tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/media-ownership-2231/articlesMedia ownership – The Conversation2024-02-13T13:23:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2226772024-02-13T13:23:41Z2024-02-13T13:23:41ZSaving the news media means moving beyond the benevolence of billionaires<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574711/original/file-20240209-18-vtb36b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C26%2C5973%2C3961&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Billionaire media owners can't change inhospitable market dynamics.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-los-angeles-times-building-and-newsroom-along-imperial-news-photo/1211874817?adppopup=true">Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For the journalism industry, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/01/26/media-layoffs-strikes-journalism-dying">2024 is off to a brutal start</a>. </p>
<p>Most spectacularly, the Los Angeles Times recently slashed <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-01-23/latimes-layoffs-115-newsroom-soon-shiong">more than 20% of its newsroom</a>.</p>
<p>Though trouble had long been brewing, the layoffs were particularly disheartening because many employees and readers hoped the Times’ billionaire owner, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/01/how-patrick-soon-shiong-made-his-fortune-before-buying-the-la-times">Patrick Soon-Shiong</a>, would stay the course in good times and bad – that he would be a steward less interested in turning a profit and more concerned with ensuring the storied publication could serve the public. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-01-23/latimes-layoffs-115-newsroom-soon-shiong#:%7E:text=%E2%80%9CToday's%20decision%20is%20painful%20for,%2C%E2%80%9D%20Soon%2DShiong%20said.">According to the LA Times</a>, Soon-Shiong explained that the cuts were necessary because the paper “could no longer lose $30 million to $40 million a year.” </p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1749890710118301751">As one X user pointed out</a>, Soon-Shiong could weather US$40 million in annual losses for decades and still remain a billionaire. You could say the same of another billionaire owner, The Washington Post’s Jeff Bezos, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/washington-post-cut-jobs-voluntary-buyouts">who eliminated hundreds of jobs in 2023</a> after making a long stretch of steady investments. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1749890710118301751"}"></div></p>
<p>Of course, it helps if your owner has deep pockets and is satisfied with breaking even or earning modest profits – a far cry from the slash-and-burn, profit-harvesting of the two largest newspaper owners: the hedge fund <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/alden-global-capital-killing-americas-newspapers/620171/">Alden Global Capital</a> and <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2023/03/the-scale-of-local-news-destruction-in-gannetts-markets-is-astonishing/">the publicly traded Gannett</a>. </p>
<p>Yet, as we’ve previously argued, relying on the benevolence of billionaire owners isn’t a viable long-term solution to journalism’s crises. In what we call the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-slippery-slope-of-the-oligarchy-media-model-81931">oligarchy media model</a>,” it often creates distinct hazards for democracy. The recent layoffs simply reinforce these concerns. </p>
<h2>Systemic market failure</h2>
<p>This carnage is part of a longer story: <a href="https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/projects/state-of-local-news/2023/report/">Ongoing research on news deserts</a> shows that the U.S. has lost almost one-third of its newspapers and nearly two-thirds of its newspaper journalists since 2005.</p>
<p>It’s become clear that this downturn isn’t temporary. Rather, it’s a <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/we-will-finally-confront-systemic-market-failure/">systemic market failure</a> with no signs of reversal.</p>
<p>As print advertising continues to decline, Meta’s and Google’s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-and-metas-advertising-dominance-fades-as-tiktok-netflix-emerge-11672711107">dominance over digital advertising</a> has deprived news publishers of a major online revenue source. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/the-print-apocalypse-and-how-to-survive-it/506429/">The advertising-based news business model has collapsed</a> and, to the extent it ever did, won’t adequately support the public service journalism that democracy requires.</p>
<p>What about digital subscriptions as a revenue source? </p>
<p>For years, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.865967">paywalls have been hailed</a> as an alternative to advertising. While some news organizations have recently stopped requiring subscriptions <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/06/great-subscription-news-reversal">or have created a tiered pricing system</a>, how has this approach fared overall?</p>
<p>Well, it’s been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/business/media/new-york-times-q4-earnings.html">a fantastic financial success for The New York Times</a> and, actually, almost no one else – while denying millions of citizens access to essential news.</p>
<p>The paywall model has also worked reasonably well for The Wall Street Journal, with its assured audience of business professionals, though its management still felt compelled <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/wall-street-journal-shakes-up-d-c-bureau-with-big-layoffs/ar-BB1hDv9V?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds">to make deep cuts</a> in its Washington, D.C., bureau on Feb. 1, 2024. And at The Washington Post, even 2.5 million digital subscriptions haven’t been enough for the publication to break even.</p>
<p>To be fair, the billionaire owners of <a href="https://twitter.com/aidanfitzryan/status/1748098450963460180">The Boston Globe</a> and <a href="https://startribunecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Click-here.pdf">the Minneapolis Star Tribune</a> have sown fertile ground; the papers seem to be turning modest profits, and there isn’t any news of looming layoffs.</p>
<p>But they’re outliers; in the end, billionaire owners can’t change these inhospitable market dynamics. Plus, because they made their money in other industries, the owners often create conflicts of interest that their news outlets’ journalists must continually navigate with care.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Three female protestors shout, while one holds a sign reading 'Don't cut our future.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C16%2C5525%2C3755&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Los Angeles Times employees stage a walkout on Jan. 19, 2024, after learning about layoffs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/los-angeles-times-guild-members-rally-outside-city-hall-news-photo/1945953066?adppopup=true">Mario Tama/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The way forward</h2>
<p>While the market dynamics for news media are only getting worse, the civic need for quality, accessible public service journalism is greater than ever. </p>
<p>When quality journalism disappears, <a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1170919800">it intensifies a host of problems</a> – from rising corruption to decreasing civic engagement to greater polarization – that threaten the vitality of U.S. democracy.</p>
<p>That’s why we believe it’s urgently important to grow the number of outlets capable of independently resisting destructive market forces.</p>
<p>Billionaire owners willing to release their media properties could help facilitate this process. Some of them already have. </p>
<p>In 2016, the billionaire Gerry Lenfest donated his sole ownership of The Philadelphia Inquirer along with a $20 million endowment to an eponymously named <a href="https://www.lenfestinstitute.org/about/">nonprofit institute</a>, with bylaws preventing profit pressures from taking precedence over its civic mission. Its nonprofit ownership model has enabled the Inquirer to <a href="https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/projects/state-of-local-news/2023/brightspots/philadelphia-inquirer-jim-friedlich-q-and-a/">invest in news</a> at a time when so many others have cut to the bone.</p>
<p>In 2019, wealthy businessman Paul Huntsman ceded his ownership of The Salt Lake Tribune to a <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/11/04/historic-shift-salt-lake/">501(c)(3) nonprofit</a>, easing its tax burden and setting it up to receive philanthropic funding. After continuing as board chairman, in early February he announced that he was permanently <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2024/02/02/paul-huntsman-its-time-step-away/">stepping down</a>. </p>
<p>And in September 2023, the French newspaper <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/about-us/article/2023/09/24/two-major-milestones-for-le-monde-s-independence_6139073_115.html">Le Monde</a>’s billionaire shareholders, led by tech entrepreneur Xavier Niel, officially confirmed a plan to move their capital into an endowment fund that’s effectively controlled by journalists and other employees of the Le Monde Group. </p>
<p>On a smaller and far more precarious scale, U.S. journalists have founded hundreds of <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/many-small-news-nonprofits-feel-overlooked-by-funders-a-new-coalition-is-giving-them-a-voice/">small nonprofits</a> across the country over the past decade to provide crucial public affairs coverage. However, most struggle mightily to generate enough revenues to even pay themselves and a few reporters a living wage. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Workers sit at a table in a large, open workspace." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Philadelphia Inquirer moved to a new headquarters in May 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://meyerdesigninc.com/news/the-philadelphia-inquirers-hybrid-headquarters/">Jeffrey Totaro/Meyer Design, Inc.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Donors can still play a role</h2>
<p>The crucial next step is to ensure these civic, mission-driven forms of ownership have the necessary funding to survive and thrive. </p>
<p>One part of this approach can be philanthropic funding.</p>
<p><a href="https://mediaimpactfunders.org/philanthropys-growing-role-in-american-journalism-a-new-study-reveals-increased-funding-and-ethical-considerations/">A 2023 Media Impact Funders report</a> pointed out that foundation funders once primarily focused on providing a bridge to an ever-elusive new business model. The thinking went that they could provide seed money until the operation was up and running and then redirect their investments elsewhere. </p>
<p>However, journalists are increasingly calling for <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/patterns-in-philanthropy-leave-small-newsrooms-behind-can-that-change/">long-term sustaining support</a> as the extent of market failure has become clear. In a promising development, the <a href="https://www.pressforward.news/press-forward-will-award-more-than-500-million-to-revitalize-local-news/">Press Forward initiative</a> recently pledged $500 million over five years for local journalism, including for-profit as well as nonprofit and public newsrooms. </p>
<p>Charitable giving can also make news more accessible. If donations pay the bills – as they do at The Guardian – <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/10/rich-americans-more-likely-to-pay-for-news/">paywalls</a>, which limit content to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/01/11/media-startups-subscriptions-elite">subscribers who are disproportionately wealthy and white</a>, may become unnecessary. </p>
<h2>The limits of private capital</h2>
<p>Still, philanthropic support for journalism falls far short of what’s needed.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/">Total revenues for newspapers have fallen</a> from a historic high of $49.4 billion in 2005 to $9.8 billion in 2022.</p>
<p>Philanthropy could help fill a portion of this deficit but, even with the recent increase in donations, nowhere near all of it. Nor, in our view, should it. Too often, donations come with conditions and potential conflicts of interest. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Man wearing blue hat sits on a bench reading a newspaper." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Philanthropic giving hasn’t made up for the billions lost in advertising revenue over the past two decades.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-sitting-on-a-bench-reading-the-newspaper-news-photo/144075964?adppopup=true">Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same <a href="https://mediaimpactfunders.org/philanthropys-growing-role-in-american-journalism-a-new-study-reveals-increased-funding-and-ethical-considerations/">2023 Media Impact Funders survey</a> found that 57% of U.S. foundation funders of news organizations offered grants for reporting on issues for which they had policy stances. </p>
<p>In the end, philanthropy <a href="https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/a-qa-with-phil-napoli.php">can’t completely escape oligarchic influence</a>.</p>
<h2>Public funds for local journalism</h2>
<p>A strong, accessible media system that serves the public interest will ultimately require significant public funding. </p>
<p>Along with libraries, schools and research universities, journalism is an essential part of a democracy’s critical information infrastructure. Democracies in western and northern Europe earmark taxes or dedicated fees not only for legacy TV and radio but also for newspapers and digital media – and they make sure there’s always <a href="https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4779">an arm’s-length relationship</a> between the government and the news outlets so that their journalistic independence is assured. It’s worth noting that U.S. investment in public media is <a href="https://www.cjr.org/opinion/public-funding-media-democracy.php">a smaller percentage of GDP</a> than in virtually any other major democracy in the world.</p>
<p>State-level experiments in places such as <a href="https://njcivicinfo.org/about/">New Jersey</a>, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/10/20/local-news-vouchers-bill-dc">Washington, D.C.</a>, <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/09/the-state-of-california-will-fund-25-million-in-local-reporting-fellowships/">California</a> <a href="https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/free-press-action-applauds-groundbreaking-wisconsin-bills-addressing-local-journalism-crisis">and Wisconsin</a> suggest that public funding for newspapers and online-only outlets can also work in the U.S. Under these plans, news outlets prioritizing local journalism receive various kinds of public subsidies and grants. </p>
<p>The time has come to dramatically scale up these projects, from millions of dollars to billions, whether through “<a href="https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2019/academics-craft-a-plan-to-infuse-billions-into-journalism-give-every-american-50-to-donate-to-news-orgs/">media vouchers</a>” that <a href="https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/the-local-journalism-initiative.php">allow voters</a> to allocate funds or other ambitious <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/17/local-news-crisis-plan-fix-perry-bacon/">proposals</a> for creating tens of thousands of new journalism jobs across the country.</p>
<p>Is it worth it?</p>
<p>In our view, a crisis that imperils American democracy demands no less than a bold and comprehensive civic response.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222677/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 organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How can an industry experiencing systemic failure get back on its feet?Rodney Benson, Professor of Media, Culture and Communication, New York UniversityVictor Pickard, C. Edwin Baker Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy, University of PennsylvaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2109102023-10-04T14:04:09Z2023-10-04T14:04:09ZHow Europe’s authoritarian populists maintain the illusion of a free press<p>Authoritarian leaders might be good at damaging democracy, but unless they are pure dictators they often still need to worry about winning elections. In the last few years, Europe has seen the rise of a number of authoritarian populists who rely on winning mass support among ordinary people – as opposed to just rigging the vote.</p>
<p>In some cases they win with the help of successful or popular policies. In Hungary, for example – despite <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hungary-orban-reelection-manipulated-election-by-balint-magyar-and-balint-madlovics-2022-04">some suggestion of vote rigging</a> in April 2022’s election – to a considerable extent <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/orban-victory-in-hungary-reflects-popular-economic-policies-by-dorottya-szikra-and-mitchell-a-orenstein-2022-04">Viktor Orbán’s</a> victory can be attributed to voter support for his government’s popular economic and social programme.</p>
<p>Yet right-wing populist authoritarians also win elections even if their record in power is less positive. In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has presided over <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/895080/turkey-inflation-rate/">record inflation</a> of more than 50% and a youth unemployment rate of <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/TUR/turkey/youth-unemployment-rate#:%7E:text=Youth%20unemployment%20refers%20to%20the,a%202.31%25%20decline%20from%202020.">close to 20%</a> and yet he won 52% of the votes in the election of May 2023.</p>
<p>It’s similar in many countries presided over by authoritarian populists. And a key reason they can cling on to power is often their careful influence over the news media, which allows them to shape political debate while maintaining the image of a free and democratic press.</p>
<h2>Why media ownership matters</h2>
<p>On paper, a look at news media ownership changes over the past two decades in populist-controlled countries such as Hungary and Turkey suggests a reassuring picture in which some opposition outlets may have disappeared, but others continue to publish in competition with government-affiliated outlets. </p>
<p>Yet a closer look reveals an interesting structural feature of media ownership networks in authoritarian populist countries. Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231179366">latest research</a> in Austria, Hungary, Turkey and Slovenia – all of which have had governments with authoritarian populist tendencies at some point over the past two decades – shows that the structure of media ownership networks is enabling government-affiliated news outlets to dominate the public news discourse.</p>
<p>For instance, in Hungary, the Central European Press and Media Foundation (<a href="https://cmds.ceu.edu/article/2019-08-08/report-establishment-kesma-exacerbates-overall-risk-media-pluralism-hungary">Kesma</a>) is a huge right-wing media conglomerate that controls more than 500 national and local media outlets. Kesma was established in 2018, when most pro-government private media owners transferred their ownership rights to the foundation, which is headed by a board of trustees full of Orbán loyalists closely associated to the ruling party. </p>
<p>There are still opposition media voices in Hungary – especially in the online space. But in reality, public funding and the bulk of advertising <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/hungary">flows to pro-government media outlets</a>. This puts independent media in a precarious position financially. State broadcasters and Hungary’s main press agency are also heavily controlled and focus squarely on a pro-government agenda.</p>
<p>Indeed, a <a href="https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Hungary-Conclusions-International-Mission-Final.pdf">fact-finding mission</a> to Hungary in December 2019 by several journalism organisations found that Kesma has become a <a href="https://www.occrp.org/en/37-ccblog/ccblog/17408-they-tried-to-frame-us-new-assault-on-hungarian-journalists-highlights-media-freedom-crisis-in-the-heart-of-europe">crucial tool</a> for the government’s “content coordination throughout the pro-government media empire”.</p>
<p>Similarly, in Turkey, the Dogan Media group – owner of some of Turkey’s largest news outlets including the widely read newspapers Hürriyet and Milliyet and the largest tabloid Posta as well as the TV channel CNN Turk – was piece by piece <a href="https://rsf.org/en/do%C4%9Fan-media-group-sale-completes-government-control-turkish-media">sold to the Demirören Group</a>. The Demirören family are <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2018/09/24/the-total-collapse-of-freedom-pluralism-and-diversity-in-turkeys-mainstream-media/">close allies of Erdoğan and the ruling AKP</a>.</p>
<h2>Love your enemies</h2>
<p>It may seem counter-intuitive but the way media is set up in some authoritarian countries depends, to an extent, on having some sort of opposition media. </p>
<p>You might expect authoritarian populist governments to be more like the old totalitarian regimes which pulled out all the stops to silence any dissenting voices. This was the strategy of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin. </p>
<p>But allowing opposition voices to coexist next to dominant media organisations makes it harder for international press freedom bodies such as Reporters Without Borders or watchdogs such as Amnesty International to criticise a regime for a lack of pluralism. </p>
<p>It’s also convenient for an authoritarian regime to set up an “us versus them” situation, where “they” can be vilified and ridiculed by regime-friendly media. </p>
<p>In Hungary, for instance – in a wider strategy to discredit independent media news – pro-government media outlets have launched smear campaigns against independent media outlets funded by international grants. They are labelled “<a href="https://cpj.org/2023/02/editor-tamas-bodoky-on-threats-to-hungarys-independent-media-funding/">dollar media</a>”, accused of serving foreign interests.</p>
<p>This system of what is known as <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/competitive-authoritarianism/20A51BE2EBAB59B8AAEFD91B8FA3C9D6">“competitive authoritarianism”</a> maintains a semblance of democracy through electoral and market competition, despite the fact that in reality, these are heavily rigged. </p>
<p>Authoritarian populists do not seek to completely exclude dissenting or opposition actors, to the contrary, they rely on their existence, which allows them to be scapegoated and vilified. But in a regime where the power is heavily manipulated to be in favour of the voices that speak the regime’s message, opposition viewpoints are effectively drowned out. </p>
<p>Populist leaders often complain about a “leftist” or “liberal” media bias. This allows them to set up internal enemies as a target for their supporters. </p>
<p>For example, at a press conference in 2019 – from which he had excluded most media outlets that didn’t back his government – Orbán complained that the majority of media outlets were <a href="https://index.hu/belfold/2019/01/10/orban_viktor_sajtotajekoztato_osszefoglalo/">“left-liberal”</a>, adding: “As soon as I get up, I know that today I will also be working against the wind.”</p>
<p>Given the dominance of those news outlets that toe his party line, this is risible. But of course Hungary now has few strong enough dissenting voices for opposition ideas to be heard. So authoritarian populists have every interest in maintaining some level of pluralism – as long as it does not threaten the government’s dominance of the public discourse.</p>
<p>What this means for democracy and those who defend it is that people should be wary of jumping too quickly to conclusions about media pluralism based on measures of media ownership concentration alone. </p>
<p>Depending on the structure of the media ownership network, a populist authoritarian government does not need to concentrate media ownership in the hands of just one state-aligned media group. It’s okay to allow dissident voices to shout in the margins – because, as leaders like Orbán and Erdoğan know only too well – very few people are listening.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210910/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fanni Toth received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the NORFACE-funded research program “Democratic governance in a turbulent age (Governance)” grant no. 462-19-080 (POPBACK project) supported in Austria by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project no. I 4820, in Slovenia by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARSS), project no. H5-8288, and in the UK by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerhard Schnyder recieved the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the NORFACE-funded research program “Democratic governance in a turbulent age (Governance)” grant no. 462-19-080 (POPBACK project) supported in Austria by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project no. I 4820, in Slovenia by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARSS), project no. H5-8288, and in the UK by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)”</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marlene Radl received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the NORFACE-funded research program “Democratic governance in a turbulent age (Governance)” grant no. 462-19-080 (POPBACK project) supported in Austria by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project no. I 4820, in Slovenia by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARSS), project no. H5-8288, and in the UK by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).</span></em></p>Authoritarian populists tolerate opposition media – as long as they only exist at the margins.Fanni Toth, Postdoctoral Research Associate on POPBACK project , Loughborough UniversityGerhard Schnyder, Professor of International Management & Political Economy, Loughborough UniversityMarlene Radl, PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science, Universität WienLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1941162022-11-08T19:13:42Z2022-11-08T19:13:42ZCanada’s public broadcaster should use Mastodon to provide a social media service<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494001/original/file-20221108-22-1h5b84.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5132%2C2887&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mastodon's decentralized network could be leveraged as a model for future social media.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/canada-s-public-broadcaster-should-use-mastodon-to-provide-a-social-media-service" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and ensuing confusion has driven many to look for alternatives to the platform. One popular option has been Mastodon, a social network distributed on many servers with no central ownership.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/twitter-mastodon-faq-1.6642946">Mastodon has seen its profile raised over the past few weeks, and user registration has skyrocketed</a>. Mastodon is not one company, but many federated servers working together. These individual servers need resources. These resources should be public.</p>
<p>As internet communications scholars, we propose that Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, should build a Mastodon server on the global network. </p>
<p>CBC starting a Mastodon server could be the start of the news organization seeing itself as not just creating content online, but building better infrastructure for Canadians to create online.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wfI4QeB2jE8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">ITV News explains why users are leaving Twitter for Mastodon.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Canadian social media</h2>
<p>Mastodon is free and open-source social media software, available to anyone who wants to install it on a computer server. Once installed, a Mastodon server allows people to sign up for accounts and from there do familiar social media activities, such as sharing posts and following others.</p>
<p>What makes Mastodon powerful is that it’s part of a larger network of servers referred to as the fediverse. This network allows one Mastodon server to connect to another — as well as to many other social media software systems. The result is a large, non-centralized network of smaller servers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/citizens-social-media-like-mastodon-can-provide-an-antidote-to-propaganda-and-disinformation-192491">Citizens' social media, like Mastodon, can provide an antidote to propaganda and disinformation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So the CBC could use the Mastodon platform and build its own server to provide access to Canadians who want social media without the reliance upon predominantly American corporations. Ideally, this could be provided globally as an important service in an age when platform interests and national interests have increasingly aligned.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1589701721059565570"}"></div></p>
<h2>The future of public service media</h2>
<p>In the past, the CBC has been a little sensitive about its social media strategy. When <a href="https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/an-issue-worth-torching-your-job-over/">former CBC tech columnist Jesse Hirsh called out the public broadcaster for its over-reliance on Facebook, his spot ended</a>. </p>
<p>His comments raise an awkward point: why does a public broadcaster rely so much on privately owned platforms to reach its audience?</p>
<p>The reason is that the work of running a social media service is a challenge for an organization mostly dedicated to content production. But that’s not always been the case. </p>
<p>Historically, Canada’s publicly funded media has many great examples of thinking beyond content production. The National Film Board’s <a href="https://www.nfb.ca/playlist/challenge-for-change/">Challenge for Change program sent filmmakers to document the lives of Fogo Island residents</a>. CBC’s ZeD was an experiment in open-source television — the long-forgotten platform <a href="https://exclaim.ca/music/article/do_i_want_my_zed_tv-cbc_attempts_open_source">allowed Canadians to share their videos online in 2002, three years before YouTube launched</a>. </p>
<p>These media projects were not so much about creating content, but creating the possibilities for what we might call social media today. Running a Mastodon server would do the same.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a building entry with CBC NEWS and CBC logos" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The CBC could consider its role as a public service for Canadians alongside changing technologies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Re-inventing the future of media</h2>
<p>Starting a Mastodon server would also put the CBC on a path to re-invent what social media and online content could look like in the future. This will not be easy, but in our opinion, will <a href="https://runyourown.social/">raise questions that go along with starting a server</a> and are directly applicable to future social media policy in Canada: sustainability, moderation and trust.</p>
<p>First, we need to consider the sustainability of our internet infrastructure. There is already <a href="https://chaos.social/@greenfediverse">a green collective on Mastodon</a> trying to run on renewable energy. The <a href="https://www.akamai.com/company/corporate-responsibility/sustainability">CBC relies on Akamai Technologies</a> for its infrastructure. As <a href="https://www.akamai.com/company/corporate-responsibility/sustainability">Akamai</a> commits to lower the carbon footprint of its infrastructure, the same questions apply to the CBC. <a href="https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/greening-our-story">Could making its Mastodon server help the CBC lower its footprint beyond just media industries</a>?</p>
