to consider each party’s policy promises.</p>
<p>Finally, Free TV Australia should report on the name of the ad, the number of times it was screened, and the markets it was screened in to enable a more transparent and accountable way of measuring the funding and use of political advertising.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57880/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What are some of the legalities and issues around political advertising in federal campaigns?Andrew Hughes, Lecturer, Research School of Management, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/508892015-11-20T05:45:17Z2015-11-20T05:45:17ZAre we ready for a world even more connected in the Internet of Things?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102605/original/image-20151120-10452-tr2pxt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We are already connected in many ways through technology, and we're about to get a lot more connected.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kk/15693478146/">Flickr/kris krug</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine a world that is even more connected technologically than ours today.</p>
<p>That’s what the Australian Communications and Media Authority (<a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/">ACMA</a>) has done this week with a very timely occasional <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theacma/internet-of-things-and-the-acmas-areas-of-focus-occasional-paper">paper on the Internet of Things</a> (<a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/internet-of-things">IoT</a>). As well as identifying issues of direct concern to the ACMA, the paper also includes an overview of the technology and its capabilities.</p>
<p>The IoT is the bringing together of a very large numbers of devices, data and computing power through the internet. The internet at the moment usually has a human at one or both ends of the communication. In the IoT, most communications will have sensors, actuators, databases or cloud-based computing process at either end. </p>
<p>It is the linking of data from a large numbers of devices to the tremendous computing power of the cloud that makes the IoT so interesting. Sensor networks and machine-to-machine communication have been around for quite some time now, but has mostly been over the cellular telephony network or over short range, mesh networks such as <a href="http://www.zigbee.org/">ZigBee</a>.</p>
<p>Generally, the processing of data generated by these networks has been reasonably straightforward, such as pollution monitoring or device tracking. But the linking of these devices to the internet opens up many new possibilities. Large scale deployment of sensor networks will generate vast amounts of data which can be moved via the internet to be processed using the huge resources of cloud computing. </p>
<h2>Many applications</h2>
<p>There are potential applications in health, aged care, infrastructure, transport, emergency services among others. Terms such as “smart cities” and “smart infrastructure” have been coined to refer to the capabilities of combining large scale sensor networks with cloud computing.</p>
<p>So for example, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/9-real-life-scenarios-that-show-how-the-internet-of-things-could-transform-our-lives-2014-8">smoke alarms might be integrated with fire services</a>. A rapid increase in the number of alarms may indicate (for example) an explosion in a factory. Data from the alarms along with the sequence and pattern of the alarms might be able to be processed to give information as to the nature, location and extent of the explosion.</p>
<p>The ACMA paper has some discussion of projections for the take up of the technology. These seem extraordinary. There is a reference to a recent <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/The_Internet_of_Things_The_value_of_digitizing_the_physical_world">McKinsey report</a> that estimates worldwide productivity gains of US$11.1-trillion a year by 2025.</p>
<p>Catherine Livingstone, chair of Telstra, believes that the changes brought by IoT will dwarf those we saw with the fixed line internet in the mid-1990s and the mobile internet in the mid-2000s.</p>
<h2>Billions more connections</h2>
<p>What is even more extraordinary is the expected speed of the take up of these technologies. Cisco expects <a href="http://newsroom.cisco.com/press-release-content?articleId=1621819">50-billion devices</a> to be connected to the internet by 2020 compared to the 15-billion currently connected. </p>
<p>There is certainly a great deal of activity in this area and consequently, there is some urgency in making sure that there is a suitable regulatory framework for it. This is what the paper deals with.</p>
<p>The paper is an invitation for interested parties to comment on ACMA’s plans for the area. The most interesting part of the paper is that describing ACMA’s current, medium term and long term IoT focus.</p>
<p>Current concerns include availability of spectrum, mobile numbers and information exchange. Spectrum refers to the frequency ranges available for wireless communication of the sensors and actuators attached to the IoT.</p>
<p>The precursor to the IoT is Machine to Machine Communications (M2M). This has relied primarily on the mobile telephone network. Back in 2012 ACMA made available a new mobile number range (05) to supplement the existing (04) range. If there is an explosion in the number of devices there may need to be additional number ranges.</p>
<p>Short range sensor networks make use of unlicensed spectrum such as that used by Wi-Fi. The paper looks at the suitability of existing unlicensed spectrum arrangements and the possibility of new spectrum in the 6GHz range being made available. It also identifies the emergence of long range communications (such as <a href="https://www.lora-alliance.org/">LoRa</a>) using unlicensed spectrum.</p>
<p>The other area is how “harms” can be addressed. In this context “harms” refers to issues related to breaches of privacy, security and other problems that we may not yet understand. Managing “harms” involves the exchange of information between parties. For example, dealing with a computer that is infected by malware may need cooperative behaviour between a number of parties. How will that be done in the IoT world?</p>
<p>Longer term concerns identified in the paper include network security and reliability as well as the capabilities of businesses and consumers to manage their devices and information. </p>
<p>All in all, the paper is a welcome addition to discussion on an increasingly important area.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The ACMA is looking for feedback on the paper which <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/internet-of-things-and-the-acmas-area-of-focus">you can do online here</a> before Deecmber 14, 2015.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50889/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Branch receives funding for Internet of Things related research. </span></em></p>Imagine a world that’s even more connected technologically than ours today. It’s coming soon and the Australian Communications and Media Authority wants to know if we’re ready for it.Philip Branch, Senior Lecturer in Telecommunications, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/452382015-07-28T04:06:38Z2015-07-28T04:06:38ZSport the crunch point for regulator in Foxtel-Ten deal<p>Foxtel’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-15/foxtel-takes-15pc-stake-in-ten/6546298">proposal</a> to acquire up to 15% of Ten Network Holdings for A$77 million would further complicate the already very complex ownership structure in Australia’s media landscape.</p>
<p>The deal looks set to receive some serious scrutiny from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. ACCC Chairman Rod Sims has said the regulator will <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-27/ten-ceo-hamish-mclennan-resigns/6650192">look at all Murdoch family interests</a> as it considers whether the deal could lessen competition. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation owns a 50% stake in Foxtel, and Murdoch’s son Lachlan an 8.5% share of Ten.</p>
<p>The proposal would see Foxtel acquire up to 15% of Network Ten while Ten would acquire up to 24.99% of Multi Channel Network (MCN). MCN is a supplier of advertising opportunities across a number of subscription television channels and is currently owned by Foxtel and Fox sports. Ten also has an option to acquire 10% of Presto, which is a subscription video on demand service. Presto is a joint venture between the Seven Network and Foxtel.</p>
<p>The main issue is likely to be concern over potential bids for premium sporting content and what a Foxtel-Ten tie up might mean for other free to air competitors.</p>
<h2>Muddy waters</h2>
<p>A media merger in Australia faces two sets of hurdles. It must satisfy the merger laws administered by the ACCC designed to protect competition, and it must also satisfy various diversity rules administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).</p>
<p>The diversity rules set out various requirements. An operator should not be able to exercise control of commercial broadcasting licences whose total licence area population exceeds 75% of the population of Australia; nor control more than one television broadcasting licence in the same licence area. </p>
<p>There are also rules which aim to retain a minimum number of media voices, not less than five in major cities and four in regional areas (the 4/5 rule). Transactions that lead to control of a commercial television broadcasting licence, a radio broadcasting licence and a newspaper in the same area are also prohibited.</p>
<p>The ACMA rules tend to be rather more mechanical than the competition laws, which are likely to present some real challenges for this proposed transaction.</p>
<p>The media sector has experienced significant disruption in recent years. In broadcasting Pay TV has become entrenched while various online offerings now compete with free to air. The pressure is clearly being felt in the sector and in particular the difficulties faced by Ten have been well documented.</p>
<p>Inevitably the sector will respond to these pressures in various ways. This has included lobbying the Minister for Communications to reduce licence fees. A <a href="http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/assets/documents/reforming-freetoair-broadcasting.pdf">recent paper from the Monash Business Policy Forum</a> on the reform of spectrum licencing provides some suggestions for a way forward in that area, including eliminating the commercial broadcasters’ public service obligations and transferring them to public broadcasters.</p>
<p>The pressure for structural change within the sector is high. However this is likely to continue to rub up against the competition laws for some time. As competition from new areas grows the question might be asked why the ACCC should have concerns. </p>
<h2>Sport is the crunch point</h2>
<p>The ACCC’s request for submissions to interested parties gives some insights around its potential concerns. These centre on the question of whether Foxtel will be able to control or influence Ten and how this might affect competition for content, particularly sporting content. The ACCC has a long list of questions but these are likely to be the core issues.</p>
<p>The concern seems to be that as a result of the transaction Foxtel and Ten might be more likely to partner with each other in bidding for premium sporting content, essentially AFL and NRL, and this might make it difficult for other free to air operators to compete. The result may be a lessening of competition for the acquisition of these rights. </p>
<p>The ACCC’s 2012 <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-to-oppose-seven-group-holding%E2%80%99s-proposed-acquisition-of-consolidated-media-holdings">decision to oppose</a> the then proposed acquisition by Seven Group Holdings of Consolidated Media Holdings’ shares in Foxtel makes interesting reading. While all mergers are different and circumstances may vary there does appear to be some common issues between that transaction and this one. </p>
