Australian Media Reform and the Need For Decency

Australian politics huh? Can’t live with it, past the beer nuts.

Yesterday the Prime Minister was called a “Moll” during parliament question time in the House of Representatives and today we have the charming front page of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph in which Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy has been compared to Stalin, Mao and Castro among other despots.

Why? Because the government formally responded to the Convergence Review and Finkelstein Inquiry, which was commissioned by the government during the height of the Leveson Inquiry into the media in the UK and the shocking revelations that were camet to light during that investigation.

In short the government’s response encompasses the following points as outlined in the Minister’s media release:

• A press standards model which ensures strong self-regulation of the print and online news media.
• The introduction of a Public Interest Test to ensure diversity considerations are taken into account for nationally significant media mergers and acquisitions.
• Modernising the ABC and SBS charters to reflect their online and digital activities.
• Supporting community television services following digital switchover by providing them a permanent allocation of a portion of Channel A.
• Making permanent the 50% reduction in the license fees paid by commercial television broadcasters, conditional on the broadcast of an additional 1460 hours of Australian content by 2015.

To us punters this seems fairly meek and mild. It all seems to be encouraging diversity in the marketplace while recognizing that the role of public broadcasting has changed in the 21^st century. However undoubtedly the most controversial proposal is to strengthen self-regulation in the media with the introduction of a “public interest test” with a government appointed independent regulator know as a public interest media advocate.

Their role will be to decide whether a media merger or acquisition is in the national interest. Any mention of  “regulation” in the media space is meant by deafening cries of free speech from those within the fourth estate.  

The most dramatic outbursts have come from the right. The response from the Daily Telegraph’s has been hysterical, to say the least. The first paragraph in Kim Williams’ (Head of News Limited) article entitled, An aggressive attempt to silence your media, reads:

‘THIS government will go down in history as the first Australian government outside of wartime to attack freedom of speech by seeking to introduce a regime which effectively institutes government sanctioned journalism.’

First of all it’s not ‘our’ media, eleven of the 12 major newspapers in Australia are owned by News Limited or Fairfax Holdings. Fairfax who’s largest shareholder Gina Rinehart, also has a major stake in the flagging 10 Network wants to tear up its Charter of Editorial Independence and use Fairfax as her own ‘This Week in Mining” newsletter. The Murdoch media, still the dominant influence in the Australian media, serves its own business interests and does so blatantly in the absence of any editorial charter.

There is a distinct lack of diversity in media owensrhip in this country. But is there enough diversity of opinion?

This humble blogger believes there is, especially when you take into account social media and thriving blogging community, it is fair to say though that there is a vastly inequitable share of influence.

Crikey, which is Australia’s most successful and influential blog still only has 15,000 subscribers.  So what is the old guard worried about? What are the cries of free speech a ruse for? Other industries have self-regulation and as things stand, the Australian Press Council which is widely regarded as a toothless tiger that has limited power to ensure standards across the media. What's wrond with beefing up media laws that were watered down by the desperate and dying Howard government in 2007. Does this make Conroy a despot? 

Less hysterical opponents of the proposed regulation that defamation laws are sufficient to safeguard individuals and organisations against libelous claims in the media. In which case Senator Conroy may have course to avail himself of such laws.

The real point of this article is to once again highlight the low level of discourse in Australia around issues of importance and the media has a huge role to play in this discourse. The Telegraph’s response to the government’s proposal is a joke and a poorly executed one at that.  The day-to-day inflamatory language writ large in mainstream and social media leads to incidents like yesterday where our first female Prime Minister is called a Moll in the very home of Australian democracy. Standards need to lift, how to do it is up for debate, but what is clear is that something needs to change.

The Australian public deserves better.