<p>Second, each server needs to set its own community guidelines that decide its content moderation. The CBC has been <a href="https://cbchelp.cbc.ca/hc/en-ca/sections/115000541654-About-Commenting-on-CBC-ca-">quietly working on these issues for years around comments on its website</a>. Starting a Mastodon server would apply the lessons they have learned so far.</p>
<p>Rather than the top-down community values driven by corporate interests, there is an opportunity to align community standards with Canada’s established rights framework and media policy. Starting its own Mastodon service will require the CBC to interpret its own mandate and Canada’s Human Rights Code and Multiculturalism Act before drafting its own community standards for the service. </p>
<p>Third, the CBC would have to contend with fake media, such as <a href="https://thewalrus.ca/fighting-ai-with-ai-the-battle-against-deepfakes/">deepfakes</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/russian-embassy-in-canada-weaponizes-social-media-to-fuel-support-for-ukraine-invasion-180109">foreign propaganda</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-sunny-ways-to-pelted-with-stones-why-do-some-canadians-hate-justin-trudeau-167607">conspiracy theories</a>. </p>
<p>Strong moderation policies with clear guidelines would be essential. The CBC could bring the power of its fact-checking and verification to social media, tamping down on misinformation. Perhaps the service could even find its own alternative to Twitter’s blue check marks, helping Canadians find information sources they can trust. </p>
<p>Our proposal applies to Radio-Canada as much as the CBC — really, to any public service media. Indeed, we hope that taking alternative social media seriously would reignite a collective and global imagination of the future of public service media.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/social-media-and-society-125586" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479539/original/file-20220817-20-g5jxhm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=1" width="100%"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194116/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fenwick McKelvey has received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, Les Fonds de recherche du Québec, and the Government of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert W. Gehl 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>With Twitter users considering a relocation to the decentralized social media network Mastodon, there’s an opportunity for the CBC to lead the way in re-imagining online futures for Canadians.Fenwick McKelvey, Associate Professor in Information and Communication Technology Policy, Concordia UniversityRobert W. Gehl, Ontario Research Chair of Digital Governance for Social Justice, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1888322022-08-22T15:44:23Z2022-08-22T15:44:23ZUhuru Kenyatta and Kenya’s media: a bitter-sweet affair that didn’t end happily<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479408/original/file-20220816-19-s6r1xw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kenya's journalists have had a tumultuous relationship with Uhuru Kenyatta's government. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Simon Maina/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Uhuru Kenyatta’s regime came into power in 2013. It was the first to implement most of the provisions of Kenya’s <a href="http://kenyalaw.org/lex/actview.xql?actid=Const2010">2010 constitution</a>. The media were eager to see how the government, led by Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto, would adhere to <a href="https://www.klrc.go.ke/index.php/constitution-of-kenya/112-chapter-four-the-bill-of-rights/part-2-rights-and-fundamental-freedoms/200-34-freedom-of-the-media#:%7E:text=Freedom%20of%20the%20media,-Chapter%20Four%20%2D%20The&text=(1)%20Freedom%20and%20independence%20of,in%20Article%2033%20(2).&text=(b)%20penalise%20any%20person%20for,any%20broadcast%2C%20publication%20or%20dissemination">article 34</a> of the constitution, which deals with the freedom of the press. The two politicians had promised to expand media freedoms once in power. </p>
<p>The relationship between the media and Kenyatta’s regime went through six stages that defined the president’s nine years in office between 2013 and 2022.</p>
<p>It shifted from <em>“karibuni chai”</em> (welcome to tea) to <em>“nyinyi mzime hiyo mavitu yenu na muende”</em> (all of you switch off your thingies (cameras) and leave). </p>
<h2>1. Courting the media</h2>
<p>Uhuru Kenyatta took over from Mwai Kibaki to become the fourth president of Kenya on 9 April 2013. His relationship with the media started off well. The president warmly welcomed journalists to State House before he and Ruto hosted a <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ktnnews/video/2000067681/-president-and-his-deputy-hold-media-breakfast-at-statehouse">breakfast with top editors</a> on 12 July 2013. It was the first time State House was hosting such an event. </p>
<p>Kenyatta called it an opportunity to build relations between the media and the state. Critics saw it as a way of arm-twisting the press to get it on the side of the government. </p>
<h2>2. Rebranding the presidential press</h2>
<p>The media breakfast was soon followed by another move touted as an effort to streamline the State House-media relationship. In July 2013, the Presidential Press Service, which mostly covered the head of state’s movements, was <a href="https://nation.africa/kenya/news/politics/uhuru-unveils-new-media-unit-assures-of-press-freedom-875244">rebranded</a> into the Presidential Strategic Communication Unit. Its mandate was expanded to communicating government policy and branding state events. </p>
<p>The rebrand implied that strategic communication – which is the purposeful use of communication to fulfil a set mission – would be prioritised. The presidential press unit would, therefore, be used to convey news from State House to journalists, and ensure the ruling party’s agenda was achieved. </p>
<h2>3. Divorcing the media</h2>
<p>The cordial start to the relationship between the media and Kenyatta’s regime didn’t last. Soon there were signs that the Jubilee government had taken a road it couldn’t walk comfortably. </p>
<p>Following the October 2013 terrorist attack at the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-29247163">Westgate mall</a>, journalists were thrown out of parliament on allegations of misrepresenting facts. This followed media reports that <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/12/22/westgate-questions-and-kenyas-misled-media">soldiers had looted shops</a> during the siege at the mall. In December, parliament <a href="https://cpj.org/2013/12/kenya-parliament-passes-draconian-media-laws/">passed a law</a> that imposed heavy penalties on journalists and media houses found guilty of code of ethics violations. These violations were to be determined by a state agency. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-kenyatta-has-gone-about-stifling-the-free-press-in-kenya-91335">How Kenyatta has gone about stifling the free press in Kenya</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In 2015, when the media became critical of Kenyatta’s relationship with his deputy Ruto, the president dismissed these reports <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE5CsBKEZKs">saying</a> <em>“gazeti ni ya kufunga nyama”</em> (newspapers are for wrapping meat). </p>
<p>And at a police service conference in February 2018, Kenyatta <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/entertainment/news/article/2001268312/pack-up-and-go-kenyatta-matiangi-tell-off-journalists">told</a> journalists to switch off their cameras and leave. </p>
<p>A month earlier, David Mugonyi, the then deputy president’s spokesman, <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ureport/article/2001265277/dp-ruto-s-spokesman-threatening-message-to-nmg-journalist-over-story">threatened</a> a journalist, Justus Wanga, with dismissal from his job. This was provoked by Wanga’s newspaper article carried under the title “Cabinet seats that split Uhuru, Ruto”.</p>
<h2>4. Redirecting advertising revenue</h2>
<p>To the chagrin of the media, the government <a href="https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/news/east-africa/kenya-bans-state-advertising-in-private-media-1362418">withdrew advertising revenue</a> from mainstream media in 2017. </p>
<p>The Kenyatta and Ruto regime established a state-run pullout and website, <a href="https://www.mygov.go.ke/index.php">MyGov</a>, which carried all advertising from government agencies. This was <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/counties/article/2000169804/new-agency-to-handle-all-state-media-advertising">coordinated</a> through a newly established body, the Government Advertising Agency. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-african-governments-use-advertising-as-a-weapon-against-media-freedom-75702">How African governments use advertising as a weapon against media freedom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The government’s decision redirected about US$20 million in advertising that initially went directly to media houses annually. This accounted for an estimated 30% of total media advertising revenue. The formation of the agency coincided with rising tensions between the media and the government.</p>
<p>Though the move was <a href="https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2019-05-04-media-calls-for-a-rethink-on-state-advertising-agency/">initially criticised</a>, it challenged media houses to think of other ways of generating income. This included tapping into reader revenue and exploiting technology to support daily operations. This, ideally, would have helped free media houses from the government’s use of advertising as a weapon to manipulate coverage. </p>
<h2>5. Snubbing the 2017 presidential debate</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/12/kenya-elections-televised-presidential-debate">2013 presidential debate</a> was the first of its kind for Kenyan media. All presidential candidates were in attendance. It gave journalists an unprecedented opportunity to interrogate them on issues of national leadership. </p>
<p>However, in 2017, <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/7/6/kenyas-uhuru-kenyatta-pulls-out-of-election-debates">Kenyatta snubbed</a> the presidential debate. This was <a href="https://www.voaafrica.com/a/odinga-snubs-kenya-presidential-debate/6675753.html">replicated</a> in 2022 when Raila Odinga, who contested the presidency under the Azimio coalition chaired by Kenyatta, disparaged the debate.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/political-debates-in-kenya-are-they-useful-or-empty-media-spectacles-183262">Political debates in Kenya: are they useful or empty media spectacles?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>These decisions seemed to undermine the media’s relevance in Kenya. <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/michael-ndonye/article/2001447570/it-will-be-political-indiscipline-to-avoid-the-presidential-debate">In my opinion</a>, snubbing the debate was political indiscipline. It’s not just voters and the media who needed to hear from leaders, but all Kenyans. </p>
<h2>6. Unable to hide</h2>
<p>Despite the tense relationship he had with the media, Kenyatta still found it important to seek its help when he felt cornered. Twice, he sought out journalists to address his home turf, the <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/le-monde-africa/article/2022/08/12/kenyan-presidential-election-mount-kenya-voters-can-swing-the-outcome_5993373_124.html">important</a> central Kenya voting bloc.</p>
<p>Two days to the 9 August 2022 elections, Kenyatta spoke with journalists from vernacular media platforms, urging people from central Kenya to vote for Odinga. Ruto allies <a href="https://www.pd.co.ke/august-9/kenya-kwanza-protests-uhurus-kenya-143236/">protested</a> the move. During this interview at State House, Kenyatta appealed for the region’s vote for his preferred successor, Odinga.</p>
<p>The relationship between Kenyatta and the media has been bitter-sweet. However, the media and state are not expected to be bedfellows. It is journalists’ responsibility to hold those in power accountable. That is why it’s a red flag whenever regimes purport to work with the media.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188832/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Ndonye 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 relationship between the state and media soured just months into the Kenyatta regime.Michael Ndonye, Senior Lecturer, HOD-Mass Communication, Kabarak UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1510202020-12-06T18:55:06Z2020-12-06T18:55:06ZClosures, cuts, revival and rebirth: how COVID-19 reshaped the NZ media landscape in 2020<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372730/original/file-20201203-21-1399mp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C0%2C5168%2C3453&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Bauer Media <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/120757500/bauer-closure-spells-apocalypse-for-new-zealand-print-media-says-past-editor">announced the closure</a> of its New Zealand magazine operation just a week into level 4 lockdown in early April, things looked ominous for local media. Revenues and newsrooms were already contracting. It was hard to see things improving.</p>
<p>However, while the full picture is still unclear, it seems most of New Zealand’s TV, radio and print outlets have come through the COVID-19 crisis bruised and battered — but alive. Sadly, an estimated 637 media jobs have disappeared in the process.</p>
<p>In short, 2020 has left the New Zealand media market profoundly restructured. </p>
<p>Perhaps most significantly, as the tenth <a href="https://www.aut.ac.nz/study/study-options/communication-studies/research/journalism,-media-and-democracy-research-centre/jmad-centre-news">New Zealand Media Ownership Report</a> shows, there are now more independent news outlets in the market than at any time in the past decade. </p>
<p>That trend was underscored by Australian Nine Entertainment <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/stuff-ma-management-idUSL4N2D60HK">selling</a> (for NZ$1) its New Zealand subsidiary Stuff to CEO Sinead Boucher. The sale returned the country’s largest digital news platform and 12 national and regional newspapers to local ownership.</p>
<h2>The magazine massacre</h2>
<p>Many of these structural changes in the country’s media might have happened anyway, but the pandemic certainly accelerated some decisions. </p>
<p>A case in point was Bauer. The company blamed its closure on “the severe economic impact of COVID-19”, but it had been facing declining advertising revenue well before the pandemic hit. This was <a href="https://www.bauermedia.com/news/press-release-publishing-new-zealand">made worse</a> when magazines were not included among essential goods and services during the lockdown in March and April. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1245451512135823360"}"></div></p>
<p>Bauer also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/06/australia-magazine-industry-in-crisis-as-bauer-media-folds-seven-titles-pacific-magazines">closed titles</a> in Australia, but in June the company’s Australasian magazines were <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/bauer-confirms-australian-exit-with-sale-to-mercury-capital-20200617-p553ck">sold</a> to Australian private equity group Mercury Capital. The new owner resumed publication of Woman’s Day, New Zealand Woman’s Weekly, Australian Women’s Weekly NZ, Your Home & Garden, NZ Listener and Kia Ora. </p>
<p>Later, flagship current affairs titles North & South and Metro were <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/buyers-emerge-for-metro-and-north-south-listener-still-up-in-the-air/AS6AQX3DO6MSJWHMY6ZIK6BTTA/">sold</a> to independent publishers and relaunched in November. </p>
<h2>A government lifeline</h2>
<p>You might say the country’s media survived the pandemic with a little help from friends — and even frenemies: the government, readers and Google. </p>
<p>In April, the government <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/414946/covid-19-government-announces-support-package-for-media-sector">announced</a> a $50 million media crisis support package — the lion’s share went to broadcasting.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/funding-public-interest-journalism-requires-creative-solutions-a-tax-rebate-for-news-media-could-work-146563">Funding public interest journalism requires creative solutions. A tax rebate for news media could work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But most of the country’s news outlets received support from the government’s wage subsidy scheme, including NZ Media and Entertainment (NZME) and Stuff, the two largest print and online news publishers. </p>
<p>Without that government support it’s clear many news outlets would have been more severely affected. The NZ Herald received $8.6 million in wage subsidy and Stuff $6.2 million. State-owned broadcaster TVNZ received $5.9 million and the private-equity-owned MediaWorks $3.6 million. </p>
<p>The scheme also kept many smaller digital news outlets afloat, and some even expanded. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1239626719381745664"}"></div></p>
<h2>The Google factor</h2>
<p>Some news outlets received additional funding from Google’s <a href="https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/intl/en_gb/journalism-emergency-relief-fund/">Journalism Emergency Relief Fund</a> — slightly ironic, given the impact of the digital giant on traditional media advertising revenues (hence the “frenemy” tag).</p>
<p>A total of 76 news organisations across the Pacific benefited from Google’s “short-term relief”. While smaller publishers welcomed it, the money spent per outlet was unlikely to make any serious dent in Google’s budget — it was more a gesture of goodwill. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/courting-the-chameleon-how-the-us-election-reveals-rupert-murdochs-political-colours-149910">Courting the chameleon: how the US election reveals Rupert Murdoch's political colours</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For example, Queenstown-based non-profit media outlet <a href="https://crux.org.nz/">Crux</a> received $5,000. To put that in context, in the first half of 2020 search engines — mainly Google — <a href="https://www.iab.org.nz/news/h1-q2-2020-digital-advertising-revenue-report/">received</a> $361 million in digital advertising revenue in New Zealand, along with the social media platforms gobbling up 72% of the country’s total digital advertising spend.</p>
<p>For its part, <a href="https://newzealand.googleblog.com/2020/10/reflecting-on-our-google-news.html">Google says</a> it has done more for the country’s journalism than providing financial aid, and has “trained almost 600 journalists in dozens of newsrooms across the country”. </p>
<h2>Higher traffic and increased donations</h2>
<p>News companies also got by with a little help from their readers during the pandemic. The NZ Herald <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/nz-herald-audience-breaks-records-in-extraordinary-news-year/NCPOMHKM3KW74GEKSELJYEGF4Q/">reported</a> “overall print-digital readership […] at record levels and newspaper readership [at] its highest in almost a decade”. </p>
<p>Independent digital news outlets <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/">Newsroom</a> and <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/">The Spinoff</a> also reported spikes in readership and donations or subscriptions. Web analytics confirm overall news site traffic increased quite substantially during the pandemic. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/misinformation-on-social-media-fuels-vaccine-hesitancy-a-global-study-shows-the-link-150652">Misinformation on social media fuels vaccine hesitancy: a global study shows the link</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>According to data analysts <a href="https://www.similarweb.com/">SimilarWeb</a>, total visits to the NZ Herald website grew from 36.5 million in May to 46.4 million in August. Similarly, total visits to the Stuff site went from 39.7 million in May to 43 million in August, while The Spinoff grew from 2.4 million in May to 2.9 million in July. </p>
<p>These positive developments were offset by plenty of negatives, however. Many commercial newsrooms shrank substantially, with hundreds of jobs lost. The full effects of the pandemic will not be known for some time, and what the industry will look like in 12 months is hard to predict. </p>
<p>What is clear, though, is that more government support will be needed in the coming years if New Zealand wants a healthy media system as part of its democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151020/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merja Myllylahti 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 pandemic hit media hard, but a new report shows New Zealand now has more independent news outlets than at any time in the past decade.Merja Myllylahti, Co-Director, JMAD Research Centre, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1397042020-06-23T12:20:51Z2020-06-23T12:20:51ZDoes coronavirus aid to news outlets undermine journalistic credibility?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343006/original/file-20200619-43196-i62y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C98%2C5335%2C3523&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More than two dozen newsrooms have shut down and stopped the presses during the pandemic.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/conveyor-belt-with-newspapers-in-a-printery-royalty-free-image/648822915?adppopup=true"> Tom Werner/Getty</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The news business, like every other, is struggling amid the coronavirus pandemic. The economic crisis has forced more than two dozen small-town <a href="https://www.poynter.org/locally/2020/the-coronavirus-has-closed-more-than-25-local-newsrooms-across-america-and-counting/">newsrooms to shut down</a> and has accelerated media job losses – including hundreds of layoffs at outlets as varied as Condé Nast, BuzzFeed, Vice, The Economist, and virtually every newspaper chain. </p>
<p>As a result, publishers have been among those in line to apply for loans from the <a href="https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/paycheck-protection-program-ppp">Paycheck Protection Program</a>, an emergency funding package administered by the federal Small Business Administration. </p>
<p>News organizations have received millions in coronavirus stimulus aid. The <a href="https://www.cpb.org/pressroom/CPB-Announces-Distribution-Plan-CARES-Act-Funds">Corporation for Public Broadcasting received US$75 million</a> from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which it planned to distribute to public media across the country. The <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/local-business/seattle-times-co-gets-nearly-10-million-in-federal-coronavirus-aid-funds/">Seattle Times received $10 million</a>. Axios, a well-respected inside-the-Beltway political news outlet, <a href="https://www.editorandpublisher.com/news/the-ppp-divide-while-venture-backed-publishers-get-ppp-loans-many-bootstrapped-publishers-havent/">received $4.8 million</a>. The list goes on and includes The Conversation, which received $367,000.</p>
<p>But of course, journalism isn’t just any other business. It comes with a <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/#:%7E:text=Congress%20shall%20make%20no%20law,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.">First Amendment</a> culture that situates the press as, among other things, an <a href="https://www.mlive.com/opinion/2018/08/a_free_press.html">independent government watchdog</a>, an institution that’s supposed to keep its distance from other power centers. </p>
<p>Does taking government money mean editors, broadcasters and publishers owe the government something? Do these grants create a conflict of interest in an industry whose credibility rests on its independence?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343007/original/file-20200619-43229-1wu6bxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343007/original/file-20200619-43229-1wu6bxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343007/original/file-20200619-43229-1wu6bxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343007/original/file-20200619-43229-1wu6bxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343007/original/file-20200619-43229-1wu6bxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343007/original/file-20200619-43229-1wu6bxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343007/original/file-20200619-43229-1wu6bxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343007/original/file-20200619-43229-1wu6bxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Does taking money from the government compromise journalists?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/paycheck-protection-program-royalty-free-image/1221703830?adppopup=true">Kameleon007/Getty</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Concern is justified</h2>
<p>In a Wall Street Journal story about the Paycheck Protection Program, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-newspapers-want-coronavirus-stimulus-four-out-of-five-cant-get-it-11587987059">an executive at Gannett Co.</a>, the country’s largest newspaper chain, with 261 daily papers, was quoted as saying, “We are always open to considering ways to sustain journalism. However, we would never allow ourselves to be perceived as dependent on or influenced by government funding.” Parent companies such as Gannett, which own multiple news outlets across the country, are presently not eligible for PPP aid. But the concern for independence continues to be a driving one at such companies. </p>
<p>Soon after receiving PPP money, <a href="https://www.axios.com/axios-%09returns-ppp-loan-a4595591-e5fc-41a6-ba00-cc7602cc50d6.html">Axios decided to return it</a>, saying “the program has become divisive, turning into a public debate about the worthiness of specific industries or companies,” and that an alternative source of capital for Axios had emerged.</p>
<p>Journalism professionals and supporters are right to be concerned about the conflict-of-interest questions raised by PPP support. In journalism, credibility is paramount: If audiences no longer see journalists as reliable sources of independent news, the whole enterprise is questioned. </p>
<p>This is why <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/213901/corporate-media-and-the-threat-to-democracy-by-robert-w-mcchesney/">corporate media ownership is a serious ethical concern</a> – parent companies (i.e., Walt Disney) <a href="https://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=237">are tempted to harness their media outlets (i.e., ABC News) to promote other corporate products</a> (i.e., books, movies and music from Disney-owned publishers, studios and record labels).</p>
<p>The concern to protect credibility is also why individual <a href="https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp">journalists routinely refrain from being active in issues they cover, such as politics</a>. Journalistic credibility also is protected in part by keeping an arms-length relationship with any person or group, including government, that might have an interest in shaping the news or try to leverage favorable treatment with access, junkets, scoops – or stimulus aid.</p>
<p>But as <a href="https://www.bellisario.psu.edu/people/individual/patrick-lee-plaisance">a former journalist</a> and a <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/media-ethics/book239341">media ethics scholar</a> who has deeply explored such ethical dilemmas, I suggest that PPP aid need not undermine journalistic credibility.</p>
<h2>Keep the faith</h2>
<p>In the news business, conflicts of interest have historically been taken quite seriously, since they can undermine the very heart of the enterprise: journalistic credibility. </p>
<p>Countless conflict-of-interest policies, both in the public and private sector, are intended to protect journalistic autonomy and credibility in varying ways – from explicit requirements to avoid conflicts, to requirements to at least disclose them. </p>
<p>Since 1896, when New York Times owner Adolph S. Ochs declared his paper would report the news “<a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Without_Fear_Or_Favor.html?id=g6Y8AAAACAAJ">without fear or favor</a>,” most reporters, editors, broadcasters and publishers have been keenly aware that they can lose the faith of their audiences if their news reports are perceived as driven by special interests. </p>
<p>Almost all mainstream news organizations have clear conflict-of-interest guidelines. The newsroom at most outlets doesn’t talk to the advertising department – a divide long considered a “<a href="https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/bloomberg_news_and_the_problem.php">church and state</a>” separation to ensure advertisers don’t get special news treatment. <a href="https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-politics.asp">Politics reporters are not allowed to participate</a> in political events or have political bumper stickers on their cars.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343008/original/file-20200619-43191-18fcxyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343008/original/file-20200619-43191-18fcxyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343008/original/file-20200619-43191-18fcxyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343008/original/file-20200619-43191-18fcxyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343008/original/file-20200619-43191-18fcxyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343008/original/file-20200619-43191-18fcxyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343008/original/file-20200619-43191-18fcxyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343008/original/file-20200619-43191-18fcxyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This is not likely to be a journalist’s car.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/car-covered-in-democratic-party-candidate-bumper-sticker-news-photo/1081425586?adppopup=true">Joseph Prezioso//AFP via Getty Image</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Managing conflicts</h2>
<p>Despite all this professional rhetoric, journalistic independence has regularly been called into question and undermined. Perceived conflicts such as corporate ownership, coddling of advertisers, and favoritism regularly crop up, and special interests influence news coverage in all kinds of ways. </p>
<p>The Washington Post has been criticized for the apparent conflict posed by its sale to Amazon executive Jeff Bezos. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/business/media/washington-post-jeff-bezos.html">Bezos has insisted on a hands-off approach</a> to the newsroom, and while <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/04/treasury-suggests-review-postal-rates-not-just-amazon/">Amazon-related Post stories often disclose Bezos’ ownership</a>, the bigger concern is the unwritten culture created by the arrangement. <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/washington-post-anonymous-amazon-bezos_n_5c056c68e4b07aec575158d6">Post journalists</a> may be less inclined to see Amazon practices as newsworthy because of Bezos’ largesse.</p>
<p>Getting aid from the federal government to help stay in business ought to concern any self-respecting journalist. But forgoing the stimulus altogether is not the only, nor even the best, option. </p>
<p>Many conflicts can be managed responsibly. While a concern on its face, the ethical question posed by receiving PPP money from the federal Small Business Administration is not the same as that posed by revenue from advertisers who might want to coerce friendly news coverage.</p>
<p>Regarding the latter, such concerns about conflicts of interest are troubling precisely because they tend to pose ongoing threats to journalistic independence: run a story anytime in the future that displeases the company, and they will pull their advertising or, at public media outlets, their sponsorship.</p>
<h2>What’s the threat?</h2>
<p>The case of PPP aid is both much more diffuse and a one-off occurrence: It is difficult to discern the news “agenda” that such a sprawling government bureaucracy – one intended as more of an administrative body than a policymaking office – might attach to a one-time disbursement of aid. </p>
<p>And what is the threat to journalistic independence posed once the money is disbursed? </p>
