6.1
The previous chapters have outlined the increasingly concentrated ownership of Australian media, as well as the current deficiencies of news media regulation and oversight.
6.2
This chapter reviews recent indications of that concentration, as well as recent market performance data. Then there is discussion of some of the consequences of this situation, where the control over the sources of news, information and opinion is in far too few hands, and where the mechanisms and legal frameworks for regulatory oversight are not fit-for-purpose for a modern, converged media.
6.3
This includes evidence that some large media organisations have become so powerful and unchecked that they have developed an attitude and corporate culture that considers themselves beyond being held to account, both by the current media regulators, as well as agreed standards of good journalism.
6.4
It is noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of the evidence to this inquiry relates to one dominant media organisation, News Corp. As a consequence, many of the examples outlined in this chapter necessarily relate to that particular media outlet.
6.5
In accordance with the Senate’s standard adverse comment procedures, the committee provided many submissions containing strong claims to News Corp with an opportunity to respond should it wish to do so (a right of reply). The committee notes that News Corp chose not to respond to these various allegations.
The current situation in Australia.
6.6
According to the Centre for Advancing Journalism, Australia now has only three national-scale commercial media voices:
News Corporation, … controls about two-thirds of metropolitan daily newspaper circulation, including monopolies in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin; regional daily monopolies in a range of cities including Cairns and Townsville; substantial chains of suburban and rural newspapers; [and] the only subscription television news service, Sky News–which also operates as a free-to-air channel in regional areas.
Nine Entertainment, … owns the Nine television network, and the old Fairfax mastheads The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Financial Review.
In Western Australia … [Mr] Kerry Stokes, holds a controlling interest in Seven West Media Ltd, which controls WA’s only locally edited daily metropolitan newspaper, The West Australian, the State’s only other metropolitan newspaper, The Sunday Times, and Community Newspaper Group, which owns 23 local newspapers across Perth, as well as the Seven television network nationally.
6.7
In August 2021 Roymorgan.com published an analysis of ‘total news readership’ in Australia, which covered ‘all news brands (print and digital) and digital news websites’, as set out in Figure 6.1.
6.8
In August 2021 IBISWorld published its latest data on revenue share among Australia’s major newspapers, as set out in Figure 6.2.
The corrosive effects of monopoly on democracy
6.9
Some evidence suggested that the predominance of News Corp-owned titles in the concentrated Australian media sector was tantamount to a monopoly. It was claimed that when News Corp titles contained similar or identical coordinated content, that it could easily be seen as an abuse of power.
6.10
For instance, the Hon Mr Kevin Rudd AC, former Prime Minister of Australia, submitted that there are several principal negative issues with the current Australian outlook of media concentration, including that:
in some areas of Australia, the level of News Corp media is close to
100 per cent, which prevents a diversity of views and good information being provided to local communities, which is bad for the health of democratic processes;
media monopolies have ‘a real danger of encouraging, over time, corruption’ as political institutions are not scrutinised sufficiently; and
alternative voices are being silenced by the domination of outlets under concentrated ownership, including that local media outlets are ‘starved of local news’.
6.11
Speaking of the culture fostered by the domination of News Corp in Australia’s media landscape, Mr Rudd commented that it ‘cripples the national conversation’ on crucial issues such as climate change, our future relationship with China, and other large policy challenges:
I am concerned that, if you have a media monopoly, why is it constantly skewed in the direction of crisis, controversy, scandal, character assassination and demonisation of alternative points of view, rather than a sophisticated national conversation… That’s where I think we need a balanced, rational national conversation.
6.12
Another former Prime Minister, the Hon Mr Malcolm Turnbull AC, told the committee that the Murdoch-owned Fox News had driven and fomented social divisions in America, including the 6 January 2021 ‘sacking of the US Capitol’ by armed supporters of former President Trump. He commented that in Australia, although we have a different context:
…we also see the impact of the way in which News Corp has evolved from being a traditional news organisation, or journalistic organisation, to one that is essentially like a political party but it’s a party with only one member. You see the way in which it is used in an aggressive, partisan way to drive particular agendas, whether it is fermenting antagonism and animosity towards Muslims…[or] whether it is the campaign against effective action on climate change, which has been where Murdoch is the principal amplifier and promoter of that in the English speaking world, at a huge cost to all of us, and to the planet—the whole world.
6.13
Mr Rudd’s criticism of monopolies was not limited to News Corp. Of the emerging digital monopolies of Facebook and Google, he stated:
The problem that we’ve seen with Facebook’s actions in the last 24 hours [in suspending Sky News] is that they give us a graphic example of what a very large new media monopoly can do to abuse its power, just as we should be equally mindful of how a continuing media monopoly—that’s Murdoch—also abuses its power and has done so for a long period of time.
6.14
A number of submissions also spoke of the effects the dominance of News Corp outlets in the media sector, and suggested its coverage could be driven by ideology more than objectivity. For instance, Professor Rodney Tiffen, a media expert from the University of Sydney, noted the decline in journalistic standards at News Corp, which he suggested stemmed from its leadership:
In such a hierarchical organization, the most important influence is the person at the top. The pressures towards internal conformity, joined with the arrogance stemming from external monopoly advantages, has produced an increasingly mediocre organization, and a hardening of the editorial arteries. The Foxification of News has manifested itself in several ways—a stable of columnists whose market appeal is their stridency, and whose main mission is to grab attention and to reinforce prejudices. It is also evident in its news priorities, such as its double standards in stories about the right and left in Australian politics. It is especially apparent in the way they report on global warming, a determined lack of coverage of scientific reports, including one a couple of months ago on damage to the Great Barrier Reef. Increasingly also it seems to have led to more incompetent reporting, and the organisation’s seeming indifference to inaccuracies in its news coverage.
6.15
There have been indications that there is unease about News Corp media’s tolerance for legitimising misinformation within elements of the organisation itself. For example, the committee is aware that James Murdoch explained his resignation from News Corp ‘due to disagreements over certain editorial content published by the Company’s news outlets and certain other strategic decisions’. He later reflected in a New York Times interview that:
I reached the conclusion that you can venerate a contest of ideas, if you will, and we all do and that’s important, but it shouldn’t be in a way that hides agendas. A contest of ideas shouldn’t be used to legitimise disinformation. And I think it’s often taken advantage of. And I think at great news organisations, the mission really should be to introduce fact to disperse doubt—not to sow doubt, to obscure fact, if you will.
