RSS Feed (xml)If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on media cross-ownership laws in Australia. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality media cross-ownership laws in Australia paper right on time. Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in media cross-ownership laws in Australia, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your media cross-ownership laws in Australia paper at affordable prices! Discuss the free speech justifications for cross-media ownership laws in Australia and consider whether these laws are relevant in the age of increasingly diverse media sources. Consider the arguments for and against the current proposals for reform.
When Paul Keating made his famous remark about restricting media barons power so they could only be Queens of the screen or Princes of Print, he was referring to the division of power under law that would make sure no-one media conglomerate could own both a newspaper and a television station in the one city. The emergence of a liberal government and changing societal structures has seen the debate about media cross-ownership raise its head again as parliament sees a proposal that would allow ownership across mediums. Proponents for the bill argue that free speech justifications are nonsensical in the age of increasingly diverse media sources, however those against the bill worry that it will create a monopoly and lead to an undesirable concentration of power in the hands of elites.
The year Paul Keating uttered those fateful words, the landscape of media ownership was seemingly transformed. Since that time however, the powerful media moguls and organizations have sought to instigate a change in the media cross-ownership laws that would lift restrictions. In Australia, the three major media stakeholders are Kerry Packer, Rupert Murdoch with News Limited and the Fairfax Group (Pilger 18). These three singular conglomerates combined, together produce the majority of media output in Australia. They form over 80% of magazines, newspapers and television that the public watch and therefore have a huge impact on shaping public opinion (Ward 17).
The proposed legislation that is being put forward by Communications Minister Senator Richard Alston would allow media moguls to be able to move across mediums and own both newspapers and television stations in the same city. This would allow Fairfax, and the Murdoch empire whose ownership of Australias papers has grown from one third to two-thirds of all papers in the last fifteen years to move into television, as well as allow Channel Seven head Kerry Stokes and Channel Nines Kerry Packer to pursue its ambitions in other mediums (Media Watch 0/06/0). However Senator Alston justifies this by arguing that changing the media laws would allow for progress and advancement for media companies, avoiding unnecessary cost-cutting even claiming it is even necessary for a healthy democracy
Quite clearly what you dont want are Australian media companies shrinking and cost cutting simply because they dont have the scope to expand and achieve economies of scale and scope that are available to other players. And if they caning in foreign capital and expertise then I think thats a benefit as well. A healthy and dynamic media sector is very much in the interests of ordinary Australians and of course so much has changed since these rules were introduced for blatantly political purposes by Paul Keating some fifteen years ago
- Insiders, 8 July 00 (Media watch /6/0)
Some analysts however, believe that the relaxing of media laws would lead to a "free-for-all" situation, a media bidding war, with the most powerful players outbidding all to create a hegemony, creating a level of concentrated power at the apex of our communication systems that will see a greater homogenisation of opinions and viewpoints (Ward 17). The heightened concentration of power in communication industries, in the hands of elites, already sees the increasingly compromised integrity of our media. This can be seen as a result of the commodification of information which limit the medias ability to provide meaningful forms of discourse and the transformation of information and news as big business (Osborne 15). Increasingly diluted by corporate imperatives information mediums have morphed into industries that treat community members as consumers (Bacon 18). As Wendy Bacon comments in Fatter profits and thinner stories as granny goes to market, the philosophy of those who control media conglomerates is to increase profits and in this way the marketplace of ideas is no different from any other marketplace. This has seen an increasingly blurring of advertising and editorial content and dumbing down of material (Bacon 18). By allowing these laws to pass, opponents of the bill believe that such a situation will only worsen, with the imperatives of big business and profit taking over and infiltrating the news, at the expense of free speech and editorial independence.
This would see a situation where media conglomerates exercise vast control by determining what does and does not make it on the front page or the news (Wheeler 17). This marketplace would often resort to manipulating and manufacturing issues to play to the highest common denominator, and supporting and advocating the interests and companies of its owners or both (Bacon 18). As journalist Joanne Applegate once commentated Everywhere, journalists walk a daily tightrope towards their deadline, with news as news on one side and news as entertainment on the other. Its always been a delicate balancing act. But, because news, like the movies is a business that has to sell, the sirens on entertainment on the rocks below call ever more shrilly. In this way the major media and communication outlets would become increasingly commercialised and do anything to cement itself as the most effective tool for social control or influence for the masses (Wheeler 17).
Many argue that free speech justifications for media-cross ownership laws are irrelevant in an age of increasingly diverse media sources. As Senator Alston argued
Youve got the ABC. Youve got Pay TV. Youve got extensive rollouts of SBS. Youve got Internet websites galore. So theres a plethora of new information sources out there. We ought to recognise that these sorts of changes and permutations are going to occur in the marketplace, try and facilitate them with an eye to the public interest.
- Sunday, 1 April 00 (Media Watch 0/06/0)
However what can be seen with these alternative sources is that they are increasingly compromised by financial imperatives and governmental pressure, (especially in the case of the ABC). Pay TV also has failed to make any kind of lasting impact on the general audience. The major media players rule the roost and this can be exemplified by their huge circulation
Fairfax
· 1.4 per cent of the capital city and national newspaper market;
· .8 per cent of the Sunday newspaper market.
· 18.1 per cent of the suburban newspaper market.
· 15.4 per cent of the regional newspaper market.
Channel Seven
Kerry Stokes as Chairman of Seven Network Ltd has an audience share of around 7.1 per cent, through his ownership of five metropolitan and one regional television licenses.
Channel Nine
Kerry Packers Public andoadcasting Limited, which owns Channel Nine and the Australian Consolidated press, has a combined audience share of 51.5 per cent of the viewing population and 41.5 per cent share of magazine circulation. Packers PBL owns over 65 magazines, and three metropolitan and one regional television stations. It also has a considerable stake in Pay TV owning per cent of Sky News, 5 per cent of Foxtel.
