Kieran Lewis Thesis

- Doctoral Thesis -

Pluralism, Australian newspaper diversity and the promise of the Internet

Kieran Lewis MA Student No. 01014684

Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre Queensland University of Technology Course code: IF49 – Doctor of Philosophy

Principal Supervisor: Dr Angela Romano Associate Supervisor: Prof Stuart Cunningham

July 2004 Keywords

• House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media • Print Media Inquiry • Productivity Commission Inquiry into Broadcasting • Australian newspaper circulation • Australian Provincial News and Media • Convergence • Globalism • The Internet • Media diversity • Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance • Murdoch, Rupert • New media • News Limited • Online journalism • Online newspapers • Packer, Kerry • Pluralism • Productivity Commission • Publishing and Broadcasting Limited • Rural Press

I affirm that this work is entirely my own except where the words or ideas of other writers are specifically acknowledged. This thesis has not been submitted for any other subject or course at the Queensland University of Technology or any other institution.

______Kieran Lewis 20 July 2004 Acknowledgements

My thanks and appreciation are expressed to the following for their assistance with this project:

Angela Romano

Stuart Cunningham

Michael Bromley Stephen Cox Brad Haseman Belinda Glindemann and Kylie Stevenson Terry Flew John Grey Cratis Hippocrates Cathy Jenkins Craig Johnstone and Shelley Lloyd Peter and Christopher Lewis The Queensland Country Press Association Geoff Smith John Warlters Christopher Warren and MEAA staff Whitsunday Printing and Publishing Company and to Ralph Allan for employer support.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My thanks and gratitude are also expressed to staff from QUT’s Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre for financial and administrative assistance.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For Monique, with love and thanks.

(i) Table of contents

List of figures ...... (v) List of tables ...... (vii) Author’s note ...... (ix) Abbreviations ...... (xi) Abstract ...... (xii)

Chapter 1 Introduction The research question ...... 2 Issues explored in this thesis ...... 2 Scope ...... 8 Theories and methodology ...... 12

Chapter 2 Pluralism in the Australian newspaper industry Libertarian theory ...... 14 Free press theory ...... 17 Social responsibility theory ...... 19 The Australian newspaper oligopoly ...... 20 National and capital city daily newspaper ownership ...... 22 Regional daily newspaper ownership ...... 23 Suburban newspaper ownership ...... 24 Saturday newspaper ownership ...... 25 Sunday newspaper ownership ...... 26 Interpretation of newspaper ownership data ...... 36 Maintaining the oligopoly ...... 44

Chapter 3 Deliberating on diversity Australian media inquiries ...... 48 The Print Media Inquiry ...... 48 The Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting ...... 50 Defining convergence and its effects ...... 52 Barriers to entry ...... 56 A lack of content diversity ...... 65 Bias and censorship ...... 71 Recommendations for diversity ...... 79 The Trade Practices Act ...... 82 Cross-media ownership laws ...... 87 Foreign investment ...... 98 The Australian Press Council ...... 102 Charters of editorial independence ...... 103 More similarities than differences ...... 105 Linking structural and content diversity ...... 105 (ii) A difference of opinion ...... 106 Regulating for diversity ...... 108 Government indifference ...... 109 Defining diversity ...... 111

Chapter 4 Newspapers online Newspapers online ...... 114 The subscription model ...... 117 The advertising model ...... 124 The transactional model ...... 129 The bundled (or partnerships) model ...... 130 Other business models ...... 135 Conclusions and an hypothesis ...... 136

Chapter 5 Australian newspaper websites Methodology ...... 138 Information on the sample population ...... 144 Establishment, costs and aims and objectives ...... 146 News and advertising online ...... 152 Profitability, hit rates and effects on circulation ...... 154 Future plans ...... 155 The value of newspaper websites ...... 156 Other issues ...... 157 Analysis and discussion ...... 159 Online subscriptions ...... 161 Online advertising ...... 165 Online transactions ...... 168 Online partnerships ...... 170 Other business models ...... 172 Conclusions: Testing the hypothesis ...... 173

Chapter 6 The Internet and source diversity Source diversity ...... 178 Established norms and practices ...... 179 The usability of online information ...... 180 Interactivity ...... 182 Hypertextuality ...... 185 Other issues ...... 187 Promoting online source diversity ...... 189 Mainstream news media use of information obtained from online sources...... 191 The rise of weblogs ...... 192 Online interactivity and hypertextuality ...... 193 Internet and computer-assisted reporting...... 193

(iii) The role of online journalism in advancing democracy in developing nations ...... 195 Online journalism in journalism education...... 196 Conclusions and an hypothesis ...... 197

Chapter 7 Australian journalists and the Internet Methodology ...... 199 Information on the respondents ...... 201 Journalists using the Internet: number and duration ...... 203 Journalists’ most frequent Internet uses ...... 204 Online information credibility ...... 210 Accessing diverse sources online ...... 222 Reader interactivity ...... 229 A lack of online journalism training ...... 233 Improving source diversity ...... 236 Computer assisted reporting and public journalism ...... 243 Online journalism education ...... 246 New information on online journalism and source and content diversity ...... 248 Conclusion: Testing the hypothesis ...... 257

Chapter 8 Conclusions and implications Conclusions about the research question ...... 263 Implications ...... 272 Limitations and further research ...... 276

References ...... 281

Appendices

Appendix 1: A survey of Australian newspapers on the Internet

Appendix 2: Website home pages for the sample population of Australian newspapers

Appendix 3: Australian journalists and the Internet – a nationwide survey

(iv) List of figures

Figure 2.1 - Australian national and capital city daily newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation ...... 31 Figure 2.2 - Australian regional daily newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation ...... 32 Figure 2.3 - Australian suburban newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation ...... 33 Figure 2.4 - Australian Saturday newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation ...... 34 Figure 2.5 - Australian Sunday newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation ...... 35 Figure 2.6 - Australian national and capital city newspaper ownership (expressed as percentages of circulation) in 1986 ...... 37 Figure 2.7 - Australian national and capital city newspaper ownership (expressed as percentages of circulation) in 2002 ...... 38 Figure 2.8 - Circulation trends of Australian newspapers (1995 - 2002) ...... 41 Figure 5.1 - Correlation between newspaper and website establishment dates for the newspapers surveyed ...... 148 Figure 5.2 - Website profitability for the newspapers surveyed ...... 160 Figure 5.3 - Website hit rates for the newspapers surveyed ...... 161 Figure 5.4 - Additional online services offered by the newspapers surveyed ...... 163 Figure 5.5 - Circulation movements for newspapers surveyed ...... 164 Figure 5.6 - Website administration for the newspapers surveyed ...... 165 Figure 5.7 - Website advertising for the newspapers surveyed ...... 166 Figure 5.8 - Online advertising breakdown for the newspapers surveyed ...... 166 Figure 5.9 - Online and offline advertising comparison for the newspapers surveyed ...... 167 Figure 5.10 - Online advertising revenue for the newspapers surveyed ...... 168 Figure 5.11 - News Limited’s gofish e-commerce site ...... 169 Figure 5.12 - Fairfax’s Sold.Com e-commerce site ...... 169 Figure 5.13 - Alliances formed to establish the websites of the newspapers surveyed ...... 171 Figure 7.1 - Australian journalists’ most frequent Internet uses by groupings of all journalists, newspaper journalists and journalists with online media experience ...... 209

(v) Figure 7.2 – Journalists’ perception of quality control over information on the Internet and Internet use as a news source ...... 211 Figure 7.3 - Website credibility rankings by groupings of all journalists, newspaper journalists and journalists with online media experience ...... 216 Figure 7.4 - Australian journalists’ website access frequency by groupings of all journalists, newspaper journalists and journalists with online media experience ...... 221 Figure 7.5 - Journalists seeking diverse views via the Internet ...... 228 Figure 7.6 - Comparing journalists’ receiving online reader feedback and using same to increase news sources ...... 232 Figure 7.7 - How journalists believe the Internet enhances media diversity ...... 254 Figure 8.1 - Diversity model linking structural diversity directly with content diversity ...... 273 Figure 8.2 - Diversity model showing small Internet audience placing downward pressure, and larger Internet audience placing upward pressure on structural diversity ...... 274 Figure 8.3 - Diversity model showing the Internet providing content diversity within a fixed media ownership structure ...... 275

(vi) List of tables

Table 2.1 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian national and capital city newspaper circulation ...... 28 Table 2.2 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian regional daily newspaper circulation ...... 28 Table 2.3 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian suburban newspaper circulation ...... 29 Table 2.4 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian Saturday newspaper circulation ...... 29 Table 2.5 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian Sunday newspaper circulation.30 Table 2.6 - Circulation trends across Australian newspapers ...... 40 Table 5.1 - Sample population of Australian newspaper websites ...... 140 Table 5.2 - Ownership status for the newspapers surveyed ...... 144 Table 5.3 - Publication frequency for the newspapers surveyed ...... 144 Table 5.4 - Circulation Tables for the newspapers surveyed ...... 145 Table 5.5 - Monopoly/non-monopoly status for the newspapers surveyed ...... 145 Table 5.6 - Competition for the newspapers surveyed ...... 146 Table 5.7 - Years in which the newspapers surveyed were established ...... 146 Table 5.8 - Dates the newspapers surveyed went online ...... 147 Table 5.9 - Website management for the newspapers surveyed ...... 149 Table 5.10 - Website set up costs for the newspapers surveyed ...... 150 Table 5.11 - Alliances formed to set up the websites of the newspapers surveyed 151 Table 5.12 - Reasons for establishing the websites of the newspapers surveyed... 152 Table 5.13 - The ‘edge’ provided by the websites of the newspapers surveyed ... 156 Table 5.14 - The ‘value’ of the websites of the newspapers of the newspapers surveyed ...... 157 Table 5.15 - Respondents who equated newspaper websites with news diversity 157 Table 7.1- Current employment for all journalists ...... 202 Table 7.2 - Survey respondents’ employment compared with the employment of the MEAA’s overall journalism membership ...... 202 Table 7.3 - Current employment for journalists with line media experience ...... 203 Table 7.4 - Number of years all journalists have used the Internet ...... 204 Table 7.5 - Most frequent Internet use for all journalists ...... 206

(vii) Table 7.6 - Most frequent Internet use for newspaper journalists ...... 207 Table 7.7 - Most frequent Internet use for journalists with online media experience ...... 208 Table 7.8 - All journalists’ perception of website credibility ...... 213 Table 7.9 - All journalists’ credibility rankings for all website categories ...... 214 Table 7.10 - Newspaper journalists’ credibility rankings for all website categories ...... 214 Table 7.11 - Credibility rankings by journalists with online media experience for all website categories ...... 215 Table 7.12 - Frequency with which all journalists accessed website categories ... 218 Table 7.13 - All journalists’ access frequency rankings for website categories .... 219 Table 7.14 - Newspaper journalists’ access frequency rankings for website categories...... 219 Table 7.15 - Access frequency rankings for website categories for journalists with online media experience ...... 220 Table 7.16 - Frequency with which journalists access prepared media releases from the Internet ...... 225 Table 7.17 - Frequency with which journalists seek diverse views from the Internet before writing a news story ...... 227 Table 7.18 - Journalists’ use of reader feedback via the Internet to create or follow up news stories ...... 231 Table 7.19 - Journalists who have received online journalism training ...... 234 Table 7.20 - Frequency with which journalists find new news sources on the Internet ...... 237 Table 7.21 - Journalists who use online information as a news source ...... 239 Table 7.22 - Journalists’ use of online information as a primary news source ...... 241 Table 7.23 - Journalists who access information from individuals or groups via the Internet that they would not otherwise access ...... 145 Table 7.24 - Journalists who supplement traditional newsgathering techniques within information from the Internet ...... 247 Table 7.25 - Journalists’ agreement with the statement: ‘The Internet provides credible information ...... 250 Table 7.26 - How journalists believe the Internet enhances media diversity ...... 253 Table 7.27 - Journalists’ agreement with the statement: ‘The Internet has little impact on news diversity’ ...... 256

(viii) Author’s note

Research for this thesis has come from a wide range of sources. As a result some inconsistencies occur where an author’s work has been cited as a direct quotation. These include American spellings (such as ‘ization’ and ‘ize’), using the plural ‘media’ as singular and gender-specific language. Where I have cited an author verbatim I have retained the original quotations without using (sic) to recognise inconsistencies. Similarly, gender-specific language is retained where this occurs as a direct quotation. To avoid gender-specific language in my own work, I have adopted the convention of the singular ‘they’ (Petelin & Durham, 1992, p.135), as in the sentence: ‘One respondent said their website…’. While some could view this as ungrammatical, Petelin and Durham (1992) considered it was ‘more acceptable to be ungrammatical than to be sexist’ (p.135).

Similarly, I have found a variety of spellings for terms used frequently in this thesis: internet, Internet, web, Web, website, web site, Website, Web site, e-mail, email, online, on-line, on line and so on. Where literature has been cited as a direct quotation I have retained original spellings. In my own work, I have capitalised ‘Internet’ and ‘Web’ as they refer to single entities and have (I believe) achieved proper noun status. I similarly use ‘e-mail’, ‘online’ and ‘website’ to reflect common spellings of these terms. In this thesis, some references from written sources have been obtained from the Internet. When this occurred and the online document was not paginated, I have not provided page numbers. When a reference from a written source is cited in this thesis with a date only it may be assumed it was obtained from an unpaginated online document. APA documentation style is used in this thesis. Tables and figures in this thesis are numbered chronologically within chapters, with the chapter number included as a prefix, hence Table or Figure 2.1, 2.2, 2.x; 3.1, 3.2, 3.x etcetera. (As there are no tables or figures in Chapter 1, numbering for both starts at 2.1.)

(ix) Four articles derived from my research for this thesis have been published in academic journals. These articles are:

• Lewis, K. (2001). The Internet: Not the “be-all-and-end-all” for government public relations. eJournalist, 1 (1), 1-8.

• Lewis, K. (2001). Pluralism in the Australian print media. AsiaPacific Media Educator, (11), 100-112.

• Lewis, K. (2002). Deliberating on diversity. Australian Journal of Communication, 29 (3), 31-42.

• Lewis, K. (2004). Australian newspapers online: Four business models revisited. Media International Australia, (111), 131-144.

(x) Abbreviations

The following abbreviations appear in this thesis:

ABA Australian Broadcasting Authority ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ACIJ Australian Centre for Independent Journalism AKCCMP Australian Key Centre for Culture and Media Policy APN Australian Provincial News and Media BSA Broadcasting Services Act FIRB Foreign Investment Review Board HRSCPM House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media ISP Internet service provider MEAA Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance PBL Publishing and Broadcasting Limited WANH West Australian Newspaper Holdings Ltd

(xi) Abstract

In this thesis I address the research question: ‘How has the Internet delivered pluralism by promoting structural diversity and/or content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?’ Structural diversity is defined here as diversity in newspaper ownership and content diversity as the diversity of views published by individual newspapers. Central to the thesis is the notion of pluralism, the belief that the news media should provide a range of views and opinions, contradictory as well as complementary, to allow informed citizens to effectively take part in the democratic process.

The newspaper industry in this country, however, is controlled by a powerful press oligopoly across a range of markets, a situation believed to greatly limit pluralism. A review of newspaper ownership and circulation from 1986 to 2002 shows that, as at 2002, four newspaper owners are the sole occupants of Australia’s national and capital city newspaper market. Seven owners are predominant in Australia’s regional daily newspaper market, although just three owners controlled 69 per cent of the market’s circulation in 2002. Two owners controlled 69 per cent of Australia’s suburban newspaper market in 2002. Similar trends were seen in the country’s Saturday newspaper and Sunday newspaper markets. In all markets except the regional daily newspaper market, News Limited is the dominant newspaper owner. Australian Provincial News and Media is the dominant owner in the regional daily newspaper market with a 27 per cent share of circulation in 2002.

Australia’s concentrated newspaper ownership structure has led to a number of formal inquiries into diversity in the industry since 1980. In this thesis I review two of these inquiries, the 1991-92 House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media (the Print Media Inquiry) and the 2000 Productivity Commission Inquiry into Broadcasting, to determine (among other things) the nature of and the relationship between structural and content diversity as they apply to Australia’s newspapers. (By virtue of major media groups’ involvement in the Productivity (xii) Commission’s inquiry – particularly News Limited, Publishing and Broadcasting Limited and, to a lesser extent, Rural Press – this inquiry, although broadcast- oriented, considered Australia’s newspaper industry at length.) This review shows both inquiries were clear on how they saw this relationship – structural diversity is necessary for content diversity. However, the Print Media Inquiry suggested it was almost impossible to guarantee structural diversity in the nation’s newspaper industry. The Productivity Commission, meanwhile, said that while it accepted content diversity was not inconsistent with media ownership concentration, it was more likely to be achieved where there was diverse ownership. With the relationship between structural and content diversity in mind, and the Print Media Inquiry’s and the Productivity Commission’s beliefs that new entrants in the newspaper industry were unlikely in the short term, I examine the suggestion that the Internet has the potential to increase structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry by allowing new players to efficiently enter the industry via the World Wide Web.

The extent to which this might occur is determined by a study of 18 Australian newspaper websites with one argument being that if established newspapers find the transition online relatively easy, then independent online-only news sites might be similarly established. Mings and White’s four online news business models – a subscription model, advertising model, e-commerce-based transactional model and partnership-based model – are used as a framework to examine the study’s results.

The study shows Australia’s experience mirrors international experience in terms of the growth of newspapers online and in terms of their lack of profitability. It shows that 28 per cent of the newspapers surveyed maintained their circulation while offering free online news content, while a further 33 per cent registered circulation increases. Advertising revenue increased for seven of the nine newspaper websites containing advertising, suggesting that, for some Australian newspapers at least, gaining online advertising (as opposed to gaining overall profitability) has proved successful. And while the survey shows little evidence of Australian newspapers using the transactional model in any real sense, it does show that Australian

(xiii) newspapers are forming local online partnerships with other media and non-media businesses to facilitate their online activities.

