tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/media-convergence-4065/articlesmedia convergence – The Conversation2021-04-14T14:25:49Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1576982021-04-14T14:25:49Z2021-04-14T14:25:49ZWhy converging newsroom cultures can make media houses more sustainable<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/392924/original/file-20210331-19-o4wv2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Traditional media houses must adapt, innovate and converge to survive in the digital age.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Until the arrival of the world wide web, the media model that worked revolved around money made from selling advertisements and from revenue from subscriptions or copy sales. But online delivery has left traditional media struggling to find new revenue sources while using web metrics to <a href="https://medium.com/code-for-africa/six-skills-you-need-to-run-a-modern-sustainable-newsroom-4f750d38e4af">quantify audience numbers and engagement</a>. </p>
<p>To cope they have begun to use web metrics to inform how they sell online content and attract diverse, digital revenue sources. These have received substantial attention across media houses struggling to sustain themselves financially on digital platforms.</p>
<p>But as <a href="http://repository.daystar.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/3299/An%20Actor-Network%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Use%20of%20the%20World%20Wide%20Web%20in%20a%20Kenyan%20Newsroom%e2%80%99s%20Journalistic%20Practice%20A%20Case%20Of%20Capital%20Fm%20.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y">my 2017 PhD research</a> shows, there are other factors that contribute to the strength and sustainability of a media house. </p>
<p>One of them is how news outlets are organised – how they conduct their day-to-day business. In particular, how they marry traditional practices (before the arrival of the internet), with the demands of making news available for online distribution.</p>
<p>My research focused on a case study of a Kenyan commercial FM radio station that had incorporated the web and other digital technologies in its journalistic practice. The station was making money from its digital platforms. The interesting question was: why?</p>
<p>The study showed the emergence of two distinct organisational cultures in the newsroom. These cultures – hierarchical and non-hierarchical – enabled production speed and innovation respectively. </p>
<p>In hierarchical cultures there is a clear chain of command. Reporters, news readers and camera personnel develop content that is reviewed by a team of editors who are overseen by an editorial director. Content produced in hierarchical cultures tends to follow prescribed patterns. </p>
<p>At the radio station where I did my research, radio scripts were no longer than four or five lines with an accompanying audio clip of about 20 seconds. Web stories were at least 300 words long with an accompanying photograph. </p>
<p>This formulaic approach tended to promote speed. On multiple occasions, I observed radio and web stories being written within 10 to 15 minutes because of the standardised approach that reporters took to developing the stories.</p>
<p>But in a separate working area where contributing writers and in-house editors worked together to develop and edit web content, I witnessed a more ad hoc working culture. Here, journalists collaborated frequently and there was little emphasis on hierarchy. Meetings tended to be informal interactions. And all the experimentation took place in this area. For example, members of this team conceptualised, created and published web series on YouTube and then embedded them in the website’s TV section. </p>
<p>I was persuaded that the station’s meld of hierarchical and non-hierarchical cultures contributed to its success. In my view, organisational culture can also make a difference. But only if it is disrupted.</p>
<p>My main takeaway from my research is that newsrooms need a blend of both cultures: the old ways of doing things provide a bridge to the past, while the new enable news organisations to exploit and adapt to the nimbleness of emerging and changing technologies.</p>
<h2>A tale of two systems</h2>
<p>The adoption of digital technologies and the emergence of two working cultures at the radio station were done at the behest of the owner and management. Driven to establish the station as a pioneer and market leader, they moved early to incorporate digital technologies more deeply even with the early uncertainty that the venture wouldn’t pay off. </p>
<p>The station had a typical, traditional newsroom with an editorial director overseeing a team of editors, reporters and news readers. They produced news for radio, their website, and mobile breaking news platforms. The coverage included sports, general news, politics, and business.</p>
<p>But it also had a team that focused purely on generating digital content for its website and social media platforms. This content was sourced from a small team of editors and a network of external contributors. It included lifestyle features, celebrity gossip and web video series. This content was more playful and experimental than what was generated in the newsroom.</p>
<p>News had been the station’s traditional money-maker primarily through advertising and sponsorship of radio news bulletins. But the lighter content from the exclusively digital team had drawn audiences, attracting new advertising clients. By the time of conducting my research in 2016, the lifestyle section of the website had begun making more money than the news section of the website.</p>
<p>The digital set up was much less formal than than the traditional newsroom. Here, the team relied on a network of freelancers who worked on exclusively digital content with weekly deadlines. The team worked non-hierarchically. Editors allowed for greater collaboration and interaction among the contributors, themselves, and a webmaster who contributed story ideas.</p>
<p>There was a physical separation between the newsroom and the digital department. But the company bridged the gap by embedding new roles, like a social media manager, into the traditional newsroom. It also allowed certain personnel – such as a business writer – to work in both spaces. </p>
<p>Journalists working in traditional newsrooms are used to hierarchical, structured routines and practices. In my research, I found that these journalists have been disrupted by the entry of digital spaces where younger, tech-savvy content creators work on rolling deadlines within evolving structures and routines. </p>
<p>The result is separation and tension between the two. This has left media houses struggling to take advantage of their divergent but complementary strengths.</p>
<p>Research has established that even with digital technologies there are aspects of journalistic labour that have <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0957926504045032">remained rooted in routine</a>. Take the gatekeeper role of the editor, for example. This role contributes to the verification of content and strengthens the credibility and trustworthiness of a news brand. By contrast, the flexible digital structure enables experimentation and creativity, which is useful when dealing with the dynamism of the profession of journalism.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-economic-questions-are-key-to-africas-media-freedom-debate-96429">Why economic questions are key to Africa's media freedom debate</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There is therefore room to enable and encourage these two types of cultures in contemporary newsrooms.</p>
