tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/convergence-review-2055/articlesConvergence review – The Conversation2015-10-04T23:50:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/483072015-10-04T23:50:46Z2015-10-04T23:50:46ZFifield faces a hard road to bring Australia’s media regulations into the 21st century<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97130/original/image-20151004-23067-dy1mlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitch Fifield has recognised that Australia's system of media regulation is outdated.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With his feet barely under the desk, Communications Minister Mitch Fifield has flagged a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/mitch-fifield-to-review-antisiphoning-list-20150924-gjts0o.html">renewed attempt</a> to change Australia’s media laws. Given his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull’s long-standing interest in the field – dating all the way back to his <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com/essay/2009/06/stop-at-nothing/extract">work</a> with Kerry Packer in the 1980s – Fifield can expect the new prime minister’s backing. Fifield is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/mitch-fifields-meeting-revives-hopes-for-media-reform/story-e6frg996-1227554788704">set to meet</a> with media bosses as early as next week.</p>
<p>Turnbull never seemed to enjoy such support when he brought <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/communications-minister-malcolm-turnbulls-media-reform-plan-causes-industry-rift-20150315-144n58.html">proposals for change</a> to cabinet during Tony Abbott’s prime ministership. It is, however, no guarantee that any substantive change will follow.</p>
<p>The problem for Fifield will be, to a great extent, the same one that has dogged successive large-scale reform attempts in the past: the <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbulls-media-reforms-might-not-go-far-enough-for-murdochs-liking-38840">need to mollify</a> all of Australia’s very vocal and enormously influential media proprietors. It took John Howard until his fourth term – and fourth attempt – to manage what was then seen as long-overdue change in 2006.</p>
<p>The last major push for change <a href="https://theconversation.com/media-reforms-a-historic-opportunity-missed-12963">fizzled out</a> in 2013 under Julia Gillard. After two lengthy and extensive reviews – the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1339_convergence.pdf">Convergence Review</a> and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1205_finkelstein.pdf">Finkelstein Review</a> – had recommended sweeping changes to print and electronic media laws, the minority government waited a year before introducing a small package of reforms. Most failed on the floor of parliament.</p>
<h2>What reform is needed and why?</h2>
<p>There is no question that reform is needed. As the Convergence Review made plain, Australia’s media and communications laws are, by and large, no longer fit for purpose. Australia’s media regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), produced two reports in 2011 that outlined <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Connected-regulation/broken-concepts">“broken” and “enduring” concepts</a> for media and communications regulation. </p>
<p>Technological change has bypassed many of the old protections. And evolving audience behaviours have called into question the grounds on which many existing rules are based.</p>
<p>As Fifield put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… it’s a bit like when people were talking in years gone by about how we can change railway gauges to better improve long-distance transport at a time when planes are starting to fly overhead.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the last couple of years there have been changes to the cast of media players. New entrants (<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/netflix-revolution-shakes-up-australian-media/6678138">Netflix</a>) and partnerships (<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/seven-and-foxtel-confirm-presto-tv-launch-date-20150115-12qwk0.html">Presto</a>, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/stan-announces-launch-date-20150122-12vzlk.html">Stan</a>), and changes in major shareholdings (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/ten-announces-foxtel-deal-and-capital-raising/story-e6frg996-1227398128699">Foxtel and Network Ten</a>), have changed both the media landscape and the policy challenge.</p>
<p>And then there is the biggest transformer of all: high-speed broadband. Free-to-air broadcasters have been able to work around limits on their reach via catch-up services delivered online that are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4303509.htm">undermining advertising markets</a> in regional licence areas. Regional broadcasters have launched a <a href="http://www.saveourvoices.com.au/">campaign</a> for changes to ownership and control limits. They argue that their very survival is at stake.</p>
<p>High-speed broadband also enables viewers to access a multiplicity of new services and voices. In the process, however, a host of challenges are posed to concepts such as copyright rules, the future of (quality) journalism, and the availability of local news and current affairs. All of these have commercial and policy implications.</p>
<p>None of this is strictly new. Or, rather, little of this was not predictable or foreseen. The Convergence Review, and to a lesser extent the Finkelstein Review, canvassed these issues and possibilities at length. </p>
<p>These reviews mined a lode of submissions and reports before producing concrete and comprehensive proposals for technology-neutral reform undergirded by fundamental public policy principles including pluralism, diversity, and localism.</p>
<p>Fifield has all of this material available to him. And, at face value, there is little need for another lengthy and expensive review before change can be proposed. </p>
<p>The problem is that introducing changes that do not satisfy all of the leading players will take considerable political will, and risks a media backlash. Disgruntled proprietors have shown themselves many times not to be afraid to pursue their political interests through the various channels they control.</p>
<h2>The anti-siphoning question</h2>
<p>And then there is perhaps the most vexed issue of all: the rules around sports coverage on free-to-air and pay television, known as <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">anti-siphoning</a>.</p>
<p>The Grand Final weekend just past is the biggest couple of days on the television calendar. It produces two of the highest rating programs of the year, and some of the most expensive <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/how-much-does-it-cost-to-get-an-nrl-and-afl-grand-final-tv-advertising-spot-322414">advertising slots</a> on television. These are the reasons why, yet again, broadcasters paid record amounts earlier this year to secure <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/nine-holds-onto-nrl-television-rights-20150809-giva5s.html">NRL</a> and <a href="http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-18/afl-on-the-verge-of-signing-new-tv-deal">AFL</a> rights for many years to come. </p>
<p>These deals mean that major changes to the anti-siphoning rules are unlikely in the near future. Or, if there are any changes, they are unlikely to take effect until these deals expire. The deals’ structures explicitly acknowledge the importance of online sports rights. This seems only set to grow over the term of the new arrangements. </p>
<p>For the moment, and into the foreseeable future, sports rights remain fundamental to the commercial viability of both free-to-air and pay television. Turnbull has affirmed in the past the view that the national significance of events like Grand Finals justifies their continuing protection and free availability. This, he has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/malcolm-turnbull-swings-back-at-murdoch-over-sports-on-free-to-air-tv-20150316-1m09oy.html">said</a>, is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a very Australian arrangement.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If history is anything to go by, it is an arrangement that may endure for some time to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48307/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Goldsmith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The problem for Mitch Fifield will be, to a great extent, the same one that has dogged successive large-scale media reform attempts in the past.Ben Goldsmith, Senior Research Fellow, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/127732013-03-13T02:28:39Z2013-03-13T02:28:39ZFrom ‘hate media’ to another fine mess: How media reform got derailed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21161/original/nys35wsq-1363063869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stephen Conroy's media reform package has led to cries of media censorship - but do even conservative spruikers really believe this?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the day in November 2011 that Justice Ray Finkelstein and University of Canberra Professor Matthew Ricketson held court in Melbourne, the mainstream media has been hostile to any suggestion of media reform.</p>
<p>Self-interested critics have been incessantly arguing the media regulation plans are designed to shutdown a hostile media and are an attack on free speech. <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_totalitarian_instinct_in_finkelsteins_report/">Andrew Bolt</a> chews at this issue like a dog after its own fleas.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21176/original/jnb3x86j-1363136326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21176/original/jnb3x86j-1363136326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=819&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21176/original/jnb3x86j-1363136326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=819&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21176/original/jnb3x86j-1363136326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=819&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21176/original/jnb3x86j-1363136326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21176/original/jnb3x86j-1363136326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21176/original/jnb3x86j-1363136326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fine company: the Daily Telegraph’s restrained take on Stephen Conroy’s media reforms.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>News Limited tabloid, the Daily Telegraph took this to extremes today with an extraordinary front page story comparing Communications Minister Stephen Conroy to notorious dictators such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.</p>
<p>But the “threat to free speech” line is not an argument that the anti-regulation ideologues actually believe, it is <a href="https://theconversation.com/fear-mongering-over-free-speech-taints-the-truth-about-media-regulation-8446">a populist sound-bite</a> that plays to the rusted-on conservatives and provides talking points for the groupthink chorus.</p>
<p>The mantra from conservative spruikers is that the only good change is no change. And there will be no change, or at best, very little.</p>
<h2>Where it began: The ‘hate media’</h2>
<p>May 19, 2011 was a mild autumn day in Canberra and Greens leader Bob Brown held a fairly standard media conference to discuss climate change, emissions trading schemes and the carbon tax. </p>
<p>During the Q&A session Brown mentioned The Australian and questioned why it was editorially opposed to making the big polluters pay. The following exchange took place:</p>
<p><strong>Brown:</strong> “The Australian has a position of opposing such action. My question to you is ‘Why is that?’”</p>
<p><strong>Reporter:</strong> “As they said the other day, when you’re on this side, you ask the questions.”</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21180/original/k2yhtm9s-1363137540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21180/original/k2yhtm9s-1363137540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21180/original/k2yhtm9s-1363137540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21180/original/k2yhtm9s-1363137540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21180/original/k2yhtm9s-1363137540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21180/original/k2yhtm9s-1363137540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21180/original/k2yhtm9s-1363137540.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">Former Greens leader Bob Brown’s ‘hate media’ comment was shorn of context.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Brown:</strong> “No. I’m just wondering why the hate media, it’s got a negative front page from top to bottom today; why it can’t be more responsible and constructive.”</p>
<p>[Interjection]</p>
<p><strong>Brown:</strong> “Let me finish. I’m just asking why you can’t be more constructive.”</p>
<p>On that now fateful May day Bob Brown made the point that the maturity of the climate change debate in Australia is questionable.</p>
<p><strong>Brown:</strong> “The Murdoch media has a great deal of responsibility to take for debasing that maturity which is informed by scientific opinion from right around the world.”</p>
<p>Brown’s comments were reasonable, but challenging the collective wisdom of the Murdoch press is never a good idea; it is at its most effective, ferocious, vicious and unforgiving when it is under attack.</p>
<p><a href="http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/tag/groupthink/">Pack instincts kick in</a> and that is what Bob Brown was facing that day on the lawns of the parliamentary courtyard. He was having a go at the coverage of climate change in the press and argued that The Australian’s reporting was “not balanced”, it was “opinionated” and “it’s not news”.</p>
<p>This was inflammatory stuff; several reporters snarled and barked back. Brown responded with a comment that really goes to the heart of this whole matter:</p>
<p><strong>Brown:</strong> “You don’t like it when we take you on. Don’t be so tetchy, just measure up to your own rules.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, it was the “hate media” grab - shorn of context - that <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/media-round-on-brown-over-attack-on-news-limited/story-fn59niix-1226059243419">made the headlines</a> and the first (extremely rough) draft of history.</p>
<p>It may be a little bit stretched to call News Limited the “hate media”, but it is reasonable to call them “biased” when their coverage of important issues is one-sided and alarmist.</p>
<p><strong>Don Pedro of Aragon:</strong> “Officers, what offence have these men done?”</p>
<p><strong>Dogberry:</strong> “Marry, sir, they have committed false report; moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily, they are slanders; sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves.”</p>
<p>William Shakespeare, <em>Much Ado About Nothing</em> Act 5:Scene 1</p>
<p>The calls for an Australian media inquiry grew louder when, in July 2011, Julia Gillard told the National Press Club that she was “truly disgusted” after reading of the News of the World transgressions.</p>
