tip off

Simons: the bottom line … news or profitability?

There is a respectable point of view among those who analyse media businesses that the smartest thing serious news journalism could do is move to the political right.

Why? Because most of those with the willingness and capacity to pay for news content are comparatively wealthy individuals in business — business news being one of the things they are willing to pay for. Also, that these are the individuals premium advertisers most wish to reach.

Among this school of analysts are those who see The Australian’s conservative bent as being not only about the personal views of the proprietor and editor, but also about business good sense. It follows from this that Fairfax Media, with its more liberal leanings, is not being so smart.

Which brings us to Gina Rinehart, and the views expressed on Wednesday by Hungry Jack’s founder,  Ten Network board member and Rinehart adviser Jack Cowin, who is quoted as saying the Fairfax board should have the power to change the editorial direction of the company. He said newspapers were a business and that ”the purpose of the newspaper … is probably to portray the facts in a manner that is going to attract readership”. And: ”The purpose of a company is to try to make a profits and if the editorial policy … is not optimising the opportunity then it’s the role of the directors to try to change the direction.”

All of which raises that old chestnut of whether journalism is just a business, like any other, or whether it is a public trust. Nothing new about that debate, but like everything else in media and citizenship it is rendered newly urgent by the changes technology is making to how we can inform each other, and be informed, and because of the impact of that technological change on news media business models.

It is worth pointing out that the “journalism is a public trust” view is represented not only by lefties, but in the documents and principles that the media industry, including proprietors, have signed up to. Indeed, proprietorial self-interest requires at least lip service to the “public trust” point of view. If journalism businesses have no wider duties to the public interest, why shouldn’t they be regulated just like any other business? Why not, for example, remove the news media’s exemption from misleading and deceptive conduct in consumer law, and the exemption from federal privacy legislation?

The proprietors’ opposition to the Finkelstein report’s suggestion of a statutory regulator for media rests on the idea that there is something unique and different about the business of journalism — that it is not only about “portraying the facts in a manner that is going to attract readership”. That it must be independent, and free from influences that prevent it from reporting the facts in accordance with the evidence.

Since we live in a highly contested media age, where my words tend to be misinterpreted or even entirely fabricated, I should straight away say that I am against increased statutory regulation of journalism. I subscribe to the view that there is a public trust that makes journalism special. I am just pointing out that one cannot at the same time argue as Cowin does, and also argue against journalism being regulated as other industries are regulated.

When it suits them, today’s media proprietors and the boards they appoint assert that they have public interest duties beyond the mere maximising of profits. And they are right when they say those things. Would they have followed through consistently on what public trust requires.

We need to think clearly about what we mean by editorial independence, and what is important about it.

Cowin was not arguing for a simple “Gina Rinehart rings the journalists and tells them what to do” model. He was talking about the board setting broad editorial directions. And this is not necessarily inconsistent with that foundation document, the Fairfax charter of editorial independence, which defines independence as the right of the editor to manage news coverage, within the budget. But the board appoints the editor.

Meanwhile, the Australia Press Council’s principles talk about  accuracy, fairness and balance, and clear distinctions between fact and opinion. Depending on what Cowin has in mind, one can see some potential problems there for a newspaper that sees its purpose as being to “portray the facts in a manner that is going to attract readership”.

The Media Alliance code of ethics is clear in its precede that while many journalists work in private enterprise, “all have … public responsibilities” to truth, fairness and accuracy and animating democracy. So the idea that journalism is not just another business has wide acceptance, across the political spectrum, from working journalists to (when it suits them) proprietors.

But that doesn’t entirely dispose of Cowin’s point, because as we are seeing at Fairfax Media at present there IS a connection between profitability and the things we value about journalism. There is no independence in penury, poverty and begging. One of the reasons the industrial media enterprises of the present and past have achieved independence from government is because they have been vastly profitable, and that is its own well-spring of power.

Which leads us to the reason this “not just another business” argument is newly urgent, because no matter what Rinehart does or does not do, no matter what the future of the Murdoch empire, we are seeing what Jeff Jarvis has described as the decentralisation of journalism as an industrial complex.