<h2>How to enable disruption</h2>
<p>Team members should possess different abilities ranging from management, to legacy editorial, digital, and business development skills. </p>
<p>Teams should also be a mix of new hires and experienced editors, tech-savvy content creators and technically challenged news gatherers. The goal would be to harness the technical know-how and creativity of the denizens of the digital space, while making use of the experience, institutional knowledge and networks held by those in the traditional newsroom.</p>
<p>Participatory, informal discussions could then be had alongside top-down, formal interactions to engender a hybrid innovative and imitative environment. </p>
<p>Towards this end, media houses with digital and traditional newsrooms in Africa can engender more collaborative environments to address the tensions that often emerge between the old and the new. This would go a long way towards sustainability.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157698/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wambui Wamunyu is affiliated with Kenya Editors Guild.</span></em></p>Media houses with digital and traditional newsrooms need to create collaborative environments to address the tensions that often emerge between the old and the new.Wambui Wamunyu, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, Daystar UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1005922018-07-30T06:09:33Z2018-07-30T06:09:33ZStarter’s gun goes off on new phase of media concentration as Nine-Fairfax lead the way<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-26/what-the-fairfax-and-nine-merger-means-for-you/10039236">Nine-Fairfax Media deal</a>, billed as the biggest shakeup in the Australian media landscape for decades, was widely anticipated once the Turnbull government <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-set-to-win-senate-support-for-media-deregulation-84017">repealed the main anti-concentration laws</a> in 2017. It may well result in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-modern-tragedy-nine-fairfax-merger-a-disaster-for-quality-media-100584">loss of a highly respected independent quality media voice</a>. It has certainly fired the starting gun on a new phase of media concentration.</p>
<p>It’s the latest and arguably the most dramatic episode in the media concentration saga in Australia. This is already among the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-ownership-concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437">most concentrated media markets in the world</a>, behind countries like China and Egypt. These developments signal that media diversity policies need a major overhaul to take account of the impact of the media-tech platform giants on traditional news media businesses.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-australias-media-market-one-of-the-worlds-most-concentrated-68437">Is Australia’s media market one of the world's most concentrated?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In many ways this by now <a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-and-fairfax-media-streaming-towards-a-full-tango-30862">widely telegraphed process of media convergence</a> has been the strategy of two of Australia’s largest legacy media companies to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-26/fairfax-nine-merger-comes-at-a-cost/10039040">survive a bit longer</a> against the onslaught of the Silicon Valley FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google) behemoths. If approved it will create Australia’s largest media company – and presumably the loudest private media voice with the most political clout in the country.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1022375568094846977"}"></div></p>
<p>Former prime minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/26/the-fairfax-takeover-is-exceptionally-bad-news-nine-has-the-journalistic-ethics-of-an-alley-cat">Paul Keating notes</a> that this could have been predicted from the first implementation of cross-media rules back in the late 1980s. Communications Minister Mitch Fifield <a href="https://www.minister.communications.gov.au/minister/mitch-fifield/transcripts/interview-patricia-karvelas-abc-rn-drive">says he’s “ownership agnostic”</a> – if we can just park the fact that it was the government’s horse-trading efforts directed towards crossbench senators that led to precisely this outcome. And the Coalition and its supporters would welcome regulatory <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/ninefairfax-merger-accc-to-examine-impact-on-competition/news-story/e6511274137e317d78da6f90a61b8f18">approval of the deal by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> (ACCC).</p>
<p>Many believe that subsuming Fairfax Media will assist in muzzling the edgier, more critical journalism in the group’s mastheads and generally advance an editorial position that is favourable to the government. After all, former Coalition treasurer Peter Costello chairs the Nine board. In the lead-up to a federal election in 2019, the timing could not be better for the conservatives. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-modern-tragedy-nine-fairfax-merger-a-disaster-for-quality-media-100584">A modern tragedy: Nine-Fairfax merger a disaster for quality media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Clock’s ticking for local news</h2>
<p>The deal, if it goes forward, has also fired the starting gun on a process of further dismantling media in the bush. As print media audiences are reaching their expiry dates, we can expect to see the loss of important local newspapers such as the Newcastle Herald and the Launceston Examiner. </p>
<p>Newspapers like these play a key civic journalism role in those communities. They have, for example, pressured governments to set up royal commissions such as the <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/">inquiry into institutional responses to sexual abuse</a>. </p>
<p>So local, regional and suburban journalism will be among the losers in this convergence of media platforms. Even major metro titles like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age are under a cloud as Fairfax’s more profitable digital media assets, such as the Domain real estate site and streaming service Stan, have <a href="https://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/nine-takeover-of-fairfax-is-about-domain-stan-20180726-h136hm">become the focus of the business</a>.</p>
<p>While some sector-specific <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-changes-to-australias-media-ownership-laws-are-being-proposed-55509">ownership and control rules remain in place</a>, these are limited in number and scope. They apply only to legacy media of commercial television, commercial radio and associated (print) newspapers. The rules would not affect the combined reach of <a href="https://www.9news.com.au">Nine News</a> and Fairfax’s <a href="https://www.fairfaxmedia.com.au/">well-recognised online news brand</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-reform-deals-will-reduce-diversity-and-amount-to-little-more-than-window-dressing-83957">Media reform deals will reduce diversity and amount to little more than window dressing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who’s left to defend diversity?</h2>