<p>In this case the ACCC found:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Due to the benefits that premium sports rights can provide to free to air networks, the ACCC considered that the potential impact on the ability of Seven Network’s competitors to acquire sports rights jointly with FSA and FOXTEL as a result of the indirect ownership interests and board representation which would be acquired by Seven…would have a significant effect on their ability to compete effectively in the free to air television market.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The questions asked by the ACCC to interested parties do not single out premium sporting content, but nevertheless the submissions from the AFL and NRL are likely to be read with particular interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45238/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joe Dimasi is a former Commissioner and Senior Executive of the ACCC and was a member of the ACCC's Mergers Committee.</span></em></p>Fear of a Foxtel-Ten partnership to acquire sporting rights is likely to worry the ACCC.Joe Dimasi, Professorial Fellow, Department of Economics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/400902015-05-04T04:43:27Z2015-05-04T04:43:27ZIt’s time for Australians to rewind the media policy machine<p>As Australia drifts between national elections it is time, once again, to ask some hard questions about media policy. Those questions should be asked and answered by all Australians rather than just by Malcolm Turnbull, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Shorten, Kerry Stokes, Bruce Gyngell and Tony Abbott.</p>
<p>A guide is provided by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-finkelstein-inquiry-into-media-regulation-experts-respond-5675">Finkelstein Report</a>, a victim of political opportunism and ALP infighting. </p>
<p>Another guide is provided by a poll in the UK, which suggests that non-specialists <em>are</em> interested in media policy, in particular the development of policy that reinforces integrity through accountability. </p>
<p>Responsiveness by politicians to that interest will go some way to overcoming the disengagement that is recurrently lamented by the major parties and that fosters micro-parties that rely on personality rather than policy.</p>
<h2>What do the people think?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/get-involved/poll-shows-strong-support-for-action-on-media-ownership">UK poll</a> is specifically concerned with media regulation. It is an expression of attitudes by ordinary people. We don’t have a local counterpart - an independent study is needed - but we can draw some conclusions. </p>
<p>One conclusion is that we need to rewind the policy machine, with another viewing of the Finkelstein Report. </p>
<p>The UK poll was run by <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/">YouGov</a> for the <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/">Media Reform Coalition</a>, an advocacy group that reflects concerns regarding competition policy, editorial interference and scandals such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/press-needs-a-regulator-to-protect-itself-and-the-rest-of-us-35114">Hackergate</a>.</p>
<p>The group reports that 74% believe that ownership of a UK television channel, radio station or newspaper should be dependent on the company being based in the UK. No more <a href="https://theconversation.com/google-tax-debate-pits-corporate-thieves-against-state-sovereignty-39681">dutch sandwiches</a> – companies should pay full UK tax. </p>
<p>The poll found 61% of respondents favour compulsory governance mechanisms, such as truly independent editorial boards, to reduce editorial interference. And 41% want strengthening of media ownership rules to restrict the market dominance of any one organisation. </p>
<p>It is likely that Australian voters, so disillusioned by the theatrics in Canberra that you’d have to drag them away from <em>Game of Thrones</em>, have much the same attitude. They haven’t been soured by Hackergate but are disquieted by media bias, perceived inequity in corporate <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/tax-chief-under-pressure-to-name-corporate-evaders/6377882">taxation</a>, inconsistencies in competition law and ongoing attacks on the ABC. </p>
<h2>Why we should rethink the rules</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://theconversation.com/self-regulation-and-a-media-we-can-trust-6466">Finkelstein Report</a> highlighted questions about media concentration and self-regulation. These are questions that we need to consider because ownership, governance and editorial decisions affect informed policy-making and community disengagement in an era where traditional demarcations between print and broadcast are no longer relevant. </p>
<p>We need to think about media concentration in general, something elided in the recent <a href="http://theconversation.com/harper-makes-case-for-competition-overhaul-experts-react-39582">Harper Review</a> of Australia’s competition framework. Does it matter who owns the dominant channels, as long as the content is diverse and fair? Why do we have a nationality requirement, or a character requirement regarding broadcast ownership? </p>
<p>Should we be regulating Google and Facebook alongside Channel Nine, given that many people now rely on “new media” for current affairs information rather than just entertainment? Why are the broadcasters dealt with by <a href="http://acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating">ACMA</a>, a government agency, when regulation of newspapers and magazines is done by print magnates for print magnates in the form of the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a>? Should we disregard the ineffectiveness of the Press Council, in the expectation that newspapers will either wither or go online? </p>
<p>Does the national government have the ability to restrict media corporations from structuring the operation to avoid the sort of tax obligations faced by most people? Do the ALP and LP/NP have the will to restrict that restructuring? Should we regard Google and Apple as media groups, rather than focusing on the Herald Sun and SevenWest?</p>
<p>The unhappiness evident in the UK poll is romantic, because there is no sign that any of the UK parties will take meaningful action. We don’t, however, need to despair. We need instead an informed national discussion about the shape of the Australian media and the nature of any regulation. We should expect politicians to lead that discussion, articulate issues and offer proposals. </p>
<p>A basis for that discussion would be to do a rerun of Finkelstein, in the same way that a classic television series is well worth another viewing. Ask some hard questions. Find out what people want. Give them a sense of why particular solutions might be ineffective. </p>
<p>Trust the people, rather than reinforcing disengagement by failing to inform them and restricting policy-making to Canberra insiders. That is, after all, what we want from a liberal democratic state.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40090/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Current regulations are a complete mismatch for today’s media practices and structures. While politicians shy from the debate, it’s time to heed public opinion and revisit the Finkelstein Report.Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/384382015-03-06T01:28:27Z2015-03-06T01:28:27ZHigh Court rejects attempt to make media watchdog toothless<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74003/original/image-20150305-3281-15hr0su.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Today FM faces enforcement action by ACMA after a long-running legal challenge to the media regulator's powers ended in defeat for the broadcaster.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Warren Clarke</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Media accountability in Australia has taken an important step forward with a cut-through High Court <a href="https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#article=369805">decision</a> on the powers of the broadcasting regulator, the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> (ACMA).</p>
<p>The case had its origins in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/did-2day-fm-break-the-law-and-does-it-matter-11250">notorious prank</a> played by Sydney commercial radio station Today FM in December 2012. Two of its announcers rang the London hospital where the Duchess of Cambridge was a patient, impersonated the Queen and Prince Charles, and obtained information about the Duchess’s condition. They recorded and then broadcast the telephone conversation without the knowledge or consent of the hospital staff.</p>
<p>In the aftermath, Jacintha Saldanha – one of the two hospital staff members who spoke to the pranksters – took her own life.</p>
<p>ACMA investigated the incident and found that in broadcasting the recording of what was a private conversation, Today FM had breached the NSW <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sda2007210/">Surveillance Devices Act</a>. In consequence, the station had also breached a condition of its licence.</p>
<p>This condition – clause 8 (1) (g) – says a licence-holder will not use the broadcasting service in the commission of an offence against Commonwealth, state or territory law. The clause is part of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/">Broadcasting Services Act</a> (BSA), which ACMA administers.</p>
<p>Today FM took ACMA to court, arguing two points. First, that ACMA did not have the power to find that there had been a breach of the Surveillance Devices Act until a court of law had determined the radio station’s guilt. Second, that if ACMA did have the power, it was constitutionally invalid because determining guilt or innocence was exclusively the job of the courts.</p>
<p>After an <a href="https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#article=305064">initial hearing</a> in the Federal Court won by ACMA and an <a href="https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#article=317423">appeal</a> to the Full Federal Court won by Today FM, the matter came before the High Court.</p>
<p>Earlier this week, the High Court decided unanimously in ACMA’s favour – with costs against Today FM. The court wasn’t buying Today FM’s first argument for a moment, saying it was wrong as a matter of legal principle to claim that an administrative body such as ACMA could not conclude that its rules had been breached by a criminal act until the criminality had been proved in a criminal court.</p>
<p>The High Court distinguished the committing of an offence from conviction for an offence. It ruled that it was within ACMA’s powers to come to a view about whether an offence had been committed, and to act on that view, because in doing so it was not deciding guilt or innocence. To construe the law so that any action by ACMA was contingent on a court’s arriving at a criminal conviction would confine ACMA’s powers in a way that the Broadcasting Services Act did not support.</p>
<p>In a crucial passage of its judgment, the High Court said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In determining that a licensee has breached the clause 8 (1) (g) condition, as a preliminary to taking enforcement action, the Authority is not adjudging and punishing criminal guilt. It is not constrained by the criminal standard of proof and it may take into account material that would not be admitted in the trial of a person charged with a relevant offence. It may find that the broadcasting service has been used in the commission of an offence notwithstanding that there has been no finding by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction that the offence has been proven. Where a person is prosecuted for the relevant offence, the Authority is not bound by the outcome of the criminal proceeding and may come to a contrary view based upon the material and submissions before it.</p>
