tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/murdoch-7703/articlesMurdoch – The Conversation2023-04-24T06:01:40Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2042792023-04-24T06:01:40Z2023-04-24T06:01:40ZLachlan Murdoch could well have won his Crikey lawsuit, so why did he drop it?<p>Late last week, Lachlan Murdoch <a href="https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/108692/NSD673-2022-Notice-of-Discontinuance.pdf">dropped</a> his defamation claim against key figures behind online publication Crikey.</p>
<p>Murdoch had a strong case. So why would he choose to drop it?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1649205618576867329"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-fox-news-settlement-with-dominion-voting-systems-is-good-news-for-all-media-outlets-204095">Why Fox News' settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The facts of the case</h2>
<p>For those under a rock: Lachlan Murdoch is the son of Rupert. He is an Aussie-American-Brit leading News Corp and Fox Corporation. His empire includes Fox News in the US and Sky News in Australia.</p>
<p>Murdoch was suing over a June 2022 <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/06/29/january-six-hearing-donald-trump-comfirmed-unhinged-traitor/">article</a> on the subject of the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol. The piece called Donald Trump a “traitor”, and Lachlan Murdoch Trump’s “unindicted co-conspirator” – a reference to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html">Richard Nixon’s treatment</a> by a grand jury with respect to the Watergate scandal.</p>
<p>The underlying allegation was that Fox News had supported Trump’s “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/mar/09/trump-big-lie-2020-election-republican-supporters-congress">Big Lie</a>” that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen, which led to the insurrection; and that Lachlan Murdoch was responsible for Fox’s role in spreading the Big Lie.</p>
<p>After the article was published, Murdoch sent the publishers of Crikey a “concerns notice”, essentially threatening to sue them.</p>
<p>In response, the publishers <a href="https://fortune.com/2022/08/24/lachlan-murdoch-suing-crikey-defamation-capitol-insurrection-new-york-times-advert/">almost dared Murdoch to sue</a>. They even went so far as to take out an ad in The New York Times. According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/nov/30/lachlan-murdoch-alleges-crikey-hired-marketing-firm-to-turn-legal-threat-into-subscription-drive">Murdoch</a>, those behind Crikey used his defamation threat as part of marketing campaign to drive subscriptions.</p>
<p>Challenging a billionaire to a defamation fight may not have been the smartest move. In September 2022, Murdoch <a href="https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/murdoch-v-private-media">commenced proceedings</a> in the Federal Court of Australia. He sued the company publisher of Crikey, its editor, and the article’s author. Later, he also <a href="https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/107778/02.1-Amended-Statement-of-Claim-filed-31-January-2023.pdf">sued</a> the chair and chief executive of that company.</p>
<h2>Crikey’s defences may have failed</h2>
<p>The Crikey respondents were defending the case on a number of bases. Each of these defences relies on legal principles that excuse the publication of content that is defamatory for the sake of other important interests.</p>
<p>Perhaps their strongest defence was a new one: a statutory defence of “<a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/s29a.html">publication of matter in the public interest</a>”. The defence became law in 2021. It means a defamatory publication is defensible if two conditions are met.</p>
<p>First, the publication must concern an “issue of public interest” – which the Crikey article clearly did. Second, the publishers must have “reasonably believed” that the publication of the matter (the article) was in the public interest.</p>
<p>The case may have turned on this second element of the new defence. What did the publishers believe? Was their belief about the public interest, or driving subscriptions for Crikey? There was a decent risk a court would have gone with the second option, and the defence would have failed.</p>
<p>If the defences had have failed, Murdoch would have won. So why would he choose to <a href="https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/108692/NSD673-2022-Notice-of-Discontinuance.pdf">discontinue</a> his case?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1649202088474476545"}"></div></p>
<h2>The backdrop of the Dominion v Fox case</h2>
<p>Just days ago, Murdoch’s Fox settled what would have been one of the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/18/business/fox-news-dominion-trial-settlement">biggest defamation case of all time</a>. Dominion Voting Systems had sued Fox in the US, seeking a whopping US$1.6 billion damages.</p>
<p>It is extremely difficult to succeed in a defamation case against a media company under US law. But if ever there was a case where it could happen, this was it.</p>
<p>Through pre-trial procedures, Dominion had uncovered a treasure trove of evidence from people at Fox – including from the likes of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/business/media/fox-dominion-2020-election.html">Tucker Carlson</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/27/business/media/fox-news-dominion-rupert-murdoch.html">Rupert Murdoch himself</a>. </p>
<p>There was plenty of ammo for Dominion to argue Fox was deliberately spreading lies about Dominion, which would have been required for Dominion to succeed.</p>
<p>Just before the trial was about to start, Dominion agreed to put an end to the case in exchange for a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/18/dominion-wins-but-the-public-loses-fox-settlement-avoids-paying-the-highest-price">US$787.5 million payment</a> from Fox.</p>
<p>This was a steep price for Fox to pay but a loss would have cost substantially more in damages. And it would have cost more than money.</p>
<p>If the case had proceeded to trial, it would have caused tremendous damage to the Fox brand and that of its talking heads, further alienating the audience on which they depend. The evidence already uncovered was ugly, but it was about to get even uglier.</p>
<h2>Discontinuing the defamation case was a sound decision</h2>
<p>If Lachlan Murdoch continued the Crikey case, then all of the dirty laundry that was to be aired in the Dominion case could have been aired in Australia.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-interim-report-127/10-fair-trial/open-justice/">principle of open justice</a>, that evidence would have been heard in open court, with the global media watching. </p>
<p>Fox’s key benefit of the Dominion settlement – making the story go away, and not having to uncover further evidence – would have been destroyed. It would have been a massive own goal.</p>
<p>It’s likely Lachlan Murdoch himself would have been cross-examined.</p>
<h2>There are other reasons Murdoch would want the case to end now</h2>
<p>Say the case continued, and Lachlan Murdoch won. This would mean the Crikey respondents failed in their reliance on the statutory defence of “publication of matter in the public interest”. </p>
<p>The resulting judgment could set a precedent undermining the value of the new defence. </p>
<p>It is in Lachlan Murdoch’s ultimate interest that the defence remains strong: it will protect News Corp rags from publishing defamatory articles, which they are prone to do. Laying down his weapons now avoids that scenario.</p>
<p>And there is a reason <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/21/lachlan-murdoch-drops-defamation-proceedings-against-independent-australian-publisher-crikey">Lachlan Murdoch has himself</a> given for ending his case: he does not want to give Crikey any more ammo for a marketing campaign to attract subscribers.</p>
<p>Murdoch insists he was confident he would have won his case. He may have won defamation damages but he could have lost far more.</p>
<p>Murdoch may end up having to pay the legal costs of the Crikey respondents. But this case was never really about money. <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/ego-hubris-and-ideology-judge-blasts-crikey-v-murdoch-motives-20230404-p5cxwz">As the judge said a few weeks ago</a>, it was more about “ego and hubris”. Many defamation cases are.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/murdoch-v-crikey-highlights-how-australias-defamation-laws-protect-the-rich-and-powerful-189228">Murdoch v Crikey highlights how Australia's defamation laws protect the rich and powerful</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204279/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Douglas is a consultant in a litigation firm, where he has worked on defamation matters and acted for plaintiffs. He has been a member of the ALP and the Australian Republic Movement. </span></em></p>After the article was published, Murdoch sent the publishers of Crikey a ‘concerns notice’, essentially threatening to sue them. In response, the publishers almost dared Murdoch to sue.Michael Douglas, Senior Lecturer in Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1962172022-12-13T02:33:47Z2022-12-13T02:33:47ZThe Prime Minister’s Literary Awards have proved contentious, but this year’s winners are worth celebrating<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500571/original/file-20221212-25-dtcwh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=634%2C0%2C3275%2C1640&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Winners of the 2022 Prime Minister's Literary Awards: Nicolas Rothwell, Mark Willacy, Sherryl Clark, Andy Jackson, Christine Helliwell and Leanne Hall.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>The winners of the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards were announced this morning at a ceremony in Launceston. This year’s <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/pm-literary-awards/shortlist">shortlists</a> presented a challenge for the judges, who selected 30 titles from more than 540 eligible entries. </p>
<p>The winning books in each category are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Fiction</strong>: <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/pm-literary-awards/shortlist/red-heaven">Red Heaven</a> – Nicolas Rothwell (Text Publishing)</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Poetry</strong>: <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/pm-literary-awards/shortlist/human-looking">Human Looking</a> – Andy Jackson (Giramondo) </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Non-fiction</strong>: <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/pm-literary-awards/shortlist/rogue-forces-explosive-insiders-account-australian-sas-war-crimes-afghanistan">Rogue Forces: An explosive insiders’ account of Australian SAS war crimes in Afghanistan</a> – Mark Willacy (Simon & Schuster)</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Australian history</strong>: <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/pm-literary-awards/shortlist/semut-untold-story-secret-australian-operation-wwii-borneo">Semut: The untold story of a secret Australian operation in WWII Borneo</a> – Christine Helliwell (Michael Joseph)</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Children’s literature</strong>: <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/pm-literary-awards/shortlist/mina-and-whole-wide-world">Mina and the Whole Wide World</a> – Sherryl Clark and Briony Stewart (University of Queensland Press)</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Young adult literature</strong>: <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/pm-literary-awards/shortlist/gaps-leanne-hall">The Gaps</a> – Leanne Hall (Text Publishing) </p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Criticisms</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500303/original/file-20221212-93936-obdnw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500303/original/file-20221212-93936-obdnw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500303/original/file-20221212-93936-obdnw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500303/original/file-20221212-93936-obdnw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500303/original/file-20221212-93936-obdnw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500303/original/file-20221212-93936-obdnw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500303/original/file-20221212-93936-obdnw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500303/original/file-20221212-93936-obdnw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The awards have a short and occasionally contentious history. This year, they were met with strong criticism.</p>
<p>Given the “consecrating” value accorded to literary awards, the judging panels are closely scrutinised. The panels are a measure of credibility; they define the notions of literary merit upon which the awards are based. </p>
<p>This year Peter Rose, editor of Australian Book Review, <a href="https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/abr-online/current-issue/984-december-2022-no-449/9918-editorial-the-narrow-road-to-influence">called out</a> the judging panels as Sydney-centric. Central to his critique was the clear links of six judges with the Murdoch-owned NewsCorp papers:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Remarkably, six of those ten judges have close associations with The Australian newspaper. This includes no less than three literary editors (including the current one, Caroline Overington). The other three are Troy Bramston, a senior writer and columnist with The Australian, Peter Craven (a frequent columnist), and Chris Mitchell, a former editor-in-chief (2002–15) and current columnist.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500304/original/file-20221212-95119-3510zz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500304/original/file-20221212-95119-3510zz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500304/original/file-20221212-95119-3510zz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500304/original/file-20221212-95119-3510zz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500304/original/file-20221212-95119-3510zz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500304/original/file-20221212-95119-3510zz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500304/original/file-20221212-95119-3510zz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500304/original/file-20221212-95119-3510zz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The 2022 panels were appointed by the previous federal government. Rose sees the composition of the panels as evidence of the Morrison government’s “cosy association with News Corp”, the charge of partisanship evoking wider conversations about the “stacking” of cultural institutions. </p>
<p>Indeed the July 2022 Grattan Institute report, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/new-politics-public-appointments/">New politics: A better process for public appointments</a>, shows that “pork-barrelling” and “jobs for mates” can have a corrosive effect on our democratic institutions, seriously affecting the impartiality of decision-making.</p>
<p>Literary prizes are inherently if implicitly political; the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards are explicitly so. One of their peculiarities is that they are bestowed at the prerogative of the prime minister, who can overrule the decisions of the judging panels. </p>
