|
Conflict of Interest
It is an understatement to say that the media has a significant influence on the outcome of elections as well as the day-to-day operations of democratic governments in general.
Pick up a book on politics and it would be extremely rare if no comments on the media were made.
“Furthermore the news media have a considerable influence upon public opinion and upon the policy maker’s agenda.”1
This can hardly be doubted. In another book, Political Science- An Introduction, a twenty-page chapter is given to Political Communication and the Media.2
So if a government is ‘having trouble’ with the existing media networks and finding it difficult to ‘get its message across’, what might be a solution to the problem? Simple, create, and/or maintain your own media network. Appoint known trusted operatives to senior positions in the organisation and let them know how happy you are with their political reporting by the amount of funding they receive each year.
Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
Most western societies understand the concept of a conflict of interest. In the Grand Final of the World Cup between teams representing two different countries, it will be ensured that the umpire chosen will be from a third country. When the government initiates a Royal Commission into the banking industry they will ensure the Chair does not own a significant number of bank shares as well as not having a history with any bank. In a court of law a judge will recuse him/herself from the bench if it transpires there is a preexisting relationship with one of the parties.
However when it comes to the government and the media, it is rather surprising that little is made of the flagrant conflict of interest, whereby governments, which metaphorically live or die by how the media report on them, should be allowed to appoint senior management of a publicly financed media organisation, as well as arbitrarily fund it according to whim.
Free to endow, or to cut
Despite the firm dollar numbers apparently granted to Aunty in the last federal budget (already a 1% cut, plus the $22 million surrendered for the loss of the Australia Network), there’s a crafty legal loophole available to the ABC’s enemies. The Appropriation Acts do not entitle a Commonwealth body to any funds it may have been allowed in the budget, but only to the maximum amount the Minister for Finance may provide to that body. In other words, Mathias Cormann is free to cut the ABC budget as much as he and Tony Abbott like. -David Salter, ‘The ABC Debate’, Crikey, 21st October 2014
Unnecessary drain on public resources
Anyone who possesses a minimal understanding of economics would appreciate the adage ‘nature abhors a vacuum’ and realise that if a segment of society was deprived of its usual speciality media broadcasting, it would not be for long.
Considering the media market is currently awash with a plethora of local, national and international television, both free to air and subscription, radio, news web sites, print media in the form of newspapers and periodical journal magazines, as well as social media services, all eager to fill any gap in the ideological market, annual taxpayer funding of in excess of one billion dollars does truly seem unjustified.
In 2021 ABC journalist Louise Milligan was the defendant in two separate defamation lawsuits taken to court. In one, by then Attorney General Christian Porter, the action was discontinued after the ABC posted a retraction and paid legal costs. In the second, by MP Andrew Laming, the ABC ended up paying $200,000 in settlement, not for anything Milligan broadcast in her professional duties with the ABC, but for private tweets she made on her personal Twitter account.
Crowds out competition of similar viewpoint
One of the alleged justifications for public broadcasting/state media is that it fills a gap and presents news and nonfiction programs from a viewpoint not otherwise broadcast. Whereas it is not always openly declared, in Australia defenders of the ABC and SBS would claim state media offers a counterpoint to, specifically, what is broadcast on the News Ltd and Sky News media organs.
“Australia needs an alternative to the increased impact of the Murdoch empire” -erstwhile ABC radio host Ranald Macdonald, October 31, 2015, The Age.
Whether or not one accepts that as justification for public broadcasting, what really becomes interesting is how in practice this endeavour has an effect on the ideological media makeup of the country.
Whereas state media offers very limited competition to News Limited and Sky News because of their different political viewpoints, it does cause problems for similarly “progressive” outlets such as Channel 9, Channel 10, the Guardian, Crickey, The Age, etc which have to compete for mostly the same psychographic of viewers/readers without any government funding.
As Greg Hywood, then Fairfax CEO, told the Select Committee on The Future of Public Interest Journalism inquiry in May 2017,
The ABC is creating additional pressure on local commercial media by aggressively competing for the same audience that commercial media rely on and providing online content for free, undermining our ability to create a sustainable model. The ABC also, out of taxpayer’s money, pays Google…for search engine marketing [to make] ABC stories appear higher [in search results]. We believe that the biggest threat to quality journalism in this country is unprofitable local media companies.
False imprimatur of the virtuous, non-profit, government department
Public media is unfortunately seen by some to have a higher level of respectability because it is a non-profit making semi-government department, with no alternative motive than to simply report truthfully on all the contemporary issues the public need to know about.
And this is seen in comparison to the allegedly grubby sensationalist commercial media organisations with their “if it bleeds, it leads” attitude to what is reported, practised so as to satisfy their ‘mindless pursuit of ratings’ enabling them to make the biggest profit possible.
Whereas commercial media is in it ‘just to make a buck’, the broadcasters that become successful do so because they soon learn that their biggest asset is their reputation, the reputation of truthful, professional journalism as well as reporting on the subjects their viewers and listeners wish to be kept informed about.
There is no reason to believe that ABC editorial staff are somehow better than those of the commercial media. It is ridiculous to declare that members of editorial staff (reporters, journalists, researchers, producers, etc.), of both commercial and public television, are always easily able to keep their personal political opinions and prejudices in check, and just simply report on what actually happened.
The difference however is that there are, for lack of a better word, natural governors in place in commercial media operations to prevent false or boring reports going to air, governors that don’t exist with public media.
If commercial media reporters get a story wrong they suffers the humiliation of being caught out. If they are caught in a libel, costs for their employer, and future employment prospects are worse.
With government media, when news stories, documentaries and even dramas become too didactic at the expense of interest or entertainment, ratings may fall but taxpayer funding remains and no one loses their job. When defamatory broadcasting occurs, the humiliation exists, but damages for libel are just passed on to the taxpayer and no one loses their job.
Anyone who doubts this should ask themselves why regular news hours on commercial television, with all the attendant ads, still always rate higher than public media which run without ads.
1. Parkin, Summers & Woodward, Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia, Longman, 1996, p. 240
2. Roskin, Cord, Medeiros & Jones, Political Science- An Introduction, Prentice Hall, 1988, p. 172.
|
