What’s in the public interest? New media laws will satisfy no one
The government’s proposed public interest test for media transactions will be left vague and may not safeguard media diversity. We take a look at what’s in the bills, released today.
The public interest test that would be applied to major media company transactions under the government’s proposals would be vague and provide little certainty for either media companies or citizens concerned about media diversity. That’s clear from the draft bills for the package.
The bills implementing the package have been released this morning as the government moves to introduce them in the House of Representatives today, with the aim of debate and passage on Tuesday and debate and passage in the Senate on Thursday.
The bill implementing the public interest test, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013, establishes a new class of regulated media, news media voices, which are television (free-to-air or subscription), commercial radio, newspaper or online publications that have audiences or paying subscribers above 30% of the average metropolitan commercial television evening news audience — currently around 59,000 people. Any transactions and acquisitions from the moment of introduction into the House of Reps today involving news media voices will have to meet a public interest test.
However, the test itself remains profoundly vague. There are no criteria for how the test will be implemented (by the Public Interest Media Advocate, a new position). The test is simply:
“the applicant satisfies the PIMA that the relevant control event will not result in a substantial lessening of diversity of control of registered news media voices; or
the PIMA is satisfied:
that the relevant control event is likely to result in a benefit to the public; and
that the benefit outweighs, or would outweigh, the detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of diversity of control of registered news media voices that would result from the relevant control event.”
This lack of detail raises some key questions. The issue of what constitutes “substantial lessening” has been addressed under competition law for decades, although the lessons of competition don’t necessarily translate perfectly to diversity. But “diversity” is still a nebulous concept even when confined to ownership. Does it relate to the entire media industry, or can it relate to specific sub-sectors eg. would a News Ltd buy-out of Telstra’s stake in Foxtel represent a substantial lessening of diversity despite being confined to the subscription TV sector? Does a buyout of regional media fail the test because of serious local impacts even when there are no national implications?
And then there’s the issue, which will be crucial because the proponents of more or less any major transaction will argue that the transaction is in “a benefit to the public”, of how “benefit” is measured — is it purely economic, or does it embrace vaguer concepts like a “marketplace of ideas” and diversity of voices (as opposed to diversity of control).
The PIMA may well be grappling with these issues in parallel with the ACCC, which is likely to be considering the impact of the same transactions on specific markets like advertising.
This goes to the heart of the problem with a public interest test: if Communications Minister Stephen Conroy had to include a definition of substantial lessening of diversity, or of how the public benefit should be assessed, what would he include beyond motherhood statements? The UK public interest test includes issues such as share of voice and accuracy of news reporting, but these don’t get very far in addressing the problem.
The result is that both media companies and supporters of media diversity will have little clarity about how the test will be implemented, except by considering the previous views of a PIMA appointee. An Allan Fels might be dreaded by media companies; a David Flint considered a disaster by supporters of media diversity.
Significantly, the bill establishing the Public Interest Media Advocate also doesn’t contain a provision for consultation with the opposition, although Conroy said earlier this week the appointment would be “in consultation with the opposition”. Instead, the minister is only required to consult with Australian Communications and Media Authority and the ACCC, as well as any other media bodies deemed appropriate, and the appointment will only be made by written instrument, which means it is not disallowable by parliament. The Minister’s office, however, pointed out the commitment was made in the Second Reading Speech for the Bill as well.
The bills will be referred to a Senate committee, with the government pushing for it to report by next Thursday; the Coalition has pushed for a June reporting date. It is understood the Greens will back the government’s deadline.
With the current state of the MSM, and the obvious bias, I really am at the point that anything the Murdocracy or Fairfax are against, I am for…. It just saves time.
The “press” has been fighting against any change for hundreds of years, They have been involved in countless enquiries, and have enjoyed far more generosity from both sides of politics than they deserve; now they claim they dog ate their homework?
Pull the other one.
Isnt it this mob who tout that they never went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average Australian reader? Well the average Australian reader might just get to have his say; and we will see who goes broke then.
Kevin @ 1.23pm has eloquently summed it up for me.
When the police or any similar organisation comment on reforms to their own activities, processes or perceived excesses, we mostly yawn and dont take them too seriously because we expect them to protect and to be more forgiving to their own.
Over the past two or three years of media criticism, the criticism itself has been reported and commented on by the media themselves, a somewhat ambiguous exercise. Academics involved in media studies or the audience itself, i.e the rest of us, have not had too much of a look in.
So it is frustrating and dispiriting to listen to the self serving fulminations of those who like Kim Williams prate about freedom of the press while abusing the privileges of those supposed freedoms.
Most of us support freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, which incidentally dates from the middle of the 19th century not the ‘hundreds of years’, claimed by Malcolm Turnbull. But with any freedoms come some responsibility, and it is not clear that Rupert Murdoch, for one, has ever understood this.
For many of us in the public arena, engaged in non media activities, media output has seemed to have spun out of control. Yet this impression is rarely critically evaluated. Overwhelmingly it is denied by the media themselves, who are presumably too close to the coal face to be competent assessors.