<p>The timing of the awards also came in for criticism this year. Although they represent a significant injection of funds into the literary sector, the benefits would be greater if there were time for titles to build momentum. </p>
<p>The shortlist was not announced until November 7 2022, and the announcement of the winners is timed to fit around the prime minister’s schedule and parliamentary sitting requirements. But the mid-December date is not ideal for its visibility. It allows little notice for the publishing and bookselling industries to spotlight titles for Christmas, which inevitably affects potential sales. As Mark Rubbo, managing director of independent bookshop chain Readings, told Peter Rose:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards are the worst-run prizes in Australia; there is no consistency in the timing of the announcements of either the shortlist or the winner, giving neither booksellers nor publishers the opportunity to promote the shortlisted and winning authors.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-thirds-of-australian-authors-are-women-new-research-finds-they-earn-just-18-200-a-year-from-their-writing-195426">Two thirds of Australian authors are women – new research finds they earn just $18,200 a year from their writing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>History of the awards</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500305/original/file-20221212-94261-em7gyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500305/original/file-20221212-94261-em7gyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500305/original/file-20221212-94261-em7gyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500305/original/file-20221212-94261-em7gyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500305/original/file-20221212-94261-em7gyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500305/original/file-20221212-94261-em7gyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500305/original/file-20221212-94261-em7gyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500305/original/file-20221212-94261-em7gyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The winners of the 2022 awards each receive A$80,000 tax-free, with shortlisted authors receiving $5,000 each. It’s a substantial prize, but not the highest amount of money for a literary award – the Victorian Prize for Literature offers $100,000.</p>
<p>The awards are intended to recognise individual excellence and the contribution Australian authors make to the nation’s cultural and intellectual life. They have evolved every year since their inauguration by Kevin Rudd in 2008. </p>
<p>In 2008 and 2009, awards were given in the fiction and non-fiction categories. In 2010, the awards were expanded to include young adult and children’s fiction. The decision to reward all the shortlisted authors was made in 2011. This was a widely applauded move. </p>
<p>There is growing public awareness of author poverty, with a 2022 <a href="https://australiacouncil.gov.au/advocacy-and-research/2022-national-survey-of-australian-book-authors/">Macquarie University study</a> finding that the average income is $18,200 per annum.</p>
<p>In 2012, the poetry category was added and the Prime Minister’s Prize for Australian History was incorporated into the Awards. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500220/original/file-20221211-90146-ktdtu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500220/original/file-20221211-90146-ktdtu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500220/original/file-20221211-90146-ktdtu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500220/original/file-20221211-90146-ktdtu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500220/original/file-20221211-90146-ktdtu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500220/original/file-20221211-90146-ktdtu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500220/original/file-20221211-90146-ktdtu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500220/original/file-20221211-90146-ktdtu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kevin Rudd with novelist Steven Conte at the first Prime Minister’s Literary Awards in September 2008.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan Porritt/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/something-remarkable-has-happened-to-australias-book-pages-gender-equality-has-become-the-norm-177362">Something remarkable has happened to Australia's book pages: gender equality has become the norm</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Literature and diversity</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500307/original/file-20221212-96198-65pkn0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500307/original/file-20221212-96198-65pkn0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500307/original/file-20221212-96198-65pkn0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500307/original/file-20221212-96198-65pkn0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500307/original/file-20221212-96198-65pkn0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500307/original/file-20221212-96198-65pkn0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500307/original/file-20221212-96198-65pkn0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500307/original/file-20221212-96198-65pkn0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The inauguration of the <a href="https://stella.org.au/about/">Stella Prize</a> for women’s writing and the associated <a href="https://stella.org.au/initiatives/research/">Stella Count</a> have sharpened our focus on questions of gender and diversity in the awarding of prizes and in literary reviewing.</p>
<p>The Prime Minister’s awards are beginning to mirror the multiplicity of modern Australia. This year’s shortlists included five First Nations authors, with one in every category except history. The young adult category was the most diverse, containing two authors of Asian-Australian heritage, Leanne Hall and Rebecca Lim, and one of Muslim-Australian heritage, Safdar Ahmed. </p>
<p>Andy Jackson’s winning poetry collection, Human Looking, elevates the profile of disabled poetics and “<a href="https://www.australianliterarystudies.com.au/articles/writing-disability-in-australia">crip culture</a>” more broadly. </p>
<p>The gender mix is relatively even, an overall trend that aligns with Melinda Harvey and Julieanne Lamond’s <a href="https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/stella-count-crashes-through-the-gender-parity-barrier">report</a>, released in March 2022, which found that gender parity was becoming a reality when it comes to prizes.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500310/original/file-20221212-97751-uu5no9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500310/original/file-20221212-97751-uu5no9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500310/original/file-20221212-97751-uu5no9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=928&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500310/original/file-20221212-97751-uu5no9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=928&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500310/original/file-20221212-97751-uu5no9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=928&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500310/original/file-20221212-97751-uu5no9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1166&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500310/original/file-20221212-97751-uu5no9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1166&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500310/original/file-20221212-97751-uu5no9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1166&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Minister for the Arts Tony Burke has been open about his love of literature. In his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXwb-YOkgFQ&ab_channel=AustralianSocietyofAuthors">Colin Simpson Memorial Keynote</a> for the Australian Society of Authors on 15 November, he revealed that he reads a poem each day. Among his favourite local works are Tara June Winch’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-yield-wins-the-miles-franklin-a-powerful-story-of-violence-and-forms-of-resistance-142284">The Yield</a> (which <a href="https://theconversation.com/prime-ministers-literary-awards-the-yield-and-the-lost-arabs-throw-fragile-lines-across-cultural-and-linguistic-divides-151848">won the fiction category</a> of the 2020 Prime Minister’s Literary Awards) and <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-dystopian-or-utopian-future-claire-g-colemans-new-novel-enclave-imagines-both-182859">Claire G. Coleman</a>’s Terra Nullius. </p>
<p>A government that says “you are creators, you are workers and you are required” has been missing for a decade, Burke said. In his new role, he has pledged to improve authors’ conditions.</p>
<p>University of Melbourne publishing and communications scholar Alexandra Dane has <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003124160-20/literary-prizes-public-sphere-alexandra-dane">argued</a> that “literary prizes have long served as a shorthand for the nation’s understanding of what constitutes literary value”. Prize culture is a flawed mechanism for establishing that value. The choice of an ultimate winner also involves the elevation of one set of values at the expense of others. </p>
<p>Whatever their shortcomings, the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards still expose works of literature to new readers and enhance their chances in a crowded market. Two of the finalists, the poet Jordie Albiston and musician <a href="https://theconversation.com/archie-roach-the-great-songman-tender-and-humble-who-gave-our-people-a-voice-187974">Archie Roach</a>, are no longer with us, but their shortlisting recognises the excellence of their late works. </p>
<p>In common with other <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/oct/18/booker-prize-history-controversy-criticism">controversial prizes</a>, the awards are fought over precisely because of their symbolic and enduring cultural function.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196217/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brigid Magner 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 winners of the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards have been announced. The awards are contentious – but are fought over precisely because of their symbolic and enduring cultural functionBrigid Magner, Associate Professor in Literary Studies, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1167962019-05-09T05:23:20Z2019-05-09T05:23:20Z‘New low’ for journalism? Why News Corp’s partisan campaign coverage is harmful to democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273480/original/file-20190509-183112-oszja8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Shorten tearfully responded to the latest attack aimed at him by News Corp – a move that seemingly backfired for the Murdoch media empire.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Remember the Daily Telegraph’s 2013 front page headline “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/daily-telegraph-election-australia">Kick this mob out</a>”? </p>
<p>Although some could argue that Labor after the Rudd-Gillard years was in a deep mess and not fit to govern, such a headline was deeply partisan and far from neutral election campaign coverage. The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/daily-telegraph-election-australia">said at the time</a> of News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is not the slightest attempt to conceal his agenda. It is blatant, bold and belligerent. And it confirms yet again the way in which he links political interventions to his commercial desires.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fast-forward six years and little has changed in News Corp’s approach to covering the federal election campaign.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-murdoch-own-70-of-newspapers-in-australia-16812">FactCheck: does Murdoch own 70% of newspapers in Australia?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The similarities between Labor in 2013 and the Coalition in 2019 are uncanny. They have done the same number of replacements of sitting PMs (Labor 2010-2013: Rudd-Gillard-Rudd. Coalition 2015-2019: Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison). And both parties have suffered from disunity and division, although the Coalition is perhaps even more divided than Labor was in 2013 on core policy issues such as climate change. </p>
<p>And yet, we have seen no “Kick this mob out”-style headlines targeting the Coalition from News Corp Australia’s publications in this campaign. Instead, it’s been a steady drumbeat of one-sided, positive coverage (or convenient lack of scrutiny) of the Coalition’s candidates and policies, compared to a barrage of criticism of Labor and Bill Shorten.</p>
<p>News Corp’s campaign coverage so far confirms that growing partisanship in political reporting seem to have become increasingly entrenched in the organisation. </p>
<p>A case in point is The Daily Telegraph’s much-maligned <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/daily-telegraph-front-page-from-may-8,-2019-1/11090400">front page</a> story on Wednesday that implied Shorten hadn’t told the full story when describing his mother’s educational opportunities on Q&A earlier earlier in the week. </p>
<p>The article can only be described as an ultra-partisan hatchet job. Shorten <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/bill-shorten-slams-daily-telegraph-federal-election-mother-story/11090238">called it a “new low”</a>, while Kevin Rudd went so far as to compare News Corp with the People’s Daily newspaper in China on Twitter.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1125950653061144576"}"></div></p>
<p>Interestingly, the Telegraph’s story on Shorten’s mother appears to have backfired, creating a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/08/mymum-australians-share-tales-of-mothers-sacrifices-after-shortens-tearful-speech">huge social media moment</a> – #myMum – devoted to people’s stories of their mothers. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-matter-of-mis-trust-why-this-election-is-posing-problems-for-the-media-116142">A matter of (mis)trust: why this election is posing problems for the media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But the article illustrates how damning it is for diversity and plurality when media ownership is as concentrated as it is in Australia, with News Corp being the dominant player by far. If the dominant outlet in such a media landscape decides to wholeheartedly back one side of politics, it will undoubtedly impact the tenor of a campaign and skew the information voters rely on to make up their minds. </p>
<p>It’s not good for a healthy democracy and a fair election campaign.</p>
<h2>News Corp’s partisan climate coverage</h2>
<p>Backing one side of politics is nothing new for News Corp. There is plenty of empirical research spanning decades documenting how Murdoch’s media empire has sought to influence politics in Australia, the UK and the US. One of the most comprehensive and damning studies is David McKnight’s <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Rupert_Murdoch_An_investigation_of_polit.html?id=txzEc48_LPoC">Rupert Murdoch: An Investigation of Political Power</a>, which is a devastating read illustrating how Murdoch has used partisan journalism for decades to gain political influence benefiting the media empire’s financial bottom line. </p>