In a world where anyone can publish news and views, doing so is no longer only about being employed as a journalist, in a journalism business. Others are in the journalism game. Close to home, the AFL is building a newsroom. We have yet to see where its output will fall on the spectrum between advertising and journalism.

And worldwide, there are propagandists and others in the knowledge business, including academics  and NGOs  —  all of them now media proprietors and claiming to be publishing news. And that’s before you get to all the citizens. (Last night, I saw nine fire trucks pass my house. I searched mainstream media sites to find out what was going on, without success. It was on Twitter —  @tomcurrans  —  that I found the first enlightening news, with a picture and brief and accurate report posted by someone whom, to judge by his tweets, does not define himself as a journalist.)

If we think about it, we have never really measured journalism quality by profitability. Therefore declining profitability does not automatically mean bad journalism.

What do we mean by editorial independence? We don’t mean, I think, freedom from the will of the proprietor. Nor from the power of the board to appoint its chosen editor, with all that she might bring. What we mean, what all the codes and principles constantly point us towards, is a discipline of slavishness to the evidence. We might do better to talk about journalism of integrity, rather than independent journalism.

So a proprietor might direct their journalists to particular topics of interest, just as an NGO such as Human Rights Watch might direct its journalists. But if either proprietor instructs reporters to render the facts only in ways that increase profitability, or advance any other cause, then the media enterprise is not really about journalism. It is just another business, and might well be regulated as other businesses are regulated.

Journalism means the freedom and independence to follow the evidence, research where that evidence leads, and render the results with integrity. Profitability is one of the means of creating a space in which that can be done.

But it is no guarantee. And nor is it the only way.

23
  • 1
    tinman_au
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    I subscribe to the view that there is a public trust that makes journalism special.”

    I think that sums up the problem some people have with current media. That is, it’s just a view, it isn’t a law. Current media can, and does, create reports and even tailors facts to support alternative agendas (just look at climate change and pokies issues for examples). This isn’t “reporting the other side of the story”, this is PR.

    There are, more than likely, many journos/editors/media who subscribe to your view as well Margaret, unfortunately, there also seems to be many who don’t. If it was another market (selling/making cars, running an airline, etc) and you had a situation like that wouldn’t it make sense to regulate it? Or is it OK to protect society from shonky car sales people but we should just turn a blind eye to an industry that can have shonky journalists/reporting?

  • 2
    atticusdash
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    OK. Let’s accept that a newspaper or other media outlet is a business like any other, with a responsibility for the board to maximize profits for the shareholders. It then ought to be regulated like any other product for public consumption, with appropriate regulation, clearly labelled ingredient warnings, and the onus to name sources and stop whining about being a pillar of democracy and name itself for what it is: an advertising vehicle not only for products but for political bias and promotion of particular business interests.
    Political stories ought to carry a label of political affiliation and voting habits. News stories regarding legitimate political subjects, such as climate change, labour regulation, education et al should be clearly bylined with the papers’ editorial policy regarding these subjects. And there ought to be an onus on all newspapers to print in a separate box the running tally of articles published for and against subjects of a political and socio-political nature. That’s for starters. Write what you want, but if it’s advertising - and much of what we call ‘spin’ is actually part of a larger advertising campaign aimed at policy influence - it ought to be clearly labelled thus.
    Spin is not harmless or unbiased point of view, it is aimed at advantage. Whether that advantage is for the news outlet itself (see Murdoch) or for other advertisers and ‘friends’ of the board and editorial staff, the whole edifice of the fourth estate as a champion of democracy has been revealed as nothing more than a facade, a hollow movie set painted up with a front behind which there are some cheap struts concealing… nothing. In the now standard phrasing of Fox News: ‘some say… ‘. What tosh. What a sad state of affairs.

  • 3
    Mr Denmore
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Who gave the media their rights? What defines a journalist? Why should some organisations have privileged access to politicians and decision makers and not others? None of this is written down anywhere. It’s just convention.

    We ASSUME that media companies mean it when they say they have a public trust responsibility, but there’s little sign of it. In fact, anyone who has worked in the mainstream media in the past 20 years will tell you the bottom line is now everything. The Chinese walls that separated advertising from editorial are breaking down completely - and the pretence of public responsibility is just that.