<p>So will the ACCC’s inquiry come up with any public interest regulatory antidotes? Its <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry">digital platforms inquiry</a> does <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Ministerial%20direction.pdf">extend to investigating certain aspects of pluralism or media diversity</a>. This was one of several outcomes of the legislative and policy changes of 2017, which included the repeal of cross-media ownership laws. </p>
<p>However, such a decision by the ACCC would be surprising. That’s because effective media pluralism policy that is capable of addressing these kind of integrated cross-platform deals requires bipartisan support at the highest political levels. That’s not something that tends to happen much in Australian media policy.</p>
<p>Yet the ACCC review and the possibility of regulatory intervention using competition law is the only alternative policy lever available to regulate the adverse consequences of cross-media concentration. </p>
<p>The ACCC inquiry is focusing mainly on market power in relation to advertising on digital platforms. But it is also examining the role of search engines, aggregators and social media platforms and their implications for the production, delivery and consumption of sustainable quality news online.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/issues-paper">issues paper</a> noted that the inquiry would consider “the impact of algorithmic selection on the plurality of news and journalistic content presented to Australian consumers”. Recommendations about the implications of automated news delivery will be critical. </p>
<p>But this new baked-in logic of an automated public sphere is very different to the voice concentration that has arisen out of the calculated deregulation of cross-media laws. As US legal scholar <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3067552">Frank Pasquale argues</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>New methods of monitoring and regulation should be as technologically sophisticated and comprehensive as the automated public sphere they target.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Although it is still early days, the regulator is unlikely to stand in the way of media businesses whose rhetoric is all about “scale” and “survival”. In other words, media voice concentration is recast as a second-order issue compared to the survival of these traditional Australian media corporations. </p>
<p>Perhaps that survival duration should be measured in election cycles? Even better, why not look at laws and policies to ensure that the instruments of media policymaking maintain media ownership, pluralism and diversity objectives?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100592/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Dwyer receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project studying media pluralism and online news.</span></em></p>Australian media ownership is already among the most concentrated in the world, but if the competition regulator approves the Nine-Fairfax deal, expect the race for survival to produce more mergers.Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Chair, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/864432017-11-13T02:55:30Z2017-11-13T02:55:30ZHere’s why your local TV news is about to get even worse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193485/original/file-20171106-1027-1kw9t4o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Beaming in news from far away.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/broadcasting-station-503873629">Daniel Fung/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Considering the history of television news a few years ago, iconic anchor Ted Koppel declared that CBS’ 1968 debut of “60 Minutes” forever altered the landscape of broadcast journalism: A news program drew enough advertising to <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/interviews/koppel.html">turn a profit</a>. As Koppel told it, “60 Minutes” showed broadcasters that news divisions could make money – which was a huge shift in how management executives thought of news, affecting both the quality and type of coverage broadcast over the publicly owned airwaves.</p>
<p>Until then, broadcast news in the U.S. had been a costly requirement media companies had to bear as part of getting permission to use the airwaves. “All of a sudden, making money became part of what we did,” Koppel told the audience of a “Frontline” series called “<a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/">News War</a>.” </p>
<p>In the decades since, news divisions have been held to the same profit-making standards as corporate media’s entertainment divisions. Corporate owners <a href="http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/">slashed foreign bureaus</a> as coverage remained focused on emotion and celebrity rather than public affairs. </p>
<p>In late October 2017, the Federal Communications Commission made it even easier for media conglomerates to focus on money-making. That was when the FCC <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-eliminates-main-studio-rule">abolished a World War II-era policy</a> that was intended to force news broadcasters to be connected to – and accountable to – the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-pair-of-decades-old-policies-may-change-the-way-rural-america-gets-local-news-79096">communities their programming reached</a>. My work as a political economist suggests that local broadcast media content is about to get worse, focusing even more on stories that can turn a profit for corporate headquarters rather than serving local communities. And the big companies that operate these stations are going to withdraw even farther from the communities they cover, threatening a key foundation of American democracy.</p>
<h2>Connecting with communities</h2>
<p>The longstanding requirement, known as the “<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-eliminates-main-studio-rule">main studio rule</a>,” said television and radio broadcasters had to have local studios, where viewers or listeners could interact with and communicate with the people who were putting their news on the air. This was part of fulfilling the broadcasters’ explicit obligation to use the airwaves to benefit society: As the Radio Act of 1927 put it, they had to operate in the “<a href="http://www.museum.tv/eotv/publicintere.htm">public interest, convenience and necessity</a>.”</p>
<p>That would help keep news decisions about schools, zoning, health, environment, emergencies and local issues connected to the community. It also helped encourage broadcasters to employ people who lived in the areas their signals reached.</p>
