So long freedom of speech.

[Arwon]

Nope, I don't know what the hell was Leveson but I am against government intervention in the press, in the UK or in Australia or in Madagascar.

I don't trust the government to define the criteria for journalistic integrity. There are courts for anyone who feels wronged go to. Regulating content is censorship.

(Leveson's the ongoing UK inquiry into the hacking and police bribery at Newscorp.)

The problem we have currently is that the Australian Press Council seems to be very weak and therefore not doing its job.

Whether the solution is a statutory body, I'm a bit skeptical, but a problem does exist with existing codes of practice being both out of date and not very well adhered to. Personally I think giving it some funding to make it more independent of the publishers would probably be a good idea. At present half its money comes from News Limited, so of course it's going to be constrained by that. Withdrawal by either of our two large media companies would likely completely collapse the current Press Council.

(Thinking about it, I suspect the extreme concentration in Australian media is part of what makes the current self-regulation very weak. If there were more media companies providing smaller shares of the funding it would presumably be a more effective body.)

Another idea suggested in the inquiry report is to make present legislated press priveleges (exemption from privacy law, and from the provisions around misleading conduct in trade in the Consumer and Competition Act) provisional on membership of the APC peak body.

At any rate, if such a body were created to replace the APC, it's being proposed even in the sensationalist OP that it have the power to use the courts (or possibly to function as one) rather than of direct regulation. Is it government censorship to sue a news outlet for defamation or libel? Would it be censorship to sue a news outlet for breaching the code of practice it has itself signed up to?

 

[Arwon]

Should add that I'm reading the inquiry report now and it's rather a lot more nuanced and discursive than the Telegraph ("Australia's second worst newspaper!") would have you believe. Who'd have thought that from former judges? Shock, horror.

I think this bit is a pretty neat summary of the current problems:

Professor McKinnon, a former APC Chair, has pointed out several examples of transgressions of the fundamental principles of fairness, accuracy and balance

· bias in the reporting of government affairs :
· obsessive attempts to influence government policy by day-after-day repetition of issues with little or no new information of news value
· opposition to government policy which is commercially-driven
· the unfair pursuit of individuals based on information that is inaccurate
· the failure to separate news from comment
· treating expert and lay opinion as being of equal value or deliberately selecting opinions opposed to government policy while ignoring opposite views
· overuse of pejorative adjectives in reports of issues with which the media outlet does not agree.

More directly the news media can cause wrongful harm to individuals and organisations by unreliable or inaccurate reporting, breach of privacy, and the failure to properly take into account the defenceless in the community

Here are a few striking instances:
· A minister of the Crown has his homosexuality exposed. He is forced to resign.
· A chief commissioner of police is the victim of false accusations about his job performance fed to the news media by a ministerial adviser. Following publication of the articles, he is forced to resign.
· A woman is wrongly implicated in the deaths of her two young children in a house fire. Her grief over her children's death is compounded by the news media coverage.
· Nude photographs said to be of a female politician contesting a seat in a state election are published with no checking of their veracity. The photographs are fakes.
· A teenage girl is victimised because of her having had sexual relations with a well-known sportsman.

 

[Arwon]

Oh and here's a non-sensationalist and specific criticism of the report by somebody who has actually, you know, read it:

Media inquiry ignores value of diversity

[...]
Australia has the worst concentration of media ownership in the developed world - no other country has, or likely would have, allowed things to get to this point. But the long-term sustainability of our news media industry is not assured, and particularly vulnerable are the smaller parts of our oligopoly. There are no truly effective remedies for ordinary people with few resources, whom the news media prints lies about, whose privacy is invaded, or whose careers are ruined by baseless reporting. Regional public spheres are increasingly impoverished, and the determining factor is not demand in these communities, but the dynamics of corporate rationalisation.

There is a serious crisis of public trust in the media in its Fourth Estate role - on the whole, we haven't trusted what we read in newspapers for some time, which has consequences of the functioning of our democracy. And the current system of self-regulation seems to be unsatisfactory to everyone except the print industry, who favour the current arrangements precisely because they rarely bear any costs as a result of wrongdoing on their part. The report brings detailed, patient discussion of all of these issues together in a useful way, and it is persuasive in presenting them as concerns for policymakers. The report and its recommendations have, despite the paranoia of some commentators, been produced in good faith, with thoroughness and with exemplary attentiveness to the somewhat flawed brief the inquiry was given by the Government.

The best thing about the report is that it gives us an opportunity for a broad and extended public debate around all of this.

[...]

 

[Evie]

I don't trust the government to define the criteria for journalistic integrity. There are courts for anyone who feels wronged go to. Regulating content is censorship.

You mean: the judicial branch of government?

