News content is determined by journalists not proprietors

It used to be said that while some generals were ready and well prepared to fight, this was to fight the last war, and not the present conflict.

There is a parallel today with the campaign of those who want to retain the law which gives effect to Paul Keating’s fatwa which, it should be recalled, was suddenly announced without any inquiry, consultation or public discussion. Expressed in curious terms for one so obsessively republican, it required that proprietors must choose between being a prince of print or a queen of the screen.

It is often forgotten that this law is a relatively recent intrusion - indeed newspaper proprietors were prominent in actually bringing commercial television to Australia. If it was safe for them to own TV then, what had they done to justify such rushed and draconian legislation?

In any event the law did not achieve its ostensible purpose, being followed by increased media concentration. It did not even achieve its political purpose of helping the then government’s media mates. Mateship in such circles is predictably and fortunately ephemeral; Paul Keating soon fell out - spectacularly - with Kerry Packer over a very sensible proposal which would have avoided the disastrous parallel roll out of cable TV in the nation’s capitals.

But even Paul Keating’s law is not enough for some. What they really want is a “mogul-specific” law. Some would have preferred one which forbad Kerry Packer from owning any media at all. Others would have wanted a law to stop Rupert Murdoch owning The Australian which, incidentally, he had founded.

Now some say the repeal of Paul Keating’s law will reduce employment for journalists. This is doubtful, but scant sympathy is shown in the media for farmers and others exposed to unfair international competition. So why should media workers live in a protected workshop? What is the public benefit in that?

Mike Burke (in Crikey!, October 12) criticised the “whingeing” of some journalists about how they are forced to write, or not write, “what their media proprietors dictate”. He said people in all walks of life, every day of their lives, face the problem of working for people they despise, and doing a job they obviously detest. Why shouldn’t journalists?

But it is said that there is a bigger issue. If the rationalisation everybody else has had to cope with were unleashed on the media, it is claimed the proprietors would be then able to manipulate any information going to the public.

Just in case it has escaped notice, it should be pointed out that manipulation, at times massive, already occurs. In 1999, Lord Deedes, who once edited the London Daily Telegraph, declared that he had never seen newspapers in a democracy display more “shameless bias” than in Australia. He was writing about the media juggernaut determined to change Australia into a republic. But this was entirely journalist driven. (The only proprietors who came out for a republic were Lachlan and Rupert Murdoch, and they hardly needed to encourage their journalists.)

Although the media campaign probably increased the Yes vote, the majority were less than impressed. Perhaps they rather liked Christopher Pearson’s counsel: “Annoy the media, vote No”, which they did in every state and 72 per cent of electorates.

In the debate on the new media law in Parliament, Senator Fielding went to the heart of this issue when he asked: “Where is the evidence that the key factor that determines ideas is ownership? In other words, that owners dictate ideas?”

His answer? In the real world “it's nothing like that”. He demonstrated this with a string of examples.

The point is that today, celebrity journalists, columnists and presenters are hired for the simple reason that they attract readers, listeners and viewers, and thus advertisers. Only the ABC doesn’t have to worry about this, which is why over 90 per cent of their celebrity political journalists come from just one part of the political spectrum.

If a proprietor were foolish enough to try to dictate to his celebrity journalists what to do, at least some of them would have the strength not to surrender. I assume the proponents of media protection laws are not saying celebrity journalists have no insides. If the proprietor insisted, some would resign or be dismissed and the inappropriate directive would leak. Other media would lead with the story - we will still have a competition law, with stronger rules against mergers today. We are just not going to have a proprietor controlling all media in a market.

The plain fact is the content of news and current affairs today is determined by journalists and not proprietors. In fact proprietors, in the sense of press barons, are a disappearing species.

There are none at Fairfax, Channel Ten, West Australian Newspapers, of course the public broadcasters and most radio networks. And in addition, Rupert Murdoch is an absentee proprietor. The idea that he determines what appears in, say, The Australian, is preposterous. If he does, he must do this for every newspaper he owns. Now he does work hard - but he is not a superman.

In any event, journalists have become so powerful that they rule the roost, and not, for example Fairfax or indeed, the ABC board. No longer anonymous as they once were, many journalists now publish or broadcast with no editorial supervision whatsoever, as Lord Hutton found at the BBC. Alternatively their celebrity status can often ensure that any supervision is minimal. This was inconceivable 40 or 50 years ago. The potential for proprietorial control is just not there.

At the time of writing, the bill relaxing media ownership laws has passed the Senate, and is likely to become law. According to newspaper reports, Paul Keating and some of his supporters are trying to persuade the Leader of the Opposition to warn that any subsequent acquisitions will be subject to divestiture orders should Labor gain power. The proposition is breathtaking- to pass a law which retrospectively declares illegal what was perfectly lawful at the time! No rational opposition wishing to gain government would dare adopt such a policy. Even allowing it to be debated in the Caucus would be an invitation to the Coalition to make this an issue of principle.

The real issue about the media is not who owns the commercial media. A principal issue remains the way the media can best overcome bias, and the perception of bias in the news, ensuring both objectivity and that comment is identifiable as such. While this is desirable for commercial outlets if they wish to retain any credibility, it is crucial for public broadcasters, who are under the additional obligation to ensure that comment is from across the mainstream spectrum. That should be a matter of concern for Parliament.

Why aren't we trying to address the real 21st century issues, rather than something more appropriate to the middle of the last century? And let's not get sidetracked by whether or not there should be minimum local content on regional radio - this is an entirely separate issue from ownership. The partial relaxation of controls on ownership does not of course go far enough, but realpolitic considerations determine these things.