tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/finkelstein-review-15632/articlesFinkelstein Review – The Conversation2015-10-04T23:50:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/483072015-10-04T23:50:46Z2015-10-04T23:50:46ZFifield faces a hard road to bring Australia’s media regulations into the 21st century<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97130/original/image-20151004-23067-dy1mlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitch Fifield has recognised that Australia's system of media regulation is outdated.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With his feet barely under the desk, Communications Minister Mitch Fifield has flagged a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/mitch-fifield-to-review-antisiphoning-list-20150924-gjts0o.html">renewed attempt</a> to change Australia’s media laws. Given his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull’s long-standing interest in the field – dating all the way back to his <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com/essay/2009/06/stop-at-nothing/extract">work</a> with Kerry Packer in the 1980s – Fifield can expect the new prime minister’s backing. Fifield is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/mitch-fifields-meeting-revives-hopes-for-media-reform/story-e6frg996-1227554788704">set to meet</a> with media bosses as early as next week.</p>
<p>Turnbull never seemed to enjoy such support when he brought <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/communications-minister-malcolm-turnbulls-media-reform-plan-causes-industry-rift-20150315-144n58.html">proposals for change</a> to cabinet during Tony Abbott’s prime ministership. It is, however, no guarantee that any substantive change will follow.</p>
<p>The problem for Fifield will be, to a great extent, the same one that has dogged successive large-scale reform attempts in the past: the <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbulls-media-reforms-might-not-go-far-enough-for-murdochs-liking-38840">need to mollify</a> all of Australia’s very vocal and enormously influential media proprietors. It took John Howard until his fourth term – and fourth attempt – to manage what was then seen as long-overdue change in 2006.</p>
<p>The last major push for change <a href="https://theconversation.com/media-reforms-a-historic-opportunity-missed-12963">fizzled out</a> in 2013 under Julia Gillard. After two lengthy and extensive reviews – the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1339_convergence.pdf">Convergence Review</a> and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1205_finkelstein.pdf">Finkelstein Review</a> – had recommended sweeping changes to print and electronic media laws, the minority government waited a year before introducing a small package of reforms. Most failed on the floor of parliament.</p>
<h2>What reform is needed and why?</h2>
<p>There is no question that reform is needed. As the Convergence Review made plain, Australia’s media and communications laws are, by and large, no longer fit for purpose. Australia’s media regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), produced two reports in 2011 that outlined <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Connected-regulation/broken-concepts">“broken” and “enduring” concepts</a> for media and communications regulation. </p>
<p>Technological change has bypassed many of the old protections. And evolving audience behaviours have called into question the grounds on which many existing rules are based.</p>
<p>As Fifield put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… it’s a bit like when people were talking in years gone by about how we can change railway gauges to better improve long-distance transport at a time when planes are starting to fly overhead.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the last couple of years there have been changes to the cast of media players. New entrants (<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/netflix-revolution-shakes-up-australian-media/6678138">Netflix</a>) and partnerships (<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/seven-and-foxtel-confirm-presto-tv-launch-date-20150115-12qwk0.html">Presto</a>, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/stan-announces-launch-date-20150122-12vzlk.html">Stan</a>), and changes in major shareholdings (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/ten-announces-foxtel-deal-and-capital-raising/story-e6frg996-1227398128699">Foxtel and Network Ten</a>), have changed both the media landscape and the policy challenge.</p>
<p>And then there is the biggest transformer of all: high-speed broadband. Free-to-air broadcasters have been able to work around limits on their reach via catch-up services delivered online that are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4303509.htm">undermining advertising markets</a> in regional licence areas. Regional broadcasters have launched a <a href="http://www.saveourvoices.com.au/">campaign</a> for changes to ownership and control limits. They argue that their very survival is at stake.</p>
<p>High-speed broadband also enables viewers to access a multiplicity of new services and voices. In the process, however, a host of challenges are posed to concepts such as copyright rules, the future of (quality) journalism, and the availability of local news and current affairs. All of these have commercial and policy implications.</p>
<p>None of this is strictly new. Or, rather, little of this was not predictable or foreseen. The Convergence Review, and to a lesser extent the Finkelstein Review, canvassed these issues and possibilities at length. </p>
