Bound but not gagged?
Media reforms in the digital age.
by Erin Maclean
With Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull finally announcing his new Cabinet this week, it seems the election is behind us and we are once again returning to governance. Though superannuation and the same-sex marriage plebiscite will be priorities in the weeks (and months) ahead, there are a raft of issues and reforms that will likely return to the table.
Earlier this year, the Coalition introduced legislation to reform and largely deregulate traditional media platforms; this would allow owners of newspapers, radio stations and television networks greater freedom to expand, merge or otherwise increase their media control.
Although that legislation lapsed upon the double dissolution election, it is anticipated Communications Minister Mitch Fifield will reintroduce the reforms with the Senate committee’s recommendations.
The case for reform is made on the basis of digital disruption — the rules in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 that aim to limit the control of any particular media organisation do not accommodate new media. This means internet streaming services like Netflix, Stan and Presto, as well as paid television services like Foxtel, are essentially operating a television broadcasting service without being subject to the same media ownership restrictions.
For Senator Fifield, this is not fair for those operating services on traditional media platforms — they are at a competitive disadvantage when online media (or paid television) circumvents current laws and impinges on their territory.
While the former Labor government tried to completely reform media regulation after the Convergence Review in 2012, the Coalition’s proposal would abolish only two rules that are often deemed ineffective and slightly expand the existing safeguards for local content.
Deregulating traditional media
Currently, there are five rules that prevent media organisations from taking control of all newspapers, television and radio. These rules attempt to guarantee a level of diversity among commercial players; the national broadcasters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), then serve to supplement the commercial market and fill any gaps in coverage with even more voices.
The Coalition intends to loosen the ownership regulations by removing:
- the 75 per cent reach rule, limits a person or company controlling commercial television broadcasting licences to more than 75 per cent of the Australian population; and
- the two-out-of-three rule, prevents a person or company controlling media outlets of more than two traditional platforms (newspaper, television or radio) in an area.
Removing these rules would allow major television networks to consolidate with regional affiliates and allow organisations to expand and monopolise traditional media platforms. This benefits the big players in traditional media — News Corp, Fairfax, Seven West and others — but it also, in theory, makes these organisations more competitive, especially with online media.
The Coalition argues, and the Senate committee that investigated the legislation agrees, these two rules already fail to support media diversity through their sheer ineffectiveness in a new media environment.
The two-out-of-three rule, for example, does not prevent a media organisation from broadcasting online podcasts into an area where it owns television and newspapers. Likewise, the 75 per cent rule can be circumvented — and often is — by television networks streaming online content into regional areas or affiliating with regional networks to artificially extend their reach. This means regional and metropolitan areas receive much of the same programming, but there is at least the premise of locally relevant content and media diversity.
Abolishing the 75 per cent rule could very well have little impact, as Seven, Nine and Ten would simply consolidate with partners Prime, Southern Cross and WIN — this would cut costs, but might not change much else.
But there are still concerns this may diminish diversity in the media marketplace. The USA deregulated its traditional media platforms in the 1990s, and the promised benefits — of better or cheaper services, as well as greater diversity because of reduced red tape — have arguably not eventuated. Instead, the American media landscape of the past 20 years has been marked by fewer and fewer voices.
Though the national broadcasters may help to insulate Australia from the same rapid decline, it is undeniable — as the very intention of the reform — that abolishing the 75 per cent and two-out-of-three rules will mean losing some of the protections we have against concentrated media ownership.
In passing this legislation, there would be nothing but the ACCC to prevent Fairfax, Seven West, News Corp/Nova, Southern Cross Austereo and WIN from expanding their portfolios to encompass television, radio and newspapers across the country. This may create a more competitive media environment, but it is more likely that costs will be further cut through the stripping of expensive local content and recycling of material. Even more importantly, concentrated media ownership means there will be even fewer gatekeepers determining which questions and ideas receive coverage.
This is especially worrying when the closing of newspapers, centralising of radio stations and News Corp’s takeover of Australian Regional Media (APN) has left Australia starved of diversity.
Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s News Corp, for example, is on the cusp of taking over all three platforms — never mind its online and paid television services. News Corp now owns most national and metropolitan newspapers, as well as almost all in regional Queensland. It also is affiliated with Nova, which controls plenty of radio licences, and has a 15 per cent share in Network Ten.
Should the reforms pass, it is likely only a matter of time before News Corp — and others like it—consolidates its media monopoly with control of Network Ten.
Protecting local content
At the same time, the proposed legislation would, at the behest of the Nationals, include provisions for increasing local programming requirements. Currently, television in regional areas must meet thresholds for the number of minutes of local content broadcast per week; this is achieved through a points system, where local news is given greater priority than other local content.
The proposed legislation would maintain the existing threshold in some cases, but where a commercial network has merged with a regional affiliate to gain more than 75 per cent reach (as the other changes would allow), the threshold would be increased slightly. The legislation also would extend the system to smaller rural areas and would incentivise locally relevant news that is, in fact, produced locally.
For regional residents who already doubt their voices are being heard, especially with local news content often being produced in regional hubs, this step away from centralisation is significant.
Yet, these reforms only slightly increase the amount of local content (including locally produced content) that is guaranteed to air, and it only affects rural and regional television — at the cost of allowing newspapers and radio to become even more centralised and homogenised.
Should the legislation pass it is likely that regional and rural residents will have about two hours of local programming per week on television and little to no access to other news in traditional media — with newspapers closing or being merged under single mastheads, and radio becoming even less local.
Jobs will likely be lost and residents’ access to news that matters to them — the unique issues affecting their town— will likely diminish further.
Curiously, News Corp launched its own Fair Go for Regional Australia campaign in the lead-up to the federal election to remind policymakers of the importance of local newspapers when debating media regulation reform.
Considering both major parties failed to see the election result coming — where voter dissatisfaction resulted in an unprecedented primary vote for minor parties and independents — it is a significant mistake to overlook the value of local newspapers in communicating the concerns of non-metropolitan voters.
While diversity is still fairly well served by ABC and SBS, these national broadcasters are increasingly threatened by funding cuts — and that generally means aggregating and centralising content, as ABC was blasted for doing in 2015 with its regional radio programs.
In January, the Nationals suggested a bill to increase ABC’s commitment to rural and regional news, with at least five radio bulletins a day consisting solely or primarily of local news. A House of Representatives inquiry into broadcasting in rural and regional Australia recommended many similar changes to ABC’s role — but the report was tabled in the days before the election was announced, so this too lapsed.
It seems, however, that if Fifield were to reintroduce the Coalition’s media reform package, it may well be paired with legislation that reconsiders the social responsibility of ABC (and potentially SBS) in producing local content. Considering the devastation the reforms may have on regional and rural Australia, increasing the role of the public broadcasters is crucial — but it still may not be sufficient to counteract the monopolisation effects of a deregulated commercial market.
Calls for greater reform
Though the Coalition may succeed in pushing the legislation through both Houses, especially with Labor interested in removing the 75 per cent reach rule, there is a sense among key stakeholders that greater reform is necessary — this bill does not do enough to take into account new media, nor does it consider the threat that media monopolisation may pose.
In submissions to the Senate committee, large media companies generally called for all five rules in the Broadcasting Services Act to be removed in favour of a freer market, while Labor and the Greens proposed new safeguards — as the former Labor government did following the Convergence Review.
It is important to put these reforms in commercial perspective. While regional media are struggling to produce local content and would benefit financially from being absorbed into bigger media groups, this process is likely to result in only further cost-cutting measures — it is expensive to gather news from regional and rural areas, so if return on investment is the main priority, we can expect greater centralisation and homogenisation.
Regional residents may soon find that, while the increased local programming requirements mean they do hear more about local issues on television, they may lose access to local issues in other media and, equally as concerning, a single voice may dominate their news.
In a country where media ownership is already heavily concentrated, it is likely this legislation — without further safeguards in place — will only make that worse, especially in rural and regional Australia.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
ERIN MACLEAN
Erin is a freelance journalist and PhD student at Griffith University.
Erin specialises in news media depictions of popular culture, but is particularly interested in the way media framing affects public perception and politics.
