Australia has one of the most concentrated patterns of media ownership, in the western world. Examine the implications of this fact and how it has shaped our newspaper, radio, television and new media industries, along with the content we receive.
Kent Brockman: Springfield has been overrun by a strange and almost certainly <evil> sect, calling themselves the Movementarians. In exchange for your home and all your money, the Leader of this way out and.. wrong religion, claims he'll take believers away on his spaceship to the planet "Blisstonia". Excuse my editorial laugh. [laughs] But-- [pause] Ladies and gentlemen, I just learned of a change in this station's management! Welcome, Movementarians! Continue to improve our lives! I love you, perfect Leader.. and new CEO of KBBL broadcasting! --, "The Simpsons : The Joy of Sect"
This quote taken from the Simpsons is a perfect example of the method used to broadcast information by media sources and how the media owner influences the content that we receive
To first understand just how concentrated media ownership is in Australia, it is first necessary to look abroad to other developed countries. "In Australia, the power of the media organisation owners has come to have particular significance for media analysis. Here, in contrast to the more media diverse industries of Europe and North America, there has been a steady shrinkage in the range of ownership" (Marshall and Kingsbury: 1996: p. 97). While North America and Europe have a much wider choice of media sources and possess the opportunity to hear several different opinions, Australia’s media is largely owned by three companies, the Rupert Murdoch owned News Ltd, Kerry Packer’s Australian Consolidated Press, and the Fairfax Corporation. However, the latter seems to be losing ground to the former two, who both seem to be coming to the fore and creating an even more concentrated Australian owned media.
This has not always been the case in Australia, "some seventy years ago, in the oldest of the mass media – print – twenty one independent owners produced twenty – six capital city daily newspapers. Now there are only two major groups in daily newspaper publication: the Fairfax organisation and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation" (Marshall and Kingsbury: 1996: p. 97). The question that must be asked however is, how did these three companies come to own almost all media outlets in Australia? Murdoch and Packer carry on their respective family businesses and owe much of their ‘rise’ to outside influences, most notably the Government over the years, and in particular the Conservative Governments.
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser demonstrated this while in power, "while Fraser was Prime Minister the rules of foreign ownership were changed to accommodate the non- Australian residency and then non- Australian citizenship of Rupert Murdoch" (Schultz: 1998: p. 83)
This idea of creating media ‘mates’ is what many analysts blame for the concentrated pattern of media ownership and that "diversity of ownership, was important for the maintenance of democracy" (Marshall and Kingsbury: 1996: p. 101). In particular Rupert Murdoch’s father, "Sir Keith, owed his rise to an intimacy with politicians and once he was on top, another generation of politicians was in debt to him" (Munster in Marshall and Kingsbury: 1996: p. 100)
This then opens up a new debate over who is in fact controlling the media and therefore controlling what people hear or read. Does the media owner have an influence in what is printed or reported? If so does it ring of political innuendo? Or would a media owner sacrifice both political and personal ties for the sake of financial gain?
As already stated, it is obvious that media owners are pro- conservative Government, and have had a long standing feud with the Australian Labor Party, who have always been ready to stand up to media magnates. In 1986 the Labor Government severely hampered media owners prospects of increasing their prospective media acquisitions when they "acted on long standing Labor Party Policy to reduce the concentration of ownership of the Australian Media" (Schultz: 1998: p. 83) The major effect of the laws is " to prevent the common ownership of newspapers, television and radio broadcasting licences that serve the same region." (Jackson: 2001: p1), or as former Prime Minister Paul Keating put it "you can be the Prince of Print or the Queen of the Screen" (Mason and Mclean: 1993: p. 32).
By implementing the Labor Party’s cross media ownership legislation, Keating and the Labor Party were aiming to brake up Australia’s media empires. Historically the Labor Party has always fought against a pro – Liberal party mainstream press, and the deals that the media owners have been doing with conservative parties throughout their terms in office. In the 1996 election, the Labor party not only went head to head with the Liberal party, but also the media owners who’s attempt to further monopolise Australia’s media had been hampered by Labor’s cross media ownership laws.