6.16
Mr Campbell Reid, the Group Executive responsible for Corporate, Policy and Government affairs at News Corp, was asked about Mr Murdoch’s comments. Noting that James Murdoch may not have been familiar with the Australian market, and that he may have been referring to overseas media organisations, Mr Reid told the committee:
With the greatest respect, I disagree with James Murdoch’s assertion. That’s his opinion, and he’s entitled to that opinion, but I don’t agree... James hasn’t worked in the Australian market. I’ve never worked with him. I am aware of his comments. I’ve never spoken to him about them. He’s never asked or given me feedback on any of our publications.
6.17
An earlier statement by James Murdoch and his wife Kathryn Hufschmid in January 2020 commented on the effects of misinformation, particularly on climate denialism and political instability:
Spreading disinformation—whether about the election, public health or climate change—has real world consequences… Many media property owners have as much responsibility for this as the elected officials who know the truth but choose instead to propagate lies. We hope the awful scenes we have all been seeing [the Capitol insurrection] will finally convince those enablers to repudiate the toxic politics they have promoted once and forever.
News Corp’s reversal on climate change
6.18
Some commentators highlighted that the recent News Corp switch in positioning on climate change revealed an attitude that sees itself as beyond accountability, which favours content driven more by ideological dogma than objective independence.
6.19
The News Corp media has been at the forefront of opposing action on climate change for decades.
6.20
However, in October 2021, a coordinated campaign across News Corp outlets declared support for a cut to carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050 in the interests of tackling climate change. Some commentators suggested that, after the previous decades of dismissing the scientific consensus on the need to reduce emissions to tackle climate change, this was an egregious about-face for News Corp, given its long opposition to climate change mitigation. For example, Mr Rudd suggested that News Corp’s historic coverage of climate change and willingness to misrepresent scientific data reflected the views of its owner:
Rupert Murdoch is an unabashed sceptic of the climate science as vetted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and every major scientific institution on earth, including the CSIRO [Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation]. His outlets frequently and uncritically publish pseudoscience that variously claims climate action is unnecessary, too costly or a stalking horse to establish a new socialist world order. Such data manipulation claims continue to be published, and older articles remain online, despite Press Council criticism. Because of Murdoch’s monopoly influence, Australia is now one of the few countries on earth where lasting, meaningful climate change action has not been possible. Murdoch has exercised a similar influence in the United States.
6.21
An eminent climate scientist from the United States of America (US),
Dr Michael E. Mann, spoke to the committee about the long record of climate denialism fostered and encouraged by News Corp-owned outlets. He suggested that this approach had systemically ‘spread disinformation about science solutions aimed at discrediting renewable energy sources such as wind and solar’. Speaking of the time he recently spent in Australia during the Black Summer fires which he linked to the very real and disastrous effects of climate change, he said:
Dangerous climate change has arrived for Australia, whether it is the unprecedented heat, drought and bushfires one year or the epic floods the next. This is the new reality Australia faces and it will only get much worse if we—that is, the US, Australia and the rest of the world—fail to act boldly and immediately to reduce global carbon emissions.
As horrifying as it has been to watch these climate change wrought disasters play out in Australia, it has been equally horrifying to watch the pernicious efforts by the Murdoch media to sow disinformation about what is happening. I’m talking specifically about efforts by Murdoch owned papers like The Australian and the Herald Sun to promote thoroughly discredited myths, blaming the record fires last year on arson or back burning or really anything other than the inconvenient true culprit that must not be named if you are the Murdoch media.
6.22
Dr Mann noted that the News Corp attacked and vilified public figures speaking out on climate change mitigation. On scientists, he said that the News Corp modus operandi includes:
…vilifying them on the pages of the Murdoch media outlets, basically as a way of intimidating scientists and preventing us from speaking out publicly about climate change and its impacts and the threat that it represents. It’s a form of intimidation intended to serve as notice for other scientists: ‘If you speak out about climate change, [and] the profound implications of the science when it comes to public policy and the need to do something about climate change, we’re going to come after you. We’re going to make an example of you for other would-be science communicators.’
I think any climate scientist in Australia would be scared to death to be engaged in the sort of commentary we have here tonight because their funding, their jobs, are at the mercy of this stranglehold that the Murdoch media has on the entire political environment in Australia...
6.23
Mr Turnbull noted that the News Corp had also attempted to attack and intimidate politicians they saw as progressive on climate change, giving the following example:
At the beginning of last year when the bushfires were at their worst, in Sydney, [then-NSW Minister for Energy and the Environment] Matt Kean gave a speech about climate policy. It was a conventional speech. It was a good speech but there was nothing revolutionary, radical or anything like that. He basically said that the fires demonstrate that the climate is getting hotter with global warming and hotter and drier means more fires—true. The attack on him in the Telegraph following that was bitter, vicious and personal. It was designed to not just punish him but also send the message—and this is how it [the Murdoch media] operates like a Mafia gang—that, if you step out of line, you will cop some of this too. That’s the threat. So other politicians look at that and they say, ‘Oh, gosh, I don’t want to go there.’
6.24
Moreover, it is clear that similar perspectives are held broadly by others, outside evidence received during this inquiry, including within News Corp itself. For example, at the peak of the bushfire crisis in early 2020,
Ms Emily Townsend, a senior News Corp employee, resigned from the company in an open email addressed to the Executive Chairman, Mr Michael Miller. In this email, which Ms Townsend sent to all News Corp staff, she accused News Corp titles of misrepresenting facts on climate change and the cause of such bad bushfires, and spreading and legitimising misinformation among the general public:
I have been severely impacted by the coverage of News Corp publications in relation to the fires, in particular the misinformation campaign that has tried to divert attention away from the real issue which is climate change to rather focus on arson (including misrepresenting facts). I find it unconscionable to continue working for this company, knowing I am contributing to the spread of climate change denial and lies. The reporting I have witnessed in the Australian, the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun is not only irresponsible, but dangerous and damaging to our communities and beautiful planet that needs us more than ever now to acknowledge the destruction we have caused and start doing something about it.
6.25
One week later, a spokesperson for James Murdoch and Kathryn Hufschmid revealed they were also frustrated by the angle taken in Murdoch-owned publications, stating:
…[their] views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known… They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.