<p>Ah yes, NOTW. Two years ago, even <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-20/gillard-demands-answers-from-news-ltd/2803108">Julia Gillard was saying News Limited had “hard questions” to answer</a> after revelations that phones had been hacked on an industrial scale to feed the insatiable appetite of the British tabloid.</p>
<p>Most of us were disgusted with what we learned of NOTW; but how did we get from the “hate media” and “serious questions” about phone-hacking to the watery and vague reforms that Stephen Conroy is touting this week and that Malcolm Turnbull has – without seeing the legislation – labelled “unworkable and unnecessary”?</p>
<p>There’s a complex answer and a simple one. Which is really one answer that can be explained in great detail or in a few simple lines. For the sake of space and brevity, let’s take the second option.</p>
<p>The pointed truth is that there’s been a steady campaign against any reform of the current “see no evil” self-regulation system from media executives and particularly from News Limited columnists.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21178/original/yyrkwqmv-1363137300.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21178/original/yyrkwqmv-1363137300.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21178/original/yyrkwqmv-1363137300.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21178/original/yyrkwqmv-1363137300.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21178/original/yyrkwqmv-1363137300.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21178/original/yyrkwqmv-1363137300.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21178/original/yyrkwqmv-1363137300.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ray Finkelstein’s mild recommendations have been diluted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The sidelining of Finkelstein</h2>
<p>Ray Finkelstein’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/finkelstein-review-calls-for-new-statutory-regulator-to-oversee-media-5676">mild suggestions</a> were <a href="https://theconversation.com/finkelstein-review-calls-for-new-statutory-regulator-to-oversee-media-5676">further diluted</a> by the Convergence Review and as Labor’s electoral prospects have tanked in the last year, its reformist zeal has all but dried up.</p>
<p>Over the past twelve months the government and the Communications Minister have been subject to relentless editorial pressure and high-stakes lobbying.</p>
<p>There’s been endless discussion, compromise and promises that the reforms won’t stop business as usual. There has even been <a href="https://theconversation.com/dear-media-ceos-stop-meddling-in-our-democracy-8059">correspondence</a> and meetings between news executives and the Prime Minister.</p>
<p>In August 2011, Gillard <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-02/gillard-meets-with-news-limited-editors/2821686">visited News Limited headquarters</a> for what we were told was a full and frank discussion. The only problem is it was held behind closed doors.</p>
<p>The executives and shills who are complaining that mild reforms will throttle freedom of the press are the very same people who refused to tell the public what they discussed with the Prime Minister.</p>
<p>The newspapers’ campaigns have been full of mis-statements and half-truths; exactly the same bulldust that they would have us believe they are protecting us from by being bombastic and huffily standing on their digs about attacks on freedom of speech.</p>
<p>That’s why it is disingenuous for the newspaper owners’ lobby group this week to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/its-time-to-consult-newspapers-warn-20130310-2fu73.html">call for yet more “consultation”</a>.</p>
<p>By the same token the government’s handling of this issue has been a comedy of errors – and perhaps the last word is not for Shakespeare, but for true slapstick farce:</p>
<p><strong>Gillard:</strong> “Well…”</p>
<p><strong>Conroy:</strong> “Here’s another nice mess I got you into.” </p>
<p>That of course is from the 1931 Laurel & Hardy classic, Chickens Come Home.</p>
<p>And make no mistake; the chickens will come home to roost on this issue once we’ve seen the form of the legislation to be presented to Parliament on Thursday.</p>
<p>But even that comes with a caveat. During his media conference on Tuesday, Stephen Conroy made the mighty threat that if the government could not get support for its legislation from the Greens and independents within a week or so, the bills would be withdrawn.</p>
<p>I can already hear the cheers and laughter from the News Limited bunkers. They have nothing to fear and they know it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the journalists' union, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance.</span></em></p>Since the day in November 2011 that Justice Ray Finkelstein and University of Canberra Professor Matthew Ricketson held court in Melbourne, the mainstream media has been hostile to any suggestion of media…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/127782013-03-12T19:43:03Z2013-03-12T19:43:03ZLow-key Conroy proposals are media reform lite<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21165/original/xwfq8rpq-1363067926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Senator Stephen Conroy did not have a mandate for significant change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yesterday, communications minister Senator Stephen Conroy finally presented the government <a href="http://www.afr.com/rw/2009-2014/AFR/2013/03/12/Photos/73ae3770-8ac2-11e2-b3be-e962dfe94952_Reforms%20to%20secure%20media%20quality,%20diversity,%20and%20certainty%20for%20the%20future.pdf">response</a> to the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review</a> and <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Finkelstein review</a>. </p>
<p>It is hard to know how many drafts of this long-awaited response have been generated in the minister’s office, but what has finally been put forward is decidedly low-key. It is focused on current concerns and existing media players more than a convergent media future.</p>
<h2>Core reforms</h2>
<p>Given the fanfare with which the initial media enquiries were announced, and the mix of hope and trepidation that surrounded what they may recommend – a fair part of which was generated by the media itself – a modest set of recommendations has emerged. </p>
<p>Among the core reforms proposed are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>A press standards model that maintains self-regulation, but beefs up the role of the Press Council and clarifies its standing in relation to online as well as print media;</p></li>
<li><p>The introduction of a Public Interest Test for future media takeovers and mergers, including the creation of a Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA) to evaluate their implications for media diversity;</p></li>
<li><p>Updating the ABC and SBS charters to explicitly incorporate their online activities as core to their public service mission;</p></li>
<li><p>Continuing allocation of the sixth free-to-air channel to community television, or, put differently, a continuing prohibition on a fourth free-to-air commercial TV service;</p></li>
<li><p>Making permanent the 50% licence fees rebate for commercial television broadcasters, subject to their meeting new Australian content obligations, particularly on their digital multichannels.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Old world thinking</h2>
<p>This package of measures is hardly the “<a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/147780/Convergence_Review_Final_Report_Executive_summary.pdf">new policy and regulatory framework</a>” the Convergence Review believed was the necessary response to technological and audience changes rendering the existing legislative framework redundant.</p>
<p>Yes, the new policy recommends changes to media ownership, news standards, public broadcasting and Australian and local content that are largely with the convergence review recommendations, but these still largely sit within the established media “silos” of print, broadcasting and online media. </p>
<p>More radical proposals, such as setting content standards for Google, or eliminating broadcasting licences altogether, are clearly off the agenda.</p>
<h2>Legislating the public interest</h2>
<p>The proposal for a public interest test for media mergers and acquisitions, and the creation of a Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA), are the recommendations most consistent with the spirit of the convergence review. </p>
<p>The review proposed that a revised media policy framework needed to be “technology-neutral”, avoiding structural biases for or against any particular media platform or service type, while recognising that public interest questions about media ownership concentration or the loss of local content still matter.</p>
<p>The PIMA proposal walks the line between establishing more flexible, less prescriptive approaches to regulating media ownership, without fully abandoning controls in the interests of securing media diversity. It draws upon the concept of <a href="http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Weeks_SoftLaw_%20Australia.pdf">soft law</a>, whereby legislation establishes a general principle – in this case media diversity – and grants decision makers a degree of autonomy in determining the scope of its application in particular cases. </p>
<p>Soft law is seen by many as a necessary response to rapid technological change, where events are moving too quickly for parliaments to be able to regularly update legislation.</p>
<h2>The politics of change</h2>
<p>Senator Conroy indicated his personal preference for eliminating what he sees as legacy rules, such as the maximum 75% audience reach rule for commercial broadcasters. This rule clearly assumes that services such as broadcast news are only accessed through broadcast media, whereas they are clearly now available to 100% of Australian homes with a reasonably fast internet connection. </p>
<p>It is worth remembering that almost no Australian homes had an internet connection when these initial restrictions were passed, let alone access to YouTube and on-demand media services.</p>
<p>But the politics of legislating for changes to media laws in a political context where the government lacks a majority in either house, and where an election is six months away can also be seen in the Conroy’s response to the reviews.</p>
<h2>A modest proposal</h2>
<p>Rather than presenting a single set of legislative changes to parliament, Conroy has instead opted to unbundle the proposals. This means the licence fee rebate and the changes to the ABC and SBS charters do not hinge on how parliament responds to the PIMA proposal. The former could be passed even if the latter is rejected.</p>
<p>What has finally emerged is a compromise set of changes; a very cautious, and in many ways piecemeal, response to the proposals of the Convergence and Finkelstein reviews. It has probably not modernised media laws sufficiently to “tackle the challenges of the future”, although it does make some overdue changes to existing law. </p>
<p>Given the lack of community consensus as to what media laws should prioritise, it would have been hard to have advanced further without a clearer mandate for change than the federal government currently possesses.</p>
<p>It would appear that a larger overhaul of media policy and regulation to meet the challenges of convergence will need to wait for another occasion. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Flew 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>Yesterday, communications minister Senator Stephen Conroy finally presented the government response to the Convergence Review and Finkelstein review. It is hard to know how many drafts of this long-awaited…Terry Flew, Professor of Media and Communications, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/114102012-12-23T23:59:21Z2012-12-23T23:59:21ZSport, citizenship and the right to watch the Boxing Day Test from your couch<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18927/original/kxtctthf-1355893899.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The right to watch the Boxing Day Test is enshrined in law.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Richo in OZ</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Is watching sport on television a right of cultural citizenship in Australia? Sport, we are regularly told, is integral to Australian culture. If you are interested in becoming a citizen, the current advisory document <a href="http://www.citizenship.gov.au/learn/cit_test/_pdf/australian-citizenship-aug2012.pdf">Australian Citizenship: Our Common Bond</a> observes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We are proud of our reputation as a nation of ‘good sports’ … Throughout our history, sport has both characterised the Australian people and united us.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sport’s national and cultural status ensures that the government affords some protection of your television viewing rights dating from the analogue era. The recent <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/131462/Review_Report_-_Sport_on_Television-the_anti-siphoning_scheme_in_the_contemporary_digital_environment_-_25-11-2010.pdf">Sport on Television</a> and <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence</a> Reviews considered the future of free-to-air sport coverage on <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_91821">the anti-siphoning list</a>. Since the introduction of pay TV in 1995, this list has required the broadcast rights to specified major sport events to be offered first to free-to-air television.</p>
<p>Despite pressure from both sports organisations and pay TV providers who say the anti-siphoning list distorts the media sport market, featherbeds “old” media, and prevents them from maximising economic returns, it has survived without major surgery. </p>
<p>Reforms, such as adding or removing certain sports, introduction of tiers with different requirements in terms of comprehensiveness and “liveness”, uses of multi-channelling, and stronger anti-hoarding provisions to deter commercial TV game playing, have refreshed rather than euthanised it. </p>
<p>Indeed, the list will apply to emerging media, such as <a href="http://www.whistleout.com.au/PayTV/Guides/A-Guide-to-IPTV-in-Australia">IPTV</a>, as long as they, like pay TV, are accessed only by a minority with the monetary and technological capacity.</p>
<p>No major political party has been game to touch the principle of protecting certain televised sports or to challenge seriously the Sport on Television Review’s conclusion:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sport is central in Australian society and the objective of ensuring free public access to events of national importance and cultural significance remains a relevant public policy objective.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So watching sport on television remains largely unchallenged as a right of “cultural citizenship”. This means that some sport events, such as the <a href="http://melbournecup.com/">Melbourne Cup</a>, <a href="http://www.olympic.org/olympic-games">Olympic Games</a>, <a href="http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/index.html">FIFA World Cup</a> and the <a href="http://www.afl.com.au/">AFL</a> and <a href="http://www.nrl.com/">NRL</a> Grand Finals, are regarded as part of the national “cultural estate”. </p>