<p>It follows that the provisions of the BSA which empower the Authority to investigate the breach of a licence condition, report on the investigation and take administrative enforcement action do not require, in the case of the clause 8 (1) (g) licence condition, that any such action be deferred until after (if at all) a court exercising criminal jurisdiction has found that the relevant offence is proven.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At this stage, ACMA has not published its report on the matter and has not signalled what enforcement action it might take. There has been some <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/acma-could-take-todayfm-off-air-after-court-ruling-over-royal-prank/story-e6frg996-1227247536106">speculation</a> that Today FM might be taken off the air for a couple of hours.</p>
<p>The significance of the High Court ruling lies in its clear assertion of the principle that an administrative authority such as ACMA does not have to jump the very high hurdle of proving criminal guilt in order to do its administrative job. This is even the case where that might entail arriving at a view about a breach of the criminal law on which it can then mete out punishment.</p>
<p>ACMA operates in a highly litigious environment. This can make the running of its media accountability functions very expensive even in a relatively straightforward case like this, where Today FM had clearly misbehaved. That the case ran all the way to the High Court illustrates this point.</p>
<p>Since ACMA has power of commercial life and death over broadcast licensees, the existence of legal protections for broadcasters is necessary. But after the High Court judgment, ACMA is likely to be able to deal more swiftly with this kind of case – and with less risk of incurring large legal bills.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38438/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After a High Court win over Today FM, ACMA is likely to be able to deal more swiftly with this kind of case – and with less risk of incurring large legal bills.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/197632013-11-19T03:42:44Z2013-11-19T03:42:44ZBe careful what you ask for: ACMA’s bid for more power<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34432/original/trqxk2y5-1383609810.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The media regulator ACMA has been able to do little about breaches to the broadcasting guidelines, and is calling for greater mid-strength powers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracey Nearmy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A media super-regulator, bigger and bolder than anything considered by the ALP? Or just an ambitious government agency engaged in street theatre as the Coalition slashes the public service? Those are questions for anyone reading the upbeat <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/mediacomms/Report/pdf/ACM_AnnualReport1213_WEB%20FA%20pdf.pdf">annual report</a> from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (<a href="http://www.acma.gov.au">ACMA</a>). </p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-finkelstein-inquiry-into-media-regulation-experts-respond-5675">Finkelstein report</a> into media regulation is dead. It is unlikely to be disinterred as long as Murdoch’s media group keeps <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-in-the-box-seat-says-murdoch-20131031-2wma5.html">cheerleading</a> about ‘The Australian Century’ and a mining magnate doesn’t buy <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-does-gina-rinehart-want-control-of-fairfax-7774">influence</a> by swallowing Fairfax or APN. </p>
<p>It is also unlikely to be disinterred while we continue to ignore the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/mediacomms/Report/pdf/ACM_AnnualReport1213_WEB%20FA%20pdf.pdf">governance failures</a> highlighted in the current <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/440654/Hacking-trial-Rebekah-Brooks-bought-details-of-dead-soldiers-at-The-Sun">trial</a> of senior <a href="https://theconversation.com/book-review-breaking-news-sex-lies-and-the-murdoch-succession-18835">Murdoch executive</a> Rebekah Brooks. </p>
<p>What does that mean for print and the electronic media? </p>
<p>It’s a question worth asking as the Australian Law Reform Commission <a href="http://www.alrc.gov.au/news-media/media-release/alrc-seeks-input-serious-invasion-privacy-law-reform">explores</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/far-from-sinister-privacy-laws-might-mean-media-does-its-job-better-3326">remedies</a> for the sort of abuses that killed off the News of the World. </p>
<p>It’s also worth asking because although the <a href="https://theconversation.com/media-reforms-a-historic-opportunity-missed-12963">Press Council</a> – no power, no enthusiasm, few resources – has stopped lamenting its weakness in dealing with the print giants that regulatory incapacity remains.</p>
<p>The Council is a non-government body, one that can’t be expected to discipline its parents. The Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA) is somewhat different. It’s a government agency that has power under national broadcast and telecommunications law. ACMA wants more power, much more, as it indicates in its annual report. </p>
<p>ACMA has been significantly more activist in dealing with online privacy problems than the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. However, there are questions about its regulation of the commercial broadcasters. Do weaknesses in the law mean that regulation is a matter of soft touch rather than co-regulatory light touch. Should we be strengthening ACMA’s powers? Would ACMA use its authority?</p>
<p>In theory, ACMA has the regulator’s ultimate power. It can shut down a station or network. In practice the commercial broadcasters know it is not going to use the regulatory equivalent of the H Bomb. They have a commercial incentive to disregard criticisms by ACMA and to contest penalties imposed by the regulator. </p>
<p>They also have a corporate culture that emphasises going right up to the line – and beyond – and offering apology afterwards. Expressions of remorse are useless because figures who have been recurrently condemned for misbehaviour stay on the air. Incidents such as the <a href="http://www.api-network.com/main/index.php?apply=reviews&webpage=api_reviews&flexedit=&flex_password=&menu_label=&menuID=homely&menubox=&Review=5160">Cash For Comments Affair</a> – and Alan Jones’ egregious comments about Julia Gillard – demonstrate that golden tonsils are more important than contrition.</p>
<p>In its latest annual report ACMA refers to the need for “more flexible responses” to broadcasters. Those responses appear to include scope for deterring misbehaviour through imposition of stronger penalties – some strategic bombing rather than mutually assured destruction.</p>
<p>More broadly, ACMA refers to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…the logic of bringing together all the various elements of media and communications under the umbrella of a single regulatory agency that can deliver timely, “fit-for-purpose” outcomes – a body with a broad remit, empowered with a scalable set of powers and a culture that allows it to operate flexibly in a range of modes and pervasive relationships. The ACMA stands ready to meet that challenge.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One response is to ask whether ACMA would use its powers. ACMA is good at image management and has continually indicated that it’s getting serious. But despite <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/172620,acma-launches-formal-telco-complaints-inquiry.aspx">protestations</a> in 2010 that ACMA was “nailing its colours to the mast” there’s been little action. That might be because ACMA’s experienced regulatory capture (it views its function through the eyes of the businesses it regulates) rather than because it has too few powers.</p>
<p>Another question is whether errant broadcasters would respond rather than factoring penalties into their cost of business, out-litigating the regulator or simply lobbying political parties that have respected shock jocks more than voters? </p>
<p>An underlying question, one that won’t be answered under the current government, is where does co-regulation fit into a brave new world of a super-ACMA? </p>
<p>ACMA is a result of a compromise, with the commercial broadcasters having considerable autonomy under <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib311250/aust_b-casting_industry_codes_and_standards.pdf">industry codes</a> of practice. </p>
<p>That’s the dominant model in much Australian regulation of business, with <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/">law</a> essentially authorising private rules that developed by commercial entities and that pose substantive risks of regulatory capture.</p>
<p>The broadcasters are unlikely to welcome an amended regime that gives more power to an activist ACMA, that tightens up the permissive industry codes or requires broadcasters to take complaints seriously. Print publishers – online and offline – are going to be even more reluctant to applaud ACMA’s hubris. Consumer advocates will also be sceptical.</p>
<p>We might wonder whether ACMA’s call for a different regime is in essence a sort of street theatre, a bureaucratic ambit claim. Its executives know that they’re not going to be given what they ask for. They know that industry is aware of that likelihood. Imperial ambitions are useful under a government that’s busy cutting the public sector – threatened agencies bolster their position by taking on responsibility.</p>
<p>ACMA might be frightened and embarrassed if its ambitions come true. Consumers and small digital businesses should rightly be even more frightened.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19763/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A media super-regulator, bigger and bolder than anything considered by the ALP? Or just an ambitious government agency engaged in street theatre as the Coalition slashes the public service? Those are questions…Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/112372012-12-10T00:26:07Z2012-12-10T00:26:07ZACMA among those responsible for hospital prank fallout<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18463/original/7kqhsvfv-1355096798.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">2Day FM hosts Mel Greig and Michael Christian must be held to account by ACMA.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Southern Cross Austereo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sadly, few of those outraged over the Kate Middleton hospital prank will understand that the presenters responsible are not journalists but entertainers. For that role they are covered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and not the ethics of Media and Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA).</p>
<p>If they were covered by the MEAA, warning bells would have rung well before the piece was put to air. Such a prank does not fit with the journalistic rules of honesty, fairness, independence and the rights of others. </p>
<p>Kate’s health might have great public interest, but any woman in the early stages of pregnancy deserves privacy and to be kept safe from the stress of the public gaze. If the presenters were journalists, they would have had to pay attention to an <a href="http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html">ethics clause</a> that says, “Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence”.</p>
<p>And that’s the main point of this. The decision to put that prank to air was commercial. The presenters at the centre of the hospital prank were out to win in a cut-throat ratings city.</p>
