Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
New media laws and their impact on the bush
The following comes from the Democratic Audit of Australia at Australian National University, to whom thanks for permission to reprint. The views expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of the Democratic Audit of Australia.
by Peter Andren MP, Independent Member for Calare
The new Australian media laws passed in October have substantially relaxed the restrictions preventing a single operator controlling more than one type of media in a single market. [1] It is worth noting, however, that there was more diversity of program material in the days when regional television and radio stations were owned by a benign monopoly in each market.
When I first went to the bush in 1977 after working for both the Seven and Nine networks, CBN8 Orange and Radio 2GZ were owned by Country Television Services, a company that grew out of the privately owned Ridley family 2GZ company formed in the early 1930s.
With a strong commitment to the Central West and locally committed major shareholdings such as Email Ltd Orange, the radio and television stations were able to deliver heaps of localism to their audience. Radio in particular was a 6am until midnight affair, live and local all the way.
The single television station was able to cherry pick the best of the fare on offer from all the Sydney networks and schedule it around local material that included children’s programs, shopping guides, local sports coverage, local news and current affairs and documentaries. Admittedly the localism was somewhat reduced in the years prior to the launch of the domestic satellite, but when Packer lobbied for a national satellite footprint that would have wiped out regional TV, local stations responded by restoring much of their local content.
However, with aggregation in 1988, when all regional stations had to choose one of three national networks as an affiliate, a steady decline in localism began that today is reflected in a local news on two channels and reader-only updates and weekly magazine program on the other. Regional stations today carry about a quarter, if that, of the local programming that was aired prior to 1988. Similarly, change of ownership and ‘hubbing and spoking’ of local radio stations (despite new licences) has reduced significantly the amount of ‘live and local’ broadcasting on country radio.
The weeks preceding the introduction of the draft legislation to parliament saw much activity by the National Party to win concessions for the bush. The Government’s first draft of media changes, to permit media operators to own as many licences as they liked, was never going to get up—it was the ambit claim, if you like. In fact, the ‘two out of three’ media in one market was the preferred position of the government in earlier manifestations of this legislation.[2] So there was nothing new in revised legislation, except the urgency to restore the relevance of the National Party as the apparent drivers of reforms on behalf of their constituency.
But whatever limits on cross-media ownership might remain in the laws, plans were well underway for PBL to exploit the new legislation even before the bill was debated in the House of Representatives. James Packer was getting ready for months to sell around 60 per cent of the Nine network, ACP magazines and ninemsn to foreign interests and looks like making a bid for Fairfax. Kerry Stokes moved on The West Australian and its other media interests. The rush started before the Governor General’s signature was on this legislation, let alone the ink dry. No doubt there will be moves on country media as well, from foreign and local media groups.
Such an outcome was obviously sought through heavy lobbying of some senators: that is not a crime of course, but it would be immoral and should be illegal if election donations in multiples just short of ten thousand dollars are made at the next election…donations that are now completely hidden from public gaze due to recent electoral law ‘reforms’.
The original cross-media ownership laws might not have guaranteed local content, especially in radio, but they did guarantee separate control of broadcast and print in each market, and that is the basic foundation on which a government should build localism requirements.
Prime TV’s submission to the senate inquiry on the legislation says: 'if the proposed legislation were passed and Prime was allowed to acquire a radio station in Bunbury (in addition to Prime’s television station that covers the Bunbury area) local radio news for Bunbury could be sourced from Prime’s Bunbury newsroom'.
Herein lies the crucial weakness of the relaxation of cross-media ownership law. While Prime’s submission rightly argues that currently the Bunbury radio station gets so called local news from Queenslandbased syndication services, the alternative Prime suggests is equally flawed by diminishing diversity within the same market.
If we are now to allow regional ownerships to merge, only the professionalism of individual journalists and editors who would stand up to management and refuse to use generic material stands between 5 diversity of opinion and common editorial policy. I know which is likely to win out with absentee owners looking at profits rather than public interest.