<p>For the foreseeable future, nobody will be able to enclose the most desirable parts of the media sport landscape, and deprive entry to those without the necessary means, as has occurred in the UK with the <a href="http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb.html">Premier League</a> and in New Zealand with its coverage of the <a href="https://www.allblacks.com/">All Blacks</a>.</p>
<p>As with other public goods and entitlements, the privileged cultural status of sport does not go unchallenged. Most obviously, sport remains a male-dominated institution, with the vast majority of the most powerful and best remunerated owners, administrators and athletes being men. Their “inherited” privilege is reproduced and, indeed, reinforced by sports television. </p>
<p>Thus, the anti-siphoning list is dominated by men, especially cricket, motorsports and the football codes. The list is designed to protect access to the most popular men’s sports events, rather than enhance the position of aspiring sports (women’s sports among them). The one female-dominated sport on the list, netball, has been rather keen to get off it, given the premium sale price that goes with exclusivity.</p>
<p>The anti-siphoning list (some parts of which, like Wimbledon and the US Open, are not actually Australian) also tends to enshrine the predominance of traditional Anglo sports at the expense of those that may have greater appeal to a more diverse population. </p>
<p>Here the most prominent instance is that of association football (soccer), which has been historically disparaged in Australia as “wogball”, associated with so-called “ethnics”. The current iteration of the country’s main domestic soccer competition, the A-League, has struggled to get a free-to-air presence, despite soccer’s popularity as both a participant and spectator sport (among both men and women), and the rising profile of the men’s national team. Although a new broadcast rights contract includes limited, mostly delayed, free-to-air live coverage on SBS, televised soccer in Australia remains dominated by pay TV.</p>
<p>A striking case in point is <a href="http://www.ausleisure.com.au/default.asp?PageID=2&ReleaseID=3363&Display=True">Australia’s hosting</a> of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Asian Cup in January 2015. This is a very big event - its claimed television reach (though not its projected audience) is 2.5 billion people. It also has substantial strategic and financial support from the Federal, New South Wales, Victorian, Queensland and Australian Capital Territory Governments. </p>
<p>However, at present – even in the warm afterglow of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/asian-century-white-paper-experts-respond-10370">Asian Century White Paper</a>, with its emphasis on “Football Diplomacy” – the Asian Cup will be shown exclusively live on FOXSPORTS. In contrast, another major sport event with strong Asian involvement held in Australia (along with New Zealand) in 2015, the listed International Cricket Council (ICC) World Cup, will be shown on both pay and free-to-air television in the host country.</p>
<p>So, the Asian Cup is, for the moment, not officially deemed to be an event of “national importance and cultural significance”. It is hard to imagine that, in the Asian Century, communications minister Stephen Conroy will fail to notice this among the many ironies surrounding sport, the media and cultural citizenship in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11410/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Rowe has received funding from the Australian Research Council for work on culture, media and sport: Handling the ‘Battering Ram’: Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation and the Global Contest for Dominance in Sports Television (DP0556973) and Struggling for Possession: The Control and Use of Online Media Sport (with Brett Hutchins, DP0877777).</span></em></p>Is watching sport on television a right of cultural citizenship in Australia? Sport, we are regularly told, is integral to Australian culture. If you are interested in becoming a citizen, the current advisory…David Rowe, Professor of Cultural Research, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/112402012-12-10T03:14:45Z2012-12-10T03:14:45ZFree-to-air broadcasters win big in government’s media reforms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18479/original/q27qrxxv-1355099025.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's response to the Convergence Review includes significant benefits for commercial free-to-air broadcasters.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Late on Friday 30 November, the day after the last parliamentary sitting day for the year, the government released its first official response to the Convergence Review. Seven months after the Review’s <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review#report">Final Report</a> was made public, and eight months after it was submitted to Minister Conroy, we finally know a little more about the government’s plans for media reform going in to election year.</p>
<p>There is no mention of what is clearly the most divisive and difficult media policy issue: the future of press regulation. Instead, the Minister’s press release concentrates on the slightly less controversial issue of Australian content on television. Although it flags a range of new measures, it also confirms what many have long suspected: this government, like many before it, is reluctant to upset the commercial free-to-air broadcasters (FTAs). In fact, it seems as though the government has gone out of its way to please the operators of the nation’s most influential medium.</p>
<p>The government has proposed to immediately extend the licence fee rebate originally granted to the FTAs in February 2010 for another year. Given that licence fees are due to be paid this month, it is significant that the announcement was made on the last day of November. As a result, the FTAs will save over $125 million now, with further savings on the horizon as the fee will be permanently reduced by 50% to a maximum of 4.5% of revenue, probably in time for next year’s payment.</p>
<p>In return, an Australian content quota will be imposed on the FTAs’ digital multichannels (7Two, 7Mate, Gem, Go, One and Eleven) for the first time. This move has long been demanded by the production industry and others. The Minister for the Arts, Simon Crean, flagged the trade-off of licence fee cuts in exchange for enhanced local content requirements earlier in November. </p>
<p>But the government’s proposal even goes further than the Convergence Review recommended. Under the new proposals, the FTAs will be required to screen an increasing number of hours of Australian content on their multichannels over the next three years. In 2013, the quota is 730 hours. In 2014, it is 1095 hours. In 2015, it is 1460 hours. This may appear to be a significant new imposition, but all, however, is not quite as it seems.</p>
<p>First, the requirements are for each broadcaster, not each channel. In other words, the FTAs can spread the hours across their two multichannels. When the figures are broken down, the true significance of the move is revealed. In 2013, each FTA must screen 730 hours. That is 730 hours of Australian content between 6am and midnight out of an annual maximum of 13140 broadcast hours (6570 hours per channel). That equates to around 5.5% Australian content per year, per FTA, or around two hours a week spread over two channels. The equivalent figures for 2014 and 2015 are roughly 8.5% (or 3 hours per week across two channels) and 11% (around 4 hours per week across two channels). Compare this with the current requirement that the FTAs main channels must screen 55% Australian content, with additional sub-quota requirements.</p>
<p>Second, there are no sub-quota requirements for screening particular genres of programming, and there is no requirement to screen first-run content. Unsurprisingly, this has upset industry bodies such as the <a href="http://www.spaa.org.au/">Screen Producers Association of Australia</a> and <a href="http://www.equityfoundation.org.au/">Equity</a>. The new head of SPAA, Matthew Deaner, was <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/tv-producers-actors-slam-licence-fee-cuts-for-commercial-freetoair-networks-20121202-2ap2o.html">“outraged”</a> by the announcement, while Equity’s Sue McCready demanded that an additional sub-quota of 40 hours of drama be added to the new regulations.</p>
<p>Third, the FTAs are already exceeding these requirements. In fact, the regulations will allow them effectively to schedule less Australian content than they currently screen. In a <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/media/submissions/2011_0034_SUB_FINAL_Convergence_Review_281011.pdf">submission to the Convergence Review</a> in October 2011, the FTA lobby group FreeTV Australia noted that “over 6400 hours of Australian has been shown on the digital channels this year”. Even in 2015, the new regulations will only require the FTAs collectively to screen a minimum of 4380 hours – more than 2000 hours less than they screened from January to October, 2011.</p>
<p>The licence fee cuts and the multichannel quotas were not the only victories for the FTAs. Minister Conroy also <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2012/193">announced</a> that “no spectrum or broadcast licences will be made available to enable a fourth free-to-air television network”, meaning no new broadcasting competitors for the FTAs. While this formed part of one of the Convergence Review’s recommendations, it went further, proposing that the channel capacity on the sixth planned television multiplex be allocated to “new and innovative services”. The Minister has postponed any decision on uses of the sixth channel.</p>
<p>Lastly, the government has also removed the “75% audience reach rule” that limited holders of commercial television broadcasting licences to an area containing a maximum of 75% of the Australian population. This change has long been mooted, and was recommended by the Convergence Review in line with the views of FreeTV Australia, Telstra and News Limited that the rule was “increasingly anomalous in a borderless media environment”.</p>
<p>All in all, the government has proposed a series of changes that provide substantial benefits to the FTAs. But the benefits for the production industry, subscription television providers, and most importantly — to audiences — are limited.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11240/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Goldsmith works for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI). He co-authored three submissions to the Convergence Review on behalf of the CCI. The views expressed here are his own.</span></em></p>Late on Friday 30 November, the day after the last parliamentary sitting day for the year, the government released its first official response to the Convergence Review. Seven months after the Review’s…Ben Goldsmith, Senior Research Fellow , Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/84462012-07-27T05:26:46Z2012-07-27T05:26:46ZFear mongering over free speech taints the truth about media regulation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13507/original/thp7nkwz-1343354288.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=29%2C41%2C1946%2C1236&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If reports saying Julia Gillard reached a deal on media self-regulation are correct, it's business as usual for media proprietors.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It seems that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the gang of seven media bosses have <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-writes-to-media-bosses-over-regulation-20120724-22l9p.html">buried their hatchets</a>, reaching a compromise on media regulation. It’s to be business as usual, behind the starched-up fig leaf of tougher self-regulation.</p>
<p>“Tougher self-regulation.” This must be the oxymoron of the year and it would rate well in best cliché competitions, too.</p>
<p>We should remind ourselves that tougher self-regulation is exactly what Ray Finkelstein wanted from the Independent Media Inquiry. He was unable to put it in his recommendations because at that time the gang of seven was against it. A number of them and their deputies marched into the inquiry and gruffly demanded that it do nothing.</p>
<p>You might not remember this because it has conveniently fallen down the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole">memory hole</a>.</p>
<h2>Exactly who is attacking free speech?</h2>
<p>In fact, it really is as if nothing’s happened. We’ve gone up the ladder and been taken back down in a Python-squeeze of over-excited adolescent group hysteria about a non-existent attack on free speech.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/">media inquiry report</a> does not make wholesale recommendations for the elimination of freedom of the press, or free speech. It recognises the ethico-legal paradox at the core of the job it was asked to do and it attempts to find a balance. For example, paragraph 2.94 on page 53 notes the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>This is the situation this Inquiry must address: how to accommodate the increasing and legitimate demand for press accountability, but to do so in a way that does not increase state power or inhibit the vigorous democratic role the press should play or undermine the key rationales for free speech and a free press.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ray Finkelstein acknowledged this difficult balancing act and throughout the public hearings he made clear, time after time, his preference for a regime of self-regulation that would meet the demands for accountability, but ensure that the underlying market mechanisms were not disturbed.</p>
<p>Finkelstein was far from the anti-free speech monster portrayed by the gang of seven. It is fair to say that the media inquiry itself suffered from <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/finkelstein-gets-a-bad-press-20120313-1uyac.html">bad press</a>.</p>
<p>Claims that that the review’s recommendations amounted to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/its-fine-to-have-standards-of-speech-enforcing-them-by-law-is-fascism/story-e6frgd0x-1226427514159">fascism</a> or <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/monday-section/abc-not-a-news-hound-kim-williams/story-fna1k39o-1226407049630">Stalinism</a> are no more than far-fetched scare tactics and are perhaps evidence that the news media should be more closely regulated and held to standards of accountability and public interest.</p>
<p>Since the release of the Finkelstein report in February, there has been an ongoing campaign against its authors and its recommendations. This has been general across most media, but there can be no doubt it is led and coordinated by senior executives at News Limited.</p>
<p>The Australian in particular has been relentless in pursuit of its own corporate interests – no change to the status quo of soft self-regulation – and vehement in its opposition to any further means of accountability.</p>
<p>The Australian has published at least 12 editorials alongside innumerable opinion pieces and letters to the editor lambasting the media inquiry and anyone who might dare to suggest a bit of media regulation could actually be a good thing. I read The Australian every day and I can only recall one article, by the ABC’s Tom Morton, that defended the idea of regulation or more accountability.</p>
<p>This comment is typical of <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/protecting-freedom-of-speech/story-e6frg71x-1226412698409">the editorial line</a> taken in The Australian. It describes the proposed media regulator as:
