The new media laws: a fig leaf to conceal bargains among thieves

Helen Coonan, Federal Minister for Communications, has announced some media reforms. Unfortunately the word “reform” has an unpleasant edge to it. One recalls the doubtful democracy of the Democratic Republic of East Germany (in which people were paid to inform on members of their own families). Or the excesses of the Peoples Republic of China (in which ordinary people, teachers and intellectuals, were terrorised by their own students). Will the changes “reform” the problems we see in the Australian media?

Let’s look at each sector in turn.

Australian newspapers offer us conventional views of the world. They have become dominated by their advertisers. Snip out the advertisments from the first few pages and you aren’t left with a lot.

The opinion pages of the Sydney Morning Herald, for instance, have sadly declined from what they were. All we get is a trail of instant experts with conventional views: people who know all about feminism one week, atheism the next, Christianity the week after. Add some politicians, some token academics, and this, apparently, makes up educated opinion. Mercifully, the paper occasionally has some useful or amusing comment from Peter Fitzsimons, Mike Carlton, or others. There might be an in-depth piece about some research that’s provocative or thought-provoking. But these pieces are few in number.

In many Australian papers, we often read about expensive clothes and restaurants when all we want are basic ones. One journalist wrote sadly that people were turning away from meals at $75 a plate. Who do these people imagine they are writing for? The same applies to luxury travel, when most of us want something cheaper.

There is little depth in many of the arguments: often a serious reader looks in vain for content that is well-researched. As a researcher whose work is reported in the papers, I have spoken to countless journalists pushing their own barrows and indulging their pet interests. “What would you like me to say?” I am tempted to ask.

They are not investigating a story: they have the good guys and the bad all worked out already. Here as elsewhere, “freedom of the press” means that journalists should be allowed to say anything they feel like. Wrong!

There are individual journalists striving to do a decent job among many who have given up. But one looks in vain for the insight and gravitas of the New York Times or Washington Post. Score: 4 out of 10; needs to improve.

The commercial TV stations outdo each other for crass silliness, and an endless parade of fake celebrities. How many more celebrity shows can we endure? It’s one kind of boofy stupidity “competing” with another, as we can see from the news programs.

The stupidly matey “Roscoe” and “Freddy” on Seven are only outdone by similar people doing equally tedious things on Nine. Style reigns over substance: attractive people in expensive clothes mouth truisms and platitudes. Often the Sydney TV news shows simply re-hash what was in the morning’s Sydney Telegraph.

Who could forget the infantile, flag-waving “Aussie Aussie Aussie” coverage of the Commonwealth Games? On most of the current affairs programs, brainless journalists offer critique at about the level of a poor fifth-grade class. Someone presents one view, and the TV show hurries to confront us with the opposite. This means the show is being fair and balanced in the juvenile mind of the producer.

Even TV weather misleads us: almost every day reporters urge us to go to the snowfields, but those who do so find that they have hidden the fact there is little snow to ski on. Meanwhile Ten usually manages to outdo the others in trite comment and breathless detail about trivia. Big Brother only shows us to what depths commercial media will sink.

There was some genuine improvised humour on Thank God You’re Here; Jamie Durie last week showed us AIDS victims in Uganda; one can enjoy some of 24 or Prison Break, but generally the picture on commercial TV is bleak.

Media Watch showed us recently how Nine’s morning show was busily inventing child care stories week after week to satisfy its child care sponsor. But the same pattern could be seen on the equivalent program on Seven.

Basically there is no real competition on the commercial media. Commercial TV is busy helping business make money and doesn’t give 5 cents for consumers. Score: 2 out of 10; must try harder.

What of the ABC? This is not the place for a thorough critique. But too often the ABC gives us slabs of British TV, sometimes in bewildering accents, with little relevance to Australians.

Too often we get predictable views of the world, echoing the safe views of the majority of academics. So we are told again that John Howard’s detention policies are flawed. Feminism is presented as holy writ. Aborigines are revered. Multiculturalism is wonderful.

This leaves angry white males (delinquent dads or naughty schoolboys) as the only people who can safely be attacked.

All these ideas need to be carefully argued for our judgment, rather than presenting the conclusions obvious from the first sentence. Too often, we are given a conventional opinion weakly challenged.

Having an independent ABC should not mean its journalists can rave fearlessly about people they dislike.

Thankfully there are exceptions to the ABC’s fake consensus. Lateline, Media Watch, Four Corners, Australian Story, AM and PM at their best show us the strength of the ABC. There is also substance to some of the interviews on ABC local radio.

Tony Delroy’s Australia-wide program, Nightlife, actually allows interviewees to say what they think for a change. Every gardener I know respects Peter Cundall’s program as far and away the best of its kind. Any Australian who writes a book is thankful that the ABC supports and publicises books.

It’s scary to think what Australian media would be like without the ABC. It’s just sad that Aunty can’t spend more money on making drama and current affairs and less on self-important bureaucratic pooh-bahs. Score: 5 out of 10; could do a lot better.

SBS shows the rest of the media what TV can be. Time and again I look with despair over all the other channels, only to find something fresh and thought-provoking on SBS. Global Village just by itself offers a superb view of the world. SBS travel programs show us real travel. By comparison how silly the commercial travel programs seem: the top half of Mary or Jenny in a bikini crowds the screen, while we struggle to see anyone in the background from Tahiti or Maccu Picchu.

On SBS I have learnt about French villages, Estonian cities, South American music; and the diversity of SBS movies is superb. Who wasn’t grateful for its brilliant, in-depth coverage of the World Cup? It made the rest of the TV stations look like amateurs. On sport and other SBS programs, we get a world-view, not programs cheering on “the little Aussie battler from Bundywallop”. Score: 7 out of 10; showing up the rest.

I am grateful that the Howard Government allows SBS and ABC to survive. We need more stations like SBS, not more commercial claptrap. We need more diversity, not less. Will we get it under the media “reforms”?

First, we can already see the danger of having one person controlling many outlets. Nobody on TV can criticise the boss’ newspaper: we look in vain on Channel Nine for details of PBL’s troubles. Fairfax, Packer and Murdoch own powerful media empires and everyone races to echo His Master’s Voice.

Media Watch has shown this in chilling fashion in regard to Murdoch’s obedient editors. The ABC uses Media Watch to point out faults in ALL the media, ABC included. It’s very scary to think that the House of Packer or Murdoch can tell us what to think about social issues or national problems.

Second, foreign ownership of our media will mean less control for Australians. It’s bad enough having chunks of American dross on Seven, Nine and Ten. We don’t want UK, US or Chinese media throwing us their off-cuts. Anyone who has seen TV in Brazil or similar countries will see what I mean: tedious hours of The Dukes of Hazzard or Bewitched, circa 1970, dumped on unfortunate viewers because it’s all cheap. How will foreign ownership contribute to an understanding of men and women in the Australian bush?

Third, if we abandon cross-ownership laws, who is going to protect ordinary people in Footscray or Barcaldine against the power of the media moguls controlling who says what? Where in all the changes, does an intelligent viewer hope to see better information? How do we expect people under 25, who devour media like it was fresh air, will get some kind of education from what they will drink in? And how, incidentally, can we debate media control, if people who control media won’t allow it? Is there free speech in Australia? Yes, and some have more than others.

The new legislation looks too much like a figleaf made to conceal bargains among thieves. The big media players will divide the media, like kings after a battle, while you and I have to endure the news they want us to have. And the more I hear Helen Coonan talk of diversity and freedom, the more I smell a rat. Give us some real changes, please, and some decent media coverage. Not more of the same rubbish.