    I’ve written about this same issue on The Failed Estate this week for those who are interested. But essentially, I’m making the same point as Margaret - the idea of journalism as an activity exclusively done behind the walls of industrial age media companies is becoming obsolete.

    http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com.au/

  • 4
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    The Australian mainstream media long ago forfeited any right to be treated as a public trust, if this were ever anything more than a pretentious conceit.

    The media would be much better for being subject to standard law, including commercial law. But I don’t think this would make it subject to the consumer law prohibition against misleading OR deceptive conduct (it is *or* not and) in the way apparently envisaged by Simons. Many non fiction books are published which include errors and even distortions but are not sued for misleading or deceptive conduct.

  • 5
    klewso
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Moving to the Right, also helps your chances of promotion - within the dominant forces of our media?
    When’s the last time Murdoch ever promoted anyone that doesn’t think politics like him - so he doesn’t have to “supervise every headline”, and can claim that, at least, in all honesty?

  • 6
    Michael
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    @MARGARET SIMONS

    Let’s face it Margaret, what you are saying in a round about way is that Leftist views by journalists working for Left wing media, are ok BUT Conservative views are not to be tolerated and at best subjected to rigorous (see manipulative) laws, right?

    I mean, the Q&A debacle last week where a band of progressive halfwits on heat, tore apart the character, sexuality and integrity of a decent hard working & clearly brilliant businesswoman, for sport - that was aok with you right?

    Had that despicable bile & hatred been directed to say, Helen Mundine, a progressive aboriginal, by say, Alan Jones, there would have been a lynch mob at 2GE within the hour, outrage in Fairfax newspapers & off course outrage at OUR ABC, right?

  • 7
    mattsui
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Great article, enjoyed reading it immensly.
    A shift to the right, you say? It might work for the bottom line and , no doubt editorial staff can be found to toe the line…… But where will the journalists come from (or go to).
    The claim that there’s a left wing bias in “the Media” is entirely correct - at least, that is, from the POV of those who make it. I believe that Journalism, like teaching, writing generally and many of the social services that make our lives possible, is a career that naturally attracts people with a social conscience. The best writers and reporters will always be those who are driven to expose injustice, uncover hidden connections and tell of the daily struggles going on around us which we would otherwise be unaware.
    As the print media barrons make their medium less conducive to such noble persuits, we will surely see the true journalists move to the online realm. Unfortunately, they will now have to compete with amateurs and ratbag bloggers and other noise in order to be heard but I believe we are still - through sites like Crikey, HuffPo and through trend filters - seeing the cream rise up.
    Plus, thankfully, we still have the ABC and it’s counterpart in Britain.
    Let the fools have their daily chip-wrapper.

  • 8
    klewso
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Chip wrapper”? Food - in contact, with where it’s come from? Not even in an “emergency” and the bog roll’s run out. The budgie gets mine.

  • 9
    mattsui
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    I stand corrected. It was chip wrapper BEFORE it was sullied by newsprint.

  • 10
    Shwe Min
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Wrong. The Australian has actually proved only that opinion does not pay. It has never been a business but only at best a knuckler for murdoch in the game of who has clout in Australia. Nowadays even that is not a useful role.
    People who have money often don’t give a rats about turgidly argued repetitive opinion. Left or right. They often have an interest in knowledge and facts and will pay for both. Which is why the economist is successful. Not to mention the. Ew York review of books.
    Let gina have Fairfax. It is rotten to the core. Run by Corbett for gods sake. And the age or SMH are barely different from the desperation of the oz. which it seems the fin wants to emulate.
    The smart money will find a home.

  • 11
    John Bennetts
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    remove the news media’s exemption from misleading and deceptive conduct in consumer law, and the exemption from federal privacy legislation”.

    Yes, dear writer. This is the real message.

    Journalism has no grounds for special pleading. Theirs is no special case. Corporate and personal deceit need similar responses across the corporate and private realm. Prison for a few of the worst examples would be a welcome start.

    If misleading or deceptive conduct are present in any profession or business, then this is unacceptable in the long run and should/must be weeded out. If the individuals responsible are not successfully dealt with, then it is essential that the organisation feel the lash.