<p>In the decades since, the media landscape and technology both have changed dramatically. The FCC still <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/localism/Localism_Fact_Sheet.pdf">assumes that broadcasters are local media</a> because it issues station licenses in specific community areas. Yet the holders of those licenses are usually <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/local-news-sinclair-tribune-nexstar-deal-1202506598/">large conglomerates with centralized news operations</a> sending <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/02/business/tv-news-that-looks-local-even-if-it-s-not.html">homogenized</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html">programming</a> out across the nation.</p>
<p>Advocates for eliminating the main studio rule – including the National Association of Broadcasters – note that <a href="http://www.nab.org/documents/newsRoom/pressRelease.asp?id=4265">most audience communications</a> with media companies are online. They say that makes having a local physical office less important than it may once have been. Among the supporters of this view is <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai">FCC Chairman Ajit Pai</a>, who was appointed to the commission by Barack Obama in 2012 and tapped to head it by Donald Trump shortly after his inauguration.</p>
<p>Pai also raises another common argument against the main studio rule: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai">its cost</a>. In October he wrote that the policy change will <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1024/DOC-347382A2.pdf">reduce burdens on media companies</a> and let them improve audience service accordingly: “eliminating this rule will enable broadcasters to focus more resources on local programming, newsgathering, community outreach, equipment upgrades, and attracting talent – all of which will better serve their communities.”</p>
<p>The two Democratic members of the five-member FCC, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, dissented from their Republican colleagues’ decision, objecting to the effects the ruling would have on local news. <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1024/FCC-17-137A3.pdf">Clyburn wrote that the FCC’s change</a> “signals that it no longer believes, those awarded a license to use the public airwaves, should have a local presence in their community.” Rosenworcel, for her part, <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1024/FCC-17-137A6.pdf">wrote in a separate dissent</a>: “I do not believe it will lead to more jobs. I do believe it will hollow out the unique role broadcasters play in local communities.” </p>
<p>History has heard this argument before.</p>
<h2>Promises of deregulation</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193614/original/file-20171107-1068-1tnjqyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193614/original/file-20171107-1068-1tnjqyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193614/original/file-20171107-1068-1tnjqyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193614/original/file-20171107-1068-1tnjqyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193614/original/file-20171107-1068-1tnjqyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193614/original/file-20171107-1068-1tnjqyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193614/original/file-20171107-1068-1tnjqyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193614/original/file-20171107-1068-1tnjqyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Focusing on ‘happy news.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/male-female-newcaster-anchors-reporting-tv-408194950">Kakigori Studio/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the lesson of “60 Minutes” spread in the late 1970s and 1980s, news organizations and their corporate parent companies enjoyed massive windfalls, broadcasting content that was cheap to produce: It focused on thin <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/television-and-the-public-sphere/book204623">happy banter between anchors</a> rather than substantive <a href="http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/">hard-hitting reporting</a>. At the same time, media conglomerates including Time Inc., NBC owner <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/news-corps-million-dollar-donation/">General Electric</a> and Comcast began <a href="https://www.salon.com/2001/06/28/telecom_dereg/">heavily lobbying Congress</a> and regulatory agencies like the FCC to <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/meet-the-media-companies-lobbying-against-transparency">roll back decades</a> of media policies meant to help foster educational and informational needs of citizens in a democracy.</p>
<p>They found success when President Bill Clinton signed the sweeping Telecommunications Act of 1996. Then-FCC chairman Reed Hundt declared that with the act, “<a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/97agenda.txt">We are fostering innovation and competition in radio</a>.” He said the new law would increase diversity in both ownership of broadcast stations and the viewpoints they present. And he said it would create a space for more competition in the telecommunications marketplace that would, ultimately, benefit consumers.</p>
<p>But nine years later, a <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/National_050905_Fallout_From_The_Telecommunications_Act_2.pdf">report from Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Common Cause</a> determined “the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices.” Cable and phone rates didn’t drop from competition, but <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24cable.html">skyrocketed with consolidation</a>. Industry leaders’ promises to add 1.5 million jobs <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/National_050905_Fallout_From_The_Telecommunications_Act_2.pdf">turned into layoffs</a> of more than 500,000 people. And Hundt himself 10 years later trumpeted not the improvements of service to the public, but rather <a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1438&context=fclj">the financial rewards reaped</a> by corporations and their shareholders.</p>
<p>So now, more than 20 years after the act’s passage, <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/10/28/499495517/big-media-companies-and-their-many-brands-in-one-chart">fewer corporations</a> than before control a larger share of radio, broadcast and cable television in the United States. Many of those corporations have financial stakes in online media, too, meaning their reach and ideologies extend far beyond just television and the AM/FM dial. </p>
<p>The FCC’s decision to roll back the main studio rule is yet another in a long line of policymaking and regulatory decisions that will further <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-fcc-continues-to-redefine-the-public-interest-as-business-interests-75120">boost corporate media</a>, not citizens.</p>
<h2>A pathway into the future</h2>
<p>By eliminating the main studio rule, the FCC has severed one of the last remaining ties between broadcasters and local communities. (Others, including rules about <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/technology/fcc-media-ownership-rules.html">media companies’ consolidation</a>, are on the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/opinion/ajit-pai-media-ownership.html">chopping block</a>.) The body charged with ensuring media companies serve the public interest has opened the door even wider to treating news as a profit-motivated medium operated to benefit shareholders, rather than as a key element of American civic life.</p>