<p>Indeed, this is what Labor claims is the driver behind News Corp’s scathing coverage of its policies in this campaign. Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek and assistant treasury spokesman Andrew Leigh <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/a-political-hit-job-labor-braces-for-war-with-murdoch-media-20190508-p51lf6.html">tied the partisan coverage</a> to Murdoch’s desire to protect “tax loopholes” in Australia by keeping Labor out of power. </p>
<p>One of the case studies in McKnight’s work is News Corp’s undermining of climate science and meaningful action on climate change. This can also be seen in its coverage of the current Australia election campaign.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/lies-obfuscation-and-fake-news-make-for-a-dispiriting-and-dangerous-election-campaign-115845">Lies, obfuscation and fake news make for a dispiriting – and dangerous – election campaign</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In spite of <a href="https://theconversation.com/lowy-institute-poll-shows-australians-support-for-climate-action-at-its-highest-level-in-a-decade-98625">polls</a> showing growing support in Australia for action on climate change (59%) and renewables (84%), the environment is still treated as a second- or third-tier election topic by most media (with the notable exceptions of Crikey and the Guardian). This is particularly the case with outlets owned by News Corp. </p>
<p>When climate change has been covered by News Corp in the campaign, it’s predominately been done in an alarmist way to slam Labor’s policies. For example, The Australian <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/price-labors-carbon-cuts-yes-you-can/news-story/4aae9813f8fc2a92789ad5c8f74974c2">reported a week ago</a> that Shorten’s climate policies aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2030 could cost the country A$264 billion – a figure based on modelling by a former government economist that <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/shorten-slams-climate-change-propaganda">Shorten dismissed as “propaganda.”</a> </p>
<p>Though notable climate experts and academics also disputed the estimate, it was widely repeated across News Corp’s other outlets.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1125390637744787457"}"></div></p>
<p>Meanwhile, News Corp has asked few critical questions about the Coalition’s much less ambitious climate plan. Most importantly, hardly any coverage has been offered by the large legacy media outlets (such as the ABC, The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald) on seriously assessing the cost of inaction on climate change. (A study to track climate change coverage during the campaign is currently underway by myself and a colleague.)</p>
<p>Overall, the media coverage of climate change thus far can only be described as a failure (with a few exceptions). A failure of giving it enough prominence during debates, panel discussions and crucial press conferences. A failure of deeply scrutinising climate change policies from all parties.</p>
<p>The next generation has made it abundantly clear where it stands on the issue in school strikes and protests across the country. It’s time we all, including the media, start listening to them and give them a voice in the final week of election coverage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116796/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Johan Lidberg 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>Lack of scrutiny of the Coalition, barrage of criticism aimed at Labor: News Corp’s coverage of the election campaign has been the definition of partisan.Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/915812018-02-09T13:57:02Z2018-02-09T13:57:02ZWhy Theresa May’s plan to save local journalism could end up benefiting media moguls<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205698/original/file-20180209-51697-473zlb.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="http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2091954">Derek Harper</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are two ways of looking at the new <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/06/decline-of-local-journalism-threatens-democracy-says-may?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Media+briefing+2016&utm_term=263345&subid=1249353&CMP=ema_546">Press Review</a> announced by Theresa May, the UK prime minister: a genuine attempt to inject some badly needed funds into the failing business model of journalism, or another backhander to the mainstream corporate press to keep them sweet. Depressingly, history suggests the latter.</p>
<p>The prime minister was effusive about the importance of journalism as a “huge force for good” – and anyone who has seen Spielberg’s The Post could scarcely disagree. That <a href="https://theconversation.com/steven-spielbergs-the-post-is-a-timely-reminder-of-the-constitutional-importance-of-a-free-press-90475">film encapsulated</a> everything noble about great reporting and the vital importance of a free and independent press to a healthy democracy.</p>
<p>May chose to highlight the crisis in local journalism – where the journalism may be less dramatic than that portrayed by Tom Hanks et al, but is just as vital: the leaders of local institutions such as hospitals, police forces, local courts or local councils can be equally susceptible to corruption or incompetence and also require the kind of scrutiny which keeps them accountable to local people. At a more mundane level, communities need reliable information about transport, planning, policing, education and local businesses simply to participate as informed citizens in their local area.</p>
<p>May is right that the problem of sustaining local media is particularly acute. Classified advertising – the mainstay of local journalism – has <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/how-the-rise-of-online-ads-has-prompted-a-70-per-cent-cut-in-journalist-numbers-at-big-uk-regional-dailies/">all but disappeared</a> from print newspapers, while the big tech companies – particularly Facebook and Google – are <a href="https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/google-facebook-dominate-half-digital-media-market/1444793">hoovering up</a> local as well as national advertising revenues. The major regional publishing groups – Trinity Mirror, Johnston Press, Newsquest and Tindle, which between them own nearly 75% of regional titles – are obliged to choose between protecting their profit margins, consolidating their papers, or closing them completely. </p>
<p>As a comprehensive <a href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/CMCP/local-news.pdf">study</a> by Kings College London demonstrated in 2016, consolidation usually produces powerful monopolies in which “local” reporting is hollowed out and outsourced to distant regional hubs.</p>
<h2>Local watchdogs</h2>
<p>What to do? Many countries are examining policy interventions to address the problem: from direct public subsidies, to levies on aggregators and other tech giants for redistribution to new or established journalistic enterprises. In 2012, the House of Lords Communications Committee <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldcomuni/256/25602.htm">recommended</a> reform of charity law to allow greater discretion for recognising some journalism as a charitable activity, in the same way as education. This is a common route for non-profit journalism enterprises in the US to raise money – something that has so far been largely ignored in the UK.</p>
<p>Then there is the BBC’s new <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/howwework/partnerships/localnews">Local Democracy Reporter</a> scheme, under which the BBC has agreed to fund 150 local reporters as part of a new partnership with publishers, costing licence payers around £8m A year. While in principle an apparently productive use of public money to alleviate the democratic deficit, this scheme is a good illustration of why we should look very carefully at May’s motives.</p>
<p>In practice, the vast majority of those reporter contracts have been swallowed up by those very publishers that have been consolidating operations and closing papers while protecting their profit base – as <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/most-of-150-new-bbc-funded-local-democracy-reporters-go-to-trinity-mirror-newsquest-and-johnston-press/">noted by industry bible the Press Gazette</a>, 130 of the 144 assigned reporters went to Trinity Mirror, Newsquest or Johnston Press.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205699/original/file-20180209-51706-u9jxcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205699/original/file-20180209-51706-u9jxcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205699/original/file-20180209-51706-u9jxcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205699/original/file-20180209-51706-u9jxcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205699/original/file-20180209-51706-u9jxcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205699/original/file-20180209-51706-u9jxcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205699/original/file-20180209-51706-u9jxcq.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Keeping people in touch with their communities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mount Pleasant Granary</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The editor of one small publisher, the Salford Star, <a href="https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2017/news/hyperlocals-say-bbc-democracy-reporter-scheme-a-total-sham/">reacted</a> by calling the scheme “a total sham” which benefited only those news groups that “have been sacking journalists for years in the relentless pursuit of more profit”.</p>
<p>This illustrates the risk of taking May’s review at face value. There are literally hundreds of small, hyperlocal publishers operating around the UK with the potential to make a fundamental contribution to redressing the local democratic deficit. My own research, with Cardiff and Birmingham City universities, has <a href="https://hyperlocalsurvey.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/hyperlocal-community-news-in-the-uk-2014.pdf">demonstrated</a> that many of these small operations have successfully initiated local campaigns or investigations entirely in keeping with the kind of watchdog journalism which is in retreat. </p>
<p>These are precisely the kinds of small, entrepreneurial, dynamic enterprises – often making creative use of social and online media as well as traditional hard copy distribution – that would benefit hugely from a small injection of cash.</p>
<h2>‘Big beasts’ dominate</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, the big beasts of the <a href="http://www.newsmediauk.org/">News Media Association</a> – the alliance of major publishers which includes Murdoch’s News UK, the Mail and Mirror groups as well as the biggest regional groups – have consistently lobbied against any measures that might divert resources away from their own bank accounts. As a succession of senior ministers and former prime ministers testified to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/leveson-inquiry-7469">Leveson Inquiry</a>, Britain’s corporate press still wields frightening power over UK governments that is out of all proportion to their steadily dwindling circulations.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"959519611195666434"}"></div></p>
<p>There must therefore be a very large question mark over where May’s review will be allowed to go, and what it might recommend. Will it be a serious examination of creative policy solutions to a fundamental problem which threatens an informed and vibrant democracy? Or will it be little more than a sop to those powerful press barons who – at least in the eyes of her own party – have helped to sustain the Conservative party in power?</p>
<p>Given the ferocious propaganda battle that those same press barons have fought in the post-Leveson era against any measures that might make them more accountable – and given that every one of her five prime ministerial predecessors at some point surrendered to their concerted and self-interested lobbying – we should not be surprised if the main beneficiaries of this review will yet again be the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the other big beast of Fleet Street.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91581/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).</span></em></p>Previous government aid packages for local papers have instead helped Fleet Street’s ‘big beasts’.Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/809712017-07-13T10:10:24Z2017-07-13T10:10:24ZMurdoch bid for Sky is not just about news<p>When Ofcom published its report to the media and culture secretary, Karen Bradley, on its public interest test for the proposed acquisition of Sky plc by 21st Century Fox, it <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/103620/public-interest-test-report.pdf">rightly found</a> that a takeover would raise public interest concerns. But these were only raised in relation to the potential influence of members of the Murdoch Family Trust over the UK’s news agenda. </p>
<p>Ofcom wrongly seems to have decided to ignore plurality concerns that are not related to news. Bradley is due to make a final decision on whether to refer the case to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) after July 14, the deadline for final representations on the issue. Several other concerns do have public interest consequences and justify a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/jun/29/rupert-murdoch-sky-bid-is-now-very-likely-to-succeed">second-phase review</a>. They should be thoroughly considered by the CMA in that review.</p>
<p>News is crucial for keeping citizens informed and enabling public debate, but it is not the only content that can shape people’s worldview or engagement with political issues or processes. A <a href="http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471-e-30">review of research on the effects</a> of entertainment content provides convincing evidence that it can influence people’s levels of social trust, fear of crime, views on law enforcement and civil liberties, stances on gender and equality issues, all of which can be important shapers of political preferences. </p>
<p>For example, one <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07481187.2016.1186761">recent study</a> of Austrian viewers found a clear correlation between the amount of American content watched and misconceptions about the norms and facts of the very different justice system in their own country.</p>
<p>There is also evidence that entertainment content can introduce political issues to audiences that are not usually interested in news and politics, even encouraging them to seek out information on issues. A <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Schneider/publication/262418422_Entertainment_and_Politics_Revisited_How_Non-Escapist_Forms_of_Entertainment_Can_Stimulate_Political_Interest_and_Information_Seeking/links/5729b55708ae2efbfdb8bccc/Entertainment-and-Politics-Revisited-How-Non-Escapist-Forms-of-Entertainment-Can-Stimulate-Political-Interest-and-Information-Seeking.pdf">recent experimental study</a> found that some kinds of entertainment content encouraged viewers’ awareness of and engagement with political issues. </p>
<p>Celebrities, who appear not just as actors or musicians but also on talk shows and other formats, can influence political positions and levels of engagement. There is also <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120918121320.htm">increasing evidence</a> of the nuanced influence of satire and political comedy shows. Therefore, while an emphasis on news content may be justified, Ofcom’s exclusion of other content from its considerations of the deal’s potential consequences for UK politics is not.</p>
