Competition the only real antidote to Cash for Comment

Why has the mainstream media pursued this story so hard? Well, scoundrels deserve to be exposed, and that is good, even if their mates don’t care one way or the other. I also think that at the back of our minds, most of us know that in our own ways we are guilty of the same sins. By punishing Laws and Jones we vicariously punish ourselves. That is not to say that most journalists take money to change their mind, but that money paid to others and other considerations do corrupt the process. There is a reason why journalists rate next to politicians for honesty.

In the first place we all touch up the chaos of events that is the raw material of news, and neatly tie it up into cause and effects, good guys and bad guys, tragedy and farce, when it is rarely clearly any of these. By so doing we produce not pure news, but "faction". It is what the majority of readers and listeners require, so our honesty is corrupted by the need to have an audience.

With the exception of the ABC and some community outlets, the news is produced for commercial gain. It is a filler between the advertisements. The public believes that these commercial considerations often dictate news content. Murdoch’s efforts to schmooze the Chinese government by trying to censor Chris Patten’s book underlines the truth of this.

Some years ago the Courier Mail launched a campaign against the importing of tinned pineapple from the Philippines. This was affecting pineapple growers. What the Courier Mail never revealed was that it had a financial interest in the Big Pineapple, a tourist attraction north of Brisbane involved in the pineapple industry. The only significant difference that I can detect between this and the 2UE position is that the conflict of interest was between the whole organisation and its readership, not just one or two of its journalists – surely a grosser violation of trust.

Laws and Jones are easy to target because cash changed hands, but there are other less tangible considerations that corrupt the process. All journalists carry a capital investment with them of the contacts that they have made through their career. Knowing where to go and how to get information is what puts food on the table. But sources always have a quid pro quo. I would be surprised if there is a journalist alive who could honestly say that they have unerringly adhered to the journalists’ code of ethics. Deadlines, exclusives, on-going relationships all put pressure on ethical obligations.

The source of conflict does not need to be external. We all have points of view. That is what makes writing interesting in the first place. Point of view can all too easily become bias. Even in not-for-profit news organisations individual journalists can still be corrupted because of loyalty to considerations other than presentation of news – ideology, promotional possibilities, group. These are conflicts of interest that cannot be exposed by any declaration of personal interest.

There are two ways of dealing with the problems dealt with by the inquiry. One is to regulate. There are limits here. Laws has already made fun of the rule that he must declare his interests before dealing with a news item concerning any of his sponsors saying (according to my notes) – "If the Optus building is burning, I have to declare that they are a sponsor? Really?" What about the situation of the Courier Mail and pineapples – should it also declare an interest? Probably. Newscorp, PBL, the ABC and Fairfax when writing on media regulations, broadcasting regulations, digital TV?

One also needs to ask whether declaration is enough. What the various codes of ethics and the inquiry are saying is that news gathering is a special activity which needs more than the defamation laws and the Trade Practices Act to regulate it. This being the case, shouldn’t journalists, and their employers, absent themselves from any area where they have a conflict of interest?

To do this absolutely would be impossible. Who would have been left to report the Government’s decision on digital TV, given that all of the major outlets were players? But it might be possible to circumscribe the commercial interests that a media outlet might have of a non-media nature - the Courier’s investment in The Big Pineapple for example or the Packer empire investments in casinos. This too would seem impractical. Particularly when anyone can start up a journal on the net for virtually nothing.

How do you decide what news outlets come within the ambit of such legislation? Do you need a certain circulation, or would it just be limited to broadcast media where a government licence is required? It would also require limits on maximum individual shareholdings right across the industry to ensure that owners did not simply park their conflicts of interest in different corporate vehicles.

Regulation alone is likely to give an unwieldy and unsatisfactory result. The real solution lies in choice. Faced with a number of points of view, the public is generally no less fallible than commissions of inquiry or regulators. The goings on at 2UE are only a major problem if there are no alternative sources of information.

That means that the Government should have used the extra bandwidth supplied by digital to increase the number of licences. It also means that it should look at government broadcasting. Both ABC and SBS tend to put a monochromal view of the world, yet they are the only two capable of putting a point of view that is almost empty of potential commercial taint. It also means that it should have encouraged the ACCC to take a harder look at towns like Brisbane where the dominant newspaper was allowed to put its competitor out of business and would undoubtedly do the same with any new competitor.

Perhaps that is why the ABA Inquiry was so apparently lenient on 2UE, Jones and Laws – in life some evils are ineradicable, and the attempt to eradicate them can distract from measures which will drain their potency more effectively by marginalising them.