How news is made in Australia – some personal views

The genesis of the "Sources of News and Current Affairs" project lies in the Broadcasting Services Act. Traditionally, courts have ignored the intention of legislators, and looked at the plain words of a statute. Now the Broadcasting Services Act, 1992 actually spells out the intention of Parliament:

"The Parliament intends that different levels of regulatory control be applied across the range of broadcasting services according to the degree of influence that different types of broadcasting services are able to exert in shaping community views in Australia." (Sub-section 4(1)).

This project raises several issues. In particular, which medium is the most influential? Can we even assume that one medium is more influential than another? And of course, if one medium is the more influential, we must ask ourselves what form of regulation should be imposed.

The project report speaks for itself. I will restrict myself to making a few observations – my own, not Professor Pearson's nor Professor Brand's and certainly not the Authority's – on certain aspects of the report.

The News Cycle

What is most interesting is what journalists themselves rely on to set the agenda, that is determine what is news and how it should be presented.

Newspapers are the first major influence in the journalist's day. Among the newspapers The Australian clearly dominates; obviously for local news the journalists will look to the relevant capital city or local newspaper. (I would think that The Australian Financial Review would also be a significant source for finance and government). ABC’s AM is another influence, but I suspect not as important as in the early days, probably because of the greater coverage in the newspapers today, and the advent of other new sources.

Our journalist has a long and no doubt exhausting day. Watching Sky, reading AAP on the Internet, in the evening he or she watches the news, certainly on NINE and probably all the others. This seems to be more to know what the consumers are seeing. Then there's the 7.30 Report and once upon a time, in those masochistic days, Media Watch.

So what of the public? The survey suggests that well more than 1 in 2 Australians spend an hour or more in watching, reading or listening to the news and current affairs. Free-to-air television is the most used source for news and current affairs (88%), followed by radio (76%) and newspapers , including those who read only Sunday newspapers (76%). It seems 49.5% use newspapers daily, compared with 66% using television and 79.5% using radio on a daily basis.

Nearly all Australians believe that their preferred source of news and current affairs has at least some influence on public opinion. About half attributed their preferred source with a moderate to high level of influence.

According to the survey, most Australians believe the news and current affairs media are credible. However, many feel they are not as credible as they should be. This seems a milder criticism than the surveys on integrity and honesty of selected professions undertaken by Morgan Gallop.

Public TV and radio were thought most credible. The most credible programme, column or internet site being ABC TV News, A Current Affair, the 7.30 Report, National Nine News and SBS TV News - in that order. (One of these also appears in the top five least credible sources.)

There is an interesting overlap where the journalists identify agenda setters, and the public record good ratings or circulation. This intersection of influence occurs with commercial radio talkback, especially 2UE with I suspect the rest of Southern Cross network following, and with the tabloid newspapers (I am referring to size not necessarily quality), especially The Daily Telegraph, with the News stable and Western Australian newspapers following.

INFLUENCES ON JOURNALISTS - OWNERS

According to the survey, the public thinks the biggest influence on the media – in the sense of deciding what is newsworthy and how the news should be presented – are the media owners, then big business, and then commercial sponsors. Ratings circulation come a lowly fourth, ahead of politicians, then regulatory bodies, lobby groups, religious groups and small business.

Journalists put audience ratings and circulation first. Then come media owners, big business, lobby groups, other journalists (the public didn't consider them), regulators, sponsors, religious groups and small business.

What seems to emerge from the interviews with journalists is that media owners' influence relates more to their perceived commercial interests than their attempting to control, in any systemic way, the selection or presentation of news.

The media 'mogul' may well be becoming endangered species. Today there is no media 'mogul', that is an identifiable single dominant proprietor, at Fairfax, West Australian Newspapers, Channel 10, most major commercial radio and of course the ABC and the SBS.

Moreover, media culture today has changed, and changed irreversibly.

The fact is that to a greater or lesser extent media power and influence has now devolved to the journalists, subject of course to the relevant commercial enterprise remaining profitable. (This latter factor does not of course apply to the public broadcasters.)

Who it is who each day selects what is the news? Who determines day by day, not only how the news is to be presented? Who decides how much comment is to be included in the statement of facts? Who writes that comment? The answer is the journalists. And whom do they look to for guidance in their decisions? Other journalists.

