This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/a-patriotic-state-owned-media-would-not-serve-australias-best-interests

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
A 'patriotic' state-owned ABC would not serve Australia's best interests A 'patriotic' state-owned ABC would not serve Australia's best interests
(35 minutes later)
Prime minister Tony Abbot's view Prime minister Tony Abbott's view
that the role of state-owned media is to be patriotic, cheering on the homethat the role of state-owned media is to be patriotic, cheering on the home
team, is not particularly unusual or radical. It's just that one would normallyteam, is not particularly unusual or radical. It's just that one would normally
expect to hear it from government leaders in countries without a tradition of aexpect to hear it from government leaders in countries without a tradition of a
free media.free media.
In Chinese media policy, for example,In Chinese media policy, for example,
the media is not outside government, but rather an instrument of governance. Recentthe media is not outside government, but rather an instrument of governance. Recent
policy announcements as the Chinese Communist party struggles with the impactpolicy announcements as the Chinese Communist party struggles with the impact
of social media talk about the role of journalists as being to "guideof social media talk about the role of journalists as being to "guide
public opinion" and maintain the cohesiveness of the nation.public opinion" and maintain the cohesiveness of the nation.
It'sIt's
a tempting view of journalism for those faced with the challenge of governinga tempting view of journalism for those faced with the challenge of governing
at a time of rapid change. It is also completely wrong-headed and dangerous.at a time of rapid change. It is also completely wrong-headed and dangerous.
ThisThis
is not only because of the ideals of a free media. Afteris not only because of the ideals of a free media. After
all, as we saw in last year's controversies over the Labor government'sall, as we saw in last year's controversies over the Labor government's
attempts to increase regulation of the media, "media freedom" (likeattempts to increase regulation of the media, "media freedom" (like
"the public interest") can be a hollow catch phrase meaning little"the public interest") can be a hollow catch phrase meaning little
more in some mouths than more power for the dominant media corporations, nomore in some mouths than more power for the dominant media corporations, no
matter how badly they do their jobs.matter how badly they do their jobs.
FreedomFreedom
of speech is a right held by individuals, not organisations. Media organisationsof speech is a right held by individuals, not organisations. Media organisations
have freedoms not because the organisations are good things in themselves, buthave freedoms not because the organisations are good things in themselves, but
to the extent that they serve individuals’ right to freedom of expression. Whileto the extent that they serve individuals’ right to freedom of expression. While
this has always been the case, it is newly important to remember it in our ownthis has always been the case, it is newly important to remember it in our own
time when, for the first time in human history, the means of publication are intime when, for the first time in human history, the means of publication are in
the hands of most citizens.the hands of most citizens.
TheThe
wording of every important statement of the right to freedom of speech, fromwording of every important statement of the right to freedom of speech, from
Milton's famous 1644 speech to the English parliament to the Australian highMilton's famous 1644 speech to the English parliament to the Australian high
court decision in the Lange case, makes clear that freedom of speech is ancourt decision in the Lange case, makes clear that freedom of speech is an
individual right, and is held by "the press" only consequentially.individual right, and is held by "the press" only consequentially.
Every individual has a right to publish.Every individual has a right to publish.
TheThe
right to freedom of speech can be claimed by media organisations only becauseright to freedom of speech can be claimed by media organisations only because
they are composed of individuals, and because they disseminate news, views andthey are composed of individuals, and because they disseminate news, views and
information to citizens. They hold it to the extent that they put the rights ofinformation to citizens. They hold it to the extent that they put the rights of
citizens to freedom of speech and access to information into practical effect.citizens to freedom of speech and access to information into practical effect.
ItIt
is worth remembering, too, that the focus of last year's attempts to introduceis worth remembering, too, that the focus of last year's attempts to introduce
more media regulation was the power to enforce the publication of corrections.more media regulation was the power to enforce the publication of corrections.
If those reforms had gone through, and if the ABC's reporting of abuse ofIf those reforms had gone through, and if the ABC's reporting of abuse of
refugees was inaccurate, then a correction could have been more powerfullyrefugees was inaccurate, then a correction could have been more powerfully
demanded. But Abbott, then in opposition, was vehemently opposed to anydemanded. But Abbott, then in opposition, was vehemently opposed to any
such increase in government control of the media.such increase in government control of the media.