<p>These reviews mined a lode of submissions and reports before producing concrete and comprehensive proposals for technology-neutral reform undergirded by fundamental public policy principles including pluralism, diversity, and localism.</p>
<p>Fifield has all of this material available to him. And, at face value, there is little need for another lengthy and expensive review before change can be proposed. </p>
<p>The problem is that introducing changes that do not satisfy all of the leading players will take considerable political will, and risks a media backlash. Disgruntled proprietors have shown themselves many times not to be afraid to pursue their political interests through the various channels they control.</p>
<h2>The anti-siphoning question</h2>
<p>And then there is perhaps the most vexed issue of all: the rules around sports coverage on free-to-air and pay television, known as <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">anti-siphoning</a>.</p>
<p>The Grand Final weekend just past is the biggest couple of days on the television calendar. It produces two of the highest rating programs of the year, and some of the most expensive <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/how-much-does-it-cost-to-get-an-nrl-and-afl-grand-final-tv-advertising-spot-322414">advertising slots</a> on television. These are the reasons why, yet again, broadcasters paid record amounts earlier this year to secure <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/nine-holds-onto-nrl-television-rights-20150809-giva5s.html">NRL</a> and <a href="http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-18/afl-on-the-verge-of-signing-new-tv-deal">AFL</a> rights for many years to come. </p>
<p>These deals mean that major changes to the anti-siphoning rules are unlikely in the near future. Or, if there are any changes, they are unlikely to take effect until these deals expire. The deals’ structures explicitly acknowledge the importance of online sports rights. This seems only set to grow over the term of the new arrangements. </p>
<p>For the moment, and into the foreseeable future, sports rights remain fundamental to the commercial viability of both free-to-air and pay television. Turnbull has affirmed in the past the view that the national significance of events like Grand Finals justifies their continuing protection and free availability. This, he has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/malcolm-turnbull-swings-back-at-murdoch-over-sports-on-free-to-air-tv-20150316-1m09oy.html">said</a>, is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a very Australian arrangement.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If history is anything to go by, it is an arrangement that may endure for some time to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48307/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Goldsmith 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 problem for Mitch Fifield will be, to a great extent, the same one that has dogged successive large-scale media reform attempts in the past.Ben Goldsmith, Senior Research Fellow, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed 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/389792015-03-24T19:15:18Z2015-03-24T19:15:18ZHeed Fraser’s warning on Australian media concentration – it’s getting worse<p>The passing of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser last Friday prompted me to recall his warning about the state of Australian media ownership <a href="http://electionwatch.edu.au/australia-2013/election-rewind/malcolm-fraser-contemporary-media-and-politics">in an interview</a> I did with him during the last federal election.</p>
<p>He said: “In my term, there were seven print proprietors. Now there is one and a bit. We have the most concentrated media in any democratic country, anywhere in the entire damn world. That is dangerous.”</p>
<hr>
<p>Malcolm Fraser for The Conversation: <a href="https://theconversation.com/malcolm-fraser-does-it-matter-who-owns-our-papers-yes-it-does-7738">Does it matter who owns our papers? Yes it does</a></p>
<hr>
<p>Malcolm Fraser’s warning is one we should take seriously. As Fairfax Media finalises union talks this week to cut 80 local jobs across its regional newspapers, and federal communications minister Malcolm Turnbull is again flagging relaxing media ownership laws, local news is particularly under threat in the global media environment where large audience reach matters.</p>
<h2>More regional cuts</h2>
<p>In Victoria, to remain competitive in this environment, Fairfax has proposed cutting 62 editorial jobs among the 80 full-time positions earmarked for redundancy across 13 regional mastheads including Albury Wondonga’s Border Mail, The Ballarat Courier, Bendigo Advertiser and The Warrnambool Standard. </p>
<p>Local MPs and city councillors in these regions have spoken out against the cuts with independent MP Cathy McGowan telling the <a href="http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2955199/cathy-mcgowan-stands-up-for-the-border-mail/">Federal Parliament last week</a> that regional newspapers such as the Border Mail play an important role providing local news and any job cuts could impact on this service.</p>
<p>The union representing local reporters, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, will meet Fairfax in Sydney today to discuss the cuts. It is understood that the Border Mail will lose up to 23 staff, the Wimmera Mail will lose 40% of its workforce, the Ballarat Courier will lose some reporting staff and its news director, and most of the newspapers will lose some photographers and sub-editors.</p>
