More consolidation than reform
Media diversity protections must remain in place
by Erin Maclean
The newly re-elected Communications Minister Mitch Fifield has flagged media ownership reform — in this case, media deregulation — as one of the Coalition’s highest priorities for the spring sitting of parliament.
As The Machinery of Government previously reported, the Coalition let the media legislation lapse in the double dissolution and scarcely mentioned changes to media ownership during the election campaign. The reform seemed all-but-forgotten when the Governor General’s speech opening the 45th parliament made no mention of it — despite including an extensive laundry list of the government’s priorities.
But one of the Coalition’s first acts of government has been to reintroduce the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. This bill will increase local content provisions for television and abolish two rules in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 that aim to limit the control of media organisations:
- the 75 per cent reach rule, which limits a person or company controlling commercial television licences to more than 75 per cent of the Australian population; and
- the two-out-of-three rule, which prevents a person or company controlling media outlets of more than two traditional platforms (newspaper, television or radio) in an area.
Despite agreeing with plans to abolish the 75 per cent rule, the Australian Labor Party called for further review of Australia’s media landscape — one which is already marked by concentrated ownership. And so, for the second time this year, this bill has been sent to a Senate committee, which will report back in November.
The Coalition considers this a delaying tactic when, according to Senator Fifield, “all the relevant facts are already known.” Certainly, there has been extensive research into media reform and the effects of loosening ownership restrictions; it was only May when a Senate committee suggested the legislation should be passed with minor revisions and only a few years since the Convergence Review under the former Labor government.
Yet, considering how rapidly technology and our media industries are changing, it seems unlikely that this bill — introduced more than six months ago — addresses all of the relevant and known facts.
How the media landscape is changing
In August, it was revealed online news website The New York Times will expand its operations to Australia. As the Coalition has been reassuring us, this is an example of the internet offering consumers greater media diversity and competition against the oligopoly of traditional media platforms. It seems only fair, as the argument goes, to remove restrictions on traditional media so they can compete with new media.
Proponents of media deregulation also argue the advent of The New York Times in Australia — as well as Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post and The Guardian in recent years — will offset the consolidation of traditional media that the reform will almost inevitably trigger.
But expanding into new markets is perilous, especially with a digital product. Though The New York Times has defied the odds when going digital and is already among the most subscribed to news websites in Australia, its competitors have struggled to profit. In 2014–2015, The Guardian’s local branch lost $14 million.
At any time these outlets could fold or withdraw from Australia, leaving just a handful of centralised media conglomerates and very few voices in the media marketplace. Traditional media companies could also buy out or arrange deals with internet news providers, which may homogenise digital content — that is, if these companies do not already own such websites, as is generally the case with our most visited news websites.
While Senator Fifield is right that existing laws “ignore the existence of the internet”, the proposed reforms barely accommodate it.
Rather than include provisions to account for digital disruption, or even the rise of subscription television, the Coalition plans to remove restrictions on traditional media. That, of course, does nothing to ensure media diversity.
Ensuring media diversity
While Labor has been unclear on what it hopes a review will achieve, the party is sceptical that free reign is somehow better than changing the restrictions to accommodate a digital world. The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance agrees, suggesting the two-out-three rule should be maintained until a viable alternative is drafted that both accounts for new media and recognises the benefits of media diversity.
In a comprehensive suite of reforms, perhaps following some of the recommendations of the Convergence Review, there would even be scope to consider digital content in the Coalition’s plan to boost the amount of local content required on television in rural and regional areas.
Though the current reform is a positive way of preventing the centralisation that comes with consolidation, it arguably does not go far enough. Rural and regional residents deserve a mix of relevant television, radio, newspaper and online content — all of which are increasingly centralised. It seems counterintuitive, when the government is deregulating based on the impact of digital outlets, to emphasise or prioritise television.
Likewise, it is counterintuitive to consider local content only as being relevant to rural and regional towns. In an increasingly globalised world, marked by digital disruption, local content can also mean Australian material.
Streaming services like Netflix, Stan and Presto all supposedly support local content, having bought Australian back catalogues, but only to a point.
Despite Netflix’s reputation for original productions overseas, such as House of Cards and Orange is the New Black, it is known for only producing local content where legally required. As with our television provisions, an obvious solution is quotas; the Coalition has no plans for this.
Stan has recently ramped up investment in producing new content, so there may be other ways to encourage local content in streaming services, as well as internet news and traditional media platforms, without imposing quotas on all platforms. This would, however, likely require more research and delays before reform.
Driving the reform
More restrictions (and delays) are the last thing our media companies need, according to Senator Fifield when publicly rejecting Labor’s calls for review. Though he is worried delays will put jobs at risk, the issue still becomes what will benefit big media companies — not necessarily what is in the public interest.
While the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) powers to approve or reject mergers will remain, this places a huge burden on the ACCC. Just a few weeks ago, the ACCC updated its media merger guidelines for the first time in a decade, but consultations will continue until October 14. This means that, until consultations close, some critical facts to reforming Australia’s media ownership laws are not known.
Of course, reform is desperately needed; few people are arguing against that, as the current rules are generally ineffective and circumvented via digital innovations. But the two rules that will be abolished specifically aim to address a sentiment of media diversity that remains (and is increasingly) important.
Delays may be damaging, but these are significant and potentially adverse changes that should not be rushed and, even more importantly, need to encompass new media — even if they cannot fully account for all innovations and eventualities in the future.
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.