ThereThere
is a more pragmatic reason, though, why calling on journalists to bat for theis a more pragmatic reason, though, why calling on journalists to bat for the
home team is bad media policy. It doesn't work.home team is bad media policy. It doesn't work.
AsAs
the media historian Mitchell Stephens has observed, the lesson of history isthe media historian Mitchell Stephens has observed, the lesson of history is
that the sharing of news and information, over time, exercises a subtlethat the sharing of news and information, over time, exercises a subtle
cohesive force on society. It keeps us all thinking about the same things, andcohesive force on society. It keeps us all thinking about the same things, and
facing in the same direction, even when we disagree. This is the case even whenfacing in the same direction, even when we disagree. This is the case even when
individual news items and pieces of journalism might appear to have a corrosiveindividual news items and pieces of journalism might appear to have a corrosive
effect on social cohesiveness. There is a larger force at work.effect on social cohesiveness. There is a larger force at work.
ButBut
as China is discovering, in the new media world if people begin to distrust theas China is discovering, in the new media world if people begin to distrust the
content and pitch of mainstream media, if they suspect it of being propaganda,content and pitch of mainstream media, if they suspect it of being propaganda,
then mainstream media loses its agenda-setting power.then mainstream media loses its agenda-setting power.
In the Chinese context, party owned outletsIn the Chinese context, party owned outlets
are no longer as effective as an instrument of governance as they used to be,are no longer as effective as an instrument of governance as they used to be,
because people are turning to social media, to privately owned newspapers andbecause people are turning to social media, to privately owned newspapers and
the internet to get their news. By batting for the home team, party-ownedthe internet to get their news. By batting for the home team, party-owned
papers have lost the trust of their audiences.papers have lost the trust of their audiences.
Consider,Consider,
in this context, the Snowden stories, the ABC's involvement in which has soin this context, the Snowden stories, the ABC's involvement in which has so
displeased Abbott and the government.displeased Abbott and the government.
ImagineImagine
if the ABC had decided not to get involved, not seeing breaking such news asif the ABC had decided not to get involved, not seeing breaking such news as
part of its charter. Wouldpart of its charter. Would
its credibility have risen? Of course not. People would simply have obtained theits credibility have risen? Of course not. People would simply have obtained the
news from elsewhere and, to a degree, the nation-building capacity that was thenews from elsewhere and, to a degree, the nation-building capacity that was the
justification for founding a national broadcaster in the first place would havejustification for founding a national broadcaster in the first place would have
been diminished.been diminished.
TheThe
capacity of the ABC to contribute to a healthy Australia depends on it being acapacity of the ABC to contribute to a healthy Australia depends on it being a
trusted source of news - and all the surveys tell us that by and large, it istrusted source of news - and all the surveys tell us that by and large, it is
exactly that. If it becomes bland and non-controversial, then it loses theexactly that. If it becomes bland and non-controversial, then it loses the
power to fulfil its charter.power to fulfil its charter.
Meanwhile the planned efficiency reviewMeanwhile the planned efficiency review
of the ABC is not necessarily a bad thing for Auntie. Long term ABC watchersof the ABC is not necessarily a bad thing for Auntie. Long term ABC watchers
will be feeling déjà vu: it was 2005, and the ABC was in the sites ofwill be feeling déjà vu: it was 2005, and the ABC was in the sites of
the Howard government. The ABC board - stacked by the government with culturalthe Howard government. The ABC board - stacked by the government with cultural
warriors of the first water - requested an external review. The Governmentwarriors of the first water - requested an external review. The Government
commissioned KPMG.commissioned KPMG.