<p>But just like the contestants in The Hunger Games, the ones who are really to blame are those behind the antics: the audience members who voted overwhelmingly that it was a good gag, and the program directors, company directors, and lawyer who approved it going to air. The lawyer decided there was nothing illegal in the actions, but did anyone in the room reviewing the pre-recorded program piece have a moral compass?</p>
<p>Sadly, the only way to get a moral compass for some, it appears, is to be threatened with big stick. So here is another potential villain in this saga: ACMA. If the Australian Communications and Media Authority had had a track record of being stronger, then perhaps someone would have stopped that piece going to air.</p>
<p>ACMA is the same body that sent Alan Jones for <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-very-naughty-parrot-acma-sends-alan-jones-back-to-school-10212">“fact” training</a>, and gave John Laws a mere reprimand for the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD...PC/pc=PC_310821">cash for comment</a> scandal. If ACMA had taken a harder line with these matters and with <a href="http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/power-fail/acma-kyle-sandilands-breached-radio-code/201203261201">Kyle Sandilands</a> for his foul comments to a rape victim and subsequently a female journalist, would someone at Austereo have stopped to think harder and longer about putting this piece to air? </p>
<p>It’s not as though episodes like this were not already on the radar for Australian media as being a potential ethics and legal storm. Remember when Channel Seven got in trouble for its <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3151129.htm">hospital invasion</a> in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake?</p>
<p>Will ACMA now consider revoking the station’s broadcasting licence? It’s unlikely.</p>
<p>Prank calls are for teenagers. It’s time commercial radio contributed to lifting the public discourse in this country and stopped pandering to the lowest common denominator. Maybe it’s time for breakfast radio to ditch its infantile persona and aspire to something better. </p>
<p>They need to do so for all of us who have had a loved one in hospital and have relied on nursing staff to tell us, “Get on a plane now” or, “It’s okay, you don’t need to worry”. I wonder how many nurses will now tell us nothing by phone until we disclose our mother’s maiden name.</p>
<p>I spend a lot of time in my classes talking about the need to treat people (such as nurses) with respect. I try to ensure they are fully aware of the impact of media glare on the general public, particularly those under stress. </p>
<p>Sadly, there will always be a percentage of media workers out there who will push the boundaries in a misguided attempt to get a scoop. Big companies including hospitals should be prepared to manage that. A couple of night duty nurses shouldn’t have been left exposed to cop the flack. This is one of the few good reasons we have public relations specialists.</p>
<p>But in the end, it’s media companies who must be held accountable for this kind of stunt. It’s time for ACMA to step up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11237/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake is Member of the Education Advisory Board for Mindframe, Hunter Mental Health Institute and was Asia Pacific 2011 Dart Center Academic Fellowship, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in New York City..</span></em></p>Sadly, few of those outraged over the Kate Middleton hospital prank will understand that the presenters responsible are not journalists but entertainers. For that role they are covered by the Australian…Alexandra Wake, Lecturer, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/70832012-05-17T22:51:19Z2012-05-17T22:51:19ZWeb activists Avaaz put Lachlan Murdoch’s media interests under the spotlight<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10754/original/3sjpfvrw-1337233627.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lachlan Murdoch's familial and professional links with News Corporation - as well as Channel 10 and radio network DMG - are cause for concern for internet activists Avaaz. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The worldwide online activist group <a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en/">Avaaz</a>, which claims over 14 million members and operations in 193 countries, has this week <a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en/australia_investigate_lachlan_murdoch/?cUcEAbb">launched an Australian campaign against Lachlan Murdoch</a>.</p>
<p>The group has written to the chair of the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA), Chris Chapman, seeking an inquiry into Lachlan Murdoch’s links with News Limited, Channel 10 and radio networks DMG and Nova.</p>
<p>In an one-line email response to The Conversation, an ACMA spokesperson indicated that normal practice is not to comment on complaints.</p>
<p>According to Avaaz’s letter to ACMA, the group is alleging that Lachlan Murdoch could be in breach of the Broadcasting Services Act because he might be in a position of influence and control over three media companies that operate in the Sydney radio licence area.</p>
<p>The Broadcasting Services Act outlines a situation of “unacceptable three-way control”, where an individual is in a position to exercise control over a commercial radio licence, a newspaper and a television station in one metropolitan market.</p>
<p>The claim hinges on two factors: Lachlan Murdoch’s non-executive directorship of News Corporation (headquartered in the USA) and his family ties to father Rupert and brother James.</p>
<p>The Murodchs’ Australian operation, News Limited, is a wholly owned subsidiary of News Corp and Avaaz argues that Lachlan’s “strong associations” with his father – chairman and CEO of News Corp and chairman of News Limited in Australia – are enough to suggest he is in a position of influence and control over News Limited.</p>
<p>Lachlan is also on the board of Network Ten and has been chair of DMG radio since 2009. Avaaz further suggests that Lachlan’s association with the Murdoch family trust and the dual share structure of News Corp, which gives the Murdoch family effective control over the company, points to his ability to control what News Limited is doing in Australia.</p>
<p>Avaaz is relying on definitions of “associate” and “control” in the Broadcasting Services Act. An associate can be a person or a company that acts in concert with another person or company to exercise control over relevant media assets in the designated radio licence area. Control is also broadly defined to include control as a result of, or by means of, trusts, agreements, arrangements, understandings and practices, whether or not these have legal or equitable force and whether or not they based on legal or equitable rights.</p>
<p>However, in a statement released to the media, ACMA says that Lachlan Murdoch does not appear on the regulators schedule as a controller of News Limited assets in Australia. As such, he is not in breach of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/s61aea.html">cross-media ownership rules</a> and there is no “unacceptable three-way control” situation.</p>
<p>When The Conversation sought clarification of this position, we were advised that the only statement ACMA would be making was a few lines issued the previous day via the Bloomberg news agency and published in the <a href="http://m.smh.com.au/business/news-shareholders-shrug-off-market-bloodletting-20120516-1yr7t.html">Sydney Morning Herald</a>.</p>
<p><em>“The ACMA’s public register of controllers does not include [Lachlan Murdoch] as a controller of the News Corp/News Ltd newspapers. It naturally follows that we don’t regard him as a controller. He’s only listed there as controller of radio and TV assets.”</em></p>
<p>After numerous phone calls and emails, we are no closer to understanding whether ACMA intends to take this matter any further, or if the “complaint” from Avaaz has been dealt with by way of Wednesday’s brief media statement.</p>
<p>Attempts to contact a local Avaaz spokesperson have also come to nought.</p>
<p><strong>The global chase</strong></p>
<p>Avaaz has been chasing the Murdoch family around the world for the past year. The group stages media events in London when Rupert or his sons appear in public. In April last year, members of the group <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/24/avaaz-activist-network-rupert-murdoch">gathered outside the High Court</a> to highlight the News of the World hacking scandal.</p>
<p>Then in July last year another colourful demonstration (that included activists with Rupert masks) was held outside Westminster. </p>
<p>Avaaz was back again last week when former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/05/11/Former-Murdoch-exec-speaks-before-inquiry/UPI-47271336754143/?spt=hs&or=tn">gave evidence before the Leveson inquiry</a>.</p>
<p>In Australia, Avaaz has previously campaigned against <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-06/accusations-fly-over-australia-network-decision/3714294">Sky News getting the Australia Network channel contract</a>, which the government eventually gave to the ABC under less than transparent circumstances.</p>
<p>Avaaz works through an online network and claims over 300,000 supporters in Australia. Alongside its colourful protest actions, Avaaz also campaigns through online petitions that it claims attract millions of respondents.</p>
<p>The group’s Australian targets also spread beyond the Murdoch clan. In February, Avaaz launched a petition opposing Gina Rinehart’s buy up of shares in the Fairfax Media group. However, it appears that the petition has not gained the 50,000 signatures the group was seeking before presenting it to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Ms Rinehart is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/editorial-pledge-bar-to-rinehart-fairfax-seat/story-e6frg8zx-1226358200439">keeping up the pressure</a> on the Fairfax Media board to give her two directorships. So far the board has refused, though chairman Roger Corbett is reportedly doing the rounds to shore up his “non-intervention” pact with other directors.</p>
<p>In February this year, Avaaz launched a petition to the British broadcasting regulator Ofcom. The group describes News International as the “Murdoch mafia”.</p>
<p>Over 50,000 have so far signed the online form to <a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en/end_the_murdoch_mafia/">support the petition</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Kiwi regulators to take a look at Sky too</strong></p>
<p>Its also been reported this week that the New Zealand competition regulator is examining business deals involving local News Corp assets.</p>
<p>After giving a green light to join venture plans between TVNZ and Sky to launch <a href="http://www.igloo.co.nz/pages/home.php">Igloo</a>, a low-cost pre-paid <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPTV">IPTV</a> operation, the NZ Commerce Commission has signaled <a href="http://www.comcom.govt.nz/media-releases/detail/2012/commission-finds-igloo-joint-venture-unlikely-to-lessen-competition-in-pay-tv-market">another investigation</a> into Sky’s dealing with ISPs that may have competition implications.</p>
<p>Shares in Sky New Zealand apparently fell in response to this news and it seems that News Corporation and its local subsidiaries in several countries are now firmly in the cross-hairs of <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-rupert-murdoch-safe-from-australian-regulators-6875">regulators, politicians and activists</a> alike.</p>