<p>Even before the FCC undid the main studio rule, the effects of the Telecommunications Act made local news more homogeneous and less diverse. This is particularly harmful for rural America, where <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/19/digital-gap-between-rural-and-nonrural-america-persists/">just two-thirds of residents</a> have regular broadband access at home – and only limited data services on their mobile smartphones. That means millions of Americans without regular internet access are relying on broadcast television as their sole form of entertainment and information about their communities.</p>
<p>The real question for citizens is simple: Did deregulation work? Is the quality of broadcast news better today than it was 20 years ago? Will it improve if companies’ legal and regulatory requirements are loosened? </p>
<p>All Americans know the answer. And so does the FCC.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86443/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Margot Susca is affiliated with Online News Association and the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. </span></em></p>The FCC has made it even easier for broadcast media conglomerates to focus on making money. The public – who own the airwaves those companies depend on – will suffer as a result.Margot Susca, Professorial Lecturer, American University School of CommunicationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/751202017-03-28T22:06:51Z2017-03-28T22:06:51ZTrump’s FCC continues to redefine the public interest as business interests<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162940/original/image-20170328-3798-jcvd7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Speak up!</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-illustration-website-horizontal-banner-concept-464473052">Speech bubbles via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. Senate voted last week to <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/24/517050966/fcc-chairman-goes-after-his-predecessors-internet-privacy-rules">allow internet service providers</a> to <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/senate-overturns-an-obama-era-regulation-to-protect-your-privacy-online/">sell data about their customers’ online activities</a> to advertisers. The <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-private-browsing-history/">House of Representatives</a> <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/230">agreed on Tuesday</a>; President Trump is <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15073162/fcc-broadband-internet-privacy-rules-congress-vote">expected to sign</a> the measure into law.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title47/USCODE-2011-title47-chap4">As far back as 1927</a>, American lawmakers sought to balance the needs of the public against the desire of big telecommunications companies to make huge profits off delivering information to Americans nationwide. Today, the Federal Communications Commission is charged with ensuring that the broadcasting and telecommunications systems work in “<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996">the public interest, convenience and necessity</a>.”</p>
<p>Policymakers have struggled to specifically define “the public interest,” but the broad intent was clear: Government rules and programs worked to ensure a diversity of programming, distributed by a multitude of companies, with many different owners, through multiple channels that all Americans had access to.</p>
<p>While conducting research for my new book on <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/64kmn4yx9780252040726.html">local media policy in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada</a>, I watched as officials’ priorities changed, favoring what they say is “freer” competition in the marketplace of ideas. As new proposals come up for public comment and debate in the next few months, we, the American public, must join these discussions, to ensure our interests are in fact served.</p>
<h2>A shift in priorities</h2>
<p>Over the last 30 years, America’s communications regulators have moved away from focusing on society’s benefit, and toward an interpretation of the public interest as <a href="http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/rise-and-fall-broadcasting-commons">equivalent to what businesses want</a>. For decades the FCC has chipped away at that broadly understood sense of the public interest, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/20102014-media-ownership-rules-review">allowing more stations to be owned by one company</a>, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proceedings-actions/mergers-transactions/general/major-transaction-decisions">letting major media corporations merge</a> and <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/broadcast-radio-license-renewal">renewing station licenses</a> with a rubber stamp. And TV and radio stations are now allowed to be located <a href="http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2011/06/articles/what-do-the-fcc-main-studio-rules-require-recent-21000-fine-offers-some-clarification/">far away from the communities they serve</a>.</p>
<p>As a result, the national media system is dominated by a handful of companies, including <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6">Comcast, Time Warner, Fox and Disney</a>. This trend is mirrored at the local level, where Sinclair Broadcasting owns <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342889A1.pdf">173 of the country’s 1,778 local television stations</a> and is on the <a href="http://nypost.com/2017/03/14/sinclair-tribune-merger-would-surpass-fcc-ownership-rules/">hunt to acquire more</a>.</p>
<p>These changes have seen media and telecommunications companies making money and acquiring more properties, while the public receives less and less in return.</p>
<h2>Moving quickly</h2>
<p>In addition to the moves in Congress, Trump’s FCC has acted quickly, too. Upon his promotion to FCC chairman, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai">Ajit Pai</a> cited other companies’ fraudulent practices as a reason for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-makes-it-harder-for-poor-people-to-get-subsidized-broadband/">removing nine internet service providers</a> from the list of companies approved to provide federally subsidized internet access to low-income families.</p>
<p>Pai also ended an investigation into <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/fcc-oks-streaming-free-net-neutrality-will-pay/">mobile phone companies’ practice of exempting mobile data</a> associated with certain apps (such as Spotify or Netflix) from the data limits normally imposed on customers’ plans. Because this explicitly favored some companies’ internet traffic over others’, many people viewed this practice, called “zero rating,” as a violation of open internet (also called “<a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/what-happens-now-with-net-neutrality">net neutrality</a>”) rules – the FCC’s requirements barring internet service providers from playing favorites with different providers’ internet content.</p>