As for going to court if one feels wronged, it's never had any appreciable effect on crap journalism - between the difficulties of a trial, the necessity of proving intent to harm (as opposed to merely proving practices going against journalistic integrity), the fact that trial will be against the journalists, not the editorial powers (and above) who are the ones condoning and encouraging this sort of attitude (especially in a situation of concentrated medias), and so on, it's a sloppy, ridiculous answer that fail to do anything to address the problem.

There are, of course, equally significant issues with executive or legislative oversight of the media. But that does not excuse defending the current safeguards as sufficient.

 

[luiz]

You mean: the judicial branch of government?

As for going to court if one feels wronged, it's never had any appreciable effect on crap journalism - between the difficulties of a trial, the necessity of proving intent to harm (as opposed to merely proving practices going against journalistic integrity), the fact that trial will be against the journalists, not the editorial powers (and above) who are the ones condoning and encouraging this sort of attitude (especially in a situation of concentrated medias), and so on, it's a sloppy, ridiculous answer that fail to do anything to address the problem.

There are, of course, equally significant issues with executive or legislative oversight of the media. But that does not excuse defending the current safeguards as sufficient.

Yeah, I mean the a-political branch of government whose job is to uphold the Law. The Executive is certainly the last branch that should get involved in journalism.

It's a good thing that it's difficult to win a case against journalists in courts. The "problem" is small and blown way out of proportion by people who would like to silence the media anyway. Only clear-cut cases of slander and defamation should result in a condemnation of the journalist/newspaper; dubious cases should always be ignored.

Talks of "concentration of media ownership" are always and everywhere started by Chávez-like folks who don't like dissenting opinion having too much say. What exactly is preventing anyone in Australia from starting a new media outlet? Newspapers aren't exactly a natural monopoly, nor is cable TV or internet websites (open TV should be mostly apolitical, with that I agree). Maybe if Australians are mostly watching outlets from a particular organization it's because they, uh, like the content? Maybe they don't like what the would be censors think they should like.

 

[aelf]

Who knew that Rupert Murdoch is actually one of the good guys? Unethical practices like phone hacking? Pah. Only clear-cut cases of slander and defamation should result in a condemnation of the journalist/newspaper.

 

[luiz]

Who knew that Rupert Murdoch is actually one of the good guys? Unethical practices like phone hacking? Pah. Only clear-cut cases of slander and defamation should result in a condemnation of the journalist/newspaper.

Phone hacking is a crime and should be treated as such. It is not proof that the media is "too concentrated" (whatever the hell that means) or should be regulated.

There is already something called "The Law" which says that phone hacking is illegal. What else do we need? Anyone who thinks a phone hacking case merits media regulation is an enemy of freedom of speech.

 

[aelf]

Well, yes, we need more. That's the point - if the matter is handled by the police, it's more likely that only the journalist or private eye involved would be prosecuted. The editors and owners would pretty much get away with it. An investigation into the industry's practices and operating procedures that give rise to such criminal activity is beyond the scope of a regular police investigation.

 

[Arwon]

Talks of "concentration of media ownership" are always and everywhere started by Chávez-like folks who don't like dissenting opinion having too much say. What exactly is preventing anyone in Australia from starting a new media outlet? Newspapers aren't exactly a natural monopoly, nor is cable TV or internet websites (open TV should be mostly apolitical, with that I agree). Maybe if Australians are mostly watching outlets from a particular organization it's because they, uh, like the content? Maybe they don't like what the would be censors think they should like.

Well, you're actually pretty wrong there. "Chavez like folks" is an absurd dismissal of a very serious issue in this country.

About 8 years ago, Reporters Without Borders ranked us as low as 41st for press freedom, based mostly on the really low media diversity that exists here. Most Australian cities have one newspaper. Sydney and Melbourne have two, and virtually all of them are owned by either News Corp or Fairfax. Why aren't there other players? Well, you tell me. Utterly dominant market power doesn't just disappear. Turns out it's really hard for some dude to just start a media empire and gain market share out of nowhere. It only happens very rarely. And as for getting the sort of decisive power News and Fairfax have? Forget about it. God help us if Fairfax collapses.

It's worth noting that for whatever reason, Australia seems to be the land of the duopoly. Two newspaper companies, two groceries giants, two airlines. I'm not sure the reason. I suspect it's the natural tendency in a country characterised by relatively small and isolated markets.

 

[luiz]

Well, yes, we need more. That's the point - if the matter is handled by the police, it's more likely that only the journalist or private eye involved would be prosecuted. The editors and owners would pretty much get away with it. An investigation into the industry's practices and operating procedures that give rise to such criminal activity is beyond the scope of a regular police investigation.

No, it isn't. If the police has reasons to believe that orders to break the Law came from above, they can and should investigate. Wasn't the chief editor of News of the World criminally prosecuted? So what exactly is lacking? What else do we need?