The result, leaked in 2006, was a report that found the ABCThe result, leaked in 2006, was a report that found the ABC
was very efficient, and needed an extra $125.8m in corewas very efficient, and needed an extra $125.8m in core
funding over the next three years to maintain its present operations. Afterfunding over the next three years to maintain its present operations. After
comparing the ABC to Australian commercial broadcasters and public broadcasterscomparing the ABC to Australian commercial broadcasters and public broadcasters
overseas, KPMG concluded:overseas, KPMG concluded:
The ABC provides a high volume of outputs and qualityThe ABC provides a high volume of outputs and quality
relative to the level of funding it receives … the ABC appears to be a broadlyrelative to the level of funding it receives … the ABC appears to be a broadly
efficient organisation.efficient organisation.
The result was modest increases in theThe result was modest increases in the
ABC funding in the following budget. It may be that in the current exercise,ABC funding in the following budget. It may be that in the current exercise,
the motivations of minister for communications Malcolm Turnbull includethe motivations of minister for communications Malcolm Turnbull include
insulating the ABC from swinging cuts. If so, management's support for theinsulating the ABC from swinging cuts. If so, management's support for the
exercise is notexercise is not
surprising.surprising.
There is room for some cost cutting at theThere is room for some cost cutting at the
ABC, but the cost is heavy. Further denuding the broadcasting capacity in Hobart,ABC, but the cost is heavy. Further denuding the broadcasting capacity in Hobart,
Adelaide and Brisbane, for example, and ceasing coverage of things such as localAdelaide and Brisbane, for example, and ceasing coverage of things such as local
football, would free up more funds but also unleash a political storm,football, would free up more funds but also unleash a political storm,
including in marginal electorates.including in marginal electorates.
CouldCould
the ABC management be looking for excuses and external justification to bolsterthe ABC management be looking for excuses and external justification to bolster
them in making these cuts? The appointment of commercial television veteranthem in making these cuts? The appointment of commercial television veteran
Peter Lewis, who could only blanch at the costs of, for example, bringing state-based football to tiny audiences, suggests so.Peter Lewis, who could only blanch at the costs of, for example, bringing state-based football to tiny audiences, suggests so.
Reading between the lines of the termsReading between the lines of the terms
of reference, there is another issue which has been perennial ever since SBSof reference, there is another issue which has been perennial ever since SBS
was founded in the early 1980s. Could the two public broadcasters be merged?was founded in the early 1980s. Could the two public broadcasters be merged?
Or, failing that, could their "back office" functions be combined,Or, failing that, could their "back office" functions be combined,
leading to efficiencies?leading to efficiencies?
In a recent interview with me,In a recent interview with me,
ABC managing director Mark Scott said an SBS and ABC merger was a "matterABC managing director Mark Scott said an SBS and ABC merger was a "matter
for government", and not one the ABC would pursue. However he also observedfor government", and not one the ABC would pursue. However he also observed
that if, in the current day, one was seeking to establish an ethnicthat if, in the current day, one was seeking to establish an ethnic
broadcasting presence, the natural solution would be found a new digitalbroadcasting presence, the natural solution would be found a new digital
multichannel or two, rather than establish a whole organisation.multichannel or two, rather than establish a whole organisation.
The terms of reference for the inquiryThe terms of reference for the inquiry
also make it clear that the government is taking separate advice on thealso make it clear that the government is taking separate advice on the
transmission costs for the ABC and SBS. Not before time, since that particulartransmission costs for the ABC and SBS. Not before time, since that particular
heavy cost centre has a nasty and expensive history.heavy cost centre has a nasty and expensive history.
There is a reason the ABC has survived,There is a reason the ABC has survived,
when so many other nation-building "commissions" founded in previouswhen so many other nation-building "commissions" founded in previous
centuries have disappeared. It is because media has a fundamental role incenturies have disappeared. It is because media has a fundamental role in
nation-building, and the ABC's high public trust ratings show that most peoplenation-building, and the ABC's high public trust ratings show that most people
implicitly understand that.implicitly understand that.
But it is not exercised by being bland,But it is not exercised by being bland,
partisan for the home team, or skewing the news. A public broadcaster thatpartisan for the home team, or skewing the news. A public broadcaster that
failed in breaking uncomfortable news would lose much of its reason for being.failed in breaking uncomfortable news would lose much of its reason for being.