<p>Short of a blatant refund demand after an unflattering story about PPP administrator the Small Business Administration, which seems unlikely, there would be little leverage available to the SBA such as that with ongoing advertising contracts. A local auto dealership can pull its advertising out of punitive pique, and that would be the end of the matter; a federal agency attempting to do so would run squarely into strong First Amendment prohibitions.</p>
<p>What journalistic recipients of PPP money can and should do is to be fully <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08900520701315855">transparent</a> to audiences. Publishers should disclose their motive for applying to the program and how the money is spent. They should invite public discussion of any conflict-of-interest concerns, and announce steps in case a conflict involving news coverage arises (such as promises to include a disclosure in stories involving the SBA).</p>
<p>Perceived, as well as actual, threats to journalistic independence should never be taken lightly. But the apparent conflict of interest posed by PPP aid to newsrooms can be managed by transparency, rather than outright avoidance.</p>
<p><em>This story has been updated to state the proper source of the government funds – the CARES Act – given to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation has received funds from the Paycheck Protection Program.</em></p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklysmart">You can get our highlights each weekend</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139704/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Lee Plaisance 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>Does taking government money mean journalists owe the government something? A media ethics scholar examines the ethical questions about news organizations getting government help during the pandemic.Patrick Lee Plaisance, Don W. Davis Professor of Ethics, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1392992020-06-02T20:04:23Z2020-06-02T20:04:23ZCrisis, disintegration and hope: only urgent intervention can save New Zealand’s media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/339073/original/file-20200602-95024-11pd13g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C0%2C2989%2C1999&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>How many media analysts predicted it? In 2018 Australia’s Nine Entertainment absorbed Fairfax Media and its New Zealand subsidiary Stuff. Just under two years later chief executive Sinead Boucher <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/121613758/stuff-ceo-sinead-boucher-buys-the-company-announces-great-new-era">bought</a> Stuff from Nine for a dollar. </p>
<p>The bold move saved New Zealand’s largest newspaper publisher and online news site from uncertainty at best, closure at worst.</p>
<p>“Behold, Saint Sinead of Stuff”, <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/25/1201660/behold-st-sinead-of-stuff">wrote</a> one observer, while pointing out what else would be needed: financial backing, government subsidies, and management of internal costs and debt.</p>
<p>Media commentators, public media lobbyists, journalists, Communications Minister Kris Faafoi and even Nine CEO Hugh Marks also praised Boucher’s proposals for staff shareholdings and an editorial independence charter.</p>
<p>But behind these signs of hope the Stuff initiative was emblematic of a rapidly disintegrating media system. </p>
<h2>Here is the news: layoffs and closures</h2>
<p>COVID-19 only accelerated the collapse. The national lockdown and forecast economic contraction have been commercially disastrous for all private media organisations. Redundancies and closures have gone viral. </p>
<p>In late March New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME), owner of the NZ Herald (the country’s largest daily paper) and nearly half the country’s commercial radio stations, <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/120669523/nz-herald-owner-understood-to-be-discussing-job-losses">closed</a> its sports operation and shed 25 full-time staff. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/another-savage-blow-to-regional-media-spells-disaster-for-the-communities-they-serve-139559">Another savage blow to regional media spells disaster for the communities they serve</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A week later German-owned Bauer Media abruptly closed its New Zealand branch, folding such venerable current affairs and popular titles as the Listener, Woman’s Weekly, North & South and Metro. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1246548112488841216"}"></div></p>
<p>A fortnight later NZME announced 200 more redundancies – 15% of its workforce. As Boucher announced her Stuff buyout, MediaWorks (owner of TV3 and the rest of New Zealand’s commercial radio stations) <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/25/1201892/mediaworks-takes-razor-to-radio#:%7E:text=MediaWorks%20takes%20razor%20to%20radio,arm%20%E2%80%93%20at%20least%20for%20now.">shed 130 staff</a>.</p>
<p>Confronted by this unfolding catastrophe, the government finally announced a NZ$50 million <a href="https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2004/S00136/media-support-package-delivers-industry-request-for-assistance.htm">emergency package</a>. This included $21 million to offset TV and radio transmission fees for six months, $16.5 million to reduce contributions to the NZ On Air content funding agency for the financial year, and $11 million in targeted assistance for specific media companies. </p>
<p>But the response was late, partial and narrowly focused. COVID-19 has exposed a double crisis in New Zealand’s news media that short-term fixes do little to address.</p>
<h2>A crisis over 30 years in the making</h2>
<p>For decades the weakening sustainability of commercial media has damaged the viability of news reporting, journalistic enquiry and national media coverage. Meanwhile, underfunded public broadcasting has long battled to pay staff, create content and transition successfully to digital platforms. </p>
<p>These trends can be traced back to the 1980s. The restructuring of Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and Television New Zealand (TVNZ), the launch and subsequent sale of TV3, the privatisation of Telecom (1990) and the abolition of all restrictions on foreign media ownership (1991) set the scene for today’s crisis.</p>
<p>Transnational media conglomerates were allowed to colonise the national media scene. From 2007, listed and unlisted financial institutions (banks, hedge funds, private equity companies) <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337744693_NEW_ZEALAND_MEDIA_OWNERSHIP_2019">acquired media holdings</a> as short-term revenue streams. Concentration of ownership intensified.</p>
<p>At the same time, with the rise of Google and Facebook, television’s advertising <a href="https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/publications/mediaworks-television-death-of-a-thousand-cuts">share declined</a> from 34% in 1988 to 21% in 2018. Before COVID-19, digital advertising was worth NZ$1 billion, about 40% of New Zealand’s entire advertising turnover. The pandemic’s economic shock has hit ad revenues even harder.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/339070/original/file-20200602-95054-1xa02p5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/339070/original/file-20200602-95054-1xa02p5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339070/original/file-20200602-95054-1xa02p5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339070/original/file-20200602-95054-1xa02p5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339070/original/file-20200602-95054-1xa02p5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339070/original/file-20200602-95054-1xa02p5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/339070/original/file-20200602-95054-1xa02p5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Underfunded for years, Radio New Zealand could now be part of the solution to a media crisis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Print media were already haemorrhaging. From 2018 to 2019, every major newspaper lost circulation. NZME and Stuff continued to lay off staff, integrate newsrooms, delete print editions and close regional titles.</p>
<p>Stalling revenues, dashed profit expectations and fragile share prices persuaded major players that amalgamation was the answer. But this strategy failed. The Commerce Commission prevented attempted mergers between Sky TV and Vodafone, and NZME and Stuff, due to monopoly fears and the perceived risk to diversity of information sources.</p>
<h2>There is a better way</h2>
<p>So what is the answer? Nothing short of a full-blown news media reconstruction strategy. </p>
<p>First, the Stuff buyout deserves government support to complement private sector financial backing. A funding mechanism designed to foster public interest journalism at Stuff and other media organisations should be established. </p>
<p>Second, a national interest test for any overseas investment in New Zealand should apply to transnational media acquisitions. As media commentator Gavin Ellis has <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12333664">observed</a>, “journalism [is] a strategic asset over which New Zealanders must have control”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1253195428176093185"}"></div></p>
<p>Third, existing government proposals for a TVNZ-RNZ merger within a new multi-platform entity need urgent development. The new organisation should insulate some of its operation from commercial pressures. A public service philosophy for the relevant stations, channels and platforms should be clearly stated and enshrined in legislation. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/google-and-facebook-pay-way-less-tax-in-new-zealand-than-in-australia-and-were-paying-the-price-137075">Google and Facebook pay way less tax in New Zealand than in Australia – and we're paying the price</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Here, I would include an online magazine of arts, current affairs and popular culture to succeed the Listener. The organisation’s board must be independent and representative, with informal links to the Māori Television Service. </p>
<p>Finally, as communications expert and public media lobbyist Peter Thompson has <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/2020/04/22/1138299/should-the-public-subsidise-media-companies">proposed</a>, the government should impose a digital services levy on the tech giants that have siphoned off domestic advertising revenue without investing in local content. This would help generate the revenue to fund public interest journalism initiatives.</p>
<p>We know what to do. Now is the time to reconstruct journalism and public media in Aotearoa-New Zealand.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wayne Hope 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>COVID-19 has accelerated the disintegration of New Zealand’s media. A state-led reconstruction strategy is the only answer.Wayne Hope, Professor of Communication Studies, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1284472019-12-09T06:20:36Z2019-12-09T06:20:36ZJob losses expected as NZ’s broadcasting sector faces biggest overhaul in a decade<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/305760/original/file-20191208-90557-1j80tm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=183%2C203%2C6606%2C4519&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New Zealand's commercial broadcasters are in trouble and the government is considering a complete restructure of public broadcasting.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>New Zealand’s broadcasting sector, both public and commercial, is facing the biggest structural upheaval in a decade.</p>
<p>The latest <a href="https://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/329770/JMAD-2019-Report.pdf">report on New Zealand media ownership</a>, compiled by the <a href="https://www.aut.ac.nz/study/study-options/communication-studies/research/journalism,-media-and-democracy-research-centre">Journalism, Media and Democracy Research Centre</a>, shows the country’s commercial television broadcasting sector is in serious trouble. In October, commercial TV broadcaster MediaWorks <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/18-10-2019/mediaworks-quits-television-three-will-be-sold-or-closed/">put its television arm up for sale</a>. The pay-television company Sky TV invested heavily in rugby broadcasting rights, but without paying a dividend to shareholders. </p>
<p>Public broadcasting faces an even bigger change as the government <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/403232/govt-to-consider-replacing-rnz-tvnz-with-new-public-broadcaster">ponders a complete restructure</a>. The proposal is to disestablish both the public interest radio broadcaster RNZ (Radio New Zealand) and the commercially funded television broadcaster TVNZ to create an entirely new public media entity. </p>
<p>TVNZ chief executive Kevin Kenrick has argued the government’s intention is to “<a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/117411070/mixed-funding-model-for-new-public-media-organisation-concerns-lobby-group">strengthen the public media – not weaken commercial media</a>”. But the likely consequences will be the loss of hundreds of journalism jobs and less quality news. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-fairfax-merger-rings-warning-bells-for-investigative-journalism-and-australian-democracy-100747">Nine-Fairfax merger rings warning bells for investigative journalism – and Australian democracy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Doing nothing is not an option</h2>
<p>The restructuring of state-owned broadcasting comes on the back of <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12262975">TVNZ’s earlier announcement</a> that it will not pay a dividend to the government – even though its only mandate is to make a profit and pay that dividend.</p>
<p>The government is expected to announce its plans for the new public media entity before Christmas. Its <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/403232/govt-to-consider-replacing-rnz-tvnz-with-new-public-broadcaster">advisory group has suggested</a> TVNZ and RNZ operations should be disestablished and a mixed funding model used to support the new broadcasting company. A mixed model would allow the broadcaster to fund parts of its operations through advertising, sponsorships and partnerships. It remains to be seen if the government follows that advice.</p>
<p>The Swiss Broadcasting Corporation has a mixed funding model, but last year <a href="https://www.thelocal.ch/20181009/swiss-public-broadcaster-to-cut-200-jobs-less-than-announced">confirmed plans to reduce its workforce by 200</a> as one of several measures to tackle its financial crisis. Whatever broadcasting model emerges in New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/403272/bolstering-public-broadcasting-is-the-answer-ardern">said</a> doing nothing is not an option. </p>
<p>In many countries, including <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1106/1089209-rte-cuts/">Ireland</a>, public broadcasters have already hit an “existential financial crisis”. In 2019, Ireland’s public broadcaster, <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1106/1089209-rte-cuts/">RTÉ</a>, warned it would not survive without a government rescue plan. In 2018, Danish public broadcaster <a href="https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2018/09/18/danish-public-broadcaster-dr-to-cut-400-jobs/">DR</a> announced up to 400 job cuts and closures of three television channels and three radio stations as part of a media reform package. </p>
<h2>Commercial broadcasting in dire straights</h2>
<p>New Zealand’s <a href="https://www.aut.ac.nz/study/study-options/communication-studies/research/journalism,-media-and-democracy-research-centre/projects/new-zealand-media-ownership-report">commercial broadcasting news operations</a> are in serious trouble as a consequence of streaming services flooding the market. In this environment, monetising television viewers has become ever more challenging. </p>
<p>My <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YZKTTCWU8TWVSQCCDXAB/full?target=10.1080/21670811.2019.1691926">research in digital journalism</a> shows media companies and platforms compete for attention, which has become a scarce and fluid commodity.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/attention-economy-facebook-delivers-traffic-but-no-money-for-news-media-105725">Attention economy: Facebook delivers traffic but no money for news media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In this context it’s not surprising <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/10/mediaworks-puts-three-up-for-sale.html">MediaWorks</a> is trying to sell its television arm. At the time of writing, no buyer had emerged for the loss-making television business.</p>
<p>The pay-television company <a href="https://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/329770/JMAD-2019-Report.pdf">Sky TV</a> is also struggling as it competes against telecommunications company Spark in sports broadcasting. Sky’s business model has been affected by a number of streaming services entering New Zealand (including Disney+ and Apple TV). </p>
<p>In November, Sky TV <a href="https://skynz.akamaized.net/documents/24003/9591812/SKT+Market+Update.pdf/8f9b84da-77da-57da-b5e9-b07889297b26">warned that its 2020 revenue will fall NZ$45 million</a> compared to 2019. For the financial year 2019, the company did not pay a dividend to shareholders. Its share price fell 66% between November 2018 and November 2019. </p>
<h2>Private equity influence</h2>
<p>While the fate of public broadcasting is in the hands of the government, the future of the commercial television sector will be decided by private equity firms, investment managers and financial shareholders. </p>
<p>This means potentially more asset stripping, job cuts and restructuring of businesses. <a href="https://www.inma.org/blogs/research/post.cfm/private-equity-groups-are-the-new-media-barons">As many have observed</a>, private equity firms have become ruthless media barons as they attempt to extract value out of already distressed media assets. Since 2011, the <a href="https://www.aut.ac.nz/study/study-options/communication-studies/research/journalism,-media-and-democracy-research-centre/projects/new-zealand-media-ownership-report">New Zealand Media Ownership reports</a> have warned that media companies are vulnerable as private equity financiers do not have an interest in news or newsrooms.</p>
<p>In 2019, Australian Quadrant Private Equity and American Oaktree Capital have become joint owners of MediaWorks. <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12280611">Quadrant announced</a> it was buying Australian outdoor advertiser QMS, which has a 40% stake in MediaWorks. Oaktree Capital remains the company’s largest shareholder with a 60% stake in the company. If MediaWorks’ owners fail to sell its television business, it will likely close, with hundreds of jobs at risk.</p>
<p>Two financial institutions, Scottish asset management firm Kiltearn Partners and British fund manager Jupiter Asset Management, are also the largest shareholders of Sky TV. <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/115904199/sky-television-talks-to-250-staff-about-changes-that-could-impact-some-roles">The company</a> is considering a restructure which could affect 250 jobs.</p>
<p>New Zealand’s media ecosystem may be on the verge of collapsing, not just in the broadcasting sector. The merger of New Zealand’s two largest news publishers – NZME and Stuff – is back on the agenda. Back in 2017, the Commerce Commission rejected the merger, but as media company profits and revenues continue to shrink, <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/403641/nzme-confirms-it-is-in-discussions-to-buy-stuff">NZME confirmed</a> last month it was in talks with Nine Entertainment to buy Stuff. </p>
<p>Should the merger go through this time, it would bring massive job cuts and most certainly less quality news coverage in New Zealand.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128447/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merja Myllylahti 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>Hundreds of jobs are at risk and the quality of news is under threat as New Zealand’s broadcasting media face closures, sales and restructuring in the biggest overhaul in a decade.Merja Myllylahti, Co-Director JMAD research center, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed 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/906142018-02-01T11:38:40Z2018-02-01T11:38:40ZA century ago, progressives were the ones shouting ‘fake news’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204322/original/file-20180131-157491-1fxdzpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An 1894 cartoon by Frederick Burr Opper criticizes American newspapers' elasticity with the truth.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/The_fin_de_siècle_newspaper_proprietor_%28cropped%29.jpg">Library of Congress</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump may well be remembered as the president who cried “fake news.” </p>
<p>It started after the inauguration, when he used it to discredit stories about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. He hasn’t let up since, labeling any criticism and negative coverage as “fake.” Just in time for awards season, he rolled out his “<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jan/18/fact-checking-donald-trumps-fake-news-awards/">Fake News Awards</a>” and, in true Trumpian fashion, it appears <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/08/politics/trump-huckabee-fake/index.html">he is convinced that he invented the term</a>.</p>
<p>He didn’t. As a rhetorical strategy for eroding trust in the media, the term dates back to the end of the 19th century. </p>
<p>Then – as now – the term became shorthand for stories that would emerge from what we would now call the mainstream media. The only difference is that righteous muckrakers were usually the ones deploying the term. They had good reason: They sought to challenge the growing numbers of powerful newspapers that were concocting fake stories to either sell papers or advance the interests of their corporate benefactors. </p>
<h2>Fakers look to earn a quick buck</h2>
<p>After digging into the history of the term, I found that journalists used “fake” in the 19th century to warn American consumers about products proffered by patent medicine pushers, con artists and hucksters. </p>
<p>But I also found that just prior to the Spanish-American War in 1898, readers started getting warned about “fake news.” At the time, the newspapers of media magnate <a href="http://www.pbs.org/crucible/bio_hearst.html">William Randolph Hearst</a> started publishing made-up interviews and stories about invented battles. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203282/original/file-20180124-107956-3usqas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203282/original/file-20180124-107956-3usqas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203282/original/file-20180124-107956-3usqas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203282/original/file-20180124-107956-3usqas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203282/original/file-20180124-107956-3usqas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203282/original/file-20180124-107956-3usqas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203282/original/file-20180124-107956-3usqas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203282/original/file-20180124-107956-3usqas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A cartoon by Fred Zumwalt depicts William Randolph Hearst inventing war stories.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">'Fakes in American Journalism,' Buffalo Publishing Co., Buffalo, New York, 1914</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These sensational clips were often picked up – or copied – by news gathering agencies and sold wholesale to newspapers. They cascaded throughout the media system because, at each point, publishers realized they could make money by reprinting the stories. </p>
<p>As the lucrative practice spread, critics started sounding the alarm. When the Associated Press manufactured and distributed a story about insurgents capturing Havana, The New York Sun took a whack at the AP, running the headline “FAKE NEWS FACTORY.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203556/original/file-20180126-100919-10g0mrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203556/original/file-20180126-100919-10g0mrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=128&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203556/original/file-20180126-100919-10g0mrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=128&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203556/original/file-20180126-100919-10g0mrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=128&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203556/original/file-20180126-100919-10g0mrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=160&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203556/original/file-20180126-100919-10g0mrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=160&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203556/original/file-20180126-100919-10g0mrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=160&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A ‘Fake News Factory’ is called out in The Minneapolis Journal.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1897, an article in The Minneapolis Journal also warned of “a fake news factory” near Duluth selling stories with a Midwest flavor for national wire service distribution. The article argued that each time a “fake news publisher” recirculated fakes, it became harder to tell what was true. At a certain point, “People cannot tell whether what they read has any foundation,” it said. </p>
<h2>‘You’re the faker! No, you’re the faker!’</h2>
<p>The effect of misinformation also drew the ire of <a href="http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/laborpress/Kelling.shtml">the radical press</a>, a growing number of periodicals that railed against the economic status quo. To these outlets, fake news was the pernicious effect of the profit motive on American journalism.</p>
<p>The radical press soon began using “fake news” as an epithet against established news outlets. The Milwaukee Social Democratic Herald, for example, decried syndicated fake news stories as “deliberate attempts to discredit the administration” of Milwaukee’s democratically elected Socialist mayor, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Seidel">Emil Seidel</a>. </p>
<p>Populist William Jennings Bryan cried fake news when misleading stories went out over the AP wire claiming that Bryan was supporting Teddy Roosevelt for a third term. In The Commoner, the journal Bryan owned and edited, he wrote that “There seems to be an epidemic of fake news from the city of Lincoln, and it all comes from Mr. Bryan’s ‘friends’ – names not given.”</p>
<p>But just as crying fake news emerged as a technique to sow public doubt about the veracity of mainstream newspapers, establishment politicians used the ready-made defense to deflect the muckraking of the radical press. Long before Trump, plutocratic politicians were dismissing bad press by crying “fake news.” </p>
<p>After The Evening Plain Dealer published an unflattering interview with Ohio Senator and GOP kingmaker Mark Hanna in 1897, he claimed it had been “faked.”</p>
<p>The Evening Plain Dealer defended “the absolute truth of every word of the interview, the utmost care is exercised in ascertaining facts, and no fake interviews or fake news are tolerated.” Just because someone called news “fake,” the editors warned, did not make it so:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It is a common practice among public men to deny the accuracy of interviews which have proved to be boomerangs. They seem to think it an easy and justifiable method of getting out of an embarrassing situation, and are utterly regardless of the injury they may do reputable newspaper men.” </p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203281/original/file-20180124-107959-6lvt6r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203281/original/file-20180124-107959-6lvt6r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203281/original/file-20180124-107959-6lvt6r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203281/original/file-20180124-107959-6lvt6r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203281/original/file-20180124-107959-6lvt6r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203281/original/file-20180124-107959-6lvt6r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203281/original/file-20180124-107959-6lvt6r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203281/original/file-20180124-107959-6lvt6r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The masthead of Cleveland’s Evening Plain Dealer in 1897.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Hearst’s shameless New York Journal tried to muddy the waters more, championing the cause of unveiling fake stories to deflect criticism of its <em>own</em> made-up stories. Running a fake news <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=mppJAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PA955&ots=7Qghw9F2kZ&dq=bunco%20steerer%20scheme&pg=PA955#v=onepage&q=bunco%20steerer%20scheme&f=false">bunco-steerer scheme</a> to entrap rival Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World in 1898, it printed a fake dispatch about an artillery officer named Reflipe W. Thenuz – a rearranged version of “We pilfer the news.” The bait worked. For weeks, the Journal drove circulation by denouncing dozens of newspapers – not just The World – who fell for the con and had copied or reprinted the Journal’s fake news.</p>
<h2>The power of corporate media</h2>
<p>No matter how often radical periodicals denounced fake news published by their competitors, they found it difficult to suppress false information spread by powerful newswire companies like Hearst’s International News Service, the United Press Associations and the Associated Press. </p>
<p>These outlets fed articles to local papers, which reprinted them, fake or otherwise. Because people trusted their local newspapers, the veracity of the articles went unchallenged. It’s similar to what happens today on social media: People tend <a href="https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-social-media/">to reflexively believe</a> what their friends post and share. </p>
<p>According to muckraker <a href="https://archive.org/details/cu31924026364251">Upton Sinclair</a>, syndicated “news” banked on this and knowingly spread fake news on behalf of the powerful interests that bought ads in their periodicals. Fake news was not only a sin of commission, but also one of omission: For-profit wire services would refuse to cover social issues, from labor protests to tainted meat, in ways that would depict their powerful patrons in a negative light.</p>
<p>Fake news was also used to manufacture public opinion. </p>
<p>“A certain state of public mind is often necessary,” journalist Max Sherover wrote in his 1914 book “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=vKBZAAAAMAAJ&dq=Fakes%20in%20American%20journalism&pg=PP2#v=onepage&q=Fakes%20in%20American%20journalism&f=false">Fakes in America Journalism</a>,” for “the economic masters of this country to flimflam the people.” </p>
<p>Sherover explained how, if the Beef Trust wanted to raise their prices, their “publicity bureaus” would write up fake stories. They would then use their leverage to: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“… broadcast these stories throughout the land. The people that read the news get accustomed to the idea of the scarcity of beef. And when a few days later they are informed by the butcher that the price of beef has gone up they take it as a matter of course.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, groups critical of big business, especially socialists, were often targets of fake news. Whenever sensational crimes were committed, for-profit media would tie those crimes to socialists, adding phrases like “shot by socialist” before anything was known about the perpetrators.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203285/original/file-20180124-107953-1ea45xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203285/original/file-20180124-107953-1ea45xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203285/original/file-20180124-107953-1ea45xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203285/original/file-20180124-107953-1ea45xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203285/original/file-20180124-107953-1ea45xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203285/original/file-20180124-107953-1ea45xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203285/original/file-20180124-107953-1ea45xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203285/original/file-20180124-107953-1ea45xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anti-socialist headlines tended to dominate coverage of crimes, even before details were known.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Poisoning the well of truth</h2>