The Prime TV example is exactly what will occur. Radio and TV will not only see a crossover of material, but cross-promotion and cross-media sales deals that will offer economies of scale with radio and TV commercials sold by the same person at the same time, with bulk deals that will make it extremely hard for any solo medium operator in that market. Apart from that, the common news will be just that — common — and when an advertiser wants a special deal including editorial coverage that will inevitably creep into the equation as well. If pressure is applied to drop an embarrassing story not one outlet but both radio and TV journalists will potentially be compromised.
Prime TV is right when it says in its submission that a wide range of media access is available across regional Australia, and is likely to improve with advances in broadband technology, on line publishing, community radio, pay TV, ABC services and the like.
However free-to-air television, radio and mass circulation daily or biweekly newspapers remain the dominant source of local news and commercial advertising and will do so for the foreseeable future.
NOTES:
1: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digitial Television) 2006; Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. Mr Andren’s speech from the Second Reading of the legislation in parliament is available here.
2: Preventing a single operator controlling radio, television, and print media in the same licence area.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Sheep in wolves clothing
Murdoch on his Fairfax stake. Note the logic, decency and gentlemanliness of his actions.
"At a news conference after the meeting, Mr Murdoch was asked why News Corp had bought a 7.5 per cent stake in Australian publisher Fairfax and he said: "Just to make it difficult for anybody to take them over. We don't want to take them over.""
Also note that News, the grand aquisitor, is selling TV assets instead of building them up.
Lets Look at the Courts and Police
1. A camera fine arrives in the mail, the driver of the car disputes the accuracy of the camera device, so he sends back the slip stating he pleads NOT GUILTY and will contest this in Court, about a month and a half later he receives a summons to appear in court, about 3 weeks later he is in court, after the Magistrate asks him his name he is asked if he pleads guilty or not guilty, he pleads NOT GUILTY and is then told to come back to court about 6 weeks time, In court 5 weeks later the same questions again, his name, his plea? NOT GUILTY. He is then asked why, he starts to explain he disputes the accuracy of the camera, his explanation is abruptly interrupted by the Magistrate, "Well that's too bad, you see your not allowed to question the accuracy of a speed camera, unless you have given the Police prosecution at least 3 weeks notice and you have hired an accepted expert witness for the purpose, now if there is nothing else, I find you guilty and fine you the original fine plus costs.
How much does an accepted expert witness cost? I’m told a minimum of $1,000.00 per day. How many people can afford to gamble $1,000.00 per day to contest a $150.00 fine? and how many would risk it as the majority of traffic fines are issued to people driving cars over ten years old and those people are almost always on an income below the poverty line? So it is true to say the poor man has no justice in this case.
2. A poor man receives an on the spot fine valued at $225.00 for talking on a mobile phone while driving. The rich man receives the same fine, simply laughs in the officer’s face and drives off. The poor man sees half his weeks wage going out the window.
The poor man does not own a mobile phone, in fact he was talking on his 40 channel UHF Radio at the time, he tries to tell the police officer this but the officer ignores his plea and walks back to his car and drives off. The poor man has no other option but to go to court and contest the fine, so he fills out the deck on the back stating he will go to court and the next thing about 5 weeks later he receives a summons to appear in court.
The man is poor but not uneducated, he notices one thing- the summons was sworn by a Police officer who was not present when the alleged offence took place, and this officer was also the same officer who wore an oath on the previous summons, and that he swore in both cases before the same Justice of the peace. The poor man arrives at court and while waiting for the Magistrate to arrive the poor man talks briefly to the prosecutor, he asks him about the sworn summons, and is told not to bring this up with the Magistrate, it will only turn the Magistrate against him, and so the poor man walks back to his seat unsatisfied.
