When the head of Australia’s monopoly steel producer, BHP, comments on the state of the Government’s running of the Australian economy, a fair amount of the business community, some politicians but only a few ordinary voters take notice. Incidentally, all of the middle executive of BHP take notice. The political fall-out, in terms of changed policy or a changed perception by voters of the Government is not profound. Indeed it is quite small. In that context, it does not matter that BHP is a virtual monopoly. Nor would it matter much whether the head of one or other of a dozen monopoly or duopoly producers joined the political debate.
It is of consequence, however, when the head of News Ltd, Rupert Murdoch makes political assessments. News Ltd is the monopoly or dominant supplier of print news in Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne and Sydney, owning the major-circulation daily in each. News Ltd also owns the highest-circulation daily national paper. Further, the Murdoch controlled Foxtel is a partner with Telstra in a cable pay television venture that is being rolled out now to Australian homes. It will carry a news channel supplied by a venture dominated by Kerry Packer’s Nine Network. It also owns 14.9 per cent of Channel Seven, the partner in the pay TV news venture.
The executives of these news organisations heard Murdoch tell the annual meeting of News Ltd in Adelaide this week: “”We read about it in all your papers here how wonderful the economy is in Australia and I think it is a disgrace; there’s 8.2 per cent unemployed … in this city there’s 34 per cent unemployed.” What is the likely reaction? Would the executives think the words “”all your papers” were a reference by an American citizen to Australian newspapers in general? Would they think to themselves, “”This is an interesting view by a successful businessman worth a few paragraphs somewhere up the front of the paper?” Would they then just carry on as usual.
Not very likely. More likely, they will start thinking about running articles on how the Government has betrayed youth and handled the economy poorly. And there is an election due withint he next six months.
Whatever Murdoch or his senior general executives think about the theory of editorial independence, Murdoch’s words would echo in the newsrooms of all his newspapers. Some, if not many, editorial executives and writers would be anxious please. Even if Murdoch did not want sycophants, they would be attracted to him, like they are to any powerful and wealthy person. It is human nature.
We are blessed in Australia with a tradition of editorial executives and coming solely from the ranks of journalists who are mostly imbued with a professional spirit of independence and impartiality. Unfortunately that only tempers, but does not eradicate, sycophancy. (Ital) The Australian’s (end ital’s) treatment of both the Super League story and Indonesia coincide with Murdoch’s financial interest.
It is obvious Murdoch does not personally order the editorial line … he has too many papers to make that possible. But he does not have to.
Murdoch is entitled to his view, and entitled to express it. Moreover, the owner of a newspaper in entitled to say what goes in that newspaper. (When editorial independence is respected by owners it is to protect the commercial asset in a newspaper’s credibility, not because any freedom-of-speech principle requires it.) Any individual is entitled to speak or set up and control the content of a newspaper (whether a local single sheet or a national daily). Important principles of freedom of speech and the press demand that. But it is precisely because those freedoms should exist, that one individual or organisation should not be allowed to dominate the national market.
The media business is special. It is not like making steel or margarine. People’s opinions about a vast range of important issues are formed almost solely on what they see, hear and read in the media. This includes information upon which they will base their voting choice.
This is easily illustrated. The vast bulk of Australians have not met or questioned Paul Keating, John Howard, Carmen Lawrence or O. J. Simpson. Yet they usually have fairly solid opinions about whether they are doing a good job or are guilty of misconduct. They can only form these opinions through the media or perhaps through acquaintances relating what they have got from the media.
The testing of opinion and fact requires a diversity of views. Concentration of ownership reduces diversity and reduces the testing of fact and opinion.
It is worse when that concentration is in foreign hands. Though a quasi-Australian, Murdoch is none the less an American with large commercial interests there. When it comes to crunch, and his organisation is looking at what material should go to pay TV for example, his American allegiances will no doubt come first.
Pay television and the news services that will run on it have been almost totally surrendered to Murdoch and Packer and the Government has been helpless in the face of their power to insist that the public broadcasters, ABC and SBS, have a pay-TV news outlet.
The concentration of media ownership and the extent of cross media ownership and ownership by foreigners in Australia is a disgrace. It is a major policy failure of the Labor Government.
Examples of Labor’s sycophancy and timidity in dealing with large media owners dot its incumbency. From allowing Murdoch to take the Herald Weekly Times to giving in to Canadian Conrad Black’s demand for greater ownership in Fairfax so he can maintain control.
There is only one joy in it. That was revealed by Murdoch last night. One the strength of that speech it appears that Labor’s sucking up to the media barons will not do it a whit of good in the coming election. When Labor supped with the devil it did not take a long enough spoon. Serve it right.
Whether the Coalition will be any better in the face of media owners who have had more power than government when it comes to media policy remains to be seen.
We won’t know till after the election because the Coalition will be too scared to make any statements beforehand.