Monday, October 16, 2006
Media Exercise 4: Media Reform in Australia
Group 2:
Amber Ramirez
Mandy Crawford
Audrey Marshall
Stephanie Zoch
Task:
Australia's media ownership laws have remained unchanged for over a decade, with debate on the desirability of reform continuing unabated. This debate was fuelled by the impact of new media technologies, a number of inquiries proposing regulatory changes, and the self-interest of those media organisations that report the controversy.
The Australian Government has long indicated that it believed the rules to be anachronistic, and its policy for the 2001 election contained a commitment to amend cross-media and foreign ownership restrictions. The major effect of the 1996 laws is to prevent the common ownership of newspapers, television and radio broadcasting licences that serve the same region. The purpose of the legislation was to encourage diversity in the ownership of the most influential forms of the commercial media: the daily press and free-to-air television and radio. The justification for the rules is that the effective functioning of a democracy requires a diverse ownership of the daily mass media to ensure that public life be reported in a fair and open manner.
Current Australian media reforms, passed in October 2006, are designed to free up media ownership by scrapping foreign ownership limist and cross-media which ban a company form owning television, radio and newspapers in same area.
Your task is to critical assess these changes through the questions posed below, which will act to guide your examination:
Australian Government, “Meeting the digital challenge: Reforming Australia’s media in the digital age”. Discussion paper on media reform options.http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/37572/Media_consultation_paper_Final_.pdf
Morgan, F. (2005). “Up, up & away in my beautiful balloon: Some questions of media policy”. http://arts.anu.edu.au/democraticaudit/papers/200509_morgan_media_own.pdf
http://au.biz.yahoo.com/061012/19/xdwg.html
Deadline for final submissions: Thursday, November 2, 5pm.
Amber Ramirez
Mandy Crawford
Audrey Marshall
Stephanie Zoch
Task:
Australia's media ownership laws have remained unchanged for over a decade, with debate on the desirability of reform continuing unabated. This debate was fuelled by the impact of new media technologies, a number of inquiries proposing regulatory changes, and the self-interest of those media organisations that report the controversy.
The Australian Government has long indicated that it believed the rules to be anachronistic, and its policy for the 2001 election contained a commitment to amend cross-media and foreign ownership restrictions. The major effect of the 1996 laws is to prevent the common ownership of newspapers, television and radio broadcasting licences that serve the same region. The purpose of the legislation was to encourage diversity in the ownership of the most influential forms of the commercial media: the daily press and free-to-air television and radio. The justification for the rules is that the effective functioning of a democracy requires a diverse ownership of the daily mass media to ensure that public life be reported in a fair and open manner.
Current Australian media reforms, passed in October 2006, are designed to free up media ownership by scrapping foreign ownership limist and cross-media which ban a company form owning television, radio and newspapers in same area.
Your task is to critical assess these changes through the questions posed below, which will act to guide your examination:
- What were the key reasons for cross-media ownership rules in the Australian context?
- What are the new media ownership rules designed to achieve in relation to criticisms of the previous legislation?
- What current criticisms have been leveled at the new cross-media ownership rules in relation to diversity of ownership compared to diversity of opinion through media reporting in fair and open manner?
- What implications could these negative aspects have on the media's roles and responsibilities in effective functioning of democracy in the Australian?
The following online resources will help you become oriented to Australian media reforms and associated issues.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/media_regulations.htm
http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/democracy/currentthreats/medialaw.htmlAustralian Government, “Meeting the digital challenge: Reforming Australia’s media in the digital age”. Discussion paper on media reform options.http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/37572/Media_consultation_paper_Final_.pdf
Morgan, F. (2005). “Up, up & away in my beautiful balloon: Some questions of media policy”. http://arts.anu.edu.au/democraticaudit/papers/200509_morgan_media_own.pdf
http://au.biz.yahoo.com/061012/19/xdwg.html
Deadline for final submissions: Thursday, November 2, 5pm.
Comments:
<< Home
Question 1: What were the key reasons for cross-media ownership rules in the Australian context?
According the Frank Morgan from the University of Newcastle, “people are driven by a desire for quality in what they read, hear, and see,” therefore a proper media policy concerning cross-media ownership must be accessed in Australia. The previous policy contained a “two station rule” in which stated,
“a person must not control:
a commercial television broadcasting licence and a commercial radio broadcasting licence having the same licence area;
a commercial television broadcasting licence and a newspaper associated with that licence area;
or a commercial radio broadcasting licence and newspaper associated with that licence area.”