<p>By the end of Gilded Age, the work of muckraking journalists who had exposed the sordid abuses of workers helped fuel recurring labor strikes. Yet just as frequently, news of these strikes were skillfully spun or suppressed in the mainstream media.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204115/original/file-20180130-38213-k9cy8o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204115/original/file-20180130-38213-k9cy8o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204115/original/file-20180130-38213-k9cy8o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1210&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204115/original/file-20180130-38213-k9cy8o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1210&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204115/original/file-20180130-38213-k9cy8o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1210&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204115/original/file-20180130-38213-k9cy8o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204115/original/file-20180130-38213-k9cy8o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204115/original/file-20180130-38213-k9cy8o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An AP story, later unveiled as fake news, as it appeared in the New Castle News on July 27, 1912.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1912, coal miners in Colorado and West Virginia went on strike. Living in tent-colonies with their families, <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/forgotten-matewan-massacre-was-epicenter-20th-century-mine-wars-180963026/">they were beaten and shot at by strike breakers and lawmen</a>. For months, the AP was silent. The stories they eventually ran were anti-labor, including one fake claiming that miners had ambushed company guards, which justified sending in the troops to suppress them.</p>
<p>Sinclair would later prove that such stories had been fabricated by Baldwin-Felts strikebreakers or Rockefeller agents on the AP payroll. But by then, the damage had been done. Public opinion was formed – or, at the very least, muddied. Once again, the plutocracy got the fake news it paid for. </p>
<p><a href="http://dlib.nyu.edu/themasses/books/masses028/6">According to Max Eastman</a>, the editor of the socialist magazine The Masses, the strike proved how dangerous the AP was, not only because it determined what was printed in a majority of the nation’s newspapers, but also because it feigned objectivity so fervently. </p>
<p>This “Truth Trust,” railed Eastman, held “the substance of current history in cold storage,” making it impossible for even the “free and intelligent to take the side of justice.” In the pages of The Masses, cartoonist Art Young depicted how the AP poisoned the well of truth with a potent mixture of “lies,” “suppressed facts” and “slander.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203283/original/file-20180124-107956-1mbz8bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203283/original/file-20180124-107956-1mbz8bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203283/original/file-20180124-107956-1mbz8bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203283/original/file-20180124-107956-1mbz8bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203283/original/file-20180124-107956-1mbz8bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203283/original/file-20180124-107956-1mbz8bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203283/original/file-20180124-107956-1mbz8bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203283/original/file-20180124-107956-1mbz8bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An Art Young cartoon critical of the AP appeared in the July 1913 issue of The Masses.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To deflect these charges, the AP flexed its monopoly power. They could shut off service to newspapers that ran anti-AP news, so the views of Eastman and his sympathizers were silenced. AP lawyers actually pushed for and secured Eastman’s indictment for criminal libel – a feat, <a href="https://archive.org/details/cu31924026364251">according to Sinclair</a>, designed to smear reformers to the AP’s 30 million readers. When muckrakers reported on the scope of the AP’s fake news operation during the strikes in Colorado and West Virginia, the AP simply cried fake news and flooded the wires with sanctimonious defenses of their journalistic professionalism. </p>
<p>“If there is a clean thing in the US,” read one story distributed to millions of American readers, “it is the Associated Press.” </p>
<h2>The Great War tips the scales</h2>
<p>As World War I tore through the European continent, fake news flooded America’s media ecosystem. Newspapers ran sensationalist fakes targeting anti-war critics and fanning anti-German sentiment. Some of it was even furnished by German newswire services, reprinted unthinkingly for its sensational circulation value. </p>
<p>Just when an evidence-based debate about American war involvement was most needed, fake news poisoned the well.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203303/original/file-20180124-107946-19b5sy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203303/original/file-20180124-107946-19b5sy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203303/original/file-20180124-107946-19b5sy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203303/original/file-20180124-107946-19b5sy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203303/original/file-20180124-107946-19b5sy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=843&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203303/original/file-20180124-107946-19b5sy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=843&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203303/original/file-20180124-107946-19b5sy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=843&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hearst Fake News Denounced, Tuscon Daily Citizen, December 13, 1918.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After the U.S. entered the war, newspapers and journals that cried fake news about pro-war propaganda <a href="https://arizona.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/black-white-and-red-all-over-a-cultural-history-of-the-radical-pr">were censored by the state</a> and pilloried by media syndicates that profited from war coverage; the decimated radical press lost ground. </p>
<p>Upton Sinclair saw the radical press’ collapse as a war casualty, one that foretold a crisis for democracy. </p>
<p>“The greatest peril in America today,” <a href="https://hdl.handle.net/2027/iau.31858045077892?urlappend=%3Bseq=111">he wrote his own journal in 1918</a>, “is a knavish press … pouring out the floods of falsehoods, like poisoned gas which blinds us and makes it impossible for us to see straight or to think straight.”</p>
<p>Without dissenting journalists pointing out fake news, he warned, “there is no way to get the truth to the people.” Short-lived cooperative news services struggled to compete with for-profit wire services. They had little chance in a media system that incentivized fake news.</p>
<p>Use of the term “fake news” <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fake+news&year_start=1850&year_end=2016&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfake%20news%3B%2Cc0">has ebbed and flowed</a> over the past. But it’s production has amplified over the past few years, <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/672275/fake-news-traffic-source/">as social media became the dominant means for news distribution</a>. Once again fake news producers chased profit. Where there once there were fake news factories in Duluth, now <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/">we find them in Macedonia</a>. </p>
<p>Trump may not have invented the term, but he’s deploying an all-too familiar tactic. Like the muckrakers, he cries fake news to erode confidence in the mainstream media; like Progressive Era politicians, he cries fake news when he gets bad press. </p>
<p>But these groups are different, because both fundamentally believed a vibrant press was crucial for America.</p>
<p>In his self-serving excess, Trump is more like Hearst, the don of news fakers, who knew that creating or condemning fake news drove news cycles and profits – damn the consequences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90614/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Jordan 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>The practice of calling attention to false stories – with actual fakers then levying the charge on their accusers – dates back to battles between progressive reformers and corporate media outlets.Matthew Jordan, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/869952017-11-16T01:39:57Z2017-11-16T01:39:57ZIn an era of billionaire media moguls, do press unions stand a chance?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194639/original/file-20171114-26465-s3944.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Businessman and philanthropist Joe Ricketts shut down DNAinfo and Gothamist after his workers voted to unionize. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Super-PAC-Rev-Wright/6580762717e64e1d8de749133475f02d/45/0">Dave Weaver/AP Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Nov. 2, billionaire media owner Joe Ricketts abruptly shuttered the digital news sites DNAinfo and the Gothamist, terminating 116 employees. </p>
<p>Days earlier, these employees had voted 25 to 2 to join the Writers Guild of America-East, exercising their right to collectively bargain under the <a href="https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act">National Labor Relations Act</a>. </p>
<p>Ricketts did little to hide his motives. In a Sept. 12 <a href="http://blog.joericketts.com/?p=557">blog post</a>, he had written that “unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed…. It is my observation that unions exert efforts that tend to destroy the Free Enterprise System.” </p>
<p>While his animus toward unions is unambiguous, less clear is whether he violated the National Labor Relations Act. But even if his shutdown were to be determined illegal, any remedy for the terminated workers may be years (or decades) in the offing.</p>
<p>The story speaks to the growing clout of billionaire media owners, the flagging power of America’s unions and the need for the labor movement to build grassroots support if it wants to prevent similarly draconian actions from taking place.</p>
<h2>Unions adapt to new media reality</h2>
<p>The newspaper industry and unions have a long history. One of the earliest unions formed in the newsroom was the American Newspaper Guild, <a href="http://www.unitedmediaguild.org/index.php/guild-histroy/">founded in 1933</a>. The guild (now renamed the NewsGuild) has evolved to represent 24,000 employees performing a variety of jobs, from reporters and editors to graphic designers. </p>
<p>However, over the past several decades, rapid technological change and growing competition for readers and advertisers have strained labor-management relations in the industry.</p>
<p>Between 1960 and 1965, for example, <a href="http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/%7Ew304644/ch9.html">108 strikes took place</a> in the newspaper industry. The 1990s witnessed another wave of high-profile strikes, including the staffs of papers such as the New York Daily News (1991), Pittsburgh Press and Post Gazette (1992) and Detroit News and Free Press (1995-1997). In the wake of declining ad revenue over the past decade, unionized newsrooms, from the Baltimore Sun to the San Francisco Chronicle, have engaged in <a href="https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/concession-bargaining/">concessionary bargaining</a> to try to keep the newspapers viable and preserve as many jobs as possible.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194632/original/file-20171114-26432-1j9sk4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194632/original/file-20171114-26432-1j9sk4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194632/original/file-20171114-26432-1j9sk4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194632/original/file-20171114-26432-1j9sk4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194632/original/file-20171114-26432-1j9sk4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194632/original/file-20171114-26432-1j9sk4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194632/original/file-20171114-26432-1j9sk4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Supporters of the Detroit newspaper strike are cordoned off by the police outside the Detroit News building in March 1996.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-Michigan-United-/e50f5d0bfce6da11af9f0014c2589dfb/132/0">Richard Sheinwald/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite this adversity, unions in this sector have adapted, intensified their organizing efforts and shown signs of revitalization. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the Writers Guild of America-East has grown its membership from 3,810 in 2005 to over 4,500 in 2017. The Writers Guild-West has gone from 7,627 members to over 23,000 during the same period. And the NewsGuild has organized the employees of digital news sites like VICE, HuffPost, The Root, The Intercept, Deadspin and Gizmodo Media Group.</p>
<p>Union representation offers a range of concrete benefits for these media employees. They get a voice in matters that influence professional autonomy; they retain the right to access the work they’ve produced if they leave the company; they’re put in a better position to negotiate wage and benefit packages; and they get representation in grievance procedures if they’ve been disciplined or fired. (Indeed, the workers at the Gothamist who voted to unionize <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/opinion/dnainfo-gothamist-ricketts-union.html">sought these very benefits</a>.)</p>
<h2>Do billionaire owners hold all the cards?</h2>
<p>While labor-management relations in the media industry have a history punctuated by conflict and tension, the closing of an entire business operation in response to a pro-union vote has taken confrontation to new heights in the industry, reflecting the enormous power that a billionaire mogul possesses.</p>
<p>Joe Ricketts, who is one of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-slippery-slope-of-the-oligarchy-media-model-81931">several billionaire owners of news outlets</a> – along with Jeff Bezos, John Henry, Glen Taylor and Sheldon Adelson – has certain advantages when dealing with unions compared to publicly traded companies. Unlike public companies – which have to oblige stockholders – Ricketts has unfettered managerial control. The top executive of publicly traded newspapers, such as News Corporation or The New York Times Company, simply could not summarily shut down the firm. </p>
<p>Ricketts also has a diverse business portfolio. He founded TD Ameritrade, a public financial services company that had nearly US$3.5 billion in revenue in 2016. Worth over $2 billion, with investments in several ventures (High Plains Bison, The American Film Company and the Chicago Cubs), Ricketts can afford to dislodge a venture without risking financial hardship. Past family owners of a newspaper, such as the Chandlers (The Los Angeles Times) or the Grahams (The Washington Post), didn’t have this luxury.</p>
<p>Finally, Ricketts made his move during a period of weakened unions, which have endured <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Union_Membership_and_Support.svg">decades of continual decline</a>. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm">Less than 7 percent</a> of the private-sector workforce is unionized, which means that, in order to mobilize effectively, labor has to garner support from large swaths of the nonunion workforce.</p>
<h2>The possibilities – and perils – of a lawsuit</h2>
<p>Ricketts might be operating from an advantageous position. But is what he did legal? </p>
<p>The Writers Guild-East and its allies, who held a protest rally in New York’s City Hall Park on Nov. 6, are exploring their legal and other options. (They have already <a href="https://www.wgaeast.org/2017/11/wgae-negotiates-transition-for-unit-employees-at-dnainfogothamist/">negotiated severance packages</a> for the terminated employees at DNAinfo and the Gothamist.)</p>
<p>As for the legality – it depends on how the courts interpret precedent. </p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1965 case of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/263/">Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Co.</a> might offer some clues. </p>
<p>In this case, Darlington’s workers had narrowly approved representation by the Textile Workers Union of America in March 1956. That September, the owner of Darlington convened a meeting of the board of the parent company, Deering Milliken, and they voted to close the manufacturing facility.</p>
<p>The National Labor Relations Board had ruled that the closure – because of its anti-union retaliatory motive – was illegal. The Supreme Court, however, determined that an employer had the right to close its business, regardless of the motivation, writing that “when an employer closes his entire business, even if the liquidation is motivated by vindictiveness toward the union, such action is not an unfair labor practice.” On the other hand, a partial closure – say, closing one plant in a multi-plant manufacturing company because that one plant voted to unionize – would defy the National Labor Relations Act. </p>
<p>The critical question, then, was whether Darlington was a standalone business or represented, instead, a part of the larger Deering Milliken enterprise. The court ordered that the case be reheard to determine the status of Darlington as a standalone entity.</p>
<p>In 1968, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the closure of the facility in response to the union vote constituted a partial closure of a business, which could exert a harmful effect on efforts to unionize other parts of the overall business. It wasn’t until 1980, however, that a settlement was reached between the union and the company, which awarded $5 million to the affected strikers or their estates. </p>
<p>This suggests that Ricketts may have run afoul of interpreted law if DNAinfo and the Gothamist are deemed part of his larger business enterprise. Such a determination will undoubtedly involve intricate legal and technical considerations. </p>
<p>But there’s another lesson to be learned from Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Co.: With 24 years passing between the closure of the facility and the financial settlement, it’s clear that you can’t rely on the courts for a timely remedy. </p>
<p>Perhaps the only viable option for the jettisoned workers can be taught by the history of the worker protests of the 1930s, when vigorous grassroots economic and political pressure resulted in a shift of public opinion in support of unions and the election of numerous pro-labor lawmakers to Congress. During this period, a transformative political alliance was built between labor and the Democractic Party that led to several laws and policies favorable to workers.</p>
<p>Employers who show brazen disregard for the will of their employees will only change if faced with adverse repercussions. The Writers Guild of America-East has the power of the proverbial pen, and it could orchestrate a public relations campaign to inflict disrepute on Mr. Ricketts’s business operations. </p>
<p>At the same time, I believe that labor, more generally, should continue cultivating <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx">public support of unions</a>. If the public won’t support labor in a struggle against a businessman bent on denying employees a legitimate voice, there isn’t much hope.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86995/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marick Masters has received funding from U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Three Rivers Labor-Management Committee, and Pennsylvania State AFL-CIO. He is a former Democratic candidate for the U.S. Congress in 1992 in the 18th congressional district of Pennsylvania. He is also a senior partner in AIM (Albright, Irr, and Masters), a business consulting firm.</span></em></p>Joe Ricketts abruptly shut down DNAinfo and Gothamist after his employees voted to unionize. Is what he did legal? And how could similar events be prevented in the future?Marick Masters, Professor of Business and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Wayne State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/813112017-07-31T02:32:10Z2017-07-31T02:32:10ZThe backstory behind the unions that bought a Chicago Sun-Times stake<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180083/original/file-20170727-8518-lg29st.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Back in the 1930s, people like this pear peddler in New York City's Lower East Side often got their news from labor-led media.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-Associated-Press-Domestic-News-New-York-/8ede2d03bf774d9f931a457534b12ceb/15/0">AP Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>An investment group led by former Chicago alderman and businessman Edwin Eisendrath and the Chicago Federation of Labor recently pulled off an unusual feat when it acquired the <a href="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/union-group-led-by-eisendrath-set-to-acquire-sun-times-sources/">Chicago Sun-Times</a>. </p>
<p>The Department of Justice’s antitrust division oversaw the purchase, for a single and <a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/304448/chicago-sun-times-sold-for-1.html">symbolic dollar</a>, of one of the Windy City’s two remaining major daily newspapers and the weekly Chicago Reader – along with their debts and a pledge to invest millions. The transaction prevented Tronc, which publishes the Chicago Tribune, from absorbing its competition and creating a monopoly in the nation’s third-largest media market. </p>
<p>Given the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/">newspaper industry’s declining ad sales</a> and subscription base and <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm">unions’ dwindling membership</a>, organized labor’s acquisition of a stake in the Sun-Times may look like two dying institutions trying to save each other. </p>
<p>But as an expert on the history of labor-supported media, I see the purchase as a return to labor’s long tradition in fostering a broader public sphere. As I explained in my book, “<a href="http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783319435473">Media and Culture in the U.S. Jewish Labor Movement</a>,” organized labor helped make U.S. democracy more inclusive and participatory from 1919 to 1941 by amplifying voices the mainstream media often ignored.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180082/original/file-20170727-8516-1fyrt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180082/original/file-20170727-8516-1fyrt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180082/original/file-20170727-8516-1fyrt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180082/original/file-20170727-8516-1fyrt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180082/original/file-20170727-8516-1fyrt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180082/original/file-20170727-8516-1fyrt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180082/original/file-20170727-8516-1fyrt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180082/original/file-20170727-8516-1fyrt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chicago Federation of Labor president Jorge Ramirez, left, has become the chairman of the Chicago Sun-Times. Former alderman and businessman Edwin Eisendrath is its new CEO.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Sun-Times-Sale/0dcb2cc90f8641d29a01986d5756e4a9/7/0">AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Leftist news</h2>
<p>As millions of immigrant workers entered the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leftist organizations and unions founded their own newspapers to air perspectives ignored by the outlets under control of Hearst, Pulitzer and the other press barons of the day. </p>
<p>The most successful example: Der Forverts, a Yiddish language socialist daily known as <a href="http://forward.com/">The Forward</a> in English. Founded in 1897 in New York City, this newspaper was read by some 250,000 people by 1920. <a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170327/POLITICS/170329902/forward-ends-print-weekly-and-launches-magazine">Still published</a> in print and online in both English and Yiddish, it was back then the nation’s most popular foreign-language and left-wing paper. </p>
<p>Along with seven other daily newspapers published in Yiddish, The Forward formed the cornerstone of what <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674032439">historian Tony Michels</a> calls a “newspaper culture” on New York’s Lower East Side. It helped build an immigrant counterculture that, in turn, enabled sweatshop workers in the garment industry to begin to form unions that demanded – and won – higher pay and workplace protections. </p>
<h2>Union-published papers</h2>
<p>The largest of these unions, the <a href="https://library.temple.edu/scrc/amalgamated-clothing-workers">Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America</a> (ACWA) and the <a href="http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/KCL05780-125.html">International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union</a> (ILGWU), also published their own media dedicated to correcting what they called the “misrepresentation and misunderstanding, and often unfounded accusation” the commercial press levied against them. As the lead editorial in the Advance, the ACWA’s newspaper, once declared, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We are cutting the pathway in the wilderness of confusion that exists in the American Labor Movement, leading toward the final goal to which the movement strives.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>While corporations and the government developed <a href="http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html">new propaganda methods</a> during World War I, ILGWU leader <a href="https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/cohn-fannia-m">Fannia Cohn</a> argued that the labor press could help members “take advantage of the democratic machinery.” <a href="http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/ark:/99166/w6s475nk">J.B.S. Hardman</a>, a labor leader and longtime editor of the ACWA’s Advance, believed that on top of accuracy, union-published media should “aim at feeding the mind and imagination of their readers.” </p>
<p>As the 1920s got underway, anti-immigrant, racist and anti-communist fervor bolstered an <a href="http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-330">anti-worker agenda</a>. Labor publications offered an antidote to what Cohn described as “<a href="http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783319435473">the crumbling of our civilization</a>” in the war’s aftermath. </p>
<h2>On the air</h2>
<p>Although the U.S. and its allies emerged from World War I as victors, fear of communism – known as the “<a href="https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/red_scare">Red Scare</a>” – spread in response to Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution. There was a crackdown on working-class and immigrant movements. Many U.S. radical and foreign-language papers closed. The Forward, however, thrived. It came to rely increasingly on advertising instead of donations from its community of readers. The Forward used its own profits to support struggling unions and other progressive causes.</p>
<p>In the meantime, Hardman and Cohn fought to keep the ACWA and ILGWU publications in print. Committed to democratic engagement, their papers in multiple languages provided perspectives different from the “publicity men” of the era and offered readers “guidance based on free discussion.”</p>
<p>These efforts culminated as a new medium – radio – opened up fresh avenues for labor to shape American culture. While most trade union leaders believed it sufficient to garner coverage on, or buy air time from, commercial networks, others believed labor needed its own radio stations. </p>
<p>The garment unions and The Forward joined together in New York to found <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19376529709391692">radio station WEVD</a> in 1926. Named after Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs, who died that year, the station would broadcast English language public affairs programming, as well as foreign-language entertainment. </p>
<h2>Chicago’s labor voices</h2>
<p>As the garment workers organized beyond New York, they brought their emphasis on media to other cities, including Chicago. In a precedent for the Sun-Times purchase, garment workers in the Chicago Federation of Labor developed programs for and gave financial support to the federation’s own radio station, <a href="http://www.radiotimeline.com/wcfl-chicago-tribute/">WCFL</a>. As historian Nathan Godfried demonstrates <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-lookup/doi/10.1086/ahr/105.1.234">in his book about the station</a>, CFL Secretary Edward Nockels was among the strongest advocates for labor harnessing the airwaves “to maintain some measure of freedom of the air and freedom of speech.” </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179698/original/file-20170725-2133-1rujrpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179698/original/file-20170725-2133-1rujrpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179698/original/file-20170725-2133-1rujrpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179698/original/file-20170725-2133-1rujrpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179698/original/file-20170725-2133-1rujrpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179698/original/file-20170725-2133-1rujrpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179698/original/file-20170725-2133-1rujrpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179698/original/file-20170725-2133-1rujrpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chicago radio station WCFL, now defunct, was branded as the Voice of Labor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.radiotimeline.com/wcfl-chicago-tribute/">WCFL</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>WCFL gave unions throughout the Midwest airtime, helping to bolster their campaigns during the Depression and World War II. It also put a pro-labor spin on its other programming, like quiz shows and variety shows without becoming propagandistic, Godfried recounts.</p>
