Can you imagine Australia as a dictatorship? This is a potential extreme with media
monopolies in OUR country becoming a reality. Free-to-air television and radio and daily
newspapers dominate Australian’s lives so it is important that there is diversity in ownership
so we know we are hearing ALL of the facts to every story. This diversity would also reflect
our multicultural society and would acknowledge the varying opinions on important issues.
We are calling for further regulations on ownership of media companies to protect ourselves
and our children from corporate giant’s personal agendas filtering down through the media.
Maddie, Isabel and I will discuss the benefits of further regulation on media ownership in
Australia and prove that this approach far outweighs relaxing our current regulations and
policies.
This is a day and age where making political and social decisions is more important than
ever, many of you have only recently been enrolled to vote. You need to make informed
decisions which are unfortunately usually based around what you hear in the media. Media
organisations often present a bias view for certain political parties to suede you, we may not
question it because “it’s the news” and we assume it is fair and factual.
According to The Australian Collaboration, Australia’s media diversity is ranked at an
appalling forty first on a global scale. Australia is supposed to be a democracy and we need to
encourage diversity in media ownership to sustain this. News ltd. and John Fairfax Holdings
account for over 90% of daily newspaper circulation. Greater concentration of media
ownership began when the Howard government introduced changes to the media laws in
2006. Cross-ownership and foreign ownership restrictions have been lifted with companies
allowed to own two out of three media outlets in one area, fuelling media moguls like Rupert
Murdoch. We do not want to be a part of a dictatorship. Australia should be a true democracy
and The Australian Collaboration believes we need diversity in media ownership to attain
this.
A Roy Morgan poll in 2006 highlighted the fear journalists have towards new media laws
which a whopping 80% believe will “lower the quality and diversity of news coverage, and
71% believed it would give media owners too much influence over political agenda.” With an
array of journalists working for various media companies that could potentially be owned by
a number of people we will see diverse content and perspectives allowing us to make
educated decisions. Journalists would be influenced by competition to get the facts right and
not be pressured by their bosses. The Productivity Commission and the Australian
Broadcasting Authority investigated aspects of media ownership influence and indeed
journalists and editors felt pressured to consider the interests of their owners including
commercial interest. There would have been numerous occasions where journalists have
reported on important issues only to have it cut when it doesn’t fit the owner’s interests.
Our opposition may argue that the internet and the evolving technology that comes hand in
hand with it such as social media and blogs means that diverse opinions are available.
However, how many people watch the news and then actively seek out more information on
the internet? Stuart Cunningham has an important point stating that “the proliferation of
media content through the internet make assertions of untoward control over perspective out
dated and redundant.” He goes on to explain that “this is surely a major overstatement of the
internet as a reliable alternative source.” The internet is abundant with amateur uneducated
bloggers that often provide nothing more than a laugh when it comes to sourcing facts. Media
owners also have websites and although they may have different names they are in fact
owned by the same person who influences what is published. For example PBL or CMH the
company which James Packer heads owns three metropolitan Tv stations, three regional tv
stations, 49.1% of all magazine circulation, 25% of Foxtel and the list never ends. All of
which have their own websites, who would have thought? ACCC an independent statutory
authority that supposedly promotes competition and fair trade to benefit consumers approved
News Corporations attainment of 13 community newspapers, 2 commuter papers, 25
magazines and 6 online properties adding to its control of approximately 70% of newspapers
in Australia. Different points of view have always been available through pamphlets, small
independent magazines and community radio however mass media in the form of print and
television is still Aussie’s dominant point of call. In Western society Australia leads the way
in media monopolies with 85% of all print circulation owned between just four owners!
We need to stand up and recognise that the media has an obligation to the people of Australia
to regain true democracy; we want to hear diverse opinions and perspectives! We need
greater regulation of media monopolies to ensure this can happen. Maddie and Isabel will
develop our argument and give you more reasons to support our cause.