6.26
Discussing News Corp’s coverage of climate change and Ms Townsend’s email, Mr Miller stated that he considered climate change was real, and that his organisation had printed a large number of articles representing a diversity of opinion:
There’s no misinformation campaign. [Ms Townsend’s resignation] was fairly confronting moment for a number of us: ‘Let’s go back and look at how we covered the bushfires.’ As is often the case on major issues, we do look back and do have reflection about how we could have done the job better and what we did. I do know how many articles we published, how many of our 100-plus journalists at the front line covered the stories in different communities up and down Australia and the support they gave. I’m really proud that they identified [areas of need] and, of the $10 million of donations and fundraising we’ve undertaken, that they’ve gone back personally to make those donations….
There were over 3,000 different articles over that period of time around the bushfires, and many of them did talk to the impact it was having and the impact that was caused by climate change.
6.27
Over the course of this inquiry, News Corp signalled that it had changed its position on the issue of curbing Australian carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050, despite a long history of opposing stronger targets, including in the 2019 Federal Election. The change came in a printed 16-page cover supplement across the News Corp tabloid papers (see figure below), as well as the ‘Time is Now’ series on news.com.au, which looked ‘at how climate change will impact Australia by 2050’ in collaboration with the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub.
6.28
Interestingly, The Australian did not publish a supplement, and several News Corp broadcasters and commentators spoke out against the campaign.
Some Sky broadcasters expressed disapproval, including Andrew Bolt, who labelled it as ‘News Corp’s global warming propaganda’, and suggested it was an about-face of a long tradition for News Corp:
Because most of these same newspapers campaigned against Kevin Rudd’s global warming policies and against Labor’s later carbon tax and against Labor’s global warming policies at the last election and also mocked global warming extremists from Rudd to Greta Thunberg. And now this?… it’s rubbish. I don’t buy it.
6.29
Only three days after the campaign’s launch, The Australian’s commentator Peta Credlin, the former Chief of Staff for Prime Minister the Hon Tony Abbott who campaigned vigorously against emissions reduction, noted some hypocrisy of Prime Minister Morrison’s commitment to a net-zero target, in relation to his earlier opposition—without mentioning News Corp’s shift on the matter:
How can something be dead wrong two years ago—in the words of
Scott Morrison, ‘a reckless target…(that) will come at a tremendous cost to Australians’—but now be absolutely right?
6.30
This contrast between the 2019 and 2021 News Corp attitude to climate change is shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4 below. Contrast the breathless opposition to the ‘apocalypse’ of Labor’s 45 per cent 2030 reduction target taken to the 2019 election, with the advocacy for the ‘How we can go Green and Save Jobs in a Net-Zero World’ approach in 2021.
6.31
Mr Rudd expressed great cynicism about this reversal in approach:
When you look at the representatives of Sky, for example… Rowan Dean said that climate change is ‘the biggest hoax of them all’. He said again, only this year, ‘There has been no net warming in the last 22 years.’ That’s news to me, to the CSIRO and to every credible climate scientist.
Alan Jones, the archdeacon of climate change denialism, said they peddle the climate change hoax that apparently carbon dioxide, the source of all plant life, is evil. Therefore, given that’s what they actually put out, we’ve got to greet this with enormous scepticism. I use the term ‘greenwashing’ deliberately.
An unhealthy and dangerous influence on politics
6.32
The committee was interested in the potential effects of media concentration on the health of democratic institutions and culture of politics. A number of stakeholders expressed concern that media conglomerates can have undue influence over the Australian democratic system, through coordinated editorial positions on certain issues, politically loaded coverage, and the use of print media to set the agenda across other forms of media, as exhibited by the evidence set out above on climate change.
6.33
Moreover, in noting these trends, it was suggested that the concentration and polarisation of news content has had a ‘corrosive’ effect on politics, and reduced the trust that the general public had towards government.
6.34
A former journalist, Mr Tony Koch, gave evidence to the committee, based on his long and distinguished career with News Corp outlets. He expressed his concern about News Corp media outlets including noting a:
…bias that I perceived and their unwillingness to cover stories that were critical of the Liberal and National parties, and they always seemed to me to put a twist on that was anti-Labor, particularly leading up to the elections. That was never the case when I was a journalist [for more than two decades] with the organisation, and it worried me.
Figure 6.4
6.35
Mr Koch noted that recent News Corp standards had reduced scrutiny on the current government, which he considered was politically-driven:
The News Corp papers have taken a huge right turn. They obviously favour the LNP and kick to death anybody else who is not connected with them. They ignore really serious important stories about the LNP—$400 million going to some unheard of Barrier Reef organisation, bushfire funds being collected but not distributed… The editors I worked for—if we had been confronted with these recent [Parliament House-based] rape stories, there is no way in the world we would be sitting off and allowing rubbish opinions like, ‘I haven’t read the documents; therefore he’s innocent.’… The editors I worked with and the journalists I worked with—in particular, the women journalists I worked with—would not have had a bar of that.
6.36
Regarding federal politics, Mr Rudd outlined a number of examples of News Corp media outlets taking an ideologically-driven opposition to reform and stifling public debate on several matters, including:
the National Broadband Network, where it encouraged opposition to the rollout of fibre-to-the-premises connections, as this was perceived as a threat to the Foxtel cable network;
its coverage ‘misleading a generation of Australians about the real state of their country’s economic position’, by driving a narrative of unsustainable ‘debt and deficit’, when it was ‘among the lowest in the world’; and
opposition to climate change mitigation, as discussed above.
6.37
Moreover, it was also argued that negative coverage in News Corp outlets was used to intimidate politicians. Mr Turnbull told the committee:
I’ve absolutely experienced bullying and standover tactics from News Corp. You could fill a library with examples of it… It’s a way to intimidate politicians and get them to do what News or its proprietors want. I don’t want to go on about my removal as Prime Minister, but I think, as everyone knows, as the record shows, News Corp were part of that conspiracy that put the coup in action.
6.38
Mr Rudd concurred that News Corp had a negative effect on politicians from all sides:
…the truth is—and probably the uncomfortable truth in [Parliament]—that everyone is frightened of Murdoch; they really are. There’s a culture of fear across the country, and the fear is rationally based. They’ve seen many cases of individual political leaders and others who have had their characters assassinated through a systematic campaign by the Murdoch media. In other words, what the Murdoch mob are after is compliant politicians who won’t rock the boat—in fact, even better if they provide them with taxpayer dollars to assist them on the way through.
