tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/media-inquiry-1460/articlesMedia Inquiry – The Conversation2012-05-01T04:17:33Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/67582012-05-01T04:17:33Z2012-05-01T04:17:33ZConvergence Review: media business as usual<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10180/original/vygj26dy-1335843648.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C38%2C1898%2C1323&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Dull grey tone: media organisations are "Content service enterprises", according to the Convergence Review.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review’s final report</a> is remarkable for its blandness and predictability.</p>
<p>Despite the cries of fear and loathing from the Murdoch stable that the cold hand of government intervention was upon us, the review has explicitly rejected <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Ray Finkelstein’s suggestion</a> that a statutory News Media Council should be established by legislation.</p>
<p>What we have in this report is an attempt to play regulation catch up with digital convergence, while preserving flexibility to adapt quickly to further change. It is a difficult balance and the report fails to meet the challenge.</p>
<p>The Convergence Review has opted to suggest a set of principles, rather than prescription in order for any new regulatory regime to remain nimble and effective. Unfortunately, the recommendations are weak and in some cases almost totally unworkable.</p>
<h2>Two tier regulation</h2>
<p>There will be two types of regulation in the system proposed by Glen Boreham and his fellow reviewers. The first will be a much trimmer version of the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">Australian Communication and Media Authority</a> that will apply a very light touch regulation of ownership issues and spectrum allocation and it will incorporate a revised classifications process for media content (except news and current affairs). New regulations will be applied to media companies according to their size and reach. If companies outside the limit grow, they will then be included.</p>
<p>To establish the second arm of self-regulation, the review has politely invited the nation’s top 15 news content providers to join what would essentially be a souped-up <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a>. These top 15 providers are measured by audience reach and revenues with the cut-off for regulation being revenue of around $50 million a year and/or audience reach of about 500,000 per month.</p>
<p>In a line straight out of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister">“Yes, Minister”</a>, the report has coined a new term that continues the dull grey tone of the text. Media organisations – whether in print, broadcast or online, will be henceforth deemed to be “content service enterprises”. </p>
<p>This bureaucratic mouthful sits alongside other gems of government prose such as “uniform content scheme” and “television-like services”. The new self-regulation body will only apply to the major “content service enterprises” whose business is the provision of news and commentary and membership is voluntary.</p>
<p>In what appears to a rejection of the Finkelstein proposal to bring bloggers and social media into the regulation net, the size and service provisions, and what the report describes as the publishing or broadcast of ‘professional news and commentary’, means that amateur and citizen journalism is not subject to regulation. But Telstra and Google too would be outside the framework, according to the Review’s figures. This has naturally upset some of the other media players.</p>
<h2>Clayton’s reform</h2>
<p>This report and its recommendations is the sort of Clayton’s reform we have come to expect from expensive government inquiries; fiddle with the terminology, shuffle the paper, look busy for a while, collect the cheque and quietly slip out the backdoor. </p>
<p>The report is very business friendly – there’s nothing in here to frighten the market and nothing to excite or enthuse anyone campaigning for real and meaningful change.
The only substantial achievement in this review is a recognition that convergence in media technologies and platforms means that there must be some sort of change. However, only mild change has been proposed; really it’s no more than tinkering.</p>
<h2>Spectrum Fees</h2>
<p>The broadcast licence fee will be replaced with a spectrum fee, so this alteration to the status quo – while appearing significant – is only semantics. Media organisations will still pay for the right to broadcast free-to-air TV, but the spectrum can be bought and sold or traded on the open market.</p>
<h2>Local Content</h2>
<p>The report recommends that the ABC and the SBS be brought into the new Australian content rules through designated quotas and levies on the commercial networks. The “converged content production fund” will be used to produce content, but whether or not it will go past “New Same, with added MORE” is yet to be decided.</p>
<h2>Industry-approved regulation of news and commentary</h2>
<p>The key recommendation about news and current affairs is the “industry-led” body that will oversight “journalistic standards” across all platforms. This is a Press Council on steroids.</p>
<p>The self-regulatory body for news and commentary – the Press Council supersized – would administer codes around fairness, accuracy and transparency; hear complaints and make determinations and regulate “journalistic standards”. Platform neutrality is a key determining factor emphasised in this report, which argues there is no longer any justification for separate self-regulation given the platform cross-over between publishing, broadcasting and online delivery.</p>
<p>However, getting the various industry groups and media companies to agree to this structure may be difficult. Current arrangements for the Press Council and for commercial radio and commercial television providers are purely voluntary, but the Review sees this as a “structural weakness” and argues that the largest content service enterprises should be pushed to join: “The structural weakness of this purely self-regulatory model is addressed under the Review’s approach, which will ensure that all content service enterprises are subject to standards and sanctions set by the news standards body.” </p>
<p>The government’s “stick” to ensure compliance with this approach would be that current exemptions to privacy or competition law enjoyed by news providers would be conditional on membership of the new self-regulation body.
The radio and television industry lobby groups have not yet responded to the Convergence Review report, but it is hard to imagine them giving up their independence without inducements or coercion.</p>
<p>At best this suggested change amounts to a new set of dentures for the existing publisher’s poodle. It will be able to accept sanitised government funding in ways that will not upset the old-guard in the newspaper industry who see Armageddon in every attempt at regulation by government. There is no indication in this 170+ page report that there is any real problem or issue with media accountability and standards in Australia. This is a whitewash of the highest standard.</p>
<h2>A public interest test for ownership</h2>
<p>The report pays lip service to the idea – long argued by critics of the mainstream – that market forces can lead to oligopoly and monopoly and that this is bad for media “diversity”. A public interest test will be introduced that will examine ownership issues from a broader perspective than simple market economics and the test would be invoked when a “content service enterprise” changes ownership. However, no one contemplating becoming a media mogul should be too concerned, despite howls of protest that this change somehow “politicises” the review process. The Review argues that the onus of proof should be on the regulator to prove that a proposed sale is not in the public interest.</p>
<p>The previous market-share ownership rules will be replaced, but the new system sounds remarkably like the old one. The new rule will be known as the “minimum number of owners” clause. The often cumbersome rules regarding television, radio and print media will be removed, but the networks and newspapers have not had their ambitions of no ownership rules at all realized. The effect of the public interest test will not be known until it is tested in use, but the Australian media market is already heavily controlled by a few companies and this is likely to remain the case. There is no positive suggestion that existing near-monopolies be dismantled. Under “minimum number of owners”, hybrids such as NineMSN and Yahoo will also be caught up in the regulatory net for the first time.</p>
<p>The report says these rules should be complementary to the ACCC and other competition regulation, not duplicate them; so it is hard to see that there will be teeth in the public interest test. Just in case though, there is an out clause that allows the public interest to be over-ridden if there is a greater public interest in allowing concentration of ownership. Sir Humphrey’s fingerprints are all over this report.</p>
<h2>Security for public and community broadcasting</h2>
<p>The report recommends that community television be given some certainty about its future and argues that the abolition of licence fees in favour of permanently allocated spectrum should benefit community broadcasters. It has long been a scandal that community television has been operating (for more than 20 years) on ‘temporary’ licences and the low threshold for sponsorship for community broadcasting limits its potential to increase revenue.</p>
<p>The report also recommends a review of the ABC and SBC charters to reflect convergence. This seems straightforward, but lurking behind the curtain is a move by the commercial operators to quarantine their activities from competition from publicly-funded broadcasters. This push has been led in the UK and Australia by Rupert and James Murdoch who have argued for years that the BBC and ABC are taking food from their mouths.</p>
<p>This is a self-serving argument and we will have to be vigilant to ensure that the ABC and the SBS are not hamstrung by any changes.</p>
<h2>The political reality</h2>
<p>The report has been released and the process is now in the political sphere for action. However, with an election due by October next year and the parliamentary landscape littered with bodies at the moment, it is highly unlikely that the Communications Minister will move quickly to implement any of the review’s recommendations.</p>
<p>The report suggests a staged approach to development and implementation of its recommendations, but stage 1—stand-alone changes that can be achieved in the short term, including the public interest test, requires that the new regulator be established first. I doubt Stephen Conroy will be in any hurry to move on this given the likely hostile response he would get from the Opposition and from some quarters of the media.</p>
<p>Overall this is a fairly mediocre piece of work – it does not attempt to do anything innovative or radical in relation to convergence, regulation or standards. The supersized Press Council (Mark II) may or may not get off the ground, but why would the broadcasters give up their own self-regulation systems in the first place?</p>
<p>This review, like many others, will gather dust. The words “fiddling”, “Rome” and “burning” come to mind.</p>
<h2>News media regulation at a glance</h2>
<p>The key features of the Convergence Review’s approach include:</p>
<ul>
<li>major media organisations should be required to participate in any scheme regardless of platform and not be able to “opt out”</li>
<li>any scheme should have adequate funding, a majority of which should come from the industry</li>
<li>sanctions for failure to meet standards should be meaningful and credible</li>
<li>regulation should not impinge on free speech and an independent press.</li>
<li>The Review says that government-backed regulation of news content should only be a “last resort”.</li>
</ul>
<p>In addition, the new self-managed body would, the report says, have the following characteristics:</p>
<ul>
<li>the appointment of a board of directors, a majority of whom would be independent from the members</li>
<li>adequate funding and resourcing of the body and its operations</li>
<li>the establishment of standards for the production of news and commentary, including specific requirements for fairness and accuracy</li>
<li>the maintenance of an efficient and effective complaints-based scheme</li>
<li>a flexible range of remedies and credible sanctions, including the power to order members to prominently and appropriately publish its findings on the relevant media platform.</li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6758/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance and the Journalism Education Association of Australia.