<p>Pro-union arts and cultural productions faded nationwide with the rise of <a href="https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/fifties/essays/anti-communism-1950s">McCarthyism and the Cold War</a>. Inhibited from appearing too radical, unions focused more on raising wages for <a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/labors-time-of-troublesthe-failure-of-bread-and-butter-unionism/">their own members</a> than building the ranks of unionized workers and shaping society’s ideas. Both WEVD and WCFL relied increasingly on commercially produced, rather than union-produced, programming until they got bought out. The now-defunct Mutual Broadcasting System bought WCFL in 1978, and <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/disney-buys-wevd-78m-article-1.508935">Disney acquired WEVD in 2002</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180086/original/file-20170727-10836-15qwegw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180086/original/file-20170727-10836-15qwegw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180086/original/file-20170727-10836-15qwegw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180086/original/file-20170727-10836-15qwegw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180086/original/file-20170727-10836-15qwegw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180086/original/file-20170727-10836-15qwegw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180086/original/file-20170727-10836-15qwegw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180086/original/file-20170727-10836-15qwegw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Senator Joseph McCarthy was reading a letter about a newspaperman being prosecuted for espionage in this 1954 photo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-DC-USA-APHS363833-Joseph-McCarthy/06a710d593764423a43a14ea7603637f/1/0">AP Photo/Bill Allen</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As <a href="https://mronline.org/2009/12/23/labor-movement/">union power</a> eroded, the mass media became a bigger business than ever, increasingly controlled by <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/10/28/499495517/big-media-companies-and-their-many-brands-in-one-chart">a handful of big global corporations</a>. </p>
<p>The current crises engulfing the media, the labor movement and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/08/liberal-democracy-is-still-facing-its-worst-crisis-since-the-1930s/?utm_term=.651ead544225">our democracy</a> resemble what went on during the heyday of labor media. While the new owners of the Sun-Times promise it won’t become <a href="http://www.robertfeder.com/2017/07/13/new-sun-times-owners-promise-no-union-interference/">the CFL’s propaganda arm</a>, corporate-owned mainstream media <a href="https://www.cjr.org/analysis/when_longtime_labor_reporter_steven.php">skimps on labor coverage</a>. Raising up diverse voices is essential for a city with dramatic <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-chicago-racial-wealth-divide-0131-20170130-story.html">racial and economic inequality</a>, which is now becoming <a href="https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/behind-chicagos-population-decline/520611/">less of a draw for the immigrants</a> who have always contributed to its vitality.</p>
<p>History demonstrates that labor-owned media can be a bulwark against corporate monopoly and strengthen democracy. Seen in this light, it makes sense for unions to make bold moves like the role the CFL is now playing in Chicago.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81311/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Dolber 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>The newspaper’s new owners harken back to a tradition of labor-led media in the early part of the 20th century, which represented a bulwark against corporate power.Brian Dolber, Assistant Professor of Communication, California State University San MarcosLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/806132017-07-12T20:07:10Z2017-07-12T20:07:10ZNetwork Ten’s future is all about media power, not economics<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/04/channel-10s-billionaire-shareholders-signal-intention-to-take-over-network">future of Network Ten</a> is not primarily about business or economics. It is primarily about power. Yet the formal processes the network’s proposed sale has to go through take no account of this reality.</p>
<p>At present there is an offer on the table from Lachlan Murdoch and Bruce Gordon. Until recently they were on the Ten board as chair and director respectively. Then they, along with James Packer, pulled the plug on their guarantees underwriting the Commonwealth Bank’s A$200 million overdraft that keeps the company afloat.</p>
<p>When that happened, the board called in the administrators. Then, last week, the bank appointed receiver-managers, and it is they who are now formally presiding over the network’s future.</p>
<p>So far, two parties have emerged to express interest in buying it. One is from Murdoch-Gordon through their private companies Illyria and Birketu respectively, and the other is from a US investment management outfit, Oaktree Capital.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-05/accc-confirms-network-ten-joint-bid-by-gordon-and-murdoch/8680160">The first regulator</a> to look at this is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Its remit is all about business and economics.</p>
<p>In preparing to review bids for the network, the ACCC has asked questions about the competition for content, and the capacity for Ten to strike favourable content deals with production companies.</p>
<p>Doubtless there will be further questions – about competition in the advertising marketplace, for instance.</p>
<p>If the Oaktree overtures go anywhere, the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) would get involved.</p>
<p>Neither of these agencies is in a position to ask the central question: what would be the political and social effects of concentrating media power across newspapers, radio stations, free-to-air TV, pay TV, and a major online news site in one pair of hands?</p>
<p>As a matter of principle, it doesn’t matter whose hands they are. As <a href="https://acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-2-number-6/power-corrupts">Lord Acton’s dictum</a> states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No-one person is more susceptible than another: everyone is equally vulnerable.</p>
<p>There has never been the opportunity for such a concentration of media power before. When Paul Keating put in place the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-history-of-media-ownership-in-australia/6831206">existing media ownership rules</a> in 1987, there were only three media platforms: newspapers, radio and TV.</p>
<p>Now, digital technology has given us the internet, which both extends the reach and multiplies the outlets of media content-makers. It has also created means by which the various types of platforms converge: newspapers broadcast audio and video; radio and TV stations publish text.</p>
<p>If the Murdoch-Gordon joint venture were to acquire Network Ten, then the Murdoch empire in Australia would acquire an unprecedented share of media power in a landscape that is already one of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-ownership-concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437">most concentrated in the Western world</a>. It would achieve this because Lachlan Murdoch is also co-chairman of News Corp, part of his father Rupert’s global media operations.</p>
<p>Rupert has a long history of using his media platforms, especially his newspapers and his Fox News network in the US, to prosecute his political agenda.</p>
<p>So, the effect would be to place unprecedented concentration of media power in the hands of a proprietor who shamelessly uses that power for political ends. This would confront the federal government with an acute dilemma.</p>
<p>Digital technology has made nonsense of the current media ownership laws. It is nonsense to have rules preventing a media owner from reaching more than 75% of the national audience when the national audience can get anything from anywhere on digital platforms.</p>
<p>It is nonsense to have a rule that says one owner can have only two out of three of the original platforms – print, radio and TV – in the one market when the distinctions between them have been more or less erased by digital convergence.</p>
<p>But if these rules are removed – and the legislation to do that is now before the Senate – the way will be open for the Murdoch-Gordon joint venture to acquire Ten.</p>
<p>Ten is the weakest of the three commercial TV channels, so it is unlikely that the ACCC will object to this on competition grounds.</p>
<p>That leaves the political question: will the federal government be prepared to act to prevent such a concentration of media power in a single pair of hands, regardless of whose hands they are? It is not just an anti-Murdoch question, although his propensity to use his media platforms for political purposes gives it a sharper edge. It is a question about power.</p>
<p>How much power is the government prepared to allow any single media proprietor to have, and what would be the consequences for the Australian body politic of allowing that to happen?</p>
<p>It would be preferable for this question to be addressed in parliament, where voters could see who was saying what to whom. However, it is entirely possible that it would be decided in a room made up entirely of senior politicians and interested businesspeople.</p>
<p>There is a precedent. In 1991, the Canadian newspaper proprietor Conrad Black <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/fairfax-didnt-want-to-dance-with-a-devil-20071211-1gga.html">obtained a 14.9% interest in Fairfax</a>, enough to give him effective but unstable control. In 1992, he asked Prime Minister Paul Keating to let him have 25%.</p>
<p>According to Black in his <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1686992">1993 autobiography</a>, Keating had privately promised to let him raise his Fairfax stake if the newspapers’ political coverage was “balanced”. Keating denied having made any promises, but confirmed that he had told Black: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We’ll think about it, but we want a commitment from you that the paper will be balanced.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Forget your receiver-managers, your ACCCs and FIRBs. Forget the public interest. When the crunch comes, that’s how media policy gets done in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80613/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 most pertinent issue is how much power the federal government is prepared to allow any single media proprietor to have.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/802852017-06-29T17:01:41Z2017-06-29T17:01:41ZDecision to refer Sky bid to regulator a blow to Murdochs – but will it be short-lived?<p>The Murdoch Family Trust’s long-held ambition to take full ownership of Sky, the UK’s largest broadcaster (by revenue), appears to have been dealt a blow. The culture secretary, Karen Bradley, has told parliament she is “minded” to refer the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/29/rupert-murdoch-sky-takeover-bid-referred-to-competition-authorites">£11.7 billion takeover bid</a> by 21st Century Fox for the 61% of Sky that it doesn’t already own to the competition authorities on the grounds that the deal will diminish media plurality in the UK. </p>
<p>In particular, Bradley cited concerns about the Murdoch family’s influence on the news agenda and their “ability to influence the political process” given the merged company’s unique reach across all platforms.</p>
<p>This is not news that Rupert Murdoch will have wanted to hear – not least because a full six-month inquiry by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) could lead to Fox having to shoulder a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/20/foxs-117bn-bid-for-sky-should-be-referred-to-competition-authorities">multi-million dollar payout</a> to shareholders for failing to complete the deal before the end of the year.</p>
<p>The bid was originally lodged in 2011 and looked set to proceed, but revelations of phone-hacking and the widespread public revulsion they caused led to the bid being shelved. It was <a href="https://theconversation.com/murdoch-sky-bid-is-a-nasty-christmas-headache-for-the-culture-secretary-70599">revived late last year</a> and referred to Ofcom by the culture minister.</p>
<p>For critics of the Murdochs, Bradley’s decision is a welcome development – but they shouldn’t get the champagne out just yet as there are some major problems with the government’s position.</p>
<p>First, Bradley noted that the “undertakings” offered by Murdoch to sweeten the deal – such as commitments to an independent editorial board at Sky News and to maintain Sky News as a brand distinct from Fox News – were “insufficient” to allay concerns about the Murdoch family’s influence. Yet she made it quite clear that 21st Century Fox would be able to come back to her with other “undertakings” that she would consider before taking her final decision.</p>
<h2>Trust me</h2>
<p>When it comes to undertakings from the Murdochs, it is worth recalling what Harold Evans, the former editor of the Sunday Times, had to say. Evans was editor when Murdoch made his bid for Times Newspapers in 1981. He has since written that, at the time, Murdoch met with Margaret Thatcher and promised that he would maintain their tradition of independence: “He broke every one of those promises in the first years,” Evans <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/how-margaret-thatcher-and-rupert-murdoch-made-secret-deal">told The Guardian</a>. In his <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-Times-Bad-Harold-Evans/dp/1480449202">book</a> on the episode, he quotes Murdoch himself saying that the undertakings were “not worth the paper they were written on”. </p>
<p>James Murdoch, who holds the joint roles of chief executive of 21st Century Fox and chairman of Sky, recently was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/15/rupert-murdoch-sky-bid-pay-tv">quoted</a> as saying, in relation to the deal, “that no meaningful concessions will need to be made”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"880104892236476417"}"></div></p>
<p>Second, objections to the deal based on concerns around both corporate governance failures at Fox and the status of the Murdoch family as “fit and proper” holders of a broadcast licence have been waved away by <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/findings-fox-sky-merger">Ofcom</a>. This is before the stalled Leveson-2 inquiry has been able to pursue <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/14/gordon-brown-delay-murdoch-sky-takeover-leveson-part-2">further allegations of corruption</a> inside Murdoch’s UK organisation together with the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2017/05/22/fox-news-sued-for-racial-discrimination-sexual-harassment-by-three-more-employees/#56fbf48e5985">spate of lawsuits</a> launched earlier this year in relation to allegations of sexual and racial harassment at Fox. </p>
<p>Ofcom claims to have taken these issues very seriously, but <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/findings-fox-sky-merger">concluded</a> that “we would need to see evidence of misconduct in the parent company, Fox”.</p>
<p>Fox, meanwhile, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/11/fox-news-must-let-ofcom-meet-harassment-victims-lawyer-says">revealed</a> it had spent about $45m (£35m) in relation to sexual harassment litigation in the nine months to March 2017. It said in a statement: “We take allegations of any form of discrimination extremely seriously.”</p>
<p>The irony, of course, is that Bradley’s own government has failed to give a green light to the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3ec7f94d-c175-39b7-814a-5e91c4cb05a8?mhq5j=e1">Leveson-2 inquiry</a>, which is supposed to deal with the relationship between the press and the police. These issues have not gone away. Dozens of victims of phone hacking are taking legal action against the publisher of The Sun, News UK, in a trial that is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/28/sun-trial-phone-hacking-damages-les-dennis">expected to start this autumn</a> – right in the middle of the CMA investigation (should it take place).</p>
<h2>Friends and influence</h2>
<p>Since the recent general election there have been claims in some quarters that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/11/media-bias-no-longer-matters-general-election-2017">media bias is no longer an issue</a> and that – when it comes to the power of their influence – papers like The Sun have had their day. But the agenda-setting power of billionaire media moguls remains an urgent subject for public debate and action.</p>
<p>We still don’t know what Murdoch and Theresa May discussed when they had a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/29/theresa-may-meeting-rupert-murdoch-times-sun">private meeting</a> in New York last autumn although we do know that Murdoch and his lobbyists have been the most <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/murdochs-lobbying-efforts-increasing-new-analysis-finds">frequent visitors to 10 Downing Street</a> at a time when the press have been desperately lobbying government not to introduce meaningful and independent press regulation.</p>
<p>The media landscape may be changing and new voices may be emerging thanks to wider political transformations but the moguls who have shaped our political culture for so long aren’t quite ready to throw in the towel. Should the deal be allowed to proceed, we would see the Murdoch Family Trust tighten its grip across multiple media platforms and strengthen the family’s position at the top of the media money tree. This story is far from over.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80285/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Des Freedman is the former chair of the Media Reform Coalition.</span></em></p>Culture secretary Karen Bradley’s decision will stall the bid, but the saga is far from over.Des Freedman, Professor of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/794362017-06-15T04:01:29Z2017-06-15T04:01:29ZTen Network has a hard road back to viability<p>With Ten Network <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170614/pdf/43jxwxg71wfdt9.pdf">in voluntary administration</a>, efforts are under way to <a href="https://images.tenplay.com.au/%7E/media/Corporate%20Site%20Media/Files/Media%20Releases/2017/Network%20Ten%20-%20Media%20Release%20From%20KordaMentha.pdf">restructure the company</a>. But having <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170427/pdf/43hs04614yfz8m.pdf">lost A$231.2 million</a> in the half-year ending February 2017, it will take a lot to make Ten a viable business.</p>
<p>In the short term, Ten has to focus on reducing costs by renegotiating contracts with its suppliers. Over the long term, Ten has to contend with <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6646-decline-and-change-commercial-television-viewing-audiences-december-2015-201601290251">changing demographics</a> and <a href="http://users.tpg.com.au/ceasa/publication.html">falling television advertising</a>. The company has to receive more revenue from the content it already has, and the best way to do that may be through a tie-up with Foxtel.</p>
<h2>How to make Ten viable</h2>
<p>Entering voluntary administration provides an opportunity to reorganise Ten and renegotiate contracts. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-federal-budget-doesnt-do-enough-to-save-free-to-air-tv-77309">Changing media ownership laws</a> would doubtless make this easier, by allowing some of the major shareholders to take the company private. </p>
<p>In the short term, Ten should aim to reduce expenses, aiming for annual savings of A$80 million. In a <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170614/pdf/43jxwxg71wfdt9.pdf">release to the ASX</a>, Ten talks about renegotiating contracts with the studios it buys content off, notably CBS and 20th Century Fox. Ten had already identified these cost reductions, but entering voluntary administration will give the company a stronger bargaining position. </p>
<p>However, these negotiations are just the beginning of content changes. Ten will need to produce content more cheaply and aligned to a changing target demographic. As younger viewers <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6646-decline-and-change-commercial-television-viewing-audiences-december-2015-201601290251">moved away from traditional television</a>, Ten’s programming <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au//documents/2017/OzTAM-20170528-EMetFTARankSumCons.pdf">has suffered</a>. Voluntary administration will give Ten more power to renegotiate contracts with domestic suppliers too. </p>
<p>Longer term, Ten needs to protect and expand its revenues. With <a href="http://users.tpg.com.au/ceasa/publication.html">television advertising declining</a>, Ten needs to reach more viewers so that it can maximise the revenue from the content it has. Distributing content through more channels, such as realising the full potential of streaming, would enable more efficient use of content and increase the potential audience. </p>
<p>But developing these channels by itself might not be a viable option as Ten has neither time nor financial resources. This is why it makes sense to tie up with Foxtel, already a major shareholder and a big player online. </p>
<p>A common theme to these strategies is that Ten needs to compete more effectively for content and advertising revenues. This means that regulatory constraints <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-federal-budget-doesnt-do-enough-to-save-free-to-air-tv-77309">must be removed</a> if it is to fight for long-term financial sustainability. </p>
<h1>Overcoming financial hurdles</h1>
<p>A major contributor to Ten’s recent half-year loss was a one-off impairment charge – the company <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/201em70427/pdf/43hs04614yfz8m.pdf">wrote down A$214.5 million</a> from the value of its television licences.</p>
<p>But, even allowing for this one-off item, there was still a substantial loss and the financial pressures have been building for some time. Much of this pressure stems from a decline in revenues from <a href="https://images.tenplay.com.au/%7E/media/Corporate%20Site%20Media/Files/Results/2011/TNHL%20Full%20Financials%202011.pdf">A$998 million in 2011</a> to only <a href="https://images.tenplay.com.au/%7E/media/Corporate%20Site%20Media/Files/Results/2016/TNHL%20Full%20Financial%20Report%202016_Final%20for%20Website.pdf">A$689 million in 2016</a>. The <a href="https://images.tenplay.com.au/%7E/media/Corporate%20Site%20Media/Files/Results/2016/TNHL%20Full%20Financial%20Report%202016_Final%20for%20Website.pdf">2016 annual report</a> even notes a structural change in advertising as a risk facing the company. </p>
<p>Over this same period Ten has been working to reduce operating costs, but obviously this has been difficult. The financial reports do not give exact breakdowns of costs, but we do know that content contracts with CBS and 20th Century Fox are <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170427/pdf/43hs0yk9bh2szq.pdf">substantial and need to be reduced</a>.</p>
<p>If there is one thing we can be certain of, it is that there must be substantial change in the business for Ten to recover. </p>
<p>Further contributing to Ten’s woes are loan facilities that expire in December. This includes borrowing that amounted to A$73.8 million at the end of February and which needs to be repaid in the short term. </p>
<p>Unless Ten can negotiate an extension to its loan facility at the Commonwealth Bank, the solvency of the business becomes doubtful. Failure to get backing for a new loan to replace the current one in December is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/13/tens-future-in-doubt-after-lachlan-murdoch-and-bruce-gordon-refuse-to-guarantee-debt">reportedly</a> one of the reasons Ten decided to go into voluntary administration.</p>
<p>Previously, major shareholders had provided guarantees for Ten’s banking facilities, but this is difficult to justify given the state of the business. Regardless, it would not resolve the underlying issues. For Ten to be viable, it needs to get a handle on costs and reach more viewers with the content it has.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79436/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Wells 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>For Ten to be a viable business it needs to make hard decisions to cut costs and reach more viewers.Peter Wells, Professor, Accounting Discipline Group, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/794202017-06-14T12:34:43Z2017-06-14T12:34:43ZTen Network’s problems are history repeating<p>Reporters at the Ten Network relayed the news of their employer’s <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170614/pdf/43jxwxg71wfdt9.pdf">voluntary administration</a>, during a staff meeting. The network was looking to refinance to the tune of A$250 million, after its existing finance was due to expire on December 23.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"874802465861910528"}"></div></p>
<p>But Ten’s directors said they were left no choice but to appoint administrators from KordaMentha to try to recapitalise or sell the business. Lachlan Murdoch, who owns a 7.7% share of Ten (via his private investment fund Illyria), and Bruce Gordon, who owns 14.96% (via Birketu), are <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170614/pdf/43jy0d773pglxh.pdf">now teaming up to offer</a> a rescue package to restructure the network, though the details are still to be sorted out.</p>
<p>This will see the two shareholders treated as an association rather than a merged entity to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/ten-enters-volutary-administration/8617078">prevent</a> triggering a compulsory acquisition provision or a breach of the existing two-out-of-three cross-media ownership rule.</p>
<p>While this all may appear to be contemporary issues for the company, Ten has faced many hurdles during its lifespan of little over 50 years. </p>
<h2>Ten has been in trouble before</h2>
<p>The network began in the 1960s, originally named the Independent Television Network, before promptly being renamed the 0-10 Network. The network’s Melbourne-based station (ATV-0) began its official broadcast on August 1 1964, with other metro stations starting the year after.</p>
<p>Ken Inglis argues in his book, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=KWfSljNdE4oC&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=Whose+ABC?:+the+Australian+Broadcasting+Corporation&source=bl&ots=KTLKY29iKa&sig=8GVLX8kr-eFqA4HAafu-TfJ2pFQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY1Iqws7zUAhULV7wKHdi8DR4Q6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=Whitlam%E2%80%99s%20people%20had%20thought%20about%20giving&f=false">Whose ABC?</a>, that Ten struggled during its early establishment and that the Whitlam government made attempts to buy the network to use it as a second channel for the ABC. </p>
<p>But the network debuted popular shows during this time, such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068114/">Number 96</a>, and its high ratings pushed the price higher than the government was willing to pay.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OPn1r_mCqh8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Remembering Number 96.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ten also faced a crisis after Frank Lowy bought the network from Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch was forced to sell due to changes to the media ownership laws in 1987, which prohibited a media company owning both a newspaper and television station in the same city.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/academic-professional/communication-studies/The-Media-in-Australia-Stuart-Cunningham-Graeme-Turner-9781864482737">Lowy said that</a> “TV was like any other business”, although he quickly found out it was not. Lowy asked Ian Gow, who had previously worked at the Nine Network, to run the network. <a href="https://currencyhouse.org.au/node/138">According to Gow</a>, Lowy had “bought the worst house in the best street and [wanted] to renovate”.</p>
<p>Despite the initiatives Gow implemented, including selling off the Adelaide, Perth and Canberra stations, the network was forced into receivership in September 1990. Communications corporation CanWest Global <a href="https://images.tenplay.com.au/%7E/media/Corporate%20Site%20Media/Files/Corporate%20Governance%20Documents/Prospectus.pdf">bought</a> 57.5% of Network Ten from Westpac Bank for A$275 million and then re-established a capital city network in 1995.</p>
<p>During 1999 Ten formed a joint venture with Village Roadshow Limited, Village Ten Online (VTO). Network Ten <a href="https://images.tenplay.com.au/%7E/media/Corporate%20Site%20Media/Files/Annual%20Reports/2001_Annual_Review.pdf">argued</a> this was a “strategically defensive move” to develop and market <a href="http://admin.villageroadshow.com.au/upload/Document/SCAPE_Rel1.pdf">content for the next generation</a>. Ten stated in its 1999 annual report that the joint venture planned to produce a series of websites targeted specifically at the under-40s market. </p>
<p>The first major announcement of the venture was Scape.com, which was launched in October 2000. The CEO of Ten Ventures, Peter O'Connell, <a href="http://admin.villageroadshow.com.au/upload/Document/SCAPE_Rel1.pdf">described</a> Scape as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An exciting new presence on the Internet, with all the necessary attributes to appeal to increasing numbers of online service users. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But in March of the following year, less than six months from its launch, Village Roadshow and Network Ten released a joint press release <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjMhqiyhr3UAhWEw7wKHVggDIAQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvillageroadshow.com.au%2F-%2Fmedia%2FVRL-Corporate-Media-Library%2FDocuments%2FASX-Announcements%2F2001%2FMarch%2FScape_to_Cease_Ops.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGU4a-00RcHI1NtVy0sfcLj99M0uQ&sig2=yq6o_gMotCnnmOGlXhFNqw&cad=rja">stating</a> that Scape had been placed in voluntary administration and ceased operation. Both companies had contributed A$22 million to the joint venture.</p>
<h2>Ten’s future</h2>
<p>Ten’s future is unclear and this will not only impact the network, but some of its key stakeholders. </p>
<p>This recent announcement will affect Bruce Gordon, who holds a 14.96% share in Ten and also owns WIN Television, in two ways. The first is due to his financial stake in the network, which could expose his investment companies to liability. Secondly, WIN Television is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/television-agreement-a-win-for-network-ten-59817">regional affiliate of Ten</a>. Any changes to Ten or its programming would impact WIN and its regional stations across Australia that rely heavily on Ten’s programming.</p>
<p>Foxtel is another major shareholder that could be affected by any changes made to Ten. Any restructure or sale could impact the recent approach by both Foxel and Ten to partner in programming including GoggleBox, Common Sense, A-League and V8 Supercars. This approach could be used as part of the negotiations for the upcoming <a href="https://theconversation.com/chasing-the-audience-is-it-over-and-out-for-cricket-on-free-to-air-tv-76792">Cricket Australia media rights</a>. Ten holds the rights for the Big Bash League and, while it would not like to lose these rights, a partnership with Fox Sports could allow it still to gain access to some games.</p>
<p>What is clear is that Ten will have to attempt to break the traditional broadcast model and rethink what a television network is in the current media landscape. If it can achieve this it could potentially place the network in a strong position to compete not only with other local television broadcasters, but also with <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-battle-for-audiences-as-free-tv-viewing-continues-its-decline-58051">new media players</a> that are stealing their ad revenue and audience share.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79420/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>Ten Network has been placed in voluntary administration, after major shareholders refused to guarantee another loan.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/773922017-05-12T00:57:05Z2017-05-12T00:57:05ZWhy media reform in Australia has been so hard to achieve<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168827/original/file-20170510-21610-yoybhq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitch Fifield recently announced the Turnbull government would once again attempt to tackle media reform.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>From the mid-20th century, there has been substantial international support for plurality of media ownership. Policies designed to limit the number of media outlets owned or controlled by one proprietor have been seen as a precondition for achieving a diverse range of viewpoints.</p>
<p>The assumption has been that concentrated ownership confers undemocratic power on “influential” owners to sway governments and advance their own private interests. </p>