THE JOURNALISTS

So what do we know about our Australian journalists? The project confirms Professor Henningham's revelation in 1996, that "your average journalist is not your average Australian". This is particularly so with regard to political and social views. They have, he found a "curious mix of values". While in favour of capitalism and free enterprise, journalists were "bleeding heart liberals on social issues, libertines in moral areas and hostile to organised religion."

It is important to note that in any scale of conservatism the distances between the more conservative and the less conservative is not so great in this country. We are closer to one another than in the United States, even more so than in the larger continental powers and considerably closer than in Latin America. Although it may worry them, One Nation, the Greens and the Democrats are much closer than say Le Pen and the French Communist Party, both of which are in the French Parliament.

In the 1970s the Australian public held more conservative positions on social and cultural issues, and conservative positions on economic issues. But so did the mainline media. The Nation Review (and later and to a lesser extent, The National Times), and close behind ABC's AM and PM, and This Day Tonight espoused progressive positions on social and cultural matters. The Financial Review took a pioneering role in espousing free trade, and an enhanced role for the market.

Today there is an interesting change. Much of this has to do with the empowerment of the journalists, giving them their identity in lieu of anonymity, their evolution from an apprentice-based trade into, if not a profession, certainly an elite corps, and above all, their freedom to publish their own opinions.

Since the ‘70s, there is something of a rift between the 'quality' media and the public. Perhaps they are leading the public into adopting more progressive positions. On the other hand, it may well be that they are just out of touch.

This tendency is not universal. The tabloids and talkback opinion seem closer to the public's view, for example Alan Jones’ almost one-man campaign against free trade. Yet protectionism was once an article of faith. It is not so long ago that we saw The Australian Financial Review, almost alone in the media, leading the movement away from protectionism. Fortunately this coincided with the decline of socialism as the intelligentsia's solution to economic issues. Now the espousal of protectionism is a capital heresy, yet the principal object of the enormous US$90 billion budget of the European Union is to achieve precisely that.

Herd Mentality

The report notes that there is a widespread view that the media responds as a single group to issues of importance, the so-called ' herd mentality'. This relates to the 'gallery', Australia’s political journalists, who hold out that they are informing us, reporting on the great events of the day in the world of politics. Even most of the news producers (86%) agreed with this, at least to some extent.

One issue on which the gallery has a strong majoritarian view is reconciliation. Glenn Milne put it this way: "The gallery wants reconciliation. They want Howard to say sorry and Howard won't. And the gallery basically wants him gone for that…they ignore the fact that the latest poll – that most people don't want to say sorry. So my criticism is that the gallery ought to take note of what the electorate has expressed as its wish…. Who are the gallery to say…'That's not what you're going to get'?"

From being reporters of news, our political journalists in reporting news have become, for better or worse, unelected participants in the political arena. Once unknown habitues of the saloons of rather disreputable pubs, reporters on politics are now prominent in the salons of the nation's fast new establishment.

This is of course a crucial question if we are to solve Parliament's riddle, and track down the most influential medium, and having found it regulate it. It is clear that in their output, and in their background, there is a surprising degree of homogeneity among the gallery, Australia's political journalists, in their news reporting.

It is true, of course, that there are alternative voices in the media. In the survey Philip Adams identifies himself as a 'nominal lefty' in the mainline press. In fact he is mainline now. The truth is that the few conservative voices in the Australian media are the nominal ones. Most of these restrict themselves to opinion pieces. How many conservatives are there involved in the political reporting of the news? In principle, it should not matter.

But if there is a herd mentality, does it matter?

Are our political journalists so influential? The survey suggests the public thinks their preferred source of news and current affairs, while influential in shaping public opinion, does not determine public opinion. But this is after the journalists have determined what is newsworthy and how it will be presented – journalists are after all the gatekeepers of our information flows.

A theory which attempts to explain media influence is the phenomenon of the Spiral of Silence, a concept referred to in the project.

This theory postulates that as an individual suspects that his view on some important issues seems to be losing ground, the more uncertain he will become of himself and the less he will be inclined to express his opinion. This may be so even if what appears to be the dominant view is over-estimated because it is more frequently heard. The fear of isolation, and also doubt about one's own capacity for judgement, is an integral part of all processes of public opinion. The Spiral of Silence can inflict serious damage to the concept of the market place of ideas.

