Now Is The Time Of Discontent
The Age
Saturday September 29, 2007
The Content Makers: Understanding the Media in Australia
By Margaret Simons Penguin, $35 The Media We Deserve: Underachievement in the Fourth Estate By David Salter Melbourne University Publishing, $34.95 The state of the Australian media could be improved with better government policy and more transparency, writes John Button.IN 1994, THE ABC'S BOYER Lectures were given by Kerry Stokes, who at the time described himself as "a media player on a small scale". His topic was the media in Australia, and the title of the lecture series, Advance Australia Where? Good question. He was sceptical about the money being spent on technology. It provided better communication to a wider audience, but it was the content (the information provided) rather than the means of communication that was crucial. Good policy would recognise that the proper function of content was "the preservation of our unique culture and identity". If necessary the policy should be supported by regulations and incentives, and it should be transparent. Perhaps a public inquiry or a royal commission would lead to policies more in the interest of the majority of Australians.At the time Stokes gave his lectures, Australia displayed some of the true characteristics of a banana republic, just as insidious as those of an inefficient economy. There was not much diversity of ownership or media content. The media was dominated by the moguls, Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch, and occasionally by marauders such as Conrad Black. They exerted a powerful influence on government policy, mostly designed to suit their own interests.My recollections of this period include being summoned with Paul Keating to Murdoch's office before the 1983 election for his approval or otherwise, being roundly abused by Packer and sometimes almost charmed by him, and watching "tough" prime ministers sucking up to media proprietors.Later, in the mid-1990s at a News Corporation executive conference, an oleaginous Kim Williams (now boss of Foxtel) presented an antique box to Murdoch as a gift of appreciation. "We love you, Rupert," he said. "We all love you." It seemed to say something about the Murdoch empire.In this context, Stokes' Boyer Lectures seemed refreshing, altruistic, almost visionary. I ran into him at a footy final and congratulated him on his public-spirited approach. "Thank you," he said. "But of course, that will never happen."Technology and different attitudes to public values among younger generations have brought huge changes to the old world dominated by the media barons. And journalists are worried by the fall in newspaper circulation, by the decline in watching free-to-air TV, and the tendency for media ownership to fall into the hands of financial predators. Journalist and publisher Eric Beecher used a volcanic metaphor to describe the changes that have been taking place in communications. His essay was called The End of Serious Journalism? The first subterranean rumblings could be heard, by those who were listening, during the 1990s. They have continued ever since and grown louder.Margaret Simons' The Content Makers: Understanding the Media in Australia is a big book - 500 pages of information, description and analysis of the state of the media, yesterday, today and tentatively tomorrow. It has a kindly section in the front, "Finding your way round this book", which is useful. It is a very comprehensive reference book in which the reader can find out all sorts of things about media ownership, how TV ratings work, the cost of TV productions, the latest broadcasting legislation, or the future of the ABC."One of the main ideas of this book," she writes, (is that) "media and journalism are not the same thing. 'Media' is the business of delivering audiences to advertisers." Content is different. And the future of content is what she is concerned about: concerned, but less pessimistic than some: "Ironically, in the new age of connection we may be poorer, more alienated and more isolated - as we retreat to our niche interests and private pleasures - than human beings have ever been before. These are the risks. But I am an optimist, and I prefer an optimistic view. There are also opportunities in this new media world." But the purpose of journalism is "in need of reinvention".Although Simons' book is full of information and serious insights, there is nothing dull or stodgy about it. She is a very good descriptive writer, and some of that writing, like her descriptions of a Walkley Award ceremony or her interview with advertising magnate Harold Mitchell, is very funny.Simons calls her book a "conducted tour" of the media by a "partial and involved tour guide". She is certainly involved and at times passionate, most particularly about democracy. To be the guardian and promoter of which, she would like to think, journalism has as "the high calling". David Salter, the author of The Media We Deserve, also has considerable experience in journalism and a strong sense of the public interest. His background has largely been with ABC current affairs and he was executive producer of Media Watch when it was perhaps at its sharpest. He now writes for The Australian.His book is a collection of informative and readable essays about journalism and the environment in which journalists operate. If it has a particular theme it is illustrated by the sub-title of the book, Underachievement in the Fourth Estate.There is an implicit assumption here that if journalists only performed better, then we might have a much more diverse and satisfactory media. Perhaps, but in a world in which the tectonic plates are continuing to move, things seem more complex than this.Salter understands all the arguments about journalism in the public interest, and illustrates them from experience. And he criticises his profession for seeming acceptance of self-regulation, which has proved an inadequate system in improving media standards. It's a feisty book, and he gets stuck into people who deserve it, such as Alan Jones and Gerard Henderson. Not surprisingly, as a former insider, he's good on the strengths and shortcomings of the ABC.In a chapter on pay TV, Simons refers to it as a poor relation of the free-to-air model. "The reason is part of the disgraceful story of political bungling and expediency that has been Australian media regulation."As far back as the introduction of TV in the 1950s, the process was delayed by the political influence of the newspaper proprietors. Pay TV was delayed because of bitter opposition from the free-to-air proprietors. Similarly with the introduction of a much-vaunted fourth commercial TV network, digital technology and, of course, broadband."The long-established practice of kowtowing to media interests in setting policy has become part of the political culture. The present Minister, Senator Helen Coonan, seems to have the Midas touch of failure simply because she is trapped in a web of compromises. The Opposition spokesman, Stephen Conroy, doesn't speak much. There is no sign of him emerging as a champion of the public interest in an area where good public policy is crucial. Both politicians look like deal makers.In this context, the title of Salter's book, The Media we Deserve, seems wrong. I've never met anyone who deserves the worst of free-to-air television. I thought that originally the expression was, "we get the politicians we deserve".Now the changes to communications and information policy are such that we might hope for a different approach. Stokes' suggestion for an open public inquiry or royal commission might be worthwhile reconsidering. We could do with more transparency and better public information. These two books in quite different ways provide a good start to better understanding. Especially the understanding that we deserve better.John Button was a minister in the Hawke and Keating governments.
© 2007 The Age