The study’s key finding is that of the 18 newspapers surveyed, just two websites were profitable. This finding is consistent with literature that highlights a lack of commercially viable independent online news ventures both in Australia and internationally. While considerable hopes were held that the Internet would introduce more structural diversity into Australia’s newspaper industry, I argue that the Internet’s commercial imperatives, as they apply to newspapers, have to a large extent precluded it from adding structural diversity in the industry. In these circumstances, it may be that the only viable way of increasing content diversity in the nation’s newspaper industry is to increase the availability of diverse information sources to journalists. I propose that one way to do this is via the Internet.

The extent to which this is occurring is determined by a survey of Australian journalists’ Internet use, the survey results showing that 97.4 per cent of the journalists who responded now use the Internet regularly, including 97.5 per cent of newspaper journalists. But most journalists who responded use the Internet as a preliminary research tool and as a way to check facts rather than as a means of accessing diverse news sources. The respondents’ top five Internet uses, for example, are to e-mail work colleagues, to undertake preliminary research, to access media releases from websites, to verify facts and to search other news organisations’ websites. They access major news organisation websites most frequently, followed by government websites, university/research institution websites and corporate/company websites. The least frequently accessed websites are those that could conceivably provide the alternate views demanded by pluralism: online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals.

The survey shows the types of websites Australian journalists most frequently access are linked to the credibility they give to information contained on those websites. Major news organisation websites are seen as providing the most credible information, followed by university/research institution websites and

(xiv) government websites. Websites perceived as providing the least credible information were those that host online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals. The survey also shows Australian journalists have not embraced online reader interaction to any extent, lessening the likelihood that readers will be able to provide journalists with more diverse news sources. Less than 20 per cent of journalists interact with readers via the Internet and less than 10 per cent use this interaction to create or follow up news stories.

The survey does provide results that support source diversity, however. It shows that almost a third of Australian journalists have obtained additional news sources via the Internet. The Internet has also allowed more than 40 per cent of journalists to access individuals or groups that they would not otherwise have accessed. The survey also shows that journalists who have had experience working in the online media environment consistently use the Internet more productively, in terms of diversity, than other journalists. It is these journalists that interact online with readers more, that participate in online discussion groups more and that appear more willing to seek online information from non-traditional sources such as independent news websites and the websites of private individuals or groups. Journalists with online media experience also represent the group that has most sought training in online journalism and online media practice and that most believes the Internet will play an increasingly important role for journalists and news consumers in the future. At present, the survey suggests, journalists with this online media experience comprise just 19 per cent of Australian journalists. But as the number of journalists with online media experience increases in the workforce, these journalists’ greater acceptance of the Internet may then assist in greater source diversity leading to greater content diversity in Australia’s news media.

The studies of newspaper websites and journalists’ Internet use suggest and support differing diversity models. In this thesis I propose two models for diversity, the first drawn from views espoused by the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting. This model (below) sees a one-to-one correspondence between structural and content diversity and assumes that to increase

(xv) the diversity of views available to the public, the number of media outlets must similarly be increased.

Diversity model linking structural diversity directly with content diversity

The argument that the Internet can provide media pluralism by permitting new players to enter the media market relatively easily, an argument tested by my study of Australian newspaper websites, is commensurate with this model.

The second model is based on my inquiries into journalists’ Internet use and proposes a method of increasing content diversity within a fixed media ownership structure. This model (below) acknowledges that journalists produce content mostly via traditional news sources, but proposes this content can be increased and/or changed, with an emphasis on more diverse information, via non-traditional news sources obtained via the Internet.

(xvi)

Diversity model showing the Internet providing content diversity within a fixed media ownership structure

Overall, the results of my inquiries suggest the answer to the research question is that the Internet has so far delivered little in terms of structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry. However, the Internet’s potential to do so remains, particularly if independent online-based media ventures find ways to become commercially viable and if journalists adopt the technology as a means of finding more diverse news sources.

(xvii) 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

This thesis is about the Internet and diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry. It examines the relationships between structural diversity (diversity in newspaper ownership), content diversity (the diversity of views presented by individual newspapers), source diversity (the diversity of news sources available to journalists) and the Internet’s effects on them. Its focus is on whether the Internet has promoted pluralism in Australia’s newspapers – where pluralism is the belief that the news media must provide an ‘adequate mix’ of ‘voices of society’, including the voices of ‘alternative views’ (McQuail, 1987, p.152) to allow citizens to take part in an effective democracy (Delli Carpini, Keeter & Kennamer, 1994, p.453). This research follows on from my Masters research, which looked at the nature of Australian newspaper ownership and its impact on diversity.

Research and case studies for my MA were completed in 1995, however, just before Australian newspapers began their first steps on a new delivery platform – the Internet. The Internet brought with it the promise of a more diverse newspaper industry by giving new players the potential to enter the industry without having to surmount previously ‘insurmountable’ barriers to entry (Chadwick, 1994a, p.24). The two most significant of these were the purchase of printing presses (Chadwick, 1994a, p.24) and the setting up of a reliable distribution network (Caughey, 1994, p.52). Morris (1996) proposed that with the Internet the cost of entry for new players would ‘plummet’ from the ‘$300m needed’ to set up a ‘mass circulation daily’ to the comparatively infinitesimal cost of a computer and a website (p.14).1 He said that ‘for the first time in over a century’ new players in Australia’s newspaper industry ‘would have the upper hand’ if they capitalised on the Internet (Morris, 1996, p.14).

1 Strictly speaking, the Internet and the World Wide Web are two separate things. The former is the computer and telecommunications infrastructure (and the software that runs them) on which the latter, the document-based World Wide Web, sits (McCracken, 1999, pp.138-139). However, many researchers use these terms interchangeably, as I do in this thesis. 2

Clearly, the Internet has the potential to play a major role in increasing structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry.

The research question

This thesis, then, addresses the research question:

How has the Internet delivered pluralism by promoting structural diversity and/or content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

Issues explored in this thesis

The thesis addresses four issues in its examination of the research question. These are:

• What is the nature of structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

• What is the relationship between structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

• Is the Internet delivering increased structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

• Does the Internet increase content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

What is the nature of structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

A diverse number of news media outlets providing a diversity of views is essential to democracy. This is a key assumption of much of the literature on the news media and society.

Chapter 2 examines pluralism in Australia’s newspaper industry as a foundation for a wider analysis of the Internet’s impact on this industry. It discusses 3 media theory with an emphasis on libertarian theory, as libertarian views predominated during the Internet’s early development (White, 1996, p.4). The chapter then examines Australian newspaper ownership from 1986 to 2002. The ownership structure of Australia’s news media industry generally, and newspaper industry specifically, remains highly concentrated within a few powerful owners. While some may see this as such a given that it hardly bears stating, Australia’s newspaper ownership is reviewed in this thesis for three reasons: to identify who owns what at the start of the 21st century; to gain a view on newspaper ownership trends; and to look at newspaper circulation trends, particularly in regard to arguments that newspaper circulations face ‘a long term decline’ (Hargreaves, 1999, p.51). The chapter confirms that the Australian newspaper industry remains highly concentrated, but shows that newspaper circulation is not in decline. The chapter concludes that Australia’s newspaper oligopoly is maintained by the economic system that supports it, by economies of scale, by globalism2, by justification and maintenance of the oligopoly by newspaper owners themselves, and by political support for these owners at the highest level.

What is the relationship between structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

Australian media ownership has concerned Australian governments to such an extent that they have held a number of formal inquiries to determine what level of regulation is necessary to maintain and increase diversity.

Chapter 3 uses two major Australian media inquiries, the 1991-92 Print Media Inquiry and the 2000 Productivity Commission Inquiry into Broadcasting, to examine the nature of structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry and media regulation that may (or may not) promote diversity. By virtue of major media groups’ involvement in the Productivity Commission’s inquiry – particularly News Limited, Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL) and, to a lesser extent, Rural Press – this inquiry, although broadcast-oriented, considered

2 Globalism is defined as ‘a shift in the control of national economies…from national governments to multinational corporations’ (Hughes, 1997, p.79).

Australia’s newspaper industry at some length. It is also the only formal inquiry (so far) to significantly address the impact of print media convergence with new media technology.3 Comparing and contrasting these two inquiries shows a direct link between structural and content diversity, with both inquiries’ reports indicating that increasing structural diversity in the nation’s news media was the method to increase content diversity and deliver pluralism.

Chapter 3 investigates how these inquiries interpreted diversity through their deliberations. It shows that the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting had more similarities than differences. For example, both inquiries showed a link between structural and content diversity and both started from the assumption that structural diversity in Australia’s media was not sufficient to support adequate content diversity. There was also a consistent division of opinion regarding pluralism expressed to both inquiries with major media groups submitting that Australia’s current media structure promoted sufficient diverse information and opinion; and journalists’ peak associations and independent media analysts such as the Communications Law Centre, the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism and others maintaining this has not occurred. Both inquiries relied on legislative changes to increase structural diversity and, ultimately, governments have mostly ignored both inquiries’ recommendations. By analysing these inquiries a definition of ‘diversity’ is also ascertained.

Chapter 3 finds that the Select Committee conducting the Print Media Inquiry was less than hopeful that structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry could be increased, while the Productivity Commission recommended various legislative changes to achieve greater media diversity generally, but never overtly stated how these changes would allow would-be competition to viably compete with the established media. In view of this, this chapter concludes with observations about new media technology, the Internet specifically, as a platform for providing structural diversity in Australia’s news media.

3 ‘New media’ refers broadly to media stored and delivered in digital form, especially through Internet technologies (see Barr, 2000; Branigan, 1998, Cunningham & Finn, 1996 and Marshall, Luckman, & Smith, 1998). 5

Is the Internet delivering increased structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

This question naturally follows an analysis of the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting, particularly in regard to the latter’s recognition that ‘the Internet is potentially a vast source of independent information with numerous players’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.306). The primary research undertaken in the second half of this thesis can be seen as a two- step investigation into diversity in the Australian newspaper industry. Chapter 4, a literature review, and Chapter 5 look at the management of newspaper websites while inquiring whether structural diversity can be obtained in the industry through independent news websites that compete with established newspaper websites. Chapter 6, a literature review, and Chapter 7 then look at diversity being provided through journalists themselves while inquiring whether diverse news sources can lead to increased content diversity in Australian newspapers.

So far the Internet has been slow to provide real media diversity. Former Fairfax editor Brian Toohey, for example, said that while the Internet was ‘wonderful in looking at things that had been published overseas’ the reality was that, to date, it provided ‘no new sources of information and analysis’ (Colvin, 2002). The Communications Law Centre (2002a) has similarly contended that ‘online news outlets’ offered no real alternative to traditional media organisations (pp.9-10). The Centre argued that ‘even more significantly’ the online news sources readers used were ‘overwhelmingly the online operations of traditional media sources’ (Communications Law Centre, 2002a, pp.9-10).

Chapter 4 reviews current literature that discusses a range of issues about online newspapers and online media practice. One significant finding of this literature review is that while the number of online news sites has grown enormously since the mid-1990s, most of these are the online arms of established newspaper outlets. And most of them are unprofitable. There are very few examples, particularly in Australia, of independent online news sites operating successfully in what has become an almost exclusively commercial sector of the 6

World Wide Web. This chapter uses as a framework Mings and White’s (1997) four business models for online news that suggest online news businesses can gain revenue through subscriptions, advertising, e-commerce and partnerships with other businesses (pp.1-43). Each of these models is examined in detail, with literature suggesting that for would-be independent online media businesses, a focus on business models other than the subscription and advertising models may facilitate successful online news ventures. The literature also suggests that while the Internet has so far delivered only limited structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry, the technology’s potential to increase structural diversity still exists. Following this literature review, the first of the thesis’s two hypotheses is proposed and is tested in Chapter 5.

Chapter 5 details a survey-based study of 18 Australian newspaper websites, examining the newspapers’ experiences in moving to the Internet and looking particularly at their use of Mings and White’s business models. The study found that the Australian experience with news websites mirrored international experience both in terms of growth and lack of profitability. The chapter concludes that libertarian theories about the Internet have been supplanted by financial imperatives as the Internet becomes more and more a commercial environment. Commensurate with this, online news sites are failing to generate sufficient revenue to be profitable. These two issues effectively limit the Internet’s ability to deliver structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry and, as such, media pluralism. The Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy (1999a) believed that it was ‘not at all clear that the new technology [would] give rise to a significant number of new players’ (p.9).

Does the Internet increase content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?

Given that the Internet has not delivered structural diversity to any great extent – in the Australian newspaper industry or media generally – what opportunities exist for the technology to otherwise deliver diversity in some form? A number of researchers have discussed increasing the availability of diverse information sources to journalists as one way of increasing diversity (see Kurpius, 7

2002, pp.853-854; Thomas J., 2000, pp.1548-1560; and Voakes, Kapfer, Kurpius & Chern, 1996, p.584).

By reviewing literature on these issues, Chapter 6 discusses journalists’ ability to garner increased source diversity via the Internet and whether this in turn increases content diversity. The chapter defines source diversity and its relationship to content diversity. It proposes that in circumstances where structural diversity in Australia’s media is unlikely to increase in real terms, one method to increase content diversity is to increase the availability of diverse sources to journalists. The chapter discusses arguments that suggest both that the Internet has little effect on source diversity and, conversely, that it has the potential to enhance source diversity. Following this literature review, the thesis’s second hypothesis is proposed and is tested in Chapter 7.

Chapter 7 details a survey-based study of Australian journalists’ Internet use. The study found that while almost all Australian journalists use the Internet, few actively used the technology to find diverse views for their news stories or to enlarge their range of news sources. By determining the type of online information journalists find most credible and the types of websites they most frequently visit, the study showed journalists’ Internet use mostly reflected traditional journalism norms and practices. The chapter also considers the survey’s results in terms of respondents’ employment, and in doing so finds that journalists who have had online media experience are more embracing of the Internet’s ability to enhance diversity.

Many conclusions from the various inquiries undertaken by this thesis appear within the chapters themselves. Chapter 8 examines the implications of these conclusions in terms of the research question, the hypotheses and the definition of diversity given in Chapter 3. Chapter 8 provides three models of diversity showing, variously, a model to increase content diversity where a direct link between structural diversity and content diversity exists, a model to increase content diversity within a fixed media ownership structure and a model depicting how future changes to the Internet may provide more structural diversity in the media. In its conclusion, Chapter 8 discusses some of the limitations of the inquiries undertaken and proposes further research leading from these inquiries. 8

Scope

In this thesis I have limited my inquiries to Australian newspapers. Other print media (such as magazines and newsletters) and the electronic media are not the subject of the thesis, although they are discussed in the literature and in arguments presented to both the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting. Literature and these inquiries often use the terms ‘print media’ and ‘newspaper’ interchangeably, reflecting a belief common in the industry that the print media refer specifically to newspapers. Indeed, Australia’s Print Media Inquiry dealt solely with the country’s newspaper industry despite its more encompassing title. I have titled this thesis Pluralism, Australian newspaper diversity and the promise of the Internet and use the term ‘Australia’s newspaper industry’ throughout to acknowledge that the print media also include magazines, newsletters, the non- Anglophile press and so on. Where I have quoted sources directly, however, such terms as ‘the print media’ and ‘the press’ can be read as referring to newspapers unless otherwise stated.

In the six years that I have researched and written this thesis three further issues in terms of the scope of this project have become apparent and deserve mention. They are:

• Why focus on Australian newspapers, as opposed to other Australian news media?

• Can newspapers be considered in isolation to other news media if convergence is now blurring traditional media boundaries?

• What constitutes an online newspaper?

Why focus on Australian newspapers?

My focus on Australian newspapers reflects both my career as a print journalist and literature that continues to see newspapers as the most influential news 9 medium. Pearson and Brand (2001) suggested that ‘newspapers break news’ and were ‘the greatest influence upon politicians and opinion leaders’ (p.8). They said that The Australian and Sydney’s Daily Telegraph were ‘perceived as the dominant agenda setters in the daily news cycle’ (Pearson & Brand, 2001, p.9). Similarly, the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy (1999) argued that ‘it is print, and most particularly the broadsheet metropolitan daily press, that exercised influence out of all proportion to its readership base by forming the political agenda’ (pp.17-18). While my studies suggest that convergence may be drawing print and electronic media together (in terms of ownership as well as the physical media themselves), I contend that it is still valid to conduct this type of inquiry on newspapers specifically.

Can newspapers be considered in isolation to other news media if convergence is blurring traditional media boundaries?

In media terms, convergence is described as the joining of ‘hitherto distinct technologies’ (Hughes, 1997, p.81) and is a process greatly facilitated by the digital platform supporting new media technology. These ‘distinct technologies’ can include computing, telecommunications, broadcasting and the print media (Turner & Cunningham, 1997, pp.14-15). Examples of corporate convergence include print media corporation Time Warner’s (somewhat disastrous) merger with Internet technology company America Online to form the world’s largest media conglomerate AOL Time Warner. In Australia, News Limited and PBL similarly (and also disastrously) converged with Internet service provider One.Tel. (Both of these examples are discussed in Chapter 5.)

Implicit in Australia’s Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987, which serves to limit common ownership of television, radio and newspapers, is the notion that newspapers, radio and television are discrete news media. Some newspaper owners have maintained that ‘the influence of each [media] sector has been massively diluted’ through convergence (PBL, 1999, p.8), but I would agree with Rural Press (1999) that ‘convergence has not taken hold yet’ (p.2). Similarly, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (1999) held that the ‘news cultures’ of newspapers, radio and television were incompatible for true convergence (p.6) while 10

Pearson and Brand (2001) contended that newspapers served as the ‘key reference material for other media’ (p.10). I would argue that it remains valid to study newspapers in isolation to other forms of news media. (Convergence, and its effects on media diversity, is discussed in Chapter 3.)

