As I read it, there is much concern in Australia about Fairfax’s owners becoming more active editorially. But I wonder if this really exposes potentially the lack of value in owning media.
In the world where media paths — newspapers, TV channels, radio stations — were bottlenecks in gaining public attention, someone could buy a media outlet, direct it towards their own private interests, and the lack of options may distort the information people were receiving. But equally, there were considerable commercial pressures for different media outlets to occupy different spaces. Many worry about Fox News and MSNBC in the US but I must admit that I see them more as positioning in product market space than the expensive delight of their owners in influencing the political process. I don’t doubt that they have some influence but I doubt it is worth paying a large commercial cost for.
For newspapers in Australia, we have one that clearly positions itself on the right even if it is hard to extract that in the data. And now we have the other that potentially may want to do the same. That has upset Fairfax employees and may upset its consumers. But that level of distress belies the fact that these groups have options.
Because you do not need to buy printing presses and a distribution network, if you want to get the news out with a certain degree of independence, you can today. To be sure, getting attention still requires investment but it is hard to describe this as an insurmountable bottleneck any more. The case of Business Spectator illustrates that; although just after I first wrote this piece it fell back into dependence. The Conversation provides an even stronger case. The point is that you do not need nearly as much revenue to cover the costs of providing an independent voice any more; that will promote entry although whether it creates permanent independence is an open issue.
To editors and journalists worried that their lives are about to be controlled in a way they do not like, collectively you have bargaining power. It is not bargaining power in the “strike” sense; someone who doesn’t value you isn’t going to bow to that kind of pressure. No, it is bargaining power in the competitive entry sense. There are named, respected journalists in Australia that do not need the upper layer of management to have a voice and earn a living. It won’t be easy in the short-run but look at where the world is heading. It is time to move.
In this regard, the ABC is actually in a unique place to assist in the transition. The ABC could be a news outlet but it could also provide a path for our best journalists. They could work for the ABC part-time to obtain a less risky salary and then for the rest of their time build an independent venture. After all, who said that the ABC’s role in providing an independent voice required it to provide that voice. Instead, it could act more like an incubator to usher journalists from the old and into the new world. For those who want a media freer of commercial imperatives, this is the type of thing we need to be encouraging.
This first appeared on Core Economics. It has been republished with permission.
MsKatieKatieKay
logged in via Twitter
I stopped my subscription to The Age 18 months ago. I was finding there was barely enough content to keep my interest for more than 20 minutes per day. I now get my news from Crikey (half the cost of The Age), The Conversation (free), ABC (free), The Global Mail (free for now) and Twitter (free but links to some stuff behind pay wall). I now have more content than time to read it all (not that I'm complaining!). So, for the reader, there are good options available.
I agree that it's a less rosy picture for journos. If there's all this free stuff available, how are they getting paid? A lot of my favorite authors write for a range of media outlets (eg The Drum, Crikey, AIBM Spectator websites, etc) - perhaps journos will now become like writers more generally, in the sense that they will be freelancers who don't operate in a standard employee-employer relationship. I'm afraid they won't be the first profession to follow that trend.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Interesting article and I must agree with your conclusion that, for serious and responsible journalists it is time to abandon ship and embrace the stormy sea of alternative outlets.
But I really must quibble with the study of political bias in the Australian media. There is much more to this than parliamentary endorsements, mentions and the like. Politics does not start and stop at the doors of Parliament House.
It is - particularly in this case - about what gets reportage and how it is covered…
Read moreRussell Hamilton
Librarian
"To be sure, getting attention still requires investment but it is hard to describe this as an insurmountable bottleneck any more".
Disagree. Getting attention might be cheap, but investigative journalism isn't. Digging out the background to a story might involve a lot of time, possibly travel, and almost certainly access to expensive information: company searches, land title searches, legal databases, FOI applications etc
"The ABC could be a news outlet but it could also provide a path for our best journalists"
Could? The ABC was that for most of its life.
"who said that the ABC’s role in providing an independent voice required it to provide that voice."
It's much easier, and more easily accountable, if the public knows where to go to find the non-commercial product it has paid for with its taxes. Although it might outsource production, the ABC brand should still mean the product meets the intent of the ABC's charter.
Joanna Mendelssohn
Program Director, Art Administration, School of Art History and Art Education at University of New South Wales
The portfolio of blog+ ABC works well for people who essentially write opinion pieces (eg Grogs Gamut) but I can't see it dealing with hard investigative news stories. Bloggers (even high profile ones) just don't have the resources or access to lawyers to undertake major exposes.
Even Stephen Mayne's Crikey in its fledgling days was severely wounded by a shock jock's defamation action. Imagine what Gina Rinehart, who deserves to get an award for her services to the lifestyle of lawyers, could do to a humble crusading anti-mining blogger?