Declaration: In publishing this article, Croakey Health Media acknowledges that our future is at stake in these discussions, and also that our analysis comes from a particular standpoint of viewing public interest journalism as an important upstream determinant of health, while corporate media often undermine the determinants of health.

In the interests of transparency, our positions on key media reform questions are publicly declared in our submissions to various inquiries.

The health implications of media policy are wide-ranging but not usually front of mind in national debate, whether for governments, communities or even the health sector.

However, the Albanese Government’s argument that gambling advertising is needed to sustain free-to-air broadcasters, while deeply problematic, is also an opportunity to acknowledge and address the unhealthy state of media policy in this country.

It’s an opportunity to highlight why media policy reform needs to centre the needs of communities, especially under-served communities, and their imperilled rights to safe, reliable and relevant news and information.

The Albanese Government has inadvertently reminded us that media policy has for too long been driven by the interests of corporate media and associated interests, rather than the public interest.

As Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, The Greens spokesperson on communications, told an Australia Institute event yesterday, the excuse put forward by the Government that gambling ads are needed so people can watch local news in regional and rural Australia is “absurd”.

“If the cost of local journalism is gambling addiction, we’re broken, we really are,” she said, suggesting that we have to “up our ambitions” in approaches to funding public interest journalism.

With a range of media policy options currently in play – from a tax on Big Tech to a funding pool for public interest journalism – we are in a timely moment for wider civil society, including the health and social sectors, to contribute to these debates.

Media policy is too important to leave to media companies and associated commercial determinants of health. This has always been the case but is especially so in an era of the Artificial Intelligence juggernaut and toxic market power of Meta, News Corp et al.

While the focus in recent weeks has been on gambling, it’s hard to think of a public health concern that isn’t affected by media policy, whether declining social cohesion and its twin, growing inequality, the marketing of harmful products, punitive justice policies, or the spread of misinformation and disinformation.

Eric Beecher’s new book, The Men Who Killed the News, reminds us that one of the legacies of Murdoch’s global media empire has been the dissemination and normalisation of climate science denialism.

Subtitled, ‘The inside story of how media moguls abused their power, manipulated the truth and distorted democracy’, the book also reminds readers that many of the concerns associated with social media companies – including invasion of privacy, the amplification of bigotry, misinformation and propaganda, tax avoidance, and the harmful exercise of corporate power – have a long tradition in legacy media organisations.

The critical question driving many media policy developments is how to fund public interest journalism at a time when its business model is broken.

Unfortunately, as Croakey has pointed out in various submissions, there has been much less attention to measures to grow media diversity and to support innovative models seeking to better meet communities’ needs.

That is especially important for rural and other under-served communities. Research by the Public Interest Journalism Initiative (PIJI) shows regional and rural Australia has been most adversely affected by news cutbacks, with emerging gaps in news coverage of local councils, courts and communities.

PIJI’s Australian Newsroom Mapping Project shows that, in the last three years, there has been a net loss of 121 news outlets across Australia, a sharp acceleration from previous Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) data that showed 106 news closures over a 10-year period (2008-18). Regional Australia accounts for 67 percent of outlet closures and 91 percent of service decreases.

The PIJI data also identifies 32 local government areas without any local print or digital news, all in rural or remote Australia.

These data do not address journalism job losses, of which we’ve seen yet more this week, or other factors diminishing the quality of journalism (for example, the Australia Institute event heard of newsroom decision-making being driven by what’s trending on Google rather than public interest concerns, as well as concerns about the impact of under-funding of the ABC and SBS).

We are currently waiting to hear how the Federal Government will respond to Meta’s refusal to renew media funding agreements under Australia’s innovative though flawed News Media Bargaining Code, amid threats the tech giant will ban news from Facebook and Instagram and uncertainty about Google’s longer-term intentions.

Media analyst Tim Burrowes has reported, in his Unmade newsletter, that advice on the Code from the ACCC and from the Treasury is now on the desk of Treasury Minister Stephen Jones.

While the Code is problematic and has delivered neither long-term sustainability nor diversity to the Australian media landscape, Hanson-Young made an important point at the webinar that it had shown “those bastards” at Meta and Google that governments were prepared to stand up to them.

If Australia had folded then, she said, there would be no way we’d be having a conversation now about protecting intellectual property in arts, journalism and other sectors from AI.

• In Croakey’s submission on the Code earlier this year, we called for the Government to review its impact and to explore alternative policy processes and outcomes. We noted that it is arguably having the unintended consequence of discouraging digital platforms from sharing news content, which is “a problem for media sustainability, democracy, and for tackling the spread of misinformation and disinformation”.

We strongly cautioned against the designation of Meta or other digital platforms under the Code, given the likely impact upon communities’ access to news and the sustainability of independent media organisations.

We supported the Local and Independent News Association’s (LINA) recommendation that if the ACCC does designate Meta or other digital platforms (that is, force it into negotiation with media companies), the Government should provide funding to local and independent news publishers as compensation for its decision.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has indicated the Federal Government is considering a digital tech tax, as are other nations like New Zealand and Canada, warning the big tech companies shouldn’t be allowed to “essentially ride free” on the backs of traditional media.

Calls for such a tax, backed by the Greens, have been made locally and globally for some years, including by Nobel laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz.

The former World Bank chief economist told an Australian Institute webinar in 2020 that he admired Australia’s efforts to get Google and Facebook to help fund journalism under the Code, but warned it should tax them if they make good on their threats to boycott Australian news over the move.