Yet this policy fails to provide a diversity of viewpoints and content as well as lacks proper means of competition necessary for a democratic nation. Concentration of media ownership restricts diversity in opinion and culture that reach the community while also limiting sources of news, information and commentary. Policy reform that promote diversity would enable greater freedom for both existing and new media groups to engage in legitimate diversification strategies on traditional and new platforms. As well as ensure that members of the public are always promptly and well enough informed to make their own judgments about governance, regulation, sport, entertainment or other matters(Australian Press Council). Cross media reform must also attempt to break up media monopoly and oligopoly found in most parts of Australia where it was not unusual to have one media group owning a newspaper, radio station and television station. This greatly hinders the level of competition because the lack thereof has caused limited diversity. Christian Downie and Andrew Macintosh who write of the cross-media ownership debate explain that, “The free exchange of ideas and opinions cannot be assured in a modern society if the primary forms of media are controlled by a small number of people. Concentration of media ownership undermines the capacity of citizens and institutions to share information and views and places media proprietors in a position to exert undue influence on public opinion and democratic processes.” Also concentration of media ownership has created barriers to entry in all media markets. By promoting new market entrants, increased innovation, lower production costs and lower prices are hoped to be attained. In conclusion, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan resolves that, “It is important that we find the balance in terms of providing the scope for media companies to respond to emerging pressures, but at the same time respond to concerns about competition, diversity, and local content.”
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Cross-media%20ownership%20webpaper%20_May%202006_.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/media_regulations.htm
http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/democracy/currentthreats/medialaw.html
http://arts.anu.edu.au/democraticaudit/papers/200509_morgan_media_own.pdf
http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/37572/Media_consultation_paper_Final_.pdf
According the Frank Morgan from the University of Newcastle, “people are driven by a desire for quality in what they read, hear, and see,” therefore a proper media policy concerning cross-media ownership must be accessed in Australia. The previous policy contained a “two station rule” in which stated,
“a person must not control:
a commercial television broadcasting licence and a commercial radio broadcasting licence having the same licence area;
a commercial television broadcasting licence and a newspaper associated with that licence area;
or a commercial radio broadcasting licence and newspaper associated with that licence area.”
Yet this policy fails to provide a diversity of viewpoints and content as well as lacks proper means of competition necessary for a democratic nation. Concentration of media ownership restricts diversity in opinion and culture that reach the community while also limiting sources of news, information and commentary. Policy reform that promote diversity would enable greater freedom for both existing and new media groups to engage in legitimate diversification strategies on traditional and new platforms. As well as ensure that members of the public are always promptly and well enough informed to make their own judgments about governance, regulation, sport, entertainment or other matters(Australian Press Council). Cross media reform must also attempt to break up media monopoly and oligopoly found in most parts of Australia where it was not unusual to have one media group owning a newspaper, radio station and television station. This greatly hinders the level of competition because the lack thereof has caused limited diversity. Christian Downie and Andrew Macintosh who write of the cross-media ownership debate explain that, “The free exchange of ideas and opinions cannot be assured in a modern society if the primary forms of media are controlled by a small number of people. Concentration of media ownership undermines the capacity of citizens and institutions to share information and views and places media proprietors in a position to exert undue influence on public opinion and democratic processes.” Also concentration of media ownership has created barriers to entry in all media markets. By promoting new market entrants, increased innovation, lower production costs and lower prices are hoped to be attained. In conclusion, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan resolves that, “It is important that we find the balance in terms of providing the scope for media companies to respond to emerging pressures, but at the same time respond to concerns about competition, diversity, and local content.”
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Cross-media%20ownership%20webpaper%20_May%202006_.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/media_regulations.htm
http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/democracy/currentthreats/medialaw.html
http://arts.anu.edu.au/democraticaudit/papers/200509_morgan_media_own.pdf
http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/37572/Media_consultation_paper_Final_.pdf
2. What are the new media ownership rules designed to achieve in relation to criticisms of the previous legislation?
In 1987, the cross-media rules were introduced to support competition policy, discourage concentration of media ownership in local markets, and enhance public access to a diversity of viewpoints, sources of news, information and commentary.
The changes to Australia’s media laws can reduce the number of media owners and enable a single media outlet to have ownership of a television, newspaper, and radio station. Australia has one of the highest concentrations of media ownership in the world, and the media reform does nothing to enable competition, facilitating unfair and imbalanced public reporting and giving all the power to the media giants.
In 1987, the cross-media rules were introduced to support competition policy, discourage concentration of media ownership in local markets, and enhance public access to a diversity of viewpoints, sources of news, information and commentary.
The changes to Australia’s media laws can reduce the number of media owners and enable a single media outlet to have ownership of a television, newspaper, and radio station. Australia has one of the highest concentrations of media ownership in the world, and the media reform does nothing to enable competition, facilitating unfair and imbalanced public reporting and giving all the power to the media giants.
News Ltd wants TV changes
NEWS LTD has called for a revamp of broadcasting services regulations, describing the present regime as onerous and anti-competitive.
The company yesterday accused free-to-air television broadcasters of hoarding major sporting events, but not showing them.