6.39
These two former Prime Ministers of Australia from different sides of politics both agreed that News Corp had shown its strong bias in its coverage of pandemic lockdowns, in favour of Liberal governments. Mr Rudd submitted that News Corp titles run a ‘protection racket’ for politicians they consider ‘useful’ to their own commercial or political interests. Regarding politics, he noted that coverage slanted favourably towards Coalition governments, citing:
…the NSW Liberal Government’s difficulties in managing the coronavirus pandemic have been documented by the Murdoch media, but with none of the venom reserved for the Victorian Labor Government when faced with a similar challenge. Any factual survey of the quantitative and qualitative front page coverage of the Sydney Daily Telegraph and the Melbourne Herald Sun during 2020 will validate this claim [see figure below].
6.40
Mr Turnbull agreed that News Corp titles had more favourable coverage for the actions of Liberal Premiers, even where Labor Premiers had adopted similar policies:
To his credit, Kevin Rudd has done a good job, I think, in showing the way in which the News tabloids have flayed Labor state governments for their failings on the management of the pandemic but been very gentle in its treatment of Liberal ones.
Source: The Hon Mr Kevin Rudd AC, Submission 52, p. 5.
National security implications
6.41
The committee is aware that some perceive media concentration and shrinking diversity as a potential national security issue. In particular, it has been noted that events of January 2021 in Washington, where the Capitol building was stormed by supporters of former President Donald Trump who claimed that the election had been ‘stolen’, were fomented by misinformation broadcast on the Murdoch-owned Fox News network.
6.42
For instance, in an interview about this inquiry with Mr James Clapper, a former Director National Intelligence for President Barack Obama, former US Air Force Lieutenant General and academic, said an inquiry into the influence of the News Corp press was a ‘good idea for the sake of transparency and objectivity’. He commented that Fox News was the ‘principal media component’ in fostering ‘truth decay’, which had caused the Capitol attacks:
I have spoken a lot about a phenomenon that is not just in the United States but in other places as well of what the Rand Corporation has very aptly and cleverly called truth decay… This is the whole business of disregarding facts and objective analysis and empirical data… Unfortunately, in [the US] we’ve fallen into two separate reality bubbles, one of which is fomented and amplified by Fox News… Rupert Murdoch and Fox is part of a larger issue we have in this country. To the extent that anyone feeds, amplifies, expands, embellishes truth decay—that is insidious and dangerous to democracy.
6.43
Mr Rudd warned of a potential ‘Foxification’ of Australian news:
I’m worried about the impact of this monopoly over time on the encouragement of political extremism of the Far Right. I’ve lived in the US for the last five or six years. I watch Fox a lot. I have to in my job. What I’ve seen over that period of time is the creation of the, frankly, alternative political ecosystem out there on the Far Right, which is self-contained and fed by a self-contained echo chamber, and it’s called Murdoch’s Fox News, whereby the most unfounded conspiracy theories are suddenly gospel truth, and they suddenly become adhered to as a call to action, a credo for arms. Look at those people who stormed the Capitol on 6 January and the arguments they put forward as to why they were doing it. What I worry about in this country is that Sky News is becoming the vehicle for the Fox‑News-isation of Australia. You don’t have to look far at the Sky News coverage to begin to see the emerging similar patterns.
Public health misinformation
6.44
A broad range of stakeholders raised concerns about the prominence that some News Corp-owned outlets have given to misinformation or conspiracy theories relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This, it was argued, has been a considerable obstacle to Australians receiving timely and accurate information, which has serious consequences for their health and wellbeing.
6.45
A number of expert submissions recognised the importance of health expert voices in the media in addressing public health concerns during the pandemic, not only to inform the public with accurate information, but also to provide governments with clear communication channels to communicate about the health protection measures they were implementing.
6.46
However, a recent article by Professor Paul Kelly, Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, outlined the difficulties of communicating health information, given the rampant spread of misinformation about the virus, especially on the safety of vaccines, and unproven and speculative other treatments:
The virus is real, and its heartbreaking consequences are real. The loss of life is felt across communities, families and workplaces, here in Australia and right around the world.
The continued spread of misinformation makes the job of our health professionals on the frontline harder. From those caring for gravely ill people in intensive care units, to those conducting COVID-19 testing, tracing contacts and the thousands of Australian health care workers providing vaccinations to prevent serious illness and death.
It undermines the efforts of all those Australians who have acted responsibly and compassionately to protect their community when restrictions are needed to stop outbreaks. It also devalues the lives of those who have suffered from COVID-19, those who continue to feel its effects and every person who has died.
6.47
Croakey submitted that News Corp had played a role in driving COVID misinformation, which had actively undermined the valuable work of public health officials:
The Australian media landscape is toxic, reflecting the market and political power of News Corporation, and its partisan agendas, including a long history of actively undermining effective climate policy. During a critical time for pandemic control, News Corporation was actively undermining public health through commentary marked by racism, ridiculing of science and ideological warfare.
6.48
In matters of health, the prevalence of misinformation has very real consequences, not only for the wellbeing of individuals, but also for social unrest. When making its submission at the end of 2020, The Conversation noted:
The consequences of uninformed decision-making can be dire and, indeed, deadly. A BBC investigation into the effects of coronavirus misinformation found that online rumours led to mob attacks in India, mass poisonings in Iran, physical and arson attacks against telecommunications engineers in the UK, and people swallowing fish tank cleaner and other harmful chemicals in the US. Needless to say, this is not the kind of information environment we want to see in Australia.
6.49
Since then, Australia has unfortunately experienced some similar effects, which can be linked to the spread of misinformation. This includes instances of civil unrest protesting vaccinations and lockdowns, as well as increasing importation of drugs that are potentially harmful to humans, that are linked falsely to COVID-19 treatments.
Discrediting the science of COVID-19 and Australian researchers
6.50
During the committee’s public hearings several witnesses were asked to comment on reports in News Corp publications with headlines such as ‘China’s great science swindle’ and ‘Red Army Virus Probe’, which sought to question collaboration between Australian and Chinese researchers. This collaboration ultimately led to the discovery of the genomic sequence of COVID-19 and thereby made possible the development of vaccines. The News Corp reports, however, effectively impugned the loyalty of the Australians involved in the collaborative research.
6.51
One of the individuals mentioned in the reports was the University of Sydney virologist and evolutionary biologist Professor Edward Holmes, who was subsequently named as the NSW Scientist of the Year and the recipient of the 2021 Prime Minister’s Prize for Science. Both awards were given specifically for his work in the discovery of the COVID-19 genomic sequence.