As the poor man arrives he is stopped by a man in a suit and asked could he please have a look at the summons? The man in the suit says "The Bastards" The poor man asks What? The man in the suit explains, these summons are sworn by the same Police officer and before the same JP and served on the same day at the same time. Just as those words are uttered, a man in a seat behind the 2 men has overheard their conversation, and he chips in can I look at those? He then says these are the same as mine, same cop swearing before the same JP and at the same time, and this cop was not present on any of the dates, and I will tell you something else, the JP is a cop too!
The three men now ask the following questions.
1. Can a cop who was not there swear an oath before a JP and state that someone committed an offence?
2. Can a cop be a JP as well?
3. Does the cop who is a JP have a conflict of interest?
4. Is the cop who is a JP doing his JP duties at the Police Station as part of his normal routine of duties as a police officer, and if so, considering he is on company time and receiving a wage for doing his duties, would that mean he is in fact being paid money to act as a JP and is this not an offence for which he can be disqualified as a JP?
5. Can anyone be exempt from swearing an oath who was not present? And if so why is it an offence for a citizen to swear an oath before a JP on someone else’s behalf, but it seems it may not be an offence for a police officer?
Back to the poor man's case, he pleads NOT GUILTY and has to reappear, this raises another question, why if the man pleaded GUILTY the case could be heard right away and if he pleads NOT GUILTY it must be heard on another day?
Anyway at the next court case, the poor man argues he did have his hand up to his head while driving and he was talking but it was not a mobile phone, it was a mike from a 40 Channel UHF Radio, the Police Prosecution insist it was a hand held mobile phone. The Magistrate then makes his finding clear. He says "Even though it is an offence to talk on a mobile but not an offence to talk on a CB mike it comes down to your word against to officers, in a case where I have to decide between the word of a police officer and you, I will take the word of the Police officer every time."
The poor man is found guilty and his fine increased by over $100.00 more and a loss of 3 points.
QUESTION Why is it an offence to hold a mobile phone up to your head and talk, but NOT an offence to hold a UHF Radio mike up to your head and talk?
If he were rich, he could simply get his business to pay 5 times the original fine and not lose any points!
I could give more examples but will save them for later.
Cheers.
Cui Bono
Although Peter is undoubtedly correct in his assertion on the minutia of moving from a very regulated framework to merely a quite regulated one, the real reason for lack of diversity and self censorship in broadcasting is due to having government regulation of any type.
Please see article from Mises.com as to “cui bono” in the regulation of broadcasting spectrum…
Mass
The mass-media is dead. These companies should be producing more local content, not conglomerating. It may be more economically "efficient" to do so but it is less effective. Smart media everywhere is specialising, not homogenising. It is no use saving money if people switch off. If content is local, it will attract local advertisers. They will pay less than national, generic advertisers but the economics at least makes more sense. In advertising you learn not to try and sell everything to everyone but to sell something to someone.
Local content is also by its nature cheap to produce. Throw a camera on a school fete and bingo, you've got a product and an audience.
Andren: "The original cross-media ownership laws might not have guaranteed local content, especially in radio, but they did guarantee separate control of broadcast and print in each market, and that is the basic foundation on which a government should build localism requirements."
No, it is irrelevant. If the government wants to build localism requirements they should legislate for local content. It is bad drafting to legislate for something other than what you want to achieve, on the grounds that you think it may indirectly cause something. The purpose of the cross-media laws was to maintain diversity of ownership. It achieved that in a facile way. It doesn't affect local content, either directly or indirectly.
If we want different content in different mediums, whether local or otherwise, then we ought legislate for that. It seems absurd to pass a law prohibiting the use of generic content from a central source, but that is essentially what we want. Different ownership wont necessarily guarantee different content, as content can simply be bought and re-processed to suit the particular medium. Note the role an organisation like the AAP plays in centralising media content.
Here are the laws I would propose to pass:
1) 25% of all content on each medium in each region must be unique, collected independently of any other medium, not bought or otherwise acquired by another broadcaster and gathered by journalists or other staff working for that particular medium in that particular region.
2) 25% of all content must be local content.
Why do we f**k around passing indirect laws that will not achieve what we are trying to achieve? Why not just go for the throat?