<p>All this attention must make it uncomfortable for Rupert and his children when they have discussions with other board members, or field questions from shareholders.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7083/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.</span></em></p>The worldwide online activist group Avaaz, which claims over 14 million members and operations in 193 countries, has this week launched an Australian campaign against Lachlan Murdoch. The group has written…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/68752012-05-07T03:46:08Z2012-05-07T03:46:08ZIs Rupert Murdoch safe from Australian regulators?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10407/original/wnmwnqsz-1336360307.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C65%2C1892%2C1119&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australian media regulators would take an active interest in attempts by News Limited to increase its stake in Foxtel.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Problems facing media moguls Rupert and James Murdoch in the United Kingdom and the United States have yet to have an impact in Australia.</p>
<p>But if recent speculation is true that News Limited might be a buyer for James Packer’s 25% Foxtel stake, Murdoch could find himself in a forest of acronyms as various regulatory agencies – the Australian Consumer and Competition commission (ACCC), the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) – take an active interest.</p>
<p>The continuing storm over the handling of the UK phone hacking scandal has seen a British parliamentary committee find Murdoch senior is not a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jul/07/bskyb-bid-ofcom-fit-and-proper">fit and proper person</a> to run a multinational media company.</p>
<p>The phone-hacking and police bribery scandal has led to more than 40 arrests in Britain and to a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/marketforceslive/2012/apr/05/bskyb-shares-plunge-email-hacking">Sky news reporter admitting to hacking emails</a> in pursuit of a story.</p>
<p>These revelations have also led to low-level investigations of News operations in the United States. In July last year, the FBI was <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0714/FBI-to-investigate-Rupert-Murdoch-s-News-Corp.-Did-it-hack-9-11-victims">reportedly opening an investigation</a> of allegations that News reporters may have hacked the phones of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC.</p>
<p>There is no recent information to confirm that any investigation is on-going in the US. However, American politicians – always on the look out for a media opportunity – have signaled they are taking a keen interest in the British parliamentary report and the Leveson inquiry. A Washington DC ethics lobby group has also written to the US Federal Communications Commission seeking an inquiry into Murdoch’s control of the Fox network.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/fcc-revoke-murdoch-broadcast-licenses-news-corp-fox">Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics</a> in Washington (CREW) want the FCC to revoke Foxtel’s broadcasting licences. A US senator has also written to the chair of the Leveson inquiry seeking any information that might suggest American laws have been broken by News journalists.</p>
<p>Even is there is no illegality, Murdoch does face some problems in the US. Under American law, the finding that he is not a fit and proper person to run a business in the UK <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/03/senator-jay-rockefeller-investigate-rupert-murdoch.html">can be used to trigger an inquiry in the USA</a>.</p>
<p>These ongoing worries are more than an embarrassment to the octogenarian patriarch; they are a debilitating overhang that could ultimately affect the fate of News Corporation – the parent company that manages the family’s global media business interests, including News Limited in Australia and News International in the UK. For example, BSkyB shares took a hit on UK markets after the email hacking story came to light.</p>
<p>There is no suggestion at the moment that News Limited staff ever engaged in phone-hacking or other illegal behaviour in Australia and so far there has been no real damage to Murdoch’s assets here.</p>
<p>The Independent Media Inquiry (the Finkelstein inquiry) was convened to examine issues of standards and accountability in the Australian news media, but its terms of reference did not mention News Limited in particular. The inquiry’s report is largely forgotten and the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review recommendations</a> are unlikely to have much impact over the next 18 months.</p>
<p>However, in the last two weeks, speculation about James Packer’s possible sale of his company’s stake in Foxtel has in turn led to further questions about whether an embattled Rupert Murdoch would be in a position to pick up the shares and <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/james-packer-to-sell-25-per-cent-of-foxtel-stake/story-e6frfig6-1226345213361">increase News Limited’s holding in Foxtel</a>.</p>
<p>Currently telecommunications provider Telstra holds 50% of Foxtel, with James Packer’s Consolidated Media Holdings and Murdoch’s News Corporation holding the balance in their joint-venture Sky Cable.</p>
<p>Media industry analysts are so far suggesting that there <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/convergence-review/analysts-say-no-merger-frenzy-is-expected-as-a-result-of-freer-media-ownership/story-fndfobdt-1226348203715">won’t be a round of mergers or sales in the short term</a>; partly because of uncertainty about the fate of Convergence Review reforms, but also because no one is particularly cashed-up at the moment.</p>
<p>The main bidders for Packer’s stake in Sky Cable are likely to be News Corp or Telstra and the sale could attract some interest from various business and media regulators – particularly in regard to competition and media diversity. At some point too, a suitability test could be applied – but perhaps not directly to Rupert Murdoch himself.</p>
<p>But unravelling the regulatory strings is not easy as the transaction would be covered by several pieces of legislation, each administered by a separate arm of the bureaucracy.</p>
<p><strong>Foreign Investment Review Board</strong></p>
<p>The Broadcasting Services Act of 1992 does not place any restrictions on foreign ownership of media assets – this is covered under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act of 1975 and government policy. </p>
<p>Ultimately the Foreign Investment Review Board might take a view on any sale or merger involving Foxtel as Murdoch himself is now a “foreigner” in Australia having taken out US citizenship in the 1980s.</p>
<p><strong>Australian Communications and Media Authority</strong></p>
<p>The Broadcasting Services Act does have a section allowing ACMA to administer a “suitability” test for licence holders. This test is not the same as the “fit and proper” person test that the British regulator <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">Ofcom</a> is currently considering in the BSkyB case.</p>
<p>The suitability test would apply to the licensee company – in the Australian case Foxtel – and would only be triggered if the ACMA believed there was a “significant risk” that provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act might be breached by Murdoch or anyone else buying the CMH shares.</p>
<p>In the context of a sale of some or all of Packer’s shares to Foxtel, the provisions of section 98(3) of the Broadcasting Services Act could deal directly with questions about Rupert Murdoch as it requires the regulator to take into account the “business record” of anyone in a position to “exercise control” over the subscription service licence.
At this stage all that ACMA will say is that it is monitoring the British situation but making no further comment.</p>
<p><strong>Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</strong></p>
<p>The ACCC deals with issues of competition, oligopoly and monopoly and recently decided not to stand in the way of Foxtel’s acquisition of ailing subscription TV competitor Austar. Foxtel gave some guarantees that it would not monopolise content (particularly in sports, drama and movies) which satisfied the Commission.</p>
<p>Under current boss Rod Sims, the ACCC is taking a <a href="http://afr.com/p/national/accc_flags_lighter_touch_on_mergers_UoUyR4nZFqM472HggDYelK">“light touch”</a>) approach to regulation and the ACCC is really only interested in ensuring there is competition in the delivery of content. If there is no lessening of diversity in terms of content, then the ACCC has no role in preventing News Limited from increasing its control over Foxtel. </p>
<p><strong>So what next?</strong></p>
<p>For the time being Rupert Murdoch’s Australian empire – the birthplace of his wealth, ambition and influence – seems safe and intact. He is not personally under attack here and neither Foxtel nor News Limited appear in any immediate or medium term danger of attracting any adverse interest from regulators.</p>
<p>Over the longer term, however, the danger could be a domino-effect if shares in the various arms of the News Corporation octopus start to suffer a value decline as a result of more bad news in the UK – such as Ofcom refusing to allow the BSkyB acquisition to proceed – or a ramping up of any US investigations into alleged phone-hacking or other potential criminal activity in that jurisdiction.</p>
<p>One American investment adviser has already downgraded News Corp and has written that the company may be in <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Rupert-Murdoch-News-Corp-hacking-BSkyB-shares-pd20120502-TVSKV?OpenDocument&src=sph">danger of losing faith with important institutional investors</a>.</p>
<p>Late last year both Rupert and James copped an angry serve from investors at News Corp’s AGM and four months later James stepped down as head of BSkyB in the UK.</p>
<p>It is not likely that the Murdochs will lose control of News Corp – they own nearly 40% of voting stock – but the company could be damaged if the share price falls or long-term institutional investors walk away. Just last month Murdoch’s stranglehold on the voting stock in News was further weakened when one of his major shareholder allies, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal lost voting rights temporarily, but perhaps indefinitely. It appears there has been a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9212598/Rupert-Murdochs-News-Corp-breaches-US-foreign-investor-law.html">technical breach of US law</a> and some Class B voting stock has been suspended until the breach is overcome.</p>
<p>Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a member of the Saudi royal family and News Corp’s second biggest shareholder with around 7% of voting rights. The loss of his support could affect Murdoch’s ability to hang on in a tight shareholder tussle.</p>
<p>It is indeed a tangled web that the 81-year-old has spun around himself and the News Corporation empire. Now it seems some threads are perhaps choking Murdoch while, at the same time, others are unravelling around him.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6875/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. He is the conference director for the Journalism Education Association of Australia's 2012 conference later this year.</span></em></p>Problems facing media moguls Rupert and James Murdoch in the United Kingdom and the United States have yet to have an impact in Australia. But if recent speculation is true that News Limited might be a…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/67582012-05-01T04:17:33Z2012-05-01T04:17:33ZConvergence Review: media business as usual<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10180/original/vygj26dy-1335843648.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C38%2C1898%2C1323&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Dull grey tone: media organisations are "Content service enterprises", according to the Convergence Review.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review’s final report</a> is remarkable for its blandness and predictability.</p>
<p>Despite the cries of fear and loathing from the Murdoch stable that the cold hand of government intervention was upon us, the review has explicitly rejected <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Ray Finkelstein’s suggestion</a> that a statutory News Media Council should be established by legislation.</p>