6.52
It was put to witnesses that Professor Holmes and his colleagues had been subject to extensive vilification as a result of the News Corp reports, including death threats to members of the team and rape threats to women on the team. When asked to comment, Mr Rudd said:
This is a real challenge. I accept that. At the same time, I have great confidence in our intelligence agencies' ability to discern fact from fiction, to discern real threats from imagined threats, and to actually be quite specific about what a real issue is concerning a core Australian national interest at stake, as opposed to a general smear. We should have great confidence in our agencies' ability to do that. My experience with these agencies over the years is that these are first-class folks. They actually know what they're doing. My experience with them is they're not, frankly, partisan; they actually just want to do the job. So, where we need to be very cautious, Senator Carr, is this: to allow what is a legitimate concern about foreign intelligence activity in this country and foreign influence in this country, on the one hand, from becoming a general smear on people, semi-authorised by monopolistic media outlets like the Murdoch media. I'm disheartened by the accounts and reports that you have just referred to, about the threats to the gentleman and the woman concerned. That shouldn't be the case in Australia.
6.53
When News Corp was asked to further explain the reports, given the actions that resulted, the company responded on notice:
The Australian maintains strongly that its reporting on Chinese academic recruitment programs–and naming those involved, as well as their individual responses–is important and vital journalism, very much in the public interest. There is no element of character assassination involved, as each of those named was given the opportunity to respond and their responses were included in the reporting, as demonstrated by the response regarding Dr Cai. In some cases even the universities involved were not aware that their academics were named in Chinese documents and websites as being part of the program, and in some cases were unaware their names had been listed on patents. This reporting is not character assassination, as claimed by Senator Carr, it is bringing to light important issues of potential national security, as evidenced by the response of ASIO and the subsequent parliamentary inquiry prompted by The Australian’s articles.
6.54
The committee notes that the report mentioning Professor Holmes headlined ‘RED ARMY VIRUS PROBE, Aussie Link to China Military lab’ did include the words ‘There is no suggestion Prof Holmes has engaged in any untoward or unethical research and his own work on the papers was funded by Australian grants only’.
6.55
Such language, however, strikes the committee as disingenuous. The report strongly implies that the collaboration between Australian and Chinese virologists on COVID-19 was a potential security risk, and thereby impugned the reputation of researchers such as Professor Holmes despite there being no evidence of disloyal conduct on his part.
6.56
These reports demonstrate how News Corp has allowed its publications to spread conspiracy theories on COVID-19 research, while giving scientists named in the reports no opportunity to respond to unfounded claims and inferences made about them.
‘Not a fit person’ to steward a global media company
6.57
It was suggested in evidence that the record of News Corp-owned outlets, both in Australia and globally, demonstrated that Mr Rupert Murdoch is not a ‘fit and proper’ person to lead a global media company, due to repeated failures of corporate governance and management. These include a culture of ‘hacking’ sources illegally, bribery of police officers, covering up sexual harassment cases among its employees, and promoting dangerous disinformation that puts the community at risk.
6.58
As Mr Rudd stated in his submission:
That Murdoch is allowed to control so much of Australia’s media is extraordinary given his company’s history of criminality and unethical conduct. It includes bribery of police, hacking into people’s phones to invade their privacy, and covering up for sexual predators while blaming victims. Murdoch is, by any objective measure, not a fit and proper person to control a media empire in Australia.
6.59
In arguing for more constraints on the repeated broadcasting of misinformation, Centre for Advancing Journalism (CAJ) alleged that News Corp‑owned titles acted as though they had no constraints on the spreading of untrue content:
Murdoch’s Sky News subscription television service in Australia requires a licence to operate. At the time of writing (early December 2020) this channel was engaged in outright lying about the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election. Two of its presenters, Rowan Dean and Alan Jones, continued to propagate the lie that the election was rigged or stolen, the same lies as those being inflicted on the American people through Murdoch’s Fox News.
There are no constraints on this crude abuse of media power or dissemination of disinformation.
6.60
This issue was considered a decade ago by the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament and communications regulator, Ofcom, in the wake of a series of scandals in Murdoch-owned titles, over journalists hacking individuals for information, as well as sexual harassment cases.
6.61
In 2012, a UK parliamentary committee found that News Corp directors should be held responsible for huge failures of corporate governance and management, which had allowed phone hacking to go unchecked at the Murdoch-owned News of the World. The committee’s damning findings stated:
News International and its parent News Corporation exhibited wilful blindness, for which the companies’ directors—including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch—should ultimately take responsibility… We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.
6.62
The UK committee also found that News Corp witnesses had attempted to cover up the scandal, not only at the time, but also in providing misleading evidence to the committee. Its report concluded:
Corporately, the News of the World and News International misled the committee about the true nature and extent of the internal investigations they professed to have carried out in relation to phone hacking; by making statements they would have known were not fully truthful; and by failing to disclose documents which would have helped expose the truth.
6.63
The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, monitored Murdoch-owned enterprises in the wake of the hacking scandal, particularly in News International’s attempts to lift its then-39 per cent stake in the broadcaster BSkyB. In doing so, Ofcom expressed concern over the level of the Murdochs’ ownership of UK news and political media on character grounds. Although Ofcom found that Murdochs were ‘fit and proper’ to hold a broadcasting license, it also found that there was ‘extremely serious and disturbing’ evidence that the company had downplayed sexual misconduct and harassment allegations made against staff.
6.64
The CAJ suggested that questions over the character of News Corp and its leadership are still relevant. Noting that one UK Member of Parliament had called Murdoch’s UK publication News International ‘a criminal enterprise’ in 2011, it submitted:
The Leveson inquiry and a series of court proceedings in the UK established that the Murdoch organisation there was involved in bribing public officials, conducting unlawful surveillance on individuals and multiple gross invasions of people’s privacy.
Corporate culture
6.65
This inquiry has received evidence about the internal culture of News Corp, including that staff can be directed to cover issues in certain ways to fit a predetermined agenda, suggestions that there are highly sexist attitudes in the workplace and reporting, as well as a tolerance for racist attitudes informing its content.
6.66
A context for this discussion is similar concerns that have been raised in the past about Murdoch-owned titles in the US and UK.
6.67
As discussed earlier in this report, the UK Leveson Inquiry was prompted by evidence of poor ethics and culture of Murdoch-owned outlets. The issues Justice Leveson investigated included allegations that the News of the World had obtained evidence illegally from the phone of a murdered teenager, as well as hacking phones of celebrities. The Leveson Inquiry considered whether relations between the organisation and police involved corruption.