He is director of the 2012 JEAA annual conference to be held in Melbourne from 2 to 5 December.</span></em></p>The Convergence Review’s final report is remarkable for its blandness and predictability. Despite the cries of fear and loathing from the Murdoch stable that the cold hand of government intervention was…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/67482012-04-30T04:30:35Z2012-04-30T04:30:35ZConvergence Review: the call for regulation will be unpopular with established media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10089/original/8mp77t5f-1335758003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Communication Minister Stephen Conroy will oversee the government's response to the Convergence Review.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I’m looking forward to the next few days.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/147733/Convergence_Review_Final_Report.pdf">Convergence Review’s key recommendation</a> to introduce a new body to “regulate” the activities of our major 15 media operators – including newspapers – is significant.</p>
<p>I expect the major media ownership groups, particularly those primarily invested in newspapers, will vehemently oppose this move given newspapers have been the one part of the media landscape that has, to date, operated with only the self-regulatory “toothless tiger” of the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a> to monitor their quality.</p>
<p>To a large extent this recommendation is an expected outcome given the changing nature of the media industry and the convergence that has occurred. We are overdue for a body that can regulate all news media, not just broadcast as the Australian Communications and Media Authority has done. </p>
<p>And as the review correctly points out, despite the great deal of hype about the diversity that new technology offers, in fact it is just the media through which the information is received that is changing, not the source or content. </p>
<p>The review report notes: “News and commentary consumed by Australians across all platforms is still overwhelmingly provided by the news outlets long familiar to Australians. What has changed most dramatically is how Australians access their news — the source largely remains the same. For example, someone may read a news story on Facebook, but the originator of the article is a newspaper publisher.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10087/original/9424bk8w-1335757984.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10087/original/9424bk8w-1335757984.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10087/original/9424bk8w-1335757984.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10087/original/9424bk8w-1335757984.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10087/original/9424bk8w-1335757984.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10087/original/9424bk8w-1335757984.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10087/original/9424bk8w-1335757984.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protestors in the UK where the phone hacking scandal has engulfed Rupert Murdoch’s News International operations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Andy Rain</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another issue which will also feed the controversy stands out. The recommendation to introduce a “public interest test” for any future media acquisitions and mergers.</p>
<p>The issue will further raise the ire (and indeed already has) of major media ownership groups. This recommendation was alluded to in the Review Committee’s interim report released in December so has already attracted some comment.</p>
<p>Media owners have always, in response to inquiry recommendations, run campaigns against any suggestion that their right to carry out their business as and how they see fit should be tampered with. </p>
<p>Their key complaint this time, suggested in <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/146283/News_Limited.pdf">News Ltd’s submission to the Convergence Review</a>, is that the application of a public interest “test” may be difficult to immediately define – in News Ltd’s words, the proposed public interest test is “flawed, entirely subjective, impossibly imprecise, vague and lacking in objective rigour”.</p>
<p>Too often, news media companies use the “public interest” claim when it suits them – when they discover an MP leaving a brothel late at night for example; or when they get wind that an ex-footballer might be having an extra-marital affair. Exposing such information is, apparently, “in the public interest”. It is also, of course, in their own commercial interests.</p>
<p>News Ltd stands by its coverage in recent years, for example, of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manning_Clark#Criticism_of_his_work">Brisbane Courier-Mail’s infamous pursuit of historian Manning Clark</a> as a communist; and also of the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/hanson-photo-fraud/story-e6frf7kx-1225692406741">organisation’s publication of photographs of Pauline Hanson</a> which have since been proven (and it was obvious at the time), to be false.</p>
<p>These were great commercial decisions, as they spiked News Ltd’s newspaper sales – but terribly flawed, entirely subjective, impossibly imprecise, and certainly lacking in objective rigour. </p>
<p>These incidents raised significant questions about news media standards, but also about the public interest and what it comprises. The introduction of a public interest test on mergers will trigger significant discussion about this very issue. </p>
<p>The related debate about the establishment of a large regulator to cover all media platforms will also give rise to a more careful consideration of this most crucial democratic issue – and will be well worth the cost of the Convergence Review. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10091/original/mjfgmxts-1335758510.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10091/original/mjfgmxts-1335758510.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10091/original/mjfgmxts-1335758510.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10091/original/mjfgmxts-1335758510.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10091/original/mjfgmxts-1335758510.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10091/original/mjfgmxts-1335758510.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10091/original/mjfgmxts-1335758510.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Convergence Review reflects the fact that people now consume news in very different ways to in the past.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Julian Stratenschulte</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As a final point, the Review identifies another key point that focuses on the desperate need for more local content and “community” voices, something delivered increasingly by not-for-profit community and public broadcasters.</p>
<p>If we need one reminder of the need for a strong not-for-profit media sector which prioritises local information and strong journalism over business concerns, the abandonment of rural and regional communities by commercial radio over the past 10-15 years is evidence enough. </p>
<p>As expected, the Convergence Review doesn’t go far enough. It does not recommend measures which would see a strong independent media emerge and take an important place in our mediascape. </p>
<p>It softly recommends community broadcasting have “access to funding to drive innovation” in delivery of radio and television on digital platforms but offers no substantial policy recommendations to properly support more concrete development of these important local media.</p>
<p>This should be the next step in reviving Australia’s public sphere.</p>
<p>The growth of the internet and the “convergence” of media forms may make cross-media ownership regulation less of a priority now, but it does not remove the need for our news media to provide the public with informed, rigorous, responsible, quality news and current affairs.</p>
<p>This can only be achieved with a broad-ranging and diverse news media sector which has an overriding responsibility to serve the public interest.</p>
<p>The Convergence Review’s suggestion for a new regulator encompassing all media, and the introduction of a public interest test, will go some way towards achieving this provided the legislation developed properly reflects the reality and aims of these recommendations.</p>
<p>We now have months to wait to see the government’s response to this important document which will shape Australian media structures and content into the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6748/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Forde 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>I’m looking forward to the next few days. The Convergence Review’s key recommendation to introduce a new body to “regulate” the activities of our major 15 media operators – including newspapers – is significant…Susan Forde, Associate Professor of Journalism, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/59072012-03-19T03:25:42Z2012-03-19T03:25:42ZWhat This American Life’s retraction can teach us about the Finkelstein report<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8715/original/4xrh7hhn-1332116681.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some of Mike Daisey's claims about what he saw at Foxconn were fabricated.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/YM Yik</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Friday, internationally-popular US radio show <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/">This American Life</a> retracted its “<a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory">Mr Daisey and the Apple Factory</a>” episode upon the discovery its narrator and author <a href="http://mikedaisey.blogspot.com.au/p/bio.html">Mike Daisey</a> had fabricated some of his evidence. </p>
<p>This episode was the <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/2012/03/retracting-mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory">most downloaded and streamed episode of This American Life</a> ever, and a rallying point for fairer conditions for technology production workers. The show’s host and producer, <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/about/staff">Ira Glass</a>, had been particularly proud of the episode’s contribution to social justice. </p>
<p>So when <a href="http://www.marketplace.org/">Marketplace</a> reporter <a href="http://www.marketplace.org/people/rob-schmitz">Rob Schmitz</a> brought some anomalies to Glass’s attention, Glass pursued them and discovered that at the centre of Daisey’s rotten Apple story was, tragically, yet another rotten apple.</p>
<p>This American Life’s retraction was made in the form of an <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction">entire program</a> and released two days ahead of schedule. The retraction was made public via the show’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/thislife">Facebook page</a> and has received much support – almost 1500 “Likes” and 800 comments, most overwhelmingly in favour of the retraction as a gesture of This American Life’s trustworthiness. For example: “…i [sic] trust the integrity of This American Life. this retraction is evidence of it.”</p>
<h2>Media accountability: you’re doing it right</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction">retraction episode</a> is quite extraordinary. Glass officially retracts the show, apologises for the lapse in journalistic standards, and then relentlessly pursues the reason for the lapse and attempts to set the record straight. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8718/original/bfsv8rwq-1332117030.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8718/original/bfsv8rwq-1332117030.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8718/original/bfsv8rwq-1332117030.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8718/original/bfsv8rwq-1332117030.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8718/original/bfsv8rwq-1332117030.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1088&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8718/original/bfsv8rwq-1332117030.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1088&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8718/original/bfsv8rwq-1332117030.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1088&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">publicradioexchange</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This American Life has never been just about pure journalism. Indeed, it was an experiment in experiential narrative deliberately intended to be different from standard radio journalism. The show has played many purely fictional and blended fictional/non-fictional segments. But Glass has always insisted that when This American Life claims to be presenting non-fiction that he applies the same standards as he did when he worked as a journalist for National Public Radio (NPR).</p>
<p>Although This American Life is not affiliated with NPR, it has similar standards of openness, fairness, and accountability. As Glass says in the retraction episode:</p>
<p>“… I and my co-workers at This American Life take our mistake in putting Mike’s story on to the air very seriously … When we do our own reporting we subject it to the same standards as other reporting that you hear on public radio. I was a reporter and a producer for the big daily news shows before I started this program, and we follow the same rules of reporting here that I followed there. We vet and we check our stories and when we present something to you as true, it’s because we believe in its factual accuracy.”</p>
<h2>A free retraction is the best freedom of speech</h2>
<p>This American Life’s retraction is of particular interest to Australians in the light of the recently released Finkelstein <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Independent Media Inquiry</a>. </p>
<p>The report has sparked a <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-inquiry">huge debate</a> over freedom of the press, especially in relation to the report’s recommendation that the proposed New Media Council oversight body should have the power to compel retraction (Finkelstein report Section 11.70). </p>
<p>Those against the New Media Council’s power argue that it is a blanket <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/finkelstein-media-recommendations-would-poison-our-democracy/story-e6frgd0x-1226289830360">restriction of freedom of speech</a> (or at least media speech) and that the market should be the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/leave-the-newspapers-alone-to-do-their-job-20120308-1un3k.html">only regulation</a>.</p>
<p>Those <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/finkelstein-gets-a-bad-press-20120313-1uyac.html">in favour of the report</a> argue Australia’s disproportionately consolidated media ownership leaves no market power to force retraction. In such a state, only external complaint processes and onerous conditions for not meeting journalistic standards can prevail over a media that is otherwise free to say what it wants or cater to the minimum standards.</p>
<h2>The problem with forced retractions</h2>
<p>Regardless of which side one prefers, This American Life’s retraction brings up an ongoing conundrum. It might seem that justice is being done to extract a retraction or right of reply from an unwilling media organisation. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8716/original/4tr3hn8d-1332116776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8716/original/4tr3hn8d-1332116776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8716/original/4tr3hn8d-1332116776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8716/original/4tr3hn8d-1332116776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8716/original/4tr3hn8d-1332116776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8716/original/4tr3hn8d-1332116776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8716/original/4tr3hn8d-1332116776.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Performer Mike Daisey has apologised for presenting his monologue as journalism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aaron Webb</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It might also seem that justice is being done indirectly by onerous retraction conditions designed to prevent deliberate attempts to mislead. </p>
<p>But serving justice is, in many ways, the work of the courts. We have libel and defamation laws for that which is provably wrong and damaging. The New Media Council would pass on such matters to the court system.</p>
<p>In such a case, an unwilling retraction has the limited value of the grudging apology of a petulant child. There is limited market imperative to offer such a retraction, and if so, the market imperative would be to protect the brand by drawing as little attention to the retraction as possible.</p>
<p>And yet, that’s not what happened in this case. In the highly deregulated media environment of the US, trust can (but not always) be a valuable marketing tool. This American Life decided to do more than offer a limited retraction. It offered a huge retraction, it made news from its retraction, because that was the best way to retain its audience’s trust and keep its brand strong. It was a market decision.</p>
<h2>The market at work?</h2>
<p>Unlike the ABC, most public radio in the US not funded in the majority by the US government. It operates, in fact, one of the purest forms of capitalism. People who enjoy its programming, including This American Life, directly pay the stations that produce it (for example, Chicago Public Radio) or affiliates who pay to carry it through syndication.</p>
<p>If those people decide the network is not trustworthy, there is little else to keep the program running. </p>
<p>Few media organisations are willing or able to put such faith in their audience, not even those in Australia who claim that the market is the best moderator of media accountability.</p>
<p><em>CORRECTION: National Public Radio has requested a correction to this piece. This American Life is not an NPR program. The article has been edited to reflect this.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sean Rintel has donated funds to This American Life and National Public Radio affiliate station WAMC Northeast Public Radio.</span></em></p>On Friday, internationally-popular US radio show This American Life retracted its “Mr Daisey and the Apple Factory” episode upon the discovery its narrator and author Mike Daisey had fabricated some of…Sean Rintel, Lecturer in Strategic Communication, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/56612012-03-03T00:13:20Z2012-03-03T00:13:20ZFinkelstein inquiry report cause for ‘cautious optimism’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8307/original/nytkn9gs-1330732553.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former Federal court judge Roy Finkelstein (centre) has delivered his media inquiry report.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It was a pleasant surprise that the independent Australian media inquiry, examining print, online and the role of the self-regulatory body, the Australian Press Council, was, for the most part, a satisfying document.</p>
<p>It was hard to know what this Inquiry might deliver, given the political events leading up to its announcement. Its timing was in the wake of the phone hacking scandal that closed Britain’s News of the World. Closer to home Greens’ Leader Bob Brown was sparring with News Limited journalists collectively labelling them the “hate media”; while, Prime Minister Julia Gillard waged her own battle with Murdoch’s Australian accusing it of publishing a false report about her “in breach of all known standards of journalism”. Her message was “don’t write crap”.</p>
<p>Five months on, the Inquiry, led by former justice of the Federal Court Ray Finkelstein QC, with the assistance of academic Dr Matthew Ricketson, has opted in favour of spending taxpayers’ money to replace the Australian Press Council (APC) to improve media accountability.