<p>Taken together, these actions represent a major attack on what is left of the public interest as we once knew it. They also represent a reversal for the FCC, which was <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/net-neutrality-appeals-court">hailed for protecting the public interest</a> when it approved the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet">Open Internet Order</a> in 2015.</p>
<p>Pai himself <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ajit-pai-fcc-net-neutrality-trump-what-to-expect-2017-2">opposes those rules</a>, as does his congressional counterpart, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/">Marsha Blackburn</a>, chair of the powerful House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. </p>
<h2>Attacking broadcasting too</h2>
<p>The Trump administration also appears to be adhering to this view of the public interest in media policy. </p>
<p>Trump’s initial proposed budget <a href="http://current.org/2017/03/trump-budget-seeks-to-zero-out-cpb-funding-by-2018/">zeroed out federal funding for public broadcasting</a>. The U.S. allocates <a href="http://current.org/2017/03/cpb-says-trump-budget-will-aim-to-rescind-fy2018-appropriation/">US$445 million</a> a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports organizations like NPR and PBS. That amounts to about <a href="https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/03/16/presidents-attack-public-broadcasting-puts-him-odds-american-people">$1.35 per person</a>. In contrast, <a href="http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/_files/cbcrc/documents/latest-studies/nordicity-public-broadcaster-comparison-2016.pdf">Germany</a> spends $143 a person; Norway spends more on public broadcasting than any other country – $180 per Norwegian. Cutting this already anemic funding would spell disaster for public broadcasting, most notably stations in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/media/corporation-for-public-broadcasting-cuts.html">rural America</a>.</p>
<p>And over at the FCC, Pai eliminated <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-eliminates-two-public-inspection-file-requirements/pai-statement">requirements that broadcasters keep records of what they aired, for public inspection</a>. While perhaps antiquated and <a href="http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/inspecting_local_tvs_public_in.php">certainly rarely used by the public</a>, it was one of the last holdovers of a time when <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/64kmn4yx9780252040726.html">local broadcasters</a> were thought to be responsive to their communities. </p>
<p>As for <a href="http://nypost.com/2017/03/14/sinclair-tribune-merger-would-surpass-fcc-ownership-rules/">Sinclair Broadcasting’s expansion hopes</a>, the company may be making its plans precisely because Commissioner Pai wants to <a href="http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-ajit-pai-media-ownership-1202008630/">relax ownership restrictions</a>. </p>
<h2>Stepping up to the mic?</h2>
<p>The next few months will see debates about a diverse range of communications-related topics, all of which center on the public interest. We need to ask hard, clear questions of legislators, regulators and ourselves:</p>
<p>Is it in the public’s interest to have an internet where ISPs can decide which websites load fastest? Is it in the public interest for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/att-says-youll-love-more-relevant-advertising-after-time-warner-merger/">AT&T to buy Time Warner</a>, creating an even larger and more powerful media company? Is it in the public interest for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-fcc-drops-court-defense-of-inmate-calling-rate-cap/">incarcerated people</a> and their families to pay exorbitant sums to speak to one another on the phone? Is it in the public interest to retain access to public broadcasting, which brings us everything from “Sherlock” to “Sesame Street”? </p>
<p>Media is more than just our window on the world. It’s how we talk to each other, how we engage with our society and our government. Without a media environment that serves the public’s need to be informed, connected and involved, <a href="http://thenewpress.com/books/rich-media-poor-democracy">our democracy and our society will suffer</a>. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/nicholas-johnson/your-second-priority-a-former-fcc-commissioner-speaks-out/paperback/product-3028022.html">former FCC chairman Nicholas Johnson</a> put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Whatever is your first priority, whether it is women’s rights or saving wildlife, your second priority has to be media reform. With it you at least have a chance of accomplishing your first priority. Without it, you don’t have a prayer.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If only a few wealthy companies control how Americans communicate with each other, it will be harder for people to talk among ourselves about the kind of society we want to build.</p>
<p>It is time for a sustained public conversation about media policy, akin to the ones we have about health care, the economy, defense and the budget. Regulators and policymakers must communicate regularly to the public. News organizations must report on these issues with the same frequency and intensity as they do other areas of public policy. And the people must pay attention and make their voices heard. </p>
<p>We did it before, powerfully influencing rules about <a href="https://www.savetheinternet.com/release/156">media ownership in 2003</a> and <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/17/349243335/3-7-million-comments-later-heres-where-net-neutrality-stands">ensuring net neutrality in 2015</a>. We can do it again. For us, as members of the public, and as avid media consumers, it’s time the public got interested in the public interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75120/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Ali does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the Trump administration settles into office, regulators and lawmakers have big plans for shifting the country’s media landscape, with potentially profound effects on the public.Christopher Ali, Assistant Professor, Department of Media Studies, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/547472016-02-18T01:56:18Z2016-02-18T01:56:18ZAustralia can learn from Indonesia’s experience before relaxing its media laws<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111717/original/image-20160216-19232-iygzr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Indonesian media moguls have argued that the internet means cross-media ownership laws that prevent common ownership of radio, television and newspapers are obsolete.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Indonesia’s media landscape may be a model Australia is emulating as it prepares to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/13/changes-to-australias-media-ownership-laws-to-be-introduced-within-six-months">change</a> its <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2005C00400">media ownership laws</a>. There are positives to following Indonesia’s lead, but also reasons for Australians to be concerned.</p>