<p>But while the power of major media groups has long been recognised – <a href="https://theconversation.com/murdoch-and-his-influence-on-australian-political-life-16752">particularly during elections</a> – ruling political parties increasingly only make significant policy changes with an eye to the impacts on their media allies. </p>
<p>Consistent with other Western nations, Australia’s media ownership rules have become more deregulated since the 1980s. This has meant media ownership in Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-ownership-concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437">has become increasingly concentrated</a>.</p>
<p>The Australian media policy omelette cannot simply be unscrambled, but forward-thinking diversity rules could help prevent further concentration of ownership. Communications Minister Mitch Fifield recently announced the Turnbull government would once again <a href="http://www.mitchfifield.com/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1352/Major-reforms-to-support-Australian-broadcasters.aspx">attempt to tackle media reform</a>. However, the proposed changes are neither future-looking nor future-proofing.</p>
<h2>Removing restrictions</h2>
<p>Serious attempts at systemic reform to tackle a changing media landscape were last seen in the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1339_convergence.pdf">Convergence Review</a> in 2012. </p>
<p>But its proposed changes, including the idea of a Content Service Enterprise (where regulation of content was to be applied equally regardless of the platform it was delivered on), were too threatening to incumbent players. The review was binned.</p>
<p>Prior to the cross-media laws being introduced in 1987, limits had applied to the numbers of media-specific outlets within a single sector. This meant media groups such as John Fairfax Holdings and the Herald and Weekly Times had previously been able to accumulate media outlets across platforms like newspapers, TV and radio. But it was considered not to be in the public interest to allow this kind of concentration of influence.</p>
<p>Later, in the deregulatory spirit of the times, successive Coalition governments from 1996 attempted to repeal laws aimed at tackling media concentration. Yet it took until 2006 for this goal to <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2006A00129">be achieved</a>. </p>
<p>These changes removed the main cross-media ownership restrictions. They allowed TV/newspaper/radio mergers with a “two out of three” media sector limit, and introduced metropolitan and rural/regional voice limits under the so-called “5/4 voices” test. The latter refers to the minimum number of media groups (or “voices”) allowed in metropolitan and regional markets respectively.</p>
<p>In spite of ongoing attempts, and largely due to a lack of industry consensus, conservative governments have been unable to remove the final ownership restrictions. But the Turnbull government says a consensus <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/influential-senators-warm-to-media-reform-package/news-story/99bfac339f9d493144294e45faf37af6">has now been reached</a>.</p>
<p>The proposed changes to media ownership – axing the two-out-of-three rule and the 75% “reach” rule – are buried under more headline-grabbing measures. These include the removal of licence fees for commercial TV networks, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-odds-ban-debate-exposes-sport-and-gamblings-uncomfortable-mutual-dependency-76514">introduction of gambling ad restrictions</a> on free-to-air licensees, and granting pay TV expanded access to sporting events previously on the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">anti-siphoning list</a>.</p>
<p>Restricting gambling ads during daytime viewing has a clear community benefit. But the wider voice benefits of diversity that flow from retaining restrictions on the further concentration of ownership are far more consequential for all Australians.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=2370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=2370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=2370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=2979&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=2979&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=2979&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>A different approach</h2>
<p>Australia’s media landscape is an outlier as one of the most <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-ownership-concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437">highly concentrated in the world</a> – behind Egypt and China, according to <a href="http://internationalmedia.pbworks.com/w/page/20075656/FrontPage">one international assessment</a>. The proposed changes will only make that worse.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/a-government-without-newspapers-why-everyone-should-care-about-the-cuts-at-fairfax-77163">Radical changes</a> in the news media sector urgently demand new policy responses to accommodate an industry in transition. Simply removing the last major remaining bulwark against the concentration of media voices is not the solution.</p>
<p>Repealing the two-out-of-three rule will not lessen the impact of internet hegemons Facebook and Google on news business models – they control around 90% of the growth in the <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/01/04/google-facebook-ad-industry/">online advertising market</a>. That horse has long since bolted. But the rule continues to prevent further media concentration. </p>
<p>In addition to industry strategies, Australia needs to have a comprehensive review of how news is now consumed across online and traditional media. This would serve as a precursor to media diversity policies that tackle the changing news environment.</p>
<p>The UK’s Ofcom and the European Commission have made significant inroads into monitoring, researching and updating voice pluralism policies. Australia needs to take similar decisive action. This is even more urgent for Australia given the parlous state of our media diversity.</p>
<p>Ofcom, at the request of Culture Secretary Karen Bradley, <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/update-on-the-proposed-merger-of-sky-with-21st-century-fox">will shortly decide</a> whether a full takeover by 21st Century Fox of BSkyB is in the public interest. It will base its decision on broadcasting standards and media pluralism. </p>
<p>If media pluralism and the dominant influence of Rupert Murdoch’s companies on the news is a big concern in the UK, then the same issue is front and centre in Australia’s highly concentrated news sector. This is even more the case with a potential TPG buyout and likely asset-stripping <a href="https://theconversation.com/tpg-bid-for-fairfax-what-usually-happens-when-private-equity-meets-media-77313">of Fairfax Media</a>.</p>
<p>The proposed removal of the two-out-of-three rule will only make Australia’s media more concentrated in Murdoch’s hands – for example, if News Corp bought the ailing Ten Network. </p>
<p>The media reform package smacks of the government doing deals with the incumbent commercial TV networks and News Corp’s Foxtel. It is a short-sighted political play, and not a serious attempt to tackle structural change in the media industries by looking at ways to maximise diversity for audiences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77392/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Dwyer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>The Australian media policy omelette cannot simply be unscrambled. But forward-thinking diversity rules could help prevent further concentration of media ownership.Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/773282017-05-09T10:28:55Z2017-05-09T10:28:55ZBudget 2017-18 brings welfare crackdown and increased defence and security funding: experts respond<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168579/original/file-20170509-11001-1pw6nzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Australian Federal Police will receive $321.4 million over four years for a range of measures.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The government hopes to save A$632 million over five years from 2016-17 by strengthening penalties for non-compliance in Work for the Dole programs. Failure to meet requirements will result in suspended payments, and then escalating penalties.</em></p>
<p><em>Defence spending will rise to 2% of GDP by 2020-21 as the government increases spending by $50 billion over the forward estimates. The Australian Federal Police will receive $321.4 million over four years to support counter-terrorism, and operations against organised drug imports, violent criminal gangs, cybercrime and serious financial crimes.</em></p>
<p><em>Foreign aid has risen with inflation to $3.9 billion in the budget, and will rise again to $4.01 billion in 2018-19. However, it will remain at that level for the following two years.</em></p>
<p><em>The current broadcaster licence fees will be replaced with new ones, costing the government $414.5 million over the forward estimates.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s experts respond to these and other aspects of the budget below.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>A populist attack on welfare recipients</h2>
<p><strong>Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer in Economy and Society, Department of Sociology, Macquarie University</strong></p>
<p>For a budget that has shifted considerable ground in areas like education and health – and, to a lesser extent, housing – it strongly plays to existing Coalition themes on welfare. These reinforce punitive welfare measures and the divide between the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor.</p>
<p>There are some mildly positive reforms for older Australians – enabling access to state concessions – and some additional funds to assist single parents return to work. However, it is strongly punitive towards many of the most vulnerable.</p>
<p>The budget seeks to save $4 billion in new “integrity” and “mutual obligation” reforms. There is no funding to increase what is now a tragically low unemployment benefit (Newstart). Instead, there are new enforcement measures. These are largely constructed around drug and alcohol use. They include measures to force more recipients to access their money through a “cashless welfare card” that directs how people spend their money. </p>
<p>More surprisingly, there are harsh measures that include trials of drug tests, harsher breaching rules (that often leave recipients with no income), and even restrictions on accessing support for disabilities related to substance use. </p>
<p>That reflects a very strong populist attack on some of the most vulnerable. It also reaffirms an important political dynamic in Australia: when we frame action for everyone (as we do with health, education and housing), it is much easier to achieve equitable action. And when action is focused on the very poor, the political instinct is to attack.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Aid gets another cut, but not the unkindest</h2>
<p><strong>Robin Davies, Associate Director, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</strong></p>
<p>The Coalition once again cut overseas aid, as it has done now for several years running. However, the cuts in this budget will not be felt for another two years and are smaller in annual terms than those inflicted in the previous two years. </p>
<p>Aid spending will, as promised last year by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, increase in line with CPI in 2017-18, rising from $3.8 billion to $3.9 billion, and also in 2018-19, when it will reach $4 billion. </p>
<p>For the following two years, though, the indexation of aid to CPI will be suspended and the resulting savings, $303 million, redirected to “other policy priorities” of the government. CPI indexation, according to the government, will resume thereafter.</p>
<p>Since coming to power in late 2013, the Coalition has fashioned five aid budgets, starting with its revision of Labor’s 2013-14 aid budget. In addition, it has now set notional bottom lines for the next three, out to 2020-21. </p>
<p>Over these aid budgets, aid has been or will be cut in real terms six times. The biggest cuts were in the last two budgets, 2015-16 and 2016-17, where aid was cut by 20.2% and 7.4% respectively. </p>
<p>After the reprieve in 2017-18 and 2018-19, when there will no real growth in aid, the cuts resume in 2019-20 and 2020-21 at the modest rate of 2.4% per year. The cumulative cut in aid from 2013-14 to 2020-21 will be 32.8%: basically one-third. </p>
<p>Australia’s aid as a proportion of its gross national income will stagnate at the historically low level of 0.22% for several years, and could fall to 0.2% by 2020-21. Australia’s aid generosity is now very far below the OECD average of 0.32%. We rank 17th among our peer countries on this measure.</p>
<p>It appears that The Australian was taking some dramatic licence when it reported, just before the budget, that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Turnbull government will divert foreign aid funds to boost Australia’s intelligence agencies as part of its escalation of the war on terror. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, it had the basic story about right. </p>
<p>The Coalition pledged in late 2013 to increase aid in line with inflation. Last year, implying that it had finished cutting aid, it revived that pledge. </p>
<p>However, the Coalition has only maintained aid in real terms in two of eight years. While it cannot be claimed that aid is funding domestic policing or foreign intelligence, these are prominent among the “other policy priorities” the government is able to pursue by cutting aid. </p>
<hr>
<h2>No news is good news for defence</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Carr, Senior Lecturer in Strategic and Defence Studies, Australian National University</strong></p>
<p>Defence wasn’t expecting anything in tonight’s budget, and didn’t get it. <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/2016-defence-white-paper.pdf">The 2016 Defence White Paper</a> and the 2016-17 budget both proposed minimal changes for defence in 2017-18. This was not because of a lack of support, but because the ten-year funding plan to raise the defence budget to match 2% of GDP by 2020-21 is largely backloaded, and because the Department of Defence is struggling to spend the funds it already has.</p>
<p>The 2017-18 budget papers’ main change was an efficiency reclaim of $304.1 million over the next four years, <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/bp2/download/bp2_expense.pdf">aimed at</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… reductions in the numbers of consultants and contractors used in Defence, as well as limiting the costs of non-operational overseas and business travel. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is also $350 million in support for Veterans Health – an important and popular measure that was announced <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-07/veteran-mental-health-to-get-funding-boost-federal-budget-2017/8504178">two days ago</a>. </p>
<p>Freed of the need to devote new significant resources, the treasurer’s speech confidently reiterated the government’s commitment to the 2% target. While there are <a href="https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/SC9-4CarrandDean.pdf">underlying issues</a> with the notion of tying defence spending with the health of your economy — namely the worse the global situation, the easier the 2% target becomes – this stability itself is welcome.</p>
<p>Over the last decade, defence has seen significant promises of spending and some harsh cuts on budget night. So no news is good news. </p>
<p>Many will also be pleased to see the return to surplus remains a priority. While not a defence measure, this provides additional flexibility and resilience, which could be important for Australia’s security in the unpredictable Trump era.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Government levels the playing field for traditional media</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Dodd, Program Director – Journalism, Swinburne University of Technology</strong></p>
<p>There are no big shocks for the ABC in this budget, as the national broadcaster is only one year into its current round of triennial funding. SBS has won a cash injection to make up for lost advertising revenue, and broadcasters in general have won a reprieve from licence fees. </p>
<p>However, it’s women’s sport on pay TV that seems to have done best of all out of the 2017 budget. </p>
<p>The government has levelled the playing field for media companies that are struggling to compete against internet-based media by abolishing licence fees for broadcasters and datacasters that use broadcast spectrum. However, it is also broadening the revenue base through a new regime of apparatus licence fees for broadcasting spectrum. The change is estimated to cost $414.5 million over the forward estimates period. </p>
<p>The budget provides a “transitional support package” for those licensees who will be left worse off. The Treasury estimates state this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… support package is estimated to have a cost of $24.8 million over the forward estimates period. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the Australian Communications and Media Authority will receive a small cash injection to make the transitional support package work. </p>
<p>The budget is also providing $30 million over four years to support:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… underrepresented sports on subscription television, including women’s sports, niche sports, and sports with a high level of community involvement and participation. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, $6 million will be spent over two years to support the development of Australian film and television content.</p>
<p>SBS will get $8.8 million in 2017-18 to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… restore revenue that could not be raised due to the delayed passage of legislation, which would allow SBS further flexibility in the way it advertises.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Science flies under the radar</h2>
<p><strong>Les Field, Secretary for Science Policy, Australian Academy of Science, and Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, UNSW</strong></p>
<p>Science has largely flown under the radar in a restrained budget, with no big spending measures and no major cuts apart from the university funding changes announced last week. </p>
<p>It is pleasing to see an astronomy partnership with the European Southern Observatory that will ensure Australia’s access to world-leading optical astronomy facilities, as well as new funding and administrative improvements in health and medical research, including the first investments from the Medical Research Future Fund. </p>
<p>It is also positive that the tried-and-tested CRC program will benefit from the government’s advanced manufacturing industry focus. But it was disappointing that the budget didn’t include any of the recommendations of the review of the R&D tax incentives.</p>
<p>There are small decreases in indexation of funding across the forward estimates equating to savings of several million dollars per year in agencies such as ANSTO and CSIRO, and funding programs such as the ARC and NHMRC. These will certainly be absorbed, but will add to the challenge of doing important science and innovation in areas of critical national importance.</p>
<p>The science sector will now look ahead to the 2030 Strategy for Science and Innovation, to be finalised by the end of the year, and the government’s response to the Research Infrastructure Roadmap – which will determine priorities for new capital investment.</p>
<p><strong>John Rice, Adjunct Professor, University of Adelaide</strong></p>
<p>As far as science is concerned the 2017 budget could be described as 2014 budget-lite. There is no vision for the role of science and technology in Australia’s future. Instead what stands out are the cuts to universities and to the CSIRO.</p>
<p>The National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) made the 2016 budget very exciting, even if a little disconcerting. There wasn’t much new money behind it and what there was largely reversed the disasters of 2014 and 2015.</p>
<p>But NISA was the kind of vision that we ought to expect from a budget, a vision for the economic direction of the country, one that can guide its productive capacity, meet current challenges and show the way to continuing prosperity.</p>
<p>Where did that vision go? There is none of it in the 2017 budget.</p>
<p>A less-than-enthusiastic electorate reminded politicians there needs to be more to an innovation-driven economy than everyone developing an app. Clearly the average citizen needed to understand where innovation-driven automation and other labour productivity improvements leave them in relation to earning a living.</p>
<p>If the 2017 budget does nothing else it confirms that the government has not risen to these challenges, and has lost its faith. In the face of the electoral blowtorch it has simply melted away.</p>
<p>There are a few modest and sensible initiatives that are a legacy of the 2016 rush of blood. Their gestation has been so long, like the activation of the Medical Research Futures Fund, that you would have expected an elephant rather than a mouse, but they are positive moves nonetheless.</p>
<p>What is seriously disappointing is the cutting of funding to the universities and to the CSIRO. Universities contribute probably more than three-quarters of Australia’s basic research. University research is seriously underfunded, and the underfunding is made up via transfers from other areas, particularly teaching. The cuts will make this worse, which leaves no room, let alone incentive, to engage university research and teaching more with industry.</p>
<p>What this budget represents for science is a retreat from any serious vision for an innovation-based economy, and a return to the unthinking cost-cutting of the 2014 and 2015 budgets.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77328/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Spies-Butcher is a member of the Greens.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Dodd is a former broadcaster with ABC Radio National and reporter with the 7.30 Report and does occasional freelance work for the ABC. He receives funding from Australian Research Council for the New Beats project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Rice is Executive Director of the Australian Council of Deans of Science and holds honorary professorships in mathematics at both Adelaide and Sydney Universities.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Les Field is Secretary for Science Policy at the Australian Academy of Science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Davies is the Associate Director of the Development Policy Centre, a think tank on aid and development which is hosted by the Australian National University and funded by the university and two foundations, the Harold Mitchell Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Development Policy Centre has received project-related grant funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Carr 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 Conversation’s political experts react to the 2017-18 budget’s key measures in the areas of welfare, foreign aid, defence spending and more.Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer in Economy and Society, Department of Sociology, Macquarie UniversityAndrew Carr, Senior Lecturer in Strategic and Defence Studies, Australian National UniversityAndrew Dodd, Program Director - Journalism, Swinburne University of TechnologyJohn Rice, Adjunct Professor, University of AdelaideLes Field, Secretary for Science Policy at the Australian Academy of Science, and Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, UNSW SydneyRobin Davies, Associate Director, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/771862017-05-05T12:19:02Z2017-05-05T12:19:02ZWho’s really guilty of right-wing bias when it comes to political reporting<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167889/original/file-20170504-21649-rwpev5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/164006873?src=KrfOfAfmoOSguefb7MG1dA-1-0&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It would not be a proper election campaign without allegations of <a href="http://fair.org/take-action-now/media-activism-kit/how-to-detect-bias-in-news-media/">media bias</a>. And not only against the press.</p>
<p>C P Scott, who edited The Guardian from 1872-1929, famously declared that “comment is free, but facts are sacred”. But we now wearily accept that newspapers will be partisan not only in their advocacy for particular parties but, in some cases, also in their reporting.</p>
<p>Broadcasting is different, though. For good historical reasons – the industry being dominated by a single or a handful of companies in many countries – broadcasters largely have been required by governments and regulatory bodies to pursue neutrality in their reporting of politics.</p>
<p>Some observers might scoff, arguing that not only is neutrality impossible to achieve in practice, but also that the appearance of neutrality can mask a commitment to the status quo. But it is perfectly clear that The Sun or the Daily Mirror and its Scottish stablemate the Daily Record report politics very differently to the broadcasters.</p>
<p>The arrival of the multi-channel world has not led to any weakening of UK telecoms regulator Ofcom’s insistence that broadcasters should “provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them”. This phrase is a direct quotation from Ofcom’s recently published consultation document on how it should <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/ofcom-and-the-bbc/the-operating-framework">regulate the BBC</a> now that this task has been given to it as part of the recent <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03416">Charter Renewal process</a>.</p>
<p>But the impartiality requirement applies to other news providers, too. Which is one reason why many observers are uneasy about Rupert Murdoch’s company, 21st Century Fox, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/07/rupert-murdoch-sky-takeover-approved-by-european-commission">taking full control of Sky Broadcasting</a>. These critics have noted the way in which Fox News in the US (another Murdoch organisation) <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies/">can slant its reporting</a> in order to advance a particular political agenda.</p>
<p>Fox News is able to do so in the US because of the abolition during the Reagan administration of the so-called fairness doctrine, under which news programming in the US had to be balanced when dealing with matters of public controversy. The fear is that 21st Century Fox, if it had total control of Sky, would push UK rules on impartiality to their limit.</p>
<h2>View from the Beeb</h2>
<p>But impartiality does not mean an unwillingness to challenge the assertions which politicians make. On Tuesday evening’s BBC Ten O’Clock News this week, Laura Kuenssberg pushed Theresa May hard on her pitch to the electorate. Meanwhile, later that evening on BBC Newsnight, Evan Davis argued forcibly to a Conservative MP that his government’s approach to deficit reduction had been exactly the one advocated by Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour Party, and ridiculed in 2015 by the Tories. So why, asked Davis, should any new promise to reduce the deficit substantially over the course of the next five years be believed? </p>
<p>The Sunday before, on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme, the prime minister had also become visibly uncomfortable as she was asked about the alleged fact that some <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/video-theresa-may-struggles-to-answer-when-confronted-live-on-tv-about-nurses-going-to-foodbanks-a7710066.html">lower paid NHS staff have to use food banks</a>.</p>
<p>This is the context in which we should examine the latest media fairness row, which reportedly saw shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, accuse the BBC of spreading “Tory lies” about Labour’s spending plans. The interview in question took place on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the morning after the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbot, got into a terrible mess on <a href="http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/">LBC radio</a> when asked about the cost of Labour’s proposal to employ more police in England and Wales.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/03/john-mcdonnell-calls-radio-4-presenter-scallywag-accuses-bbc/">Helena Horton and Laura Hughes</a> reported the “incident” in the Wednesday online version of The Telegraph: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>When he [McDonnell] was asked about a dossier released by the Conservative party which claimed Labour’s financial plans had a £45 billion black hole, the shadow chancellor responded furiously. Calling presenter Justin Webb a ‘scallywag’, he fumed about the question.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167896/original/file-20170504-20192-1x883gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167896/original/file-20170504-20192-1x883gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167896/original/file-20170504-20192-1x883gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167896/original/file-20170504-20192-1x883gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167896/original/file-20170504-20192-1x883gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167896/original/file-20170504-20192-1x883gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=895&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167896/original/file-20170504-20192-1x883gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=895&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167896/original/file-20170504-20192-1x883gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=895&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Was John McDonnell ‘fuming’ at Justin Webb as the Telegraph reported? Listen for yourself…</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.paimages.co.uk/search-results/fluid/?q=john%20mcdonnell&amber_border=1&category=A,S,E&fields_0=all&fields_1=all&green_border=1&imagesonly=1&orientation=both&red_border=1&words_0=all&words_1=all">PA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I have listened to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08njv28">this interview</a> (check in around 1:09) several times and it seems a pretty even-tempered discussion. McDonnell certainly does criticise the BBC for, as he sees it, “uncritically” repeating Tory claims about his fiscal plans, and says that the corporation has a duty to examine the Tory assertions. But this sounds exactly like what any politician would say about their opponents’ claims as relayed by a broadcaster.</p>
<p>In the interview, Webb asks McDonnell whether the spending plans to be included in Labour’s manifesto will add up, and the shadow chancellor argues that his taxation proposals will fund Labour’s commitments. </p>
<p>Webb repeatedly pushes McDonnell on what will happen to personal taxes and McDonnell, laughing, tells Webb that he is a “scallywag”. McDonnell is not “fuming”, as the Telegraph piece alleges, and after the interview finishes, the other presenter, John Humphrys, makes a joke about the scallywag remark.</p>
<p>If there is biased reporting here, it is in the Telegraph’s online piece. This is very disheartening since once a upon a time readers could rely on that paper to report accurately, despite its editorial commitment to the Conservative cause.</p>