It is a brave and definitive stance. It is preferable to beefing up the existing Press Council, which has been dogged with its “toothless tiger” tag for too much of its 36 years. The recommendation to create the cross-media super regulator, the News Media Council, is a reason for cautious optimism.</p>
<p>I say “cautious” because even during the short five months it took the Inquiry to travel the major cities, hear submissions and produce its impressive 468 pages, there have been shifts in the Australian media landscape. </p>
<p>Billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart, who joined WA protestors to chant against the Federal Government’s mining tax, last month lifted her five per cent shareholding in Fairfax Media to 14 per cent. Already with a 10 per cent share in television network Ten, the move raised questions of whether these media share acquisitions were a strategy to get her voice better heard above the din.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8306/original/zf534p2z-1330732466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8306/original/zf534p2z-1330732466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8306/original/zf534p2z-1330732466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8306/original/zf534p2z-1330732466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8306/original/zf534p2z-1330732466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8306/original/zf534p2z-1330732466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8306/original/zf534p2z-1330732466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Communications Minister Stephen Conroy now has to act on the recommendations of the Finkelstein media inquiry.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porrit</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Back in 1981 Justice Ralph Norris warned of the potential for harm to society when too few own too much. The retired Supreme Court judge had reviewed Victoria’s print media and identified that concentration of ownership was “high” — and that was before News Limited acquired the Herald and Weekly Times. Loss of diversity in the expression of opinion was one concern, he stated. The second, was “the power of a very few men to influence the outlook and opinions of large numbers of people, and consequently the decisions made in society.” </p>
<p>If that sounds familiar, it might be because today, speaking on radio and writing in the Monthly magazine, Federal treasurer Wayne Swan accused a number of Australia’s wealthiest citizens — Rinehart, Clive Palmer and Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest — of overstepping their reach and using their wealth and influence to alter public policy to serve their self-interests.</p>
<p>Yet, concentration of media ownership was not the focus of this latest media review. This is despite the jaw-dropping fact Australia has the highest concentration of print ownership of any democracy, with the duopoly of Fairfax Media and News Limited (Murdoch) accounting for 90 per cent of its daily newspapers.</p>
<p>It is true that the latest Inquiry did acknowledge concentrated ownership shrinks the number of independent voices available to readers. And, it did find that this is particularly problematic in regional Australia where many towns have fewer media choices than the city; and where local outlets were likely to be under-resourced and understaffed. But, while the Inquiry understood that this could be damaging to the democratic function of our society, disappointingly it passed the buck to Government to investigate with “some urgency”. </p>
<p>The Inquiry’s recommendations are a departure from the desirable model of self-regulation that works well in many democracies. Nonetheless, the new super-regulator will be taxpayer-funded, and at arms length from government. This is better than a compulsory media-levy option because it will not disadvantage start-ups or small outlets. The proposal to have an independent panel appointing a broad mix from within the industry and community is also a positive move. </p>
<p>Unlike the APC, no longer will media proprietors have the option of withdrawing their participation, or much-needed funds. This makes it a fairer system for consumers, and a more even playing field for media organisations. The perhaps unfair exception is that fly-by-night bloggers, often responsible for much vitriol, and the ‘lonely pamphleteer’ will not be held to account if their audiences are small.</p>
<p>The report is the product of hard work, and should be compulsory reading for any student of journalism. Filled with case studies, overseas comparisons and media history, it is far from the stodgy document you might expect to be handed to Government. If the proposals are enacted, let’s hope these new measures can curtail the ‘crap’. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5661/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Carson 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 was a pleasant surprise that the independent Australian media inquiry, examining print, online and the role of the self-regulatory body, the Australian Press Council, was, for the most part, a satisfying…Andrea Carson, Honorary Research Fellow Centre for Advancing Journalism , The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/56752012-03-02T04:46:25Z2012-03-02T04:46:25ZThe Finkelstein Inquiry into media regulation: Experts respond<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8289/original/72njbyrp-1330656525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=107%2C71%2C3681%2C2421&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein spent five months considering more than 60 submissions from 22 organisations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>An independent inquiry <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/finkelstein-media-review-calls-for-establishment-of-new-media-body/story-fn7ki14e-1226287387279">has found</a> that the way media is regulated in Australia is not rigorous enough to ensure accountability and transparency. It proposes that a new statutory body, the News Media Council, be created to set and enforce journalistic standards across all media – including online. </p>
<p>The Finkelstein inquiry was convened following the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/news-of-the-world">News of the World phone hacking scandal</a> in Britain. Former Federal Court judge, <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/independent_media_inquiry_biographies">Ray Finkelstein</a>, was charged with assessing the effectiveness of media codes of practice and the impact of technological change on traditional media.</p>
<p>The Conversation spoke with media experts to see whether <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/146994/Report-of-the-Independent-Inquiry-into-the-Media-and-Media-Regulation-web.pdf">the recommendations</a> go far enough. </p>
<p><strong>Andrea Carson, Lecturer in Media, Politics and Society, University of Melbourne</strong></p>
<p>The terms of reference for this inquiry were fairly narrow and there was much commentary, and I would agree with it, that it avoided talking about concentration of media ownership. This is an important problem in Australia because we’ve got one of the highest concentrations of media ownership in any democracy. </p>
<p>So for that reason, I’m cautiously optimistic about what the Finkelstein report has found. And pleasantly surprised to see that the inquiry recommends replacing the Australian Press Council (APC), which has been dogged with the toothless tiger moniker for most of its 36 years, with a new body which also encompasses all platforms of media, to be called the News Media Council (NMC). It’s a start in the right direction to get some sort of universal standards for the Australian media. </p>
<p>I’m also reluctantly supportive of its arm-length funding of the new body by government, as long as it can be guaranteed that there won’t be government interference. It will be interesting to see exactly how that’s going to be guaranteed. That it is going to have broad representation from the community and industry groups is also encouraging. </p>
<p>I agree with the report that at this stage there’s not the evidence to support direct government funding for new and existing media, other than of course ABC and SBS. </p>
<p>The inquiry raises more questions than it answers. How much funding exactly is appropriate for the government to provide? How will the government ensure that that amount remains constant and is increased periodically, in order to guard against the new NMC becoming no more than what the APC was, but with a different name? </p>
<p>The NMC is recommended to have a rather extensive role, which also raises the question of how much funding is going to be adequate. </p>
<p>The turn-around times for complaints seem fairly speedy, and compelling the media to publish complaints, and tracking and reporting industry trends is a big role for this new body. I hope that by compelling journalists and editors to publish complaints that it doesn’t deliver a new era of self-censorship as journalists do what they can to avoid the compulsory process of complaint resolution, and this is particularly a problem for the ABC, which has compulsory complaint processes. </p>
<p>There are many recommendations as to how the right of reply should work, but again this raises questions about what’s actually going to happen in practice. The word “should” is used a lot. And of course, what is going to happen if an organisation refuses to publish or publishes in a form that is not consistent with the recommendation? For example, what if it puts a small apology on a back page when the offending story was on page one. Who’s going to oversee that? And what sorts of penalties will apply if an organisation doesn’t comply?</p>
<p>And also, just finally, the inquiry seems to squib on the question of the immediate future for regional media. It openly acknowledges that the regional media of Australia has fallen on tough times and much of it is under-funded and under-resourced, and that the public interest in these remote communities is not being well-served because of this lack of funding. And yet, that question has been passed on to government to come to some sort of conclusion about. It’s disappointing there’s not a stronger finding.</p>
<p><strong>Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of Technology</strong></p>
<p>The media council that is recommended [by the Finkelstein Inquiry] is actually quite a strong recommendation. It’s certainly stronger than the current situation in Australia or in Britain, for that matter, with the Press Complaints Commission, which is an industry body that is non-statutory. This [new council] is a statutory body, it has teeth and it’ll have funding. The recommendation is also that the council’s recommendations be binding on Australian media companies. And it applies to all the platforms, which is important. So for all those reasons, it potentially makes it quite an effective and powerful body overlooking the media. </p>
<p>It’s an Australian body, but in international terms quite a strong and decisive outcome if it is indeed implemented. </p>
<p>The concerns are obviously that if it is a strong body, how will that strength be used? I’m not usually supportive of statutory press regulation in terms of political viewpoints and so forth. And I would need to see more of the detail of what kind of powers this council had. But the obvious danger would be that a future government could use this to suppress or bypass legitimate media scrutiny. It’s difficult to say without knowing what kind of issues would be acted upon by this council. There are various set of laws to govern issues like defamation or inaccuracy and they’ll remain in place. </p>
<p>The report says very clearly the government will have no role, apart from the funding role. If the government has no role in terms of appointments to that council, then you can see the scope for undue political influence would be limited. But that’s the risk of having any kind of statutory regulation of media. But it’s not a pre-censorship body, it’s not stepping in before publication, it’s saying it will be available to people after publication as a way of getting redress on inaccuracy, on unfairness and other kinds of issues like that. At the moment Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Australian Press Council are supposed to be doing that, but they aren’t effective.</p>
<p>So summing up, the report says because the current regulation is not effective, we need this new council. There will be no government involvement beyond the funding and the funding is necessary to get the independence from the industry. </p>
<p><strong>Johan Lidberg, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, Monash University</strong></p>
<p>My immediate response is very positive. I had thought the inquiry would be much more watered down but this is positively surprising. It’s overall quite brave of both Judge Finkelstein and Professor Ricketson to be so concrete in their suggestions. </p>
<p>In my submission to the inquiry, I was very much for the one-stop model. I’m very pleased that they are recommending that with the new News Media Council. </p>
<p>I had a two-step process to get there, to allow the Australian media one more go at cleaning up their act via co-regulation, where the newspapers are under the same rules as broadcast. The Finkelstein report takes it one step further and goes straight to a statutory body, which I was initially a bit sceptical about. But having read the inquiry’s rationale for going straight to a statutory body, I must say I do cautiously support that, providing that the new body is completely independent from government. And the way they’ve constructed it, it has a good chance of being quite independent. </p>
<p>But the report is putting forward a concrete model that needs to be discussed, of course - but it is clearly doable. </p>
<p>They also point out in their report that pretty much all the media company submissions to the inquiry recommended the status quo. I read some of them. They were quite flippant, quite arrogant. Now that’s just not on, I’m very disappointed in the Australian media for not seriously engaging with this inquiry. To keep claiming that nothing needs to be done when we have low trust in Australian media at the moment is frankly irresponsible. </p>
<p>Clearly, the Australian media wields the power that needs greater accountability, the current system we have is fragmented, weak and unsatisfactory in terms of handling complaints. In that light the Finkelstein report will be a great contribution and thus far I’m quite happy with it.</p>
<p>We also have to remember that the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">convergence review</a> is about to report too and they’ll have their input. So in the weeks and months to come we need to engage with this issue so we come up with the best possible solutions. </p>
<p>What would be really poor is if we maintained the status quo. So we really need to watch carefully because there will lots of cries of foul from the media industry, but they need to be handled with vigour.</p>