    Too many petty panels of emasculated reviewers, complete with decades’ worth of accumulated nonsense about the special role of the “fourth estate” or “journalism” have been created under the name of Press Council or whatever. They are all tosh. Journalism is a meaningless word in 2012. There is no such thing.

    [R]emove the news media’s exemption from misleading and deceptive conduct in consumer law, and the exemption from federal privacy legislation”. Great idea.

    Remove the veil and let the sun shine in. The

  • 12
    John Bennetts
    Posted Friday, 8 June 2012 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    The last line of my previous post was included in error. When will Crikey give us a preview screen and an edit option?

  • 13
    Shwe Min
    Posted Saturday, 9 June 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    I might add that this is now a level playing field as there is no advantage to the incumbents. The printing and distribution advantages of scale are gone. Which leaves open the opportunity for a good, reliable, quality news source.
    One wonders whether the truly basic problem here is that no one seems to be available to produce such a thing?

  • 14
    Posted Saturday, 9 June 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    While it is true that the barriers to enter media have been greatly reduced, it is not true that the old media have no advantage. Their prominence attracts attention, and so the web sites of the mainstream media are the most visited in the country.

    The basic problem is not the lack of people to provide a good, reliable, quality news source, but the lack of funding for such as source with the evaporation of advertising for newspapers, its dispersal to specialised web sites such as Seek.com for employment advertisements, and its dispersal amongst numerous other sites. This has been lamented many times by Simons, Crikey editorialists and many other Crikey opinionistas.

  • 15
    William Passick
    Posted Saturday, 9 June 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    jesus love .. get a life … message to Ms.Simmons

    I, like many in the industry of the past , worked as a news reader, reporter, producer, chief of staff and news director without the formal education that now seems to be desired in the news industry. I need mention that I gained my Arts Degree at the University of Melbourne in 1980’s, after I moved on from mainstream media into the public sector,.

    Yep, we relied on - media releases, what the others were reporting, importantly personal contacts and the understanding of those we dealt with that we were honest and NOT spinning.

    Those contacts; whether they were in the political, public sector, private enterprise were valued. Media contacts would hold off on reports, for months given a guarantee they would get an exclusive.

    Ms Simmonds expresses a “left wing view” - to which she is entitled. However in her writings a middle of the road approach would be deemed better in her role as an independent professional engaged in the training of “journalists” of the future.

    Yep. I am right wing. Although my father was thought to be a communist.

  • 16
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Saturday, 9 June 2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    This looks very much like the story of Henry Ford, who when approaching banks in order to finance his people’s car, was dismissed with the stinging rebuke that ” Rich people own cars, Mr Ford, poor
    people have horses and carts”. Ford, who knew all about Adam Smith’s description of wages as returning capital, doubled his workers wages and got them all back when they bought his cars.
    Newspapers if they are indeeed goods should underpin, by their inherent “Goodness”, their buyers’ capacity to pay for them.
    So newspapers have no value for the underlings because they cannot afford to pay for them?
    Or is it that newspapers are very bad at increasing the purchasing power of their readers?
    Which would be the case indeed if they were full, as our PM contends, of “Crap”.
    Neither good nor of service nor of any value to the general citizens in a democracy; a democratic and commercial failure.
    Once upon a time the poor were not not allowed to read the Bible either.
    Are we dealing with the same degenerate clowns here as have appeared down through the centuries?
    They call them “Conservatives” don’t they?

  • 17
    mattsui
    Posted Sunday, 10 June 2012 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    My father lives in a state where there is only one daily newspaper - and a Murdoch on Sundays.
    He buys them all at a cost of around $18 a week - this is more than he pays for his internet connection, which he doesn’t use to follow current events. Coincidently, the people who own his daily paper also own the TV station on which he watches the evening news.
    This seems like a sound biusness model?
    At least until my father and his generation are passed.
    I will never waste my money buying newspapers. You can argue what that means for society but there’s no doubt that change is coming.

  • 18
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 11 June 2012 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    I scarcely remember the last time I bought a paper of any kind.