<em>a government-funded star chamber to pass judgement on newspapers and broadcasters… Journalists refusing to sacrifice their independence by bowing to its edicts would risk fines or imprisonment.</em></p>
<p>I have read the Finkelstein report and I cannot find any reference to a recommendation that journalists be fined or sent to prison under proposed regulations. But that myth has been around for a while. Mark Day had it in the first par of <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/media-facing-new-watchdog/story-e6frg996-1226338364030">a front-page story</a> about the Convergence Review on 26 April, before its report was even available.</p>
<p>In fact, the media inquiry report heavily favours what it calls “enforced self-regulation”. On page 287 the report gives some detail about what this might mean:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>11.33 Enforced self-regulation has the following benefits:</em></p>
<p><em>• It has no state involvement in appointing members of the regulatory body, in the setting of standards or in decisions regarding breach of standards, thus minimising the risk of potential attempts for state interference with, or control of, speech.</em></p>
<p><em>• It retains almost all the benefits of self-regulation, but ensures a more robust and effective operation of the system.</em></p>
<p><em>• Governmental funding of the statutory body (which is ordinarily what would follow) ensures adequacy of funding, which promotes independence from those it regulates.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>What Finkelstein actually recommended is that the government help the news industry to put in place a better system of self-regulation. This is also what is proposed in the later and more influential <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review/">Convergence Review report</a>. </p>
<p>No one is recommending a government-controlled or appointed body to regulate the news media. You heard it here first.</p>
<h2>No fines or penalties or jailing of journalists</h2>
<p>The Finkelstein report explicitly rejects the imposition of fines or other financial penalties at paragraph 11.76 (p.298). There is no provision calling for the jailing of journalists, but in an effort to give the proposed co-regulatory body some “teeth”, Finkelstein did recommend remedies at law for refusal to comply with a Media Council determination. Here’s what the report says about this at paragraph 11.77 (p.298)</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>There should be a legal requirement that if a regulated media outlet refuses to comply with a News Media Council determination the News Media Council or the complainant should have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order compelling compliance. Any failure to comply with the court order should be a contempt of court and punishable in the usual way.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now you’ve seen this, it is possible to draw the conclusion that The Australian has not been totally honest in its depiction of the media inquiry report. The idea that journalists would be fined or imprisoned for a breach of some outlandish code of practice is pure rubbish. The report is quite clear; it is media outlets and their managers who would be liable for any refusal to comply and that this refusal would be dealt with under the rule of law. </p>
<p>The words “jail”, “prison” and “gaol” do not even appear in the report and the word “imprisonment” only occurs in two quoted sections of other documents; one of them is the News Limited Code of Conduct (see p.432). However, if you read The Australian, it would be easy to think that Ray Finkelstein urged the power to fine or jail reporters be given to the proposed Media Council. </p>
<p>News Limited CEO Kim Williams made this claim in a speech to the Adelaide Press Club on July 13. The speech was reproduced in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/fining-and-jailing-of-journalists-a-threat-in-over-regulation/story-e6frg6zo-1226425742888">the Weekend Australian</a> under the misleading headline “Fining and jailing of journalists a threat in over-regulation”. Here’s what Williams said in his speech:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Under Finkelstein’s recommendation, journalists can be fined and even jailed, with no appeal rights … The super-regulator does not have to publish reasons for its decisions.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, this second part is misleading too. The report clearly says that any regulatory body would be expected to publish decisions, but that it could choose not to do so for legitimate privacy or other reasons.</p>
<p>However, don’t expect to see any kind of correction any time soon. Providing misleading implications about the media inquiry is stock-in-trade for Murdoch’s senior opinionators at The Australian. Worse still, it is actually OK to go back and rewrite any inconvenient facts out of the record.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/silencing-critics-in-seven-illiberal-steps/story-e6frg7bo-1226422877759">A column</a> by Janet Albrechtsen published on 11 July this year, with the headline “Silencing critics in seven illiberal steps”, said this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Largely based on opinion surveys, [the media inquiry] recommended a new body, the News Media Council, to license the press and censor news reporting and political commentary. Under its recommendations, there would be no appeal from council findings. And those who disobey the council findings would face fines or imprisonment.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, the online version of the article has been changed. On 16 July The Australian published a small correction on page 2 under the headline “News Media Council”. The correction referred to the Albrechtsen article and noted “In fact the [Finkelstein] report explicitly recommends against licensing of the press.”</p>
<p>That’s right, it does. Here’s the clause in question:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>11.26 Licensing the press should also be rejected, because in a democratic society the government should not be involved in controlling who should publish news.</em> (p.285)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We don’t know the circumstances around the correction*, but never mind, the Albrechtsen story no longer carries this mistake – it was edited out. The online version of Albrechtsen’s column has been “amended” to this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Largely based on opinion surveys, it recommended a new body, the News Media Council. The report explicitly recommends against licensing of the press both in the body of the text and in the executive summary. Nonetheless, the model set out in Chapter 11 of the Report effectively advocates a licensing system of the media by recommending a government-funded, super-regulator with the power to make non-appelable [sic] findings against news and commentary. And those who disobey the council findings would face fines or imprisonment.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nonetheless? Well, not quite. It is not a licensing system and the report quite clearly says that the regulatory body should set, maintain and supervise the standards itself, not government. The issue of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is also a red herring, spun to sound sinister by The Australian. </p>
<p>The simple explanation is that complaints resolution should be a speedier process than it is now (sometimes taking months). Instead the report suggests review by the legal system (“judicial supervision”), which is exactly the case now (although the Press Council requires complainants to sign away that right before it will hear their complaint).</p>
<p>So, what are we to make of the stories this week that the Prime Minister is seeking to appease the gang of seven and backdown on media regulation?</p>
<p>It was always going to happen. Stephen Conroy was only able to take a penknife to a gun-fight at the High Noon saloon. The rest of the Labor cabinet is too spooked to back him up.</p>
<p>The gang of seven has the look and feel of a lynch mob; you don’t pick fights with blokes who buy ink by the tanker-load.</p>
<p><em><em>**Since this piece was published, it has been confirmed that the Janet Albrechtsen column was changed following a complaint from Professor Matthew Ricketson. Professor Ricketson sat on the Independent Media Inquiry with retired judge Ray Finkelstein. Professor Ricketson told Martin Hirst that The Australian made the correction “after some robust discussion about what is a fact and what is an opinion”</em>*.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>The Australian Press Council has responded to point out that it was the practice for many years that complainants might be asked to sign a waiver if there was an indication of legal action and the publisher requested the waiver. However, the abolition of the waiver was one of the significant changes agreed earlier this year, when the publisher’s obligations were made legally binding, a four-year notice period was introduced, and funding for the Council was doubled</strong>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8446/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a financial member of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance.
Contrary to several incorrect media reports in The Australian at the time, Martin was the FIRST person called to give evidence before the Independent Media Inquiry.</span></em></p>It seems that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the gang of seven media bosses have buried their hatchets, reaching a compromise on media regulation. It’s to be business as usual, behind the starched-up…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/72512012-06-10T20:08:48Z2012-06-10T20:08:48ZMeeting the challenge of convergent media policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11446/original/gq73j76n-1338954430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will Google be subject to Australian media regulation?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Stuck in Customs</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been a remarkably busy year for Australian media policy. </p>
<p>There have been three major reports released that address the future of media policy and regulation in the context of convergent media: the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review</a>; the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Independent Media Inquiry</a> (Finkelstein Review); and the <a href="http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/classification-content-regulation-and-convergent-media-alrc-report-118">Review of the National Classification Scheme</a>.</p>
<p>In fact, 2012 marks the most significant moment in Australian media policy since the 1990s, when the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/">Broadcasting Services Act</a>, the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/">Telecommunications Act</a> and the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cfacga1995489/">Classification Act</a> were all legislated. While these were major initiatives at the time, they were pre-Internet forms of media law that did not anticipate the tsunami of change associated with digitisation, convergence and the globalisation of media.</p>
<h2>Leading the world</h2>
<p>While other countries are still considering how to adapt their media laws for convergence, Australia has been a world leader in addressing these challenges. </p>
<p>A common theme of all reports is that incremental change is no longer sufficient. Media regulation cannot continue to be primarily based upon the platform of delivery (print, radio, television, the internet) when convergence has dislodged the technological bases that used to tie content to platforms.</p>
<p>The Australian Communications and Media Authority refers to “<a href="http://acma.gov.au/theACMA/Library/researchacma/Research-reports/acma-media-release-852011-29-august-broken-concepts-regulation-from-preinternet-times">broken concepts</a>”, that exist in current media law. Some of these are anachronistic, such as the ban on live hypnosis on television. Others address a once-important concept that has been overwhelmed by new developments, such as the separation of control over the delivery platform from the provision of content. </p>
<h2>Justified intervention</h2>
<p>The Convergence Review identified three areas where continued government intervention is justified. </p>
<p>First, there is the need to maintain a degree of diversity in media ownership and control. </p>
<p>Second, there is the question of content standards, both in terms of news standards and classification of media content in line with community standards. </p>
<p>Third, there are expectations that locally produced content that is broadly reflective of Australian culture, identity and diversity will continue to be available.</p>
<p>But the question of <em>who</em> should be regulated has become much more complex in a convergent media environment. </p>
<h2>Regulating the internet</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11447/original/wmpry9x7-1338954440.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11447/original/wmpry9x7-1338954440.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/11447/original/wmpry9x7-1338954440.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/11447/original/wmpry9x7-1338954440.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/11447/original/wmpry9x7-1338954440.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/11447/original/wmpry9x7-1338954440.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/11447/original/wmpry9x7-1338954440.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who will regulate the internet?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">kyz</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In discussions of media influence, a distinction is commonly made between “big media” on the one hand, who should be regulated more (the name “Rupert Murdoch” will often appear at this juncture) and the internet on the other, which should not be regulated at all.</p>
<p>But “the internet” is as much <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/">The Australian online</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/">BBC World</a>, <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/">CNN.com</a> or <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/iview/">ABC iView</a>, as it is blogging, online mashups or user-created content. </p>
<p>In other words, the commercial and the non-commercial, the mass media and citizen media, co-exist in the same online space. The question of media influence returns in a different form.</p>
<h2>Singling out big media</h2>
<p>The Convergence Review sought to address the question of when a media organisation becomes “big”, and hence appropriately subject to regulations, based on its potential for influence, with the concept of a “Content Service Enterprise” (CSE).</p>
<p>The Final Report defined a CSE as a media content provider which has more than 500,000 Australian users per month, and $50m <em>per annum</em> of revenue from Australian-sourced professional content.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the 15 companies that met these guidelines are all conventional media businesses. But the CSE label could in principle be extended to companies such as Telstra, Google and Apple, depending upon where thresholds are set and future growth trajectories.</p>