<p><strong>Alexandra Wake, Lecturer in Media and Communication, RMIT University</strong></p>
<p>I think the News Media Council is a good idea and something that really needs to be done. I’m pleased that it’s going to be government funded - that is important.</p>
<p>The report also says that we need to do more to monitor regional news and I think that also is an extremely important consideration. I’m glad Finkelstein has made a point of saying that.</p>
<p>I was very disappointed that he didn’t see the need for government-funded journalism, because I fear for the industry and I fear for the ongoing journalistic practice in this country, and if we want to have a decent democracy then we do need to have more voices and properly funded journalism.</p>
<p>I also worry that the council won’t go far enough. A quick search of the report for the words “spin” and “public relations” shows that they are mentioned less than a dozen times. I’m really concerned about a small number of people who have an inappropriate amount of influence in the media. What is not widely appreciated is the role of PR people and lobbyists - the people who are controlling the news agenda. Finkelstein needed to say that this is the opportunity - with this council - of binding public relations people as well to a code of conduct that makes them honest and accountable and truthful. Most news outlets do not say where people’s interests lie, or where these news stories are coming from.</p>
<p>I’m pretty confident that the recommendations will get taken up. I think [Communications Minister Stephen] Conroy wouldn’t have put the report out there unless he was actually planning to go through with this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake used to work with Dr Matthew Ricketson, who assisted in the inquiry.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Carson, Brian McNair, and Johan Lidberg do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An independent inquiry has found that the way media is regulated in Australia is not rigorous enough to ensure accountability and transparency. It proposes that a new statutory body, the News Media Council…Andrea Carson, Honorary Research Fellow Centre for Advancing Journalism , The University of MelbourneAlexandra Wake, Lecturer, RMIT UniversityBrian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyJohan Lidberg, Senior Lecturer, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/43572011-11-18T19:52:15Z2011-11-18T19:52:15ZMedia Inquiry misses the point, as the news crisis worsens<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5664/original/INQUIRY_men_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ray Finkelstein and Matthew Ricketson look like they're leaning towards recommending a single regulatory body for all media platforms.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It seems that despite their sometimes bitter commercial rivalry, the Fairfax and News Limited empires agree on one thing: the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Finkelstein Media Inquiry</a> has been a giant waste of time and money.</p>
<p>Both have produced more than one editorial slamming it as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/the-unnecessary-media-inquiry-20111106-1n1ym.html">unnecessary</a> and asking <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/what-exactly-is-the-question/story-e6frg71x-1226198254270">what its purpose is</a>.</p>
<p>Outgoing News Limited Chief Executive <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/labor-chasing-press-scapegoat-says-news-ceo-john-hartigan/story-e6frg996-1226198306659">John Hartigan</a> and current Fairfax Chief <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/success-of-a-free-press-lies-in-its-own-hands-20111116-1nizp.html">Greg Hywood</a> sang the <a href="http://theconversation.com/better-the-devil-you-know-news-limited-tells-media-inquiry-theyll-pay-more-to-the-press-council-4321">same jingle</a> during their appearances at the inquiry this week.</p>
<h2>What will the inquiry recommend?</h2>
<p>There is likely to be change to the way the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a> operates. At the moment it’s quasi-independent, but because it’s entirely funded by the two major newspaper companies and some smaller publishers, this claim of independence must be questioned.</p>
<p>It is likely that some form of “super” APC will emerge taking some over-arching role in complaints handling, with additional funding from government coffers; perhaps in spite of mild resistance from the key media companies. At the end of the day they may well agree to wear such an outcome knowing it won’t really change much in their day-to-day operations.</p>
<p>What we could end up with is something that looks like, smells like and barks like the British <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/">Press Complaints Commission</a>. This isn’t an ideal outcome and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-29/head-of-uk-press-watchdog-to-step-down/2817026">the PCC has not covered itself in glory</a> recently. It doesn’t receive any government funding, but the size of the British market perhaps suggests it doesn’t need to. What is clear from the APC’s own submissions to the inquiry and Finkelstein’s generally positive commentary, is that some subsidy from the public purse could be offered.</p>
<p>This point has generated the most heat in the discussion so far. <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-new-broom-for-news-limited-as-hartigan-exits-but-what-now-for-murdochs-empire-4236">John Hartigan</a> dismissed it outright, <a href="http://theconversation.com/better-the-devil-you-know-news-limited-tells-media-inquiry-theyll-pay-more-to-the-press-council-4321">even conceding</a> that News Limited and the other council members might have to up their own contributions to keep government “interference” at bay. The argument is that a government subsidy would mean government meddling, because it would require some statutory backing from parliament.</p>
<h2>Legislative authority</h2>
<p>Giving the APC some legislated authority would create something of a hybrid: a cross between the self-regulatory functions of the Press Council (or Complaints Commission) and the statutory regulation of broadcasters provided by the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/pc=HOME">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> (ACMA). Such a body would be a break with tradition; most Western liberal democracies have historically kept self-regulation of the print media at arms length from government while heavily regulating broadcasters using the argument of “spectrum scarcity”.</p>
<p>This argument - scarce bandwidth requires tough controls - is now out-of-date and has been for sometime. What it should mean is that heavy regulation of broadcast media should be lifted, not that an attempt should be made to drag the print and online media into the fold.</p>
<p>The media inquiry was tasked with examining the issue of compliance, codes of practice and regulation in the context of digital convergence. In the logic displayed so far by Ray Finkelstein it makes sense to combine complaints handling in one body that is platform neutral. </p>
<p>The question raised again and again though, is: How do you get independents, bloggers and so-called citizen-journalists to register and be included in such a regulatory system?</p>
<p>No doubt these are questions that will be “hhhmmmmed and hhhaaaed” over in the next few months. The Inquiry’s report and recommendations are due to be put to the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">convergence review</a> in February next year. But this focus on regulation and complaint management misses the point somewhat.</p>
<h2>Lack of diversity</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Press Complaints Commission didn’t stop the crisis at the News of the World.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/FacundoArrizabalaga</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The existence of the PCC did not prevent the UK’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/news-of-the-world-scandal-reverberates-beyond-the-murdoch-empire-2256">biggest media scandal</a> in a generation, the now notorious News of the World serial phone-hacking debacle. Streamlining the complaints procedures will not improve the quality of news or journalism.</p>
<p>Two issues of quality and diversity were mentioned at the inquiry, but have been effectively sidelined in the coverage.</p>
<p>The first is the issue of market failure and Australia’s impenetrable duopoly in print news media. While the exact figures are disputed, depending on the measure you use, <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm">it is clear</a> that News Limited has a dominant position in metropolitan print markets, closely followed by Fairfax. The situation is not much different in radio, television or magazines.</p>
<p>In this environment how do we ensure a diverse range of media and opinion is available? It is difficult for new players to enter either print or broadcast markets because the cost of plant, equipment and human resources to match the two dominant entities is well into the hundreds of millions.</p>
<p>Where public interest players are in the market – <a href="http://www.cbaa.org.au/">in community radio and television</a> – the terms of their licenses are so restrictive that they exist tenuously without adequate funding or commercial income streams.</p>
<h2>Failure of the market</h2>
<p>The smug response from the big two is that anyone is free to launch an online competitor and that the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FHxpoQqPTU">“invisible hand”</a> of the marketplace will decide the outcome. What this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qjvwQrZmpk&feature=related">free market myth</a> fails to take into account is that the market is a) not a level playing field because of high entry costs and the advantage of size and first mover, and b) the market itself has failed; it does not deliver the promised outcomes and, in fact, the failure of the market has contributed to the current crisis in both news business models and in a lack of public trust.</p>
<p>At the heart of this market failure is a contradiction so intense that it is almost insurmountable and unresolvable in the market’s own terms.</p>
<p>The market dictates that competition produces profits for some and losses for others. It elevates the interests of property and shareholders above the value of public interest.</p>
<p>In this context, the profit-taking behaviour of shareholders, acting in their self-interest in the marketplace, does not guarantee an effective outcome in the public interest.</p>
<p>This, I feel, also undercuts <a href="http://theconversation.com/media-inquiry-day-one-chicken-little-takes-the-floor-4209">the argument</a> from News Limited and Fairfax that the media inquiry is an attack on the news media’s right to free speech. In the marketplace of ideas, speech is not free. It takes on a commercial and commodified form and the right to freedom of the press claimed by editorialists and CEOs, is effectively a property right. As such, it is not available to everyone. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, apart from <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/former-federal-court-judge-ray-finkelstein-qc-begins-media-inquiry/story-e6frg996-1226188468768">my own modest contribution</a> on the first morning of the inquiry in Melbourne last week, these ideas have not been canvassed. Perhaps <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-18/holmes-winners-all-round-as-news-ltd-face-media-inquiry/3678792">Stuart Littlemore came closest on Thursday</a> when he talked about the festering culture inside some newsrooms to explain how some reporters and editors appear to take perverse delight in venal attacks on certain targets.</p>
<h2>Addressing the crisis</h2>
<p>There is evidence that the current model is broken and, as senior Fairfax news executive Peter Fray said in his <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/sydney_ideas/documents/Peter_Fray_Decade_Fellow_lecture_16Nov_2011.pdf">Sydney University lecture</a> earlier this week, journalism has failed us. He rightly argued that journalists are guilty of group-think and are seduced by public relations.</p>
<p>The question that was not asked, let alone answered, amid all the bluster and talk of reform attending the Media Inquiry is: What to do about the crisis in news and journalism?</p>
<p>Peter Fray has offered one solid suggestion: “What I am saying is that we need to become more sophisticated and radical about the way we talk about journalism and its roles.”</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more, but when sophisticated and radical ideas were raised in front of <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/independent_media_inquiry_biographies">the professor and the judge</a> last week, they were howled down by <a href="http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/thank-you-for-your-comment-now-piss-off/">a chorus of acrid abuse</a> from those who are charged with living up to the ideals that their bosses espouse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance. He was the first witness called at the government's media inquiry during public hearings in Melbourne last week.</span></em></p>It seems that despite their sometimes bitter commercial rivalry, the Fairfax and News Limited empires agree on one thing: the Finkelstein Media Inquiry has been a giant waste of time and money. Both have…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/43212011-11-17T19:50:05Z2011-11-17T19:50:05ZBetter the devil you know: News Limited tells Media Inquiry they’ll pay more to the Press Council<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5639/original/hartigan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">John Hartigan would prefer to increase funding to the Press Council rather than face a new regulator.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Departing News Limited CEO <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-new-broom-for-news-limited-as-hartigan-exits-but-what-now-for-murdochs-empire-4236">John Hartigan</a> has agreed in principle to support increased industry funding for the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a> but with a caveat.</p>
<p>On day four of the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Independent Media Inquiry</a>, now holding hearings in Sydney, Hartigan told Justice Finkelstein that “rather than writing a cheque for increased support” members would want to see, and approve, any new accountability model that Press Council chair Professor <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/julian-disney-3043">Julian Disney</a> has in mind.</p>
<p>Hartigan, supported by Group Editorial Director Campbell Reid, voiced clear support for the devil News Limited knows, rather than risk greater regulation by a disenchanted federal government.