<p>What we have in this report is an attempt to play regulation catch up with digital convergence, while preserving flexibility to adapt quickly to further change. It is a difficult balance and the report fails to meet the challenge.</p>
<p>The Convergence Review has opted to suggest a set of principles, rather than prescription in order for any new regulatory regime to remain nimble and effective. Unfortunately, the recommendations are weak and in some cases almost totally unworkable.</p>
<h2>Two tier regulation</h2>
<p>There will be two types of regulation in the system proposed by Glen Boreham and his fellow reviewers. The first will be a much trimmer version of the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">Australian Communication and Media Authority</a> that will apply a very light touch regulation of ownership issues and spectrum allocation and it will incorporate a revised classifications process for media content (except news and current affairs). New regulations will be applied to media companies according to their size and reach. If companies outside the limit grow, they will then be included.</p>
<p>To establish the second arm of self-regulation, the review has politely invited the nation’s top 15 news content providers to join what would essentially be a souped-up <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a>. These top 15 providers are measured by audience reach and revenues with the cut-off for regulation being revenue of around $50 million a year and/or audience reach of about 500,000 per month.</p>
<p>In a line straight out of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister">“Yes, Minister”</a>, the report has coined a new term that continues the dull grey tone of the text. Media organisations – whether in print, broadcast or online, will be henceforth deemed to be “content service enterprises”. </p>
<p>This bureaucratic mouthful sits alongside other gems of government prose such as “uniform content scheme” and “television-like services”. The new self-regulation body will only apply to the major “content service enterprises” whose business is the provision of news and commentary and membership is voluntary.</p>
<p>In what appears to a rejection of the Finkelstein proposal to bring bloggers and social media into the regulation net, the size and service provisions, and what the report describes as the publishing or broadcast of ‘professional news and commentary’, means that amateur and citizen journalism is not subject to regulation. But Telstra and Google too would be outside the framework, according to the Review’s figures. This has naturally upset some of the other media players.</p>
<h2>Clayton’s reform</h2>
<p>This report and its recommendations is the sort of Clayton’s reform we have come to expect from expensive government inquiries; fiddle with the terminology, shuffle the paper, look busy for a while, collect the cheque and quietly slip out the backdoor. </p>
<p>The report is very business friendly – there’s nothing in here to frighten the market and nothing to excite or enthuse anyone campaigning for real and meaningful change.
The only substantial achievement in this review is a recognition that convergence in media technologies and platforms means that there must be some sort of change. However, only mild change has been proposed; really it’s no more than tinkering.</p>
<h2>Spectrum Fees</h2>
<p>The broadcast licence fee will be replaced with a spectrum fee, so this alteration to the status quo – while appearing significant – is only semantics. Media organisations will still pay for the right to broadcast free-to-air TV, but the spectrum can be bought and sold or traded on the open market.</p>
<h2>Local Content</h2>
<p>The report recommends that the ABC and the SBS be brought into the new Australian content rules through designated quotas and levies on the commercial networks. The “converged content production fund” will be used to produce content, but whether or not it will go past “New Same, with added MORE” is yet to be decided.</p>
<h2>Industry-approved regulation of news and commentary</h2>
<p>The key recommendation about news and current affairs is the “industry-led” body that will oversight “journalistic standards” across all platforms. This is a Press Council on steroids.</p>
<p>The self-regulatory body for news and commentary – the Press Council supersized – would administer codes around fairness, accuracy and transparency; hear complaints and make determinations and regulate “journalistic standards”. Platform neutrality is a key determining factor emphasised in this report, which argues there is no longer any justification for separate self-regulation given the platform cross-over between publishing, broadcasting and online delivery.</p>
<p>However, getting the various industry groups and media companies to agree to this structure may be difficult. Current arrangements for the Press Council and for commercial radio and commercial television providers are purely voluntary, but the Review sees this as a “structural weakness” and argues that the largest content service enterprises should be pushed to join: “The structural weakness of this purely self-regulatory model is addressed under the Review’s approach, which will ensure that all content service enterprises are subject to standards and sanctions set by the news standards body.” </p>
<p>The government’s “stick” to ensure compliance with this approach would be that current exemptions to privacy or competition law enjoyed by news providers would be conditional on membership of the new self-regulation body.
The radio and television industry lobby groups have not yet responded to the Convergence Review report, but it is hard to imagine them giving up their independence without inducements or coercion.</p>
<p>At best this suggested change amounts to a new set of dentures for the existing publisher’s poodle. It will be able to accept sanitised government funding in ways that will not upset the old-guard in the newspaper industry who see Armageddon in every attempt at regulation by government. There is no indication in this 170+ page report that there is any real problem or issue with media accountability and standards in Australia. This is a whitewash of the highest standard.</p>
<h2>A public interest test for ownership</h2>
<p>The report pays lip service to the idea – long argued by critics of the mainstream – that market forces can lead to oligopoly and monopoly and that this is bad for media “diversity”. A public interest test will be introduced that will examine ownership issues from a broader perspective than simple market economics and the test would be invoked when a “content service enterprise” changes ownership. However, no one contemplating becoming a media mogul should be too concerned, despite howls of protest that this change somehow “politicises” the review process. The Review argues that the onus of proof should be on the regulator to prove that a proposed sale is not in the public interest.</p>
<p>The previous market-share ownership rules will be replaced, but the new system sounds remarkably like the old one. The new rule will be known as the “minimum number of owners” clause. The often cumbersome rules regarding television, radio and print media will be removed, but the networks and newspapers have not had their ambitions of no ownership rules at all realized. The effect of the public interest test will not be known until it is tested in use, but the Australian media market is already heavily controlled by a few companies and this is likely to remain the case. There is no positive suggestion that existing near-monopolies be dismantled. Under “minimum number of owners”, hybrids such as NineMSN and Yahoo will also be caught up in the regulatory net for the first time.</p>
<p>The report says these rules should be complementary to the ACCC and other competition regulation, not duplicate them; so it is hard to see that there will be teeth in the public interest test. Just in case though, there is an out clause that allows the public interest to be over-ridden if there is a greater public interest in allowing concentration of ownership. Sir Humphrey’s fingerprints are all over this report.</p>
<h2>Security for public and community broadcasting</h2>
<p>The report recommends that community television be given some certainty about its future and argues that the abolition of licence fees in favour of permanently allocated spectrum should benefit community broadcasters. It has long been a scandal that community television has been operating (for more than 20 years) on ‘temporary’ licences and the low threshold for sponsorship for community broadcasting limits its potential to increase revenue.</p>
<p>The report also recommends a review of the ABC and SBC charters to reflect convergence. This seems straightforward, but lurking behind the curtain is a move by the commercial operators to quarantine their activities from competition from publicly-funded broadcasters. This push has been led in the UK and Australia by Rupert and James Murdoch who have argued for years that the BBC and ABC are taking food from their mouths.</p>
<p>This is a self-serving argument and we will have to be vigilant to ensure that the ABC and the SBS are not hamstrung by any changes.</p>
<h2>The political reality</h2>
<p>The report has been released and the process is now in the political sphere for action. However, with an election due by October next year and the parliamentary landscape littered with bodies at the moment, it is highly unlikely that the Communications Minister will move quickly to implement any of the review’s recommendations.</p>
<p>The report suggests a staged approach to development and implementation of its recommendations, but stage 1—stand-alone changes that can be achieved in the short term, including the public interest test, requires that the new regulator be established first. I doubt Stephen Conroy will be in any hurry to move on this given the likely hostile response he would get from the Opposition and from some quarters of the media.</p>
<p>Overall this is a fairly mediocre piece of work – it does not attempt to do anything innovative or radical in relation to convergence, regulation or standards. The supersized Press Council (Mark II) may or may not get off the ground, but why would the broadcasters give up their own self-regulation systems in the first place?</p>
<p>This review, like many others, will gather dust. The words “fiddling”, “Rome” and “burning” come to mind.</p>
<h2>News media regulation at a glance</h2>
<p>The key features of the Convergence Review’s approach include:</p>
<ul>
<li>major media organisations should be required to participate in any scheme regardless of platform and not be able to “opt out”</li>
<li>any scheme should have adequate funding, a majority of which should come from the industry</li>
<li>sanctions for failure to meet standards should be meaningful and credible</li>
<li>regulation should not impinge on free speech and an independent press.</li>
<li>The Review says that government-backed regulation of news content should only be a “last resort”.</li>
</ul>
<p>In addition, the new self-managed body would, the report says, have the following characteristics:</p>
<ul>
<li>the appointment of a board of directors, a majority of whom would be independent from the members</li>
<li>adequate funding and resourcing of the body and its operations</li>
<li>the establishment of standards for the production of news and commentary, including specific requirements for fairness and accuracy</li>
<li>the maintenance of an efficient and effective complaints-based scheme</li>
<li>a flexible range of remedies and credible sanctions, including the power to order members to prominently and appropriately publish its findings on the relevant media platform.</li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6758/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance and the Journalism Education Association of Australia.