<p>Indonesia’s private media companies have <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270598913_Platform_convergence_in_Indonesia_Challenges_and_opportunities_for_media_freedom">evolved rapidly</a> in the digital era. This is partly because Indonesia has largely abandoned <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-DRZBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=indonesia+liberal+broadcasting+law&source=bl&ots=MeSn6Hxyn1&sig=GyHZT6B2w-bI7Ger1N4_A3bzr6c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVvvjS-__KAhVJGpQKHd-bDOEQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=indonesia%20liberal%20broadcasting%20law&f=false">major restrictions</a> on media ownership. This has meant companies have been free to merge, create new platforms and build larger media conglomerates.</p>
<p>Indonesian media moguls have argued that the internet has made obsolete the cross-media ownership laws that prevent common ownership of radio, television and newspapers. Eric Thohir, an Indonesian media mogul with stakes in two TV stations, numerous newspapers and magazines, two radio stations and an online news portal, once told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t see any point to the cross-media ownership laws. Convergence means they are obsolete laws. Besides, now if you want to start your own YouTube channel, you can. You can create your own media through social media. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, then Australia’s communications minister, has previously made <a href="http://theconversation.com/nine-and-fairfax-media-streaming-towards-a-full-tango-30862">similar arguments</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… we are a reforming government, a deregulating government. We believe that the flowering of the internet creates the opportunities for less regulation and more freedom. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Digital conglomerates</h2>
<p>So what is happening in Indonesia? Since Indonesia’s media laws allow companies to own different media platforms, every major media company started to become a “digital conglomerate” – a multi-platform media company with a centralised newsroom located in Jakarta.</p>
<p>It was no longer adequate for media companies to maintain one platform – for example, a television station, a newspaper or an online site – on its own. </p>
<p>For a digital conglomerate to be created, numerous mergers and acquisitions within the industry needed to occur. As a result, big media became bigger, and medium-sized and smaller media were either bought by larger companies or struggle to survive. This means that Indonesia’s media landscape is becoming increasingly concentrated. </p>
<p>All these digital conglomerates largely look the same. They provide mainstream, national content across multiple platforms. They have two or three entertainment-content television stations, a 24-hour television news channel, an online news service, a few radio stations. Eventually all of their content will be streamed online.</p>
<p>Mergers are likely to happen in Australia if existing laws are changed. There is already <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/dream-deals-a-threeway-merger-between-fairfax-media-nine-entertainment-co-and-southern-cross-media-20151224-glul88">speculation</a> this might involve Nine Network and Fairfax, and News Corp and Ten. </p>
<p>Media companies would argue that mergers are essential for them to survive in the digital era. They may also claim that a financially healthy media company is crucial for providing quality news and entertainment. </p>
<p>Mergers would also allow them to compete with the growing threat of international media companies such as Netflix or Facebook, which do not face the same regulatory burdens or infrastructure costs. </p>
<h2>Partisan coverage</h2>
<p>So there are certain positives in relaxing media ownership laws. But a number of observations from the Indonesian media industry suggest some regulations are necessary.</p>
<p>First, media owners have become wealthier and more politically powerful than they were ten years ago. As a result, media coverage of the 2014 Indonesian elections was <a href="http://niemanreports.org/articles/who-owns-the-news-in-indonesia/">far more partisan</a> than in the elections of 2009 and 2004.</p>
<p>There are a number of other reasons for this, but as the media landscape becomes more concentrated, partisan coverage can become all-encompassing.</p>
<p>Australia already has problems with the influence of powerful media owners. This was perhaps best exemplified by the Daily Telegraph’s 2013 election-year front pages <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/daily-telegraph-election-australia">“Kick this mob out”</a> and <a href="http://imgur.com/XscpFpK">“Australia needs Tony”</a>. </p>
<h2>Capital-city-centric</h2>
<p>Second, despite hopes local content could be better funded, digital conglomerates are all based in capital cities. They have to be, in order to be cost-efficient. This is likely to be more pronounced in Jakarta or Moscow or London than in Australia, due to the dominance of these capital cities in their respective nations, but the most likely result is centralised “digital newsrooms” in Sydney and Melbourne.</p>
<p>Indonesia’s media companies have shown little interest in producing news from remote areas of Papua, Ambon or Aceh. It is just as unlikely Australia’s large media companies will be investing heavily in news content from the Northern Territory, Tasmania or Western Australia.</p>
<p>Third, Indonesia’s media moguls have also argued for a weaker public broadcaster. </p>
<p>Of all media companies in Australia, the ABC currently has a similar business model to Indonesia’s large digital conglomerates. This means the national broadcaster becomes even more of a direct competitor as a news provider via digital media platforms. </p>
<p>Moguls such as Rupert Murdoch are likely to argue that taxpayer dollars could be <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/12/03/the-abc-v-the-murdochs-your-guide-to-the-battlefields/">put to better use</a>. Think of the previous debate about Sky’s Australia Channel versus the ABC’s Australia Network, but on a far grander scale. </p>
<h2>Differences</h2>
<p>There are some important differences between Australia and Indonesia. Indonesia’s multi-party system means media owners can and do directly run for political positions, even for president. </p>
<p>Furthermore, Australia has a respected public broadcaster. Indonesia’s is seen as subservient to government, given its former life producing propaganda in the Suharto-era. </p>
<p>In Indonesia, as media companies become more politically aligned and as officials in rural areas cry out for better news coverage, citizens are now making belated calls for <a href="http://industri.bisnis.com/read/20150409/101/420858/revisi-uu-penyiaran-harus-singgung-larangan-monopoli-kepemilikan-televisi">stronger media ownership laws</a>.</p>