There is a problem with media at present, particularly in the reporting and commentary on news, politics in particular. The media seem by and large to have abandoned their role has a reporter of events and have become commentators and players in the political process. More and more,political comment is replacing disinterested reportage. We could talk about this more but as with climate change we engage in argy-bargy about whether it’s actually happening. Yes it is.
But in many ways this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many aspects of media activity which could be usefully put under the spotlight and perused for ‘public interest’ relevance. But at base media is a commercial activity, and those making a buck out of it are disinclined to be too critical of their own motives.
Malcolm Harrison’s comment: “The media seem by and large to have abandoned their role has a reporter of events and have become commentators and players in the political process” is a good summary of the state of MSM in Australia today. Some elements of the media are insiders of the game and become part of it rather than a reporter of facts.
I am not sure how the new media reforms might address this state of affairs. One solution is to make it affordable for people to seek redress for false reporting. Let’s face it, most ordinary people cannot afford the costs of litigation.
An oversight body, like a media Ombudsman, might be better placed to investigate complaints with heavy penalties for media corps and a formal apology (front page) to the complainant when a finding is made in their favour. False reporting or distorting facts has become so commonplace as to be acceptable in the ‘game’. It is not a direction we should be pursing as a nation.
A couple of thoughts
1) I hate the idea of govt censorhip/ control
2) The current performance of the MSM has been so poor & biased that I am ready to consider that some reform is required
3) That chap in the interview with Sales didn’t suggest any reform it was just an automatic rejection of any reform
4) Would all those media bosses who are happy with self regulation agree to say the Police being self regulating?
I don’t think so
5) I’m not aware of any system of self regulation that wworks
6) I don’t believe that NewsLtd can argue that the present system is already under control.With 70% of the papers they control it and that is why their standards have slipped
7) Finally I tend to agree with Kevin
We have the worst and laziest media in the western world. They all just endlessly eat each others vomit.
The irony of the Telegraph’s content on this issue is just too delicious: photoshopped images of a Conroy’s face on Stalin’s militarily-dressed head & shoulders? Falsifying photos was a trick Stalin himself was fond of.
I’m no fan of Conroy, but given the above, plus facts like News Corp’s 70% ownership of city newspapers by circulation, I’m left to wonder who is the despot here?
And then I notice that the Tele has started putting its wholly editorialised front pages up around Sydney as bill-board “advertising”. Is it really advertising, or is it one man with enormous cultural influence, pushing his opinions and commensurate interests even harder upon the Australian public?
The print oversight proposal won’t do anything and is not at all an issue (though a handy tub thumper). News/Stokes etc is going nuts because of the TV regulation proposal. Which is actually just a moderate idea about competition policy.
The villains here are Keating and Hawke (plus Richo, Barron, Mockridge etc). All the big stuff happened in the 19080s, and now we can see what they did.
We can only hope that the digital world will screw them all up!
Much of the media policy debate is both spurious and intended to divert the focus from the deficiencies in our Fourth Estate as many recognise them.
The motivation for the Murdochracy’s hysterical reaction to the changes advocated by these policies can be found in the imperative of the Murdoch’s necessity to destroy the NBN‘s fibre to the home infrastructure.
Fibre to the node speeds, as promoted by Turnbull and Abbott, protects his money machine, Pay TV. Fibre to the home speeds and capacity invites new players into a very lucrative Market that Murdoch, up unto now, has dominated throughout the English speaking world.
Furthermore the spurious argument of ‘freedom of the press’ is a piece of spin that diverts the argument from the reasons for the public’s demands for “honesty and balance in the press”.
Turnbull argument, in this afternoon’s parliament, about “freedom of the fourth estate” is disingenuous nonsense. Not one editor or scribbler will have any of the freedoms they enjoy today, curtailed with what is on the agenda.
Meanwhile he ignores that the public have endured two or more years of mendacious responses to any and all policies put forward by a government, a real debasement of the main processes of democracy, the parliament.
At the same time, as he and his ‘leadership’ team progress their debauching of the parliamentary procedures for the past two years, he and the same team are able to marry their ambitions to a media mogul’s financial interests and survival.
Old Velvet tongue Turnbull, companion and business associates of all our media moguls, eloquently talks a load of nonsense on the issue in the parliament to serve his old masters and current friends.
I am inclined to borrow the Prime Minister statement to Abbott, in reference to his sexist innuendo, and suggest that I am unprepared to accept lectures from Turnbull on ethics or political philosophy.
Although I am at loss to understand a government that has a progressive and costly social agenda before it, being able to offer the largess to our TV moguls’ spectrum costs, there are some incremental gains for the public.
Agree with all the comments posted. Vested interests should not be allowed to “win” at the expense of democracy.
I am sure as stated that the NBN is the main target of the vested interests. I have no doubt that the NBN would be completed and sold to those private interests.
K Packer, at one of those many public enquiries (Senate) into the media said of Malcolm Turnbull “don’t stand between Malcolm and a bag of money”.
Gotta agree with Kevin
And I am yet to see anything in the legislation that attacks freedom of the press or freedom of speech.
Didn’t this whole review of the media start after journalists in England were found to be hacking phones and computers? And the Govt wanted to be sure the same wasn’t happening in Australia