<p>We can be sure that as the election proceeds there will be more verbal fisticuffs on the airwaves. We are entitled to expect these exchanges to be vigorous but fair. It would be reassuring if we could have the same expectation of reporting in the British press, whether in print or online. On the evidence of this Telegraph piece, we are going to be very disappointed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77186/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hutchison is a not particularly active member of the Labour Party.</span></em></p>John McDonnell’s claim that the BBC was uncritically repeating ‘Tory lies’ this week once more raises the question of bias in the media’s political reporting. But is he right?David Hutchison, Honorary Professor in Media Policy, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/738742017-03-03T11:57:56Z2017-03-03T11:57:56ZHere’s why the Murdochs’ bid for control of Sky must be referred to Ofcom<p>Almost seven years on from the Murdoch’s first attempt to take over the remainder of Sky, Rupert, James and Lachlan <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/15/rupert-murdoch-sky-bid-pay-tv">are trying again</a>. This time they are confident of pulling it off. The media environment has, they argue, changed radically since 2010-11; the Murdoch empire has been split in two, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/phone-hacking-2415">phone hacking</a> has dimmed in the public consciousness – and the political mood music is very different.</p>
<p>“Will the government really say [Rupert Murdoch] can’t own more than 39% of it?” former Sun editor David Yelland <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sky-m-a-twenty-first-fox-idUSKBN13Z07T">told Reuters</a>. “I don’t think so. It takes a lot of negative energy to block a deal like this and I just don’t see it happening this time around.”</p>
<p>If the bid is successful then 21st Century Fox, which is controlled by the Murdochs, will go from owning less than half of Sky to 100% ownership.</p>
<p>So confident are they <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/1ca0eb1a-c2c4-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856354">reported to be</a> that they may hope the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, Karen Bradley, will not even refer the bid to Ofcom for scrutiny. This would be a mistake. Bradley should refer the bid to the media watchdog – not for political reasons, but because the bid raises serious plurality concerns that will not be properly exposed unless Ofcom is tasked with reviewing the bid.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"832248195673649152"}"></div></p>
<p>Steven Barnett, Damian Tambini and I outlined some of these plurality concerns in a <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/files/2013/09/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-18-Media-Plurality.pdf">policy paper</a>, published after Fox submitted its bid to the commission. One of our arguments is that the consolidation of control of news production should itself be enough to lead to a referral. </p>
<p>Sky and NewsCorp together are the most dominant commercial news producers in the UK. In radio, almost every UK commercial station receives its news from Sky News Radio (often supplemented by some locally sourced news). This equates to more than 280 commercial stations across the UK. Sky’s only real competitor in radio news production is the BBC.</p>
<p>In television, there are now only two UK-based 24-hour television news channels – Sky News and the BBC News Channel. A successful Fox takeover would essentially mean a duo-polistic market in the production of 24-hour television news (where Sky would be the only commercial provider) and a three-way split in mainstream TV news production (Sky, the BBC and ITN).</p>
<p>News UK is owned by News Corporation, not 21st Century Fox. Yet the Murdochs continue to control both. Rupert is executive chairman of News Corporation and executive chairman of Fox. Lachlan is co-chairman of News Corporation and executive chairman of Fox. James is CEO of Fox. The Murdochs are therefore able to influence news production at both Fox and News Corporation.</p>
<p>According to an impact report prepared for News UK by Chris Doyle of Warwick University, <a href="http://impactsurvey.news.co.uk/report.html">in 2013 the company employed</a> “around 2,600 [people] in operations spanning journalism, printing, distribution and back-office support across the UK”. Based on this figure News UK remains one of the largest news producers in the UK outside the BBC. By comparison, Buzzfeed UK had 80 UK staff <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/marieleconte/buzzfeed-uk-editorial-staff-ask-for-union-recognition?utm_term=.cb9VQmDpG#.bse3akdMX">in November 2016</a>, including senior management.</p>
<p>Should Fox gain complete control of Sky, the Murdochs would therefore control directly the dominant commercial news producers in the UK across television, radio and print. This would reduce plurality in news production and mean less diverse news. Policy makers would be yet more reliant on Murdoch-controlled news outlets and the Murdochs would, as a consequence, have still greater political influence.</p>
<h2>Legacy media</h2>
<p>The environment in news production has changed since 2011 but, unlike the rise in availability of information online, professional news production has shrunk. Almost all major UK news publishers have cut journalists and editorial staff since 2011. As far as local and regional news goes, the <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-will-help-plug-democracy-gap-caused-by-local-press-cuts-by-funding-150-new-council-reporters/">Press Gazette estimates</a> that the number of journalists has more than halved since 2008. </p>
<p>On national papers the job cuts have also been severe – editorial numbers were severely reduced at The Independent after its print edition <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4689311.ece">was closed down</a> and its sister paper the Independent on Sunday ceased production in March 2016. The Guardian has plans to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/17/guardian-media-group-to-cut-250-jobs">cut hundreds of jobs</a>, and The Telegraph <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/897e4558-21c4-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d">has announced</a> a further wave of redundancies. </p>
<p>As a result, the production of news content, already seriously diminished and under further threat, would become yet more dependent on Fox and News UK after a takeover. This in a UK commercial news environment dominated by a <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Who_owns_the_UK_media-report_plus_appendix1.pdf">small number of corporations and individual owners</a>.</p>
<p>The shift to news consumption via the tech platforms – notably Facebook, Google and Twitter – does not reduce the importance of news production, it increases it. Facebook, Google and Twitter distribute news, they do not produce it. Claiming that the Fox bid should go ahead because <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f17b28ea-bfc3-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856354">power has shifted to the tech platforms</a> distracts from the fact that these platforms are not news producers.</p>
<p>In such an environment it is even more important that Ofcom reviews the impact the Sky bid will have on news plurality. Bradley should refer the bid as soon as possible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Moore 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>Media plurality is vital in a democracy. Full ownership of Sky would give the Murdoch family too much power.Martin Moore, Senior Research Fellow, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/666832016-10-11T05:14:16Z2016-10-11T05:14:16ZBuyouts mean the future of Australian video-on-demand is hard to picture<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141174/original/image-20161011-3903-1y6nqdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The hugely popular Game of Thrones could be a crucial drawcard for Foxtel Play's new viewers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Village Roadshow Production</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The dust is showing no sign of settling on Australia’s video-on-demand (VoD) media landscape. The past week has seen two seismic shifts which will have a flow-on effect on almost anyone who watches subscription-based television.</p>
<p>First came the news of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-04/presto-to-disappear-as-seven-sells-stake-to-foxtel/7900778">Foxtel’s takeover of Presto</a>, with the latter’s customers being transferred to Foxtel Play when Presto shuts down next year.</p>
<p>Then the ailing VoD service <a href="https://www.quickflix.com.au/">Quickflix</a> gained a surprise stay of execution, being <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/quickflix-snapped-up-for-13m-by-us-entrepreneur-20161004-gruqoq.html">saved by a US buyer</a> after going into <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-shake-up-in-australias-busy-tv-industry-as-quickflix-calls-in-the-administrators-58487">voluntary receivership</a> earlier this year.</p>
<p>The shakeup has left viewers wondering where their subscription fees are going to end up, and what content they will be able to access once the merry-go-round stops.</p>
<h2>Quickflix’s future?</h2>
<p>Quickflix’s problems began in 2014, when former stakeholder HBO sold its shares to Nine Entertainment. The following year the shares were transferred to Stan, Nine’s new joint VoD venture with Fairfax Media. </p>
<p>When Quickflix went into voluntary receivership, it stated Stan’s unwillingness to bargain with potential buyers as a key reason for its <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-shake-up-in-australias-busy-tv-industry-as-quickflix-calls-in-the-administrators-58487">demise</a>.</p>
<p>Quickflix has now been saved, although it is not clear what it will become or what its focus will be. US media entrepreneur Erik Pence has paid A$1.3 million, and the holding for the purchase, Karma Media, plans to retain 24 employees and pay entitlements to former employees. </p>
<p>There will <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/quickflix-snapped-up-for-13m-by-us-entrepreneur-20161004-gruqoq.html">reportedly</a> be more investment in marketing and a shift towards more niche content. This latter strategy has been a globally successful tactic for other VoD and online platforms such as <a href="http://netflix.com">Netflix</a>, <a href="http://youtube.com">YouTube</a> and <a href="https://www.fullscreen.com">Fullscreen</a>. </p>
<p>But it is unclear whether Quickflix’s new service will support the production of Australian content in any way – or even whether it will primarily offer movies, television series, or both. This makes it difficult to analyse the impact its re-emergence will have on the Australian VoD landscape.</p>
<h2>Hey Presto</h2>
<p>In contrast, the future of Presto has been made very clear indeed. Foxtel has acquired Seven West Media’s interests in the service and confirmed that it will cease on January 31, 2017. </p>
<p>This arguably makes Presto the first real casualty of the battle that has sprung up in Australia’s crowded VoD landscape.</p>
<p>Presto has been constantly reported as struggling for subscribers against competition from Netflix and Stan. A recent Roy Morgan <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6839-netflix-stan-presto-subscription-video-on-demand-may-2016-201606141025">report</a> from this year showed how far Presto was behind its competition. </p>
<p>Presto had 142,000 subscriptions, less than half of the 332,000 signed up to its local competitor Stan. Even combined, these numbers are far short of international giant Netflix, which has <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6839-netflix-stan-presto-subscription-video-on-demand-may-2016-201606141025">1,878,000 Australian subscriptions</a>.</p>
<p>Foxtel plans to move Presto’s subscribers over to its internet-delivered service Foxtel Play by the end of this year. In a <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2016/foxtel-revamps-its-streaming-video-service.html">media release</a> Foxtel promised that “Presto customers will get access to more premium first run television programs and more recent movies than ever before” – raising the question of whether they were holding back on content before the takeover.</p>
<p>The Foxtel Play service also may not be what current Presto customers are expecting, nor is there a guarantee that it will end up costing the same.</p>
<h2>Does Foxtel really want to compete?</h2>
<p>It is clear that Foxtel is trying to compete with current VoD services, as underlined by its <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2016/foxtel-revamps-its-streaming-video-service.html">recent announcement</a> that Foxtel Play entry prices will be cut to A$10 from the current A$25. But Foxtel Play’s <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/content/dam/foxtel/foxtelplay/support/pp-change/foxtel-play-pp-changes.pdf">subscription pricing structure</a> is much more complicated than other VoD services. </p>
<p>Unlike <a href="https://www.netflix.com/au/">Netflix</a> or <a href="https://www.stan.com.au">Stan</a>, which charge a flat fee for all content (although Netflix charges extra fees for more screens and HD qaulity), Foxtel Play has different prices for different content packages, much like Foxtel’s pay TV pricing structure. The content on Foxtel Play is not HD, although will <a href="http://decidertv.com/page/2016/10/7/foxtel-play-foxtel-go-will-make-the-switch-to-high-definition-foxtel">reportedly</a> be upgraded in 2017. </p>
<p>Foxtel Play’s <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2016/foxtel-revamps-its-streaming-video-service.html">packages</a> include a basic offering of Documentary, Lifestyle or Kids programming at A$10 each per month, plus Premium Drama and Premium Entertainment options at A$15 each per month. Customers can also add Sport (A$25 per month) or Movies (A$20 per month) on top of these. So it seems likely that many customers end up paying more than those subscribing to other VoD services.</p>
<p>At first glance, Foxtel shutting down Presto could appear to be a way in which it can gain new Foxtel Play subscribers while dissuading viewers from defecting to Stan or Netflix. But the actual numbers may be small, according to Roy Morgan’s recent <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6990-most-presto-subscribers-already-have-netflix-stan-or-foxtel-too-august-2016-201610050930">research</a>. </p>
<p>Of the 143,000 Australian homes with Presto, 77% already have an alternative VoD or pay TV service, which could include Netflix, Stan and Foxtel. Of Presto households, 55% also use Netflix and 27% have signed up to Stan. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, almost half of Presto subscribers already have Foxtel, mainly through its traditional set-top box service. Foxtel itself has <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/foxtel-admits-subscriber-figures-include-presto-users-but-claims-cable-still-biggest-growth-driver-311968">admitted</a> to using Presto subscription numbers to bump up its own quoted subscriber growth numbers for 2015. </p>
<p>But Foxtel has two key advantages over Netflix and Stan. The first is HBO content, most notably the wildly popular series Game of Thrones. Next year Foxtel will <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2016/foxtel-revamps-its-streaming-video-service.html">significantly increase</a> the amount of HBO content it offers.</p>
<p>The second advantage is sport, which fittingly is where the fiercest competition is set to play out among rival platforms.</p>
<h2>Into the sporting arena</h2>
<p>Sport streaming is poised as the next battleground in Australian video streaming, VoD and video subscriptions. If planned changes to <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">anti-siphoning rules</a> are made, the battle will become even more intense.</p>
<p>Foxtel Play’s pricing will allow access to Foxtel’s sports package for A$35 a month, A$15 cheaper than its pay TV sports package. But is it cheap enough?</p>
<p>Telcos themselves have now become sports broadcasters, with both <a href="https://www.telstra.com.au/tv-movies-music/sport">Telstra</a> and <a href="http://www.optus.com.au/shop/entertainment/sport">Optus</a> heavily invested in sports streaming – the latter after <a href="https://theconversation.com/optus-the-new-player-in-australias-sports-media-rights-battle-50069">sensationally pinching</a> the rights to the Premier League from Foxtel. </p>
<p>Seven’s recent broadcast of the Rio 2016 Olympics also <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rio-olympics-are-a-test-case-for-the-future-of-sports-broadcasting-63589">raised many questions</a> about future sports broadcasting and media rights. With Seven no longer involved with Presto, it could set its sights on sport and furthering its partnership with Telstra.</p>
<p>If Telstra were to <a href="https://theconversation.com/bed-fellows-no-more-its-foxtel-versus-telstra-in-battle-for-online-subscribers-56672">sell its stake</a> in Foxtel, it may decide to invest more money in becoming a direct competitor to Foxtel Play.</p>
<p>This will open opportunities for streaming not only for major international competitions, but leagues that currently enjoy less funding and publicity. The Women’s AFL could be a perfect place to start – offering a homegrown product to homegrown viewers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66683/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>With Quickflix saved but Presto on the way out, it’s hard to predict who will emerge as the winners as battle for video-on-demand viewers intensifies.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/650312016-09-14T20:16:53Z2016-09-14T20:16:53ZMedia owners steer government away from reform in the public interest<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136987/original/image-20160908-25279-1ktnfum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitch Fifield argues media diversity is under threat unless the government's bill is passed.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Turnbull government’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5674">media bill</a> has been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/new-senate-media-reform-inquiry-frustrates-tv-chiefs/news-story/4a53759c60337bf74812b0f199971386">sent off to</a> another Senate inquiry, despite protestations from the government and the industry over the need to pass it urgently.</p>
<p>Communications Minister Mitch Fifield’s <a href="http://www.mitchfifield.com/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1253/Media-law-reform-package-reintroduced.aspx">assessment</a> is that if the government does not remove <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-changes-to-australias-media-ownership-laws-are-being-proposed-55509">two media rules</a> – one limiting national audience reach and the other limiting cross-media ownership – media diversity is under threat. But this inverts the reality. Mergers and acquisitions will generally mean <a href="https://theconversation.com/diversity-and-local-voices-at-risk-as-media-owners-aim-to-become-emperors-of-everything-55298">less voice diversity</a> – not more. A wave of these is <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwigsouY2v7OAhUEn5QKHfksAEAQFggrMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Fnew-wave-of-media-mergers-under-sweeping-reforms%2Fnews-story%2F1c476ff4fff65ca75869abcb5cd526a0&usg=AFQjCNE7bW7JfE-O3zL35SF98E24GaADfg&bvm=bv.131783435,d.dGo">likely to be triggered</a> by removing these rules.</p>
<p>Fifield’s deregulatory bluster aligns quite closely with standard News Corp messaging. He may <a href="http://www.mitchfifield.com/Media/Speeches/tabid/71/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1121/SPEECH--National-Press-Club-Address.aspx">claim to be</a> “ownership agnostic”, but the obvious outcome of removing restrictions on who can own what will inevitably mean industry consolidation. And Australia already has one of the <a href="http://www.uow.edu.au/%7Esharonb/STS218/media/ownership/concentration.html">most-concentrated media markets</a> in the democratic world.</p>
<p>The takeaway from this sideshow is a profound sense that Australia is a media policy backwater. The time-honoured political and media-owner manoeuvrings are a substitute for smart, citizen-focused policymaking.</p>
<p>The nations that have most influenced Australia’s media policymaking in the past – the US and the UK – have embraced the future of media diversity far more constructively.</p>
<h2>US rule-making for media diversity</h2>
<p>The US has had a process of <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fccs-review-broadcast-ownership-rules">structured media ownership reviews</a> in place since 1996, known as the quadrennial media ownership reviews.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/20102014-media-ownership-rules-review">two previous US reviews</a> (2010 and 2014) have just concluded. Key ownership restrictions, including on cross-media ownership, are being left in place.</p>
<p>In its <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-107A1.doc">most recent “Report and Order”</a>, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recognised the continuing importance of traditional media in local communities for viewpoint diversity, particularly for local news and public interest programming, and the rapidly changing ways content is accessed. It argued:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the public interest is best served by retaining our existing rules, with some minor modifications. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those modifications relate to measures to enhance innovation and viewpoint diversity, and public disclosure of agreements between media outlets about how content is shared. </p>
<p>Although the US media rules for diversity have been to some extent mired in judicial proceedings, they nonetheless have been relatively systematic and underpinned by generally sound public interest objectives. </p>
<p>This has all taken place in a media context of far greater ownership diversity than Australia’s.</p>
<h2>The UK’s Ofcom</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, and in a more innovative way that responds to changing media access and consumption, the main regulatory authority in the UK, <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">Ofcom</a>, has <a href="http://www.epra.org/news_items/ofcom-concludes-its-work-on-the-measurement-framework-for-media-plurality">recently renovated its processes</a> for assessing media pluralism. </p>
<p>Ofcom has been required to review the UK’s ownership rules <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/morr/summary">at least every three years</a> since 2003. The restrictions in place include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a rule limiting cross-media ownership of newspapers and TV at a national level; </p></li>
<li><p>requirements for the appointment of a regional TV news (Channel 3) provider; and </p></li>
<li><p>a rule for administering a public interest test in relation to mergers.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In its <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/cross-media/media-ownership-research/rulesreport2015/">most recent statutory review</a>, Ofcom concluded the rules needed to be retained to protect pluralism. But, it recognised that this would require ongoing reassessment if the importance of TV news and newspapers continues to decline.</p>
<p>In its new framework for assessing plurality in news and current affairs content, Ofcom has developed a range of quantitative and qualitative indicators. These are designed to assess the availability of news sources, their consumption and their impact on users. It includes metrics for assessing the number of providers, reach, share of consumption, sources and the personal importance of a source.</p>
<p>The UK government, through Ofcom, has sensibly recognised that online news is increasingly important. A large proportion of people <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/digital-news-audience-fact-sheet/">now access</a> news only via Facebook. This pattern can be seen around the world, including in the US and Australia. </p>
<p>Taking this changing consumption into account in policy is even more important when we know these platforms are not neutral: their <a href="http://wallaroomedia.com/facebook-newsfeed-algorithm-change-history/">algorithms manipulate</a> what news content people see.</p>
<p>Ofcom has <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/media-plurality-framework/">also recommended</a> new assessment mechanisms to take into account qualitative contextual factors. The proxies for impact include impartiality, trust, reliability and the final ability of a news sources to sway an opinion.</p>
<p>Ofcom has developed an innovative <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2013/12/04/media-plurality-series-is-ofcoms-share-of-references-scheme-fit-for-measuring-media-power/">“share of references”</a> to compare consumption of news across different platforms with different consumption measures. It is, in effect, a cross-media metric that looks at consumption in terms of who owns the news source. </p>
<p>Under this approach, online intermediaries – like search engines or social networks – are considered a separate category of growing importance when looking at media consumption metrics, where they may not necessarily be a producer of a news title or a separate brand.</p>
<h2>Changing news consumption and sources</h2>
<p>These kinds of aggregated metrics are necessary to allow regulatory agencies working in the public interest to track changes in patterns of news consumption and the diversity of available news sources. </p>
<p>Responsible public policymaking obliges governments and their agencies to monitor these developments to gather the information to evaluate whether or not the current policy intent remains – and, if so, how to develop regulatory tools (including web traffic analysis software and news data analytics) to secure it.</p>
<p>The Turnbull government, however, is engaged in a process that is all about the sideshow – not forward-thinking media policy with the public interest in mind.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65031/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 about sharing news online. </span></em></p>The Turnbull government is engaged in a media reform process that is all about the sideshow – not forward-thinking policy with the public interest in mind.Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/638092016-08-22T20:14:43Z2016-08-22T20:14:43ZShock horror: the big end of town has finally discovered Australia’s media is a whitewash<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134358/original/image-20160817-13020-1sqvzs2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Nine Network’s Here Come The Habibs is one of very few Australian TV programs not dominated by Anglo-Australian faces. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Nine Network</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report on <a href="http://www.pwc.com.au/press-room/2016/media-outlook-jun16.html">media diversity</a> and a raft of other initiatives show corporate and quasi-government cultural agencies may suddenly have woken up to the fact that Australia’s media are, well, white.</p>
<p>It is a generation on from <a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/academic-professional/communication-studies/Racism-Ethnicity-and-the-Media-Andrew-Jakubowicz-9781863733649">revelations about the lack of diversity</a> in the Australian media at the dawn of the digital era. But what is pushing this concern now? And what’s changed since then?</p>
<h2>There’s diversity, and then there’s diversity</h2>
<p>The Turnbull government has proposed <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/television/media/updating-australias-media-laws">rejigging the diversity of media ownership rules</a>. These are mainly aimed at liberating the Murdoch media from the last sliver of public interest constraints. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the big end of town <a href="http://screenfutures.com/2016/05/24/screen-culture-identity-and-diversity-in-the-media/">has discovered</a> the media have scarcely any cultural diversity in either producers or content. Even <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/27/abc-failing-to-reflect-racial-diversity-of-modern-australia-says-mark-scott">Mark Scott</a> remarked on this phenomenon when leaving the ABC.</p>
<p>Attention has turned over the past year to how to “fix” the problem. This is partly triggered by the unexpected appointment of Michelle Guthrie to head the ABC (she is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/budget-2016-michelle-guthrie-calls-for-more-diverse-abc-as-fact-check-unit-faces-chop-20160502-gojsd9.html">both part-Asian and a woman</a>), partly by Muslim TV presenter Waleed Aly <a href="http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/awards/logies/waleed-aly-reveals-his-celebrated-gold-logie-speech-was-not-preplanned/news-story/a78399918f6024b41fd006fbf6ede445">winning the Gold Logie</a>, and partly by the <a href="http://2016.hraff.org.au/event/breakfast-session-cultural-diversity-stage-screen/">rising hubbub</a> among “multiculturals” about racism, thwarted opportunities and boringly bland media.</p>
<p>Ongoing initiatives include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/newsroom/news/2016/na-160317-diversity-aussie-tv-drama-study">Screen Australia</a>, along with a band of collaborators, has been researching the state of screen diversity in Australian-made TV drama. The findings, based on a study of both characters and actors in 200 programs over five years, will suggest that what we see on our screens still looks very much blander than what we see on our streets, while opportunities in the media for Australia’s minorities are anything but equal.</p></li>
<li><p>The <a href="https://www.dca.org.au/dca-research/cracking-the-cultural-ceiling.html">Diversity Council</a> has been more widely discussing ethnic and racial ceilings and their impact.</p></li>
<li><p>The <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/face-facts-cultural-diversity">Human Rights Commission</a> has been facilitating <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/stories/rightstalk-media-and-diversity">gatherings of media people of colour</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>The <a href="https://filmink.com.au/public-notice/developing-diversity-and-opportunity-through-aftrs-partnership-with-i-c-e/">Australian Film Television and Radio School</a> has been looking toward more wide-ranging outcomes from its training.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>What do the facts show?</h2>
<p>The statistics paint a monochromatic picture. The <a href="http://www.pwc.com.au/press-room/2016/media-outlook-jun16.html">PwC report</a> indicated a staggering 82.7% of the Australian media workforce is monolingual, speaking only English at home, and that a lack of diversity is stunting the industry’s growth and future. </p>
<p>A monocultural media workforce is a problem across all areas of the entertainment industry. But, radio broadcasting is particularly bleak. Of the nation’s on-air talent, 75% are male, Caucasian and over 35. </p>
<p>Behind these statistics are systemic problems like unconscious bias and similarity attraction in the recruitment of employees. Yet studies have shown embracing diversity is good for business in what are uncertain and digitally disruptive times for the media and entertainment industry.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134554/original/image-20160818-2494-sdd2ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134554/original/image-20160818-2494-sdd2ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134554/original/image-20160818-2494-sdd2ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134554/original/image-20160818-2494-sdd2ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134554/original/image-20160818-2494-sdd2ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134554/original/image-20160818-2494-sdd2ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134554/original/image-20160818-2494-sdd2ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A monocultural media workforce is a problem across all areas of the entertainment industry.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dave Malkoff</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Where were we a generation ago?</h2>
<p>A ground-breaking 1994 book, <a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/academic-professional/communication-studies/Racism-Ethnicity-and-the-Media-Andrew-Jakubowicz-9781863733649">Racism, Ethnicity and the Media</a>, discovered many anomalies in the media representation of minority communities and indigenous peoples in Australia. </p>
<p>For many Australians of indigenous, diverse and indeed Anglo heritage, the nation represented on media outlets was not one they felt a part of.</p>
