Concerns over Australia's concentrated media market and the profound challenges faced by the news media sector are not new. This section canvasses a number of recent reports into the Australian media sector, as well as one international inquiry into the culture and ethics of media organisations in the digital age. The reports considered are the:
Finkelstein Inquiry (February 2012);
Convergence Review (March 2012) (Convergence Review);
United Kingdom (UK) Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press, undertaken by the Right Honourable Lord Justice Brian Leveson (November 2012) (Leveson Inquiry);
Senate Select Committee into the Future of Public Interest Journalism (February 2018) (Select Committee); and
Digital Platforms Inquiry undertaken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (December 2018).
Finkelstein Inquiry
The Finkelstein Inquiry was established to examine the efficacy of Australia's approach to media regulation and focussed on the impact of technological change and digital platforms on traditional media, particularly print.
Mr Finkelstein made a number of recommendations to government, including notably that a new body, a News Media Council, be established:
…to set journalistic standards for the news media in consultation with the industry, and handle complaints made by the public when those standards are breached. Those standards will likely be substantially the same as those that presently apply and which all profess to embrace.
The Finkelstein report envisaged that the News Media Council would assume responsibility for news and current affairs on all platforms rather than being managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and the voluntary Australian Press Council (Press Council):
[The News Media Council] will thus explicitly cover online news for the first time, and will involve transferring ACMA functions for standards and complaints concerning news and current affairs. It will replace the voluntary [Press Council] with a statutory entity. In an era of media convergence, the mandate of regulatory agencies should be defined by function rather than by medium. Where many publishers transmit the same story on different platforms it is logical that there be one regulatory regime covering them all.
Commentators have noted that the Finkelstein Inquiry did not examine market concentration, which fell outside of its terms of reference.
Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press (UK)
In 2011, employees of the News Corp-owned News of the World were accused of illegally hacking the phones of celebrities, members of the royal family and public figures to access information that led to news stories. Allegations were also made that bribes had been made to police officers. These allegations led to the closure of the News of the World. It also led to more widespread questioning of the cultural and ethical practices of news outlets owned by Mr Murdoch, and the potential effects of News Corp on British elections and democracy.
In July 2011, a two-part inquiry was announced to investigate the role of the press and the police in the phone-hacking scandal, led by Justice Brian Leveson (Leveson inquiry). The Leveson inquiry was a wide-ranging exercise aimed not just at News Corp's newspapers but the press as a whole (the inquiry focused on traditional print media and did not examine online publishing). Hearings took place in 2012 and saw testimony from a variety of senior politicians, including four former Prime Ministers, as well as press figures including James and Rupert Murdoch.
Justice Leveson found evidence of the widespread use of phone hacking in some media organisations, particularly News Corp, which showed failures of process and governance in allowing these practices to be used.
More broadly, His Honour found that the press had prioritised 'sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm the stories may cause and the rights of those who would be affected'. In this regard, Justice Leveson found that famous individuals did not waive rights because of their fame, including that they and their families had a right to privacy.
Regarding complaints about media practices, the inquiry's report suggested that there was a 'cultural tendency within parts of the press vigorously to resist or dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course'. This meant that complaints were not taken seriously by many media organisations, who often made 'high-volume, extremely personal attacks on those who challenge them' where complaints had been upheld.
In making his recommendations, Justice Leveson noted that many previous inquiries had recommended a self-regulating approach for the media, but that this had repeatedly failed to deliver public accountability. The final report explained that 'what is needed is a genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation', with the following key features:
an independent statutory body free of any influence from industry and government, and governed by an independent board in a genuinely open, transparent and independent way;
the independent statutory body to have 'sufficient powers to carry out investigations both into suspected serious or systemic breaches', and to fine organisations for breaches up to one per cent of turnover, to a maximum of £1 million;
an arbitration process for claims against member media organisations, which is fair, quick and affordable, and able to strike out 'frivolous or vexatious claims'; and
voluntary membership but non-members to be policed by the UK broadcast regulator, Ofcom.
The planned second stage of the Leveson inquiry was cancelled, and key reforms that were recommended from the first stage have not been implemented.
Convergence Review
In early 2011, the then Labor Government commissioned the Convergence Review to examine the operation of media and communications regulation in Australia, particularly in light of new digital platforms and online delivery of media across multiple platforms. It concluded that there are three areas where regulatory intervention is justified: media ownership, media content standards, and Australian and local content.
