Do we really need public funded journalism?

Public funding for journalism is not necessary in Australia, despite the Australian government's current negotiations with the Senate for a $60 million innovation fund over three years to provide cadetships for Australian owned media organisations (particularly regional) that have been disrupted.

I argue this despite Facebook and Google being accused of cannibalising the content of Australian journalism; concern that News Ltd and Fairfax Media control around 86 per cent of newspaper circulation; and some looking to the European democracies which provide public assistance to aid media start-ups through subsidies and tax incentives/concessions.

For example, Sweden provides annual payments up to a third of total revenue based on a criteria that includes having less than 30 per cent market share and at least 51 per cent original editorial content.

First, the term 'quality news' remains overstated given that politics/policy has always been a divisive topic in a world where various players (individuals, nations and corporations) will always disagree over the best ideas for economic and social policy success.

As acknowledged by Johanna Vehkoo in a 2010 Reuters Institute's Study of Journalism paper,

Trying to define what quality journalism means is a bit like unwittingly taking part in the age-old debate about what is art and what is not. At first look, quality seems to be a very subjective thing, depending on one's own interests, knowledge and preferences, even politics … There are no universal quality criteria carved in stone. Judgments of quality are often culture-specific, or related to one's socio-economic background, level of education and so on.

It is not that most major key issues are not being reported in Australia. One can observe considerable media attention being given to energy sources and costs, housing affordability, immigration levels, education standards, levels of private and public debt, and social welfare needs and spending.

However, in an increasingly competitive economic environment, one which is fuelled by rising public and private debt levels which does have obvious policy limitations in the longer term, most Western governments (including Australia) are struggling to balance various economic and social policy considerations.

With various journalists and media outlets bickering over the appropriate extent of government intervention with regard to key economic and social policy issues, a battle crucial to any effective liberal democracy, just who is wrong or right on each policy issue is a matter for public debate and subsequent political decisions.

However, despite over 2500 Australian journalism jobs being lost during the past six years, Australians still have an abundance of written information to draw upon.

As The Economist predicted in 2006 on the basis that news reporting had already survived "the huge television-led decline" in newspaper circulation since the 1950s, a few newspaper titles will survive and continue to invest in investigative stories that benefit society "as long as their owners do a competent job of adjusting to changing circumstances"; even if the quality publications have to "put up the price of their journalism to compensate for advertising revenues lost to the internet".

And despite 2017 concern that new players (such as the Global Mail) did not survive, Australia now has its own versions of The Guardian and Huffington Post. In addition, The New Daily started in 2013 as a free online news source with funding provided by Australian Super, Cbus and Industry Super Holdings.

For myself, someone who today rarely purchases a newspaper (besides the Saturday version of the Border Mail), I am informed by a variety of media sources, some of which I support financially. Sources include extensive use of Google and Wikipedia searches of a topic; use of my Facebook home page with links to my favourite information sources (including the ABC, The Economist and New Scientist); and news and opinion stories from a diverse range of media sources with very different perspectives, including Inside Story, The New Daily, Markets & Money, On Line Opinion, the Institute of Public Affairs, the Grattan Institute, the Centre for Independent Studies, the Australia Institute and Get Up.

Like most Australians, I have my own eclectic range of policy views. In agreement with many Australians, I support gay marriage; believe that humanity is causing global warming with a preference for renewable energy sources rather than coal; and express a desire for Australia to retain a decent minimum wage and universal access to quality education and health services.

However, in line with my lack of complete trust for any single media source, and my recognition that most perspectives offer various strengths and weaknesses, I never expect to read any single media source that will provide the full story as virtually all media sources offer their own slant beyond the mere reporting of news.

Even the ABC, with its mandate to "inform, educate and entertain audiences", will cater to its own audience, despite any charter of editorial independence that commits to being fair and balanced. A 2013 Sunshine Coast University survey of ABC journalists found that 41 per cent voted for the Greens, 32 per cent for Labor and only 14 per cent for the Coalition.

What we should expect from a quality articles, within my belief that there are astute commentators within the centre-left and centre-right, is well grounded arguments that take full account of the various strengths and weaknesses of any policy choice in this much tougher economic environment.  

For example, as one article acknowledges, with a recent Lowy Institute Poll showing majority support for alternative energy, coal exports and our own use of fossil fuels, it is obviously “difficult to reconcile these views”.

Second, many supporters of so-called 'quality journalism' are often influenced by their fear of the centre and far right on economic and social matters. For example, in 2012, fear was expressed at the mining magnate Gina Rinehart's bid for control of Fairfax given that one of her advisers (Jack Cowin) has already told the ABC "this is a business, not a public service", before outlining how profit will drive editorial direction, including on issues such as the carbon price.

In reality, fears about the influence of the far right and even Murdoch papers are exaggerated. Australia does not need even greater government assistance to ensure an independent ABC and SBS to avoid a US-style situation where Fox News dominates TV ratings with powerful interests such as Rupert Murdoch pushing their political agendas through media influence and ownership.