<h2>Diversity being squeezed</h2>
<p>Fairfax’s regional publishing business Australian Community Media (ACM) is also proposing a common newspaper template with opportunities for content sharing. Journalists spared from the sackings will be required to do more with less including taking photographs, sub-editing their stories and uploading them online. </p>
<p>The implications of these changes are concerning for the diversity of local reporting, its accuracy and future print circulation figures, which until now have remained buoyant compared to their city cousins. A well-functioning democracy requires an informed citizenry and, to do this, journalists find and verify information in the public interest, rather than just selecting information from press releases. Citizen journalists can fulfil some of this local news gathering role, but subject coverage can be patchy and lacking editorial authority.</p>
<p>The all-too-soon forgotten <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1205_finkelstein.pdf">Finkelstein media inquiry in 2012</a> reminds us that some local communities are already the poorer for losing local news outlets. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is some evidence that both regional radio and television stations and newspapers have cut back substantially on their news gathering, leaving some communities poorly served for local news. This may require particular support in the immediate future, and I recommend that this issue be investigated by the government as a matter of some urgency.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Changes mooted for media laws</h2>
<p>Yet, Malcolm Turnbull, photographed last year standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the nation’s media executives and flagging changes to media laws, has this month again raised the prospect of such reforms in a submission to the Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Turnbull’s argument essentially is that the internet has lowered the barriers to entry and enabled greater competition and more media diversity. At face value this sounds promising. Yet, such changes would make possible further media mergers and acquisitions and what such reforms would mean for local news reporting requires careful consideration.</p>
<p>Veteran journalists can readily recall the days when Canadian Conrad Black divested his stake in Fairfax because foreign ownership laws in 1996 prevented his company owning more than a 25% share of an Australian media outlet. </p>
<p>Today, among Australia’s top 10 news websites, all are digital iterations of traditional media outlets. The only new entrants to this list are not new Australian start-ups but large, foreign-owned companies such as Britain’s Daily Mail (fourth) and the Australian version of the British-owned Guardian (sixth).</p>
<h2>Foreign arrivals</h2>
<p>Foreign-owned media companies are reaching out to Australian shores as never before — not only do we have Australian versions of the Guardian and Daily Mail, but BuzzFeed, and very soon the Huffington Post (in a 51-49 partnership with Fairfax). In the broadcast media sphere US-owned Netflix announced it will undercut local competitors — Presto, jointly owned by Foxtel and Seven West Media; and Stan, a Fairfax and Nice Entertainment Co. partnership — to stream video content to Australian subscribers for $8.99 a month.</p>
<p>The arrival of foreign-owned media is interesting in the context that we once had specific laws to guard against it in the name of protecting Australian news content and its democratic function. Oddly, in 2015 when local newspapers are experiencing financial duress, there is little examination about what these offshore arrivals mean for Australian audiences and Australian news content, particularly in terms of local news. </p>
<h2>Start-ups struggling to survive</h2>
<p>Perhaps, the important question arising out of this global media environment is not how to limit competition and potential sources of news diversity; but rather, what can be done to encourage growth in Australian news media start-ups? The current environment makes it very difficult for them to succeed long-term, as Wendy Harmer identified yesterday when announcing her online outlet <a href="http://thehoopla.com.au/">The Hoopla</a> will close. In the US, start-up news reporting entities are tax-exempt non-profits recognised by the IRS under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code.</p>
<p>Australia’s Finkelstein media review also included suggestions for tax breaks for non-profit news outlets. Another idea was to allocate a proportion of Australia’s multi-million dollar government advertising and public notices expenditure for new news ventures.</p>
<p>Of course, the ABC plays a unique role delivering local Australian news across the nation’s states, but it too has suffered recent substantial funding cuts and journalism job losses.</p>
<p>The right formula to preserve the diversity of Australian local reporting might lie elsewhere, but shouldn’t we at least engage in the conversation?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38979/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Carson is part of a research team based at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Advancing Journalism that is investigating the civic impact of journalism and local news reporting.</span></em></p>if anything, media concentration is worsening and diversity won’t be improved by changing Australia’s media ownership laws.Andrea Carson, Lecturer, Media and Politics; Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism , The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.