At present, Australian media is a textbook oligopoly. An oligopoly is defined by Oxford
Dictionary as a state of limited competition, in which there a select few providers of a
particular good or service, and as such these providers can greatly influence price and market
factors – in this case, such as news stories covered, journalists opinions and much more. The
dangers of an Oligopoly are clear in that it has the potential to drive prices sky high, and
increases the chances of a complete monopoly being formed, for example if one of the
providers was to fall. If this were to happen, a media monopoly could potentially create an
almost communist state within Australia media. Although there are certain – if inadequate –
laws in place to protect against this threat, it is clear these are not enough to prevent unjust
and immoral acts within the media as a result of corporate giant ownership.
This can be seen most recently in the News Of The World Scandal, involving media giant
News Corporation and it's owner, Rupert Murdoch. In this violation of ethical journalism,
several journalists from the News Of The World and other British tabloids owned by
NewsCorp were accused and found guilty of hacking into the phones of members of the
public, celebrities, and even members of the Royal family. The knowledge gained from
sifting through the private texts and voice messages found on the phones was then used to aid
various stories written for the newspapers. Although this scandal was not a direct result of a
media monopoly, it can be surmised that Rupert Murdoch owning several other high-standing
newspapers in London such as The Sunday Times, The Sun and The Times, contributed to the
lack of diversity and subsequent lack of morality shown in this case.
The risk for what happened in London to occur somewhere in Australia is quite high, as there
is a similar lack of regulation to prevent media monopolies from occuring. As Amelia stated,
changes made to media law by the Howard Government in 2006 resulted in cross-ownership
and foreign ownership restrictions being lifted, and companies subsequently being allowed to
own two out of three media outlets in one area. Laws like this have made it extremely easy to
own a majority share in any particular media, encouraging moguls such as Rupert Murdoch
and Jamie Packer to take advantage of this. Stuart Cunningham, Author of The Media and
Communications in Australia states that “Partly as a result of these changes, and partly
contributing to them, Australia has the most concentrated press ownership among established
democracies.” Supporting this statement is the fact that two proprietors account for more than
90 per cent of daily metropolitan circulation in Australian newspapers. News Limited, a
company also owned by Rupert Murdoch, owns more than 50% of this daily metropolitan
circulation. This is a clear example of monopolistic media ownership gone too far – if one
person can own more than half of Australia's metropolitan newspapers, where does it end?
The Packer family is also one worthy of noting in regards to media ownership – owning the
company CMH which in it's portfolio owns 25% of Foxtel, 50% of Premier Media Group –
producer of prominent sports channels such as Fox Sports, and more than 26% of online
employment business Seek.
The laws which regulate and supposedly control media ownership in Australia are severely
out of date. In the last 5 years alone Australian media has undergone a digital revolution, with
hard Newspaper Sales significantly decreasing and television changing from Analogue to
Digital. With this new digital age and subsequent new technology, it is only logical that new
laws regarding media ownership in Australia should be implemented, so as to keep up with
the changing media scene. If they are not, it is entirely possible that the existing media
moguls will use and exploit the new technology in unprecedented ways, without fear of fault
or persecution.
Also touched upon by Amelia earlier was people's active – or lack thereof – search for
information. It is a rare occasion when a news story will present an unbiased account of all
the facts, devoid of a particular angle or position. There will almost always be a hidden
agenda in the news, regardless of the journalist. This hidden agenda is often the agenda of the
Media giant which owns the particular medium, and is using whatever they may own to help
their own causes. Many members of the public, however, are unaware of this, and may fail to
seek out better or more unbiased information on a certain topic because they have been
conditioned to trust the media.
Stuart Cunningham explains the pressures upon journalists in this particular age: “While we
might assume that journalists were once objective and disinterested scribes of what they saw,
that assumption should have softened in recent years as competitive and corporate pressures
play a stronger role in influencing their professional conduct.”
The whole point of media is to share diverse and unbiased perspectives on current affairs.
However, if something is not done to prevent further monopolistic media ownership, I fear
this will become a thing of the past. Isabel will later highlight and conclude our arguments.