  • 19
    Shwe Min
    Posted Monday, 11 June 2012 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    @gavin moodie
    Have you not noticed that paytv is replacing free to air? Do you not see what appletv is? My point is that the media market is dispersed. More than ever. And it is paid for. Advertising is old media.
    So get all your bright things together and create something people will value and pay for. If is not so radical. It’s what the Symes did to create The Age.

  • 20
    Posted Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    I don’t consider pay tv to be new media. Nonetheless, some people pay for new media, but Simons and other Crikey journos argue that the new media don’t generate enough revenue to pay for what they call ‘quality journalism’. They note that even pay tv doesn’t support a Four Corners, 60 Minutes or similar ‘quality’ current affairs program.

  • 21
    IC-1101
    Posted Tuesday, 19 June 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    journalism is a public trust” is not a view of the left, because the left is anti-business, and would ultimately prefer to see the media in the hands of the public, or, the government. Unless the left accepts that “free speech” and true journalism can thrive in a free market, the left will also compromise the very notion of journalism working under the assumption that citizens can make up their own minds.

    The left is so hostile to the idea of “selling out” and trying to make money that it forgets that not everyone is intent on doing something for nothing.

    Profitability is one of the means of creating a space in which that can be done. But it is no guarantee. And nor is it the only way.”

    You’re so wrong, Margaret, Oh so very wrong, and your left, anti-business rhetoric is quite clear in this statement. Why don’t you stop being a coward and just say what you want to say?

    The reality is that you need a BUSINESS MODEL in media, something that PAYS for the journalism. Fairfax crumbling like it has goes to show how utterly inept the left is when it comes to actually managing public trusts like The Age.

    It’s funny now how all of these left-wing commentators are now just throwing up their arms, saying, “Well, I guess profiteering is necessary in media”. Hypocrites.

  • 22
    mattsui
    Posted Tuesday, 19 June 2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    @IC-11o1
    Trolling much?
    Your concept of “the left” as some sort of tangible group-thinking organisation places you in a realm far from reality.
    Look out the window and see all the things that exist despite of your much vaunted but clearly misunderstood “free market”
    You claim that “the left” wish to concentrate everything in the hands of Government and at the same time blame “the left” for the mismanagement and ulitmate failure of a publicly listed company.
    When everything that happens is an arguement against me. I must either be at the centre or else not exist at all…….. like the logical element of IC-1101’s discourse.

  • 23
    IC-1101
    Posted Tuesday, 19 June 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    You claim that “the left” wish to concentrate everything in the hands of Government and at the same time blame “the left” for the mismanagement and ulitmate failure of a publicly listed company.”

    A publicly-listed company that, erm, has been a MASSIVE failure since shares reached $5 in 2007. Embarrassingly so, while appeasing the left with what it has considered to be “good” journalism (good journalism is subjective to the reader, not media commentators that clearly have political agendas).

    Your concept of “the left” as some sort of tangible group-thinking organisation places you in a realm far from reality.”

    Oh, how funny! No, the left is not a “tangible group-thinking organisation”. It wishes it was as unified as that. It ultimately strives to become that.

    The “left” I refer to is an agenda, or an ideal, not a group. It’s been a left-wing outlet that has fallen, buckled under a changing media landscape that has been crying out for change for a very, very long time.

    The Age has been a left-wing media outlet for a while, and left-wing media commentators like Margaret Simons cannot run away from what has been an outdated and falling business model, driven by a smug rhetoric that suggests that, somehow, in some way, Fairfax is the be-all and end-all of good journalism. However, it’s failed to give readers what they want, lost probably thousands of readers in the process, and gone from being an Australian institution to a laughing stock that is only NOW dealing with issues that other major media outlets ACROSS THE GLOBE have been dealing with since the mid-00S.

    I don’t mean to offend, but The Age needs to start adopting some aggressively smart and powerful business motives and implementations to save it from utter death. Its left-wing tone may need to be sacrificed for that. That’s the reality.

    If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Ms Simons knows that better than anyone.

    It’s time to start giving the common man the news he wants to read, and to stop assuming that “good journalism” can be defined by anyone other than the reader. The Age, for example, is a good outlet. It just needs to stop beating its chest saying it’s one, and start taking more notice of the internet.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...