6.68
Moreover, the committee is also aware of allegations of sexual harassment that have plagued the organisation overseas for several years. In 2016, these accusations centred on former Fox Chairman Roger Ailes, who was subject of a number of sexual harassment allegations following the case brought by Gretchen Carlson. Some estimates suggested that more than 20 women subsequently made claims they were harassed, moved into lesser positions after rejecting advances, and/or fired after making complaints. Several of these women, including Carlson, are subject to gag orders included in their settlement, so cannot discuss details of the case publicly. In this regard, the committee also notes the concerns of the UK regulator Ofcom, as outlined above.
6.69
There were several prominent examples provided to the committee that detailed troubling issues with News Corp’s corporate culture.
6.70
For example, Mr Bruce Guthrie, a former editor of the Herald Sun and the New Daily, told the committee about a ‘toxic culture within News Corp’ and the ‘dangers of giving them too much journalistic power’. He suggested that he was sacked from the Herald Sun ‘after I reported too vigorously on a friend of Murdoch’, which predated the British phone hacking scandal by several months.
6.71
Mr Anthony Klan, an award-winning investigative journalist and formerly a News Corp employee, told the committee that he had seen News Corp editors be in the thrall of advertisers over potential negative coverage of their businesses. For example, he told the committee that his findings of enormous wrongdoings and client gouging in the superannuation sector were not published, after superannuation companies advertising with News Corp expressed their concern to his editors:
Big corporates can buy outsized clout within newspapers…he who pays the piper calls the tune, and that was exactly what was going on there [in the editorial decision to not publish these stories]. The big problem with that is that you have a couple of media organisations that pretty much run the show in Australia. If they get together and refuse to run this, you’ve got five million Australians getting robbed blind day after day and we can’t tell them about it because there is no avenue to get it out there. As an investigative journalist and a civic-minded person, like most of us are, it’s quite terrifying, really. Not to be able to get this information out in a democratic country such as Australia is quite a concern.
6.72
Mr Klan suggested that the coordinated approach on editorial issues across News Corp titles could not be anything but intentional:
It’s statistically impossible. How could, every single day, all of the columnists wake up with the same point of view and have the same angle?... If you’ve got a point of view or an angle that doesn’t suit, it just gets axed; and if you’ve got an angle that does suit, it gets pushed through massively.
6.73
Professor Tiffen noted that the dominance of News Corp put journalists in an invidious position to produce content that matched the ideological preference of their organisation:
In the 1975 Federal election, journalists at the Australian went on strike against the paper’s slanting of the news. We cannot be loyal to a propaganda sheet, they said. Current Murdoch journalists don’t have that luxury, because if they are out of favour with News Corp there are few alternative employers they can go to.
6.74
Ms Anna Rogers, a former News Corp photographer, raised a number of serious concerns about the toxic work culture at the Cairns Post and Sunday Mail, and the pressures on journalists, particularly women:
I believe the lack of competition and emphasis on clickbait has created a toxic culture where staff feel intimidated and bullied, and many are just waiting for the next axe to fall and wondering if they will still have a job. Women are treated particularly badly and are paid less purely because they are women.
6.75
Ms Rogers outlined some areas in which the workplace culture had been hostile for female employees, saying:
I think the nature of the toxic workplace is that there has been such high staff turnover; I think that in itself is indicative of the nature of the workplace. The fact that you end up with one woman in a team with
12 males—the women all left. We were brought to tears time and time again, derided and so forth, treated differently to the men, and they all left…
A colleague who returned from maternity leave was offered no flexibility with regard to her hours and consequently resigned—that was quite recently. There was unlimited overtime and TOIL with no pay. I was told that if I didn’t like my job, I could get a job at Macca’s…
When the business editor was a male, he was in a very senior position. When it was given to a female, she was in the same junior classification as me.
6.76
Moreover, Ms Rogers outlined a number of areas in which she felt women were treated poorly in sexist newspaper coverage:
When I was employed by the Sunday Mail in 2011 to do social photos, I was told by the acting picture editor that they did not want any photos of ‘pigs in lipstick’. I found this was extremely derogatory to women, but to keep my job I had to apply this test, which meant that women who were overweight or over 35 did not get a run in the paper…
Even the selection of which court stories to cover is now based on applying the subscriber-page-view model at News Corp. Former colleagues have told me that they are told to ignore the charges and instead look out for attractive women appearing in court. They check their social media following and lift their photos off Facebook. If the women are attractive and have more than 1,000 followers, then it is much more likely that they will run the story online and it will get more page views.
6.77
A number of public submissions suggested that News Corp reporting included misogynistic or sexist viewpoints.
6.78
Some evidence noted the disparity between the treatment of male and female politicians, particularly citing the example of News Corp treatment of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard AC. This suggestion was refuted by Mr Reid from News Corp who stated that media coverage ‘reflected the extraordinary behaviour and tensions of that time’, and:
The story of that time was the fragility of Julia Gillard’s government and, frankly, the undermining attempts to bring her down from within her own party…. I think Australia missed an opportunity with our first female Prime Minister, but to blame News Corporation for that is a flight of fantasy.
6.79
However, evidence from former Prime Ministers Rudd and Turnbull both noted the misogyny that characterised News Corp’s coverage of Ms Gillard’s tenure as Prime Minister. Mr Turnbull for example stated:
The treatment of Gillard was shameful, and it was pushed very strongly by the News Corp tabloids and, of course, most notoriously by Alan Jones who—while in his radio job he works with the Macquarie Group, or used to—also works with Sky. Yes, it’s this sort of deep misogyny that you see in the right-wing political ecosystem. Again, I’m not telling any of you something you don’t know, but has there ever been a male politician whose body shape has been commented on the way Gillard’s was? There was constant criticism of the way she dressed.
6.80
Mr Rudd commented that this negative coverage made it harder for Ms Gillard’s government to overcome various policy challenges:
I believe the way in which the Murdoch media publicly depicted my successor, Julia Gillard, was particularly venomous. I noted that in particular in its cartoon coverage of her. While you couldn’t directly blame the Murdoch outlets for the protests, which appeared with Abbott, outside this building, where a large sign was held up behind Abbott saying, ‘Ditch the Bitch’, the fact that that sentiment was fairly redolent across the Murdoch coverage, I think made the challenges faced by the Gillard government greater than they would otherwise have been.
Vilification of individuals
6.81
A number of stakeholders highlighted that News Corp titles could run vilification campaigns against individuals that held certain progressive socio‑political views. For example, Mr Rudd suggested that the News Corp press had abused its monopoly to ‘chill free speech in our society’:
[The Murdoch press] has, for many years, been the pioneers of ‘cancel culture’ by bullying individuals with ‘unacceptable’ opinions into the shadows. Murdoch hounds these opponents with a deeply personal viciousness, scouring through their personal lives and harassing them they and others like them understand the consequences of free speech. This happens frequently, although most are too frightened to complain about it. This is the most pernicious impact of Murdoch’s deliberately cultivated culture of fear.