What constitutes an online newspaper?

Of the definitions considered by this thesis, that which defines what actually constitutes an online newspaper has been one of the most problematic. What does this term include? Would it include offline newspapers that have established a Web presence; online-based news ventures; or even online news outlets that have subsequently spawned print editions? Most newspapers discussed in this thesis have an online presence in the most basic sense only, offering little more than re-cycled content or ‘shovelware’ posted from their offline editions. Can these be validly compared with online-based news outlets that, by definition, provide original news content? Many suggest these activities are disparate. John Cokley, journalist in residence at Griffith university specialising in online journalism, believes the main reason newspapers have found their move online so difficult is that they have not appreciated that online and offline news are entirely different products.4 The print media, he said, have tried to replicate the print media model in online format without realising that once news was delivered via the Internet it ceased to be a part of the print media per se. Among the results, he said, were a lack of profitability, a lack of wide readership and very little diversity.

Many also consider offline and online journalism to be separate crafts with separate values and skills bases, necessarily turning out different news products. These arguments are discussed in Chapter 6. But this thesis’s research question asks how the Internet has added to structural and/or content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry, with the assumption being that the Internet allows competitors in this market by breaking down barriers to entry and supporting ‘an unlimited number of mini-Murdochs’ (Colvin, 1999, p.370) publishing via the World Wide

4 In conversation with the author on 14 August 2002. Cokley is now a journalism lecturer at James Cook University in Townsville.

Web. Viewed in terms of the research question, online-based news outlets must be similar to their offline counterparts in enough respects to enable competition in the same market. To the Productivity Commission, News Limited (1999) argued this was the case, contending the Internet would allow very small media players to coexist with larger ones (p.7). Commenting on arguments that ‘the Internet is somehow different from other channels of news and information’, Hall (2001) said ‘[c]urrent thinking in the media industries, and in education, both in Europe and North America, spans the full spectrum of views on this issue’ (p.3). Hall (2001) himself believed that to consider the Internet news media ‘in the narrow context of what is traditionally constituted as news’ was to consider it ‘too narrowly’ (p.4).

However, by reducing news media attributes to core activities, both online and offline media can be accommodated in a single field of inquiry. Ward (2002) suggested four core journalistic activities linked all forms of news media: identifying news and information of reader interest, collecting information needed to tell the story, selecting the best information and presenting the information efficiently and effectively (p.30). Although online media are different to traditional media forms, in terms of the Web being a ‘non-linear’ medium, these four activities apply equally across all media (Ward, 2002, p.31). McGovern (2003), meanwhile, viewed the World Wide Web as a publishing medium, based on its core activity of providing printed material to be read either from a computer screen or from print outs.5 Seen in the context of Ward’s and McGovern’s core activities (and with respect to Cokley’s otherwise salient arguments), I would argue that online news media outlets that deal primarily with printed material (and in this case excluding the text-based websites of the electronic media6) can be considered a part of the overall Australian print media market. This assumption is behind the study of Australian news websites discussed in Chapter 5, where established newspapers with concomitant websites, online-based news outlets and an online news outlet that subsequently spawned an offline edition are examined as one population set. Similarly, while Chapters 6 and 7 consider the

5 McGovern (2003) provided an analogy to this, saying that when one pedalled a pushbike it was considered ‘riding a bike’ rather than ‘holding a handlebar’ as the former represented the core activity taking place.

6 Using McGovern’s definition, the websites of the electronic media could also be seen as printed media, illustrating the ‘blurring’ effect of convergence (see ‘Defining convergence and its effects’ in Chapter 3). 12 differences in online and offline journalism practice, no major distinction (in terms of discrete media) is otherwise made between journalists producing content for offline or online distribution.

Overall, this thesis introduces considerable new information to the debate on new media practice generally and Internet-supported media pluralism specifically. Literature suggests the studies undertaken by this thesis – particularly those on journalists’ Internet use and on online journalism practice – are ‘rare’ (Deuze, 2001a, p.14). Brill (2001), for example, said articles about online journalists ‘tend to be highly anecdotal’ (p.31) and suggested ‘[m]uch more work needs to be done’ to ‘determine the influence of the [online news] medium’ (p.39). Massey (2000) said ‘[f]ew scholars’ had considered the practice and theory of ‘Web journalism’ (p.227) while Singer, Tharp and Haruta (1999) said ‘[l]ittle scholarly research’ into online journalism practice (to 1999 at least) ‘had yet appeared’ (p.30). Wu and Bechtel (2002) suggested not much had changed by 2002 and gave corporate media interests treating information about their online activities as commercial-in-confidence as a key reason for this (p.82). ‘With these data’, they said, it would be possible to ‘examine empirically…today’s cyber circumstances’ (Wu & Bechtel, 2002, p.82).

Theories and methodologies

Much of this thesis is industry-focussed and is empirical in methodology. The nature of Australia’s newspaper industry is examined by measuring industry attributes, including ownership and regulation, against media theory including libertarian, free press and social responsibility theories. The Internet is also viewed in terms of media theory, particularly libertarian theory. These theories also figure in the study of the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting.

Research quoted when discussing the attributes of pluralism and the market- based press includes the early work of Warren Breed, Curtis MacDougall and Fredrick Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbur Schramm. The latter is critiqued by John Nerone, one of a number of researchers who have identified limitations within Siebert, Peterson and Schramm’s Four theories of the press. Later researchers who 13 have contributed to this area of study and whose work is cited include David Bowman, Paul Chadwick, Denis Cryle, Stuart Cunningham, James Curran, Terry Flew, Herbert Gans, Nicholas Garnham, Peter Golding, John Hartley, Gerard Henderson, John Henningham, David Kurpius, Chris Lawe Davies, Denis McQuail, Peter Morris, Graham Murdock, Stephen Quinn, Angela Romano, Julianne Schultz, Gaye Tuchman, Graeme Turner and Keith Windschuttle.

Submissions to the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting that are examined include a number from Australian-based media researchers named above, plus submissions from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, the Australian Journalists Association and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the Communications Law Centre, the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy, the Australian Press Council, submissions from and on behalf of News Limited and PBL, and the subsequent work of Mark Pearson and Jeffrey Brand.

Researchers whose work is used to discuss online media and online journalism practice include Trevor Barr, Elisia Cohen, Nicola Cowen, Mark Dueze, Carrie Heeter, Joseph D. Lasica, Eric Loo, P. David Marshall, Brian Massey, Don Middleberg and Stephen Ross, Susan Mings and Peter B. White, Jakob Nielsen, Steve Outing, John Pavlik, Jane Singer, Colin Sparks, and Peter Williams and David Nicholas.

Empirical research is undertaken in the two survey-based studies of Australian newspaper websites and Australian journalists’ Internet use. The methodology for these studies is provided in Chapters 5 and 7. The structure of this thesis is based on Perry’s 1993 guidelines in A structured approach to presenting PhD theses: Notes for candidates and their supervisors.

Chapter 2

Pluralism in the Australian newspaper industry

This chapter discusses the concept of pluralism in the context of specific media theories before undertaking an analysis of Australian newspaper ownership from 1986 to 2002. The analysis shows that Australia’s newspaper industry is concentrated within a few owners and these owners have formed a powerful press oligopoly. It is argued that this oligopoly operates almost exclusively on market principles, with one result being the lack of a truly pluralist media. The chapter argues Australia’s newspaper oligopoly is maintained by the economic system that supports it, by economies of scale, by globalism, by justification and maintenance of the oligopoly by newspaper owners themselves and by high-level political support for these owners.

Libertarian theory

A diverse number of news media outlets providing a diversity of views is essential to democracy. This is a key assumption of much of the literature on the need for a pluralist news media. Pluralism assumes the press (and the media generally) will provide a range of diverse views, including views alternative to the mainstream (see McQuail, 1987, p.152). The libertarian theory of the press (see Siebert, 1956, pp.39-71) is arguably one of the best-known media theories and, although dated, is germane to this thesis as it is libertarian theory that predominated during the Internet’s early development (see Chapter 4). Libertarian theory is an example of what Collins (1992) saw as media theories based on ‘market principles’ (p.7) where, according to McQuail (1976), ‘in the “free market of ideas” the best and fittest [ideas] will survive and will be closest to the truth. The more diversity, the more competition, the more likely that the best ideas will find a home in people’s minds and be disseminated most widely and quickly’ (p.10).

Libertarian theory can be seen as supporting the aims of pluralism by providing a ‘multiplicity of voices’ from which a ‘self-righting process of the truth’ enabled the public to differentiate between ‘truth and falsehood’ (Siebert, 1956, pp.44-45), although libertarian theorists assume that out of this multiplicity of voices ‘some information reaching the public would be false and some opinions unsound’ (Siebert, 1956, p.51). Not all theorists have absolute faith in this ‘self-righting’ process. Nerone (1995) doubted its validity, saying:

The notion of the marketplace of ideas is central to libertarianism’s model of political communication. In the libertarian public sphere, interested parties are supposed to advance interested arguments for their positions, and rational individuals are supposed to choose from among competing arguments those that will best suit their interests; the outcome will be the adoption, as if directed by an invisible hand, of a position that will promote the common good. (p.43)

Schiller (1986) said a pluralist press occupied a key role in ‘classical theories of liberal democracies’ where it was ‘the major source of…information that citizens need to arrive at rational political judgements and choices’ (p.19). He added that to achieve this ‘a whole range of relevant information needs to be equally available to everyone’ (p.19). In addition, Schiller (1986) said libertarian theory charged the press with ‘a positive duty to act as a Fourth Estate, a public watchdog checking for abuses of corporate and government power on behalf of the wider public interest’ (p.19). An encompassing statement of the need for the press to act as the Fourth Estate7 was given by Delli Carpini, Keeter and Kennamer (1994) who said:

Effective democracies depend upon informed citizens…informed citizens are better citizens…more resistant to persuasive appeals…more easily persuaded by reasoned argument and less easily by mere symbolic display…informed voters are more likely to vote in instrumentally rational ways. (p.453)

7 The term Fourth Estate dates from the early days of newspapers covering the British Parliament. Parliament was seen to have ‘three estates of man: Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal and Commons’ and the parliamentary gallery, where journalists sat, became known as the ‘fourth estate of the realm’ (Hulteng & Nelson, 1971, p.9). 16

The perceived absence of a diverse and pluralist media, and resultant lack of the media acting as a Fourth Estate, has been blamed for newspapers failing to disclose government complicity in the ‘WA Inc’ scandals of the 1980s (Morgan, 1989, p.17).8

Proponents of pluralism have argued that public intervention in the operation of the media is justified to ensure this occurs (Golding & Murdock, 1991, p.21). Cohen-Almagor (1999), for example, said a ‘thoughtful democracy’ placed ‘careful limitations’ on the media to ensure they did not operate in an ‘uncontrolled manner’ (p.11, p.23). Golding and Murdock (1991) argued the ‘distortions and inequalities’ of market systems needed to be rectified by ‘public intervention’ (p.21). Horne (1994) explained:

In looking for a marketplace of ideas, we are speaking of a market offering choice. We are not thinking of a laissez faire situation in which the government stays out of things. The distinction between a market approach and a laissez faire approach is not always made in Australia. Yet if a government merely stays out of things, that may not lead to a market, but to a monopoly. (p.9)

A Green Paper released by the Commission of the European Communities in 1993 offered the definition that ‘pluralism serves to limit the scope of freedom of expression’ by regulation, but added that ‘the purpose of such limitation is to guarantee diversity of information to the public’ (Communications Law Centre, 1993, p.8). The Green Paper quoted the European Court of Human Rights as saying pluralism was the justified exception to the ‘principle of freedom of expression’ in order to protect the rights of others. The Court said: ‘The limit placed on this principle [of freedom of expression] is justified in order that the public has access to a diversity of information’ (Communications Law Centre, 1993, pp.8-9). There have been calls for intervention models similar to those used in European countries, including the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, where state intervention tries to

8 Under the premiership of Brian Burke from 1983 to 1988, during the ‘corporate boom times’ of that decade, the Western Australian Labor Government entered into a number of business deals with ‘big business’, many of which resulted in financial losses for the state and became known as ‘WA Inc’ (The Constitutional Centre of Western Australia, 2003). In 1994 Burke served seven months in jail for offences he committed as part of WA Inc (The Constitutional Centre of Western Australia, 2003). 17 guarantee the presence of media outlets affiliated with community-supported social and political groups (Cunningham, 1994, p.122).

Examples of suggested intervention models can be found in submissions to the Print Media Inquiry and the 1994 Senate Inquiry into Foreign Ownership of the Media. They include submissions for restrictions on foreign ownership of any media outlet to 20 per cent (MEAA, 1994, p.2 and Chadwick, 1990, p.5), restrictions on cross-media ownership (Henderson, 1991, p.8), separation of ownership of national and state newspapers (Hippocrates & Cunningham, 1991, p.1747) and strengthening the legislative powers of statutory bodies such as the Australian Press Council (Chung, 1994, p.16). More discussion on pluralism, in terms of arguments presented to the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting, occurs in Chapter 3.

Free press theory

Proponents of media that function on market principles often argue that ‘any…regulation of the media is not on’ (Gee, 1989, p.11) and that a ‘balance’ between an independent press and a diverse press can be found by ‘self-regulation’ (Gee, 1989, p.11). Free press theory is an example of media theory based on these principles (Garnham, 1986, p.46). Tuchman (1978) described free press theory in terms of newspapers being ‘private property’ where ‘those who own newspapers have the right to publish what they will’ (p.168). She said that, under free press theory, newspapers were ‘not legally required to grant access to their pages to anyone who wants it’ (Tuchman, 1978, pp.168-169). Hattam (1991) similarly discussed free press theory as espousing ‘the right…of the owner of a newspaper to ultimately decide what is published because that owner has made the financial investment which gives him or her the right to make that decision’ (p.5).

Curran (1991) said proponents of media based on market principles believed that ‘only by anchoring the media to the free market’ was it possible ‘to ensure the media’s complete independence from government’ (p.84). Morgan (1989) said that ‘to have government owning any part of commercial media…lays the way open for bias and suppression of diverse viewpoints’ (p.17). He cited the Western Australian 18

State Government’s part ownership of The West Australian newspaper as one reason that newspaper failed to disclose government dealing in ‘the scandals [and] secrecy’ behind ‘WA Inc’ (Morgan, 1989, p.17). Similarly, Collins (1992) said that market advocates claimed ‘media systems organised on market principles are less subject to despotic abuses of power’ (p.7).

Gee (1989) offered an alternative to government intervention, saying ‘the correct balance’ between freedom of the press and protection of public rights ‘depends on self-regulation by the media’ (p.11). The belief in self-regulation was reflected in a number of submissions to the Print Media Inquiry. One of the main actors in the inquiry, the Australian Press Council, was itself established in 1976 by newspaper proprietors who had ‘concluded that a display of self-regulation was preferable to proposals for statutory control of the press’ (Communications Law Centre, 1992, p.6).

Self-regulation notwithstanding, Garnham (1986) said the problem with a market-based press was that the market had ‘produced conditions of oligopoly which undercut the [pluralist] ideal’ (p.46). Garnham (1986) said free press theories ‘simply assumed that the market will provide appropriate institutions and processes of public communication to support a democratic polity’, but added:

The critique of this position has been able to collect impressive evidence of the way in which market forces produce results, in terms of oligopoly control…that are far from the…ideal of a free marketplace of ideas. (Garnham, 1986, p.39)

This ‘impressive evidence’ might include Cunningham’s (1994) observation:

Where free market principles rule in the media of a country like Australia, diversity usually suffers. Concerns over the lack of diversity in the press, of the main mass media the most subject to open market forces, are real and growing. Afternoon newspapers are now a thing of the past. The newspaper industry is subject to an increasing oligopoly of foreign owners…controlling almost all of the daily metropolitan and a large majority of the regional and suburban press papers. (pp.119-120)

Social responsibility theory

Criticism of the media functioning strictly on market principles is a reason for ‘improved’ media theory such as the social responsibility theory (McQuail, 1976, p.12). This theory holds that ‘the press itself must acknowledge its importance to society and consciously seek to contribute to social ends and conform, by self- regulation, to the expectations of society’ (McQuail, 1976, p.22). Peterson (1956) proposed that social responsibility theory was born of specific events, including the threat of government regulation as the media ‘grew in size and importance’; a growing intellectualism where people questioned basic assumptions of society that were espoused by the press; and the development of ‘a professional spirit as journalism attracted men of principle and education’, giving the press its own ‘growing sense of social responsibility’ (p.77). ‘In essence’, said McQuail (1976), ‘the shift is away from an exclusive emphasis on the right to free expression towards acknowledging a series of rights which the public…might have’ (p.12). He said traditional free press theory lacked a ‘prescriptive character’ and, even in its ‘simple and most basic form’, did not prescribe ‘what the press ought to do’ (McQuail, 1976, p.9). McQuail (1976) said that under social responsibility theory the press should:

• provide an accurate and complete account of the day’s events, separating fact from comment and presenting both sides of disputed issues

• regard themselves as ‘common carriers’ of ideas and information – a role that concentration of ownership might interfere with

• give an accurate representation and portrayal of various groups in society, and

• play a positive part in setting out and promoting the accepted goals and ideals of society (pp.9-10).

In another historically significant analysis, MacDougall (1963) claimed the press should have a ‘sense of social responsibility’ that included:

• a ‘Moral Responsibility’, specifically in terms of religious outlook 20

• a ‘Social Obligation’ to subjugate personal interests to the public good

• a ‘Democratic Ideal’ to defend ethics, morality, idealism, and professionalism

• a ‘Public Utility Ideal’ where, for the public good, newspaper publishers should see themselves as engaged in a ‘quasi-public business’, and

• ‘Self-Interest’, where newspaper publishers should decide to ‘be good’ either because they want to, or because they fear reprisals (pp.23-32).