<h2>Public interest in sport</h2>
<p>Live sport transmission and sports coverage is big business, but it is also important for social cohesion. Live sports remains a significant force in bringing communities and even the nation together in a collective experience that can engender unity and pride. This includes more that just the World Cup or the Olympics, for which viewer’s access is somewhat protected from their being listed as “important events”. </p>
<p>The participation of clubs from places such as Tottenham, Liverpool and Glasgow in international tournaments can be valuable vehicles for social cohesion in some of the country’s more deprived areas.</p>
<p>Sports rights, however, are increasingly the subject of fierce and very <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/06/12/fifa-mega-sporting-events-and-sports-rights/">expensive bidding wars</a>. By 2016 the two biggest football rights holders in the UK were both internet service providers, BT and, of course, Sky. The movement of sports content to subscription and online-only platforms can seriously affect the ability of those from poorer communities, the elderly and those in rural areas to access sports. While this may not be as important a public interest as that of having a well-informed public engaged in political processes, it is still a legitimate public interest concern.</p>
<h2>Multi-platform dominance</h2>
<p>Despite raising serious and well-evidenced concerns over the potential consequences of the deal on the UK’s news provision and political process, Ofcom decided that the behavioural undertakings offered by Fox to set up an independent board for Sky News and take other measures to safeguard against members of the Murdoch Family Trust influencing Sky News would acceptably mitigate these concerns.</p>
<p>Des Freedman has <a href="http://theconversation.com/decision-to-refer-sky-bid-to-regulator-a-blow-to-murdochs-but-will-it-be-short-lived-80285">already pointed out on this site</a> that the Murdochs do not have a good record of sticking to promised undertakings. But, in any case, such behavioural remedies would not address the company’s position as an internet service provider (ISP) and the potential consequences in terms of access to content and viewers, the premium content markets, or to the advertising market upon which UK content production depends. Structural undertakings would be necessary.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.isba.org.uk/">Incorporated Society of British Advertisers</a>, in its submission to Ofcom – which has yet to be published online – rightly raised the potential negative consequences for the UK advertising market of having a dominant owner across multiple media platforms. Advertising still funds a vast amount of the UK-produced content of all types, so the health of that market – and the extent of competition for advertising and audience “eyes” faced by UK content providers face is important. </p>
<p>Perhaps a more serious issue, though, is the fact that the deal will give the Murdoch Family Trust a combination of cross-platform media ownership and ownership of an ISP. The potential for bundled services and cross-platform promotion are great. Jonathan Hardy, national secretary of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting
Freedom, <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Hardy.pdf">correctly warned</a> that this combination could lead to the “lock-in” of consumers and could even affect editorial independence. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"885386602511552513"}"></div></p>
<p>As my UEA colleague <a href="https://www.uea.ac.uk/norwich-business-school/people/profile/d-reader">David Reader</a> and I argued in <a href="http://competitionpolicy.ac.uk/documents/8158338/16525214/1+CCP+response+to+Ofcom+Fox-Sky+consultation+-+March+2017.pdf/3252251b-e37a-4557-b09f-5658af09ce33">our submission</a> to Ofcom, Sky’s position as an ISP in an environment in which “reasonable” traffic management is allowed can have damaging consequences for viewers’ access to content, not to mention its dominance in the market for premium content rights, such as for high-quality drama and sports.</p>
<p>These concerns cannot be solved by behavioural undertakings alone. With Bradley “minded to refer” the case to the CMA, one can only hope that they will not relegate these to a mere mention in an appendix.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80971/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sally Broughton Micova is affiliated with the UEA Centre for Competition Policy, the Centre on Regulation in Europe and the LSE Media Policy Project. </span></em></p>This deal needs to be seen for what it is: a massive step towards dominance of the UK media which could influence public opinion and squeeze out competition.Sally Broughton Micova, Lecturer in Communications Policy and Politics, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/708122017-01-03T14:45:15Z2017-01-03T14:45:15ZWhere press regulation is concerned, we’re already being fed ‘post-truth’ journalism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151573/original/image-20170103-18641-3a1of5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SamJonah</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Times newspaper greeted the start of 2017 <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leave-the-press-free-to-carry-on-telling-the-truth-f5sbjvzss">by warning</a>: “The freedom of the press is under direct and immediate threat.” Its Murdoch stablemate, The Sun, <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2499442/from-calling-sun-readers-mugs-to-wanting-to-ban-daily-mail-sinister-zealots-behind-regulators-want-to-destroy-the-popular-press/">went further</a> by identifying the “sinister zealots behind regulators [who] want to destroy the popular press”. The Daily Mail, meanwhile, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4067358/Don-t-let-politicians-destroy-Press-freedom-Act-want-help-defend-right-read-website-like-MailOnline.html">urged its readers</a> to: “Act NOW if you want to help defend the right to read a website like MailOnline.”</p>
<p>Free speech in Britain – which has been a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news">beacon of human rights since 1689</a> – is clearly under threat. Or is it? It depends who you believe.</p>
<p>Anyone attempting to follow the progress of press regulation in the UK can be forgiven some bewilderment – and also some impatience. Matters generally thought to have been sorted out after the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/leveson-inquiry-7469">Leveson Inquiry</a> seem suddenly to be surfacing again, and the public is being asked to take an urgent interest in something called <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/40">Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act</a>. This provides for costs in defamation cases and mandates that judges can direct newspapers to pay both sides’ costs even if they win a libel case.</p>
<p>Make no mistake: the bewilderment and impatience have been deliberately engineered by the corporate press – by which I mean the Murdoch, Mail, Mirror, Express and Telegraph papers – whose objective is to sabotage all change, including changes already passed into law by parliament. With this objective in mind, these newspapers have engaged in a rampage of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/post-truth-32226">misinformation</a>.</p>
<p>“MPs are considering forcing newspapers to pay celebs and politicians who sue – even if cases are thrown out”, declared a <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2420600/the-government-must-act-now-to-protect-the-free-press-and-keep-our-important-investigative-journalism-alive/">recent editorial in The Sun</a>, beneath a headline about protecting the free press and keeping investigative journalism alive. Similar messages have even been rammed home to the employees of these companies in <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/daily-mail-staff-urged-to-counter-hacked-off-lobbying-by-contributing-to-section-40-libel-costs-penalties-consultation/">internal emails</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"814821050227814401"}"></div></p>
<p>These publications are desperate to give a veneer of legitimacy to the work of their political allies who are trying to bury the Leveson reforms and with them the <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/part-two-leveson-inquiry-has-been-quietly-shelved-government/">second part of the Leveson Inquiry</a> (which deals with criminality rather than regulation). Having <a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-versus-public-interest-in-battle-over-press-regulation-50114">stalled both of these measures</a> at the behest of the press, ministers have <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-seeks-views-on-press-regulation-issues">launched a consultation about the next step</a> – the implementation of Section 40 – and the papers are going all out for the option of complete abandonment.</p>
<h2>Blurring the truth</h2>
<p>Despite The Sun’s rhetoric, MPs are not actually involved in implementing Section 40 for the good reason that the Crime and Courts Act was passed into law with the support of every party in 2013. Section 40 is not about celebrities and politicians – on the contrary, what it chiefly does is to give every citizen a historic new right of access to affordable justice in cases of libel and unjustified intrusion.</p>
<p>If the government will only put Section 40 into operation, we will see the end of the age-old British scandal by which only the very rich or the very lucky get to uphold their rights against libellers and those who violate our privacy rights.</p>
<p>But it is precisely because it gives us all that right that the corporate papers and their friends are fighting it. They are terrified by the idea that ordinary people might suddenly be able to sue them and get damages.</p>
<p>As with most post-truth news, there is a germ of truth in what The Sun claims and it is this: if someone wants to exercise the right to affordable justice through arbitration and a newspaper refuses to cooperate, so forcing them to take the far more expensive route of court proceedings, then the judge will have the option of making the newspaper pay both sides’ costs even if the paper wins.</p>
<p>Far from being outrageous, as The Sun and others suggest, this is absolutely fair. What would be unfair would be to leave editors with the power to pick and choose which claimants can use cheap arbitration. All experience tells us that they would push the rich into arbitration, thus saving money, and push the rest of us towards the courts knowing we can’t afford it and so would abandon our cases.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with rich celebs – who have long been among the privileged few able to afford to sue. Instead it is about empowering people who, in the absence of Section 40, are left powerless.</p>
<h2>No state control</h2>
<p>The Sun’s comments are self-serving. By banging on about “state-backed regulation”, corporate papers aim to smear “recognised regulation” as set out under the <a href="https://theconversation.com/press-regulation-the-case-for-the-royal-charter-19741">Royal Charter of 2013</a> with the taint of censorship. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151602/original/image-20170103-18641-7g9y15.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151602/original/image-20170103-18641-7g9y15.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151602/original/image-20170103-18641-7g9y15.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151602/original/image-20170103-18641-7g9y15.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151602/original/image-20170103-18641-7g9y15.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151602/original/image-20170103-18641-7g9y15.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151602/original/image-20170103-18641-7g9y15.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Powerful voices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lenscap Photography</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Recognised regulation is regulation that meets the basic standards of independence and effectiveness set out in the <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/">Leveson Report</a> as necessary to uphold standards and protect the public from abuse.</p>
<p>The test is applied by the <a href="http://pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk/">Press Recognition Panel</a>, which although a public body enjoys unprecedented and unique independence from ministerial or political influence – and one of the criteria it applies is that a regulator must have no power “to prevent the publication of any material, by anyone, at any time”.</p>
<p>So far from representing a step towards state control, the charter system has freedom of expression at its heart – and no one has been able to show any way in which it could inhibit public interest journalism. There are no rational grounds for any responsible news publisher to object to regulation under the charter. </p>
<p>Yet the propaganda continues. The papers that hold the megaphone of mass communication are all shouting the same words together and, at the same time, refusing even a hint of balance in their reporting.</p>
<p>Despite all of this, there is something you can do. Hacked Off is <a href="http://hackinginquiry.org/latest-news/consultation-response-guide/">helping coordinate responses to the government consultation</a>, which closes on January 10. There at least you cannot be drowned out by the megaphone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Cathcart was a founder of Hacked Off and in 2012-14 was its paid director. He remains an (unpaid) member of its board. </span></em></p>The big guns of Fleet Street are pressing for the government to abandon the Leveson reform process. But there are other voices out there.Brian Cathcart, Professor of Journalism, Kingston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/705992016-12-20T12:10:01Z2016-12-20T12:10:01ZMurdoch Sky bid is a nasty Christmas headache for the culture secretary<p>Six years after his first frustrated bid to take full ownership of Sky, Rupert Murdoch is seeking once again to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/12/rupert-murdochs-sky-takeover-pass-public-interest-test">capture the 61% he doesn’t already own</a>. In 2011, the bid from Murdoch’s News Corporation (for what was then BSkyB) was first referred to Ofcom, then derailed by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/phone-hacking-2415">phone hacking scandal</a>. As soon as the Conservatives unexpectedly won the 2015 general election, it was always a matter of “when” rather than “if” his full takeover bid would be renewed.</p>
<p>Never mind that the vehicle this time is Murdoch’s <a href="https://www.21cf.com/">21st Century Fox</a>, which <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21579840-media-mogul-promises-do-it-all-over-again-murdoch-20">he created</a> after splitting his film and TV business from his news publishing business. For the purposes of ownership concentration and media power, the issue is ultimate control. And there is certainly no debate over who controls both News Corp and Fox.</p>