His concession was hardly startling, given spectre of a single statutory media regulator shimmering on the horizon.</p>
<p>Nor was it a guarantee of better funding ahead for Council, given the central part News Limited has played in crafting a leaner Council and its budget since 2009.</p>
<p>Yet News Limited’s attitude was in marked contrast to that of Fairfax Media. </p>
<p>In Wednesday’s hearings Fairfax CEO <a href="http://www.fxj.com.au/corporate-profile/executive-management.dot">Greg Hywood</a> argued against further funding or enforcement powers for the Press Council, which he said was “adequately funded” and operating well – despite Professor Disney’s claims last week to the contrary. </p>
<h2>If it ain’t broke…</h2>
<p>Greg Hywood has argued that there are no systemic problems of accountability or diversity with the Australian press that warrant further industry regulation. The company’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/marketing/a-free-and-robust-press-is-key-to-democracy-fairfax-20111116-1nij7.html">defense of press freedom</a> has been reproduced in every one of its 185+ websites from Bunbury to Cessnock.</p>
<p>Yet at the inquiry Fairfax executives were not over generous with praise for the Press Council’s role in keeping the ethical peace.</p>
<p>Company Secretary Gail Hambly criticised its spending on media industry research, such as its <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/other-publications/">State of the News Print Media</a> reports.</p>
<p>She told the inquiry that Council should abandon its interest in research and use its funding more effectively on complaints. </p>
<p>Hywood said that the Council was a useful but not “necessarily essential” avenue for redress, as people could complain to editors or try legal remedies for serious media misconduct. </p>
<p>Peter Fray, Editor-in-Chief of the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/">Sydney Morning Herald</a> and <a href="http://www.sunherald.com.au/">Sun Herald</a> titles cast a doubt about the “grandeur” of the Council’s complaint handling job, suggesting that media complaints generally tended to be “personal, vexatious and serial”. </p>
<p>Fray may yet change his mind about the importance of that process, as he is Fairfax’s newest representative on Council and yet to deal extensively with its adjudications.</p>
<p>Even so, his blanket judgement of complaints sat uncomfortably with his later <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/sydney_ideas/lectures/2011/peter_fray%20at%20the%20University%20of%20Sydney">First Decade Fellowship speech</a> on the future role of editors. There he proposed a new compact with audiences and championed the cause of editorial accountability and transparency.</p>
<h2>One-stop complaints shop</h2>
<p>In contrast to the otherwise steady as she goes approach of the press’s two big employers, the media union used the inquiry to renew a decade-old call for a unified body that can handle complaints about news and opinion, regardless of the publishing platform.</p>
<p>Chris Warren, head of the <a href="http://www.alliance.org.au/">Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance</a> has proposed the creation of a Media Council which would oversee complaints about media conduct in print, television, radio and online. </p>
<p>This concept has been around, with various permutations on powers and funding, since at least the mid-1990s.</p>
<p>Media academics <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/18659241?selectedversion=NBD5921516">John Hurst</a> and <a href="http://australian-centre.unimelb.edu.au/about/staff/fellows/fellows-information.html">Sally White</a> outlined details of National News Commission in their 1994 book <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/328781">Ethics and the Australian News Media</a>.</p>
<p>They argued the Commission could cover both media workers and companies, and should have the power to fine breaches of industry codes. It could be funded by an advertising levy and media union member contributions, or a scaled proportion of company profits. </p>
<p>A similar plan crops up again in 2000, with federal MP <a href="http://www.peterandren.com/">Peter Andren</a> asking for a media council with statutory “teeth” and government funding as a necessary support to privacy legislation. At the time he said the self-regulatory codes of conduct did not “go anywhere far enough in protecting the vulnerable from exploitation.”</p>
<p>Andren was probably fresh from reading the Senate Inquiry earlier that year, <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/it_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/selfreg/report/contents.htm">In the Public Interest: Monitoring Australia’s Media</a> which outlined the shape of an independent statutory body, the Media Complaints Commission (MCC). That was to be “a one-stop-shop for all complaints and will assist to enforce standards established by self-regulation.” </p>
<p>Like many inquiry recommendations, this one clearly sat on the shelf until the MEAA and Press Council dusted it off for Justice Finkelstein.</p>
<p>And it is just possible that some combination of all these ideas will be cobbled together to reinvigorate, and eventually replace, the Press Council. But as yet no-one has come up with a palatable, workable funding alternative to member contributions that might allow any platform-inclusive or statutory duties expansion.</p>
<p>Hartigan rejected the idea, put to him by Justice Finkelstein that the government might chip in. That would be “totally inappropriate”. An industry levy would be difficult to support, although he claimed he “hadn’t thought it through”. </p>
<p>Indeed by the end of the days jousting about who might pay to monitor the media and how, Hartigan’s opening promise to rethink the Council’s allowance seemed like gold.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4321/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Martin has received funding from the Australian Press Council for online news publishing research. </span></em></p>Departing News Limited CEO John Hartigan has agreed in principle to support increased industry funding for the Australian Press Council but with a caveat. On day four of the Independent Media Inquiry…Fiona R Martin, Senior Lecturer in Convergent and Online Media, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42362011-11-10T04:28:44Z2011-11-10T04:28:44ZA new broom for News Limited as Hartigan exits, but what now for Murdoch’s empire?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5396/original/Murdoch_Hartigan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Murdoch is taking more control of his Australian interests now John Hartigan is gone.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Rob Hutchison</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Was <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/john-hartigan-first-and-always-a-journalist/story-e6frfkvr-1226190752999">John Hartigan</a> pushed or did he leave his position as CEO of News Limited just in time? It’s likely that only a handful of people know the real answer to this question; among them will be “Harto” and the boss himself, Rupert Murdoch. </p>
<p>Anyone who’s followed the fortunes and misfortunes of News Corporation will know that when Rupert’s in town things can change in an instant. Several of his former editors, including <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/i-asked-about-ethics-and-rupert-called-me-a-wanker-20110709-1h7tj.html">Bruce Guthrie</a>, have recounted how fear and loathing would presage Murdoch senior’s arrival like a cold, damp fog. His reputation for brutal and decisive firings, executive shuffling and bursts of temper is well known.</p>
<p>But it could be that Hartigan has simply walked after 41 years of climbing through the ranks to become a hardened executive with ink running through his veins. As we hungrily pick through the entrails of a career replete with many highs and lows, perhaps it is the recent lows that offer the most clues to Rupert’s thinking and to Harto’s state of mind in the last few weeks of his tenure as chief head-kicker for Murdoch’s Australian operation.</p>
<p>Hartigan was known as an old-style “newspaper man” who inspired equal measures of loyalty and terrified acquiescence among his colleagues and employees. Some, like Bruce Guthrie, have felt both sides of Hartigan’s personality; one moment your star is rising, the next you are shown the door and showered with the boss’s strong language. He was never one to back away from an argument either and in recent years he has, maybe, picked a few too many fights that News Limited may not ultimately win.</p>
<h2>Controversial reign</h2>
<p>On his watch News Limited was caught up in the Melbourne Storm ARL <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/secret-seven-storm-stars-payments-under-the-microscope-20100424-tked.html">salary cap scandal</a> that cost the club two premierships. As this debacle was playing out, Hartigan <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/brian-waldron-the-chief-rat-says-john-hartigan/story-e6frg6nf-1225859060036">labeled</a> Storm CEO Brian Waldron “the chief rat,” which at the time seemed to be a case of blame-shifting. Rob Moodie, former Storm chairman and public health expert, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/storm-row-news-has-the-ethics-of-big-tobacco-20100720-10jj3.html">later said</a> News Limited’s tactics and approach to ethics mirrored that of the big tobacco companies. </p>
<p>News Limited’s <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/black-and-blue-knight-20110514-1enhq.html">well publicised stoush</a> with Victoria’s <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/i-wasnt-pushed-says-overland-of-resignation-20110616-1g4oe.html">most senior police officers</a> is still unravelling and some threads are pointing to the Herald and Weekly Times. Heads are rolling in ministerial offices and the Victorian government is in damage control as the stink spreads. Questions have been raised about close and unethical ties between senior police, politicians and News Limited journalists.</p>
<p>The Federal Court’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/andrew-bolt-racism-and-the-internet-3626">finding</a> in September that star Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt <a href="http://theconversation.com/bolt-loses-in-court-but-will-public-condemnation-follow-3597">breached</a> the Racial Discrimination Act in two 2009 articles about “light-skinned” Aborigines was an embarrassment to the paper which, after much bluster in its opinion pages decided not to appeal the court’s order that it publish prominent apologies.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/afp-split-with-victoria-police-on-terror-raid-plans/story-e6frgczx-1226186223449">current court case</a> involving allegations that a senior Victorian police officer leaked information on a terror raid to The Australian’s Cameron Stewart is also causing headaches for News. </p>
<p>When former Herald Sun editor Bruce Guthrie <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/14/guthrie-wins-out-in-unfair-dismissal-case-judge-slams-harto-blunden/">successfully sued</a> the company for unfair dismissal in the Victorian Supreme Court, Hartigan gave evidence and the judge was unimpressed. In his decision Justice Kaye <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/tough-hartigan-gets-some-good-press-20111109-1n7ht.html">said</a> of Hartigan: “I do not accept the evidence given by Mr Hartigan in this respect. In my view, Mr Hartigan was an unreliable witness in respect of the negotiations which preceded the formation of the contract.”</p>
<p>No one is suggesting that John Hartigan is to blame for all these problems, but as chairman of the board and CEO, he must shoulder some of the responsibility. Certainly he has been working hard to repair News’ reputation. <a href="http://theconversation.com/">The Conversation</a> understands from sources inside News that Hartigan wanted to retire last year, but agreed to stay on to deal with the Australian response to the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. </p>
<p>Now, while things are getting <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/murdoch-media-crisis">progressively worse</a> for News International in the UK, it seems that the Australian operation has a clean bill of health. At least there is nothing untoward that has yet surfaced in the public discussion; so perhaps there really is “nothing to see here”. </p>
<h2>The corporate successor</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kim Williams’ business acumen is respected by Murdoch. For now.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracy Nearmy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Whatever the ultimate reason for Hartigan leaving, perhaps equally surprising is the choice of replacement as News Limited CEO. The former <a href="http://www.foxtel.com.au/default.htm">Foxtel</a> chief <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-10/news-ltd-new-boss-tells-politicians-to-harden-up/3656420">Kim Williams</a> now has the top job and many are seeing this as a break with tradition. Williams is said to enjoy a good relationship with Rupert Murdoch – but most do, until the dinner, or the phone call, or the boardroom coup which ends their career. The former bureaucrat has already signalled he’ll step up for his boss. Less than 24 hours into the top job he told politicians to “harden up”, already creating controversy. Maybe he’s as tough as Harto, but he’s not from a print background and has never worked as a journalist. Murdoch obviously admires his business acumen though; Williams has turned around Foxtel in the decade or so he’s been there.</p>
<p>He’ll have a challenge on his hands. The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3358595.htm">well-canvassed debacle</a> of awarding the coveted <a href="http://australianetwork.com/">Australia Network</a> contract – a two horse race between the ABC and News Limited’s Sky Australia – has been further delayed amid investigations of leaks and allegations of ministerial interference in the tender process. </p>
<p>On the upside, one could see the shift from inky-fingered tough-guy to the smoother and urbane television executive as a process of generational change and renewal inside News Limited. Williams is respected in the industry and, like his boss, is <a href="http://www.foxtel.com.au/about-foxtel/ceo-speeches/foxtel-ceo-kim-williams-speaks-at-the-australian-broadcastin-117765.htm">regularly on the speaking circuit</a> where he spruiks Foxtel, but also makes considered interventions into the debate about the future of digital media, television and the news industry. If his brief is to make News Limited into a truly convergent media player, he just might be the right person for the right job at the right time.</p>
<h2>Chairman Murdoch</h2>
<p>On the other hand, it is difficult to know what to make of Murdoch’s decision to <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Rupert-Murdoch-becomes-News-Ltd-chairman-pd20111109-NF8KN?OpenDocument&src=hp3">resume the chairmanship</a> of News: perhaps it signals his desire to be more “hands-on” in the Australian operation. It is difficult to see how he’s going to manage this given the number of bottom-line threatening battles News Corporation is fighting in the UK and in the USA. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/business/murdoch-discount-in-news-corp-stock.html">Some estimates suggest</a> that News Corporation’s global value of $US 41 billion could be a lot higher – closer to to $US 60 billion without Rupert in charge. On the other hand, the decision could be yet more hubris from the octogenarian who recently had the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-newscorp-idUSTRE76H07P20110719">“most humble” day</a> of his long and rich life. Whatever the reason, it is clear that the days of newspapers dominating the News Corporation balance sheet are over and that the digital wave has crested for the Murdoch empire.</p>
<p>Rupert has been a leading figure promoting a convergent future for newspapers for nearly a decade. He has made many speeches about the need for the print industry to give up on trees and embrace tablets. He is a pioneer in erecting paywalls, but with <a href="http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-10/europe/30013136_1_circulation-paper-british-election">mixed success</a>.