He is director of the 2012 JEAA annual conference to be held in Melbourne from 2 to 5 December.</span></em></p>The Convergence Review’s final report is remarkable for its blandness and predictability. Despite the cries of fear and loathing from the Murdoch stable that the cold hand of government intervention was…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/67532012-05-01T01:47:13Z2012-05-01T01:47:13ZConvergence Review: tame cat Press Council gets playmate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10158/original/jzh54nrd-1335832206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The line between traditional and new media has now blurred into indistinguishability.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">flickr/francescominciotti</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It should be easy for the Gillard Government to accept the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review#report">recommendations</a> of the Convergence Review. </p>
<p>On the surface it seems all very sensible: a converged <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Press Council</a> and <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> (ACMA) to keep news organisations honest, easy to understand rules regarding media ownership, extra television channels, more Australian audio visual content, more local content, and a technology-neutral and flexible approach to media content standards. </p>
<p>(Listen to Glen Boreham from the Convergence Review team on Radio National this morning <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/report-recommends-media-changes-glen-boreham/3982056">here</a>.)</p>
<p>Some of the recommendations will be warmly welcomed – who wouldn’t support more locally made kids programs, dramas and documentaries? Who wouldn’t support more Australian music? (Even if it won’t be on the digital airways).</p>
<p>The key recommendation for journalists, to beef up the current Press Council (and rename it to a news standards body), appears sensible.</p>
<h2>Tinkering around the edges?</h2>
<p>Many in the Australian media have long argued the need for a one-stop shop for news standards which adjudicates on complaints and provides timely remedies. </p>
<p>Putting the Australian Press Council and ACMA together recognises the reality of today’s media. As the report states, “In a converged world it is no longer viable to argue that news and commentary in print media should be treated differently from news and commentary in television, radio and online. The new industry-led body should cover all platforms—print and online, television and radio.” </p>
<p>For the punters, it has always been difficult to figure out exactly where to complain or seek redress when legal action has been financially out of reach. </p>
<p>There are some strong recommendations which deserve to be applauded, but the bottom line is, the recommendations of the Convergence Review will likely do little to <a href="https://theconversation.com/search?q=phone+hacking">solve the problems that prompted public concern</a> in the United Kingdom and in Australia about news organisations their culture, ethics and practices.</p>
<h2>Culture and ethics: can they change?</h2>
<p>Unless forced, I doubt the new standards body will be able to agree to enforce a common media code aimed at promoting fairness, accuracy and transparency. Aggrieved parties have had difficulty getting action from the current Press Council, and with the addition of other content providers such as the ABC and free-to-air TV, getting agreement on action will likely be that much harder. </p>
<p>Similarly, it is unlikely that the members will agree on credible sanctions and the enforced prominent publication of its findings. While the ABC might be happy to run a full program correcting the record, I can’t imagine ever seeing a front page correction from the major broadsheets or at a fully replaced program on the tabloid current affairs programs. </p>
<p>It’s all about culture and ethics, and every news organisation has a different one, just ask those who work at NewsCorp, Fairfax, Crikey, the ABC, the Global Mail and Mammamia.com. </p>
<p>Further, the Review had not included social media and user generated content. While being defamed on a butterfly collectors blog may seem a small deal to those outside the group, it is potentially devastating, even if only 400 people have read it.</p>
<h2>News suppliers</h2>
<p>Like the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Finklestein Inquiry</a>, the Convergence Review ignores the power of the suppliers of “news”. In this regard <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/business/on-balance-its-a-pr-plague-20090303-8nex.html">Michael West is right</a> when he says that the PR plague is out of hand. </p>
<p>The PR industry is like an arms dealer supplying the fighters in a third world guerrilla war, while the journos are child soldiers unwillingly conscripted to the other side. One of the most startling pieces of evidence at the <a href="http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/">Leeveson inquiry</a> was Rupert Murdoch finally admitting that all the salacious “news” in the Sun came from PR. </p>
<p>The Convergence Review notes that it is in the public interest for the body to be appropriately resourced, and to this end suggests government contributions limited to specific purposes. However, this keeps the government (or as I’d like to say the public) out of the main debate. </p>
<p>This kind of tokenistic funding can’t help provide a much needed cultural change and will instead be like water in milk, immediately diluted.</p>
<h2>Who pays the piper</h2>
<p>The review says the majority of funding for the journalism body should come from its members. This would continue to give the existing news organisations the same power they currently have with the Press Council – the power to do little. </p>
<p>Not only that, the owners of our established but struggling news organisations are already finding it difficult to maintain or grow revenue. Current members are unlikely to want to sign up to more funding, and new members may have financial difficulties contributing. </p>
<p>Even yesterday the major television stations pleaded poverty over the proposed requirements to increase Australian content.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Convergence Review ill not deal with the kind of cultura; issues like phone hacking that are worrying many Western citizens.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Facundo Arrizabalaga</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I applaud the idea that the news standards body will refer to the new communications regulator instances where there have been persistent or serious breaches of the media code, although I’m not sure how satisfactory this can be. </p>
<p>That leads to my most serious concern - the recommendation to give the regulator the legislated power to “write-its-own-rules”. While I do not fear government funding, I certainly fear any regulator being able to make up its own rules on the run, even with a dynamic media environment. </p>
<p>Certainly the policy framework should take a technology-neutral approach that can adapt to new services, platforms and technologies, but this should not be the expense of allowing a regulator that “can apply, amend or remove regulatory measures as circumstances require” without any referral to the government (read again the Australian people).</p>
<h2>Capital ideas</h2>
<p>There are a couple of other recommendations which are significant for anyone working in Australian journalism which I won’t dwell on. However, media ownership is a big issue Australia’s capital cities, but it is an even bigger issue in regional Australia. </p>
<p>Although the proposed “minimum number of owners” rule and a public interest test isn’t perfect, it’s a good step towards helping ensure a diversity of voices (and importantly jobs in the media for young Australians). </p>
<p>Also, it is important to keep the charters of both the ABC and the SBS up to date to expressly reflect the range of existing services, including online activities. No government funded organisation should work outside its charter. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6753/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake works as a freelance broadcaster, often with Radio Australia (Australian's international radio and online broadcaster). Alex previously worked with Professor Matthew Ricketson, one of the authors of the Finklestein Report. Ten years ago she worked as a senior media advisor to a state government minister. Alex is completing a PhD on journalism education in emerging democracies.