As Rod Tiffen observed in 2015, with the penetration rate of metropolitan newspapers being sold declining from 38.6 per cent of the population in 1947 to 7.2 per cent in 2014 (14.1 per cent in 1996), and Murdoch papers having a 60 per cent share of Australian daily newspaper circulation, this means that Murdoch papers are only being bought by about 4 per cent of the Australian population.

Tiffen also notes that many readers of the Murdoch tabloids (Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and Courier-Mail) have a healthy scepticism given that Essential Research surveys found just 51-54 per cent support for them as "quality" papers, far less than ratings given to The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian with 60 per cent plus with the two Fairfax publications ranking highest (sometimes above 70 per cent).

As Tiffen points out, many purchase tabloids for non-news reasons such as sport and entertainment value.

In the end, as seen by 2017 debate, both of Australia’s major political parties bicker over the degree they support key community concerns. This was seen by both offering versions of the Gonski-inspired school funding plan, bipartisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the related higher Medicare levy, and measures to either tax or crackdown on the banks.

To put it mildly, Australia is light years away from ever emulating the USA in terms of social policy alone.

Third, given that Australia does possess many old and new media sources, individual media players should survive on their own merits in line with a free market for news.

With some highlighting the potential of the web to remove "the power of the gatekeepers to use (and abuse) their media to influence society" given that consumers can now "can access content that is often deeper and richer on niche sites", it is up to all media players to perform or perish.

As it stands today, notwithstanding one 2006 view that newspapers only "at their best" held "governments and companies to account", there are a number of reasons why more people look to alternative media sources for the news and opinion. Deloitte's Media Consumer Survey 2015 indicates that 44 per cent of Australians continue to rely on television for their news (just 9 per cent for print newspapers), although a reliance on online and social media sources increases greatly with younger generations.

In addition to the mainstream media failing to predict the success of Donald Trump and Brexit, including the various reasons why considerable social dissent now exists in many liberal democracies, one 2009 article reminds us how the mainstream media failed to provide quality information about the world's true financial affairs prior to the global financial crisis.

With the 2017 Digital News Report (Reuters Institute) finding that just 41 per cent of Brits agreed that the news media did a good job in helping them distinguish fact from fiction, with just 18 per cent approval for social media, my own decision to move my superannuation from shares to cash in 2008 was very much shaped by online information obtained via minor media players.

Notwithstanding the obvious need of any media source to provide information that is interesting and relevant, however, there are a number of arguments why public assistance is not desirable.

Graham Young, the founder and editor of OLO, who has seen his site's advertising revenue decline considerably from its peak of $120,000 per year in the face of greater competition and other reasons, strongly believes that a media source should survive on its own merit.

Young fears state backed publishers on the basis they are "immune from what the audience thinks when compared to commercial counterparts as they are "not dependent on audience response to pay their bills"; are often "out of line with the issues that the general public feels are important"; are "more costly in terms of productivity as operations such as OLO are far cheaper to produce public comment"; and make it much harder for private media organisations to survive, as was the case when the ABC's Drum took readers away from OLO.

So what measures can old and new Australian media sources adopt to ensure their survival?

Julie Coe, Deputy Editor of the Border Mail, in response to my questions, states that the regional newspaper remains important by producing "more local content than ever", including a recent homelessness series (May 27 to June 14) with the involved reporter nominated for a 2017 Kennedy award.

Despite the present difficulty newspapers have with regard to how to "monetise" higher online page viewing "into greater profit", Coe argues there are "no limits to online publishing" with its ability to report anything quickly and comprehensively at any time of the day to reach an audience long before the paper (with limited space) rolls off the press.

And, in line with The Economist predicting the web's potential to increase investigative opportunities on the basis that a new force of "citizen" journalists and bloggers could emerge in order to hold politicians to account, Coe points to added opportunities for opinion pieces from non-journalists with regard to local issues within a view now "that the more local voices we can get, the better".

Importantly, Coe notes a much better attitude towards taking outside opinion pieces, as long as "the voice is local and relevant", especially when compared to "a very high level of arrogance around that sort of stuff 15 or 20 years ago".

For example, I was able to produce an opinion piece for the Border Mail about the lack of choice for new home buyers with regard to problematic and expensive gas solar hot water systems, an effort which has resulted in my local state MP asking me to send the information to Victoria's shadow energy minister. I also provided the related OLO piece which was far more comprehensive in terms of related information.

On 18 October 2017, a staff member of David Southwick MP responded seeking further discussion on the basis that "the Victorian Coalition prioritises energy affordability and reliability above ideological renewable energy targets. The example you have given demonstrates a significant and unacceptable cost to the consumer".

To conclude, Australia's liberal democracy already possesses the essential ingredients for an effective media without further government assistance, despite a 2015 estimate that just 21 per cent of households purchase a print or digital news subscription with 89 per cent not willing to pay for online news given the abundance of free information.

In the end, it is up to all of us to make the key players work, whether it be via our local politicians or the media.

Anything else is simply a whinge which forgets the reality that our own efforts are key to maximising our liberal democratic potential to effectively balance economic and social policy considerations in such a competitive world.