Now The Australian is leading the way in general newspapers <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/news-ltd-elaborates-on-paywall-details/story-e6frg996-1226170411734">putting up the paywall</a> in Australia. It is far too early to tell if this is going to be successful, but I took out a cross-platform subscription because News Limited is almost giving away its six-day print edition for $7.95 a week.</p>
<h2>Future of newspapers</h2>
<p>The death of newspapers within 10 years has been predicted. I’m not so confident this is right. They are steadily adapting: News is breaking on the web, that’s obvious, and there’s competition from what I call “user-generated news-like” content (blogs, citizen journalism, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/">YouTube</a> and social media like <a href="http://www.twitter.com">Twitter</a>); but print newspapers still have a role. The Australian has – for better, or worse - become a “viewspaper” rather than a “newspaper”. While this may be attractive to the bottom line, it has not endeared Murdoch or his senior news executives to <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/alp">ALP</a> politicians.</p>
<p>News Limited’s conservative commentators have collectively condemned the government’s <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Media Inquiry</a> as a “witch-hunt” against the Murdoch press in Australia. I don’t think it is a witch-hunt, but the inquiry will achieve very little. The Gillard government has neither the stomach, nor the inclination, to embrace the more ridiculous suggestions of licencing newspaper owners and journalists.</p>
<p>Rupert Murdoch didn’t take an opportunity to face the inquiry this week. It would have been a media circus and highly entertaining for the small crowd in the public gallery. Perhaps he thought it was pointless and he may have been right. It certainly would have opened another front in a war of position that has seen many battles erupt in the last couple of years; some of which Murdoch must be quietly wondering if he can still win. Harto’s last “hurrah” may be his scheduled appearance before <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/independent_media_inquiry_biographies">the judge and the professor</a> next week in Sydney.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4236/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance</span></em></p>Was John Hartigan pushed or did he leave his position as CEO of News Limited just in time? It’s likely that only a handful of people know the real answer to this question; among them will be “Harto” and…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42342011-11-10T02:07:05Z2011-11-10T02:07:05ZMedia Inquiry day two: Embracing the cacophony<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5384/original/Flickr_Cayusa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Letting readers comment can direct journalism and make accountability a reality.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Cayusa</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On day two of the <a href="http://theconversation.com/broad-terms-for-media-inquiry-but-what-about-ownership-3369">Media Inquiry</a>, unconstrained online speech figured as a danger to democracy, rather than a new avenue for discussing media ethics and journalistic transparency.</p>
<p>Justice Finkelstein opened <a href="http://www.astradome.com/pandora.htm">Pandora’s vessel</a> when he asked <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Press Council</a> Chair Professor <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/julian-disney-3043">Julian Disney</a> to comment on <a href="http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-notes-evidence-given-media-inquiry-robert-manne-4218">Robert Manne’s claim</a> that a flood of “self-evidently defamatory” comment was appearing on certain news blogs.</p>
<p>“The greatest threat to freedom of speech in Australia is abuse of freedom of speech,” he told the inquiry.</p>
<p>At this stage anyone who has been on the end of an <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/">Andrew Bolt</a> or <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/">Tim Blair</a> online lynch mob might have agreed. But Disney then lost some sympathy when he condemned the internet “cacophony” for damaging democracy and free speech.</p>
<p>He was using this term as short hand for the amped up tone online discussions can take when users compete for attention – a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2011/3307987.htm">case he has made to Radio National</a>.</p>
<p>But for some the description was evidence that the Press Council takes an elitist view of what qualifies as legitimate speech.</p>
<p>While <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/former-federal-court-judge-ray-finkelstein-qc-begins-media-inquiry/story-e6frg996-1226188468768">Justice Finkelstein</a> ponders whether self-regulation is the best option for a digitising print media, there are three obvious things that online publishers could do right now to improve media accountability - beyond a greater institutional investment in self-monitoring.</p>
<h2>Greater transparency</h2>
<p>Making the mechanics of journalism more transparent to reader/users can expose the ethical complexities of everyday media work and sometimes head off complaints. “Transparency” involves disclosing vested interests, discussing editorial choices with users and responding quickly to their queries and comments.</p>
<p>Back in 2006 the renowned US journalism body, the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/80445/online-journalism-ethics-guidelines-from-the-conference/#rolepv">Poynter Institute ranked transparency</a> up there with accuracy and credibility as essential values for online reporting.</p>
<p>For bloggers and native online publications like <a href="http://www.salon.com/">Salon.com</a>, transparency has been a by-word for their moral superiority over mainstream journalism. A few have refined the art of disclosure to a fault and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/07/%0A07/transparency_5/">use it to critique</a> media institutions like <a href="http://www.time.com/time/">Time</a> and <a href="http://www.ap.org/">Associated Press</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/consultation">Ninemsn’s submission</a> to the Media Inquiry pays lip service to the term, but equates it with good attribution, timely correction and identification of ad-supported content. Interestingly its news stories don’t enable user comments.</p>
<p>If you want evidence that a more evolved approach to transparency works to gain trust and promote debate, look at the Twitter stream of <a href="http://twitter.com/latikambourke">@latikambourke</a>, or track down journalist <a href="http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=blog/4">Margo Kingston</a>.</p>
<p>When Kingston started her pioneering <a href="http://webdiary.com.au/">webdiary</a>news blog at the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/">Sydney Morning Herald</a> in 2000, she was horrified when the IT staff posted her email address for all to see and use.</p>
<p>But the experience of interacting with her readers and laying bare her journalistic rationales <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/23/1058853121439.html">transformed her ethical standards</a>:</p>
<p>“When you let readers join the show and help direct it,” she said. “Accountability is no longer a sham, but a reality. Online ethical codes drafted for hard copy journalism must adapt and stretch to fit a medium less planned, more open, faster, and much more in-the-moment.”</p>
<h2>More responsive interaction</h2>
<p>Webdiary is not short of robust, sometimes incendiary commentary. One legally-inclined user has described commenting there as a “blood sport”.</p>
<p>But the community does have <a href="http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1519">clear rules of engagement</a> – from a detailed moderation policy down to ways of referencing other users’ posts.</p>
<p>These guidelines for effective, civil debate are missing from many print industry-born online forums, or obscured in Terms of Service that no-one reads.</p>
<p>More broadly the codes of conduct and standards that govern the print industry haven’t been updated to respond to the era of interactivity and user generated content.</p>
<p>Recently <a href="http://crikey.com/">Crikey.com</a> acknowledged the Media Alliance’s <a href="http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html">code of ethics</a> wasn’t enough to govern its activities. It drafted a <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/19/cracking-the-code-and-regulating-the-wild-west-of-online-media/">new code of conduct</a>and set up a complaints adjudication process.</p>
<p>As the inquiry has heard, News Limited and <a href="http://www.fairfax.com.au/">Fairfax</a> have also appointed reader editors/ombudsmen to respond to complaints, all in anticipation of a post-Inquiry regulatory clampdown.</p>
<p>But it’s how journalists and editors handle everyday user interaction that will be the test for online accountability.</p>
<p>That’s why my joint Inquiry submission with <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/tim-dwyer-5243">Dr Tim Dwyer</a> recommends that publishers draft new guidelines and codes that consider their responsibilities to their users, and which make the obligations of both very clear. This is critical with commenting and moderation policies.</p>
<h2>Better moderation</h2>
<p>Tim Burrowes publisher of the innovative marketing blog <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/">Mumbrella</a>, has just moved it to a <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/a-note-on-mumbrellas-comment-moderation-policy-38054">comment pre-moderation model</a> – to the surprise and dismay of his regular commenters.</p>
<p>Pre-moderation, where every user comment is checked before it’s made public, is becoming a print industry standard in order to control abuse, spam and legal breaches. This is despite wide recognition that delays in vetting posts can short-circuit any kind of effective online debate.</p>
<p>Professor Disney supports pre-moderation as a response to “the cacophony”. But while it might help to weed out vicious, direct insults it does nothing to foster a culture of respectful debate.</p>
<p>Another approach, but one which requires money and time to implement, is reactive moderation. This has moved beyond its hand-off origins, where users simply report bad behaviour to hovering moderators, and now includes sophisticated methods of rewarding users for excellent contributions.</p>
<p>In the ABC’s <a href="http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/">Self-Service Science forum</a> helpful, expert users or ‘avatars’ earn the right to duck pre-moderation and get automatically published. In turn they and other community members are enlisted to flag any speech code breaches, so a moderator can intervene.</p>
<p>In other commenting systems, like <a href="http://gawker.com/">Gawker</a> magazine, users can rate one another’s comments. Their votes are fed into reputation management software, which ranks posts on these quality judgements. <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/tough-love-gawker-finds-making-it-harder-for-comments-to-be-seen-leads-to-more-and-better-comments/">Gawker has released figures</a> suggesting this policy initially led to a drop in posts, but was followed by a rapid, and steeper, increase.</p>
<p>True, that type of reactive accountability is well beyond the financial reach of small, independent publishers. But improving journalistic transparency and rewriting codes and guidelines is not.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s1815753.htm">Paul Chadwick, ABC director of editorial policy</a>, told Justice Finkelstein a new model for accountability requires new thinking, not that based in a previous era.</p>
<p>And on that note, a request to the ABC and Inquiry administrators: next time we have public hearings on a publicly funded matter would be useful to have them streamed, à la Murdoch at Westminster.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4234/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Martin has received funding for online news research from the Australian Press Council
</span></em></p>On day two of the Media Inquiry, unconstrained online speech figured as a danger to democracy, rather than a new avenue for discussing media ethics and journalistic transparency. Justice Finkelstein opened…Fiona R Martin, Senior Lecturer in Convergent and Online Media, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42202011-11-09T19:46:27Z2011-11-09T19:46:27ZImproving climate change reportage – a must for the media enquiry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5336/original/monckton_mat_mcdermott.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The media can't get enough of the controversy whipped up by climate sceptics.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mat McDermott</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2011/254">announcing the media enquiry</a> in September this year, Senator Conroy committed to regulatory processes that support “a healthy and independent media that is able to fulfill its essential democratic purpose, and to operate in the public interest”. </p>
<p>The News of The World <a href="http://theconversation.com/news-of-the-world-closes-a-new-page-for-rupert-murdoch-2240">phone hacking scandal</a> in the UK seems to underlie the timing of this enquiry. But the media’s betrayal of the public interest in Australia is nowhere more evident than in <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638">its coverage</a> of anthropogenic climate change. </p>
<p>Earlier this year, Malcolm Turnbull advocated climate scientists as the experts on the topic, and those to whom we should be listening. Turnbull’s advice came as a breath of fresh air amidst all the politicking. </p>
<p>The reporting of his statements offers a revealing case in point: the media focussed on the controversy arising from a former leader of the opposition being apparently offside with his current leader. Focus rapidly shifted back to Tony Abbott’s response. </p>
<p>Since Kevin Rudd made his fateful about-turn on the “moral challenge of our time”, mainstream media coverage of climate change has offered plenty of distractions from what’s actually happening to the planet. </p>
<p>We’ve seen Tony Abbott’s beat-up of the government’s carbon price as a “great big new tax”; the “Juliar” fracas in which the PM was demonised for policy adjustments made in negotiating minority government; the celebrification of climate sceptics devoid of relevant specialist expertise; and endless media cogitation on the “debate”. It’s as if the global consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists might suddenly collapse in the face of opposition from sceptics or the resources sector. </p>
<p>It wasn’t always like this. Media academic <a href="http://www.scienv-com.eu/spip.php?article6">Anabela Carvalho</a> studied newspaper coverage of climate change in the United Kingdom in the 1980s and 1990s. She <a href="http://pus.sagepub.com/content/16/2/223.abstract">identified a shift</a> in the representation of scientists from “the uncontested central actors and exclusive definers of climate change up to the end of 1988” to voices on the sidelines as Margaret Thatcher appropriated “the risks of climate change to promote nuclear energy and dismantle the coal industry”. </p>