<p>Despite being perfectly timed to hit the festive period – and therefore slip quietly between the Christmas shopping and the New Year hangover – Murdoch’s bid has provoked a storm of protest and a massive Christmas headache for culture secretary, Karen Bradley. As soon as the bid is formally notified to the European Commission (likely to be imminent), she will have 10 working days to decide whether or not to refer it to Ofcom on plurality grounds, by issuing a <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/7204/pit_guidance_note.pdf">Public Interest Intervention Notice</a> (PIIN).</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"807611045200195584"}"></div></p>
<p>Murdoch’s supporters are urging Bradley to let it through without referral. They argue that the media landscape has been transformed since 2010, and that the proliferation of online news publishers, the arrival of entertainment players including Netflix and Amazon, BT’s entry into the sports rights market, and the burgeoning power of social media sites such as Facebook and news aggregators such as Google generate more than enough competition to satisfy plurality imperatives. They are completely wrong, for three reasons.</p>
<h2>Reasons to be wary</h2>
<p>First, Murdoch’s power in the news market remains undiminished. His papers still command <a href="https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/media-ownership-power-and-influence-belongs-to-few/">more than a third of national newspaper circulation</a> and, more importantly, are as instrumental as the Daily Mail in setting the news agenda. Ofcom’s <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/23775/measuring-online-news.pdf">news consumption metrics</a> – frequently quoted by Murdoch’s allies to demonstrate the “dominance” of the BBC – fail to account for the impact of press headlines, commentators and partisan editorialising on the nation’s news agenda (including broadcasters).</p>
<p>Impartiality requirements will not be enough to protect Sky News from the undiluted attention of Murdoch ownership. Reporting can be perfectly balanced while owners still exercise a subtle and decisive influence over news running orders or the balance between celebrity and serious news. When Murdoch told the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldcomuni/122/122i.pdf">House of Lords select committee</a> in 2007 that he would like to see Sky News become more like Fox News, he did not mean turning it into a Conservative Party cheerleader, rather that he’d like to see it adopt more of Fox’s energetic presentational features.</p>
<p>Second, there is the enhanced capacity to mobilise editorial support for his own commercial interests, whether it be new TV programmes, pricing innovations, major sports contracts, or Fox movie premieres. <a href="http://www.private-eye.co.uk/">Private Eye</a> provides constant reminders of both blatant and more subtle approaches to cross-promotion, which can include distorting or removing coverage of rival initiatives.</p>
<p>Finally, Murdoch’s power will be entrenched through disproportionate influence over the regulatory environment. Lengthy and costly litigation drains the resources of both regulator and competitors. In a rare interview after stepping down as Ofcom chief executive, Ed Richards <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/government-favoured-rupert-murdochs-media-empire-says-outgoing-ofcom-chief-9947518.html">described</a> the “intense pressure from the participants” during the 2010 bid and the “unhelpful” and costly legal battles which BSkyB fought through the courts whenever its dominance was challenged. However tough its senior executives, Ofcom will be battered, bruised and intimidated by an expanded and wealthier Murdoch empire.</p>
<h2>Backdoor pressure</h2>
<p>There is another, intensely political reason why Bradley should refer the bid. Theresa May’s pitch to the electorate in her <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/79600/theresa-may-vows-take-rich-and-powerful-war">conference speech</a> in October was that she would stand up to the “rich and powerful” on behalf of ordinary people. Her low-key but widely reported <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/29/theresa-may-meeting-rupert-murdoch-times-sun">meeting</a> with Murdoch during her 36-hour trip to New York in October smacks of precisely the kind of backdoor assignations associated with David Cameron and Tony Blair. Despite Murdoch’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/rupert-murdoch-ive-never-asked-any-prime-minister-for-anything">recent protestations</a> that: “I’ve never asked any prime minister for anything”, British voters will not be impressed by yet another prime minister canoodling with the very embodiment of wealth and power. A referral to Ofcom will give her political cover.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GrBAydlHNYA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Adding to the political turmoil, the bid has created more pressure on the government to launch the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was specifically designed to investigate the relationship between senior Metropolitan police officers and executives at Murdoch’s newspapers. Former prime minister Gordon Brown has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/14/gordon-brown-delay-murdoch-sky-takeover-leveson-part-2">written</a> to the culture secretary arguing that a “new body of evidence” raises unanswered questions about allegations of malpractice in Murdoch’s companies (which have consistently been denied by Murdoch), demanding that any takeover must be delayed until this the truth is established.</p>
<p>For the same reason, Ofcom is coming under renewed pressure to apply a second regulatory test, which does not require government referral: to establish whether James Murdoch, chairman of 21st Century Fox and Sky, is a “<a href="http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/broadcasting-fit-and-proper-person-what.html">fit and proper person</a>” under the terms of the 2003 Communications Act to hold a broadcasting licence.</p>
<p>Whether Murdoch underestimated the political furore that his bid would unleash (unlikely) or made a political calculation that a government mired in Brexit turmoil would be desperate for his support (more likely), he has ignited a political firestorm that both the prime minister and the regulator could do without. If the culture secretary really does wave the transaction through, she would destroy all credibility in Theresa May’s claim to be working for “ordinary people”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett 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 renewed takeover bid for one of Europe’s biggest broadcasters must be referred to Ofcom.Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/684372016-12-12T04:07:42Z2016-12-12T04:07:42ZIs Australia’s media market one of the world’s most concentrated?<blockquote>
<p>Australia’s level of media ownership concentration is already one of the highest in the world. <strong>– Shadow minister for communications, Michelle Rowland, <a href="http://www.michellerowland.com.au/media_release_media_reform_deserves_better_than_government_s_poor_effort">press release</a>, November 8, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The government’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MediaReformBill45/Report">Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016</a> proposes cutting a rule that stops commercial TV networks from broadcasting to more than 75% of Australians. The House of Representatives passed the bill, which will now go to the Senate.</p>
<p>Labor has said it supports repealing the 75% reach rule but opposes changing the “two-out-of-three rule”, which prevents companies from holding a controlling interest in more than two firms that operate television broadcasting, radio broadcasting or newspaper publishing in the same region.</p>
<p>Labor’s shadow minister for communications, Michelle Rowland, said repealing the two-out-of-three rule would reduce “the diversity of voices across the media landscape”.</p>
<p>She said Australia’s level of media ownership concentration is already one of the highest in the world.</p>
<p>Is that true?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support her assertion, a spokesman for Michelle Rowland sent The Conversation a detailed response drawing from a wide <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/22/68437-2016-11-22-media-concentration-and-public-concern-in-australia-Research_-_Media_concentration_and_public_concern_in_Australia.pdf?1518059940">range of sources</a>, including the 2012 <a href="http://apo.org.au/resource/report-independent-inquiry-media-and-media-regulation">Finkelstein inquiry</a> into media and media regulation. That inquiry’s report noted that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia’s newspaper industry is among the most concentrated in the developed world.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the full response <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/22/68437-2016-11-22-media-concentration-and-public-concern-in-australia-Research_-_Media_concentration_and_public_concern_in_Australia.pdf?1518059940">here.</a></p>
<p>Rowland’s assertion that Australia’s media ownership concentration is among the highest in the world is well supported by a range of credible sources, some of which will be expanded upon below.</p>
<p>As this <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/media-interests-snapshot">infographic</a> from the Australian Communications and Media Authority shows, a handful of corporations and interconnected family interests control much of Australia’s media:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148540/original/image-20161205-25645-14enkqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148540/original/image-20161205-25645-14enkqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148540/original/image-20161205-25645-14enkqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148540/original/image-20161205-25645-14enkqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148540/original/image-20161205-25645-14enkqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148540/original/image-20161205-25645-14enkqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148540/original/image-20161205-25645-14enkqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148540/original/image-20161205-25645-14enkqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Media Interests Snapshot, ACMA, current at October 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/media-interests-snapshot">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Newspapers</h2>
<p>Newspaper ownership in Australia is particularly concentrated. The <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2016/australia-2016/">Australian section</a> of the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/">Digital News Report 2016</a>, which covers 26 countries, said that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia has a high concentration of traditional media ownership dominated by News Corporation and Fairfax Media who together own the majority of national and capital city newspapers. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Market research firm IBISWorld noted in June 2016 that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The industry’s four largest players, News Australia, Fairfax Media, Seven West Media and APN News and Media, are estimated to account for over 90% of industry revenue in 2015-16. The Australian media landscape is one of the most concentrated in the world. An extremely small number of firms, most notably News Australia and Fairfax Media, publish content that reaches the large majority of Australians.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>New Zealand researchers <a href="https://www.comcom.govt.nz/dmsdocument/14481">told</a> a New Zealand <a href="http://www.comcom.govt.nz/dmsdocument/14943">commission considering a proposed merger</a> between NZME Limited and Fairfax NZ that only five countries have one owner with more than 50% ownership of the daily newspaper market, and that Australia was one of them:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148533/original/image-20161205-25645-jbdpxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148533/original/image-20161205-25645-jbdpxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148533/original/image-20161205-25645-jbdpxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148533/original/image-20161205-25645-jbdpxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148533/original/image-20161205-25645-jbdpxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148533/original/image-20161205-25645-jbdpxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148533/original/image-20161205-25645-jbdpxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148533/original/image-20161205-25645-jbdpxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.comcom.govt.nz/dmsdocument/14943">Submission by Dr Julienne Molineaux et al. to the NZ Commerce Commission (July 2016). For overseas market shares academics sourced Noam (2016). 'Who Owns the World’s media?: Media Concentration and Ownership around the World'. Oxford: OUP.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The data in this table was drawn from <a href="http://internationalmedia.pbworks.com/w/page/20075656/FrontPage">an international study</a> led by US scholar Eli Noam. This study found that Australian newspaper circulation was the most concentrated of 26 countries surveyed, and among the most concentrated in the democratic world. </p>
<p>In the the 2014 book <a href="http://scholarly.info/book/400/">Companion to the Australian Media</a>, I wrote that News Corp Australia, Fairfax Media and APN News and Media together hold the vast majority of the sector. By contrast, people in the <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/media-ownership/">US can choose from a broader range of media</a> controlled by a bigger pool of firms. The UK market, <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Who_owns_the_UK_media-report_plus_appendix1.pdf">criticised by media reform activists</a> for its level of concentration, is also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/21/uk-media-plurality-threatened-by-dominant-group-of-large-firms-report">less concentrated</a> than Australia’s.</p>
<p>It is important to distinguish between media ownership and circulation, a problem former prime minister Kevin Rudd ran into when he incorrectly <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-murdoch-own-70-of-newspapers-in-australia-16812">said</a> in 2013 that Rupert Murdoch owns 70% of the newspapers in Australia. In fact, he was closer to the mark on the circulation of News Corp Australia’s capital city and daily newspaper titles.</p>
<h2>A steady decline in newspaper titles since 1900</h2>
<p>In 1903, there were 21 daily newspapers across Australia’s eight capital cities, and 17 different owners. By the 1950s, there had been a gradual consolidation to <a href="http://scholarly.info/media/">15 daily newspapers and ten owners</a>. </p>
<p>As IBISWorld <a href="http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/default.aspx?indid=169">noted</a> in 2016, there are now ten metropolitan or state-wide newspapers are published in Australia. News Australia and Fairfax Media own these newspapers, with the exception of The West Australian, which is owned by Seven West Media.</p>
<p>In 2015, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-19/news-corp-takes-14.99pc-slice-of-apn-news-and-media/6332662">News Corporation took a 14.99% stake in APN News and Media</a> – a nominal .01% below the point that it’s deemed to be a “controlling interest” under Australia’s <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch1.html">media ownership laws</a>. This further increased News Corp’s print media ownership. </p>
<h2>TV and radio</h2>