Nerone (1995), however, said social responsibility theory’s main criticism lay in its vagueness, where the theory expected ‘some kind of stewardship of media resources’, ‘responsible behaviour’ and a role for the press as educator – but ‘at the same time it avoids detailing structural changes (including government regulation) that would allow performance of these functions’ (pp.121-122). More discussion on these theories, in terms of arguments presented to the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting, occurs in Chapter 3.

The Australian newspaper oligopoly

Literature indicates that in liberal democracies such as Australia, the pluralist ideals of ‘a multiplicity of voices’ (McQuail, 1987, p.152) and ‘a whole range of ideas being available equally to everyone’ (Schiller, 1986, p.19) are sequestered by a press that is run consistently on market principles, with proprietors advocating minimal public intervention and maximum market freedom. This has led to Australia having one of the world’s highest newspaper ownership concentrations (Lewis, 2001a, pp.100-112). Literature suggests this has occurred because the owners of Australia’s newspapers have formed an oligopoly. The economic system supports this oligopoly, newspaper owners derive numerous benefits from the economies of scale that the oligopoly provides and these newspaper owners have the highest-level political support.

Garnham (1986) claimed that ‘impressive evidence’ existed to show ‘market forces produce results, in terms of oligopoly control…that are far from the liberal ideal of a free marketplace of ideas’ (p.39). Bellas, Downing, Downing and Taylor (1985) defined an oligopoly as ‘a market situation in which a few large firms, usually between three and eight, dominate a market’ (p.208), and these conditions are fulfilled within Australia’s newspaper industry. In 2002 just four newspaper owners dominated the nation’s national and capital city daily newspaper market (two prominently – News Limited and John Fairfax Holdings); four owners dominated the regional daily newspaper market; and three owners controlled 79.5 per cent of the suburban newspaper market (Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26). These figures are not discrete, however, as single owners in most cases owned newspapers in all markets. Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited, for example, had a 67.9 per cent share of national and capital city daily newspaper circulation in 2002, a 17.4 per cent share of regional daily newspaper circulation, and a 52 per cent share of suburban newspaper circulation (Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26).

For this review I have compared data on newspaper owners’ share of total circulation in specific markets for the eight years from 1995 through to 2002. These markets are used by the Communications Law Centre for its annual ‘Media Ownership Update’ (appearing in the Centre’s journal Communications Update) and are national and capital city daily newspapers, regional daily newspapers, suburban newspapers, national Saturday newspapers and national Sunday newspapers. The Communications Law Centre uses percentage share of circulation to gauge media ownership levels and makes no distinction between paid and free circulation in its calculations. Using the Centre’s data, I also compare circulation rises and falls across these markets.9

9 The Communications Law Centre confirmed with me (on 18 June 2004) that the circulation figures for metropolitan and regional daily newspapers quoted in this thesis were ‘per publication day, averaged for the week of publication’ for the period under review (1995 to 2002). To determine whether circulation within each newspaper market had increased or decreased, I compared circulation figures within each market only and not across markets for each year during the period (i.e. national capital city dailies were compared only to themselves, not with regional dailies, suburban newspapers, weekly newspapers etc).

All data for this review have been sourced from Communications Update issue number 107 (pp.20-24) for 1995; 118 (pp.18-22) for 1996; 129 (pp.22-26) for 1997; 140 (pp.24-27) for 1998; 151 (pp.22-24) for 1999; 162 (pp.22-24) for 2000; and 164 (pp.22-26) for 2002. The Communications Law Centre obtains this data from the Australian Audit Bureau of Circulations, company annual reports, company websites and newspaper websites (Communications Law Centre, 2002, p.22). This review uses the latest circulation figures available at the time of writing this thesis. The Centre advised (in e-mail communication with the author on 9 July 2003) that circulation figures for 2001 and 2003 were not compiled, mainly because of a lack of resources.

National and capital city daily newspaper ownership

On a national and capital city level, Murdoch’s 67.2 per cent circulation share of a 2,426,470 circulation in 1995 rose to a slightly higher 67.8 per cent of a 2,399,158 circulation by 2000, and then to 67.9 per cent of a 2,345,173 circulation by 2002. In 1995 Canadian Conrad Black (who then controlled John Fairfax Holdings) had 21.2 per cent of this circulation. Black subsequently relinquished his controlling share of the group, leaving John Fairfax Holdings (henceforth Fairfax) without a proprietor (Collins, 1999, p.43), although the group’s share of circulation jumped slightly to 21.4 per cent by 2000. Fairfax’s circulation in this market peaked in 1996 at 21.6 per cent, and it had regained that share – 21.6 per cent – by 2002. West Australian Newspaper Holdings (WANH) held 9.8 per cent of total circulation in 1995, slipping to 9.1 per cent in 2000 and then to 8.8 per cent by 2002. Australian Kerry Stokes’s ownership of The Canberra Times saw him control 1.8 per cent of circulation in 1995 and that newspaper, now controlled by Rural Press and J.B. Fairfax, obtained a 1.7 per cent share of circulation in 2000, a figure that remained the same in 2002. Through News Limited, Murdoch owns six of Australia’s 10 daily capital city newspapers. They are The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, The Herald-Sun in Melbourne, The Courier-Mail in Brisbane, The Advertiser in Adelaide, The Mercury in Hobart and The NT News in Darwin. (Murdoch also owns the daily national Australian and weekly Weekend Australian newspapers.) As in 1995, Murdoch currently holds newspaper monopolies in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin. Fairfax controls two daily capital city newspapers, The Sydney Morning 23

Herald and The Age in Melbourne. (Fairfax also publishes the daily national newspaper The Australian Financial Review.) The remaining two newspapers are Perth’s West Australian, owned by the WANH consortium, and the Australian Capital Territory’s Canberra Times. Table 2.1 gives all ownership shares of Australian national and capital city newspaper circulation from 1995 to 2002.10 Figure 2.1 is a graphical comparison of the ownership of Australia’s national and capital city daily newspapers (expressed as percentages of total circulation) from 1995 to 2002.

Regional daily newspaper ownership

In the regional daily newspaper market of 1995 Irishman Tony O’Reilly’s Australian Provincial News and Media (APN) controlled 31.3 per cent of a 646,166 circulation. By 2000 this decreased to a 29.9 per cent share of a 620,040 circulation, further decreasing to a 27.6 per cent share of a 586,137 circulation by 2002. News Limited controlled 21.8 per cent of circulation in 1995, moving up to a 23.4 per cent share in 2000, but falling to 17.4 per cent in 2002. (But this decrease is related more to News Limited divesting titles rather than losing circulation. The company sold Queensland’s North-West Star to Carpentaria Newspapers P/L between the 2000 and 2002 media ownership reviews, for example). Through Fairfax, Conrad Black controlled 14.8 per cent of regional daily newspaper circulation in 1995, Fairfax jumping to 15.4 per cent by 2000 and to 16.4 per cent by 2002. John B Fairfax controlled 12.5 per cent in 1995, combined with Rural Press in 1999, and controlled 14.9 per cent of circulation in 2000, with Rural Press then listed as owners and dropping to 8.3 per cent by 2002. The Harris Family controlled 4.0 per cent in 1995, this figure decreasing slightly to 3.9 per cent by 2000 but increasing to 4.1 per cent by 2002. Rural Press and the Harris Family jointly own The Examiner in Tasmania and through that newspaper controlled a further 6.0 per cent of circulation in 2002. John Armati controlled 3.3 per cent of circulation in 1995, but had sold his stake in regional newspapers by 1996. WANH controlled 1.2 per cent of circulation in 1995,

10 If the percentage shares quoted are added, in some cases they do not total exactly 100 per cent. As circulation figures, often in millions, are quoted to within one unit, this disparity occurs because the original authors rounded percentage shares either up or down as they were calculated. Note also that circulation figures quoted for each year refer to circulation as at December in the preceding year.

24 this figure dropping slightly to 1.1 per cent by 2000, a figure that remained the same in 2002.

In its 2002 media ownership review, the Communications Law Centre also listed smaller owners of regional daily newspapers, these companies including: Independent Newspapers Ltd, Border Mail P/L, Barrier Industrial Council, Riverina Media Group, Carpentaria Newspapers, Elliott Newspaper Group and McPherson Media Group. Together these owners accounted for 19.8 per cent of this market’s circulation in 2002. Table 2.2 gives all ownership shares of Australian regional daily newspaper circulation from 1995 to 2002. Figure 2.2 is a graphical comparison of the ownership of Australia’s regional daily newspapers (expressed as percentages of total circulation) from 1995 to 2002.

Suburban newspaper ownership

In 1995’s suburban newspaper market News Limited controlled 47.8 per cent of a 6,027,849 circulation. This figure was down slightly by 2000, being 46.6 per cent of a 6,432,665 circulation, but rose to a 52.0 per cent share of a 7,061,436 circulation by 2002. In 1995 Black controlled 16.2 per cent of suburban newspaper circulation through Fairfax, Fairfax dropping to 14.3 per cent in 1999, rising to 18.1 per cent in 2000, but falling slightly to 17.0 per cent by 2002. United Media/WANH controlled 8.3 per cent in 1995, up to 9.0 per cent in 2000. By 2002 News Limited had purchased United Media’s stake in this partnership and as News Limited/WANH the company held a 10.5 per cent share of this circulation by 2002. The Boyle Family controlled 4.0 per cent in 1995, dropping to 3.5 per cent by 1999, and was not listed as owners in 2000 or 2002. John B Fairfax and the Hannan Family jointly controlled 2.7 per cent in 1995, gaining to 3.5 per cent in 1999, and, as Hannan Family/Rural Press, gained again to control 5.2 per cent in 2000. But the Hannan Family and Rural Press were not listed as owners in 2002. APN controlled 2.3 per cent of suburban newspaper circulation in 1995, up to 3.9 per cent by 1999, but dropping to 2.9 per cent by 2000. APN was not listed as a suburban newspaper owner in 2002. Independent News P/L controlled 1.7 per cent in 1995, up to 2.5 per cent in 2000, a figure that remained the same in 2002. The Harris Family controlled 1.0 per cent of circulation in 1995, but had sold out of suburban newspapers by 25

1999. Owners who have acquired (or established) titles since 1995 include Text Media, with 3 per cent of circulation; the Thomas Family, with 2.9 per cent; and Southern Cross, with 0.8 per cent. By 2002, the listings of smaller independent owners of suburban newspapers had grown to 11, these owners having a combined 13.5 per cent circulation share. Table 2.3 gives all ownership shares of Australian suburban newspaper circulation from 1995 to 2002. Figure 2.3 is a graphical comparison of the ownership of Australia’s suburban newspapers (expressed as percentages of total circulation) from 1995 to 2002.

Saturday newspaper ownership

Saturday newspapers in this review are taken from capital city and national dailies and do not take into account Saturday editions of regional newspapers. The newspapers (with their owners in brackets) are The Sydney Morning Herald (Fairfax) and The Daily Telegraph (News Limited) in New South Wales; The Herald Sun (News Limited) and The Age (Fairfax) in Victoria; The Courier-Mail (News Limited) in Queensland; The Advertiser (News Limited) in South Australia; The West Australian (WANH) in Western Australia; The Mercury (News Limited) in Tasmania; The Northern Territory News (News Limited) in the Northern Territory; and The Canberra Times (Rural Press/JB Fairfax) in the Australian Capital Territory. National newspapers, The Weekend Australian (News Limited) and the Weekend Financial Review (Fairfax), which was first published in September 1997, are also included.

Not surprisingly, since News Limited owns most of the titles being reviewed, it is that company that far outstrips others in circulation share of Saturday newspapers in Australia, commanding 60.8 per cent of a 3,054,917 circulation in 1995, dropping only marginally to a 59.8 per cent share of a 3,171,735 circulation by 2000, increasing to 60 per cent of a 3,105,017 circulation by 2002.11 News Limited’s nearest competitor in the Saturday newspaper market is, once again, the Fairfax group, which controlled a 22.4 per cent share of circulation in 1995, rising to a 25.7 per cent share by 2000 and rising again to a 26 per cent share by 2002. WANH

11 The Communications Law Centre’s media ownership update rounded percentage figures to whole numbers in 2002. 26 controlled 12.4 per cent of the market in 1995, dropping to 12.2 per cent by 2000, and, partnered by News Limited, remained relatively stable at 12 per cent by 2002. Kerry Stokes’s Canberra Times accounted for 2.2 per cent of circulation in 1995 – that figure remaining the same when he sold the title in 1998. With Rural Press and JB Fairfax at the helm in 1999 and 2000, The Canberra Times still accounted for 2.2 per cent of circulation in both these years, and accounted for 2 per cent of circulation by 2002. Table 2.4 gives all ownership shares of Australian Saturday newspaper circulation from 1995 to 2002. Figure 2.4 is a graphical comparison of the ownership of Australia’s Saturday newspapers (expressed as percentages of total circulation) from 1995 to 2002.

Sunday newspaper ownership

Sunday newspapers in this review are The Sun Herald (Fairfax) and The Sunday Telegraph (News Limited) in New South Wales; The Sunday Herald-Sun (News Limited) and The Sunday Age (Fairfax) in Victoria; The Sunday Mail (News Limited) in Queensland; The Sunday Mail (News Limited) in South Australia; The Sunday Times (News Limited) in Western Australia; The Sunday Tasmanian (News Limited) in Tasmania; The Sunday Territorian (News Limited) in the Northern Territory; and The Canberra Times (Rural Press/JB Fairfax) in the Australian Capital Territory. Australia supports no national Sunday newspapers at this time (for this review weekend editions of national newspapers are counted as Saturday newspapers).

Again, not surprisingly, as News Limited owns seven of the 10 Sunday titles, it is that company that holds the greater majority of circulation – 75.7 per cent of a 3,278,382 circulation in 1995 rising to 76.1 per cent of a 3,450,460 circulation in 2000 and to 77 per cent of a 3,448,531 circulation by 2002. News Limited’s nearest competitor is, again, Fairfax, with a 23.1 per cent share of circulation in 1995, dropping to 22.8 per cent in 2000 and remaining at 22 per cent in 2002. Stokes controlled 1.1 per cent of Sunday newspaper circulation in 1995, selling his Canberra Times to Rural Press/JB Fairfax in 1998, with the latter company maintaining a 1.1 per cent share of circulation in 2000 and again a 1 per cent share in 2002. WANH are also credited with a 1.1 per cent share of circulation in 2000. Table 27

2.5 gives all ownership shares of Australian Sunday newspaper circulation from 1995 to 2002. Figure 2.5 is a graphical comparison of the ownership of Australia’s Sunday newspapers (expressed as percentages of total circulation) from 1995 to 2002.

Owner share (%) of Australian national and capital city daily newspaper circulation Total circulation News Ltd Fairfax WANH Stokes Rural Press/ JB Fairfax 1995 2,426,470 67.2 21.2 9.8 1.8 1996 2,390,677 67.4 21.0 9.8 1.7 1997 2,422,279 66.9 21.6 9.7 1.7 1998 2,425,513 66.0 22.0 10.0 2 1999 2,423,251 67.6 21.5 9.2 1.7 2000 2,399,158 67.8 21.4 9.1 1.7 2002 2,345,173 67.9 21.6 8.8 1.7

Table 2.1 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian national and capital city newspaper circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Owner share (%) of Australian regional daily newspaper circulation Total APN News Ltd Fairfax JB Rural Harris Rural John WANH Others circulation Fairfax Press/JB Family Press/ Armati Fairfax Harris Family 1995 646,166 31.3 21.8 14.8 12.5 4.0 3.3 1.2 11.1 1996 640,565 30.8 22.2 15.2 15.5 3.9 1.3 11.0 1997 634,516 30.9 22.2 14.7 15.6 4.0 1.2 11.2 1998 626,794 30.7 22.8 14.8 14.9 4.0 1.2 11.6 1999 620,040 30.0 23.3 14.9 14.9 4.0 1.2 11.7 2000 621,182 29.9 23.4 15.4 14.9 3.9 1.1 11.4 2002 586,137 27.6 17.4 16.4 8.3 4.1 6.0 1.1 19.8

Table 2.2 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian regional daily newspaper circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Owner share (%) of Australian suburban newspaper circulation Total News Fairfax United Media/ APN Boyle Hannan/ Text Ind Harris Rural Hannan/ Others circulation Ltd WANH Family JB Media News Family Press/ Rural (News Ltd / Fairfax P/L JB Press WANH in Fairfax 2002) 1995 6,027,849 47.8 16.2 8.3 2.3 4.0 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.5 15.2 1996 6,205,789 48.8 16.4 8.3 3.6 4.0 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.5 12.8 1997 6,296,921 47.9 15.4 8.9 3.7 3.6 n/a 1.5 1.0 0.5 12.4 1998 6,787,802 47.9 15.4 8.9 3.7 3.6 2.6 2.4 1.5 1.0 0.5 12.4 1999 6,959,823 46.2 14.3 8.8 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 n/a 2000 6,432,665 46.6 18.1 9.0 2.9 2.5 5.2 n/a 2002 7,061,436 52.0 17.0 10.5 2.5 13.5

Table 2.3 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian suburban newspaper circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22- 24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Owner share (%) of Australian Saturday newspaper circulation Total circulation News Ltd Fairfax WANH Rural Press/ Stokes JB Fairfax 1995 3,054,917 60.9 22.4 12.4 2.2 1996 3,034,776 61.3 23.9 12.5 2.3 1997 3,075,246 60.7 24.5 12.5 2.3 1998 3,186,145 58.9 26.6 12.2 2.2 1999 3,192,997 59.5 26.1 12.1 2.2 2000 3,171,735 59.8 25.7 12.2 2.2 2002 3,105,017 60.0 26.0 12.0 2.0