6.82
Mr Peter Fray, an experienced journalist appearing in a private capacity, told the committee that News Corp’s coverage could be vicious and intense against particular individuals:
I will say that all news organisations get it in their head that they have enemies and friends, or they believe so and so needs to be brought down a peg... This power has been abused for decades. I think what we see in News Corp, though, is a particular brand of it. The key characteristics are frequency and intensity. There’s the frequency of the attacks. Once you are a News Corp enemy, you will be attacked frequently—every day or every other day—and it will be intense… at times, bears very little resemblance to proper reporting.
6.83
Mr Rudd cited the example of Mr Duncan Storrar, a minimum wage worker with a disability, who had asked pointed questions of a Coalition minister on the ABC’s show QandA. Following this, he was subjected to numerous News Corp articles, over the space of a week, impugning his character and ventilating his police record and family struggles. Mr Storrar’s complaints to the Australian Press Council were rejected, as it accepted the Herald Sun’s argument that he ‘had foregone any reasonable expectation for privacy’ by asking a question in a televised forum.
6.84
The committee also received first-hand evidence from a range of individuals that felt they had been targeted unfairly by News Corp media. For example,
Ms Cindy Prior told the committee that she had been targeted by The Australian when it reported on her discrimination case over 13 months, in ‘hundreds of articles, columns and opinion pieces’. She felt these sustained attacks on her had a political motive, ultimately aimed at repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and ‘tearing down’ the Australian Human Rights Commission.
6.85
Ms Prior told the committee that she had been misrepresented, and subjected to biased reporting riddled with inconsistencies, with concerning results. Moreover, she submitted that she not only felt targeted by News Corp reporting, but also received threats that News Corp encouraged on social media and online forums:
I was subjected to thousands of death threats, rape threats and racist hate from hard right activists around Australia and in the United States. A lot of this was fueled by the adverse and vitriolic coverage in the Newscorp/Murdoch press and a lot of the racist and hateful comments were put up on the moderated website of The Australian and not taken down. Media plays a significant role in disseminating information to the public about current issues, and therefore has a responsibility in the interest of a diverse Australia, to report without biases and their own political agenda.
Racism
6.86
A number of stakeholders argued that the Australian media, particularly the News Corp, has played a role in legitimising and spreading racist ideas in Australia. For example, Get Up’s submission included the following contributions from members of the general public:
Australia is a democratic society and our media should reflect this… The Islamaphobia that has been shown to exist in Murdoch media and the demonisation of sectors of our society including Lebanese Australians, African Australians, Chinese Australians, Indigenous Australians, trans people, and environmental activists work to divide our society and incite violence.
I identify as aboriginal. Our mobs NEED a free and diverse press to expose the racism that is endemic in the Australian society and fostered by [the] Murdochs of this world.
The Murdoch Press has an undue and corrosive influence on Australia’s democracy, spreading climate misinformation and stoking racist prejudices.
The Murdoch press has proven over and over that it cannot be trusted to deliver the truth. It not only spreads misinformation but outright lies and manufactures storylines to suit the right wing corporate narrative as well as promoting racism and dangerous conspiracies.
It is clear that not enough is being done to regulate mainstream media, particularly when talk show hosts can openly spout racist views.
6.87
Two former Prime Ministers both saw News Corp coverage as perpetuating and legitimising racism. Mr Rudd submitted that News Corp ‘blatant race‑baiting’ has attracted criticism from a wide variety of ethnic communities across the country, including Chinese, African and Muslim Australians.
6.88
Mr Turnbull suggested that News Corp coverage divides Australian society:
Look at the way the News Corp tabloids, for example, regularly seek to incite animosity towards minorities, particularly Muslims. It was a huge issue while I was Prime Minister because everything I was doing was obviously designed to reinforce our success as a multicultural society. What is so frustrating is that these voices on the populist Right, particularly from Murdoch’s organisation, are essentially doing the work of the terrorists. What a terrorist says to a young Muslim is: ‘They hate you, they don’t want you, you’re not one of them. You can never be an Australian.’… The counterargument to that…is to say: ‘You are one of us, you are an Australian, we’re a multicultural society, we love you and respect you. All faiths, all races, all religions are welcome here and part of our multicultural society’.
6.89
A joint submission from All Together Now, Asian Australian Alliance, Colour Code, and Democracy in Colour (All Together Now joint submission) identified the mainstream media platforms they considered most responsible for perpetuating racism in Australia:
NewsCorp, Nine/Fairfax and Seven West Media all perpetuate racist narratives and ideas. NewsCorp publications frequently publish content that normalises white supremacy, using both overt and covert racism to reinforce racial inequity. Racism perpetuated by the media is not without consequence. It legitimises racist attitudes in the general public, which in turn legitimises acts of racism in its various forms—whether systemic, interpersonal, physical or otherwise. NewsCorp’s overwhelming control of Australian media is fuelling racism within the media and at the community level.
6.90
In support of this view, the All Together Now joint submission noted media monitoring research from 2018–20:
All Together Now analysed 596 opinion pieces from mainstream media and found that 55% involved racist language and/or themes. Among the most frequently targeted communities were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Muslim peoples, Chinese and Chinese Australian peoples. Over 90% of these racist opinion pieces were published in three Australian newspapers: the Herald Sun, the Daily Telegraph and The Australian, all of which are NewsCorp publications. This highlights the role of NewsCorp newspapers in generating and promoting racist narratives.
6.91
Croakey Health Media voiced concerns that the News Corp press’ coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been tinged with racist commentary, which had real consequences for communities of African and Asian Australians. This was supported by data provided in the 2020 COVID-19 Racism Incident Report Survey, which showed ‘that there has been a clear pattern of racist attacks against Asians and Asian Australians as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and that they are not isolated incidents’. The All Together Now joint submission noted this recent report and linked it directly to the behaviour and tactics of News Corp:
A recent survey from the Asian Australian Alliance recorded almost 500 incidents of COVID-19 related racism in Australia since the start of the pandemic, demonstrating that this issue is becoming dangerously out of hand. We know that racist rhetoric perpetuated by NewsCorp plays a huge role in exacerbating community racism. For years, NewsCorp has profited from the hate they proliferate. The commentators and opinion writers commissioned by NewsCorp actively vilify and scapegoat communities of colour and they do it to cause division and profit from the fear they stoke.
