Proposed media ownership changes are out of step with world experience

With the Senate due to debate the government's media ownership bills today, the debate needs to focus on the importance of diversity of viewpoints in Australian media. Diversity, and fairness and accuracy in news reporting is essential for our democracy to be effective and viable.

There are limits to which this can be achieved through law alone. Many of the issues are cultural and commercial. In Australia, the United States and Britain, the current debate has focused on how important a diversity of ownership is to diversity of opinion.

Journalists, academics and consumer groups have argued that media proprietors too often intervene in news reporting to push a particular line. Media proprietors have argued that they have little interest in day-to-day editorial decisions, and that it is the editors and the journalists who make these decisions. Well, maybe it is time to test them on that proposition.

The government's media ownership bill to be debated next week, seeks to remove the current restrictions on a proprietor owning both a television station and a newspaper in the same market. The bill does insist on "editorial separation", that is, the maintenance of separate newsrooms in the television station and the newspaper.

The Parliament could consider taking this further, and requiring not just editorially separate newsrooms, but also that editorial control of one of the newsrooms be separated from the owner.

This could be done by interposing an editorial board between the owner and the television newsroom. The board would make all editorial decisions (including the appointment of staff) subject to the commercial and financial constraints set by the owner. A typical board might have three members, one appointed by the owner, one by the journalists and an independent chair. This would thus enshrine in law what the proprietors say happens in practice - non-interference in editorial decisions.

The reviews of media laws in Australia, the United States and Britain recognise that diversity of viewpoints is served by some continuing restrictions on concentration of media ownership. How much is too much is the key question.

In Australia, the government proposes to maintain limits on the number of television stations (one) and radio stations (two) that can be owned in each market, plus a "five voices" test guaranteeing a minimum of five commercial operators in metropolitan markets.

In Britain, the Blair government proposes a "three voice" rule, restrictions on merging of dominant newspaper and television groups and continuing to fund the BBC at nine times the rate of the ABC.

In the United States, the Bush Administration proposes new rules looking at the special circumstances of each market, developed using a "diversity index". The index weighs each media outlet (television, radio, newspapers, pay TV, internet) by the extent to which people rely on them for news and current affairs, and then matching that against ownership.

Because television is the most used medium, the index rates markets with three or fewer television stations as "highly concentrated" with further takeovers prohibited, and markets with 4-8 television stations as "moderately concentrated" where approval of takeovers depend on the impact on viewpoint diversity. Only in markets with nine or more television station would there be no diversity issues raised.

Most Australians markets fall into the middle category. With the exception of Sydney and Melbourne (which have two daily newspapers and around 10 commercial radio stations), all Australian markets would shift into the highly concentrated category with a television-newspaper combination under the diversity index. Even in Sydney and Melbourne, certain combinations would fail the diversity test.

Such an index could prove a more analytical approach to dealing with issues of media concentration and ownership in Australia than an arbitrary "five voices" rule, taking into account the special circumstances of each market.

In the United States, the diversity test sits alongside a market competition test. In Australia, the ACCC should be expected to look at each segment of media and also how they interact across segments (e.g. between terrestrial and pay television) in making assessments about market power.

Public and community broadcasting is vitally important to the diversity of viewpoints, and the government needs to revisit its refusal to reconsider base funding for the ABC, SBS and community broadcasting, especially in regional programming.

The importance of promoting fairness and accuracy in reporting and defending journalistic independence through appropriate legislative safeguards and complaints mechanisms also needs to be enhanced.

The Democrats want to see an Australian media sector that encourages informed, diverse debates on issues of key public concern. The government's proposed media ownership bill falls well short of this ideal, and falls well short of protecting and enhancing diversity even by the standards of proposed new British and American standards.

Recent developments in media laws in the UK and the USA show this government's policy is already well and truly dated. With the government refusing to properly address the issue of effectively promoting diversity of viewpoint in media, the bill deserves to fail in the Senate this week. It will be a pity if that is the end of the debate about how best to ensure diversity of viewpoints in Australian media.