 

[Arwon]

The Leveson public inquiry in the UK is occurring and has been necessary because the elements of the Metropolitan Police appear to have been corrupted by a culture of bribe payments and have been very very reluctant to seriously investigate until external impetus was applied.

Sue Akers, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, gave remarkable evidence yesterday from the investigation of what she called the Sun’s “culture of illegal payments” to police and other public officials.

 

[luiz]

Well, you're actually pretty wrong there. "Chavez like folks" is an absurd dismissal of a very serious issue in this country.

About 8 years ago, Reporters Without Borders ranked us as low as 41st for press freedom, based mostly on the really low media diversity that exists here. Most Australian cities have one newspaper. Sydney and Melbourne have two, and virtually all of them are owned by either News Corp or Fairfax. Why aren't there other players? Well, you tell me. Turns out it's really hard for some dude to start a new newspaper and gain market share out of nowhere (particularly back in the past, when Murdoch bought up the printing presses). And as for getting the sort of decisive power News and Fairfax have? Forget about it. God help us if Fairfax collapses.

It's worth noting that for whatever reason, Australia seems to be the land of the duopoly. Two newspaper companies, two groceries giants, two airlines. I'm not sure the reason. I suspect it's the natural tendency in a country characterised by relatively small and isolated markets.

What is the difficulty in starting a new paper? It's not particularly expensive, there are thousands of small time papers in the whole world literally run from basements. Some grow to media empires, some don't.

If the public likes what they have to say, it'll grow. Otherwise it won't. I don't see any problem with concentration and lack of diversity if it's easy enough to start a competing venture. Open TV could be a big problem, if access to cable was not widespread enough, but newspapers are a non-issue.

Again, if just two groups manage to make it big maybe Australians just like what they have to say.

The use of "Chávez-like folks" was very realistic. Complaints about "excessive media concentration" are exactly the excuse used by Chávez, Morales, Correa and Kirchner to shut down media outlets, arrest journalists and generally kill freedom of speech (to different degrees in those different countries).

 

[Arwon]

That's a very very optimistic view of how mass media works. It is belied by the simple and obvious fact that despite the fact polls always show that newspapers are not trusted in this country, that journalists are rated lower than politicians for positive views of their profession, and yet there are not a thousand alternative newspapers blooming to challenge the entrenched players.

 

[luiz]

The Leveson public inquiry in the UK is occurring and has been necessary because the elements of the Metropolitan Police appear to have been corrupted by a culture of bribe payments and have been very very reluctant to seriously investigate until external impetus was applied.

If the police is failing to due its job it should be fixed. A parliamentary commission to investigate why the police failed may or may not be the best way to go, but that's besides the point.

The point is crimes should be treated as such, as we already have the mechanisms to deal with crime.

 

[Arwon]

Yep. And one of those mechanisms is parliamentary inquiries.

 

[luiz]

That's a very very optimistic view of how mass media works. It is belied by the simple and obvious fact that despite the fact polls always show that newspapers are not trusted in this country, that journalists are rated lower than politicians for positive views of their profession, and yet there are not a thousand alternative newspapers blooming to challenge the entrenched players.

That's a failure of the public, which can't be solved by enlightened despots telling them what they ought to read. Fact is the public was reading that News of the World crap, to a greater degree than they were reading many good publications.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The use of "Chávez-like folks" was very realistic. Complaints about "excessive media concentration" are exactly the excuse used by Chávez, Morales, Correa and Kirchner to shut down media outlets, arrest journalists and generally kill freedom of speech (to different degrees in those different countries).

Who cares? I don't see any problem with concentration and lack of diversity in the media. It's easy enough to start a new newspaper in these countries, and if the public doesn't read it, that's their fault.

 

[Arwon]

I'm not sure what can be done these days, except to lament the fact that the mergers and buy-ups were all allowed to go ahead in the first place. Even once you factor in free-to-air and paid television, it all comes down to five or six players (News Ltd, Fairfax, James Packer, Kerry Stokes, and Nine and WIN) and several of them are basically acting in concert through owning non-controlling stakes in each others' companies.

Concentration of ownership has been a ratchet, it only moves in one direction. I suppose the only two realistic options are forced divestment of assets, or outright funding some start-ups and whatnot. The former will never happen, the latter might, but not with any government this country has ever had. Hell they even botched the opportunity for using digital TV to expand the range on Free-To-Air, maybe even issue some new licenses, instead allowing the current players to simply use the new bandwidth (obtained for virtually nothing) for High-Def channels.

Maybe also beefing up the ABC would help in regional and rural markets where local content has been dwindling to nothing due to the logic of rationalisation and the lack of competitors.

 

[luiz]

It's easy enough to start a new newspaper in these countries, and if the public doesn't read it, that's their fault.

No, it isn't. And the public did read the outlets which were shut down.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I would have thought given the pattern of the BBC and CBC, that the ABC would already be decent.