<p>A June 2016 <a href="http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/default.aspx?indid=1816">report on Australian free-to-air TV broadcasting</a> by market research firm IBISWorld said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The industry displays a high market share concentration … Australian media and broadcasting industries are highly concentrated in comparison with the rest of the world. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report said that the four largest players in the local free-to-air TV industry, Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment, Ten Network Holdings and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, are estimated to account for more than 70% of total revenue (including both advertising and government funding) in 2015-16. The other significant players are SBS and commercial network affiliates Prime Media, WIN Corporation and Southern Cross Media, the report said.</p>
<p>Another IBISWorld report on the Australian radio industry <a href="http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/default.aspx?indid=638">said</a> in 2016 that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The radio broadcasting industry is highly concentrated. In 2016-17, the industry’s four largest players – Southern Cross Media, the ABC, APN News and Media and Nova Entertainment - are expected to account for 70.9% of industry revenue. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In 2015, Fairfax bought a <a href="http://www.fairfaxmedia.com.au/Company/corporate-profile">54.5% interest in Macquarie Radio Network</a>.</p>
<h2>Online and pay TV</h2>
<p>Back in 2011, the Centre for Policy Development <a href="https://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Centre_for_Policy_Development_Issue_Brief.pdf">reported</a> that Australians regularly look at 12 websites that could be classified as “news based”, saying that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… of these 12 websites, eight are owned by News Limited or Fairfax, with the rest owned by the ABC, BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), PBL media and Microsoft.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148765/original/image-20161205-25724-1vbcjs7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148765/original/image-20161205-25724-1vbcjs7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148765/original/image-20161205-25724-1vbcjs7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=194&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148765/original/image-20161205-25724-1vbcjs7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=194&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148765/original/image-20161205-25724-1vbcjs7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=194&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148765/original/image-20161205-25724-1vbcjs7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=244&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148765/original/image-20161205-25724-1vbcjs7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=244&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148765/original/image-20161205-25724-1vbcjs7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=244&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Where did Australians seek their online news in 2011?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Centre_for_Policy_Development_Issue_Brief.pdf">Centre for Policy Development report -- Media Ownership and Regulation in Australia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While those websites remain important, <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2015/australia-2015/">new sites</a> have entered the market in recent years – and no outlet can safely assume readers will go to their homepage to read the news. Instead, as the <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2016/how-audiences-discover-news-online-2016/">Digital News Report 2016</a> showed, many Australians are turning to social networks such as Facebook or search engines like Google first to find out the latest news. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148790/original/image-20161206-25727-10vl6da.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148790/original/image-20161206-25727-10vl6da.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148790/original/image-20161206-25727-10vl6da.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148790/original/image-20161206-25727-10vl6da.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148790/original/image-20161206-25727-10vl6da.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148790/original/image-20161206-25727-10vl6da.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148790/original/image-20161206-25727-10vl6da.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148790/original/image-20161206-25727-10vl6da.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How people around the world discover news online is changing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2016/how-audiences-discover-news-online-2016/">Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>News Corp <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/the-company/company-profile.html">owns controlling stakes in Foxtel</a> – which <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/who-owns-the-worlds-media-9780199987238?cc=au&lang=en&#">has a monopoly</a> in the pay TV market – and Sky News, which is <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/connect/about-sky-news.html">carried by Foxtel</a>. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Michelle Rowland was correct. A number of reputable sources show that the concentration of media ownership in Australia is one of the highest in the world. <strong>– Tim Dwyer.</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This FactCheck author has produced an accurate, fair and impartial account of the facts on this matter. It follows that the verdict is correct. This assessment applies both to the absolute degree of media concentration in Australia and to the comparison with the rest of the world. <strong>– Denis Muller.</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68437/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><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>Was shadow minister for communications Michelle Rowland right when she said Australia’s level of media ownership concentration is one of the highest in the world?Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/678642016-10-28T11:18:38Z2016-10-28T11:18:38ZIan Hislop’s right: Murdoch’s cosy relationship with Tories should be investigated<p>The reciprocal closeness in the relationship between journalism and power is a prominent feature of British political history. In times of war or national crisis, media organisations are expected more often than not to behave as if they were an <a href="https://theconversation.com/press-baron-and-propagandist-who-led-charge-into-world-war-i-29855">arm of government</a> – but, for the newspapers of Rupert Murdoch, this close relationship seems to have become business as usual, whoever is living in Number 10 . And the willingness of various governments to yield to Rupert Murdoch’s news empire has been exhaustively documented.</p>
<p>We know by the media mogul’s own admission that he often entered Downing Street “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14206371">by the back door</a>” and, as journalist <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/anthony-hilton-stay-or-go-the-lack-of-solid-facts-means-it-s-all-a-leap-of-faith-a3189151.html">Anthony Hilton</a> noted in February of this year:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is increasingly clear that the influence of <a href="https://www.news.co.uk/">News UK</a> (the rebranded News International whose titles include the Sun, the Sun on Sunday, The Times and the Sunday Times) has not diminished in the aftermath of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hacking-affair-is-not-over-but-what-would-a-second-leveson-inquiry-achieve-29715">Leveson Inquiry</a> or the phone-hacking scandals. Far from it. When Theresa May visited New York in late September (mere months after becoming prime minister) she found time in her hectic 36-hour schedule to meet with Murdoch. </p>
<p>Perhaps, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/29/theresa-may-meeting-rupert-murdoch-times-sun">The Guardian hinted</a>, the previously media reticent May was just performing a realpolitik quid pro quo because in the Conservative leadership battle <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1396848/the-final-choice-for-who-will-be-our-next-prime-minster-must-be-between-theresa-may-and-michael-gove/">The Sun had backed her</a> and Michael Gove – instead of, as had been expected, prioritising Gove as a former News employee. The <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1396848/the-final-choice-for-who-will-be-our-next-prime-minster-must-be-between-theresa-may-and-michael-gove/">Sun’s leader of July 6</a> stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The final choice for who will be our next prime minister must be between Theresa May and Michael Gove.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The Eye has it</h2>
<p>So what happened to Michael Gove after his personal leadership debacle? He’s (back) working for the Times. Let’s not forget that at the Leveson Inquiry, Gove <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rupert-murdoch-is-a-great-man-says-michael-gove-7800683.html">described his boss</a> as “one of the most significant figures of the last 50 years” a “force of nature, a phenomenon and a great man”.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143643/original/image-20161028-15816-5q8xua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143643/original/image-20161028-15816-5q8xua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143643/original/image-20161028-15816-5q8xua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143643/original/image-20161028-15816-5q8xua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143643/original/image-20161028-15816-5q8xua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143643/original/image-20161028-15816-5q8xua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143643/original/image-20161028-15816-5q8xua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Connections: Michael Gove and Sarah Vine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yui Mok PA Archive/PA Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The fact that Gove has returned so quickly to a position at the Times has irked the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop. Hislop recently told the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that Gove’s reappointment <a href="https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/news/ian-hislop-urges-investigation-michael-gove-and-rupert-murdoch">should be investigated</a> because of his past closeness to Murdoch while in government. There was the possibility, posited Hislop, that the relationship may have influenced political decisions. Hislop told the committee:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I sat through the entire proceedings of Leveson in which one of the main points was the closeness of the relationship between senior members of the Conservative party and Mr Murdoch. And Mr Gove has had a number of meetings with him when he was in various of his departments. So I think there is a question there about when you are in office … imagining a future when you might need the generosity of say Mr Murdoch to sustain your career and whether that would influence the decisions you’ve made.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Blurring the lines</h2>
<p>That’s as maybe – and Hislop is no doubt also aware of Daniel Finkelstein, now <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-finkelstein/4283">Lord Finkelstein OBE</a>. In 2013, when the Times columnist was elevated to the Lords, <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/09/daniel-finkelstein-lord-of-journalism/">Peter Oborne wrote</a> about the collapse of the boundaries between politics and media and cited Finkelstein – a man he also described as “a decent, highly intelligent man, who lacks an ounce of malice” – as an example. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143645/original/image-20161028-15810-gbivpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143645/original/image-20161028-15810-gbivpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143645/original/image-20161028-15810-gbivpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143645/original/image-20161028-15810-gbivpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143645/original/image-20161028-15810-gbivpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143645/original/image-20161028-15810-gbivpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143645/original/image-20161028-15810-gbivpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Daniel Finkelstein.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">http://www.acumenimages.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finkelstein is a Times political journalist who in 2011 became chairman of the Conservative Think Tank, Policy Exchange, and enjoyed a strong relationship with the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, speaking on the phone to the latter “six or seven times a day. Probably more”. In his fascinating essay, Oborne stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As any newspaperman will recognise, Daniel Finkelstein has never in truth been a journalist at all. At the Times he was an ebullient and cheerful manifestation of what all of us can now recognise as a disastrous collaboration between Britain’s most powerful media empire and a morally bankrupt political class.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Club class</h2>
<p>In terms of political journalism, it is very easy to be cynical and view politicians and journalists as being part of one exclusive Westminster club which makes decisions based solely upon the needs of its membership. It may be the case that the hierarchy of the media – the <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm">cultural managers</a> that Chomsky and Herman refer to: the editors, the leading columnists and so on – share a class interest with the political establishment. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"790845541685063680"}"></div></p>
<p>So there exists within the news media an institutional bias that guarantees the mobilisation of certain campaigns on the behalf of the elite few. And this never changes.</p>
<p>In all the column inches around the <a href="https://theconversation.com/press-regulation-in-britain-a-step-forward-and-a-step-back-67582">Impress verdict by the The Press Recognition Panel (PRP)</a> this week, one thing struck me as significant. In The Sun, the culture secretary, Karen Bradley, was quoted as saying the government was preparing for a “<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2042988/government-signals-major-u-turn-in-its-war-on-press-freedom/">major U-turn in its war against press freedom</a>”. Her special adviser? <a href="http://order-order.com/2016/08/10/craig-woodhouse-to-be-dcms-spad/">Craig Woodhouse</a> – former chief political correspondent of the Sun.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67864/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Jewell 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>There appears to be a revolving door between Rupert Murdoch’s papers and the Conservative Party.John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595652016-05-17T16:11:23Z2016-05-17T16:11:23ZBBC gets out of the kitchen as government turns up the heat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122896/original/image-20160517-9464-1eul4b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More than 11,000 recipes will go in the bin as the BBC drops it's much-loved Food site.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I suppose it says a lot about our current national obsession with all matters gastronomic that the focal point of media attention concerning the BBC’s decision to “redefine” its online presence centres around the decision to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36308976">take down its food website</a>.</p>