Prior to the election, PM Paul Keating publicly "accused Opposition leader John Howard of ‘doing a deal’, promising to abolish the cross- media ownership rules to ensure the support of Packers media organisation in the forth coming election campaign." (Schultz: 1998: p. 84). The Political conservatism of the media owner’s was clearly demonstrated when "in early 1995, Kerry Packer challenged the cross media ownership laws and expressed his support for the leader of the opposition John Howard" (Schultz: 1998: p. 84). The John Howard lead conservative Coalition party came to power in 1996 and within their first 18 months "the Howard Government floated a number of options to abolish the cross media ownership laws, which it considered anachronistic" (Schultz: 1998: p. 84).
Rupert Murdoch, of whom himself and his family are noted pro- Conservative Party allies, suggested that "the outcome (of the revision of the Cross media ownership laws) would be ‘ what ever Kerry Packer wants.. he seems to have very close links to central ministers in this Government’" (Schultz: 1998: p. 84).
The Howard Government has never been clear on why it intends to abolish the media ownership legislation or whether or not it is because they deem it detrimental to media diversity, or detrimental towards the media owner’s prospects. In either case it does seem that by offering their public support for the Liberal Party prior to elections, the Government is intent to return the favour by abolishing the cross media ownership road block. The clearest indication of the Howard Governments intention to abolish the laws was confirmed when "The Liberal party argued that changing technology made the task of quarantining media companies to print radio or television almost impossible" (Cunningham and Turner et al.: 2002:p. 111).
Following the Howard Government’s coming to power in 1996, they announced the review of the cross media ownership laws, the Government later downgraded the review, claiming it would be reviewed at a later date. In doing so "the Howard Government stepped away from modifying cross media ownership laws in a way that might benefit particular media owners" (Schultz: 1998: p. 89). One could assume the decision to delay the review was that the Coalition knew the abolition would never get through a Senate, and would meet with much opposition from Labor Party and Democrat Party Senators. However, due to recent events and the Governments complete control of the Senate, it is no surprise that the Government has re-launched its ambition to abolish the media ownership laws. One expects that the Media Owners will be pleased with this prospect, in fact, the Liberal Government may soon have all major newspapers and television stations working for them and singing their ‘praises’, that is, as long as the media owners favour the Liberal Government
Under John Howard’s time as Prime Minister media owners have prospered in Australia, and stand to do even better pending the abolition of the cross media ownership legislation. The reality is, as long as the media owners are getting what they want from the Government, they shall always hold the Government in a favourable light, and thus it is inevitable that this will have a resounding effect on what audiences see and read. This also has an affect on how the media reports on the Labor Party. As it stands, the media owners see the Labor Party as a spanner in the works of their mighty machines and would do whatever it takes to sway the public’s conviction towards the Conservative Governments by presenting the Labor Party in a negative light. "The political conservatism of the major newspapers has been well documented and is demonstrated not only by the overwhelming preference for coalition governments in pre- election editorials, but by the close alliance between news paper proprietors and politicians" (Schultz: 1998: p. 167). While there is an absence of restraint on Australia’s media owners, the magnates stand to do very well and acquire more and more assets. Consequently, this means concentrating Australia’s media even more so and hence severely stifling the amount of diversified opinions available.