Their market power was proving “absolutely devastating” for public interest journalism and democracy, and it may be time for governments to fund public interest journalism as a public good, in the same way they fund important scientific research, he told the webinar.

Such a tax has the potential to help tackle wider public health concerns, such as misinformation and disinformation, and the power of Big Tech to undermine democracy and health. But, as has happened with the Code, there would be potential to reinforce the dominance of corporate media, which often contribute to misinformation and disinformation.

One of the lessons from the Code is the importance of transparency, equity and accountability in the distribution of any such tax. We know little about the distribution of moneys under the Code under commercial in confidence agreements – how much went to fund public interest journalism, shareholders or overseas.

• Croakey’s submission to a Senate Select inquiry into the future of public interest journalism in 2017 recommended the establishment of a production fund to support independent public interest journalism. Potential funding mechanisms included tax offsets for investors, direct government support, incentives for philanthropists and a levy on Google, Facebook or other companies that profit from the advertising revenue that used to fund mainstream media, but pay little tax.

Media organisations have been waiting for some time for details on the Government’s long-promised News Media Assistance Program (News MAP), which Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has described as “a principles-based program informed by evidence to support quality, diverse public interest journalism and media diversity”.

The News MAP public consultation paper developed by the department has sought feedback on a range of potential measures to support public interest journalism, including government advertising and tax-based incentives.

• Croakey’s submission on the paper in February urged the Government to act quickly: “The urgency of the matters at stake relates not only to the sustainability of organisations like ours. As democracies and societies around the world are undermined by coordinated and polarising disinformation campaigns, it is increasingly urgent that governments play their part in supporting a diverse and thriving news and media ecosystem.

We cited LINA’s submission to the consultation, which stated: “The COVID-19 pandemic and the referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament provide recent examples of matters impacted by coordinated mis-and disinformation campaigns which have affected the health and social cohesion of Australian society.”

Croakey’s submission encouraged the Department and Government to recognise the right of all Australians to have access to public interest journalism – as both contributors to news and consumers of news.

“It is also important to recognise that people do not have to be involved in the news process, as either contributors or consumers, to derive benefits, for example, through greater accountability of corporations, governments, and other power-holders.

“We also encourage the Department and Government to explicitly consider how the News MAP can support responses to the ever-increasing proliferation of misinformation and disinformation and to help build social cohesion.

“Taking this wider public policy perspective would mean ensuring the News MAP is not only supporting existing media organisations but is proactive about supporting innovation and the development of new models of public interest journalism to end ‘news deserts’ and to ensure all communities are well-served. It would also mean engaging more proactively with communities that are currently under-served by public interest journalism as part of the policy process.”

Supporting and growing the not-for-profit sector has potential to address many of the gaps and problems with the current media landscape.

The Productivity Commission’s recent inquiry into philanthropic giving was an important opportunity for developing policy to better support the NFP journalism sector.

The PIJI submission noted that developing a not-for-profit journalism sector in Australia has been repeatedly recommended and considered in parliamentary and regulatory inquiries over the past decade.

“There is evidence from overseas, particularly the United States, to suggest that a NFP news sector would increase media diversity and address market failure in commercially unviable practices such as investigative journalism or in geographical, cultural, and linguistic markets of undersupply.”

However, the Communications Minister’s office has confirmed to Croakey that neither Minister Michelle Rowland nor her Department made a submission to this inquiry, despite its significance to the NFP journalism sector.

Her spokespeople did not respond to our question of ‘if not, why not?’.

Perhaps if the Minister and her Department had engaged with this inquiry, the Productivity Commission might have recommended public interest journalism as a standalone category for Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status – a recommendation that was put to the inquiry by LINA, the Community Broadcasting Association, Croakey and others.

• Croakey’s pre-budget submission in January 2023 urged the Government to support innovation and growth in the NFP sector by developing a comprehensive policy framework and funding an implementation strategy over the next five years. This could address multiple areas of concern across a number of portfolios, and would contribute to greater media diversity and innovation, more diverse economies, and support engaged, participatory communities.

Some further policy directions may come in the next few weeks from a Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society.

It was set up earlier this year to inquire into a range of issues including: the use of age verification to protect Australian children from social media, the impact of social media on mental health and sexual abuse, Meta’s abandonment of the Code, and “the important role of Australian journalism, news and public interest media in countering mis and disinformation on digital platforms”.

Having conducted five public hearings, and received 217 submissions, it was due to publish its interim report last week but announced it could not now do so “because of changes in the office holders of the committee”.

It will now present a substantial interim report in the coming weeks, and hold several further public hearings to inform its final report in November.

Circling back to the gambling ads imbroglio, the financial problems of public interest journalism are also closely related to declining public trust in the media, as this week’s Australia Institute discussion made clear.

It was interesting to hear the politicians on the panel (Minister for Science and Industry Ed Husic and Senator Hanson-Young) speak about how important the public’s trust in media is for their work, in communicating with the public.

In undermining the social licence of media organisations by arguing gambling advertising is needed to sustain the media, the Government is thus also undermining its own credibility, in addition to the damaging optics of its support for commercial interests over public health.

The webinar also heard calls for MPs to become more digitally literate to ensure effective and appropriate regulation of digital platforms. “Social media has become an essential service, but it’s not regulated like an essential service,” said Senator Hanson-Young.

If we also believe that public interest journalism is an essential service, then it’s time for all sectors, including civil society leaders and organisations, to develop their media policy literacy and advocacy, as well as critically reflecting upon how they can contribute in this space.

https://www.croakey.org/a-call-to-civil-society-its-time-to-reframe-media-policy/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.