<p>If the CSE concept were extended to global media companies, the question would arise of Australian jurisdictional authority over these businesses. Rather than maintaining the current fiction of unenforceable laws, it may be that <em>deeming</em> provisions could exist so that decisions made elsewhere could be applicable under Australian laws and regulations. </p>
<p>An example applies with computer games, where classifications developed in North America or Europe could be deemed to apply to games sold in Australia. Another version of deeming would be to recognise the classifications given to media content by online stores such as Apple iTunes or the Google Android platform, subject to approval of the standards applied by the Australian regulator.</p>
<h2>Regulating the regulator</h2>
<p>Much attention has been given to the question of “who regulates”. One message that came through from the National Classification Review was that Australians were less concerned with who classified different media than with the question of trusting those doing it to have an appropriate professional distance from corporate self-interest.</p>
<p>Another difficulty is that convergent media policy brings together different organisational cultures and traditions of regulation. So what looks like deregulation for broadcasters can look like more regulation from the point of view of newspapers. And naturally each sector will present what is in their interests as being in the public interest more broadly.</p>
<p>But even these traditions of media policy horse-trading, which are a long standing feature of the Australian media policy landscape, are changing. </p>
<p>Whereas it is still pretty clear who constitutes the television industry or the newspaper industry, it is less clear what constitutes digital content or social media industries.</p>
<p>Meeting with Apple, Google, Facebook or Microsoft introduces you to very different corporate entities, with very different corporate cultures, business models, and relationships to their consumers. </p>
<p>Establishing a new regulatory framework for convergent media raises not only the challenges of established media operating across different platforms, but the ever-growing fluidity attached to the concept of “media” itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7251/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Flew headed the National Classification Scheme Review for the Australian Law Reform Commission, whose final report, Classification - Content Regulation and Convergent Media was released in March 2012. </span></em></p>It’s been a remarkably busy year for Australian media policy. There have been three major reports released that address the future of media policy and regulation in the context of convergent media: the…Terry Flew, Professor of Media and Communications, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/74272012-06-04T04:57:40Z2012-06-04T04:57:40ZCreeping or jumping to control? Gina Rinehart, Fairfax and the Corporations Act<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11334/original/gn98m4m9-1338778385.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gina Rinehart's increased stake in Fairfax Media has fuelled speculation of a future takeover bid.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Takeovers are about control. Gina Rinehart’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3420058.htm">acquisition of Fairfax Media Limited shares</a>] - and increased stake in the company - has raised several questions about the nature of control in listed companies. </p>
<p>For most investors, control (or the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 regulating takeovers) are never relevant, as they simply don’t have the finances to trigger either media interest or threshold prohibitions. </p>
<p>There are a number of implications in relation to Rinehart’s acquisitions. Depending on how she proceeds with her acquisitions in Fairfax in the future, the provisions relating to takeovers (and acquisitions generally) in chapter 6 of the Corporations Act may be relevant. </p>
<p>Secondly, as a substantial holding shareholder in (together with Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and subsidiaries), and a director of, Ten Network Holdings Ltd (Channel 10), there may possibly be issues regarding the convergence of her media interests.</p>
<p>Potentially relevant here are the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 as amended; the Competition and Consumer Act 2010; and the federal government’s recent Convergence Review Final Report of March 2012.</p>
<p>Rinehart, through Hancock Prospecting, is the major shareholder in Fairfax. However, she was overlooked when a recent board retirement created the opportunity for appointment. </p>
<p>In these circumstances, and unless the Fairfax board reconsiders its options, it seems election to the board will require Rinehart to turn to the support of the company’s retail and institutional shareholders. Of course, she could acquire the shares herself – in other words, make a takeover bid. </p>
<p>At present, the level of Rinehart’s shareholding does not exceed the threshold in s 606 of the Corporations Act, which sets out that a person must not acquire a relevant interest in issued voting shares in a company if to do so would take that person’s voting power from 20% or below to more than 20%, or from a starting point that is above 20% and below 90%. </p>
<p>However, if she did decide to make a move, then she would be required to choose between a market bid (announced on the stock exchange), which must be in cash and for all the remaining voting shares in the bid class, or an off-market bid (a private offer) that is more flexible, allowing the offer to include cash and/or securities in the bidder. Sections 618 to 623 of the Corporations Act set out the requirements for both types of bids.</p>
<p>Alternatively, Rinehart may choose not to enter a fully blown takeover situation, but instead opt to continue to edge forward with regular acquisitions. This may result in her increased holding bringing renewed pressure to bear on the board (securing a seat and minimising upheaval), or increasing her presence may provide a launching pad for a bid in the future. Of course, once the 20% threshold is exceeded her hand will be forced and a formal bid process commenced.</p>
<p>However, there is still the availability in the Corporations Act for acquisitions above the threshold without the need to undertake one of the permitted means of acquisition; that is, without the need for a market or off-market bid. This is by way of the creep provision in s 611. As it sounds, this does not deliver immediate control. However, it does allow a potential bidder who is about to exceed (or has exceeded) 20% to edge closer to the perimeter of control and thereby make the jump to the desired level of control less severe. </p>
<p>Section 611 sets out that in the six months prior to an acquisition, if a person has had voting power in the company of at least 19% and as a result of the acquisition the person would have voting power in the company to a level of not more than 3% higher than they had six months before the acquisition, then such acquisition is exempt from the prohibitions. </p>
<p>Accordingly, a person with at least 19% voting power for a continuous period of six months can acquire up to a further 3% in the six-month period immediately following.</p>
<p>The other matter relevant to achieving control is recognising exactly what that word means in each particular situation. Rinehart, it seems, wants a seat on the board of Fairfax. Directors are elected by way of an ordinary resolution requiring a simple majority (50%). </p>
<p>However, it is rare for all of a listed company’s shareholders to participate in electing directors. In most cases, the board is elected by majorities that are drawn not from all shareholders (because all do not attend), but from those attending the meeting at which the vote is held, or those who have given proxies. Convincing those most likely to vote thereby becomes an important strategy.</p>
<p>Control comes in many forms. But as far as companies are concerned, control cannot resist growing shareholder presence indefinitely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7427/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Quilter 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>Takeovers are about control. Gina Rinehart’s acquisition of Fairfax Media Limited shares] - and increased stake in the company - has raised several questions about the nature of control in listed companies…Michael Quilter, Senior Lecturer, Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/67622012-05-23T20:39:49Z2012-05-23T20:39:49ZGirls on film: could new regulations stop the sexualisation of children?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10856/original/pd9c9zhw-1337573619.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Limiting children’s access to now widespread "pornified" media will require serious political will.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">lamont_cranston/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Soft porn music videos on television. Girls mini-mags featuring fashion and celebrity gossip at the supermarket checkout. Porn at eye-level in the petrol station. Billboards on the trips in between. </p>
<p>As a parent in 2012, how was your weekend? If you’re fed up and you’d like to see a healthy media environment for children as a higher political priority, you’re not alone. </p>
<p>In 2008, a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/index.htm">Senate Inquiry into the sexualisation of children in contemporary media</a> concluded that “preventing the premature sexualisation of children is a significant cultural challenge”. It went on to say that the “onus is on broadcasters, publishers, advertisers, retailers and manufacturers to take account of these community concerns.” </p>
<p>But have those industries profiting from media that contribute to sexualisation changed anything in the past four years? Not enough to make a difference for the average parent and child, that’s for sure – so politicians taking a stronger stand is now well overdue. </p>
<p>More decisive action by government has been practically difficult so far, because media regulation has been scattered over a range of different bodies originally created for distinct media industries (print, television, radio). This multiplied the level of both political and administrative effort needed to implement regulatory changes putting the brakes on industry-led sexualisation.</p>
<p>This practical barrier may be starting to shift, however, because historically patchwork media regulation doesn’t reflect the reality of the digital era. Now, the same media content can be accessed via a range of different technologies (print, television and radio are at least partially available via any internet-enabled device). </p>
<p>This merging of previously distinct media industries is known as “convergence”, and regulating it appropriately is the topic of the recently released <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review</a>. </p>
<p>The Convergence Review recommended a new content-across-platforms regulator, which, in principle, would enable consistent regulation of media content across different technological platforms; that is, regardless of the device used to access the content. If this recommendation were to be implemented, the task of acting to reduce sexualising media content would become significantly simpler for government. </p>
<p>Although the underlying and major issue of industry opposition to change would remain, the place where government could begin to confront it would be centralised. So far, so good. But to what degree does the Review specifically address sexualisation?</p>
<p>In media regulation, classification is normally used to restrict access to harmful or offensive material. The G, PG, M, MA, and AV ratings for television are examples of classifications, and are used in conjunction with time periods during television programming in order to restrict children’s access to material unsuitable for them. </p>
<p>On matters relating to classification, the Convergence Review largely defers to a <a href="http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/classification-content-regulation-and-convergent-media-alrc-report-118">report released earlier this year by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC)</a>. The focus of the ALRC report is on restricting children’s access to sexually explicit material.</p>
<p>Important as this is, it leaves an awful lot out. In terms of the definitions used by regulators, much material that concerns both parents and experts in child health and development is not “sexually explicit” but “sexually suggestive” (four examples were given at the start of this article). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10859/original/swjcw2yb-1337574303.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10859/original/swjcw2yb-1337574303.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10859/original/swjcw2yb-1337574303.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10859/original/swjcw2yb-1337574303.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10859/original/swjcw2yb-1337574303.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10859/original/swjcw2yb-1337574303.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10859/original/swjcw2yb-1337574303.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Musicians such as Lady Gaga have been criticised for their overt sexuality as role models for children</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Alfred Hermida</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As any parent knows, children face a tsunami of heavily sexually suggestive media content in the course of their normal interactions within the broader community. </p>
<p>Limiting children’s access to now widespread “pornified” media will require serious political will. Fortunately, there’s strong and consistently expressed community concern about the impacts of sexualisation on children. </p>
<p>Experts are also concerned about its contribution to body and self-image issues, now common in primary school children. Such issues are associated with low self-esteem and self-worth, and risk developing further into depression, anxiety and disordered eating behaviours. </p>
<p>Barely a month ago, the <a href="http://ama.com.au/node/7672">Australian Medical Association</a> – concerned at the risks sexualisation poses for child health – called for a new inquiry into the issue. </p>
<p>It is as yet unclear to what degree the Convergence Review will be implemented. But if it is, new, stricter standards to support the rights of children to a healthy media environment should be included in a streamlined content regulation system stretching across all media modes. </p>