6.92
The committee notes that, as this report was being finalised, the Sky News presenter Peta Credlin made a lengthy apology to the Australian South Sudanese community. This was a more substantial apology than one made previously on 28 June 2020, which was met with a significant backlash from the community and commentators.
6.93
Ms Credlin’s original comments made numerous significant errors that members of the South Sudanese community considered highly offensive. This included incorrect assertions or selective reading of data about the level of education, English literacy, engagement with public health advice, and levels of employment and income of many members of the community. On 3 December 2021, Ms Credlin acknowledged her errors and the ‘genuine hurt and offence’ they caused:
In June last year, while commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic, the escalation of new infections in Victoria, and various public health measures, I incorrectly linked the South Sudanese community to a cluster of cases that had developed following an end-of-Ramadan dinner in Melbourne’s northern suburbs. This was factually wrong, and I again deeply regret the error. On the basis of that error, I made various other statements that I accept have caused genuine hurt and offence to South Sudanese community members. It was not my intention.
My statements were understood to mean that the South Sudanese community had been reckless, irresponsible, or even deliberate, in breaching social distancing requirements, that the community had failed to adapt its cultural practices like other Australians, and that this was putting Australians at risk. I do not believe there was any truth to those inferences… I extend to the South Sudanese community my sincerest apologies for these errors, and the hurt, humiliation and offence caused by the broadcast.
6.94
The committee notes that Ms Credlin’s apology in early December 2021 about comments in June 2020, means it took around 18 months for Ms Credlin to apologise for her remarks that were insensitive, erroneous, and vilified the South Sudanese community. It has been reported that the apology was delivered as a result of an Australian Human Rights Commission finding regarding a complaint by members of the South Sudanese community against Ms Credlin’s coverage and subsequent apology in 2020.
Committee view
6.95
This report has shown that Australia faces three principal challenges to the health and diversity of its media sector: the growing concentration of media ownership, where too much influence is in the hands of too few organisations; a regulatory framework that is not fit-for-purpose to enforce standards and complaints in traditional media formats in a converged market; and the non‑existent regulatory arrangements for the powerful digital giants, which gives them a competitive advantage and near-monopoly powers that could compromise news delivery for all Australians.
6.96
This inquiry has been informed by an unprecedented level of public interest. This is demonstrated not only by the large volume of submissions received by the committee, but also by the largest electronic petition ever received by the Australian Parliament, which collected more than half a million signatures in support of a royal commission into the Australian news media.
6.97
This level of public interest in meaningful reform of the news media sector cannot be ignored.
6.98
Similarly, the committee is aware that calls for the government to undertake complex, landmark reforms to ‘level the playing field’ across the board have also come from the proprietors and senior management of large traditional media companies—though often with the suggestions that their own organisations should not be regulated any further than they are already. As Mr Robert Thomson, Global Head of News Corp told the committee:
‘I think the best thing is for parliament to introduce legislation that covers the new big digital players’; and
‘Honestly, I have conflicting views on this. I would like it to be relaxed for us and intensified for them’ (when asked about potential reform to anti‑siphoning laws for traditional and digital platforms).
6.99
The case of the YouTube suspension of Sky News illustrates the growing tension between the unregulated online media platforms, and the traditional news organisations working in a converged environment. These dominant and competing forces are increasingly calling out allegedly poor conduct of the other.
6.100
This is a matter only government can resolve—and cannot be left to a self‑regulating system developed and administered by the platforms themselves.
6.101
Even the current government has recognised the need for reform in its response to the ACCC digital platforms report—particularly that the global internet platforms must be brought within an effective regulatory framework that takes a platform-neutral approach.
6.102
Given the current serious regulatory deficiencies, and the high level of public concern about News Corp’s own practices, standards, and inability to be held accountable, as discussed above, it is apparent to the committee more holistic reform is necessary than simply adding the regulation of digital platforms to an already flawed system.
6.103
Focusing on the regulatory arrangements for internet platforms alone will not resolve the serious problems in Australia’s current news media sector.
6.104
Genuine reform across the board is needed to support a healthy and diverse news media in Australia into the future. This much-needed reform should engage with the realities of a converged market, where outlets publish content across various media platforms. A reformed media landscape should be able to apply consistent standards that have been developed in collaboration with news media and other stakeholders in broad and meaningful consultation. These standards should be supported by a robust complaints mechanism that is not only fair, but also accessible and transparent for all Australians.
6.105
Reform should be based in the recognition that reliable news is essential for our future as a nation. It should take into account that misinformation and disinformation have serious and real consequences for our national and local communities, our democratic institutions and the health of our society.
6.106
It should also consider what is the most appropriate mechanism for regulating a unified system, drawing on both previous major reviews in Australia that advocated for a single news media regulator, and from best practice internationally.
6.107
Reform will be no easy task. The sector is complex and contested, and amongst certain outlets cautious of government involvement.
6.108
For this reason, the committee considers the right vehicle to start reform is a dedicated judicial inquiry with the powers of a royal commission.
6.109
This kind of inquiry would have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence, and would have the capacity, resourcing and expertise to undertake a more thorough investigation than a Parliamentary committee is able to do.
6.110
It would also be able to undertake broad consultation with all media players and other interested parties, at arms-length from government, to ensure its findings are independent, rigorous and based in the most solid evidence and analysis.
6.111
Such an inquiry could also have the power to address the emerging gulf between digital platforms and the traditional media, which has come to a head in the final weeks of this inquiry. This point was recognised by Mr Rudd, when he expressed the views of many Australians advocating for reform:
That is why I go back to my original proposition…about why a royal commission is necessary: monopoly of itself is wrong in principle, whether it’s in politics, whether it’s in the economy, or whether it’s in the news media—of any form. I don’t want Facebook determining my future, and I don’t want Murdoch determining my future either.
6.112
Regarding this proposition, the committee notes that Mr Thomson directly addressed the many public calls for a royal commission that this committee and the Parliament have received, saying:
It depends what the remit of any commission would be. What I’m looking at more is how to regulate for the future, not, frankly, focusing on the past.
6.113
In closing, the committee endorses that sentiment: that this reform process should be forward-facing, looking to the needs, health, and diversity of the future news media industry in Australia.
6.114
The following concluding chapter of this report considers a range of policy measures the Commonwealth should implement immediately to build much‑needed diversity in the Australian news media.