Table 2.4 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian Saturday newspaper circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22- 24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Owner share (%) of Australian Sunday newspaper circulation Total circulation News Ltd Fairfax Rural Press/ Stokes WANH JB Fairfax 1995 3,278,382 75.7 23.1 1.1 1996 3,295,262 76.2 22.5 1.2 1997 3,362,703 76.4 22.5 1.2 1998 3,425,307 75.7 23.1 1.2 1999 3,478,301 75.6 23.3 1.1 2000 3,450,460 76.1 22.8 1.1 1.1 2002 3,448,531 77.0 22.0 1.0

Table 2.5 - Owner share (in per cent) of Australian Sunday newspaper circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22- 24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Owner share (%) of Australian national and capital city daily newspaper circulation 1995-2002

% of circulation 30

0 News Ltd Fairfax WANH Stokes Rural Press/ JB Fairfax News organisation

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002

Figure 2.1 - Australian national and capital city daily newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26. 32

Owner share (%) of Australian regional daily newspaper circulation 1995-2002

15 % of circulation

0 APN News Ltd Fairfax JB Fairfax Rural Press/JB Harris Family Rural Press/ John Armati WANH Others Fairfax Harris Family News organisation

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002

Figure 2.2 - Australian regional daily newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26. 33

Owner share (%) of Australian suburban newspaper circulation 1995-2002

% of circulation 20

0 News Ltd Fairfax United APN Boyle Family Hannan/ JB Text Media Ind News P/L Harris Family Rural Press/ Hannan/ Others Media/ Fairfax JB Fairfax Rural Press WANH (News Ltd / WANH in 2002) News organisation

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002

Figure 2.3 - Australian suburban newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20- 24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Owner share (%) of Australian Saturday newspaper circulation 1995-2002

30 % of circulation

0 News Ltd Fairfax WANH Rural Press/ JB Fairfax Stokes News organisation

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002

Figure 2.4 - Australian Saturday newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Owner share (%) of Australian Sunday newspaper circulation 1995-2002

40 % of circulation 30

0 News Ltd Fairfax Rural Press/ JB Fairfax Stokes WANH News organisation

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002

Figure 2.5 - Australian Sunday newspaper ownership (1995 - 2002) expressed as percentages of circulation. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Interpretation of newspaper ownership data

It can be seen from these data that Murdoch’s News Limited is the most significant newspaper owner in Australia, with that company’s dominance of circulation bettered only in the regional daily newspaper market. It can also be seen that, following the shake-out of the nation’s newspaper industry from the mid-1980s to early 1990s, when 12 newspapers closed12 or merged with other titles and 1200 journalists’ positions went with them (see Rodgers, 1994, and Chadwick, 1994a), the ownership structure of the nation’s press has not changed significantly in the eight years from 1995 to 2002 inclusive. Exceptions are ownership changes to The Canberra Times in the national market, one merger and one sell out in the lower end of the regional daily market, and a handful of sell outs and new titles established at the lower end of the suburban newspaper market. Importantly, in the national and capital city daily and in the Saturday and Sunday newspaper markets there were no independent newspaper publishers. In the regional daily newspaper market, independent owners controlled 11.1 per cent of circulation in 1995, a figure that rose to 19.8 per cent by 2002. In the suburban newspaper market in 1995 independent owners controlled 15.5 per cent of circulation. This dropped slightly to 13.5 per cent by 2002. The criteria of an oligopoly as defined by Bellas et al. (1985, p.208) are still fulfilled, however, as each of these independent owners controls less than 1.0 per cent of their respective markets.

While literature points to the concentration of Australia’s press as beginning with the buyout of several newspaper titles by Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited in the 1980s (I refer particularly to Henderson’s (1989, pp.199-207) suggestion that ‘Murdochphobia’ had become endemic in Australia at that time because of this), I would argue that Australia’s newspaper landscape, save for the early 1900s (see below), has not been served by anything other than an oligopoly of newspaper

12 Since 1987 the following newspapers have closed: The Times on Sunday, The Sunday Herald, the Sydney Sun, Sydney’s Daily Mirror, the Brisbane Telegraph, Brisbane’s Sunday Sun and Daily Sun, Perth’s Daily News, the Adelaide News and the Business Daily – all owned by Murdoch and closed due to ‘rationalisation’ (Henningham, 1993, p.66); the privately run Sunday Observer; and Holmes à Court’s Western Mail (Henningham, 1993, p.66; Macphee, 1990, p.36; and Chadwick, 1992a, p.45). Henningham (1993) said the early 1990s witnessed ‘the worst period of newspaper closures ever experienced in Australia’ (p.66) with only Sydney and Melbourne having competing daily newspapers (Chadwick, 1992a, p.45).

37 owners. The data garnered for this review of newspaper ownership cover the period from 1995 to 2002, but in that time newspaper ownership in Australia has been relatively stable. Indeed, Branigan (1998) argued media ownership in Australia ‘appears to have been remarkably stable’ for the past ‘40 years’ (p.54). It would be of value to obtain a snapshot of newspaper ownership prior to the News Limited buyouts of the 1980s and, fortunately, this was provided by the Communications Law Centre in the February 1998 issue of its journal Communications Update. The journal noted that in December 1986 there were but three owners of Australia’s national and capital city newspapers: the Herald and Weekly Times group (HWT), which controlled 48 per cent of circulation; News Limited, which controlled 28 per cent; and Fairfax, which controlled 24 per cent. The makeup of the national newspaper landscape in 1986 looked like this:

Australian national and capital city newspaper ownership 1986

Herald and Weekly Times 48% Fairfax 24%

News Limited 28%

Figure 2.6 - Australian national and capital city newspaper ownership (expressed as percentages of circulation) in 1986. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1998, p.28.

Barr (2000) argued that the pattern of concentrated newspaper ownership began as early as the 1940s when ‘around 40 per cent of all newspapers sold in Australia were published by the Herald group’ (p.2). Indeed, Barr (2000) cited a measurable progression towards newspaper ownership concentration since the early 1900s, saying:

There has been an increasing tendency towards press oligopoly in Australia. In 1903 the 21 capital city daily newspapers were owned by seventeen independent owners; in 1960 the fourteen daily newspapers had seven owners; and by 1999, two groups owned ten of the twelve dailies in Australia… This pattern of concentrated ownership and control was again perpetuated in the 1950s and 1960s, when predominantly the same groups were successful in gaining most of the lucrative metropolitan television licences, having a legacy of strong cross-media ownership… The bulk of ownership of Australian daily newspapers now resides with only two companies, News Corporation and Fairfax Ltd, with only the West Australian and Canberra Times remaining under separate ownership… Australia’s pattern of media ownership and control has thus long been essentially one of power residing in the hands of a few well-established corporations, with highly interlinking patterns of ownership and interests. (pp.2-3)

By 2002, the national newspaper landscape looked like this:

Australian national and capital city newspaper ownership 2002 Rural Press 2%

WANH 9%

Fairfax News Limited 22% 67%

Figure 2.7 - Australian national and capital city newspaper ownership (expressed as percentages of circulation) in 2002. Source: Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

It is important to consider, in terms of structural diversity, that 1986 provided the public with a greater number of newspaper titles, albeit produced by one fewer owners. In that year 19 national and capital city newspapers were published: HWT published eight; News Limited published six and Fairfax published five. By 1998 this had decreased to 12 titles: News Limited published seven; Fairfax published 39 three and WANH and Kerry Stokes published one each (Communications Law Centre, 1998, p.28). Nothing had changed by 2002, save for Stokes’ selling The Canberra Times to Rural Press/JB Fairfax.

One must also consider the titles controlled by ‘Others’ in this newspaper ownership review. Independent control of circulation in suburban newspapers is significant, as high as 15.2 per cent in 1995. Similarly, independent control of circulation in regional daily newspapers ranges from 11.1 per cent in 1995, up to 19.8 per cent by 2002. This is a point that was reinforced by major newspaper owners to both the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting. The latter inquiry concurred, although its conclusions carried an important corollary: ‘[a]lthough the Australian media industry is widely perceived as highly concentrated, it actually consists of a large number of companies. However, relatively few firms have a substantial presence’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.82).

This newspaper ownership analysis also provides data that do not generally support arguments that newspaper circulation is in decline. For example, Morris (1996) argued Australia’s ‘daily newspaper industry is facing the cumulative effects of a continuing decline in the per capita circulation, a decline in actual circulation figures for its weekday editions…an ageing readership, and an increase in newsprint prices’ (p.10). Table 6 shows circulation patterns for all newspaper categories, 1995 to 2002, while Figure 2.8 represents this information graphically. 40

Circulation trends across Australian newspapers National & capital city Regional dailies Suburban Saturday Sunday dailies 1995 2,426,470 646,166 6,027,849 3,054,917 3,278,382 1996 2,390,677 640,565 6,205,789 3,034,776 3,295,262 1997 2,422,279 634,516 6,296,921 3,075,246 3,362,703 1998 2,425,513 626,794 6,787,802 3,186,145 3,425,307 1999 2,423,251 620,040 6,959,823 3,192,997 3,478,301 2000 2,399,158 621,182 6,432,665 3,171,735 3,450,460 2002 2,345,173 586,137 7,061,436 3,105,017 3,448,531

Table 2.6 - Circulation trends across Australian newspapers. Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26.

Circulation trends across Australian newspapers 1995-2002

8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000 Circulation 3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0 National & capital Regional dailies Suburban Saturday Sunday city dailies Newspaper market

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002

Figure 2.8 - Circulation trends of Australian newspapers (1995 - 2002). Source: Communications Law Centre, 1995, pp.20-24; Communications Law Centre, 1996, pp.18-22; Communications Law Centre, 1997, pp.22-26; Communications Law Centre, 1998, pp.24-27; Communications Law Centre, 1999a, pp.22-24; Communications Law Centre, 2000, pp.22-24 and Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26. 42

At a glance it would appear that the circulation of national and capital city daily newspapers and regional daily newspapers has remained relatively stable and Saturday and Sunday newspaper circulations have increased over the eight-year period. Suburban newspapers, meanwhile, obtained the most dramatic increase in circulation, by more than 1 million from 1996 to 2002. On circulation figures, suburban newspapers and Saturday and Sunday newspapers have all increased their circulation in the 1995 to 2002 period. National and capital city daily and regional daily newspapers have declined in circulation. Statistically:

• Sunday newspapers have had a net increase of 170,149, or 5.19 per cent • Saturday newspapers have had a net increase of 50,100, or 1.64 per cent • Suburban newspapers have had a net increase of 1,033,587, or 17.14 per cent • Regional daily newspapers have had a net decrease of 60,029 or 9.29 per cent, and • National and capital city daily newspapers have had a net decrease of 81,297, or 3.35 per cent.

Hippocrates (1999) attributed growing weekend circulation to changing lifestyles, saying:

the circulation of most metropolitan daily newspapers Monday to Friday is falling or stagnant. The only growth in circulation movement in newspapers in Australia seems to be at the weekend with Saturday and Sunday circulations continuing to rise as people’s reading habits change to reflect new media usage patterns and lifestyle choices. (p.74)

My experience with a weekly newspaper owned by my family since 1960 – the 100- year-old Guardian in the Whitsundays in north Queensland – prompts me to comment further on newspaper circulation statistics where these apply to free newspapers. The Guardian, a paid newspaper, had an audited circulation of 3030 as at December 2003. One of its competitors, the free weekly Whitsunday Times, claimed a far greater 7500 unaudited circulation in the same market as at December 2003.13 But it has long been suspected this larger circulation is made possible by a

13 Circulation statistics are quoted from an editorial ‘imprint’ in The Guardian, 31 December 2003, p.2 and a ‘house’ advertisement in The Whitsunday Times, 18 December 2003, p.32. 43 longer print run, many extra copies from which have been seen lying in unopened parcels on street corners or undisturbed on shop counters. I have done no formal research on this issue, but this experience (along with my experience in having free suburban newspapers placed in my Brisbane letterbox each week), suggests that the above statistics need to be viewed carefully. The circulation increase for suburban newspapers, for example, is 17.14 per cent – disproportionately high compared with the other markets quoted. With the Communication Law Centre’s statistics providing no distinction between free and paid newspapers, one might question whether such circulation increases (where they apply to free newspapers) relate more to increases in the number of newspapers printed rather than genuine circulation, with many of these extra copies similarly lying unopened on street corners or unread in letterboxes.

Also, this review shows newspaper circulation trends over a period of just eight years. Circulation data over a longer period, say 30 years, would allow a more conclusive test of Branigan’s (1998) assertion that since the 1970s newspapers had begun ‘their long circulation decline’ (p.55). Notwithstanding my cautionary comments regarding the nature of the above statistics, the review does suggest claims like those of Hargreaves (1999), who said: ‘Whether or not the end of history is at hand, it is now incontestable that newspapers are in long-term decline’ (p.51), are somewhat premature in the Australian context.

In summary, this review shows that just four newspaper owners exclusively control the national and capital city daily newspaper market; four owners dominate in the regional daily newspaper market; three owners dominate in the suburban newspaper market; four owners exclusively control the Saturday newspaper market; and the same four owners exclusively control the Sunday newspaper market. The criteria of an oligopoly as defined by Bellas et al. (1985, p.208) are fulfilled, therefore, in all markets.

Maintaining the oligopoly

Why has this oligopoly occurred? Literature suggests five main reasons:

• the economic system • economies of scale • globalism • the justification and maintenance of the oligopoly by newspaper owners, and • political support for those owners at the highest level.

In Siebert, Peterson and Schramm’s (1956) often-quoted dictum, the press takes on ‘the form and coloration of the social and political structure within which it operates’ (p.1). Thus, unsurprisingly, in a market economy the press tends to conform to the economic processes that underpin that economy. Bellas et al. (1985), for example, said ‘constant competition’ among firms in a market economy would lead ‘to the elimination of less efficient firms’ (p.27). The remaining firms would then merge to gain advantages from economies of scale (Bellas et al., 1985, p.27). For the press, these economies include reductions in costs through shared correspondents, shared wire services, shared transport and bulk newsprint (Windschuttle, 1988, p.93). The Print Media Inquiry found press ownership in Australia ‘appeared to be driven by economic forces’, primarily economies of scale, ‘which inexorably favour monopoly newspapers in a particular market and group ownership of newspapers in different markets’ (Chadwick, 1992b, p.1). Armstrong (1992) contended that economies of scale were ‘natural economies’ that pushed the media toward ownership concentration (p.4) and, thus, strengthened the oligopoly. Brown (1991) argued that economies of scale contributed ‘to the tendency towards the common ownership of newspaper titles in different markets [and] across markets’ (p.119).

These markets have now become global in scale. Hughes (1997) said the communications industry, generally, was ‘clearly in globalism’ (p.78), defining the term as ‘a shift in control of national economies…from national governments to multinational corporations’ (p.78). Hughes (1997) said Australia’s press, which exhibited ‘concentrated ownership and a decreasing number of hands’, was the 45

‘classic example’ of globalism (p.79). Citing News Limited, which is ‘now controlled from Murdoch’s New York headquarters’, Hughes (1997) said globalism led to the ownership of media becoming more concentrated with ‘webs of cross- ownership, making it easier for major players to increase in size and scope…leading to further market power’ (pp.79-80).

Morris (1996) said a crucial factor about the dynamics of newspaper economics was that, unlike other mass media, newspaper advertising was regarded by many readers as ‘information’ (p.15). He said that, rather than circulation increases coming purely from ‘more attractive editorial’, additional advertising would build readership, setting in motion ‘an upward spiral’ that ‘many dominant daily newspapers around the world’ used to gain ‘market power to force out weaker competitors and eventually become monopolies’ (Morris, 1996, pp.15-16). Market proponents justify the benefits of increased market size and globalism by claiming the benefits the economies of scale generate accrue to readers, who can buy cheaper and ‘more comprehensive’ newspapers; advertisers, who gain from lower advertising rates; shareholders, who receive higher profits; and the editorial staff of newspapers, who gain better pay and conditions (Officer, 1991, pp.1541-1542).

Finally, when those in political office need the support of the market-based press, it is more than likely that they will themselves support that press, and, therefore, the oligopoly that the market has created. In 1988, for example, United States President Ronald Reagan described a move by the US Congress to force a- just-turned-American-citizen Rupert Murdoch to divest either his US television or US newspaper holdings as ‘a blow to free speech’ (Communications Law Centre, 1988, p.32).14 In an Australian context, in 2002 Murdoch cancelled a proposed meeting in New York with Australian Prime Minister John Howard when he learned Howard wanted to discuss Australian media ownership laws (Romei, 2002, p.2).

14 Formerly an Australian, Rupert Murdoch became a US citizen on 4 September 1985, the suggestion being that US citizenship opened the way to greater US media ownership for him (Tuccille, 1989, p.138). 46

The late Dr Jim Cairns, former Treasurer in the Whitlam Labor Government, which suffered at the hands of the Murdoch press, claimed:

it is now not possible for a government in Australia to be elected, or remain in office, if opposed by the media complex. In general, and in this sense, it’s the media that now determines who governs Australia. (Tiffen, 1989, p.1)

Various Australian governments’ failure to enact any real changes following numerous media inquiries since 1980 and up to the Print Media Inquiry (Chadwick, 1992c, p.3) – and we wait to see with the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting – seems to indicate that governments are wary about legislation that would dilute Australia’s newspaper oligopoly. Overall, Hartley (1996) contended that the free market press had ‘only ever existed inside a framework of state regulation and government interference’ that resulted in ‘a continuous cha-cha between editors and governors’ (p.37) and former Fairfax editorial executive Max Suich suggested that the ‘relationship between politicians and media barons’ was ‘not so much favours exchanged as thunderbolts withheld’ (Duffy, 1998, p.8).