<p>The battle to ensure that such standards are enforced would remain. But creating a media regulation framework that acknowledges the rights of children to participate in general community life without risks to their health would be a good start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6762/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Rush 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>Soft porn music videos on television. Girls mini-mags featuring fashion and celebrity gossip at the supermarket checkout. Porn at eye-level in the petrol station. Billboards on the trips in between. As…Emma Rush, Lecturer, Philosophy & Ethics, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/67662012-05-02T04:18:24Z2012-05-02T04:18:24ZConvergence Review: a bet each way on user-generated content<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10198/original/j2p5vfmp-1335851219.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C35%2C615%2C407&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Convergence Review came close to understanding the nature of user-generated content but not quite.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Bruce Clay, Inc</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian Federal Government’s Convergence Review, released yesterday, had a mammoth task. It was trying to establish just how to regulate the future standards, conduct, and technical aspects of today’s media, with all its differing platforms.</p>
<p>How do you regulate and protect consumers and producers at a time when we can watch television on our mobiles and user-generated web video on the television?</p>
<p>The government has proposed a <a href="http://theconversation.com/convergence-review-the-call-for-regulation-will-be-unpopular-with-established-media-6748">single regulator for all media platforms</a>. But the Review’s stance on regulation is somewhat inconsistent, at least when it comes to the thorny issue of user-generated content in social media. </p>
<p>It could have been more bold too on Copyright issues, representing a lost opportunity to push for improved positive fair use rights for the use of copyright material in user-generated content.</p>
<h2>Regulation of user-generated content</h2>
<p>The Review consistently argues that regulation should have a “light touch” and only be focused on “significant enterprises.”</p>
<p>The report states that this is “a significant change moving away from regulation defined by the platforms on which services are delivered” and that “content from social media including bloggers and user-generated content should be free from new regulation.”</p>
<p>This could be seen as a real step forward in governmental understanding of the nature of social media platforms and an implicit recognition that freedom of expression is a critical aspect of a converged media.</p>
<p>But the review falls short not only on regulation but also on the relationship between convergence and freedom of expression.</p>
<h2>Industry or government regulation?</h2>
<p>The Review argues that industry regulation of user-generated content is likely to be better than governmental regulation, but also notes the problem of limited accountability.</p>
<p>The report outlines the problem that some hosts of user-generated material are “only scrutinised if users complain” meaning they have “limited accountability for their content.” </p>
<p>But the Review’s authors try to have a bet each way here. The report approvingly cites a <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmcumeds/353/353.pdf">2008 investigation by the UK House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee into online content</a>, which stated: </p>
<p>“It is not standard practice for staff employed by social networking sites or video sharing sites to preview content before it can be viewed by consumers. Some firms do not even undertake routine review of material uploaded, claiming that the volumes involved make it impractical. We were not persuaded by this argument, and we recommend that proactive review of content should be standard practice for sites hosting user-generated content.”</p>
<p>This is strongly related to the kind of potentially crippling requirement that led to the anti-SOPA/PIPA Internet Blackout in January this year. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act">anti-SOPA/PIPA blackout</a> was in response to the proposal for active monitoring of copyright violation. </p>
<p>In the Review, what and how much a “proactive review of content” is supposed to encompass is not directly defined, which might open the door to very wide monitoring and other requirements. </p>
<p>The report’s authors seem most concerned about preventing the viewing of inappropriate content, especially by children. The Review proposes that there needs to be a combination of local technologies, such as parental locks, and more infrastructural technologies and regulations. </p>
<p>This is where the Review starts to stray into more-or-less tacit approval of various schemes to restrict access to material deemed inappropriate. It does not, thankfully, recommend the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia">“Rabbit-Proof Fence” approach of ISP filtering that failed in 2010</a>, but nor does it argue strongly against it. </p>
<p>Instead, Appendix F covers links between the Review and <a href="http://www.alrc.gov.au/news-media/media-release/alrc-recommends-new-national-classification-scheme">the ALRC National Classification Scheme review</a>. But remains vague about its own conclusions on the issue.</p>
<h2>Retransmission, copyright, and fair use</h2>
<p>In the guise of not treading on the toes of the upcoming ALRC Copyright Review, the Review takes a very timid stance on discussing copyright issues. </p>
<p>The Review discusses only “retransmission” of broadcasts across platforms, not other copyright issues brought up by user-generated content. </p>
<p>I am thinking particularly here of the <a href="http://seanrintel.com/2012/01/25/creativity-versus-copyright-lessons-from-the-reddit-zombie-apocalypse/">positive fair use of images, video, or audio from copyright sources mixed into/mashed-up in user images, videos, or audio</a>. This is a central issue in the convergence debate, but the Review basically leaves this to a single paragraph at the end of a small section on retransmission:</p>
<p>“Noting the recommendation that there be no licence required to provide any content service (see Chapter 1), the current retransmission rules will need to be reviewed…The Convergence Review proposes that the issue of retransmission be examined as part of this ALRC review.”</p>
<p>It continues: “The Review also proposes that in investigating content-related competition issues, the regulator should have regard to copyright implications and be able to refer any resulting copyright issues to the relevant minister for further consideration by the government”.</p>
<p>The omission of even defining positive fair use as a convergence issue, let alone taking a stand, is unfortunate. It is a missed opportunity to push for positive user rights to the fair use of copyright content. </p>
<p>While I agree that the ALRC Review is indeed the place for a fully detailed investigation of retransmission and other issues, the Convergence Review does not strongly take up the cause or rights of active users except as multi-platform consumers. </p>
<p>The ALRC Review, then, will not be able to treat the Convergence Review as a source of alignment between notions of convergence with those of personal fair use.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6766/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sean Rintel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Australian Federal Government’s Convergence Review, released yesterday, had a mammoth task. It was trying to establish just how to regulate the future standards, conduct, and technical aspects of today’s…Sean Rintel, Lecturer in Strategic Communication, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/67892012-05-02T02:00:53Z2012-05-02T02:00:53ZMurdoch and media regulation: blind eyes and broadcasters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10220/original/49gp8p35-1335919103.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C269%2C1925%2C1314&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Murdoch’s “blind eye” on managerial overcommitment – too many media outlets, too little time – is unsurprising. But we need some tough decisions on the balance between media self-regulation and public oversight.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What are we going to do about media regulation? </p>
<p>This week saw release of the 81 page report of the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review</a>, an Australian Government document that deals with broadcast regulation and offers a litany of recommendations. Most of the recommendations are likely to be disregarded by both the ALP and the Coalition, consigned to the “Yes Minister” basket (“nice idea but politically impractical and administratively inconvenient”) that has been the final resting place of a succession of reviews since the 1950s. </p>
<p>The same week saw release of the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-sport/Final_Report_VOL_I_News_Int_and_Phone-hacking.pdf">report by the UK parliament’s Culture Media and Sport Select Committee</a> into News International and phone-hacking. That document will presumably to be denounced by News publications as egregiously partisan or – more persuasively – as ignorant of the realities of managing a global corporation in a difficult environment. However, it offers a damning assessment of corporate governance in one of Australia’s dominant media conglomerates. </p>
<p>The report asks whether Rupert Murdoch “turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications”. It condemns “the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International”, criticising several News senior executives rather than singling out Mr Murdoch.</p>
<p>It concludes that Murdoch “is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company”.
Murdoch may well respond to that criticism by taking a well-earned early retirement (at 81 it’s surely time to relax and engage in good works like his mother). Some family members will presumably relinquish positions, being replaced by siblings or proxies.</p>
<p>Irrespective of what happens with the Murdoch clan and restive private equity, the two reports pose questions for corporate governance in the Australian media industry, the same governance that was highlighted by the recent <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0015/147012/Report-of-the-Independent-Inquiry-into-the-Media-and-Media-Regulation-web.doc">Finkelstein Review</a> that was so passionately denounced by News journalists. Do we require board members and senior executives to be “fit and proper persons”, individuals who are socially responsible and vigilant in self-policing of corporate misbehaviour? Can we leave regulation to those whose behaviour indicates that they need to be regulated? </p>
<p>Murdoch’s “blind eye” or managerial overcommitment – too many media outlets, too little time - is unsurprising rather than an aberration. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Aitken,_Lord_Beaverbrook">Lord Beaverbrook</a> engaged in insider trading. Robert Maxwell silenced critics with defamation action while looting the corporate pension fund after the UK Government ignored a finding that he was indeed not a “fit and proper person”. In Australia the history of colourful media entrepreneurs whose probity was elastic includes Ezra Norton, Alan Bond, Christopher Skase, Conrad Black and Kerry Packer. </p>
<p>The Finkelstein Review <a href="http://theconversation.com/self-regulation-and-a-media-we-can-trust-6466">suggested</a> that we need to look hard – and make some tough decisions – at the balance between media self-regulation and public oversight. Given the media’s preoccupation with the Slipper Affair it is unlikely that the Government will make those decisions.</p>
<p>The same theme is also apparent in the Convergence Review report, a more political document. Its 31 recommendations emphasise self-regulation (with certification by a replacement for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), in essence an exercise in rebadging and bigger budgets rather than structural change). The recommendations also embrace the promotion of “fairness, accuracy and transparency” and tweaking of media ownership rules. </p>
<p>No Commonwealth bureaucrat ever got fired for chanting mantras about fairness, accuracy, transparency or motherhood. The promotion of those values will of course by undertaken by “the usual suspects”, people beholden to private equity and bankers rather than a wider range of stakeholders. </p>
<p>From a governance perspective corporate misbehaviour and timely meaningful responses appear to be located on different planets, rather than merely on different continents, and the report is essentially a recipe for “the more things change, the more they stay the same”. </p>
<p>That assumption of Australian exceptionalism – that corporate misbehaviour is somehow restricted to Tokyo, London and New York rather than filtering down to local executive suites and board rooms – is naïve and regrettable. It’s abetted by a generation of MBA factories that have turned a Murdochian blind eye to notions of corporate social responsibility and best practice corporate governance, evident in for example the ingenuity of <a href="http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/11387/PartA.pdf">James Hardie in offshoring its assets</a> while leaving asbestos victims behind. Works such as Nick Herd’s <a href="http://www.currencyhouse.org.au/node/222">Networking: Commercial Television in Australia</a> suggest that in debates about media policy, money has always talked louder than words about values and that a succession of reports have been ignored by Governments or disregarded by regulatory bodies. </p>
<p>It’s time for academia to look beyond the pieties of the Convergence Review and ask hard questions that can be embraced by voters rather than timid politicians.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6789/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold 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>What are we going to do about media regulation? This week saw release of the 81 page report of the Convergence Review, an Australian Government document that deals with broadcast regulation and offers…Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag: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/67532012-05-01T01:47:13Z2012-05-01T01:47:13ZConvergence Review: tame cat Press Council gets playmate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10158/original/jzh54nrd-1335832206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The line between traditional and new media has now blurred into indistinguishability.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">flickr/francescominciotti</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It should be easy for the Gillard Government to accept the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review#report">recommendations</a> of the Convergence Review. </p>
<p>On the surface it seems all very sensible: a converged <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Press Council</a> and <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> (ACMA) to keep news organisations honest, easy to understand rules regarding media ownership, extra television channels, more Australian audio visual content, more local content, and a technology-neutral and flexible approach to media content standards. </p>
<p>(Listen to Glen Boreham from the Convergence Review team on Radio National this morning <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/report-recommends-media-changes-glen-boreham/3982056">here</a>.)</p>
<p>Some of the recommendations will be warmly welcomed – who wouldn’t support more locally made kids programs, dramas and documentaries? Who wouldn’t support more Australian music? (Even if it won’t be on the digital airways).</p>