<p>Climate change was once discussed as “a tractable and potentially solvable scientific problem, to be dealt with by credible agents”. But media representation of climate change shifted from certainty to controversy. Political and economic issues came to the fore, marginalising environmental and social ones. </p>
<p>The effects of this shift are evident in Australia in recent public opinion polling by the <a href="http://theconversation.com/polls-framings-and-public-understandings-climate-change-and-opinion-polls-2018">Lowy Institute and others</a>. There is declining preparedness to pay for action to reduce carbon emissions and a declining sense of urgency regarding the need for action. </p>
<p>The news media have not performed well here. Even the ABC, with its history of serious science reporting, has been unable to resist the titillating spectacle of climate sceptics seeking to scuttle the authority of climate scientists. </p>
<p>Monash media academics, Phillip Chubb and Chris Nash, recently published a <a href="http://www.fabc.org.au/fabc/images/stories/Downloads/ABC__Climate_Change-Monash_Uni2011.pdf">research paper</a> on the Friends of the ABC website. It notes the imbalance in the ABC’s coverage of Australian visits by leading climate sceptic, <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-chief-troupier-the-follies-of-mr-monckton-1555">Lord Monckton</a> on the one hand, and renowned climate scientist, Dr James Hansen, on the other. </p>
<p>Identifying a disparity of 47 to five in Monckton’s favour in ABC media appearances, Chubb and Nash also note that Hansen’s visit failed to rate a single mention on ABC TV. Monckton, on the other hand, “received saturation coverage (twice a day) by ABC media and was always treated as an authoritative source until the MediaWatch report at the end of his tour”. </p>
<p>Environmental journalists, who provide specialist commentary on the more complex aspects of the topic, are unlikely to see their work on the front page. Political reporters tend to foreground manoeuvring and games playing, offering an “insider” political perspective which precludes discussion of the environmental, legal and social ramifications that many communities are wrestling with. </p>
<p>There is confusion regarding the effects of reducing carbon emissions, including the expectation that cuts will lower global temperatures rather than contributing to <a href="http://theconversation.com/are-you-ready-for-a-four-degree-world-2452">slowing temperature increase</a>. The confusion reflects the need for the amplification and diversification of the public conversation. </p>
<p>Back in 2006, the UK’s <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm">Stern Review</a> noted that delaying the transition to a low emissions economy would increase the costs. It’s a straightforward premise based on economic modelling, but the basic message – pay now or <a href="http://theconversation.com/failing-to-act-on-climate-change-costs-us-billions-716">pay a lot more later</a> - has so far failed to gain traction in media coverage. </p>
<p>A common knee-jerk response to public ignorance on the topic is to blame the government for not “selling” its carbon price effectively. However, the mainstream media, who host the public conversation, also have a responsibility. </p>
<p>They should cut through the stunts and controversy and offer information and broad-based discussion and analysis. They must elucidate the diverse implications for <a href="http://theconversation.com/adapting-to-climate-change-how-will-we-learn-to-do-it-346">local government</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/heatwaves-mozzies-dengue-and-droughts-how-climate-change-threatens-our-health-13">public health</a>, coastal real estate, the insurance industry, <a href="http://theconversation.com/co-is-food-for-plants-what-will-higher-emissions-mean-for-crop-productivity-3071">food security</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/positive-mental-health-key-to-tackling-rural-climate-change-3157">rural communities</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/with-rapid-global-change-what-is-a-native-species-1294">indigenous flora and fauna</a>, and our <a href="http://theconversation.com/human-rights-or-climate-wrongs-is-tuvalu-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine-3830">Pacific island neighbours</a>, to name but a few. </p>
<p>On the historic day when the carbon pricing legislation finally <a href="http://theconversation.com/carbon-price-bill-passes-lower-house-the-experts-respond-3829">passed the House of Representatives</a>, Australia’s print media stuck with the controversy framing. “Kissgate” (as La Trobe student Matt Ralston <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3571066.html">dubbed it</a>) got front page coverage in The Age, The Australian and The Herald Sun. The PM’s body language, her place in the polls and Tony Abbot’s “blood oath” upstaged any discussion of what it might mean for the planet and future generations. </p>
<p>The current media enquiry is certainly timely here. It’s to be hoped that it comes up with some incentives, either carrot or stick, which will prompt the Australian press to reinvigorate the public conversation on climate change. We need more issues covered and a fairer representation in the voices heard.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4220/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary Debrett does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.</span></em></p>When announcing the media enquiry in September this year, Senator Conroy committed to regulatory processes that support “a healthy and independent media that is able to fulfill its essential democratic…Mary Debrett, Senior Lecturer in the Strategic Communications program, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42092011-11-08T22:08:43Z2011-11-08T22:08:43ZMedia inquiry day one: Chicken Little takes the floor<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5304/original/PIC_-_Conroy_media_inquiry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announces the media inquiry in September</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lucas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As journalists and academics got ready to outline a new media order at the Finkelstein inquiry yesterday, anti-regulationists lined up to dismiss the process with bipartisan relish.</p>
<p>On day one of the inquiry, editorials were calling it “unnecessary and ill-conceived” (<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/the-unnecessary-media-inquiry-20111106-1n1ym.html">Fairfax</a>) and a potential “echo-chamber of its instigators’ paranoia” (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-echoes-of-a-media-inquiry/story-e6frg71x-1226188093832">News Limited</a>).</p>
<p>Gerard Henderson <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/survival-the-key-for-media-not-to-be-broken-on-the-rack-of-regulation-20111107-1n3rz.html">catastrophised</a>, claiming that government is bent on licensing the press and “assaulting” an economically vulnerable industry whose “real challenge at hand is survival”.</p>
<p>Over at News Limited Andrew Bolt re-posted this fancy with a “bravo.”</p>
<p>But only one of the 21 submissions posted so far has suggested licensing might help address press misdemeanours.</p>
<p>Indeed with the Federal budget set to remain in deficit, and the Press Council and ACMA already struggling to fund their existing content oversight duties, heavy handed regulation would be policy suicide.</p>
<p>The polemicists distract us from what is shaping up as the inquiry’s central business: to what extent the print media need regulating to ensure fair, accurate and ethical reporting, how to tweak the current self-regulatory regime to deal with the boom in online publishers, and whether the government should support “quality” news and opinion production while media business models are in flux.</p>
<h2>Freedom and responsibility</h2>
<p>Critics of the inquiry have made much of the print media’s historic claim to uphold freedom of speech. However as columnist Andrew Bolt was recently reminded, freedom comes with responsibilities to the public – particularly to accuracy and ethical process.</p>
<p>Unfortunately the forging of this Inquiry in Greens and Labor complaints about News Limited has overshadowed more important and ongoing problems with public access to media accountability.</p>
<p>The Press Council is compromised by being funded by those it regulates - Fairfax, News Limited, and Seven West – but outside our legal system it is one of the few avenues of official complaint about press ethics for ordinary citizens.</p>
<p>True, many people can access an ongoing right of reply to an offending article these days via a blog or tweet - but this will not extract a reply, let alone a correction. And there’s no guarantee that an outraged Jane Doe will attract the same degree of attention for her complaint as the story she deplores. </p>
<p>The Press Council’s own submission to the inquiry is a lengthy unpacking of everything it is doing to improve its complaints-handling process and to make more people aware of their avenues of redress. It wants to develop more effective media standards for a digital era and to increase its ability to mete out penalties.</p>
<p>There’s been some incredulity in the twitterverse about its plan to to attract influential bloggers with discount membership rates, or to restrict Federal Privacy Act exemptions to those internet publishers who sign up as members.</p>
<p>Still in today’s hearings academic and essayist Robert Manne supported a stronger, more active Council, with powers to force corrections, as an antidote to “further statutory limits” on print media freedom.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-notes-evidence-given-media-inquiry-robert-manne-4218">post-inquiry commentary</a> this afternoon he called for better moderation of news blogs such as Andrew Bolt’s, where both posts and comments were “extremely vicious and even more frequently ill-informed”. </p>
<p>Eric Beecher, publisher of Crikey.com.au, also suggested yesterday that the independence of any future Council would be better ensured by government funding – but this in turn would diminish the incentive for publishers to have any frontline, normalised involvement in drafting, implementing and monitoring accountability measures.</p>
<p>Nevertheless the Council’s budget is a key concern, particularly if it is expected to extend its investigative powers and improve its public profile. </p>
<p>Its current funding is under $1 million and it employs only four staff. With its member publishers unlikely to fund an expanded remit, the organisation lacks any clear avenue for achieving its goals - especially as the blogsphere expands.</p>
<h2>Self or co-regulation?</h2>
<p>In its submission, and a leaked discussion paper prior to the Inquiry, the Press Council has pitched for a new self-regulatory body addressing all media platforms – broadcast, print and online.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/plan-for-press-council-revamp/story-e6frg906-1225710735806">idea of a Media Council</a>, has been on the table since at least 2009. At that time the proposal was resisted strongly by broadcasters and industry bodies alike. </p>
<p>Times have changed though and its possible that the Convergence Review will take a closer look at technology neutral solutions to regulatory tangles.</p>
<p>But at least one legal opinion is keen to see ACMA take up that convergence challenge. </p>
<p>John Corker, visiting fellow at the UNSW Law Faculty, has argued that ACMA is “best suited to oversee a co-regulatory code developed by and for "influential news and current affairs media” publishers", who would have to register with the government.</p>
<p>Complaints not properly addressed by these publishing companies could be investigated, and upheld complaints reported to Parliament but Corker recommends against ACMA having any powers of enforcement.</p>
<p>This reflection of ACMA’s existing relationship with the national broadcasters will no doubt meet the approval of those camps, but leaves a question mark over the future of the Council.</p>
<p>How Press Council head Julian Disney responds will make interesting listening when he faces the Inquiry today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4209/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Martin has received funding for online news research from the Australian Press Council</span></em></p>As journalists and academics got ready to outline a new media order at the Finkelstein inquiry yesterday, anti-regulationists lined up to dismiss the process with bipartisan relish. On day one of the inquiry…Fiona R Martin, Senior Lecturer in Convergent and Online Media, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41002011-11-02T19:47:04Z2011-11-02T19:47:04ZThe online test for media inquiries<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5063/original/Media_ownership.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Media ownership is much more concentrated in Australia than in the UK, where it is under scrutiny.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A profound shift is underway in the global news media industries. As the extensive <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14067935">police investigation</a> and <a href="http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/">judicial inquiry</a> into the <a href="http://theconversation.com/news-of-the-world-scandal-reverberates-beyond-the-murdoch-empire-2256">News of the World phone hacking scandal</a> continue in the UK, <a href="http://www.newscorp.com/">News Corporation</a> is under threat of a boardroom revolt in its New York HQ. Independent shareholders see a need for regime change to ward off serious brand damage. </p>
<p>But the bigger questions raised by this scandal centre on media accountability in the age of internetworking - where companies like News Corporation can further extend their influence across multiple platforms and global information networks.</p>
<p>In Australia, two inquiries are addressing these issues. One is the broad ranging <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review</a> and the <a href="http://theconversation.com/broad-terms-for-media-inquiry-but-what-about-ownership-3369">Media Inquiry</a> is looking primarily into news print media activities in this country. Both are grappling with the regulatory implications of evolving media industries. </p>
<h2>Media and democracy</h2>
<p>The stakes could not be higher. Democratic societies must shape the accountability of powerful media corporations that, in turn, hold the ability to determine the fate of political parties, and individuals.</p>
<p>To maintain a democracy we need to sustain credible news media, regardless of the publication platform. And for that we need regulatory frameworks that recognise the increasing influence of online media, and the long-term consequences of not taking appropriate corrective measures in cross-media ownership policy.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review/submissions_received_on_draft_terms_of_reference_for_convergence_review/convergence_review_terms_of_reference_structured_submission?submissionid=106">submissions</a> to the Convergence Review have argued that the online dominance of established media groups means that the government should now be recalibrating the existing cross-media ownership rules.</p>