<p>In an eerie foreshadowing of the current results, most decision-makers in media organisations then were nearly all men aged over 40 and of Anglo heritage.</p>
<p>The book concluded that, as ethnicity and racial differences were likely to become increasingly important, equitable access to communication was crucial to ensure a socially just society. It argued:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Unless those practitioners are consciously and actively provoked to change, they will reproduce themselves and their world views endlessly. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Resistance to such changes inevitably would come from media bosses and owners.</p>
<h2>Whose Australian stories are told?</h2>
<p>In 2016 the ABC’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/austory/">Australian Story</a> celebrated its 20th year on air with a two-part <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2015/s4418697.htm">retrospective special</a>. This particular program showcased overwhelmingly white Australian stories.</p>
<p>There have been double episodes on iconic Australians like <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/acomplicatedlifepackerone/default.htm">Kerry Packer</a>. There have also been stories about white Australians rescuing, helping and saving non-whites. But even on this flagship, high-rating, highly awarded program, things have had to change.</p>
<p>When Scott finished his ten-year tenure as the ABC’s managing director earlier this year, his biggest regret <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/scotty-doesnt-know?utm_term=.gbxnNOKYG#.nmAdGQoN3">was that</a> he employed “too many Anglos”. Yet under his watch and with his full knowledge, the percentage of content-makers of non-Anglo background hired <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EquityDiversityAnnualRPT201415.pdf">had declined</a> during his last year at the helm from 8.2% to 7.4%. </p>
<p>In 2015, and under the stewardship of new executive producer Deborah Masters, Australian Story began to broadcast interviews with subtitles. </p>
<p>It had always been believed that a program with high production values and a voiceless script could not work with foreign-language interviews and subtitles; that it would detract from the storytelling by forcing the audience to read. Well, it does – and it worked.</p>
<p>The Australian Story on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2015/s4348989.htm">Socceroos coach Ange Postecoglou</a> included an interview with his Greek-speaking mother – and the ratings did not collapse. Perhaps this has given the program some new impetus to normalise the way it depicts subjects who are not Anglo-Australians.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134556/original/image-20160818-2462-eqt07f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134556/original/image-20160818-2462-eqt07f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134556/original/image-20160818-2462-eqt07f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134556/original/image-20160818-2462-eqt07f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134556/original/image-20160818-2462-eqt07f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134556/original/image-20160818-2462-eqt07f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134556/original/image-20160818-2462-eqt07f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Socceroos coach Ange Postecoglou was the subject of a recent Australian Story episode.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Australian Story</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who makes the news?</h2>
<p>The culture of the journalist plays a role in the selection of news, particularly the lens through which a news story is reported. </p>
<p>Journalists with diverse ethnic backgrounds could provide nuanced insights, views and perspectives beyond the white-only narrative of events within Australian media organisations. </p>
<p>A study on the <a href="http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=505254204652227;res=IELLCC">ethnicity of journalists</a> working in Australia found 55.9% of journalists identified as being “purely Anglo-Saxon”; an additional 17.4% were “partly Anglo-Saxon”; and another 4.8% considered themselves “Australian”.</p>
<p>This means 73.3% of Australian journalists surveyed had some Anglo-Saxon background – a percentage the study says is not that different from 20 years ago. </p>
<h2>Is advertising becoming more responsive and adventurous?</h2>
<p>At least one space in national media has appeared remarkably open to cultural diversity: advertising. This is both deeply ironic and glaringly logical. </p>
<p>In their calculated and cautious pursuit of market share, advertisers dare not alienate potential consumers. Yet, in a multicultural context, potential consumers are culturally diverse – and therein sits the proverbial carrot.</p>
<p>That said, big brands court both reward and risk when they engage representations of cultural diversity. When <a href="https://www.medibank.com.au/">Medibank Private</a> reworked its “I am Better” tagline into an array of ethnicities, sexualities, lifestyles and religions, <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/mediabank-launches-fresh-campaign-capturing-aussies-as-they-are-in-their-homes-345058">mainstream accolades ensued</a>.</p>
<p>These expressions of difference matter. While there can be commercial gain in showcasing diversity, there are still stubborn pockets of xenophobic resistance, which draw from, and thus strengthen, dominant cultural anxieties.</p>
<h2>It’s all Chinese …</h2>
<p>The rapid spread of Chinese-language media has transformed the political and cultural environment for Chinese communities in Australia. </p>
<p>In the past few years, mainland Chinese media have been adopted into local press, such as the <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2016liuvisitkza/2016-05/27/content_25499648.htm">China Daily</a> in Fairfax newspapers. </p>
<p>Uncontrolled digital media such as Weibo and Wechat have inundated the communication worlds of contemporary Chinese, placing them in a contemporaneous zone of intense immediacy. Essentially, this has allowed the Mandarin-speaking population to get their news from Beijing or Guangzhou, and allows them to be protected from Australian media perspectives.</p>
<p>During the 2016 Australian election, anti-gay activists in the Mandarin-speaking cyber-world activated support for the Christian Democratic Party, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/australian-federal-election-2016-linda-burney-makes-history-for-labor-20160702-gpx0lh.html">doubling its vote in some seats</a> and returning preferences to the government (helping secure its re-election). Without this activity the vote could have resulted in a hung parliament. </p>
<p>The possibility that Chinese Australians will become more alienated, and other Australians more prejudiced against them and China, is increased by mainstream media <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-pauline-hanson-warns-of-terror-on-the-streets-and-suburbs-swamped-by-asians-20160704-gpxzpn.html">channelling anti-Asian hostility</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134561/original/image-20160818-12295-1850s6r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134561/original/image-20160818-12295-1850s6r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134561/original/image-20160818-12295-1850s6r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134561/original/image-20160818-12295-1850s6r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134561/original/image-20160818-12295-1850s6r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134561/original/image-20160818-12295-1850s6r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134561/original/image-20160818-12295-1850s6r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The China Daily supplement appears in Fairfax newspapers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Media Watch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Digital transformations</h2>
<p>Digital companies are swamping mainstream Australian media <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/29/11-buzzfeed-lists-that-explain-the-world/">with a mix</a> of serious news and entertaintment. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/">Huffington Post</a>, <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/?/country=au">Buzzfeed</a> and <a href="http://mashable.com/category/australia/">Mashable</a> are redefining news and its consumption. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2016/australia-2016/">Nearly one in five Australians</a> source their news exclusively from digital social media. This is higher than in the European Union (10%) and the US (14%). </p>
<p>Such digital outlets carry a major push for diversity. Their global sensibilities alert them to the critical importance of reaching every pocket of possible audience. </p>
<p>Of the three sites mentioned above, Buzzfeed is the only one that discloses the statistics on its diversity numbers. They are now pretty close to <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/buzzfeeds-new-diversity-numbers-show-digital-media-giant-has-caught-washington-post-2149176">The Washington Post’s levels</a>.</p>
<p>Media diversity is becoming <a href="http://niemanreports.org/articles/why-newsroom-diversity-works/">an essential business strategy</a> in the US, a country that will be majority non-white by 2044. The Australian subsidiaries now have the opportunity to lead the way here.</p>
<h2>Do we wait for another generation?</h2>
<p>So while the government is focused on one sort of diversity – profiting from the media and who gets to do it – multicultural Australia faces another dimension of limited diversity.</p>
<p>PwC made what would appear to be a call to business to focus its energies on growing the diversity dividend:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Similar to the world we see depicted by media, entertainment and media businesses do not reflect an Australia that’s becoming more diverse by the day … Studies have shown diversity improves business outcomes. To move the dial in the entertainment and media industry greater focus needs to be placed on tackling unconscious bias and similarity attraction in recruitment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The arguments from economic self-interest may strengthen the wider impetus for government and industry. But it is actually the arguments from social cohesion that are far more important. </p>
<p>A society that cannot look itself in the face is unlikely to be able to ensure that its complexity can be drawn on to build a more creative, integrated and resourceful population and a more civil society at a time of rising racism and xenophobia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63809/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors are members of the UTS Communication and Cultural Diversity Research Colloquium. Andrew Jakubowicz edited Racism, Ethnicity and the Media (Allen and Unwin) and researched it with a group of UTS humanities and social science academics in the early 1990s. The book, published in 1994, is still available and regularly reprinted as the only major study on the topic. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Belinda Middleweek, Bhuva Narayan, Devleena Ghosh, Helen Vatsikopoulos, Saba Bebawi, Susie Khamis, and Wanning Sun 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 generation on from revelations about the lack of diversity in the Australian media at the dawn of the digital era, what is pushing this concern now? And what’s changed since then?Andrew Jakubowicz, Professor of Sociology, University of Technology SydneyBelinda Middleweek, Lecturer in Journalism, University of Technology SydneyBhuva Narayan, Senior lecturer, University of Technology SydneyDevleena Ghosh, Associate Professor, Social Inquiry Program, University of Technology SydneyHelen Vatsikopoulos, Lecturer in Journalism, University of Technology SydneySaba Bebawi, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, University of Technology SydneySusie Khamis, Senior Lecturer in Public Communication, University of Technology SydneyWanning Sun, Professor of Chinese Media and Cultural Studies, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/555092016-03-01T04:34:08Z2016-03-01T04:34:08ZExplainer: what changes to Australia’s media ownership laws are being proposed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113332/original/image-20160301-4080-1r1o3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Media owners are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of changes announced by Communications Minister Mitch Fifield on Tuesday.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Communications Minister Mitch Fifield <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/television/media/updating-australias-media-laws">has announced</a> a shake-up of Australia’s media ownership laws. So, what rules are being scrapped? And how might their axing affect Australia’s media sector?</p>
<h2>The rules</h2>
<p>On the chopping block are the “75% reach” and “two out of three” rules.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/s53.html">75% audience reach rule</a> began life in 1987 – before the internet – as a 60% audience reach rule. It meant that the population of the licence areas controlled by one person or company could not exceed 60% of the total Australian population. </p>
<p>Subsequent adjustments made in 1992 extended the rule to 75% of the national audience. This rule’s practical outcome was to create commercial metropolitan (Seven, Nine and Ten) and regional (Prime, WIN, Southern Cross Austereo) television networks.</p>
<p>The two-out-of-three rule was introduced in 2006. Its purpose is to prevent a single person or company from controlling more than two out of three media platforms – commercial radio, commercial television and newspaper – in the same radio licence area. </p>
<p>These rules – together with the “one to a market” rule for TV, the “two to a market” rule for radio, and the minimum independently controlled media voices of five in a metro area or four in a regional area (the “5/4” rule) – have the effect of providing a safety net for voice diversity.</p>
<p>There is abundant evidence that <a href="https://7live.com.au">online streaming</a> has made the 75% reach rule redundant. However, the two-out-of-three rule – and the other existing rules limiting market dominance – do still effectively maintain voice diversity, even if digital convergence allows these traditional media platforms to undertake cross-media production activities.</p>
<h2>What might change mean?</h2>
<p>Anticipating the changes, APN News and Media have already put their regional print division, Australian Regional Media, <a href="https://theconversation.com/end-of-an-era-in-regional-publishing-as-apn-puts-papers-up-for-sale-55382">on the market</a>. News Corp, which <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/rupert-murdochs-news-corp-takes-149-stake-in-apn-as-independent-news--media-exits-20150319-1m2sxh.html">already owns</a> 14.99% of APN News and Media, may be interested in acquiring a slew of daily and community newspapers in regional Queensland and NSW, and 30 online news sites.</p>
<p>News Corp thus could stand to subsume titles such as the The Queensland Times, Warwick Daily News, The Northern Star (Lismore), The Daily Examiner (Grafton) and The Chronicle (Toowoomba). Each has its own particular local perspectives.</p>
<p>Mergers between regional and metropolitan television networks <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/nine-and-win-in-merger-talks-20151223-glu4rc.html">are certain</a>. Cross-media marriages, <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">such as</a> between Fairfax Media and Nine Entertainment, are also a strong possibility. </p>
<p>Media owners, who are facing increasing pressures from the shift to online advertising and desperately want to expand across audience platforms, are likely to be the main beneficiaries of Fifield’s changes. The Coalition government, which in an election year can’t afford to have to deal with disaffected news media, also stands to gain.</p>
<p>The public, and in particular people in rural and regional Australia, do not even get a look-in. Even those living in smaller cities such as Adelaide, Darwin or Hobart, who already only have just a News Corporation daily to read, are facing the prospect of <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/media-interests-snapshot">fewer alternative voices</a> if News Corp were to merge with, for example, Network Ten.</p>
<p>Australian media ownership, and print media in particular, is 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</a> in the world. A steady trend to fewer owners over the last century is the well-documented pattern. But print media and their online successors are fundamental to news and information diversity and pluralism in democratic societies.</p>
<p>Responsible policymaking in the public interest needs to assume that media concentration will continue to be a problem in the online digital world. <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/researchacma/Emerging-media-and-communications-trends-implications-for-regulation">Research</a> <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2015/executive-summary-and-key-findings-2015/">indicates</a> there are clear economic and audience usage reasons for this, despite the rise of online streaming and multi-screening. Counter-arguments <a href="http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/malcolm_turnbull/speeches/internet_of_things_summit#.VtUUeGB9FJYare">put forward</a> based on the conventional wisdom of “internet abundance” are misguided and self-serving.</p>
<h2>A new set of diversity rules</h2>
<p>These rules, with the exception of the 75% audience reach rule, maintain limits on any one person or company from dominating with their “ownership voice” in a licence area or market. The government should consider what rules would maintain news voice diversity and be fit for the 21st-century media landscape.</p>
<p>The business model for regional media is a major concern for news audiences in those areas. Ideas for policy transfer from overseas jurisdictions are sorely needed. These may include a news content industry fund or levy, or other forms of tax breaks or public service subsidies, in addition to the existing local content scheme.</p>
<p>The proposed changes to the existing points scheme – which would require more local content in the wake of a “trigger event”, including more news content – is closing the gate well after the horse has bolted.</p>
<p>There is a pressing need to rethink policy and regulation in light of the ongoing transformations surrounding digital convergence. Traditional sector-based approaches to media policy are being challenged. But diversity and pluralism remain policies of high consequence because they are directed at maintaining an informed population.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen whether these amendments will survive a Senate committee, let alone be passed some time before the coming election.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55509/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Dwyer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Mitch Fifield has announced a shake-up of Australia’s media ownership laws. What rules are being scrapped? And what effect might their axing have on Australia’s media sector?Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/545402016-02-16T18:22:46Z2016-02-16T18:22:46ZRegional TV fights back as more programmes are ‘broadcast’ online<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111606/original/image-20160216-22587-1oguh5u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nine's new online streaming service means it can reach beyond its metro boundaries, and regional broadcasters are not happy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Antonio Guillem</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia’s broadcasting regulations are under question again following the announcement last week that a regional broadcaster has <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/win-takes-nine-to-court-over-live-streaming-345668">launched legal action</a> against live streaming online by a rival metro broadcaster, with which it has a programming deal.</p>
<p>WIN television’s owner, Bruce Gordon, argues the Nine Network’s <a href="https://www.9now.com.au/live">9Now</a> service violates an agreement with the metro broadcaster by live-streaming its channels into regional areas in which WIN holds commercial TV broadcast licences.</p>
<p>Nine’s streaming service allows anyone in Australia access to the station’s broadcast via any device with an internet connection. The definition of “broadcast” will be a key argument within the case and whether live-streaming is the same as the traditional broadcast of television stations.</p>
<p>The aim of the legal action is to prevent the Nine’s live stream from being accessed within regional areas where the WIN network’s broadcast is available. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111245/original/image-20160211-29185-1k1jvoz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111245/original/image-20160211-29185-1k1jvoz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111245/original/image-20160211-29185-1k1jvoz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111245/original/image-20160211-29185-1k1jvoz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111245/original/image-20160211-29185-1k1jvoz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111245/original/image-20160211-29185-1k1jvoz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111245/original/image-20160211-29185-1k1jvoz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111245/original/image-20160211-29185-1k1jvoz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bruce Gordon’s media interests.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ACMA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Essentially Gordon is hoping to <a href="https://theconversation.com/unlocking-the-geoblock-australians-embrace-vpns-32373">geoblock</a> Nine’s stream, similar to the debate associated with <a href="https://www.netflix.com/au/">Netflix</a> since the US-based Video on Demand (VoD) service went <a href="https://theconversation.com/netflix-is-everywhere-almost-so-what-does-this-mean-for-local-media-52857">global</a>. </p>
<p>But this increase in live streaming and VoD online continues to raise questions over the future of linear broadcast television in Australia.</p>
<h2>Australian live streaming services</h2>
<p>Nine’s streaming service was <a href="http://mi9.com.au/article.aspx?id=9080034">launched</a> at the beginning of February this year. But Nine was not the first Australian free-to-air (FTA) station to start live streaming its broadcasts. </p>
<p>The Seven Network’s live stream, <a href="https://au.tv.yahoo.com/plus7/live/">Plus 7</a>, launched <a href="http://www.mediaweek.com.au/live-streaming-for-seven-7two-and-7mate/">late last year</a>. Seven also used the tennis and its 7Tennis app as a way to <a href="http://decidertv.com/page/2016/1/17/7-tennis-app-now-available-on-the-big-screen-with-appletv-7tennis-appletv">entice the Australian audience</a> to use the live stream services. </p>
<p>The Ten Network is the only commercial broadcaster to not provide a full live stream. Although the station has a limited <a href="http://tenplay.com.au/live">live stream</a> service that includes programmes such as The Bold and the Beautiful, TEN Eyewitness News First at Five and I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!. </p>
<h2>Winners and losers</h2>
<p>Gordon is the first to launch legal action over the streaming services by metro based commercial FTA broadcasters. It was made very clear last year that regional broadcaster were <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/prime-and-other-regional-tv-networks-take-aim-at-new-plus7-mobile-app-in-media-reform-push-313297">less than supportive</a> of the Seven Network’s Plus 7 launch. </p>
<p>Seven launched the new service by asking viewers: what if you could take your TV anywhere?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vvBRgR_9rDA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Seven TV everywhere TV ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But if you can take your TV everywhere, then there are issues associated with media ownership. Regional broadcasters currently don’t have live-streaming services, meaning any viewer who watches a live commercial television stream would be watching the metro-based service. </p>
<p>For the regional broadcasters, this means they are losing out on any advertising revenue they receive with their traditional broadcast business model. For the viewer, it means they will not receive the any local regional content, such as local news.</p>
<p>The regional broadcasters are fighting back and have launched a campaign called <a href="http://www.saveourvoices.com.au/">Save Our Voices</a>, arguing the media laws are “stuck in the last century”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/drm6vEkS0u8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Save Our Voice Campaign.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Media ownership laws outdated?</h2>
<p>There have been a number of changes in the television industry within Australia in the past few years. The current media ownership laws <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Media-ownership-and-control/Ownership-and-control-rules/statutory-control-rules-media-ownership-control-acma">say</a> no commercial television license holder can broadcast to more than 75% of the Australian population.</p>
<p>Currently the three commercial networks have the following <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Media-ownership-and-control/Ownership-and-control-rules/statutory-control-rules-media-ownership-control-acma">population reach</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>Seven 73.81%</li>
<li>Nine 73.55%</li>
<li>Ten 66.70%.</li>
</ul>
<p>In addition there are also rules on the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Media-ownership-and-control/Ownership-and-control-rules/statutory-control-rules-media-ownership-control-acma">cross ownership of media</a>, including television and radio broadcasting.</p>
<p>The snapshot below shows the interlinking across the media ownership in Australia. What’s absent is the ownership of the Australian VoD services, <a href="https://www.presto.com.au/">Presto</a> and <a href="https://www.stan.com.au/">Stan</a>, in which Foxtel, Fairfax, Seven and Nine have interests.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111418/original/image-20160214-29188-1uu72gx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111418/original/image-20160214-29188-1uu72gx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111418/original/image-20160214-29188-1uu72gx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111418/original/image-20160214-29188-1uu72gx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111418/original/image-20160214-29188-1uu72gx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111418/original/image-20160214-29188-1uu72gx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111418/original/image-20160214-29188-1uu72gx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111418/original/image-20160214-29188-1uu72gx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australian media interest snapshot.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ACMA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is clear that these ownership laws are outdated and do not factor in the immense changes that have occurred recently in the television industry. Television stations now not only broadcast linear content to a television set, but also use the internet as a method allowing streaming to internet connected devices.</p>
<p>All Australian television stations now have catch-up services, including the ABC’s <a href="http://iview.abc.net.au/">iView</a> and SBS’s <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/">On Demand</a>.</p>
<p>That means all stations now have access to a potential audience beyond the broadcast restriction of no more 75% of the Australian population.</p>
<p>I would suggest the ownership laws need to be reviewed in light of these developments. Not only is the ownership an issue, but also the platforms that are incorporated into the ownership laws.</p>
<h2>Live streaming of sport</h2>
<p>In addition to the policy factor, there are questions associated with the live stream of FTA broadcasts and the impact this has on recent sport media rights deals.</p>
<p>Both the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-afl-gets-richer-who-gets-richer-with-it-46321">AFL</a> and the <a href="http://www.nrl.com/nrl-broadcast-rights-deal-announced/tabid/10874/newsid/91023/default.aspx">NRL</a> have completed <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-afl-gets-richer-who-gets-richer-with-it-46321">billion dollar media deals</a>, with the digital rights encompassed as part of these rights.</p>
<p>How will the live streaming by Seven and Nine impact these deals? Seven is involved with <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-afl-gets-richer-who-gets-richer-with-it-46321">AFL deal</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/foxtel-boxed-into-a-corner-as-sport-streaming-takes-hold-46074">Nine with NRL</a>. Nine will soon start discussions with Cricket Australia as the media rights <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-sportscasting-cricket-australia-launches-on-apple-tv-35253">will soon expire</a>. Will the new live streaming service by the FTA broadcasters play a part in these discussions?</p>
<p>Telstra <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra-afl-nrl-win-live-footy-court-battle-20120426-1xoth.html">successfully sued</a> Optus over a copyright breach for both the NRL and AFL in 2012. So there is evidence of live streaming being an issue in association to media right deals, particularly sport.</p>
<h2>Australian television will continue to change</h2>
<p>The local commercial broadcasters involved in VoD services are battling with the global Netflix to gain subscriptions. Ten is also the only one of the three metro commercial FTA broadcasters not to have involvement with a VoD service. </p>
<p>This is a market that is yet to get any easier. I have <a href="https://theconversation.com/netflix-is-everywhere-almost-so-what-does-this-mean-for-local-media-52857">said before</a> that I believe we would see more reality and sport on commercial television as a way to focus on a service not provided by the new VoD services. </p>
<p>But now even the reality programmes are about to have another spin in Australia with the launch of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/gadgets-on-the-go/nbcuniversals-hayu-streams-reality-tv-overdose-as-pay-tv-bundle-is-reborn-20160212-gmsd3j.html">Hayu</a>, a new VoD service specially focused on reality TV. The <a href="http://www.nbcuniversal.com/">NBCUniversal</a> service will have many of the titles which are available Foxtel and on Nine’s 9Life.</p>
<p>In addition, Disney is planning to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/disney-plots-australian-svod-service-20160212-gmsuye.html">launch a VoD service</a> in Australia, possibly in a deal with a local telecommunications company. This could impact on Foxtel, which currently has four dedicated channels containing Disney content. </p>
<p>It is clear the Australian television industry, including the VoD services, is continuing to change at a far greater rate than we have ever seen. Policy changes will not be able to keep up pace with this rate of change. </p>
<p>The live streaming services by metro broadcasters have again brought Australian media ownership laws into focus. If television stations can now stream online, therefore effective reaching all Australians (with internet access), then the media ownership reach rule is redundant.</p>
<p>But what impact will this have on regional broadcasters, their content and regional audiences? We may find out some answers when WIN’s case against Nine reaches the NSW Supreme Court, due in April.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54540/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>The rise on live streaming of television programs is breaking down the protected geographical barriers on what you can watch, and the regional broadcasters are not happy.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.