</span></em></p>It should be easy for the Gillard Government to accept the recommendations of the Convergence Review. On the surface it seems all very sensible: a converged Press Council and Australian Communications…Alexandra Wake, Lecturer, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/64662012-04-17T00:37:34Z2012-04-17T00:37:34ZSelf-regulation and a media we can trust?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9657/original/bddms6n4-1334557372.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=65%2C11%2C1907%2C1248&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Seven West Media's decision to withdraw from the Australian Press Council raises questions about the Australian commercial media’s commitment to corporate social responsibility and best practice.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When the report of the Independent Inquiry into the media and media regulation, aka <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Finkelstein inquiry</a>, was released some time ago, it was <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_rise_of_the_totalitarians/">denounced as sinister</a> and – like the <a href="http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/">Leveson Inquiry</a> in the UK – as a totalitarian assault on freedom of speech. </p>
<p>Some critics were quick to construe freedom of speech as freedom of the press, a sacred freedom that has been traditionally enjoyed by investors who own a press and have the money to hire a QC or two.</p>
<p>Finkelstein highlighted concerns regarding the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a>, an industry body that has no statutory basis or powers, is poorly resourced, does not cover the electronic media and historically has been loath to bite the corporate hands that feed it. </p>
<p>Those hands of course belong to a few commercial media organisations, consistent with the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2809848.html">high level of media concentration</a> in Australia. A realist might be forgiven for concluding that the most effective watchdog of journalistic behaviour – and managerial tolerance of misbehaviour – is the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/">ABC’s Mediawatch</a> program rather than the Council or <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)</a> that emphasises “light touch” self-regulation and has thus only ever imposed derisory penalties on errant commercial broadcasters. </p>
<p>Finkelstein (and associate Matthew Ricketson of the University of Canberra) was criticised for proposing a government-funded but independent national News Media Council, an entity with appropriate resourcing and power. Consistent with the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">“convergence”</a> of media technologies and formats, the new body would be concerned with all media rather than in the words of former Prime Minister Paul Keating being restricted to the “princes of print”. </p>
<p>Critics indicated that regulation was best left to those who know what they are doing, that is, the managers and investors who control the media groups.</p>
<p>We might be forgiven - on reading the <a href="http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/business-unit-news/statement-from-seven-west-media.pdf">terse announcement</a> from Seven West Media (the WA-based magazines and television network conglomerate) that it is abandoning the Press Council and going it alone to “guarantee accountability of all the group’s publications” – for asking whether moving house is a demonstration of improved accountability. </p>
<p>Seven West reportedly plans to set up an Independent Media Council headed by <a href="http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13408733/former-judge-to-lead-media-council/">former judge, Christopher Steytler</a>, a body which West Australian Newspapers group editor-in-chief Bob Cronin has said will be independent of the company and governments.</p>
<p>But this still raises questions about the Australian commercial media’s commitment to corporate social responsibility and best practice. </p>
<p>Will each media group set up its own Independent Media Council, each with a distinguished person at the head and each with no power? Can we trust the managers and investors to police themselves (a problematical notion given the global financial crisis) and respond effectively when concerns are raised? </p>
<p>Meanwhile the remaining members of the Press Council, apparently unfussed by Seven West’s secession, are proposing to <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/strengthening-press-council-mr-5-april-2012/?LocatorGroupID=662&LocatorFormID=677&FromSearch=1">double their funding</a> of the Council. That’s admirable … and a small price to pay in avoiding establishment of a body that has sharp teeth. </p>
<p>Trust is a fundamental issue in an environment where billionaires such as <a href="http://theconversation.com/forget-the-personality-sideshow-serious-legal-issues-are-at-the-heart-of-rinehart-family-feud-5813">Gina Rinehart</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/lew-tries-to-gag-media-in-fight-for-trust-fund-millions-20120411-1ws5z.html#ixzz1rliIWCym">Solomon Lew</a> reach for suppression orders to privatise justice, where <a href="http://theconversation.com/tax-avoidance-or-tax-evasion-a-haven-for-misunderstanding-2405">some corporations and some colourful entrepreneurs</a> have quite legally arranged their affairs to pay derisory amounts of tax (perhaps we need to adopt <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4318382.stm">Norway’s</a> publication of tax returns) and the dominant parties are reluctant to “speak truth to power”. </p>
<p>In an “information economy” power resides in the hands of people who control mines, broadcasters and newspapers and can afford the best QCs in town in litigation that keeps personal information out of the public domain. If we are to protect the Rineharts and Lews, what about the accident victims whose pain, as noted by Finkelsten, was exposed by by the broadcasters? What of figures such as <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw-mp-apologises-seven-stands-by-story-20100521-w1y7.html">David Campbell</a>, “outed” by Seven Network staff and bereft of the comfort provided by a team of QCs queuing in the NSW Supreme Court for suppression orders?</p>
<p>From a regulatory perspective Seven West’s secession from the Press Council is disappointing - and possibly counterproductive to its aims. </p>
<p>A perceived flight from accountability is likely to reinforce calls for a national, whole-of-industry body that has teeth and is trusted. Trust is a foundation for courts heeding calls by the media not to privilege disputes involving the powerful through comprehensive suppression orders.</p>
<p>As Australia’s Chief Justice commented in a decision on the Rinehart dispute, “the proper conduct of trustees is a matter which warrants close public scrutiny”. That scrutiny is appropriate and imperative whether there is $500 million at stake, or $50. There are times when we should embrace notions of a freedom of the press that overrides concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality. Those notions however should not be taken as a given. They are founded on accountability.</p>
<p>In damning proposals for statutory protection against serious invasions of privacy (proposals recommended by law reform commissions in three Australian governments and thus presumably having some substance) the <a href="http://www.ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/Downloads/Freedom_of_the_Press_and_Freedom_of_Speech_in_Australia.pdf">Rule of Law Institute last year proclaimed</a> that:</p>
<p><em>Today, nearly 200 years after the first publication of the Australian newspaper, freedom of speech and freedom of the press remain under attack. This time the battle is the proposal of the Australian Government to pass a new law to make it illegal to talk or write the truth about another person where it “invades” that person’s privacy. …</em></p>
<p><em>… freedom of speech and freedom on the press are not limited to informing the public about matters of public concern. The Bill displays a fundamental misunderstanding of those freedoms and a desire to marginalise them.</em></p>
<p>Media groups that signal a disregard for accountability by becoming judge and jury arguably do as much to marginalise freedoms as any new statute. It’s time to embrace the Finkelstein Report.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6466/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When the report of the Independent Inquiry into the media and media regulation, aka Finkelstein inquiry, was released some time ago, it was denounced as sinister and – like the Leveson Inquiry in the UK…Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/62212012-04-05T01:25:27Z2012-04-05T01:25:27ZMacho, macho man… who wants to be a macho man?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9346/original/n6w4wq9b-1333586700.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Citing machismo as an all-around barrier to men being healthy doesn't help address the problem.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ingrid Lemaire</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The attempt to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-win-for-wowsers-not-women-20120330-1w3dw.html">rein in offensive “shock jock”</a> style radio commentary received mixed reaction in the media, but the notion of banning words that might demean a particular group opens up an enticing possibility. </p>
<p>Many of us can imagine the satisfaction of being the media regulator for a day, cutting out the terms for putting down groups that include ourselves and our loved ones. In my case, negative terms for academics and column writers come to mind. </p>
<p>But for my money, if I were the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) czar for a day, I’d ban the use of the word “macho” – although, maybe not every use of the term needs to be banned. After all, I bop along to the Village People’s hit “Macho Macho Man” at the time. </p>
<p>And there are products now that may come in handy, such as <a href="http://machismoforhunks.com/">Machismo Pills</a> – the all-natural erection enhancers that last for five days and guarantee multiple orgasms. Or the distinctive <a href="http://machounderwear.com.au/">Macho underwear</a> – “designed in Spain and manufactured in Columbia”. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/06Ki00emW50?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p></p><figure> <p></p>
<p>More borderline cases come from the quirky names that astronomers give to their projects, such as one searching for the dark matter in the universe. The <a href="http://www.astro.caltech.edu/%7Egeorge/ay21/eaa/eaa-wimps-machos.pdf">Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects (MACHO)</a> project followed the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) theory of dark matter. And let’s not forget the <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...442L...5M">Robust Associations of Massive Baryonic Objects</a>, or RAMBO project.</p>
<h2>Too macho to care</h2>
<p>It’s when macho or machismo are used to explain men’s approach to looking after themselves that offence occurs. Macho <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/macho-views-can-lead-to-booze-problems-study-finds/story-e6freuyi-1226214375158">perceptions of booze</a> are blamed for the higher rates of men’s drinking in regional Australia and machismo is cited as an <a href="http://www.ausmedonline.com/Promoting-Men-s-Health/Machismo-as-a-Barrier-to-Health-Promotion-in-Australian-Males.html">all-around barrier</a> to men being healthy. </p>
<p>This puts the blame for men’s ill health onto men’s attitudes and the way that men want to appear “manly”. If we took the same tack with smokers we would blame them for wanting to look like the people in tobacco advertisements rather than hassling tobacco companies about their advertising. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9328/original/6myrvrp3-1333521479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9328/original/6myrvrp3-1333521479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9328/original/6myrvrp3-1333521479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9328/original/6myrvrp3-1333521479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9328/original/6myrvrp3-1333521479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9328/original/6myrvrp3-1333521479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/9328/original/6myrvrp3-1333521479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Blaming bad health on machismo doesn’t help anyone.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Robert Fornal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s not as if defining the problems in men’s health as being due to machismo helps to connect men with the support they need. The new app “<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/28/australia-men-app-idUSSGE71O02O20110228">myHealthMate</a> released by Melbourne’s Alfred Hospital last year is a good example. It features a symptom checker allowing men to match 20 areas of their body to over 50 common symptoms. This is a pain-free low-cost way to check up on your health that doesn’t require fronting up to a doctor. </p>
<p>Although the publicity around the app’s launch cited "The Australian male’s machismo” as the problem, the app doesn’t try to change men’s attitudes. What it seems to do very well is to provide user-friendly, practical information tailored to men’s health issues. </p>
<h2>The positive side of macho?</h2>
<p>Author <a href="http://web.me.com/stevebiddulph/Site_1/Home.html">Steve Biddulph</a> is fond of saying, if you are trapped in a car crash, a bloke who will ignore the cuts or burns to get to pull you out is exactly what you need. So there are positive sides of men’s idea of “being a man” that most of us value but rarely talk about.</p>
<p>Men in Australia have high rates of preventable injury and disease. In my ACMA dream world, we would dispense with offensive language and get on with designing effective health promotion for men so we can change that. </p></figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6221/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Fletcher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The attempt to rein in offensive “shock jock” style radio commentary received mixed reaction in the media, but the notion of banning words that might demean a particular group opens up an enticing possibility…Richard Fletcher, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Health , University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.