<p><a href="http://engage.acma.gov.au/digital-australians/">Recent research</a> by the ACMA, shows that consumption of news via apps, mobile devices, tablet computers and e readers is increasing. Access to online news content is now the second-highest media activity overall after watching broadcast television.</p>
<p>Tellingly, it also indicates that audiences expect accuracy, fairness and transparency in their news and current affairs, irrespective of the platform or device on which they access it. </p>
<p>This isn’t surprising given that the highest single category of complaints about news and information, across platforms, concerns fairness and accuracy. </p>
<h2>Media in the UK</h2>
<p>In the UK a flag was raised by the media regulator <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">Ofcom</a> when News Corporation <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11691728">bid to control</a> 61% of <a href="http://corporate.sky.com/">British Sky Broadcasting</a> (BSkyB) before the News of the World scandal. It was shaping up as a litmus test for ownership and cross media regulation. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14142307">If approved</a> News would have owned around 37% of the newspaper sector, and three of the top ten most trafficked news websites as well as 35% of the TV market. </p>
<p>Ofcom’s 2010 public “<a href="http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2010/11/05/invitation-to-comment-public-interest-test-proposed-acquisition-of-bskyb-by-news-corporation/">invitation to comment</a>” noted the “need for sufficient media plurality in the functioning of a healthy and informed democratic society” and sought feedback about the impact of the acquisition on content types; audiences; media platforms; control of media enterprises; and developments in the media landscape. </p>
<p>Importantly Ofcom signaled it would “consider how future market developments, including the convergence of broadcast, print and internet media may affect consumers consumption of relevant media and the current levels of media plurality”. </p>
<p>The government minister in charge <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8113991/Ofcom-calls-for-publics-views-on-NewsCorps-bid-for-BSkyB.html">asked</a> it to further investigate its idea of a test to assess: “how the proposed acquisition may affect the level of plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises serving the relevant audiences” across all platforms. </p>
<p>Ofcom has <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/public-interest-test-nov2010/statement/public-interest-test-report.pdf">formed the view</a> that “online news tends to extend the reach of established news providers as opposed to favouring the use of new outlets that are not already present on traditional media.” </p>
<h2>Who owns what?</h2>
<p>The Australian government should also be developing a test capable of taking into account concentration and convergence across all platforms. This test needs to examine the influence of online news delivered over broadband networks. </p>
<p>It won’t be without challenges. The production of online media, including mobile and tablet devices, is complexly interconnected with old analogue media, and ownership consolidation.</p>
<p>News media are evolving through a fluid interplay of business restructuring, content sharing and audience interactivity. </p>
<p>This means policy discussions about media influence cannot be reduced to glib slogans about “maximising choice” in user access to diverse content. They need to be empirically assessed, recognising that the way we consume news is in transition. </p>
<h2>Advertising media</h2>
<p>Although there is an ongoing global debate about the most effective way of measuring the online audience, the <a href="http://www.iabaustralia.com.au/">Interactive Advertising Bureau</a> (IAB) here and overseas has accepted the <a href="http://au.nielsen.com/site/index.shtml">Nielsen Online Ratings</a> standard. There is arguably sufficient agreement to support a rapidly emerging online advertising industry.</p>
<p>So the government must engage the major parties to these debates - including the measurement companies like the IAB, the <a href="http://www.auditbureau.org.au/">Circulations Audit Board</a> and <a href="http://www.auditbureau.org.au/">Audit Bureau of Circulations</a> – to determine and adopt standards that are appropriate and effective in the Australian context.</p>
<h2>Influential media</h2>
<p>If the government doesn’t broaden the scope of the existing cross-media rules to apply to major online news it will be neglecting its duty to make public policy. </p>
<p>Given Australians’ increasing use of web and mobile news sites, these should be included in the existing “influential” media platforms of television, radio and hard copy newspapers. </p>
<p>The decision as to which online news sites to include should be made on the basis of a specified threshold of traffic to popular sites. An independent body should disallow media mergers that are found to be against the public interest on concentration of ownership (influence) criteria.</p>
<h2>A transforming market</h2>
<p>The emergence of apps culture and the expansion of social media, alongside the extension of mobile media services show the scale of the transformation taking place. </p>
<p>Yet the sources of news draw from a surprisingly limited pool with much content recycling and re-circulation.</p>
<p>Australia’s media market is even more concentrated than the UK’s, and yet the government there has begun a serious process of updating its regulation in the public interest.</p>
<p>Our government needs to catch up and develop a test on media convergence and concentration that includes all platforms including the internet. Without a robust, accountable media, there is no democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4100/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Dwyer receives funding from the Australian Press Council for a project on convergence and online news.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Martin has received funding from the Australian Press Council for research on convergence and online news.</span></em></p>A profound shift is underway in the global news media industries. As the extensive police investigation and judicial inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking scandal continue in the UK, News Corporation…Tim Dwyer, Senior Lecturer, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyFiona R Martin, Senior Lecturer in Convergent and Online Media, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/34252011-09-18T20:37:09Z2011-09-18T20:37:09ZMedia ownership matters: why politicians need to take on proprietors<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3658/original/Ownership_pics_for_Pusey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Murdoch crisis in the UK raises many questions about media ownership in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/William West</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Gillard Government’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/broad-terms-for-media-inquiry-but-what-about-ownership-3369">media inquiry</a> is to disregard the crucial issues of bias and concentration of media ownership, despite Bob Brown’s demands for wider terms of reference. This is, at best, misled.</p>
<p>The Murdoch News of the World <a href="http://theconversation.com/news-of-the-world-scandal-reverberates-beyond-the-murdoch-empire-2256">phone hacking scandal</a> in Britain has brought to light many disgusting and wilfully illegal abuses of personal privacy. </p>
<p>It points also to the scale of the corrupting power that media proprietors can have on good governance and liberal democracy. </p>
<h2>Concentrated ownership</h2>
<p>We have reason to worry. It is well known that <a href="http://www.commarts.uws.edu.au/gmjau/v4_2010_1/dwyer_martin_RA.html">Australia has one of the highest concentrations</a> of media ownership in the world. Liberal, “<a href="http://australianpolitics.com/media/fourth-estate.shtml">fourth estate</a>” standards of journalistic independence and diversity of opinion are essential conditions for informed citizenship and freedom of speech and hence for the proper functioning of a democracy. By those standards Australia compares poorly with most other developed <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3746,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD nations</a>.</p>
<p>The Australian situation has much to do with the historic domination of the Australian media by the three media dynasties of <a href="http://www.smartcompany.com.au/kerry-packer.html">Packer</a>, <a href="http://www.fairfax.com.au/">Fairfax</a> and <a href="http://www.newscorp.com/">Murdoch</a>. </p>
<p>All three have at various times asserted their private commercial and political interests strongly, and used their influence in ways that flouted journalistic and editorial independence. </p>
<h2>Public broadcasting</h2>
<p>The weakness of “watchdog”, “fourth estate” controls on the privately owned broadcasting and print media has been exacerbated by the comparatively low funding of Australian public service broadcasters and their low share of the television viewing audience. </p>
<p>This did not, however, prevent the conservative <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/ABC.htm">Howard Government’s attacks</a> on both the critical independence and funding of public broadcasting in Australia. Paid advertising was forced on the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/rewind/2006/06/28/1151174209418.html?page=fullpage">SBS TV network in 1991</a>. </p>
<p>And no one should doubt that an Abbott government would deliver still greater power to the private media proprietors, restart the culture wars and renew attempts to starve, hobble or privatise the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/">ABC</a>.</p>
<h2>Monitoring the media</h2>
<p>The professionalisation of journalism came relatively late to Australia and commercial broadcast journalism functions here with minimal regulation for accuracy and impartiality. </p>
<p>In the early 1990s, Hawke government reforms replaced the existing requirement that a broadcasting licensee be a “<a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/15/push-for-oz-media-probe/">fit and proper person</a>” with ownership and control limits and handed much responsibility for the quality of content, including the development of codes of practice, to the broadcasters themselves. </p>
<p>That allowed our notorious shock-jock talkback radio kings to become a law unto themselves to a point where Justice Woods <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=150678">noted</a> eleven years ago on a public action against broadcaster 2UE that John Laws was “too famous to be put in jail”. </p>
<p>The effect has been to encourage hate speech, scapegoating, and blind politics among some of the most powerless sections of the population. </p>
<h2>Standards not ownership</h2>
<p>At the other end of the spectrum the once reputable Murdoch-owned <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/">Australian</a> speaks only for top end business interests. </p>
<p>The print and broadcast media now routinely offer platforms for the views of right wing think tanks funded with undisclosed contributions from corporations, such as the <a href="http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/">Sydney Institute</a>, the <a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/">Institute for Public Affairs</a> and the <a href="http://www.cis.org.au/">Centre for Independent Studies.</a></p>
<p>Successive governments have taken the cowardly way of avoiding vexing the media proprietors with needed public interest regulations on quality, content, journalistic standards and editorial independence. </p>
<p>Instead they have attempted to fix the problem with rules designed to promote diversity of ownership. </p>
<h2>Flawed rules</h2>
<p>The most recent round of <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2006A00129">legislative changes in 2006</a> on cross-media ownership prohibit an individual from controlling more than two media out of radio, TV and newspapers in a license area. </p>
<p>But what <a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/mia/2011-issues#140">our most recent studies</a> have shown is that rules were deeply flawed and have led not to less concentration but rather to more.</p>
<p>Between 2003 and 2010, while the number of licensed commercial broadcasting services increased from 306 to 317, the number of controllers of these licenses fell, from to 42 to 39. </p>
<p>The number of newspapers monitored by the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> did not change, while the number of controlling organisations fell from 13 to 8. </p>
<p>These rules have increased incentives for large media companies to centralize their news and current affairs with costs to both quality and regional focus.</p>
<h2>Weakened governments, powerful proprietors</h2>
<p>Some may object that these are merely the precious concerns only of a progressive middle class (about 25 per cent of voters), or worse, as the think tank hit men would have it, more noise from “the Balmain basket weavers”, “chattering classes” and “the doctors wives”. Wrong! </p>
<p>Our analysis of successive waves of the <a href="http://aussa.anu.edu.au/">ANU Australian Survey of Social Attitudes</a> shows that more than 70 percent of Australians believe that the big media proprietors have too much power and that the ownership of the media is too concentrated. </p>
<p>The same surveys show that people care much more about good governance, civic engagement, and public provision than is commonly believed.</p>
<p>Many factors have contributed to the increasing paucity of our news and current affairs. A general tendency for people to retreat from the public world into entertainment is but one of them. The inherent and the often wearing complexity of political and policy problems is another. </p>
<p>But none of this can hide that the deterioration is a direct consequence of a larger 25 year long policy of micro-economic reform that has steadily weakened the role of government and preferred, one-sidedly, to advantage private interests against public interests and the interests of the consumer over those of the citizen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The findings reported here appear in the latest issue of Media International Australia. The research was conducted by Dr Marion McCutcheon of the Swinburne Institute and Professor Michael Pusey of the University of New South Wales and supported by the Australian Research Council.
</span></em></p>The Gillard Government’s media inquiry is to disregard the crucial issues of bias and concentration of media ownership, despite Bob Brown’s demands for wider terms of reference. This is, at best, misled…Michael Pusey, Professor in School of Social Sciences and International Studies, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.