Mar 5, 2012

Simons: how the Fink nailed the media inquiry

You will find it difficult to get an idea of what the Finkelstein report on news media regulation actually says, or why it has reached its controversial conclusions, from reading the mainstream media.

Margaret Simons

Journalist, author and director of the Centre for Advanced Journalism

Start with this. You will find it difficult to get an idea of what the Finkelstein report on news media regulation actually says, or why it has reached its controversial conclusions, from reading the mainstream media. The irony is lost on no one, judging from all the eye-rolling in the ministerial offices this morning, except perhaps those editors and reporters who will deny it is so. On Saturday and again today, the newspapers were full of opinion, mostly from the interested parties, but harder to find was a decent summary or report of the Fink’s substance and arguments. A newspaper reader would struggle to discern that the Fink had some critical things to say about the way the media performed. Indeed, some breakout quotes used by the tabloids suggested he had been only complimentary. For the record, the Fink’s report is not calling for direct government control of the media, nor does it contain a bid by Labor to control the media, as the headline in The Australian Financial Review claimed, over a fair and balanced article by Laura Tingle that said nothing of the sort. So what follows is a summary of this weighty and scholarly, though admirably clearly-written, report. Whatever you think of the key recommendation this is a considerable work, particularly given short time frame the team had to do their work. So to follow is my cheat sheet. If you want to dive into the report yourself, here's the link. If you do dare to wade through it, I would start with the clear executive summary and recommendations. Then scan, but put aside for calmer reading and reflection, section two, with its erudite summation and history of the justification for a free press and the long struggle against licensing and regulation from Gutenberg to the present day. Here, too, you will find a summation of the responsibility that comes with that freedom. The Fink concludes that there is a "compelling case" for a free press, but that there is also agreement that the news media wield power and profound influence, and with this comes responsibility. He writes:
"What is lacking, at least in Australia, is a robust discussion on what institutional mechanisms are necessary to ensure the press adheres to its responsibilities ...  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."
Scan, and save as a reference document for years to come, section three, which examines the news media industry with a focus on newspapers. It is the best pulling together of data on trends in Australian news media consumption and business models available. It concludes, in summary, that newspapers are still profitable, though profoundly challenged. It also makes it clear that many of those challenges have been with us since the '50s, including declining circulation, but have been masked by rising population. The Fink doesn’t say it, but an available conclusion is that the industry has been slow to recognise the need for change. This section also concludes that Australia’s newspaper industry is among the most concentrated in the developed world. This is important later, since it forms part of the case for increased regulation. Section four should be read in detail, not least because it is the one you are never going to see fairly reported in the mainstream media. It tackles media standards. The Fink begins by quoting newspaper executives saying that there is no problem with the Australian media. He goes on to test the validity of these claims, starting with the words:
"Media proprietors often defend their adherence to standards by reference to their readers. So, rejecting any suggestion of bias against the government on the part of News Limited, (then News Limited CEO) Mr Hartigan said such claims were an insult to readers, who were capable of making up their own minds. Often, however, readers are not in a position to make an appropriately informed judgment. They expect news stories they read to be accurate. Usually only the authors/publishers, and the subjects of the story, know the extent to which a story lives up to that expectation. Over time, though, the public develop perceptions about the media that have an important influence on their opinion of the media."
Thence to an analysis of public opinion data over the decades, including a detailed meta-analysis of 21 surveys. The result is devastating, and adds up to nothing short of a crisis of confidence in the news media -- with the sole exception of the ABC. Says the Fink:
"Over the decades, the ABC has been consistently identified as a trusted source of news and information by between two-thirds and four-fifths of people, whereas other media organisations struggle to get even half the people to say they trust them."
There is nothing in the submissions from the newspaper publishers to rebut these consistent findings by public opinion pollsters, other than the claim that readers make their choices every day by buying the products. But, says the Fink:
"The Australian newspaper market is far from the ideal truly competitive market which imposes considerable discipline on suppliers of products. In highly concentrated markets, and the Australian newspaper market is one such market, that discipline is dissipated and consumers have little choice and little power to influence what is supplied."
So to the cases, and the Fink examines studies of media performance by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, including material published in Crikey, the recent quarterly essay by Robert Manne and other sources that have found the Australian public has lacked fair and impartial reporting on important issues of public policy, including carbon policy. He quotes findings that include News Limited tabloids were so biased that they could be said to have campaigned against the policy. The Fink remarks that there is nothing wrong with newspapers having an opinion and advocating a position, even mounting a campaign:
"Those are the natural and generally expected functions of newspapers. Notable examples include The Australian on problems in remote indigenous communities, The Age on the Reserve Bank’s note printing companies that led to bribery charges being made and The West Australian on compensation claims by soldiers returning from the war in Afghanistan ... However, to have an opinion and campaign for it is one thing; reporting is another, and in news reporting it is expected by the public, as well as by professional journalists, that the coverage will be fair and accurate."
The Fink then mentions recent controversies and abuses, including the Tristan Weston affair referred to it by the Victorian Office of Police Integrity:
"The Herald Sun published an editorial on 28 October, the day after the OPI’s report was released, in which it argued the OPI report proved the newspaper was innocent of pursuing a vendetta against Mr Overland. It said the report showed Mr Weston had pursued the vendetta. What the editorial did not say, which is apparent from the OPI’s report, is that the Herald Sun allowed itself to be an insufficiently questioning player in the campaign by Mr Weston and others. That is, its journalistic standards, particularly on independence, fairness and accuracy, were wanting."