<p>But it also says a lot for the power of social media that, within hours of the announcement, BBC management <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/17/bbc-climbdown-over-online-recipes-after-public-outcry?CMP=share_btn_tw">went back on its plan</a> to bin more than 11,000 recipes, announcing that the bulk of them would instead be moved to its commercial <a href="http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/">BBC Good Food</a> website which will remain open for business. What really appears to have angered the 120,000 or so people who signed a <a href="https://www.change.org/p/bbc-save-the-bbc-s-recipe-archive">change.org petition</a> calling for the decision to be reversed is the unnecessary attack on such an altruistic, beneficial and tangible example of public service provision.</p>
<p>According to Lloyd Shepherd, who was instrumental in <a href="https://medium.com/@lloydshep/recipe-for-disaster-24acde3f273a#.xvhrs5euz">conceptualising and creating the original food site</a>, public service responsibilities were uppermost in the minds of those at the forefront of development. As he writes, the recipes posted had already been paid for by the licence fee payer and could be used for very little further cost. Added to this the fact that nutrition has become a public health issue and there is a role to play in the BBC publicising and helping to combat obesity issues.</p>
<p>As the text from the change petition states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When the government is trying to promote healthy eating, surely it is madness to remove such a comprehensive archive which has taken years to create … This is a much loved and used website and a precious resource for people across the country providing easy, free and importantly independent information on a vast range of foods and recipe options. The database provides inspiration for those with a few ingredients to come up with meal ideas and cook from scratch.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Could this be, as many journalists <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/louise-ridley/bbc-recipes-website-cut_b_9869872.html">have already pointed out</a>, the catalyst which rouses from slumber into open revolt those members of the public previously indifferent the future of the corporation? </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"732473545343700992"}"></div></p>
<p>If the <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/bbc-to-shut-down-recipes-website-2016-5?r=US&IR=T">reaction on Twitter</a> is anything to go by the BBC realised that if, come June, middle-class cooks up and down the country searching for BBC recipes collectively received the 404 Not Found Error message there would be a spectacular and simultaneous combustion which would not have been a pretty sight.</p>
<h2>Slicing and dicing</h2>
<p>Flippancy aside, this is clearly about much more than recipes. As part of the plan to implement cuts and address government concern that the BBC is “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-confirms-online-closures-in-bid-to-save-15-million-a7033566.html">unfairly competing with commercial online publishers</a>”, the head of BBC news and current affairs James Harding announced that, subject to approval and in order to save around £15m, Radio 1’s Newsbeat, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iwonder">iWonder service</a>, the travel website and the local news indexes for more than 40 geographical areas around the UK will all close. BBC online news also announced, separately, that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36308976">plans are afoot</a> to merge the News Channel with the BBC’s international 24-hour television news service.</p>
<p>These measures must of course be seen in the context of the recent government <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-white-paper-the-worst-has-not-come-to-pass-but-the-leash-is-tightening-59282">White Paper on the future of the BBC</a> where the culture secretary, John Whittingdale, spoke of the BBC’s plans to reduce magazine-style content in online services. The focus should be, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/12/bbc-white-paper-key-points-john-whittingdale">said Whittingdale</a>, on “rigorous, impartial analysis of important news events and current affairs”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"732588046814679040"}"></div></p>
<p>Whittingdale was quick to distance himself from the gathering storm. Within hours of the announcement, he told a conference of the radio industry body RadioCentre’s that it is not his job to tell the BBC whether or not to put recipes up on its websites. Instead he alluded to the fact that the BBC had reacted to vigorous pressure from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/02/bbc-digital-news-operation-must-be-curbed-say-newspaper-publishers">certain sections of the press</a> calling for action on the BBC’s expansion into online “lifestyle content”. </p>
<h2>Pressure cooker</h2>
<p>Well, “vigorous pressure” from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/bad-news-week-for-bbc-as-murdoch-press-sharpens-claws-44621">government and press combined</a> has been a feature of the BBC’s history and its certainly true that in September 2015 the New Media Association, the trade body of the UK press, pleaded that the BBC’s burgeoning digital presence was damaging the business interests of commercial operators. As <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/02/bbc-digital-news-operation-must-be-curbed-say-newspaper-publishers">reported in the Guardian</a>, in its submission to the BBC’s Charter review, the association recommended specific controls on BBC online and fundamentally disagreed with the BBC’s ambitions to expand its online provision. For those that see the hand of Murdoch in these things it will come as no surprise to learn that the association’s chair is Mike Darcey, who is also a former <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/12/news-uk-mike-darcey-departure-rebekah-brooks-return-speculation">chief executive of The Sun and Times publisher, News UK</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"732525237292654592"}"></div></p>
<p>BBC bashing is of course the perennial sport of The Sun and Times and some, including singer and activist Billy Bragg, see the furore over recipes as a significant moment in the “battle against Murdoch” and by extension against the government’s sustained attacks on the ethos and existence of the BBC.</p>
<p>For News UK it is business as usual. As the news of the closures was breaking <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/29-bbc-journalists-alleged-be-earning-more-pms-%C2%A3150k-salary-named">Press Gazette reported</a> that the News Corp-owned website Heat Street had revealed the names of 41 BBC stars it believes are paid more than the prime minister’s £150,000 salary. </p>
<p>A number of food and recipe websites are waiting in the wings to launch. Two of them – as one <a href="https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/who-benefits-from-the-tory-decision-to-axe-bbc-recipes/">blogger has already noted</a>, Taste and Bestrecipe, have the same names as websites in Australia owned by – you guessed it – the Murdochs. But that’s just coincidence, obviously.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The national broadcaster’s decision to close its food website is a direct result of political pressure.John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/493872015-10-20T05:18:00Z2015-10-20T05:18:00ZAs Leveson reforms become law, has press regulation made victims of us all?<p>When Sun journalists Chris Pyatt and Jamie Pharo <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/15/last-the-sun-journalists-prosecuted-operation-elveden-cleared">were acquitted recently</a> of aiding and abetting a Surrey police officer to commit misconduct in a public office, Pyatt’s lawyer Nigel Rumfitt QC told the court there had been a “monumental error of judgement in pursuing the case”. He was right. Four years, millions of pounds of public money, 29 cases brought – only one of which went to trial and ended in conviction: that of Sun crime reporter Anthony France.</p>
<p>I do wonder if the campaign for media victims has had more than its pound of flesh since <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/">“Hackgate” and the Leveson Inquiry</a>. At least half a billion pounds has <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/news-corp-hacking-scandal-costs-rise-512m">been stripped out of the media industry</a> in compensation, legal fees and police and prosecution costs. That’s hundreds of jobs my students will not be able to get in journalism.</p>
<p>Some <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/apr/17/operation-elveden-was-flawed-the-cps-should-have-realised-that-sooner">34 journalists were arrested</a> in the Operation Elveden Met Police inquiry into paying public officials for stories. Many said they were terrorised with dawn raids and being put in police cells for a construction of crime that <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/they-call-it-crime-we-call-it-democracy-lawyers-condemn-unmitigated-disaster-journalist-prosecutions">some media lawyers say was and is simply democracy</a>. For many it was a nightmare that went on for years taking its toll on the wronged journalists’ careers, their personal lives and their health.</p>
<p>Not only that, but more than a score of <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/betrayal-newspaper-sources-jailed-under-operation-elveden-casts-shadow-over-our-industry">confidential sources have been jailed</a>. More lives ruined and careers destroyed. Now, any public official who dares give unauthorised information, let alone take money from a journalist, knows that instead of losing their job are more than likely to do porridge at her majesty’s pleasure.</p>
<p>Media relations with the police are at their worst for as long as anyone can remember. Can it really be democracy when police officers and soldiers have to <a href="http://awards.pressgazette.co.uk/2015/10/06/met-officers-told-register-relations-with-journalists-consider-motivation-of-drinks-and-avoid-off-the-record/">write up reports</a> on their dealings with journalists? Is it democracy that police forces have been able to <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-tells-tribunal-met-violated-journalists-rights-secret-grab-phone-records">secretly hack into</a> the communications meta-data of journalists to identify sources without judicial oversight? </p>
<p>I was disgusted by the horrors of phone hacking and sympathise with the victims. But I do not believe I would be betraying their right to justice and compensation by being opposed to state body approval for media regulation.</p>
<p>The press media landscape has changed catastrophically. We no longer have the country’s biggest selling Sunday newspaper, the News of the World. That imploded in shame and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8624421/News-of-the-World-shut-down-in-bid-to-end-phone-hacking-scandal.html">was snuffed out</a> by its own proprietor. </p>
<p>The Press Complaints Commission has also committed harakiri to be replaced by <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/aboutipso.html">a more expensive independent self-regulator, IPSO</a>. This takes third-party complaints and by contract with its members can impose huge fines, can initiate investigations and is also preparing to dip its toes into a <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/aboutus/consultationonarbitrationscheme.html">media law disputes arbitration service</a>. </p>
<h2>Chilling effect</h2>
<p>The only sensible recommendation arising from the Leveson Inquiry was that there should be a statutory declaration for media freedom (a kind of British First Amendment) though – like with the Human Rights Act – always balancing freedom of expression with other rights. </p>
<p>Nothing will be achieved for media victims by introducing a form of quasi state licensing of the regulation of content by newspaper and online publishers. I think it’s a breach of <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9">Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights</a>. </p>
<p>Regulation by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leveson-report-cross-party-royal-charter">medieval constitutional instrument of Royal Charter</a> constitutes state interference. And surely we’ve moved on since the times of the Curia Regis, absolute power by Tudor monarch and arbitrary Star Chamber justice. In any case when the convention says this article: “shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises” by default this means: states must not be involved in the regulation of press content.</p>
<p>The Leveson Inquiry was set up to reach a solution that had the support of media victims, the public and the media industries. Sadly it failed to do this.</p>
<p>The biggest problem of unequal media laws in a democratic society is that journalists will be constrained from publishing truth to power because of the potential costs and penalties of libel and privacy litigation, and state prosecution for information crimes.</p>
<p>Libel and privacy are the only civil wrongs where <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/36206.htm">defendants have to prove their case</a> as <a href="http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html">McLibel campaigners</a> Helen Steel and Dave Morris found out over several tough years trying to fight the might of a major global corporation under Britain’s terrifying libel laws. And the chilling effect created by those laws is the big black hole in this debate. When media publishers don’t believe they have the money, time or resources to prove their publications the harm to democracy is incalculable, catastrophic and frighteningly unknown.</p>
<p>Brace yourselves: in early November the provisions of the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/contents/enacted">Crime and Courts Act 2013</a> relating to press regulation will be coming into force, meaning that media publishers who do not join a Royal Charter-approved regulator <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/part/2/crossheading/publishers-of-newsrelated-material-damages-and-costs/enacted">face getting punitive damages</a> when losing libel and privacy actions. </p>
<p>The other Levesonian stick approved by parliament is that these publishers would also have to pay the costs of defending media law cases <a href="http://www.newsmediauk.org/write/MediaUploads/PDF%20Docs/Leveson's_Illiberal_Legacy.pdf">whether they win or lose</a>. This will turn the chilling effect into an arctic of defensive journalism and, as a result, there is bound to be a shrinking of investigative journalism by print media. </p>
<p>These silly laws and disproportionate measures will make media victims of us all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49387/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Crook is Chair of the Professional Practices Board of the Chartered Institute of Journalists.