Chapter 3

Deliberating on diversity

Ownership concentration in media markets is a significant economic, social and cultural issue in Australia and many other countries, according to the Productivity Commission (2000, p.303). This goes some way towards explaining the conundrum that while Australian governments may support individual media owners, they have also enacted a number of media inquiries to try to determine the nature and effects of media ownership – doubtless assisted in no small way by public pressure to do so. This chapter uses two major Australian media inquiries, the 1991- 92 House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media (the Print Media Inquiry) and the 2000 Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting, to discuss diversity in Australia’s news media. By comparing and contrasting submissions to, the reports of and the recommendations from these inquiries, the chapter examines how these inquiries interpreted diversity; what relationship they saw between structural and content diversity (particularly whether they saw the two as necessarily connected); and how their recommendations worked to promote diversity. From these enquiries a definition of diversity is distilled upon which further research is based.

This exercise is germane to the research question for three reasons. First, while there have been other media inquiries in Australia since 1980 (see below), these two inquiries were the only ones to include, substantially, the major players in Australia’s news media industry: News Limited, PBL and Fairfax, particularly. Secondly, a period of nearly ten years exists between the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting and comparing and contrasting both inquiries has an intrinsic value in determining what shifts in thinking have occurred in that time. And thirdly, the Productivity Commission is, so far, the only wide-ranging media inquiry to deal with the new media environment. Both inquiries examined a number of common issues relating to diversity and these are used as a framework for this chapter’s discussions. 48

Australian media inquiries

The Victorian State Government conducted the first formal investigation into Australia’s newspapers, the Norris Inquiry, in 1980. This inquiry found ‘increasing concentration’ of newspaper ownership in Victoria and warned of ‘the power of a few proprietors to influence the opinion of society’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xv). None of the recommendations of the Norris Inquiry was implemented (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xv). Ten years on, in July 1990, Victorian Attorney-General Jim Kennan established a Working Party into Print Media Ownership to examine ‘the extent of concentration of ownership and control of newspapers in Victoria’ (Mathews, Burns, Walker & Chadwick, 1991, p.12). The recommendations of that working party were also ignored (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xv). Another significant inquiry took place in 1994 with the Federal Senate’s Inquiry into Foreign Ownership of the Media. This inquiry followed comments by then Fairfax controller Conrad Black (a Canadian) about a ‘commitment’ made to him by then Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating prior to the 1993 federal election. The inquiry found that Keating attempted to improperly influence the political coverage of Fairfax newspapers by holding out to Black the prospect of increased investment in Fairfax in return for election coverage positive to the Labor government (Chadwick, 1994b, p.16). And in 2000, the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies looked at media self-regulation (Senate Information Technology Committee, 2000). Yet these inquiries, while formal in the sense that they were initiated and conducted by government, essentially examined the periphery of Australia’s newspaper industry. Only the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting have had terms of reference broad enough to provide nation-wide reviews of the major players in the industry.

The Print Media Inquiry

The Print Media Inquiry was initiated at the June 1991 Australian Labor Party Conference in Hobart, when Labor Senator Bruce Childs moved:

The Labor Government will convene a full public inquiry into the state of the media print industry in Australia…the inquiry will examine the extent to which ownership of various sectors of the industry provides a bar to entry for would-be alternatives as well as examining what, if any, regulations should be introduced to limit or arrest concentration of ownership in the industry. (Henderson, 1991, p.3)

Highlighting Childs’s words that the inquiry would be ‘examining what, if any, regulations [my italics] should be introduced’ – and recalling the polarity of pluralists and market proponents examined in Chapter 2, particularly that pluralists believe intervention in the press is justified (McQuail, 1987, p.152) and that market proponents argue ‘any…regulation of the media is not on’ (Gee, 1989, p.11) – it is not difficult to understand why the inquiry became, essentially, a debate between pluralists seeking regulation to curb the influence of Australia’s market-based press oligopoly and the principal actor within that oligopoly, News Limited. Indeed, by virtue of its monopoly status in many Australian states, News Limited was discussed almost exclusively in submissions to the inquiry, and, even before the inquiry began, Henderson (1989) foreshadowed that it would be a response to the ‘Murdochphobia’ that he saw as endemic in Australia at that time (pp.199-207).

The Select Committee conducting the Print Media Inquiry was asked to ‘inquire and report on’ a number of issues affecting diversity. These included structural factors in the newspaper industry inhibiting competition between publications, distribution and information gathering, barriers to entry, and legislation and practices to foster structural diversity in the industry (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xiv). In its report, News & Fair Facts, delivered on 5 March 1992, the Committee acknowledged the ‘major concern’ raised by 164 submissions and 72 witnesses (Schultz, 1992, p.54) was that ‘ownership concentration’ in the industry was inherently detrimental, particularly in preventing ‘society’s access to a plurality of views’, often through newspaper owners’ biased reporting and the suppression of views that conflicted with their interests (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxvii). But acknowledgment never became agreement. The Committee ultimately found there was ‘insufficient evidence to conclude [these factors had] resulted in biased reporting, news suppression or a lack of diversity’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxii).

This led to a wave of negative reaction against the inquiry itself. The five Opposition members of the Select Committee called the inquiry a ‘sideshow’ that was ‘absorbed in a matter in which it should not have been involved’ and was ‘driven by blatant political considerations’ (HRSCPM, 1992, pp.345-346). Former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser labelled the inquiry a ‘farce’ (Simper, 1992, p.17). Chadwick (1992a) questioned its usefulness, saying the Labor Government was ‘reluctant about any inquiry’ and wanted ‘to keep this one under control’ (p.51). Schultz (1992) described it as ‘a political sop’ (p.53). And, in a lecture to students at the Queensland University of Technology on 21 July 1993, Cunningham called the inquiry a ‘whitewash’. (The Print Media Inquiry will be discussed in greater depth later in this chapter.)

The Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting

Like the Print Media Inquiry, the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting began with political ruminations, having started as a Liberal Party commitment to examine the nation’s news media (MEAA, 1996, p.3), becoming a nascent inquiry – the Cross Media Review – in its own right before being scuttled by party dissent (Collins & Lewis, 1999, p.3 and Cryle, 1998, p.79), and eventually finding form under the auspices of the independent Australian Productivity Commission. The Commission received 305 submissions and delivered its report on 3 March 2000.

The Productivity Commission’s terms of reference included:

• ‘to advise on practical courses of action to improve competition, efficiency and the interests of consumers in broadcasting services’ while having ‘due regard to the phenomenon of technological convergence to the extent that it may impact upon broadcasting markets’

• to ‘identify what legislation restricts competition’, and

• to determine ‘preferred option[s] for regulation’ including ‘non-legislative approaches’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.iv-v).

The use of the words ‘non-legislative approaches’, which did not appear in the Print Media Inquiry’s terms of reference, may indicate a recognition that changes in the nature of the media industries since the former inquiry took place have made media- specific legislation difficult. Hughes (1997), for example, exemplified the view that convergence and globalism brought challenges for governments seeking to regulate the media (p.79). He said media regulation rested on the belief ‘that communications companies operated within just one sector’ such as ‘publishing’ or ‘broadcasting’, but said communications were ‘increasingly a cross-sectorial activity’ making it difficult for governments to enact or enforce media regulation (Hughes, 1997, p.80). Because ‘communications companies’ increasingly operated in an international environment their activities were ‘outside the reach of national governments’ (Hughes, 1997, p.80).

Parallel with (and no doubt contributing to) media globalisation has been the rise of the Internet, which in 2002 was estimated to host between five and 10 thousand news media sites (The Online Newspaper Directory, 2002). At the same time, countries like Australia, the USA, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Japan are struggling none-too-successfully with Internet regulation (Colucci, 2002, pp.5-8 and White, 2001, p.32). In the Australian context, Kerry Packer said there was ‘no longer a need for foreign ownership laws and cross-media laws’ as ‘the Internet makes them redundant’ (Collins & Lewis, 1999, p.3). This represented a significant turnaround by Packer, who owns Channel 9 and had previously been recognised as a ‘long time opponent of liberalising foreign investment laws’ (Collins & Lewis, 1999, p.3). Packer’s son, James, continued the call, saying: ‘It’s time that our regulatory environment caught up with reality’ (Gluyas, 1999, p.25). But to look at ‘non- legislative approaches’ may also indicate a tacit acknowledgement by the Productivity Commission of the market-based media’s argument that the market itself could ensure a diverse media industry. As was discussed in Chapter 2, this latter argument has for many years run counter to the arguments of the proponents of pluralism.

As one of the terms of reference for the Productivity Commission’s inquiry was to ascertain the impact of convergence on the media industry generally, and bearing in mind that many of the Commission’s deliberations and recommendations on diversity (shortly to be discussed) considered convergence throughout, it is prudent here to summarise how various media groups and the Commission itself defined convergence and what effects it had on diversity.

Defining convergence and its effects

The Productivity Commission’s inquiry not only provided definitions of convergence, but also showed that the term meant different things to different media players. Quoting various sources, the Commission suggested that convergence was the result of digital technology in media and communications; was underpinned by that technology; blurred industry sectors and various media forms and drew media together to become a single entity (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.105). The Commission referred to a UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport and Department of Trade and Industry paper that said convergence was ‘often used to refer to a blurring of previously clear technical boundaries between types of service operation and their means of delivery, and between types of data such as text, audio and video’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.105-106). It also drew from Massachusetts Institute of Technology media laboratory director Nicholas Negroponte’s ‘vision’ of ‘the joint metamorphosis’ of ‘all communication technologies’ that could ‘only be understood properly if treated as a single subject, and only advanced properly if treated as a single craft’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.105-106). But the Commission also quoted communications and information technology analyst Stewart Fist, who argued:

We seem to be endowing the terms ‘digital’, ‘convergence’ and ‘diversity’ with some mythical significance. No one ever defines what these words really mean. Instead they just treat them with special reverence as if they are saying something highly significant about supposed changes in the way the world operates. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.105)

The Commission itself noted that the ‘ongoing effects’ of convergence remained ‘speculative’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.105). 53

Key players in the Commission’s inquiry had differing views on convergence. Some saw convergence ‘only in the context of new media forms or services’, with Fairfax proposing that convergence meant ‘that all communications are or can be digital. Hence, the common platform for all communications – broadcast, narrowcast, telephone, cable, Internet, satellite and microwave – is digital and not analogue’ (Productivity Commission, 2000. p.107). PBL, meanwhile, saw convergence as a corporate-level phenomenon, noting the emergence of ‘huge transnational companies who have become active participants in global media businesses’ including ‘software developers, Internet service providers and telecommunications firms as well as traditional media firms’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.107). News Limited defined convergence more broadly, saying it covered ‘the entire spectrum of commercial activity associated with the telecoms, media, IT and the information economy’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.107). Telstra Corporation saw convergence in terms of market transformation, telling the Commission:

Convergence occurs when developments in two previously independent industries lead to each developing similar and hence competing product ranges. This implies a significant broadening of the converging markets. In place of, or in addition to, multiple industries, a new arena emerges in which participants of the previously separate industries compete. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.107)

The Commission drew on ‘persistent themes’ that emerged in its inquiry to summarise the key attributes of convergence, saying:

• Convergence is driven by technology • Convergence is a powerful force for change • Convergence is prospective and unpredictable [and] • Convergence is global. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.109)

It saw four layers of potential convergence in the media industry, these being:

• convergence in media products and markets (hybrid media such as online newspapers, e-mail, streamed audio and datacasting) • convergence in media platforms (common technological environment) • convergence in corporate structures [and] 54

• convergence in media regulation and policy. (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.110-111)

The differing views on defining convergence were matched by differing views on the potential effects of convergence, although most agreed with the view espoused by Flew (1999), who told the Commission that the ‘implications’ of ‘changes associated with digitisation and convergence of media’ would be ‘fundamental and profound’ (p.9). But what would these changes be? Telstra Corporation did not know, as it told the Commission:

Telstra in all honesty doesn’t know what the main game is. We don’t know whether it’s a PC, a TV, what technology, what type of services, very interactive, lazy interactive, not interactive at all. We’re trying the lot…and seeing what customers like. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.113)

Neither did Rural Press (1999), which told the Commission that Australia was ‘yet to understand and see how much of an effect convergence will have on our existing communications structure’ (p.2). But News Limited and PBL both promoted to the Commission the idea that convergence was inherently good for Australia’s media by its delivery of content, structural and corporate diversity (see below). The Australian Press Council (1999) supported this argument, telling the Commission that convergence between newspapers and the Internet would ‘ensure a greater diversity of views can be published’, mainly as new media technology would mean newspapers ‘were no longer constrained by the limitations of paper costs and distribution costs’ (p.6).

News Limited (1999) told the Productivity Commission that ‘diversity…can only increase with the effect of convergence and digitisation’ (p.18). News Limited (1999) claimed convergence ‘will ensure there is continued, if not increased, diversity of sources of information’ from ‘a more competitive industry’ that ‘operates with far greater efficiency’ (p.2), although the company argued that this would ‘only be achieved by encouraging full competition and adoption of technical advances’ (p.10). PBL (1999a), meanwhile, claimed convergence was seeing ‘new technology companies diversifying and extending their reach world-wide’ (p.5). The 55

Productivity Commission report listed examples of this, saying convergence had ‘brought substantial global companies into the Australian media scene’, including:

• Microsoft and PBL’s partnership in ninemsn • Amazon and f2’s joint venture for electronic retailing15 • the US broadcaster NBC’s work with Cable and Wireless Optus • the US telecommunications firm MCI WorldCom’s acquisition of Ozemail, and • AOL developing Australian business in partnership with Bertelsmann, a major European media, music and publishing firm (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.121).

In a domestic sense, the Productivity Commission (2000) noted Australian companies had ‘vigorously responded’ to convergence and had ‘created their own new media and electronic commerce operations’, adding by way of example that: ‘PBL has ecorp and ninemsn; Fairfax has f2; and the Seven network has i7’ while ‘[t]he ABC has developed ABC online’ and had ‘moved towards a “one ABC” structure, where content sourced from one platform – radio, television or online – is used and adapted for others’ (p.113). The MEAA (1999a) agreed convergence at a corporate level was already occurring, but argued that this would not encourage diversity, saying there was ‘evidence that a growing nexus between content providers and carriers’ was ‘laying the ground for on-going dominance of the on-line environment by a small number of players’ (p.2). The organisation opined that ‘Foxtel, Telstra, News [Limited] and PBL’ were ‘in the box seat to control access’ to new media (MEAA, 1999b, p.8), a situation that led the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy (1999a) to contend to the Commission that ‘[b]oth economics and history’ had ‘shown that, unless restrained by legislation, the media tend toward concentrated ownership’ (p.8), the intimation being that convergence would offer nothing different.

15 According to Pearson and Brand (2001), the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games was the catalyst for some domestic media convergence, prompting a formalisation of resource sharing between Fairfax, Rural Press and APN to form the f2 group (p.12).

The advent of new media and convergence represents some of the most significant changes to the national newspaper landscape that have occurred in the time between the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting. But these changes did little to assuage concerns about structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry. The Productivity Commission, for example, continued to examine specific concerns that were addressed by the Print Media Inquiry. These included that Australia’s newspaper oligopoly still results in limited structural diversity (mainly through barriers to the entry of competition) and, therefore, limited content diversity, the results of which included bias and censorship. These issues are discussed below.

Barriers to entry

Bellas et al. (1985) claimed that members of any oligopoly ‘prefer to avoid competition’ (p.209) and entry into whatever industry in which they were involved was ‘almost always restricted’ (p.200). Hattam (1991) said the economic forces that led to Australia’s newspaper ownership concentration also created ‘barriers to entry for others who might dilute [their] power’ (p.5). Chadwick (1987) claimed barriers to entry against would-be newspaper publishers were ‘insurmountable’ (p.4). And according to Clark (2000):

There is a certain logic to this view: the fate of new journalism ventures in this country has been far from uplifting in recent years. Think of the Times on Sunday; Business Daily; the Republican; the Independent Monthly...The Eye; and the Canberra Weekly... All were launched during the last 12 years or so. All are now dead. Not many lasted more than a few years. Some closed down in a matter of weeks or months. (p.22)

Max Suich, who established the now defunct national independent newspaper The Independent Monthly, said these barriers included start-up costs (also known as sunk-costs) and distribution costs. The launch of a major daily or weekly publication with a national or metropolitan circulation (in 1990 at least) would require a would- be newspaper owner to have ‘working capital of at least $50 million up his sleeve’ (Suich, 1990, p.l). A significant part of this cost would be the purchase of printing presses, should an existing publisher not wish to print a competitor’s newspaper on 57 its own presses. At the delivery end of the production process, Caughey (1994) claimed ‘bad delivery service, for whatever reason’ would ‘destroy even the best newspaper’ (p.54). Suich was able to circumvent both start-up and delivery costs by using News Limited’s methods of production and the Fairfax group’s delivery network. The trade-off, however, was that The Independent Monthly would not compete directly with either News Limited or Fairfax newspapers (HRSCPM, 1992, p.114, p.180).