Under an anti-siphoning scheme introduced in 1995, free-to-air TV has first right of refusal over pay-TV on a list of more than 1300 events.
But in a 20-page submission to the Federal Government, News Ltd - publisher of NEWS.com.au -claims that less than 25 per cent of protected events were broadcast free-to-air between 2000 and 2005.
The submission says the list is too long and Australians do not get to watch most of them.
It claims that free-to-air broadcasters are buying the rights to events, but not broadcasting them.
In the past year alone, News Ltd says free-to-air television broadcast only 14 per cent of Melbourne Commonwealth Games events and just 12 per cent of the Australian Open tennis tournament.
Similarly, it says only 2.1 per cent of the Winter Olympics were shown live on free TV, even though every event was protected by the anti-siphoning list.
The submission says the Government needs to legislate for a "fair and transparent" scheme that does not give preferential treatment to free-to-air broadcasters and allow them to "lock away" sports events.
It claims the free-to-air industry has engaged in a prolonged campaign to convince the public and politicians that the scheme is in their best interests and that the opposite is true.
"The effect of these arrangements is that the vast majority of events on the list are not seen at all on free-to-air television," the submission says.
News Ltd has labelled as scare mongering a free-to-air industry campaign claiming "Australians shouldn't have to pay to watch sports they presently see for free".
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,20725299-462,00.html
NEWS LTD has called for a revamp of broadcasting services regulations, describing the present regime as onerous and anti-competitive.
The company yesterday accused free-to-air television broadcasters of hoarding major sporting events, but not showing them.
Under an anti-siphoning scheme introduced in 1995, free-to-air TV has first right of refusal over pay-TV on a list of more than 1300 events.
But in a 20-page submission to the Federal Government, News Ltd - publisher of NEWS.com.au -claims that less than 25 per cent of protected events were broadcast free-to-air between 2000 and 2005.
The submission says the list is too long and Australians do not get to watch most of them.
It claims that free-to-air broadcasters are buying the rights to events, but not broadcasting them.
In the past year alone, News Ltd says free-to-air television broadcast only 14 per cent of Melbourne Commonwealth Games events and just 12 per cent of the Australian Open tennis tournament.
Similarly, it says only 2.1 per cent of the Winter Olympics were shown live on free TV, even though every event was protected by the anti-siphoning list.
The submission says the Government needs to legislate for a "fair and transparent" scheme that does not give preferential treatment to free-to-air broadcasters and allow them to "lock away" sports events.
It claims the free-to-air industry has engaged in a prolonged campaign to convince the public and politicians that the scheme is in their best interests and that the opposite is true.
"The effect of these arrangements is that the vast majority of events on the list are not seen at all on free-to-air television," the submission says.
News Ltd has labelled as scare mongering a free-to-air industry campaign claiming "Australians shouldn't have to pay to watch sports they presently see for free".
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,20725299-462,00.html
I don't really see a lot of research or thinking going on here. Question 1 is probably the most comprehensively addressed issue. Response to question 2 is brief and limited. This question needs to be explored in more depth. I don't think 3 sentences can adequately deal with the complexity of this situation, as the political process has experienced through almost 15 years of trying to change these rules.
As for Brian's question, some of the rules are similar (television/print ownership in key markets), but each situation offers unique aspects to address. Also pressure or lobby groups act differently in each context.
Essentially, the new rules are suppose to create more competition by lowering the barriers to entry. However, the result of this will be that many of the smaller players will be gobbled by larger players and further contribute to fewer owners. Resulting from this is the further threat to diversity of opinion. Where these media laws are suppose to make a difference is in the diffusion and viability of new media (digital television has struggled to become established in Audstralia, like the United because both restrict cross-media ownership, which restricts the economic imperative for newspapers to promote new technology owned by competitors. In Britain cross-media ownership allows media companies to use newspapers to promote ditial television - the biggest player is Murdoch). However, the likely owners will be major media players who can afford to either develop or buyout smaller new media companies.
Post a Comment
As for Brian's question, some of the rules are similar (television/print ownership in key markets), but each situation offers unique aspects to address. Also pressure or lobby groups act differently in each context.
Essentially, the new rules are suppose to create more competition by lowering the barriers to entry. However, the result of this will be that many of the smaller players will be gobbled by larger players and further contribute to fewer owners. Resulting from this is the further threat to diversity of opinion. Where these media laws are suppose to make a difference is in the diffusion and viability of new media (digital television has struggled to become established in Audstralia, like the United because both restrict cross-media ownership, which restricts the economic imperative for newspapers to promote new technology owned by competitors. In Britain cross-media ownership allows media companies to use newspapers to promote ditial television - the biggest player is Murdoch). However, the likely owners will be major media players who can afford to either develop or buyout smaller new media companies.
<< Home