The Fink also mentions the Mooroopna mother who was virtually accused by the media of murdering her sons, before it was revealed that they died in a tragic accident. The columnist who had earlier suggested the mother was a murderer then wrote in a column that the public should not be so quick to judge others. It was a truly Orwellian shift. Also mentioned are the Pauline Hanson pictures published by News Limited Sunday papers that weren’t Hanson at all. Says the Fink:
"Essentially, in the rush to print, the journalists at The Sunday Telegraph carried out only very rudimentary verification."
Then there is the insensitivity to victims of crime. Exhibit: The Sydney Morning Herald’s treatment of a fire at Quakers Hill, Sydney, with a front-page photograph showing an elderly man lying in his bed on the street, his mouth was agape and his eyes closed." And privacy? Exhibit A is the Madeleine Pulver collar-bomb case, with the television media camping outside her house for four days, and pictures published of her walking the dog, despite the fact that she was a child, a victim, and that her father had pleaded for her privacy to be respected.The news media, Finkelstein says, does a great deal of good work. Journalists and editors pursue their jobs with dedication and skill. Yet in all these cases, the media failed its own frequently proclaimed standards. People were damaged, sometimes profoundly, and in most cases had no meaningful recourse. The proprietors and newspaper executives’ claims that there is no problem that needs addressing do not stand up to scrutiny. Chapters five to eight deal with the way in which media is currently regulated, from the laws of the land through to the role of the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Australian Press Council. It also deals with other self-regulation systems and comparable models overseas. If you are familiar with this material already, you can skip these chapters, though perhaps pause for a thorough reading of the history of the MEAA Code of Ethics, and the Australian Press Council, which demonstrates how at every stage the publishers were dragged kicking and screaming into self-regulation. This material is important, because the Fink has clearly taken it into account in assessing how likely it is that the industry is capable of self-regulation. He looks at this history, together with the clear statements by publishers such as Fairfax Media CEO Greg Hywood, that they would not increase funding for the Press Council, in reaching his conclusion that more is needed, and that self-regulation without mandatory adherence will not work in addressing the problems he has identified. In the attitude of the publishers, he concludes, not much has changed, and the crisis in public confidence is simply denied. This section also contains a review of overseas models, including the recent New Zealand Law Commission report on news media regulation (as Crikey reported), which was clearly influential on the Fink. A key quote:
"... there must be some effective means of raising standards of journalism and of making the media publicly accountable. What the media have lost sight of is that they accepted the idea of press regulation by having set up the APC to make a positive contribution to the development of journalistic standards. "Logically it follows that that regulation should be effective. Indeed one would not expect that the media is only prepared to accept regulation that is ineffective."
Chapter nine is an examination of remedies, including whether or not there should be an enforceable right of reply, and an enforceable right of access to the news media. Yes to the first, concludes the Fink, no to the second. Chapter 10 is an erudite, and for public policy nerds, fascinating overview of the theory of regulation, and its public interest justifications. This locates the Fink’s recommended model on the second step up of a pyramid that has at its apex total government control, and at its bottom pure self-regulation. What the Fink is recommending is "enforced self-regulation". Finally, the Fink pulls all this together in the argument for reform in chapter 11. There is a problem in the news media. The costs of its failure to adhere to its own standards are born, not by the media companies themselves but by injured individuals and society at large. He concludes that a self-regulation system such as the Australian Press Council, that can be undermined at will by withdrawing funding, and that players do not even have to sign up to, is not effective and not likely to become effective. He acknowledges recent reforms, but does not believe they overcome the fatal flaw of publisher unwillingness to get real. He canvasses the options -- from doing nothing, to licensing of news media. He rejects licensing, because it would mean government control of the media -- abhorrent in a liberal democracy. He laments the ineffectiveness of the present system. He concludes:
"Ordinarily, the preferred option would be self-regulation. But in the case of newspapers, self-regulation by code of ethics and through the APC has not been effective. To do nothing in these circumstances is merely to turn a blind eye to what many see as a significant decline in media standards. Australian society has a vital interest in ensuring that media standards are maintained and that there is public trust in the media."
The remainder of the report lays out the details of how the recommended News Media Council would work. Government funded, and with the big stick of court action in the background, but otherwise with procedures very similar to those presently followed by the Australian Press Council. However it would be much better resourced -- 20 members, with a full-time chair. Half its members would come from public, half from media but not managers directors or shareholders. The chair would be a judge or lawyer. Its funding would be on a triennial basis, and overseen by the Auditor-General to protect it from political interference. Members would be appointed through an arm's-length committee, similar to the process now in place for the boards of the ABC and SBS. The news media council would have jurisdiction over all news media, print as well as broadcast. This section includes the eye-popping suggestion that websites and blogs with more than 15,000 "hits" a year would be covered. It would have the power to require publication of corrections, apologies and rights of reply. If there was no compliance, it could apply for a court order, meaning that any breach of the court order would become contempt of court. Finally, the Fink canvasses the question of whether various kinds of government support should be given to news media or start-ups. He canvasses, but does not come to conclusions, on suggestions of tax deductibility for donations to not-for-profit news media enterprises, and direct government subsidies. All this, he recommends be referred to the Productivity Commission. He also suggests part of the function of the new News Media Council should be to monitor the health of the industry. So, that’s it. What the Fink actually said. You read it here first. CLARIFICATION: Monday 5 March, 3.20pm: The initial version of this story referred to a "departmental cheat sheet" and linked out to the full document of Finklelstein's recommendations. That description was incorrect -- the cheat sheet consists of Margaret's copy above and the link is to the full report. The copy has been amended to reflect this.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