On media ownership, the final report of the Review noted:
Diversity of news and commentary is fundamental to a healthy democracy. The Review has concluded that rules preventing the undue concentration of ownership remain an important factor in maintaining diversity of news and commentary. Diversity of ownership at a local and national level will be maintained by revising the existing rules to ensure that they are targeted and effective. [and]
Many elements of the current regulatory regime are outdated or unnecessary and other rules are becoming ineffective with the rapid changes in the communications landscape.
The Review's recommendations included replacing several media control rules, including the since-repealed ‘2 out of 3’ rule (the 'cross media ownership rule'), with a 'minimum number of owners rule' and a public interest test.
The Review proposed fundamental reform in regulating content across platforms equally under a single framework with an even set of standards. To do this, it recommended that two separate bodies be established:
a statutory regulator to replace the existing [ACMA and]
an industry-led body to oversee journalistic standards for news and commentary across all platforms in the media and communications sector.
The industry-body would 'enforce a media code aimed at promoting fairness, accuracy and transparency in professional news and commentary', and in doing so would:
…would ultimately absorb functions performed by both the Australian Press Council and the Australian Communications and Media Authority in news and commentary. Other media organisations would be free to become members of the news standards body and may see benefits in doing so.
The majority of funding for the body should come from its members. As it is in the public interest for the body to be appropriately resourced, government contributions should be available but limited to specific purposes, such as to cover a shortfall or to provide project-based funding.
In a converged world it is no longer viable to argue that news and commentary in print media should be treated differently from news and commentary in television, radio and online. The new industry-led body should cover all platforms—print and online, television and radio.
In March 2013, the then Labor Government responded to the findings and recommendations of the Convergence Review and the Finkelstein Inquiry by announcing five reforms to secure 'a media sector that is fair, diverse, and produces more Australian content'. These reforms included:
a press standards model which ensures strong self-regulation of the print and online news media;
the introduction of a public interest test to ensure diversity considerations are taken into account for nationally significant media mergers and acquisitions;
modernising the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) charters to reflect their online and digital activities;
supporting community television services following digital switchover by providing them a permanent allocation of a portion of Channel A; and
making permanent the 50 per cent reduction in the licence fees paid by commercial television broadcasters, conditional on the broadcast of an additional 1490 hours of Australian content by 2015.
Senate Select Committee into the Future of Public Interest Journalism
The Select Committee was established in 2017 to examine the state of public interest journalism in Australia and globally.
Its focus was on what the government could do to support public interest journalism in the digital age. The inquiry's recommendations included:
adequate funding for the ABC and SBS;
additional funding surety for the community broadcasting sector;
improved digital media awareness and media literacy in Australian schools;
extension of deductible gift recipient status for not-for-profit news organisations;
cost-benefit analysis of extending tax deductions for all Australians being able to claim news subscriptions as a tax deduction;
the Australian Law Reform Commission conducting an audit on current laws impacting on journalists reporting on sensitive national security issues;
a review of defamation laws, and subsequent work to harmonise these across states and territories; and
consideration of expanding whistleblower and shield law protections.
ACCC Digital Platforms inquiry
In December 2017, the ACCC was directed to inquire into 'the effect that digital search engines, social media platforms and other digital content aggregation platforms are having on competition in media and advertising services markets', particularly relating to the sudden and massive growth of Google and Facebook.
In July 2019, the ACCC released its final report, making 23 recommendations designed to ensure an appropriate level of oversight for evolving digital markets and their use of data. These recommendations included:
process to implement harmonised media regulatory framework;
designated digital platforms to provide codes of conduct governing relationships between digital platforms and media businesses to the ACMA;
stable and adequate funding for the public broadcasters;
grants for local journalism;
tax setting to encourage philanthropic support for journalism.
Evidence received by the committee relating to these recommendations is discussed in Chapters 4, 5 and 7 of this report.
In December 2019, the government released its response to the ACCC Digital Platforms inquiry. This included, for example, asking the ACCC to work with digital platforms and news media businesses to develop and implement a voluntary code to address these concerns.
However, when these parties failed to reach agreement, the government introduced the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code (Mandatory Bargaining Code), which establishes a mandatory code of conduct to address bargaining power imbalances between digital platform services and Australian news businesses (see Chapter 3).