<p>The key recommendation for journalists, to beef up the current Press Council (and rename it to a news standards body), appears sensible.</p>
<h2>Tinkering around the edges?</h2>
<p>Many in the Australian media have long argued the need for a one-stop shop for news standards which adjudicates on complaints and provides timely remedies. </p>
<p>Putting the Australian Press Council and ACMA together recognises the reality of today’s media. As the report states, “In a converged world it is no longer viable to argue that news and commentary in print media should be treated differently from news and commentary in television, radio and online. The new industry-led body should cover all platforms—print and online, television and radio.” </p>
<p>For the punters, it has always been difficult to figure out exactly where to complain or seek redress when legal action has been financially out of reach. </p>
<p>There are some strong recommendations which deserve to be applauded, but the bottom line is, the recommendations of the Convergence Review will likely do little to <a href="https://theconversation.com/search?q=phone+hacking">solve the problems that prompted public concern</a> in the United Kingdom and in Australia about news organisations their culture, ethics and practices.</p>
<h2>Culture and ethics: can they change?</h2>
<p>Unless forced, I doubt the new standards body will be able to agree to enforce a common media code aimed at promoting fairness, accuracy and transparency. Aggrieved parties have had difficulty getting action from the current Press Council, and with the addition of other content providers such as the ABC and free-to-air TV, getting agreement on action will likely be that much harder. </p>
<p>Similarly, it is unlikely that the members will agree on credible sanctions and the enforced prominent publication of its findings. While the ABC might be happy to run a full program correcting the record, I can’t imagine ever seeing a front page correction from the major broadsheets or at a fully replaced program on the tabloid current affairs programs. </p>
<p>It’s all about culture and ethics, and every news organisation has a different one, just ask those who work at NewsCorp, Fairfax, Crikey, the ABC, the Global Mail and Mammamia.com. </p>
<p>Further, the Review had not included social media and user generated content. While being defamed on a butterfly collectors blog may seem a small deal to those outside the group, it is potentially devastating, even if only 400 people have read it.</p>
<h2>News suppliers</h2>
<p>Like the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Finklestein Inquiry</a>, the Convergence Review ignores the power of the suppliers of “news”. In this regard <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/business/on-balance-its-a-pr-plague-20090303-8nex.html">Michael West is right</a> when he says that the PR plague is out of hand. </p>
<p>The PR industry is like an arms dealer supplying the fighters in a third world guerrilla war, while the journos are child soldiers unwillingly conscripted to the other side. One of the most startling pieces of evidence at the <a href="http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/">Leeveson inquiry</a> was Rupert Murdoch finally admitting that all the salacious “news” in the Sun came from PR. </p>
<p>The Convergence Review notes that it is in the public interest for the body to be appropriately resourced, and to this end suggests government contributions limited to specific purposes. However, this keeps the government (or as I’d like to say the public) out of the main debate. </p>
<p>This kind of tokenistic funding can’t help provide a much needed cultural change and will instead be like water in milk, immediately diluted.</p>
<h2>Who pays the piper</h2>
<p>The review says the majority of funding for the journalism body should come from its members. This would continue to give the existing news organisations the same power they currently have with the Press Council – the power to do little. </p>
<p>Not only that, the owners of our established but struggling news organisations are already finding it difficult to maintain or grow revenue. Current members are unlikely to want to sign up to more funding, and new members may have financial difficulties contributing. </p>
<p>Even yesterday the major television stations pleaded poverty over the proposed requirements to increase Australian content.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10163/original/xg8tgps3-1335833533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&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 ill not deal with the kind of cultura; issues like phone hacking that are worrying many Western citizens.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Facundo Arrizabalaga</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I applaud the idea that the news standards body will refer to the new communications regulator instances where there have been persistent or serious breaches of the media code, although I’m not sure how satisfactory this can be. </p>
<p>That leads to my most serious concern - the recommendation to give the regulator the legislated power to “write-its-own-rules”. While I do not fear government funding, I certainly fear any regulator being able to make up its own rules on the run, even with a dynamic media environment. </p>
<p>Certainly the policy framework should take a technology-neutral approach that can adapt to new services, platforms and technologies, but this should not be the expense of allowing a regulator that “can apply, amend or remove regulatory measures as circumstances require” without any referral to the government (read again the Australian people).</p>
<h2>Capital ideas</h2>
<p>There are a couple of other recommendations which are significant for anyone working in Australian journalism which I won’t dwell on. However, media ownership is a big issue Australia’s capital cities, but it is an even bigger issue in regional Australia. </p>
<p>Although the proposed “minimum number of owners” rule and a public interest test isn’t perfect, it’s a good step towards helping ensure a diversity of voices (and importantly jobs in the media for young Australians). </p>
<p>Also, it is important to keep the charters of both the ABC and the SBS up to date to expressly reflect the range of existing services, including online activities. No government funded organisation should work outside its charter. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6753/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake works as a freelance broadcaster, often with Radio Australia (Australian's international radio and online broadcaster). Alex previously worked with Professor Matthew Ricketson, one of the authors of the Finklestein Report. Ten years ago she worked as a senior media advisor to a state government minister. Alex is completing a PhD on journalism education in emerging democracies.
</span></em></p>It should be easy for the Gillard Government to accept the recommendations of the Convergence Review. On the surface it seems all very sensible: a converged Press Council and Australian Communications…Alexandra Wake, Lecturer, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/67522012-05-01T01:05:52Z2012-05-01T01:05:52ZConvergence Review: missed opportunity with Australian content<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10157/original/s3g4v9ms-1335832105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C377%2C2832%2C2119&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Convergence review's final recommendations have fallen short when it comes to Australian content.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review#report">Convergence Review Final Report</a> released yesterday appears at first blush to promise major changes to the Australian media landscape. </p>
<p>The report flags the creation of a new communications regulator and classification system, a new system for financing Australian content production, a new approach to spectrum management, and a new public interest test for changes in media ownership.</p>
<p>All of these recommendations were foreshadowed in the Review’s <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/143836/Convergence-Review-Interim-Report-web.pdf">Interim Report</a>, released in December. On the basis of that slim volume, <a href="https://theconversation.com/convergence-review-heralds-a-dramatic-shift-in-australian-media-4778">I argued then</a> that the review promised a dramatic shift in Australian media. </p>
<p>While I still think that if these changes are enacted (and that is not a small “if”) the media landscape will look very different in the future. Now with the benefit of more detail in the final report, I am not so sure that this belongs to the same forward-looking policy vision.</p>
<h2>What’s important?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/media-facing-new-watchdog/story-e6frg996-1226338364030">Media reporting</a> of the Convergence Review has concentrated on the headline proposal to create a new regulatory body. </p>
<p>But for the majority of Australians this is a side issue. For my part, it is not entirely clear why a brand new regulator is needed at all. </p>
<p>The recommendations around Australian content on the other hand will be of most obvious and immediate interest to the general public.</p>
<p>For an unspecified transitional period, the commercial free to air (FTA) broadcasters will still have to meet the existing quota of 55% Australian content. The quotas for Australian drama, documentary and children’s programming will be increased by 50%, although the additional programming can be spread across all of the FTA’s digital multi-channels. </p>
<p>The review proposes that for the first time, the ABC and SBS will be required to screen minimum amounts of Australian content – 55% and 22.5% respectively. The 10% minimum expenditure requirement on subscription television drama channels will be maintained for the moment, and augmented by a similar requirement for channels screening mostly children’s and documentary programs.</p>
<p>In radio, much to the relief of the local music industry, the rules requiring analog radio stations to play certain amounts of Australian music will be retained and expanded to cover digital services.</p>
<h2>Aussie content problems</h2>
<p>Unlike radio, content quotas on free to air television are to be phased out. In their place, the Review proposes a new system for financing content production. </p>
<p>But without quotas it will no longer be guaranteed that large volumes of Australian content will be made available on a free-to-view basis.</p>
<p>In fact, the review contains no provision to facilitate the distribution of either traditional or new Australian content. Unlike production, distribution will be left to market forces. </p>
<p>While it may seem reasonable to assume that media companies that are required to fund production will make that content available, it is no longer certain that Australian content will be widely distributed, or that current volumes will be maintained, let alone increased.</p>
<h2>Slipping through the net</h2>
<p>The major change in the final report relates to the proposal to shift the burden of funding Australian content from broadcasters to “content service enterprises” (CSEs). </p>
<p>CSEs are defined in the Interim Report as all groups who “provide audio-visual content, whether linear or non-linear”. But the final report narrows this definition dramatically.</p>
<p>Now only “the most substantial and influential media groups” will be categorised as CSEs. To qualify as a CSE, the Review suggests thresholds of around $50 million a year of Australian-sourced content service revenue and audience/users of 500,000 per month. This new definition means only 15 or so groups will be required to produce extra Australian content.</p>
<p>This captures companies that previously had no Australian content requirements, such as Fairfax Media and News Limited. But it deliberately excludes major players like Telstra, Google, Apple, Facebook and Internet service providers. Telstra and Google are excluded because, as this helpful graph baldly illustrates, they fall <em>just</em> outside the thresholds of revenue and scale that will define a CSE.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10159/original/sfpgn2dp-1335832438.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10159/original/sfpgn2dp-1335832438.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10159/original/sfpgn2dp-1335832438.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10159/original/sfpgn2dp-1335832438.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10159/original/sfpgn2dp-1335832438.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10159/original/sfpgn2dp-1335832438.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10159/original/sfpgn2dp-1335832438.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10159/original/sfpgn2dp-1335832438.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This graph shows who’s defined as a major media player and who’s not.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Convergence Review report/Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Lobbied changes</h2>
<p>Frankly, this is extraordinary – how on any measure can Telstra and Google not be regarded as “substantial and influential”?</p>
<p>But it is hardly surprising given these companies’ vigorous lobbying in recent months. Google even went so far as to <a href="http://www.bcg.com/documents/file101187.pdf">commission research</a> showing that while it facilitated enormous amounts of Australian content on YouTube – the ubiquitous <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/communitychannel">Natalie Tran</a> was namedropped again – it could not be considered to “control” the content. </p>
<p>Google, through its <a href="http://www.youtube.com/creators/original-channels.html">YouTube Original Channels</a> and content partnership programs, and Telstra through its half-ownership of Foxtel, its BigPond Movies and its online services, are indisputably major media groups. </p>
<p>And if, as was suggested in <a href="http://afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/telstra_media_plays_in_accc_sights_9fuMdq35qv9obyB4TEf4TK">this report</a>, Telstra may be in the market for a range of media acquisitions, it will soon become an even more significant market player.</p>
<h2>If not now then…</h2>
<p>Hopefully the Review is simply putting these companies on notice. Letting them know that while they will not receive a bill for Australian content tomorrow, it is inevitable that as their services grow they will soon be defined as CSEs and so liable to content regulation in the future.</p>
<p>The Interim Report suggested that the new regulations requiring financial support for Australian content production be implemented “as soon as practicable” for those CSEs “that do not use broadcast spectrum”. </p>
<p>This clearly suggests that the Review was anticipating that the scheme would capture a wide range of entities. But in the final report, all of the fifteen entities likely to be designated a CSE with three exceptions (Foxtel, News Limited and Fairfax Media) are existing users of broadcasting spectrum, and all have their origins and power bases in traditional media.</p>
<h2>Missed opportunity</h2>
<p>The Final Report does contain a number of specific proposals to foster new content and services. But in many ways it focused too heavily on traditional media. </p>