Outside his or her personal circle, the citizen today is wholly dependent on the media for information about public opinion. What happens then the citizen is told that public opinion is overwhelming or even unanimous?.

In Australia, we are confronted with an unusual degree of homogeneity in the apparent reporting, I stress the reporting, of political and related news. This extends not only to today's news, but to our own history and the media's recollection of this. This is a matter of some relevance, in responding to Parliament’s mandate: the greater the influence, the higher the regulation.

FACT OR COMMENT?

The phenomenon of campaign journalism in the reporting of political news led obviously into the subject of the distinction and comment or opinion on the other.

The division between fact, news and comment was once rigorously observed. In the press, journalists were not named, editors saw to what at least appeared objective reporting, and comment was reserved to the editorial. On the ABC comment was limited to the prestigious weekly Guest of Honour, a few talks and invited commentaries. That was it.

All that has changed. Accordingly, the report on this project observes, almost reproachfully: "A body of communication and cultural studies literature suggests that no-one, particularly journalists, can be objective, and that all news is laden with cultural baggage." I repeat, journalists cannot be objective!

No one suggests of course that comment should not be allowed. Indeed comment, good robust comment, is to be encouraged.

But sometimes comment is indistinguishable from news reporting. The signals or branding that journalists say indicate what is comment and what is news are either not understood or they are just not there. Sometimes there are even no facts, just comment.

It seems many of our news producers also agree that this is a problem. And it seems the public can make neither head nor tail of this. According to this survey – where the sample over-represents university graduates – only 30.5% find it somewhat easy to distinguish between fact and opinion, and 8.1% very easy. So more than 60% have difficulty distinguishing fact, news, from comment.

The news, after all, should be as far as possible an objective recital of facts. It should be consistent with The Times' observation in the 19th century: "The first duty of the Press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time, and instantly, by disclosing them, to make them the common property of the nation."

CONCLUSIONS

What the project tells us is that in these days the greatest influence on the media is not the media owners. Nor do ratings or circulation seem to be the dominant influence in the actual making of the news. The biggest influence seems to be the journalists themselves, other journalists, and their own beliefs and commitments. (Or as one news producer said, their cultural mindset.)

So the concept of regulating a discrete medium, say television, more than another seems to have little validity.

What is the point, then, of laws regulating ownership, domestic or foreign, if that is to limit influence when the greatest influence, on a daily basis, comes from much more from the corps of journalists than ever from the media owner – even if a dominant media proprietor can be identified? This leads to the conclusion that those aspects of the Broadcasting Services Act regulating ownership should be reviewed. Obviously, this cannot be done dispassionately in an election year, but it would seem highly appropriate in the next Parliament. (Needless to say until a change in the law the ABA will of course rigorously apply the law as it is.)

If media owners, where they exist, do not have and cannot have the power they may once have enjoyed, the better course might be to leave media ownership to the anti-trust laws. The concept of limiting an owner to a certain share of voice, while initially attractive, suffers from the need to attribute arbitrary values to each medium, e.g. radio, print, TV, as well as how to include new technologies. If abolition were thought too extreme, proposals for acquisitions by media owners could be required to satisfy the regulation that the result must be in the public interest.

In conclusion, the report suggests four matters of concern:

First, a surprising homogeneity in the cultural mindsets of political journalists, and a tendency on their part to indulge in campaign journalism.

Second, a failure to distinguish, to the satisfaction of the public and the regulators, between news and comment.

Third, a concern about sensationalism and intrusive reporting; and

Fourth, a concern about the adequacy of the coverage of local events and issues.

The concerns the project reveals are mainly ethical matters. Ethical principles transcend the technology for delivery, whether it be print or broadcast, analogue or digital. The solution for the proper application of ethical precepts lies not in further legislation, for that would be worse than the problem. The solution is with the individuals and organisations concerned.

As Mahatma Ghandi wrote:

"The sole aim of journalism should be service. The press is a great power but, just as an unchained torrent submerges the whole countryside and devastates crops, even so an uncontrolled pen serves but to destroy. If the control is from without, it proves more poisonous than want of control. It can be profitable only when exercised from within."