</span></em></p>State regulation and punitive libel laws are no way to ensure a fair and free press.Tim Crook, Professor in Media and Communication (Goldsmiths), Visiting Professor of Broadcast Journalism (Birmingham City University), Chair of Professional Standards Board, CIoJ., Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/451412015-07-24T09:33:57Z2015-07-24T09:33:57ZJapanese media giant Nikkei bets £844m on a rosy future for the Financial Times<p>Business reporting has always been one of the most global forms of journalism, with economic and business news leaping continents in a globalised economy dominated by multinational countries. But business news organisations have still always had a strong national flavour, with even the global business news wire services reflecting their national origins.</p>
<p>But recent developments, culminating in the news that the <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d7e95338-3127-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3gk22jvH3">Financial Times was being acquired by the Nikkei group</a>, which owns Japan’s largest financial newspaper, suggest that business journalism could become even more global.</p>
<p>This follows the purchase of the other flagship business newspaper, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118589043953483378">the Wall Street Journal</a>, by Rupert Murdoch in 2007, and the acquisition of Business Week magazine by Bloomberg News in 2010.</p>
<h2>Global presence</h2>
<p>The FT is in many ways the premier global business news brand, with its depth of sources and superb analysis by its well-respected columnists. It is also one of the more successful newspapers in making the transition to digital, with its large <a href="https://www.pearson.com/news/announcements/2015/july/pearson-to-sell-ft-group-to-nikkei-inc-.html">online subscriber base contributing a large proportion</a> of its revenue, as well as providing advertisers with ready accessibility to a group of super-rich individuals. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89557/original/image-20150723-22852-27h479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89557/original/image-20150723-22852-27h479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89557/original/image-20150723-22852-27h479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89557/original/image-20150723-22852-27h479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89557/original/image-20150723-22852-27h479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89557/original/image-20150723-22852-27h479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89557/original/image-20150723-22852-27h479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89557/original/image-20150723-22852-27h479.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nikkei newsroom in Tokyo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nikkei</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But it has faced challenges in its attempt at global expansion and, in many ways, the Nikkei’s Asian strength could provide a boost for the new global group. </p>
<p>But they will face a challenge in making the merger work because of the very different corporate cultures in Japan and Britain – and the fact that the Nikkei group also has major television interests. A key to the success will be preserving the FT’s independence while leveraging the additional distributional and financial resources of its Japanese parent company.</p>
<h2>Was the price right?</h2>
<p>The Japanese conglomerate probably paid above the odds to acquire the FT, with the US$1.3 billion (£844m) purchase price representing a significantly higher multiple than most recent sales of newspapers. Rupert Murdoch was also prepared to pay substantially more for the Journal, given the prestige it gave his group, and a trophy acquisition will undoubtedly enhance the global profile of the Nikkei group. The fact that another important regional media group, Germany’s Axel Springer, was <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc96456e-315e-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3gk22jvH3">also actively in the bidding</a> shows the attractiveness of this strategy.</p>
<p>From the point of view of Pearson, which never seemed like an obvious fit with the FT, weakness in its core <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2014/jan/23/pearson-2013-results-us-education-market">educational business in the US</a> has probably encouraged the lucrative sale ahead of its own earnings statement.</p>
<h2>Emerging rivals</h2>
<p>Despite the success of the FT both as a brand and as a business model, global business newspaper groups still face significant threats from rivals in the digital age.</p>
<p>On one side, the commodification of business news online means that unless newspapers have a scoop or exclusive news story, information from wire services is likely to be available for free. And even in relation to the key competitive advantage of the FT, in its analysis and commentary, new internet companies such as <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/">Business Insider</a> are growing fast with a combination of news and speculation, and have <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/05/business-insider-blodget-bezos">attracted significant venture capital investment</a>. </p>
<p>Global business media groups are going to have to be fleet of foot to capitalise on the growing market particularly in emerging market countries.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45141/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steve Schifferes 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>High price reflects the fact that the Pink ‘Un is adapting to the digital world better than most other newspapers.Steve Schifferes, Professor of Financial Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315832014-09-11T10:37:11Z2014-09-11T10:37:11ZIt’s not just Page 3 that is outdated, Mr Murdoch, it’s your attitude towards women<p>Rupert Murdoch has hinted at a change of heart about “Page 3 girls”. Pressure from The <a href="http://nomorepage3.org/">No More Page 3</a> campaign has pushed the issue to the forefront of public debate and now boasts more than <a href="http://www.change.org/p/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3">203,000 petition signatures</a> asking for the “bare boobs” to be “taken out of The Sun”.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29140217">Murdoch stormed the Twittersphere</a> by tweeting: </p>
<blockquote><p>Brit feminists bang on forever about page 3. I bet never buy paper
I think old fashioned but readers seem to disagree.</p>— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) <a href="https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/509601168138719232">September 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<p>He followed this by posing the question: “Aren’t beautiful young women more attractive in at least some fashionable clothes?”</p>
<p>Murdoch is probably right – it is quite possible that many British feminists don’t buy The Sun. I myself am one of them. What he fails to understand is that the reason we don’t buy The Sun is because of the topless woman on Page 3. Perhaps Murdoch was hoping that the excellent and accurate journalism The Sun offers its readers would distract feminists from caring about the inclusion of a topless woman.</p>
<p>And in terms of “beautiful young women” being “more attractive in at least some fashionable clothes”, we have to question the extent to which this would really resolve the problem of Page 3. Yes, it would distance it from the soft pornographic tones it currently prides itself on, but are young, pretty girls really all the British public want to see over their cornflakes in the morning?</p>
<p>Of course we should celebrate young women. We should also celebrate elderly women, middle-aged women, British African-Caribbean women, British Asian women and inspiring mothers and children from all cultures and backgrounds. </p>
<p>The women that are making positive and revolutionary changes in the world today are currently being overlooked in favour of a smiling woman who is willing to bare her breasts to the world. This is a travesty and will continue to be a travesty if soft porn is merely replaced with beauty queens.</p>
<p>Page 3 has been <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/transcript/transcript-of-the-hearing-thursday-1-january-1970-afternoon-139/">defended in the past by a former editor of The Sun, Dominic Mohan</a>, as “celebrating natural beauty” through being an “innocuous British institution”. Unfortunately it seems that this celebration of “natural beauty” carries some very strict requirements in terms of age, skin colour, body weight and condition of breasts.</p>
<p>If we are to brand Page 3 an innocent part of our culture, then we are internalising sexist attitudes and beliefs that will only serve to disadvantage a future generation of women.</p>
<p>Page 3 was introduced in November 1970, when the Equal Pay Act had still not taken effect and second wave feminism was rife. Three decades later and despite the undeniable advance in social mores the feature remains prominent.</p>
<p>Despite the downturn in newspaper sales in the UK, The Sun still sells more than <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2014/jul/11/abcs-national-newspapers">2m copies daily</a> and continues to be the most-read tabloid newspaper in the UK. Until people stop buying it – and so condoning Page 3 – editors will continue to argue that there is a public demand for the inclusion of a topless woman.</p>
<p>Most detrimental to the fight to end Page 3 is the way in which it has become normalised. It’s a familiar part of everyday media – this has enabled the likes of Mohan to label it as a “British institution”. The sexual objectification of women in other tabloids and lads’ mags has become too pervasive in the mainstream consumer market and needs to be made unfamiliar and unacceptable.</p>
<p>A key way in which the sexual objectification of women is normalised in The Sun is through its campaign “Check ‘em Tuesday”. The campaign aims to raise breast cancer awareness by flaunting the breasts of glamour models at readers to remind them to check their breasts. </p>
<p>There is no concern for the thousands of women who are currently suffering from breast cancer or are in remission, unless of course they are applauding The Sun’s use of sexual objectification as a form of awareness raising.</p>
<p>While airbrushed glamour models pose topless in the name of breast cancer awareness, (apparently this is a compassionate move rather than a career move), stories from readers are included which serve to justify Page 3 as life-saving. Eva, an 81 year-old widow, and mother of two Susan <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/check-em-tuesday/">claim</a> that “Page 3 saved their lives”.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Page 3 has only served to hinder the lives of women such as myself. It makes our breasts commodities and so renders us subject to a male gaze far too frequently. In the words of The No More Page 3 campaign: it’s time Murdoch realised that not only are boobs not news, beautiful young women in “some” clothes aren’t either.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31583/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Tippett 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>Rupert Murdoch has hinted at a change of heart about “Page 3 girls”. Pressure from The No More Page 3 campaign has pushed the issue to the forefront of public debate and now boasts more than 203,000 petition…Anna Tippett, PhD Student in Sociology and Communications, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/197332013-11-01T06:17:00Z2013-11-01T06:17:00ZBritish justice on trial in ‘R v Rebekah Brooks and Others’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34192/original/ktqwjrw8-1383251026.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sensitive: reporting of the Brooks trial must take care not to be prejudicial.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is rare indeed to hear an English judge, presiding over a case described as the “Trial of the Century”, explain to the jury that “in this case, in a way, not only are the defendants on trial, but <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jury-selection-continues-brooks-and-coulson-phone-hacking-trial">British justice is on trial” as well.</a></p>
<p>Mr Justice Saunders is the legal referee in an extraordinary case taking place at the Old Bailey featuring two former editors of the <em>News of the World</em> who deny plotting to hack phones and illegally paying public officials for information. But the trial of former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks, and Andy Coulson, the former director of communications for the prime minister, David Cameron, and others is part of an intense political and global context.</p>
<p>In the post-industrial information age, the speed and scale of cyberspace means that past and present media information is retrievable in an instant by digital search engines. Smart phone technology makes digital detectives of us all. Online social media makes us all instant global publishers.</p>
<p>How can the English legal system create an effective firewall around the integrity of the proceedings? How can it ensure that all eight defendants are not denied their rights under <a href="http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/humanrights/hrr_article_6.pdf">Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights</a>? </p>
<p>This states that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. It also asserts: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”</p>
<h2>Fair trial vs open justice</h2>
<p>There is a recognition that “open justice” is part of the right to receive and communicate information enshrined in Article 10 of the convention. But this is qualified by the need to protect “the rights of others” and “for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.</p>
<p>Human rights law arises out of, and remains in conjunction with, English common law principles where there is a public interest in fair trial as much as a public interest in open trial. In Britain, rights and interests are balanced equally with each situation judged according to the circumstances and an intense focus on the facts. The evolving unwritten constitution in Britain has never recognised that freedom of expression is either absolute or carries priority. </p>
<p>Unlike the United States, British judges have wide powers to control reporting outside their courtrooms. <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49">The 1981 Contempt of Court Act</a> means that Mr Justice Saunders can postpone reporting of any proceedings heard in the absence of the jury. He also has inherent common law jurisdictional powers to control the proceedings before him. Other legislation and precedents grant him further powers of prohibition and postponement. The 1981 legislation means that the courts have injunctive powers to prevent any substantial risk of serious impediment or prejudice to the administration of justice. </p>
<p>The judge told the jury: “It is absolutely vital that you decide this case solely on the evidence and the arguments that you hear in court.” He briefed them on the unprecedented amount of publicity about the case, some of which he described as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/rebekah-brooks-phone-hacking-uk-justice-trial-andy-coulson">“offensive and demeaning” to some of the defendants.</a> He dismissed the current cover of <em>Private Eye</em> as something to ignore as it was “a joke in especially bad taste”.</p>
<p>The judge directed the jurors not to discuss the case with anyone outside their group, or use social media such as Twitter or Facebook to talk about it. They were told about successful prosecutions for contempt of court of jurors who had defied the warnings given by trial judges. </p>
<h2>Competing rights</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">The First Amendment</a> of the United States’ written constitution states that congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press … ”.</p>
<p>This means that Twitter, social media, mainstream media and anything anybody wants to say about any kind of legal case being determined by jury anywhere in the US jurisdiction <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/SocialMediaLayout.pdf">cannot be prosecuted or banned by court order</a>. No American judge has any power to control the speech of anybody beyond his or her courtroom walls. Since the current trial at the Old Bailey is big news in the US, the main base for Rupert Murdoch’s global publishing operations, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/27/rebekah-brooks-andy-coulson-phone-hacking-trial">US journalists must be experiencing something of a culture shock.</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment">The 6th Amendment</a> to the United States constitution states that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” </p>
<p>But guaranteeing the impartiality of the jury cannot be at the expense of the First Amendment. The US system at state and federal levels uses a number of devices to minimise prejudice: (1) Continuance – delaying trial until prejudicial publicity has died down:(2) Change of venue (3) Intensive voir dire – questioning members of the jury panel to determine whether they have been prejudiced by media coverage; (4) Jury admonitions – instructing jurors not to read or listen to media coverage; (5) Sequestration – providing for a supervised location for the jurors throughout the trial to shield them from news reports.</p>
<p>The journalists covering the current Old Bailey trial have a legal duty to report fairly and accurately and with strict compliance to contempt laws that would be unconstitutional in the USA. The British system uses the devices (1) and (4) and sometimes (2). But avoids (3) and (5). I am not convinced the UK could fully eradicate the risks of prejudice by adopting all of the US measures. It is a geographically small country with homogeneous media. </p>
<p>Mr Justice Saunders, like all British criminal judges, exercises an authority that calms the social atmosphere and gives the jury space to try the case as the real experts who are following the evidence day by day. Much better that professional and social media suspend their propensity for propaganda and report what the jury hears and sees and the right to fair trial is sustained and endures. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Crook 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>It is rare indeed to hear an English judge, presiding over a case described as the “Trial of the Century”, explain to the jury that “in this case, in a way, not only are the defendants on trial, but British…Tim Crook, Reader in Media and Communication (Goldsmiths), Visiting Professor of Broadcast Journalism (Birmingham City University), Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.