<p>The majority of new production funding will still go to traditional forms of (professional) screen content, and the burden of regulation will still fall most heavily on radio and television broadcasters.</p>
<p>While the government has committed to respond to the Review, no timeline has been provided. Given the fragility of the Parliamentary numbers, it is possible that the government will not want to risk picking any more fights and could ignore the report entirely. </p>
<p>In coming weeks, the major media players will no doubt pick apart the recommendations for a new regulator and a public interest test for media mergers, neither of which garnered much industry support during the Review. </p>
<p>For most participants though, the key issue was Australian content regulation. For me, the final report raises as many questions as it answers on this. I cannot help but feel that greater weight was given to the interests of the major media companies at the expense of the broader public interest. </p>
<p>An opportunity has been missed to establish the policy grounds on which innovative Australian content and new services might flourish in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6752/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Goldsmith works for the ARC Centre of Excellence in Creative Industries and Innovation at Queensland University of Technology. He wrote three submissions to the Convergence Review on behalf of the CCI. </span></em></p>The Convergence Review Final Report released yesterday appears at first blush to promise major changes to the Australian media landscape. The report flags the creation of a new communications regulator…Ben Goldsmith, Senior Research Fellow , Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed 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/64662012-04-17T00:37:34Z2012-04-17T00:37:34ZSelf-regulation and a media we can trust?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9657/original/bddms6n4-1334557372.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=65%2C11%2C1907%2C1248&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Seven West Media's decision to withdraw from the Australian Press Council raises questions about the Australian commercial media’s commitment to corporate social responsibility and best practice.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When the report of the Independent Inquiry into the media and media regulation, aka <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Finkelstein inquiry</a>, was released some time ago, it was <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_rise_of_the_totalitarians/">denounced as sinister</a> and – like the <a href="http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/">Leveson Inquiry</a> in the UK – as a totalitarian assault on freedom of speech. </p>
<p>Some critics were quick to construe freedom of speech as freedom of the press, a sacred freedom that has been traditionally enjoyed by investors who own a press and have the money to hire a QC or two.</p>
<p>Finkelstein highlighted concerns regarding the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a>, an industry body that has no statutory basis or powers, is poorly resourced, does not cover the electronic media and historically has been loath to bite the corporate hands that feed it. </p>
<p>Those hands of course belong to a few commercial media organisations, consistent with the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2809848.html">high level of media concentration</a> in Australia. A realist might be forgiven for concluding that the most effective watchdog of journalistic behaviour – and managerial tolerance of misbehaviour – is the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/">ABC’s Mediawatch</a> program rather than the Council or <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)</a> that emphasises “light touch” self-regulation and has thus only ever imposed derisory penalties on errant commercial broadcasters. </p>
<p>Finkelstein (and associate Matthew Ricketson of the University of Canberra) was criticised for proposing a government-funded but independent national News Media Council, an entity with appropriate resourcing and power. Consistent with the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">“convergence”</a> of media technologies and formats, the new body would be concerned with all media rather than in the words of former Prime Minister Paul Keating being restricted to the “princes of print”. </p>
<p>Critics indicated that regulation was best left to those who know what they are doing, that is, the managers and investors who control the media groups.</p>
<p>We might be forgiven - on reading the <a href="http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/business-unit-news/statement-from-seven-west-media.pdf">terse announcement</a> from Seven West Media (the WA-based magazines and television network conglomerate) that it is abandoning the Press Council and going it alone to “guarantee accountability of all the group’s publications” – for asking whether moving house is a demonstration of improved accountability. </p>
<p>Seven West reportedly plans to set up an Independent Media Council headed by <a href="http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13408733/former-judge-to-lead-media-council/">former judge, Christopher Steytler</a>, a body which West Australian Newspapers group editor-in-chief Bob Cronin has said will be independent of the company and governments.</p>
<p>But this still raises questions about the Australian commercial media’s commitment to corporate social responsibility and best practice. </p>
<p>Will each media group set up its own Independent Media Council, each with a distinguished person at the head and each with no power? Can we trust the managers and investors to police themselves (a problematical notion given the global financial crisis) and respond effectively when concerns are raised? </p>
<p>Meanwhile the remaining members of the Press Council, apparently unfussed by Seven West’s secession, are proposing to <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/strengthening-press-council-mr-5-april-2012/?LocatorGroupID=662&LocatorFormID=677&FromSearch=1">double their funding</a> of the Council. That’s admirable … and a small price to pay in avoiding establishment of a body that has sharp teeth. </p>
<p>Trust is a fundamental issue in an environment where billionaires such as <a href="http://theconversation.com/forget-the-personality-sideshow-serious-legal-issues-are-at-the-heart-of-rinehart-family-feud-5813">Gina Rinehart</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/lew-tries-to-gag-media-in-fight-for-trust-fund-millions-20120411-1ws5z.html#ixzz1rliIWCym">Solomon Lew</a> reach for suppression orders to privatise justice, where <a href="http://theconversation.com/tax-avoidance-or-tax-evasion-a-haven-for-misunderstanding-2405">some corporations and some colourful entrepreneurs</a> have quite legally arranged their affairs to pay derisory amounts of tax (perhaps we need to adopt <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4318382.stm">Norway’s</a> publication of tax returns) and the dominant parties are reluctant to “speak truth to power”. </p>
<p>In an “information economy” power resides in the hands of people who control mines, broadcasters and newspapers and can afford the best QCs in town in litigation that keeps personal information out of the public domain. If we are to protect the Rineharts and Lews, what about the accident victims whose pain, as noted by Finkelsten, was exposed by by the broadcasters? What of figures such as <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw-mp-apologises-seven-stands-by-story-20100521-w1y7.html">David Campbell</a>, “outed” by Seven Network staff and bereft of the comfort provided by a team of QCs queuing in the NSW Supreme Court for suppression orders?</p>
<p>From a regulatory perspective Seven West’s secession from the Press Council is disappointing - and possibly counterproductive to its aims. </p>
<p>A perceived flight from accountability is likely to reinforce calls for a national, whole-of-industry body that has teeth and is trusted. Trust is a foundation for courts heeding calls by the media not to privilege disputes involving the powerful through comprehensive suppression orders.</p>
<p>As Australia’s Chief Justice commented in a decision on the Rinehart dispute, “the proper conduct of trustees is a matter which warrants close public scrutiny”. That scrutiny is appropriate and imperative whether there is $500 million at stake, or $50. There are times when we should embrace notions of a freedom of the press that overrides concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality. Those notions however should not be taken as a given. They are founded on accountability.</p>
<p>In damning proposals for statutory protection against serious invasions of privacy (proposals recommended by law reform commissions in three Australian governments and thus presumably having some substance) the <a href="http://www.ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/Downloads/Freedom_of_the_Press_and_Freedom_of_Speech_in_Australia.pdf">Rule of Law Institute last year proclaimed</a> that:</p>
<p><em>Today, nearly 200 years after the first publication of the Australian newspaper, freedom of speech and freedom of the press remain under attack. This time the battle is the proposal of the Australian Government to pass a new law to make it illegal to talk or write the truth about another person where it “invades” that person’s privacy. …</em></p>
<p><em>… freedom of speech and freedom on the press are not limited to informing the public about matters of public concern. The Bill displays a fundamental misunderstanding of those freedoms and a desire to marginalise them.</em></p>
<p>Media groups that signal a disregard for accountability by becoming judge and jury arguably do as much to marginalise freedoms as any new statute. It’s time to embrace the Finkelstein Report.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6466/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold 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>When the report of the Independent Inquiry into the media and media regulation, aka Finkelstein inquiry, was released some time ago, it was denounced as sinister and – like the Leveson Inquiry in the UK…Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/47782011-12-16T03:44:51Z2011-12-16T03:44:51ZConvergence Review heralds a dramatic shift in Australian media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6506/original/4rs4w32s-1324005996.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C61%2C990%2C733&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New platforms and services will face the same requirements for content as traditional media.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Light on detail and raising many more questions than it answers, yesterday’s <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">Convergence Review</a> interim report is still bold and far-reaching, driven by a fundamentally optimistic view of the future for Australian culture, content and communication.</p>
<p>For the first time, new platforms and services – including those operating outside Australia – will be meeting the same regulatory requirements for Australian content as free-to-air and subscription television. </p>
<p>The broadcast services bands will be opened up, and a new market-based pricing system for spectrum will be instituted. Australian games companies, app developers and interactive content producers will have access to a tax offset previously only available to feature film and television drama producers. </p>
<p>The cross-media ownership rules, a focus of passionate debate in years gone by, will be scrapped, along with the limit on the reach of commercial free to air networks. A new public interest test will be introduced for media mergers and takeovers, to be administered by a new convergent regulator.</p>
<p>This last proposal for a new regulator, which was the draft report’s main headline, is also one of the most curious. While the other proposed changes will require substantial overhaul (and, the report claims, trimming down) of existing legislation, it is not immediately clear why the roles and responsibilities proposed for the new authority could not be performed by the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA).</p>
<p>The proposed changes to Australian content regulation are enterprising and oriented to an as-yet unclear future media environment. In line with the review’s consistent emphasis on “regulatory parity”, the report proposes that all “Content Service Enterprises” be required to commit a percentage of total production expenditure to specified Australian content, along the lines of that currently operating for select subscription television channels. </p>
<p>The category of Content Service Enterprises is a broad and as yet ill-defined class of entities providing programs and other content to Australian audiences on any delivery platform. </p>
<p>It appears likely to cover large and small Australian players such as the existing free to air and subscription television companies, Bigpond and <a href="http://www.fetchtv.com.au/">FetchTV</a>, as well as international services that supply content to Australians including, presumably, Facebook, YouTube, and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio">BBC iPlayer</a>. </p>
<p>Some <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/peak-bodies-warn-of-crippling-regulations/story-e6frg996-1226223403729">commentators</a> are already suggesting that the imposition of this requirement on international services will discourage them from operating in Australia and potentially lead some Australian services to relocate offshore. And there are many questions about how these enterprises will be identified and monitored. But in theory at least, this is a bold attempt to spread the responsibility for supporting Australian content production to all services operating here. </p>
<p>The report also prioritises the encouragement of innovation through proposals to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden in some areas (though it remains to be seen whether cost savings will flow through to research and development), and through the extension of the Producer Offset to games and interactive content producers. Changes to spectrum allocation and use could also conceivably promote the development of innovative content and services. </p>
<p>While the report contains scant detail about either the nuts and bolts of the proposals, or how particular recommendations were reached, the report represents a dramatic shift in thinking about the future of Australian media. </p>
<p>Presumably the fine points will be revealed in the final report to the government, due in March. Submissions are invited by February 10. In the meantime, we can look forward to robust debate on the merits of these proposals as the major players and vested interests digest what promises to be the most extensive and comprehensive set of changes to media policy and industry settings ever seen in this country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Goldsmith has worked on three submissions to the Convergence Review on behalf of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation.</span></em></p>Light on detail and raising many more questions than it answers, yesterday’s Convergence Review interim report is still bold and far-reaching, driven by a fundamentally optimistic view of the future for…Ben Goldsmith, Senior Research Fellow , Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.