58 thoughts on “Simons: how the Fink nailed the media inquiry

  1. klewso

    “Ethics are good – as long as they’re confined to their own culture, race and religion.”?

  2. J Borowicz

    DF, I like your robo-poster theory. It appeals to my socialist, latte and chardonnay sipping leftie elitist snob tendencies.

  3. Jan Forrester

    Thanks Margaret, this article is a perfect example why I subscribe to Crikey. The comments above mostly lead me to think it is too big so lets just vent our old prejudices. Apologies to those who didn’t. I look forward to trawling through all of the sections more thoroughly through research that is highly-detailed, benchmark stuff. There are many challenges to, problems with the Fourth estate, nothing changes till we are prepared to stare it in the face. Whilst looking for new seeds.

  4. guytaur

    I hope the Government can use the comments about concentration of media ownership to force changes through to increase competition.
    eg. All printing to be contracted out. No Newspaper controlling the printing press in a city or town. It was by controlling the printing press that Mr Murdoch established his virtual monopoly.

  5. Syd Walker

    Margaret – I’m a fan of much of your output, but I find this a very dangerous article – not so much for what it says, but for what is doesn’t mention.

    It’s become apparent that if one wants to sell a potentiallyn unpopular measure, such as war against Libya – or in this case internet censorship – it’s best to get “progressives” and “the left” to sell it. No-one trusted Bush – but even the Greens croon over Obama (judging by his visit to Oz last year). Similarly, Conroy’s filter raised hackles (against the “Christian Lobby”, the Labor right etc). So get the Greens to sell it – much more effective! If fear this article of yours also carries water for this latest attempt to regulate the internet.

    Recall that the impetus for the inquiry was Newscorp phone-tapping in the UK – and concern about Newscorp’s grossly excessive market share here. That, initially, was the “problem”. So why then do we have a “solution” that calls for an unprecedented new level of interference with the blogosphere as a whole)?

    That’s the part of Fink’s proposals that bother me – and they are CENTRAL to his recommendations – which despite all the report’s padding and erudition, are actually few in number.