While it is obvious that Politicians and Politics have a large role to play in what is presented to the media, how much of what is presented is affected by the Media Owners personal opinions? It would be a very viable possibility that a media owner may exclude printing or publishing a news story which somehow is offensive to his morals, "tell a newspaper owner that his influence is confined to the boardroom, and you’ll take an indefinite holiday" (Blumenfeld in Marshall and Kingsbury: 1996: p. 99). It has to be understood that in it very basic form, the Owners business is still his business and he does ultimately have the power to decide what his company engages itself in, "proprietors will argue that it’s their paper so why the hell shouldn’t they decide what goes in it." (Kohler in Marshall and Kingsbury: 1996: p. 99). As Mason et al. suggest, by appointing an "editor who is his own nominee, and who may be more in tune with what the owner wants, then there is no need for the owner to interfere overtly" (Mason and Mclean: 1993: p. 32). This would have to be someone carefully chosen and is known to have the same political and indeed economical persuasion as the media owner.
This opens another debate on how concentrated media ownership would effect the amount of information delivered. First and foremost, media owners run their media organisations for profit. "In the private sector you are working for companies that are seeking to make a profit. No – one produces newspapers at a loss or magazines at a loss or runs radio or Tv at a loss just for the hell of it. So when it comes to the crunch, the publishers or media owner makes a firm decision when they see their financial rewards are at risk" (Warren in Marshall and Kingsbury: 1996: p. 67). The more media outlets an owner can acquire means the higher the profit the owner will receive. Also with increased media acquisitions comes increased power, and therefore increased opportunities to broadcast an opinion. Schultz: 1998 claims that "Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd. Moved from being the smallest newspaper company to publishing more than 60% of the nations newspapers and holding a monopoly in four capital cities" (Schultz: 1998: p. 83), it would therefore be completely feasible to suggest that Rupert Murdoch has enough power to influence 60% of the populations’ opinion. The combination of public, political and commercial interests, paralleled with the "the domination of the media market by a small number of companies not only has an impact on the range of information available to the public, but also has accentuated the power of those who own and operate the media" (Cunningham and Turner et al.: 2002:p. 112).
What may conflict with media owners personal or indeed political interests would be their financial interests, "the news media’s desire to profit and maintain independent political role results in a potent brew of commercial and political interests and ambitions" (Schultz: 1998: p. 103). Although political alliances are a factor, media owners would sacrifice the alliance with conservative Governments if it were in their financial interest. An owner my decide what is included in a publication if "they have economic interests which could be affected by what appears in the news" (Mason and Mclean: 1993: p. 32). Subsequently, this limits what the public are entitled to know.
The threat of limited access to information through the print and television companies, has spread into the dot.com world where "the collapse of many dot.com companies and the success of websites associated with established print and electronic media conglomerates, have served to reinforce the dominance of the major media companies in the new environment" (Cunningham and Turner et al.: 2002:p. 112). Thus it can be seen that the major media owners have managed to converge into the electronic world and create a monopoly online.
Australia’s concentrated pattern of media ownership has left the audience with very little choice. In fact it seems the only choice that the audience does have is which medium they would like to hear, see and read Murdoch or Packer’s opinion. The biggest problem with concentrated media ownership is the restriction on diverse opinions. Due to the media owner’s close alliance with the Government the audience will be subject to hearing little else but obvious support for the Conservative Government. Even if there were to be a change in the Coalition Leadership, the major media owners would favour the new Prime Minister.
The media owner’s respective financial interests will also play a part in the diversity of information that is available and being broadcast or printed. The media ideal of conducting itself in the public interest seems to be slowly dying as a result of concentrated ownership, confirmed by Rupert Murdoch when he was reported to have said: ‘What rights do we have to speak in the public interest when, too often, we are motivated for our personal gain’" (Schultz: 1998: p. 102)
References:
Cunningham, S, Turner, G, (2002) "The Media and Communications in Australia", Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW. Australia
Marshall. I, Kingsbury. D, (1996), "Media realities: the news media and power in Australian society", Addison Wesley Longman Australia, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
O'Donnell, S (1998) "The Joy Of Sect, Simpsons Episodes Transcript, http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F23
Schultz, J, (1998), "Reviving the Fourth Estate, Democracy, Accountability and the Media", Cambridge University Press, Oakley, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.