News limited
· 67.8 per cent of the capital city and national newspaper market
· 76.1 per cent of the Sunday newspaper market
· 46.6 per cent of the suburban newspaper market
· .4 per cent of the regional newspaper market
(Figures from the Department of the Parliamentary Liary http//www.aph.gov.au/liary/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm)
Thus what can be seen is that although diverse and alternative sources of information are available and exist, both on the internet and independent publications, they only work as a bandaid (Media Watch 0/06/0). They can not be an effective antidote to the barrage of mainstream homogenous press, they can in no way compensate for the huge circulation and power that the mainstream press, newspaper and television exercise over the hearts and minds of the general populace.
So in spite of the fact that alternative sources of information are flourishing as thousands of people flock away from traditional sources of information, exasperated as they are by the more and more blatant propaganda and lack of transparency from the major news sources, the circulations of these major media players are still incomparable, and alternative sources dwarf in comparison to these monoliths (Ward 17). Thus while diverse media exists, i.e. the al-Jazeera network, Green left Weekly, and crikey.com to mention a few, they do not provide any real threat or challenge to the major media players, ratings, revenue or power and are merely bumps in the road to what will be complete hegemony of the media landscape if the proposed media law changes take place (Pilger 18).
Similarly proponents foreaking down media constrictions argue that plurality of opinions is more important than the qualms of ownership. As Senator Alston stated in 17
diversity of opinion is more important than diversity of ownership.
Australian Financial Review 1 March 17(Media Watch /6/0)
However when pressed to describe how this editorial independence can be maintained in the face of a single ownership situation, Alston was evasive arguing separate newsrooms was enough to ensure balanced reporting.
What were saying is youve simply got to ensure that you have a separate process for doing it (each newsroom). That doesnt tell you what news items to pick or what order to put them in or what emphasis to give them. Its simply saying if you own both a television and a radio station then you dont want a single point of news selection.
- Lateline, May 000 (Media watch /6/0)
However to what extent this ideal situation can be maintained is debateable. Opponents of the bill argue that monopoly of ownership will necessarily lead to monopoly in opinions, pointing to the coverage of major world events- like the war in Iraq by Rupert Murdochs papers. This major world event in which a diversity of opinion and balanced and fair reporting would be essential was a crucial test case and some believe a premonition of things to come if the laws are passed. The war saw all 17 of Murdochs worldwide papers all fervently and zealously pro-war …singing from the same hymn sheet…none… has dared croon the anti-war tune. Their masters voice has never been questioned.
- Guardian, 17 Feuary 00 (Media watch /06/0)
Therefore the honesty and transparency that should be essential elements of communication mediums- if they are to be responsible for providing a forum for informed and thinking community will be thouroughly compromised. The result will be a public that is and will continue to be misled and disillusioned with what they see as an increasing spread of distortion, bias and inaccuracy in the print media (Ward 17). Already, historically there is a widespread apathy and weariness of journalists and journalism in general among Australians that does not need to be documented. Ironically this very apathy combines to create the very self-regulatory and laissez-faire environment of media and its owners that leads to the publics desire for greater censorship and regulatory controls (Keane 11). This would be favourable, unless it wasnt misdirected against the media as opposed to the conduct of the medias owners. This all combines to make Australians more vulnerable and susceptible to the goals and aspirations of those in power (Wilcox 001).
The urgent need now is for tightening of restrictions, and for a greater transparency across all communication mediums. This would of course be an impossible task, however this task has not even been attempted with any great strength (Wilcox 001). Journalists, the very people whom the public relies on to keep informed of the issues, especially in this landmark legal drama that could see the transformation of the media landscape, are themselves bound. They are put in the difficult position of arguing a position in a paper, which is against the imperatives of the papers owner. In this way owners of huge media conglomerates can dictate the issues that are put on the public agenda and have a terrifying amount of power over the general populace (Osborne 15). The debate, or lack of debate on this crucial issue has been revealing, if not disquietening, and only serves as a glimmer of the future, if the laws pass, which will see the increasing control of ideas and silencing of critics which go against the imperatives of their bosses.
One thing is certain that as we become a more media-driven world and increasingly look to the media to decide who to elect, what to buy and know whats going on in the world- Media and communication mediums will continue to grow. That is why this debate about media laws is crucial for the continued health of democracy and free speech in this country. If the laws pass, it will only see a continued slide down a slippery slope of news as farce and the construction of those in power. The control of the industry of information and opinion is one which is most sought after and valuable powers, thus the right to use and run it must be judiciously guarded This is particularly important with the rise of democracy in western countries, as favour over the hearts and minds of the populace become increasingly important to those in power.
Bibliography
Books
· Pilger, J. 18, Hidden Agendas, Random House, London, UK.
· Ward, I. 17, Politics of the media Ownership and Control, Ch.6, Macmillan, Australia
· Wheeler, Mark.C 17, Politics and the mass media, Camidge, Massachusetts Blackwell Publishers
Journals
· Wilcox, Peter 001, Newpapers and the terrorism war; news priorities, public duty and the bottom line, Australian Journalism Review, vol. , no., December pp.7-0
Articles
· News? Thats Entertainment, Walk ley Magazine, July 18
· Bacon, Wendy, Fatter profits and thinner stories as granny goes to market, Reportage, 18
Websites
· Media Watch, Media Diversity, 0/06/0, http//www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s8706.htm, last accessed 0/06/0
· Department of the Parliamentary liary, http//www.aph.gov.au/liary/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm, last accessed 07/06/0
Please note that this sample paper on media cross-ownership laws in Australia is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on media cross-ownership laws in Australia, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on media cross-ownership laws in Australia will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality. Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