    I run a blog which attempts to cover subjects not covered AT ALL by the mainstream media (in this case, including Crikey, New Matilda etc). I look at issues pertaining to the power of the Zionist Lobby, the truth about 9/11, the truth about events such as Port Arthur etc. I believe full discussion of these topics is certainly in the broad public interest – but not everyone agrees. The people for instance, who run Australia’s mainstream media, public and private, do not agree. Nor, apparently, do the folk who run Crikey and New Matilda… etc

    What are the chances that the people who’d staff the proposed News Media Council would agree with me (as opposed to the very well-established majority?) I’d say they’re minimal. What are the chances they’d use their power to “respond to complaints received” and harass my blog? It’s an unknown, of course, but I’d say they’re very high.

    At present, I must ensure I don’t breach defamation laws (an obligation I willingly accept and try to honour to the best of my ability). Other than that, my only major problem is to avoid being blocked by filters. A few weeks ago I managed to get access to my site from Parliament House Canberra restored. There were never legitimate grounds for blocking it, so I was able to shame the admins into removing the block. I’m less successful with other “filters” such as those covering many public libraries, schools and state government bureaucracies.

    A negative ruling from the NMC would undoubtedly “do the trick” for the censor wannabees. That, I strongly suspect is what this LATEST attempt to regulate the web is really all about – blocking pesky little blogs such as mine that do discuss matters of legitimate public concern that happen to be unpopular with highly powerful vested interests such as the Zionist Lobby and our so-called “Intelligence Agencies”.

    One pointer is that my own submission wasn’t listed on the appropriate page by the Department. It gave itself an out with this disclaimer: “The inquiry will not publish submissions that breach applicable laws, promote a product or a service, contain offensive language, or express sentiments that are likely to offend or vilify sections of the community. The inquiry reserves the right not to publish submissions which do not substantively comment on the issues raised by the terms of reference. The purpose of publishing the submissions is to advance discussion. Publication of a submission is not an endorsement of the content of the submission.”

    I invite Crikey readers to view my submission (Google “40 points for Australia’s Independent Inquiry into Media”). You may not like my submission – but see for yourself if you think it should be excluded from public discussion).

    Then ask whether you really want to give more power to yet more unelected officials to help stifle free speech – not only for my humble efforts, but for other blogs that someone in power may deem “offensive”.

    Wrong Way! Go Back!

    Just say NO to this LATEST assault on the free internet!

  6. Gederts Skerstens

    This Finkling is run by a delusion:
    “…Often, however, readers are not in a position to make an appropriately informed judgment.”

    Sure they are. From the evidence provided in their own lives. The Soviets had absolute control of the press, providing one single viewpoint, backed by all the financial and coercive powers of a large state.
    Made no difference. The ‘readers’ kicked down that whole shithouse anyway, making a very well-informed judgement from the actual Truth, not Pravda.

    Just as people here can tell for themselves whether it’s raining or not, even while a steady stream of Billion-per-year BS from our ABC tells us there’s a permanent drought, say.

  7. mikeb

    @Syd Walker – You lost all credibility when you included “the Zionist Lobby, the truth about 9/11, the truth about events such as Port Arthur etc”. Prior to the internet people who subscribed to so-called conspiracy theories like these caused no more harm than the local village idiot. Now tin-foil hatters can receive global coverage no matter how preposterous their theories are. The problem we have with internet and some of the print media is that the power of ordinary people to get reliable information is being clouded – so that misinformation becomes the default truth. I believe Margaret’s article and the Finkelstein report highlight the difficulties of such widely distributed misinformation, and opinion masquerading as news.

  8. mikeb

    @Gederts Skerstens – re “The ‘readers’ kicked down that whole shithouse anyway, making a very well-informed judgement from the actual Truth, not Pravda.” Did you read the crikey articles (yesterday & today) about the Russian media under Putin. Not very reassuring.

  9. guytaur

    @Gederts Skerstens

    Pravda was started about the end of WW2 if memory serves. It was certainly around in the days of President Kennedy.
    So 20 to 40 years and the loss of many lives before Russians kicked it all down.
    I think Australia can do better than that.

  10. Michael de Angelos

    Gedets: with a state controlled media it’s probably far easier to see through the lies. With a so-called ‘free press’ the indoctrination si far more subtle.

    Is it true that Krushev said to Kennedy :”how do you get your reporters to print what you want ?..we have to threaten ours?”

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details