At the Print Media Inquiry, the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (1991) elaborated on Suich’s list of barriers to entry, submitting that ‘access to capital, paper supply, printing, distribution, advertising, and labour’ also had a ‘major impact’ on ‘the ability of new entrants to become competitively viable’ (p.1242). For example, in contrast with Suich’s initial success with The Independent Monthly was Michael Gill’s experience in establishing the Business Daily in 1987 that was in direct competition with News Limited and Fairfax. The Centre’s submission said:

According to Mr Gill the new paper experienced problems in the production of the paper – facsimile equipment provided through News Limited was late; printing and distribution costs charged by News Limited were higher than anticipated; the airfreight of negatives on Ansett [then half owned by Murdoch, was] delayed; newsprint supplies were somehow pulped by Australian Newsprint Mills [then also owned by Murdoch]; attempts occurred to halt HWT [the Herald and Weekly Times group, owned by Murdoch] funds; loans due from HWT were delayed; [and] access to News Limited picture facilities was denied. (ACIJ, 1991, p.1244)

These issues are further compounded when major newspaper owners have the resources to modernise production, with the aim of deriving further economies of scale. In the mid-1990s, for example, News Limited established state-of-the-art press halls in Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. While these facilities enabled News Limited to reduce the unit cost of its newspapers, they also heightened the barrier for direct competition, which, presumably, would be denied access to them. News Limited, however, told the Print Media Inquiry that it was ‘a common logical error’ to ‘infer market power from a high market share’ (Officer, 1991, p.1572). News Limited argued that newspaper ownership concentration had to be addressed 58 in terms of other media, that is, newspapers competed against magazines and newsletters, as well as the electronic media (Officer, 1991, p.1573). On Murdoch’s newspaper monopolies in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin, Swan and Garvey (1991) said: ‘In cities which cannot support more than one [major daily] newspaper, competition within the print media tends to be…between newspapers at…different levels’ (p.2044). For example, daily newspapers would compete with weekly or twice weekly suburban newspapers and free newspapers (Swan & Garvey, 1991, p.2043).

From a pluralist perspective, however, Brown (1991) said competition between newspapers in different markets was ‘indirect’ rather than ‘direct’ and that ‘economies of group ownership’ still tended ‘towards common ownership of newspaper titles in different markets’ (pp.119-122). This occurs in Brisbane, where News Limited also owns the suburban Quest newspaper chain and the city’s free weekly City News.16 Bowman (1991a) argued there was ‘public concern about concentration of ownership’ within Australia’s newspaper industry (p.307). Such concentration conferred ‘on a very few people a degree of potential power and influence that is unacceptable in a democratic society’ (Bowman, 1991a, p.309). Bowman (1991a) said concentration of ownership also brought ‘pressures throughout the group to rationalise content as far as possible’ thereby lessening content diversity (p.308). Ownership concentration also allowed ‘some publications...access to a wider range of copy’ which only reinforced ‘mainstream views’ (Bowman, 1991a, p.308). Access to a wider range of copy not only affects the diversity of views as ‘the same copy [is] repeated by several newspapers’ (ACIJ, 1991, p.1237), it can also be seen as a barrier to entry for would-be newspaper publishers. Owners within Australia’s newspaper oligopoly have ‘lifting rights’ to copy from each others’ titles (involving agreements between titles in Australia, Asia, the UK and the US), for example, making it difficult for a new publisher to access that information (ACIJ, 1991, p.1237). In terms of news content, aspiring publishers would need to train large numbers of staff, or gain access to a news service, to be competitive (Chadwick, 1987, p.5).

16 News Limited revamped the City News in August 2003, changing it from a tabloid newspaper to a smaller sized, ‘saddle-stitched’ full-colour magazine. 59

Eric Beecher, former editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Herald, who failed in his attempts to raise funds to set up an independent national newspaper, was quoted as saying that bankers showed ‘a fear’ of the ‘dominant publishers’ (ACIJ, 1991, p.1243). Referring to established newspaper owners, the bankers, it was claimed, told Beecher: ‘They’ll screw you’; ‘Your papers will end up in the ditches’; and ‘It’ll be like competing with the Mafia’ (ACIJ, 1991, p.1243). Bankers’ reluctance to support a new publication can be matched by a similar reluctance by readers and advertisers. ‘A number of witnesses and submitters,’ reported the Select Committee conducting the Print Media Inquiry, ‘saw the entrenched positions of established titles, the difficulty of breaking reading habits and the reluctance of advertisers to support new publications as a major barrier to entry to the industry’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.131).

A detailed study of one Brisbane newspaper, The Brisbane Weekend Times, established in direct competition to the Murdoch monopoly in that city, bears this out (see Lewis, 1998, pp.153-165). The brainchild of plumber-turned-publisher Michael Hawke, the newspaper was launched in October 1993, but continued for just seven issues before closing. Hawke had previous experience with newspapers. He started The Pioneer News in Mackay in the early 1980s before selling it to an independent publisher and Brisbane’s weekly City News, before selling it to News Limited in 1992. It is understood the sale of the City News funded The Brisbane Weekend Times. But while Hawke’s City News was not taking on News Limited in its major metropolitan market, The Brisbane Weekend Times was. Hawke faced five ultimately insurmountable barriers to entry when he tried to enter a market where he was competing directly with the dominant player. These barriers were:

• start-up and delivery costs, which, according to Brisbane Weekend Times managing editor Brad Peters, were ‘going to cost him [Hawke] $2 million more than he thought’ (Lewis, 1998, p.156)

• the cost of news sources, which Hawke claimed was ‘one of the major reasons for the failure of [the] newspaper’ (Lewis, 1998, p.157)

• readers’ habits and advertiser support, which, according to Peters, simply did not eventuate, with advertisers waiting to see if the project would be a long-term success before changing their accounts from Murdoch’s existing newspapers (Lewis, 1998, pp.158-159)

• the ability to absorb losses – which News Limited was able to do by offsetting one newspapers’ losses against profits from other sectors of the conglomerate (Swan & Garvey, 1991, p.2120) – but which Hawke, who was losing about $50,000 per week, was unable to do (Lewis, 1998, pp.159-160), and

• the sheer influence of News Limited, which Hawke intimated was the main reason he was unable to have any other newspaper group back him financially (Lewis, 1998, pp.160-16l).

Hughes (1997) identified that media conglomerates invariably practised ‘vertical integration’ by combining ‘elements from a whole sector’ (p.80). This was certainly the case during the 1980s, when News Limited supported its purchase of the Herald and Weekly Times newspaper group with vertical integration throughout the newspaper industry. As well as owning half of the news service Australian Associated Press (AAP) (Pearson & Brand, 2001, p.9), Murdoch also purchased the controlling interest in Australian Newspaper Mills (ANM) and 100 per cent of Gordon and Gotch, then Australia’s largest wholesale news distribution agency. This led the Australian Journalists Association (now a part of the MEAA) to claim that News Limited dominated Australia’s newspaper industry through ‘resources and distribution’, and that ‘[a]ny new entrant must either duplicate these resources or accept colonial status’ (Australian Journalists Association, 1991a, p.792).17 Hughes (1997) also claimed that corporate cross-media ownership fostered alliances rather than competition (p.79) – such as News Corporation’s recent alliance with ‘competitor’ Kerry Packer’s PBL and their alliance with ‘competitors’ Telstra and Optus in a four-part controlling stake of the Foxtel and Austar pay television

17 In 1997, Murdoch sold his share of ANM to Fletcher Challenge Ltd of New Zealand (Drobesh, 1997, p.21), and in 1999 sold Gordon and Gotch to PMP Communications, owner of the Australian magazines New Idea and TV Week (Schulze, 1999).

61 networks (Collins, 1999, p.43) – heightening barriers to entry across the broad spectrum of the media industry.18

To the Print Media Inquiry, however, News Limited (1991a) rejected claims that barriers to entry existed, saying a high level of ownership concentration did not of itself constitute evidence of high barriers to entry (p.1544). Swan and Garvey (1992) contended: ‘A new entrant who is more efficient than the incumbent can displace the incumbent. Although the new entrant will need to attain large scale, this does not constitute a barrier to entry’ (p.3041). News Limited (1991a) claimed: ‘The ultimate arbiter of the success or otherwise of any product in the print media market is the consumer. The reason failed newspapers in Australia have closed is because consumers and/or advertisers have rejected them’ (p.1543). Ultimately, the Print Media Inquiry found that newspaper ownership figures were ‘not good indicators of the level of competition in the industry’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.100) and that it was market forces generally, rather than owners specifically, that ‘militate against new entrants to newspaper publishing’. However, the Select Committee conceded that because of these market forces the ‘mass market end’ of Australia’s newspaper industry ‘was not contestable’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.153).

It is in the area of barriers to entry, particularly, that new media is said to most fundamentally affect diversity in Australia’s newspapers with the removal of enormous start-up costs associated with production and distribution. In terms of pluralism’s goal of a diversity of voices, the Internet held the promise of ‘fundamentally reshaping the media industry’ by allowing an unlimited number of ‘mini-Murdochs’ to appear in Internet form (Colvin, 1999, p.370). To the Productivity Commission, News Limited (1999) concurred, submitting that ‘[b]arriers to entry for content and packaging’ within the new media would ‘initially be low’, allowing ‘very small players’ to ‘coexist with large ones’ (p.7). Indeed, the Productivity Commission (2000) itself proffered that ‘the Internet is potentially a vast source of independent information with numerous players’ (p.306), adding that ‘a convergent environment’ between traditional and new media ‘would be expected to enhance diversity of content and diversity of information and opinion’ (p.326).

18 News Corporation is the international parent company of Australia’s News Limited, and is itself fully controlled by Rupert Murdoch. 62

However, there have been varying claims about how new media will affect diversity. Views that new media will promote diversity are given by Shand (1999), who argued that ‘virtually every segment of the media and the entertainment industry is being transformed by the Internet’ (p.225), and Brenchley (1999) who argued that ‘the digital age could shatter Australia’s current media power structure’ (p.32). Countering these are Newport and Saad (1998) who argued that ‘[d]espite its enormous potential, the Internet has at best only a narrow, niche audience that uses it for news’ (pp.30-33) and Marshall (1997) who said the Internet simply reflected ‘prior models of the organisation of information’ and most commercial media used the Internet ‘as an additional medium on which to deliver pre-existing content’ (p.52). Both arguments believe new media will do little to change the status quo.

The Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy (1999a) suggested to the Productivity Commission that new media would add to media ownership concentration as it would ‘generate economic forces conducive to concentration of ownership’, especially ‘where economies of scale are significant’ (p.9). The MEAA (1999b) gave an example of this, telling the Commission that the same content houses dominated ‘traditional and new media markets’ these being Fairfax (through PBL), News Limited and the ABC (p.6). Each was ‘able to effectively squeeze new players out of the market by zero-pricing their online content’ (MEAA, 1999b, p.6). In terms of new media adding to diversity, the organisation said: ‘there is no sign that change is imminent’ (MEAA, 1999b, p.6).

That newspapers can zero-price online content is borne out by my survey of Australian newspapers and their news websites (see Chapter 5). Responses to the survey show that of the 18 respondents, 11 newspapers simply cut and pasted their offline copy to their websites and just one newspaper employed journalists to write news specifically for its online edition. Brisbane’s Courier-Mail, the largest newspaper to respond to the survey, mostly used existing copy for its Internet site. The Courier-Mail has software, ‘Vignette Story Server’, that automatically takes news copy from the printed edition of the newspaper, sends it to a database that superimposes a Web template on it, and then posts that copy to the Courier-Mail 63 website, presumably meaning that once the infrastructure costs for this are covered, pasting content online is achieved at zero cost.19

The assumption in this argument is that existing media players can develop online presences at relatively negligible costs, while the ‘mini-Murdochs’ that the Internet was to allow as competition to the existing newspaper oligopoly still face the barrier of ongoing (and sometimes substantial) running costs. An indication of what these costs might be was given by David Salter, who, with Richard Walsh in August 1999, started The Zeitgeist Gazette, an online media venture cited as ‘Australia’s first pure Internet “newspaper” ’ (Cunningham & Romano, 2000, p.22). The venture collapsed less than a year later, with Salter (2001) saying the exercise showed him ‘how to lose about $250,000 in nine months’ (p.23). But there are other factors. All the websites operated by the media outlets I surveyed provided news content free-of-charge. The Zeitgeist Gazette did not. According to Salter (2001):

Ours was a simple daily publication that tried to use the Internet as its distribution system rather than the traditional ink, paper and newsstands. It was programmed with easy click-through navigation between all content elements plus instant access to the complete archive of previous editions. All this was achieved with a production staff of one part-time “webmeister”…we’re convinced that the newsletter ultimately failed because it transgressed one fundamental tenet of the Internet that – with the bizarre exception of pornography – all content is expected to be free of charge. The hypocrisy of this assumption proved endlessly frustrating. Those same people who find it entirely reasonable to hand over more than a dollar for their daily newspaper (filled with advertising), consider themselves affronted when asked to pay a similar amount for access to a daily Internet newsletter (with no advertising whatsoever). (p.23)

Walsh and Salter’s expenses of $250,000 might well be higher for an independent online news site that is required to source its own copy. Cunningham and Romano (2000) remarked that The Gazette’s expenses ‘were considerably lower than those of regular news organisations’ with one reason being that it ‘did not generate original reporting’ (p.22). While printing and distribution costs are negated via the Internet,

19 From an interview by the author with John Grey, online editor with The Courier-Mail, on 21 July 2001. 64 the barrier of content remains a consideration, as the MEAA (1999b) told the Productivity Commission:

While the web has created a new distribution system – removing some of the start up costs associated with printing and delivery of print products – it is clear that there remains a significant bottleneck around content. The opening up of distribution has made content the key resource and has placed the major media groups in a commanding position on the net. (p.6)

Cryle (2001) said the Productivity Commission identified ‘a long established pattern’ where existing media owners had been ‘quick to colonise the new media’ (p.7). But established media organisations colonising new media does not present a barrier to competition per se. News Limited and PBL may well establish a significant Internet presence, but the ‘space’ they occupy on the Internet does not of itself preclude the entry of new players. The barrier that the established media can impose on new media competition revolves around access. The established media, for example, have moved to form ‘billion dollar alliances’ with ‘other media owners and telecommunications infrastructure providers’ (White, 1996, p.3). One example is the News Limited/PBL/Telstra new media partnership (Collins, 1999, p.43). Another is News Limited’s and PBL’s attempt to gain 40 per cent of One.Tel, which was Australia’s leading Internet service provider (Mathiesen & Burke, 1999, p.21) before the company folded in 2000. This was an attempt to control Internet access rather than the Internet itself. Hughes (1997) contended that if media websites were bought ‘by major media groups’, then the result, far from lowering barriers to entry, would strengthen barriers to entry for new players further still (p.80). And Colvin (1999) added:

when anyone can create a website, you get zillions – all clamouring for attention. Entrepreneurs will continue to create thousands of Web-based media outlets. But most won’t be commercially significant unless they’re bought by a major media group or at least get the massive backing available only to a few. (p.370)

Leading from these ‘zillions’ of websites is a second barrier that is more indirect but just as tangible: trust. A 1998 US Gallup Poll showed that 45 per cent of respondents did not trust the Internet as a news source (Newport & Saad, 1998, 65 pp.30-33). Lane (1998) said ‘the most frightening thing’ about the Internet ‘was that anybody could set up a home page on the web [and] write anything with no worries about peer review or accuracy’ (pp.30-35). Meanwhile, a 1999 US study of how 41 politicians used the Internet showed that while they believed the Internet ‘facilitates access to raw information’, the fact that it also carried raw ‘misinformation’ increased ‘the need for trusted intermediaries’ between content providers and readers (Douglas, 1999, p.1). For many, these ‘trusted intermediaries’ are the established news media (Rich, 1999, p.17). Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that in this country News Limited, PBL and the ABC rate ‘among the top ten Australian web sites’ (Cryle, 2001, p.7), as opposed to independent sites offering news and information. (The issues of the accuracy of online information and the trust that is placed in specific online news sites is discussed in Chapters 6 and 7.)

At the Print Media Inquiry, News Limited (1991a), in rejecting claims that barriers to entry existed at all, said critics often confused ease of entry to the newspaper industry with a guarantee of entry (p.1543). The company presented a similar view to the Productivity Commission, saying ‘[d]iversity and pluralism’ was ‘achieved through market forces’ (p.10). But, ultimately, the Commission concluded that while the Internet was ‘potentially a vast source of independent information’, the established media had ‘taken advantage of their control over content to establish beachheads in this new medium’ (p.306), and, in doing so, had created further barriers to the entry of competition.

A lack of content diversity

It will be recalled McQuail (1987) said pluralism assumed that a diverse media would ensure a diverse mix of ‘official voices’ and ‘critical alternative views’ (p.152). Golding and Murdock (1991), however, claimed economics and commercialism (that is, the need to make a profit) ‘tilt’ such views ‘away from risk and innovation and anchor [them] in common sense rather than alternative viewpoints’ (p.20). In Australia, Cunningham (1994) claimed the free market had ‘not been kind to diversity’ (p.122). Hardt (1993) claimed the ‘dilemma’ of the market-based press was that it could not solve ‘basic human problems’ but, rather, could only ‘solidify the ambiguity of chatter and curiosity’ by its reliance on being 66

‘profitable’ (p.51, p.55). In the Australian context, this commercialism has led Littlemore (1993) to lament ‘the tragedy for Australia is that [it has] too few newspapers [that] reflect the views of such a narrow section of society’ (p.14). Chadwick (1987) claimed the lack of diversity within newspaper ownership had resulted in a corresponding lack of diversity in news and opinion (p.4) while Henningham (1996) said that if ‘human interest and popular culture news’ were removed from Australia’s newspapers ‘they would be very thin indeed’ (p.32).

Bowman (1988) said ‘the most troubling effect’ of concentrated newspaper ownership was that ‘the range of views presented in the press is inordinately narrow and a great number of Australians, many on the Left politically, and many down the scale, socially, have no newspaper to champion them’ (p.225). Cunningham (1994), for example, said contracting newspaper markets ‘spelt the end for a significant number of small press operators who sought to serve alternative readerships’ including ‘[l]eft-of-centre magazines like Modern Times…ALR (Australian Left Review) and Broadside’ (p.120). Flew (1991) said Australia’s lack of newspaper diversity ‘fails to give voice to minority groups’ (p.29) which, according to Hurst (1991), included ‘the unemployed, the poor [and] the political, ethnic or religious minorities with unconventional tastes or views’ (pp.25-26).

One process leading to a diminishing diversity of views, according to researchers, is ‘networked’ news. Owning a number of newspapers enables owners to ‘network’ news across titles. Far from encouraging a diversity of views, Chadwick (1992a) said networked news meant ‘fewer voices’ still, and added that ‘the fewer the voices the less likely they are to police each other’ with the potential for large ‘press groups’ to abuse their power (p.49).