<p>Some changes to Australia’s media laws are necessary and multi-platform conglomerates are probably inevitable. What Indonesia’s experience tells us is that the media mogul remains a powerful force in the digital era, despite the variety of content made available by the internet. Any change to existing laws should take into account this state of affairs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54747/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ross Tapsell 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>Indonesia’s media landscape may be a model which Australia is emulating as it looks to change media ownership laws. There are positives to this, but also causes for concern.Ross Tapsell, Lecturer in Asian Studies, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/343062014-11-18T03:05:59Z2014-11-18T03:05:59ZWith budget cuts coming, ABC and SBS stand divided<p>Did SBS chief executive Michael Ebeid score a well-timed free kick or an own goal in his <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/sbs-chief-bags-abc-for-wasting-15m-to-win-asian-cup/story-e6frg996-1227125013801">attack</a> on the ABC this week? </p>
<p>The ABC recently secured the free-to-air television rights for the Asian Cup football tournament to be held in Australia early next year, together with tonight’s match between the Socceroos and Japan. A lower bid by SBS – still in some circles fondly known as the “Soccer Broadcasting Service” – was rejected, dealing a significant blow to the smaller public broadcaster. </p>
<p>The ABC was reportedly asked to make a bid by Football Federation Australia. The FFA presumably believes the ABC’s coverage will attract larger audiences to the game. This is despite SBS’s long-term success with the sport. It should not be forgotten, however, that while SBS has largely been defined by its long connection with the world game, ABC was the home of football from the late 1950s until the 1980s.</p>
<p>But the stoush is only partly about football. It was surely no coincidence that it comes on the eve of the government’s formal announcement of the size of the cuts to public broadcasting.</p>
<p>In The Australian newspaper earlier this week, Ebeid described the ABC’s bid as a “waste of $1.5 million”. SBS’s CEO was clearly seeking to contrast his organisation with its older, larger, and much better-funded sibling. As he told the annual <a href="http://screenforever.org.au">Screen Producer’s conference</a> this week, “[SBS’s] difference is our strength”.</p>
<p>Whereas the ABC is principally funded by direct government appropriation, SBS currently earns 30% of its revenue from advertising. SBS planned to cover the cost of its bid for the Asian Cup rights from advertising and sponsorship.</p>
<p>Whereas the ABC has vigorously and publicly fought the government’s demands for savings, SBS presents itself as a model of efficiency, diplomacy and fiscal responsibility. And whereas members of the ABC’s board and its managing director have publicly defended the institution on many occasions this year, their counterparts at SBS including newly installed Chairman Nihal Gupta have been notable by their silence. Until, that is, this week’s remarks by Michael Ebeid.</p>
<p>In contrast to the ABC’s warnings that jobs and programs will inevitably be cut, Ebeid this week expressed confidence SBS can “absorb most of the cuts without impacting on the services we provide”. </p>
<p>Unlike the very public discussion of which programs and services might be cut at the ABC, very little has been discussed about changes at SBS. The only SBS program that seems certain to be diminished is <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/dateline-changes-employee-disgruntled-262791">Dateline</a>. This in part reflects a further difference between the two broadcasters: while ABC outsources a large amount of production, it still has significant internal capacity. SBS, on the other hand, outsources all program production except news and sport. </p>
<h2>Quantifying the cuts</h2>
<p>Last night on the ABC’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4106003.htm">Q&A</a>, Malcolm Turnbull indicated the ABC’s budget would be cut by an average of 5% over five years. This has been interpreted as translating to around A$50 million per year, although it’s possible savings could be weighted more heavily to later years. If SBS is treated similarly, it would need to find savings of between A$12 and A$13 million per year. </p>
<p>It is however by no means certain that the two organisations will be treated the same. There is a strong suggestion SBS will be allowed to screen more advertising, and therefore in theory earn more of its own revenue (currently around A$90 million per year) to offset some of the anticipated cuts to the government appropriation. </p>
<p>In contrasting the ABC’s “waste” with his own organisation’s efficiency in working with a shoestring budget, Ebeid gave a clear indication he believes the government will recognise the two broadcasters’ differences. </p>
<p>Ebeid told The Australian:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’ve got to give (Communications Minister) Malcolm Turnbull credit because he’s spent a lot of time understanding the business and how we do stuff.</p>
<p>So he understands the economics of the place and the fact we’re already doing things more efficiently than probably any other broadcaster.</p>
<p>We just don’t have the money; we’ve never had the money, so we’ve had to do things creatively and innovatively, and that’s been well recognised and we’re happy with that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In rekindling an old rivalry with the ABC, Ebeid may have made more difficult one of the recommendations of the <a href="http://www.communications.gov.au/television/abc_and_sbs_television/abc_and_sbs_efficiency_study_terms_of_reference">Efficiency Review</a> commissioned by Turnbull earlier this year. The review (which has still not been made public) is understood to have recommended that the two broadcasters share the same premises, with the vacated buildings sold off. </p>
<p>Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, whose administration presided over the establishment of SBS, was an early and vigorous critic of this proposal. Fraser <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/merger-with-abc-means-death-of-sbs-warns-malcolm-fraser-20140530-399v2.html">described</a> cohabitation as “the first step towards the abolition of the SBS”. </p>
<p>The present government is no doubt well aware that the last time amalgamation of the two public service broadcasters was seriously proposed – by the Hawke Labor government in the mid-1980s – it was defeated in the Senate after fierce criticism from ethnic communities. Full-scale amalgamation seems highly unlikely now. And after Ebeid’s intervention even some lower level of integration will create internal difficulties for the two broadcasters as well as more public criticism for the government. We will know more by the end of this week.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34306/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Goldsmith is currently working on an Australian Research Council funded Linkage grant with partners Screen Australia, the ABC, SBS and the Australian Children's Television Foundation. The project is entitled 'Australian Screen Content in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education: Uses and Potential'. </span></em></p>Did SBS chief executive Michael Ebeid score a well-timed free kick or an own goal in his attack on the ABC this week? The ABC recently secured the free-to-air television rights for the Asian Cup football…Ben Goldsmith, Senior Research Fellow , Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.