background briefing 3 ..................4

Media ownership laws are once again under threat

Money speaks

In mid1997 FABC campaigned against changes to the cross-media ownership rules that were being considered by the federal government. (The cross-media rules prevent any one interest from owning a newspaper and TV station, or newspaper and radio station, or TV and radio station in the same marketplace.)

With strong opposition from the Coalition's media backbench committee, and widespread concern at the threatened diminution of free speech, plans to change the law were abandoned by the government.

There is a renewed drive to change the rules and this time it is a much more serious matter- it includes foreign ownership also. In an article in the magazine 24 Hours of July,

David Bowman writes:

This time it is not only the Packers who want the cross-media rules thrown out but the Murdochs and the controllers of the Fairfax company. Now it is not only the Murdochs who want the restrictions on foreign ownership removed but the Packers and Fairfax also.

Media empires, centrally controlled or influenced, crowd out other voices and can become dangerously powerful and wealthy influences in society. The notion of the media as money-making machines has reached a pinnacle in our time. Today, the major media controllers seem unaware or uncaring that the vital social implications of their business set it apart and give them special responsibilities.

The next step, an unhealthy community of interest between great media proprietors and politicians, follow naturally in the circumstances of today. But could anything be more disturbing of the idea of press freedom? There is a sense of betrayal when moguls whose media are supposed - repeat, supposed - to be the watchdogs of society hobnob with political leaders.

The public, whom press freedom is meant to serve, have no part in this cosy arrangement. Today they see instead the appearance of a special relationship that may involve reciprocal obligations. I say 'may' because few know exactly what transpires when media moguls and politicians meet, but readers will know how to weigh these things. It is a fair guess that policies and laws are canvassed and concessions considered; in return media support or opposition at a political level may be implicit. What is new about it today is the unblushing nature of the process.

...The moguls should be left on their present chains for ever. Once freed, they would put their enormous strength and insatiable appetite into cannibalising the media, the old and the new, with the eventual outcome probably a complete duopoly. A media door to which only a Murdoch and a Packer hold the keys is not press freedom.

...The first great battle for press freedom began against rulers who had yet to discover democracy. This present engagement is part of the second battle. That is being fought against people who have too little regard for democracy, and it is a battle the public can't afford to lose.

David Bowman is an ex-Editor-in-Chief of the Sydney Morning Herald.