Have a look at the illustration on this page.
It’s a newspaper, isn’t it?
People familiar with the internet will at once notice it is in fact the ABC’s website. But there is precious little difference between it and, say, The Canberra Times. Sure, the method of delivery is different, but the substance is the same. With the ABC newspaper, the printing has been out-sourced to the reader.
The other three television networks have similar websites, though their content is nowhere near as comprehensive or as good. That’s why various commercial broadcasting interests would like the ABC to sell its internet arm. There has been much talk about it recently.
Coming from the other side, newspapers like The Canberra Times, the Australian, the Fairfax papers and others are also developing their websites. They are not merely putting the newspaper on their websites. They are updating through the day. They are putting extra bits on the sites which do not fit in print. Some are even putting moving images on their websites.
There has also been some discussion about this in the past few weeks. In particular, Jamie Packer said that the development of internet advertising had made the Fairfax papers not worth as much. Their printed classified advertisements were no longer the “”rivers of gold” now that they were open to so much competition from electronic advertisements. That’s why the smart newspaper companies are putting so much investment into the internet for very little short-term gain. They need to keep their advertising market share irrespective of whether it is on paper or electronic. As internet access grows, it is inevitable that electronic advertising will form a greater part of the market.
There have been a couple of other developments in recent weeks. Australian Association Press has been pushing to have its journalists carry video cameras. The video images can then be put on the AAP internet site available to all who want to access them. Video images on the internet are improving all the time. Five years ago, many thought the phone lines would never be good enough to sustain a video image. Wrong.
The other development has been more discussion about the cross-media ownership laws. That question has usually been narrowed to the question of whether Kerry Packer should be able to buy Fairfax or Rupert Murdoch be able to buy the Seven Network.
But the argument is wider than that.
As we have seen, the ABC and the commercial television stations are already putting out newspapers — via the internet. And the newspapers are already broadcasting images – via the internet. It is media cross-dressing. The Nine Network site even uses the language of newspapers with icons inviting people to return to the “”Front Page”.
The websites of the commercial television networks and the big newspapers already break the spirit of the cross-media rules, though they do not break the letter of them. (The ABC is not subject to the media ownership rules because it is in public ownership.)
Those rules are contained in the Broadcasting Services Act. The Act prohibits all broadcasting without a licence and defines broadcasting as a “”a service that delivers television programs or radio programs . . . whether the delivery uses the radiofrequency spectrum, cable, optical fibre, satellite or any other means”. It does not include a service that provides no more than text (with or without associated (ital) still (end ital) images) or a service that makes programs available on demand on a (ital) point-to-point (end ital) basis.
Note it says “”still images” and “”point to point”.
A lot of websites now include moving images. AAP clearly wants to include moving images. And the internet may not escape the exemption for point-to-point delivery because the internet is a web. Putting moving images on the internet may be “”broadcasting” and it is a nice legal point whether the newspapers doing it are “”broadcasting” without a licence.
Next, the Act prohibits the holder of a broadcasting licence from controlling a newspaper in the broadcast area. The law picks up ordinary definitions so a newspaper would have to be a printed circular, not a website, so the television networks are in legally in the clear with the present rules.
Nonetheless the spirit of prohibitions against one person being a queen of the screen or a prince of print are slowly being eroded by technology as traditional broadcasters deliver newspaper-type products on the internet and traditional newspaper publishers deliver broadcast-type products on the internet.
It is clumsy now. Even the ABC’s excellent website is not as good as a major metropolitan newspaper. And none of the newspapers’ site match the moving images of television. But it is early days. As usual in these things, the technology outstrips the law and the ability of politicians to understand or keep up.
Jamie Packer’s observation in a way proves the point. He said he was glad his company did not gain control of Fairfax because its printed classified base was a dinosaur. Indeed, the chairman of Fairfax, Professor Fred Hilmer, indicated as much.
It is not going to be beyond the wit or resources of the Packer companies to mount an electronic challenge to the Fairfax “”rivers of gold” irrespective of the cross-media rules. Unless, that is, the pollies get around to changing the definition of “”newspaper” in the cross-media ownership rules. You can see the competition against print before your eyes. Many people in large organisations advertise on their internal message systems and have sold their goods before the weekend classifieds come out. And it’s free.
Does it matter? Packer’s electronic advertising challenge might extend his reach and therefore his political power and the power of those who work in the culture of his television network.
But it can cut both ways. An already large television broadcaster (and the culture that goes with the organisation) will have a more dominance with the addition of an attractive web-site. On the other hand, that broadcaster’s intrusion into the realm of what was hitherto print can add diversity to the print (or text) market, just as the hitherto print and text organisations (including AAP) can add diversity to electronic broadcasting with moving images and talk. People might divert their eyes from the passive television experience to the interactive internet. Media compete for people’s time and attention as much as their money.
It will not happen overnight, but the trend is for more media cross-dressing as the technology (and more importantly it uptake) improves. That trend will make present cross-media rules irrelevant. In doing so it could have the side-effect, not of the predicted greater concentration, but rather in some unforseen diversity.