Time for Finkelstein? Australians need to rewind the media policy machine
In this cross-posting from The Conversation Bruce Baer Arnold of the University of Canberra argues the government needs to revisit the Finkelstein Report as a guide to help overhaul media regulation.
As Australia drifts between national elections it is time, once again, to ask some hard questions about media policy. Those questions should be asked and answered by all Australians rather than just by Malcolm Turnbull, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Shorten, Kerry Stokes, Bruce Gyngell and Tony Abbott.
A guide is provided by the Finkelstein Report, a victim of political opportunism and ALP infighting.
Another guide is provided by a poll in the UK, which suggests that non-specialists are interested in media policy, in particular the development of policy that reinforces integrity through accountability.
Responsiveness by politicians to that interest will go some way to overcoming the disengagement that is recurrently lamented by the major parties and that fosters micro-parties that rely on personality rather than policy.
What do the people think?
The UK poll is specifically concerned with media regulation. It is an expression of attitudes by ordinary people. We don’t have a local counterpart – an independent study is needed – but we can draw some conclusions.
One conclusion is that we need to rewind the policy machine, with another viewing of the Finkelstein Report.
The UK poll was run by YouGov for the Media Reform Coalition, an advocacy group that reflects concerns regarding competition policy, editorial interference and scandals such as Hackergate.
The group reports that 74 per cent believe that ownership of a UK television channel, radio station or newspaper should be dependent on the company being based in the UK. No more dutch sandwiches – companies should pay full UK tax.
The poll found 61 per cent of respondents favour compulsory governance mechanisms, such as truly independent editorial boards, to reduce editorial interference. And 41 per cent want strengthening of media ownership rules to restrict the market dominance of any one organisation.
It is likely that Australian voters, so disillusioned by the theatrics in Canberra that you’d have to drag them away from Game of Thrones, have much the same attitude. They haven’t been soured by Hackergate but are disquieted by media bias, perceived inequity in corporate taxation, inconsistencies in competition law and ongoing attacks on the ABC.
Why we should rethink the rules
The Finkelstein Report highlighted questions about media concentration and self-regulation. These are questions that we need to consider because ownership, governance and editorial decisions affect informed policy-making and community disengagement in an era where traditional demarcations between print and broadcast are no longer relevant.
We need to think about media concentration in general, something elided in the recent Harper Review of Australia’s competition framework. Does it matter who owns the dominant channels, as long as the content is diverse and fair? Why do we have a nationality requirement, or a character requirement regarding broadcast ownership?
Should we be regulating Google and Facebook alongside Channel Nine, given that many people now rely on “new media” for current affairs information rather than just entertainment? Why are the broadcasters dealt with by ACMA, a government agency, when regulation of newspapers and magazines is done by print magnates for print magnates in the form of the Australian Press Council? Should we disregard the ineffectiveness of the Press Council, in the expectation that newspapers will either wither or go online?
Does the national government have the ability to restrict media corporations from structuring the operation to avoid the sort of tax obligations faced by most people? Do the ALP and LP/NP have the will to restrict that restructuring? Should we regard Google and Apple as media groups, rather than focusing on the Herald Sun and SevenWest?
The unhappiness evident in the UK poll is romantic, because there is no sign that any of the UK parties will take meaningful action. We don’t, however, need to despair. We need instead an informed national discussion about the shape of the Australian media and the nature of any regulation. We should expect politicians to lead that discussion, articulate issues and offer proposals.
A basis for that discussion would be to do a rerun of Finkelstein, in the same way that a classic television series is well worth another viewing. Ask some hard questions. Find out what people want. Give them a sense of why particular solutions might be ineffective.
Trust the people, rather than reinforcing disengagement by failing to inform them and restricting policy-making to Canberra insiders. That is, after all, what we want from a liberal democratic state.
Bruce Baer Arnold is Assistant Professor, School of Law at University of Canberra.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
Finkelstein dodged the hard question. How can you have free speech if you muzzle the media?
Exactly where in the Finkelstein Report is it recommended or implied that the media need to be muzzled Paul? Refer to the section(s) and I’ll give it a re-read.
Isn’t the hard question rather ‘ How can you have free speech without a diverse and responsible press?
Fink did not address competition policy or media concentration in any serious way. It’s evidence was token and largely parades of totally predictable opinion. Its conclusions were banal and inoperable.
What we face is a very likely collapse of Fairfax. Its main titles are already seriously diminished, operating increasingly as clickbait and financially fragile. They have given up on any serious news enquiry and rely only on opinion and one or two reporters like McClymont for the remnant reputation.
News is clearly sweating on the demise of Fairfax to become the monopoly provider of “news”. (That must be the sole commercial justification for the Oz, for example, and certainly explains the extreme tactics of malice they have employed against Fairfax in recent years.)
The ABC is shrinking back to Sydney, with a bit of Canberra. The regional media are shrinking fast now.
My point is that the primary news sources are largely gone, which is why we see so much recycled “opinion” and PR as “news”. Soon they may be gone forever.
Turnbull and others like to say the internet has delivered diversity in news, which is nonsense. The web does allow us to read the NYT instead of a single correspondent, but the population of those who question governments, poliicing, corporates etc is diminished and the ones that are left are producing little in the way of valuable news.
What is seriously required is aggressive competition policy that takes account of disruption.
Bruce Gyngell? Shurely Shome Mishtake?
The Finklestein report recommended that Government should regulate content, despite the source or popularity of the channel. Taking an example from the report, any digital channel that receives more than 15,000 hits a year should be subjected to a new super regulator with the power to remove content. This would include the vast majority of sites in Australia.
Let’s look at the 15,000 “hits”. The report does not define “hits”. There are so many possibilities. Websites display pages, and each time a page is displayed, it’s regarded as a hit. “Hits” can also be regarded as the unique elements within a site, where one single page might have an image, text and an ad, which may be three separate “hits”. Or a “hit” could be a single visitor. The most suitable definition in this instance is “HITS” as an acronym for “How Idiots Track Success”.
Then, assuming that the definition of “internet site” a catch-all, then even a small Facebook Fan Page with an average of 41 viewers per day (totalling 15,000 per year) would come under the jurisdiction of this super-regulator.
If the recommendations were taken to their logical conclusion, then the idea of Government controlling our very personal expression would have become a reality. Considering that the average Australian has approximately 130 Facebook friends, and considering at least 13-17% of these people see our every Facebook post, if we posted twice a day, then we would have 44 “hits” per day, over 15,000 “hits” per year, and we would be compelled under law to write (or remove) whatever the Government wanted.
The Gillard / Rudd Government’s ultimate failure in media regulation was that they deliberately commissioned these reports in an effort to control communications, rather than cultivate free speech and innovation. They vainly sought to restrict the number of voices, and seek to control what those existing voices said. There was and is simply no need for Government to play a role – there is nothing a Government can do to improve diversity and control content standards without putting Australia into the Dark Ages.