Media reform

Submitted by: SamFell | 1 comments  VIEW COMMENTS


Photographer : Mamish

Democracy folks, it’s a beautiful thing. Without it, you wouldn’t be sitting here, reading this. Our democracy works because we have a free press that is able to report in an unbiased fashion, what the score is. We, armed with this information, are then able to make decisions that influence the way this country is run. Hooray for democracy and free speech. But wait, there are dark clouds gathering on the horizon, things are getting grim…imagine not being able to have your concerns about uni fees or petrol prices represented. Or not being told what’s really happening in Iraq…

Australia is, so they say, the ‘lucky country’. We cherish our freedom, and we see it as a right, not a privilege, to be kept informed of what’s happening in and around this wide, brown land of ours; the freedom of our press is one of the building blocks on which our democracy is founded. And yet our federal government, through a series of laws giving effect to media reform, has effectively stripped some of  that freedom, pretty much weakening our democratic process. Sounds un-just to me.

There are many bits and pieces to these laws, but perhaps the most worrying aspects are the changes to ‘cross media ownership’laws. Traditionally, these laws were in place to prevent any one person or media organisation, local or foreign, from controlling too many media sources (newspapers, TV and radio) in the same region. This was to encourage diversity amongst our media, therefore guaranteeing us a fair, open view of events.

The new changes, in an effort to update these laws to fit with the increasing rise of digital media (the internet; digital television and radio), cut the minimum number of media owners in the country's major markets, from 11 to five. This has the potential to drastically reduce diversity, not guaranteeing us a fair, open view of events, but the view according to only a few…this is where the madness begins.

Firstly, the changing or curtailing of these laws is completely against the spirit of a vigorous democracy. By allowing the majority of our media to fall into the hands of only a few, we run the risk of our political agenda being set by these few, severely cutting our public debate, therefore weakening our democratic process.

Secondly, there was no demand for these changes. They create the impression the government is looking after a small number of media owners, as opposed to us, the people. How can the government justify these changes as anything less than the muting of our public voice?

Thirdly, as media organisations rush to buy up expensive strategic assets, they’re going to have to cut costs. The initial victims will be journalists, particularly in rural areas, which will lead to a drop in the quality of news reporting, ultimately leaving us, the people, with less information. Or at least, only the information certain people deem worthy of public intake. Good journalism is vital for a functioning democracy…without it, we don’t know what’s going on and we have no say…that’s a scary thought.

So do you care about the future of this country? About your right to information and the right to express yourself as you see fit? As the future leaders of this country, the answer to those questions should be a loud ‘yes’. These media reforms may seem small and insignificant at the moment, but when they come into effect, it’s surely a nail in the coffin of Australian free speech and democracy.
Discuss Now 1 comments

Clinton 24-Apr-2007

Is the media that good at the moment?

I don't think it could get any worse, to be honest! Old media is dying as a quality source of information and changing laws to ownership is just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic.

The problem with Old media isn't that TV or tabloid news is bias, the problem is that it isn't 'news'. It's entertainment. So we now look to New media to inform us, such as ActNow and Crikey. Not everyone does, but 'we' do. Who is we? Well as always, its an elite group in the population who want to be informed. Most people don't want to be informed, and never have.

I think that as Old media gained broad appeal, it had to dumb down. An example of an Old media group that has been holding out against dumbing down is the Sydney Morning Herald, but the cracks are beginning to show (Media Watch, ABC TV, 23/04/2007).

There's one good thing that could come out of these new laws that hasn't been mentioned: foreign ownership. More money in the media industry would mean more journalists and more reporting. What are we afraid of? Foreigners (ie, the US) controlling our media to serve their country's interests? If we think that by Americans not owning our media organisations that we are 'free', then we are seriously deluded.

Apart from this, I believe these laws will have a neutral affect. I say, 'believe' because I don't know. It's impossible to predict. Are we fighting against these laws to save quality journalism like Sunrise? Today Tonight? A Current Affair? Ten News? Or the Daily Telegraph? HA! That's a fight I will not take up!