In submissions to the Print Media Inquiry, however, proponents of the market-based press claimed that diversity of views was served by the number of newspapers in the market regardless of how many were controlled by the one owner. In its submissions to the inquiry, News Limited (1991b) claimed Australia supported 920 separate print media titles (p.355) making an ‘enormous diversity of printed publications’ available to the public (p.357). Concurring, the Australian Press Council (1991) submitted that there were ‘far too many’ sources of information 67 available to the public for anyone to effectively use them all (p.1315). Unable to disassociate itself with being ‘the leading company in print in Australia’ (Brown, 1991, p.126), through Swan and Garvey (1991), News Limited claimed that a monopolist newspaper owner would, of necessity, encourage a diversity of views, saying: ‘It always pays a monopolist to offer as appealing a range of product characteristics to consumers as possible [as] in this way profits are maximised’ (p.2112). In reality, however, the ‘range of product characteristics’ is somewhat illusory. Sparks (1992) provided the example of The Times and The Sun in London, ostensibly two different publications. The Times, a broadsheet, was described as ‘a quality paper’ and The Sun, a tabloid, as ‘undeniably popular’ (Sparks, 1992, p.39). However, Murdoch owned both titles, and, in terms of diversity, Sparks (1992) claimed the newspapers took ‘identical positions on formal questions’ (p.39). Henningham (1996), meanwhile, said ‘the oligopolisation of Australian newspaper ownership and the related shrinkage of newspaper titles’ had ‘resulted in a greater tendency for newspapers to seek a broad popular readership’ leading to the situation where ‘[t]oday’s Australian newspapers are more alike than different’ (p.32).

Swan and Garvey (1991) said News Limited’s critics looked at diversity ‘as if newspapers and diversity are one and the same thing’ (p.2111). They claimed: ‘Clearly what our proprietor would never wish to do is reduce diversity of views. This would affect the bottom line, reducing circulation, demand, and profitability with no gain to anyone’ (Swan & Garvey, 1991, p.2113). The Australian was cited as evidence of this, Swan and Garvey (1991) saying:

as a national newspaper [it] has struggled to survive. It has been loss-making for 20 of its 27 years in production. It cannot afford to be parochial or appeal to only one part of the populace. Hence the columnists have been carefully chosen to balance each other out in terms of views. (p.2120)

None of this reasoning satisfied the Australian Journalists Association. The Association submitted to the Print Media Inquiry that ‘a free independent media reflecting diversity of opinion is a precondition of democratic societies’ and the market-based press had ‘failed to provide a diverse media’ (Australian Journalists Association, 1991a, p.743). However, the Australian Press Council’s (1991) 68 submission concurred with the market view. The Council told the inquiry that ‘a wide divergence’ and ‘pluralism’ already existed within Australia’s press (Australian Press Council, 1991, p.1316). ‘It should be noted,’ the Council submitted, ‘that within the principal owners of the Australian press there exists…a wide diversity of approaches to the provision of information’ (Australian Press Council, 1991, p.1315).

The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (1991) was critical of News Limited’s and Fairfax’s control over wire services, including AAP and Reuters (p.1239). For News Limited, particularly, the Centre claimed the company’s ‘substantial shareholding in Reuters [gave it] a significant commercial interest in the information gathering process operating within Australia’ (ACIJ, 1991, p.1239). The Centre told the inquiry:

This has the potential to limit the range and diversity of sources of information available to a significant proportion of the population. This is already noticeable in the reporting of Federal Parliament and has the potential to increase in other spheres. (ACIJ, 1991, p.1240)

The Centre also believed monopoly wire services such as AAP, Australia’s only domestic news wire service, threatened content diversity per se, as any ‘financially stretched’ newspaper would ‘choose to use them in preference to employing their own reporters’ (ACIJ, 1991, p.1239). A boast by AAP’s director of sales and marketing, James Cuming, that ‘AAP…gets a piece of content once and sells it in six or seven different ways to four or five different markets’ (MEAA, 2002a, p.20) goes some way to underscoring the Centre’s concerns.20

Considering both arguments: (a) that pluralism could only be ensured by structural diversity, that is, by a diverse number of media owners; and (b) that pluralism could be ensured by content diversity, that is, by diverse views presented in titles under the control of the same owner, the Print Media Inquiry concurred with the former but sided with the inevitability of the latter. It found that ‘an excessive

20 Cuming gave an indication of the commercial imperatives behind these arrangements, saying: ‘It costs a lot to write one story but we get revenue from a number of sources’ (MEAA, 2002a, p.20).

69 level of media ownership concentration can be a potential threat to maintaining the diversity of sources of information’, but added:

The provision of information, however, cannot be shielded from economic forces. The available research…strongly suggests that head-on competition for the same market segment between newspapers in the same primary market eventually leads to dominance by one of the competitors. (HRSCPM, 1992, pp.223- 224)

There was a certain sameness to major media groups’ submissions on content diversity to the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting. For example, as News Limited (1991b) told the former that Australia was served by 920 separate print media titles (p.355) that made an ‘enormous diversity of printed publications available’ to the public (p.357); the company told the latter that:

There is little to suggest media in Australia is currently lacking in diversity. Newsstands overflow with more than 380 newspapers…and more than 120 ethnic newspapers…as well as more than 1,500 magazines, representing many interests. (News Limited, 1999, p.11)

As it did to the Print Media Inquiry, News Limited (1999) told the Productivity Commission that ‘commercial reality’ required ‘a diversity of views’ to ‘be presented in order to create a commercially successful product’ (p.10). News Limited said a concentrated media market and a diversity of views were not necessarily inconsistent:

The danger media concentration would pose is sometimes identified as a loss of diversity. Yet the connection is demonstrably wrong. A highly concentrated market has a few dominant firms, accounting for most of the output. Diversity, on the other hand, refers both to the number of independent media companies, regardless of their size (source diversity), and to the variety of viewpoints expressed in the media (content diversity). Accordingly, an unconcentrated media industry may nevertheless exhibit little content diversity – thousands of media voices each saying much the same thing and attracting similar audiences. And a concentrated media market may, nevertheless, exhibit great diversity, independent voices exhibiting 70

every possible political hue and cultural view, with a few capturing most of the public’s attention. (News Limited, 1999, pp.10-11)

Overall, News Limited (1999) said it was ‘satisfying an ever-increasing demand for choice and diversity of information and entertainment through newspapers, television, films, music, books and the Internet’ (p.2).

Not surprisingly, PBL (1999a) concurred with News Limited’s submissions, arguing to the Productivity Commission that ‘[s]ince 1992 the array of information and opinion provided by media outlets has grown substantially’ (p.5) and that the influence of major media owners was ‘massively diluted’ because of this ‘abundance of sources of information’ (p.8). According to PBL (1999b):

In 1992 there were far fewer media outlets, both in type and volume, and legislators may have believed that diversity in ownership was necessary for diversity in viewpoints. However that conclusion needs to be rethought… There is an abundance of media, both entertainment and information, available, and it portrays and reflects different viewpoints and ideas both within each medium, and across media sectors. Indeed, even with each media product, eg each newspaper, each radio service, each television service, there is a range of information, viewpoints and opinion. The Australian consumer can choose from a wide range of media, and within that range, an array of views and opinions. (p.5, p.9)

And as News Limited told the Print Media Inquiry that columnists in The Australian newspaper were ‘carefully chosen to balance each other out in terms of views’ (Swan & Garvey, 1991, p.2120), so eight years later PBL (1999b) told the Productivity Commission that it employed ‘quality journalists’ that valued the independence of the media, adding:

It is an indicator of this diversity that Australia has so many high profile, independent media commentators. The media compete for their voices because of the very fact that they are strong, independent voices. (p.9)

In 1991, the Australian Journalists Association countered the arguments of major media players, telling the Print Media Inquiry that ownership concentration in the media was a threat to diversity and that market forces had ‘failed to provide a 71 diverse media’ (Australian Journalists Association, 1991a, p.743). After becoming a part of the MEAA, the group continued to argue to the Productivity Commission that diverse media ownership, as opposed to just diverse content, was necessary for ‘Australia’s media [to] serve this country best’ (MEAA, 1999b, p.2). According to the MEAA, it was only Australia’s cross-media ownership laws that stopped further media ownership concentration. The organisation said the ‘likely outcome of scrapping these rules is a reduction in the number of major media owners operating in Australia’ (MEAA, 1999b, p.2). The Communications Law Centre (1999b) agreed, telling the Productivity Commission that further concentration in Australia’s media would occur in the absence of regulation (p.24).

Bias and censorship

Researchers have indicated a link between the lack of structural diversity in newspapers and the incidence of bias in views presented by them. In his study of the British press, McQuail (1976) claimed that evidence of bias towards the interests of newspaper owners was ‘supported from too many different perspectives to be ignored’ (p.44). In the Australian context, Hippocrates and Cunningham (1991) claimed that Australia’s newspaper monopolies ‘serve the owner’s interests, whether financial, political, or otherwise’ (p.1736). Cunningham (1994) found the link between newspaper ownership and ‘favourable angles in media coverage of [the] owners’ business dealings’ was ‘unsurprising’ (p.121). Bowman (1987), for example, claimed Murdoch had a vested interest in the Labor leadership challenges by Paul Keating against then Prime Minister Bob Hawke (pp.33-34) – challenges that led to Keating becoming Prime Minister in December 1991 – and his newspapers were actively pro-Keating when reporting those challenges (Bowman, 1987, p.34). It has also been said that Murdoch had a ‘conflict of interest’ (Macphee, 1990, p.38) when reporting Australia’s airline pilots’ strike during 1989 and 1990 while owning half of what was then Ansett Airlines. Similarly, Murdoch’s launch of his pay TV network in Australia was accompanied by front page stories in Murdoch newspapers, including The Courier-Mail in Brisbane which promoted ‘Cable TV giant launched’ on the front page of its 3 March 1995 issue. Following Murdoch’s international media conglomerate, News Corporation, partnering Telstra in the Foxtel pay TV venture, Murdoch’s Sunday newspapers regularly featured full colour 72

Foxtel promotion over rival free-to-air television networks in weekly television guides inserted in Murdoch’s newspapers.

With regard to newspaper owners’ political interests, Tiffen (1989) cited political bias when he claimed Murdoch approached South Australian Premier Don Dunstan promising ‘favourable publicity’ in return for certain political decisions in the lead-up to Australia’s 1975 federal election (p.147). Tiffen (1989) claimed that ‘blatant and sustained…anti-Labor sentiment’ from News Limited editorial management reached such a level that political reporters ‘were unable to report and analyse the campaign free from partisan editorial interference’ (p.149). Of this particular campaign, Windschuttle (1988) claimed Murdoch threw ‘all journalistic canons to the wind’ during a calculated ‘vendetta against the Whitlam government’ (p.44). For News Limited, however, Swan and Garvey (1991) countered these claims, saying:

Rather than a conspiracy as alleged, a more plausible interpretation of events is that editors supported Whitlam’s campaign in 1972 because he was far more popular than Billy McMahon and opposed him in 1975 because he was perceived by many to have made a complete mess of the economy. In doing so [the editors] were following popular sentiment. (p.2109)

Henderson (1995) went further, agreeing that proprietors did have an influence over ‘opinion makers’, but saying it was ‘a big jump to reach the conclusion that voters…on election day care about – or even remember – the reported views of a Kerry Packer, a Rupert Murdoch or a Conrad Black’ (p.13). But Murdoch is not the only proprietor of whom bias is alleged. While he controlled the Fairfax group, Conrad Black was reported to have said that proprietors had to ensure a ‘reasonable balance’ in the editorial of a newspaper (Bowman, 1991b, p.23). One might ask how ‘reasonably balanced’ Black newspapers might be, considering his editorial interventions led to the resignations of an editor and 28 journalists at The Jerusalem Post (Bowman, 1991, p.23). As discussed earlier, in Australia a ‘political furore…erupted’ (Schultz, 1994, p.19) over ‘undisclosed commitments’ (MEAA, 1994, p.2) involving Prime Minister Keating as part of Black’s ‘attempt to increase his ownership of Fairfax newspapers’ (Schultz, 1994, p.19). Overall, it has been claimed that Murdoch and Black were both owners who intervened in their 73 newspapers’ operations (Bowman, 1987, p.34). Notwithstanding Swan and Garvey’s statements to the contrary, Murdoch, particularly, was seen as a proprietor who used his newspapers ‘for whatever purpose moves him at the time’ (Bowman, 1987, p.34) and is said to have commented: ‘I give instructions to my editors all over the world’ (Chadwick, 1989, p.213). Chadwick (1990), meanwhile, claimed that British newspaper magnate, the late Robert Maxwell, made ‘a novel contribution’ to the debate on newspaper bias when he told The Financial Review in 1990: ‘I don’t interfere editorially anywhere except where I vote’ (p.5).

Researchers have also indicated a link between the lack of structural diversity in newspaper industries and the incidence of journalistic self-censorship. Submitting to the Print Media Inquiry, Bowman (1991a) drew a connection between ownership concentration and censorship, saying: ‘Because there are fewer alternative avenues of employment, journalists feel more pressure to conform. This means greater self- censorship, the bane of newspapers’ (p.309). In the US context, Gans (1979) said simply: ‘Journalists practice self-censorship’ (p.277). He considered this statement axiomatic, but added that censorship and self-censorship were ‘difficult both to define and identify’ (Gans, 1979, p.251). He said ‘censorship’ was generally defined as ‘killing or altering a story as a result of external pressure’ whereas ‘self- censorship’ was ‘the conscious response [by journalists] to anticipated pressure from non-journalists’ such as ‘advertisers and other business people’ (Gans, 1979, p.251, p.257). Bolton (1986), however, suggested the employment of double standards, saying that censorship was often claimed by journalists against editorial management, but when journalists ‘cut something’ it was an ‘editorial decision’ and when management did the same thing ‘it’s censorship’ (p.98).

Censorship on the part of management may be accomplished more covertly, however, by imbuing in journalists a culture of what news is to be printed and what is to be suppressed. The Print Media Inquiry was told a newspaper proprietor, by promoting self-censorship, could ‘just as easily influence the content of a paper without ever issuing one direction or a single memo’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.254). The aggregation of a number of newspaper titles under the one newspaper group, for example, can allow a ‘corporate culture’ to develop which, according to Schultz (1992), predetermined ‘the way particular issues are approached’ (p.57). According 74 to Kingston (1999), this ‘managed culture’ means ‘[an] owner need not send down messages – the editors and journalists know which topics are taboo and which ones are right’ (p.33). Chadwick (1987) said: ‘The theory is that more junior executives and reporters believe they know what kind of coverage is in the owner’s best interests and, through sycophancy, fear or resignation, provide it without being asked to do so’ (p.7). Long-time News Limited journalist Hugh Lunn, now retired, claimed that was one of the reasons the newspapers he worked for would employ ‘younger’ journalists who ‘knew exactly what Rupert wanted’ (Lunn, 2001, p.195). These journalists made their living ‘by taking a predictable view on every subject from smoking to Aboriginal rights: a view which most often appeals to business managers and corporate advertisers’ (Lunn, 2001, pp.196-197). The effect, overall, has been described by Bacon (1999) as journalists ‘see[ing] their careers as a series of highs and lows – the times when they were able to do the work they wanted to do and the tougher times when they felt more constrained’ (p.83). Most witnesses at the Print Media Inquiry (with the exception of those from News Limited) indicated that newspaper owners were able to influence the suppression of news stories when they wished (Chadwick, 1992a, p.50). That this form of ‘corporate culture’ may even be actively encouraged in many newsrooms is evidenced by claims that ‘a willingness to carry out unethical tasks is seen as a good thing – a shortcut to promotion’ (MEAA, 1994, p.3).

This is not a new phenomenon, however. Almost 50 years ago, Breed (1956) suggested that a corporate culture occurred in all newsrooms through socialisation rather than proprietorial intervention (pp.326-335), while Engwall (1978) suggested the relationship between journalists and proprietors was a natural consequence of the market-based press (pp.230-231). Breed (1956) said ‘mechanisms of policy maintenance’ existed ‘to ensure journalists covered news in a way that maintained the newspaper’s news policy’ (p.328). These mechanisms included:

• the requirement to read the newspaper • attendance at editorial conferences • workplace gossip • indications to avoid certain topics 75

• the loss of perks • personal ties to supervisors, and • damage to career prospects (Breed, 1956, pp.328-332).

The reaction of staff to these, according to Breed (1956), was for journalists to develop ‘news’ as ‘a common interest’ to avoid ‘potential conflict between… journalist and employer’ (p.331). Gans (1979), in his discussion of bias, described a paradox between journalistic objectivity and owners’ interests, saying that if journalists had no interest or firm point of view in a story, they would, by default, write to serve the interests of the newspaper owner (p.102). Engwall (1978), however, contended that any conflict between ‘journalistic values’ and ‘the position of the publisher’ was really a conflict of the ‘political values’ of the former and the ‘economic…values’ (that is, the need to remain profitable) of the latter (p.231) and, as such, would always appear in a market-based press. Engwall (1978) claimed this conflict was resolved through a process of newsroom socialisation where ‘cub journalists’ became aware of what news was appropriate by ‘watching their more senior colleagues’; where senior journalists influenced younger reporters during editorial conferences; and where revisions were effected by editorial management (p.230). As with Breed, however, the result of Engwall’s newsroom socialisation model is news that supports the policies of the newspaper concerned. This process has had its effects in the Australian context, Walkley award-winning journalist Monica Attard (delivering the 1994 Walkley lecture) arguing that the prevailing ‘journalistic culture’ had resulted ‘in poor and unfair coverage of the Liberal Party and, particularly, the demise of its former leader, Dr John Hewson’ (Simper, 1994, p.3).

While Lawe Davies (1999) said journalists found themselves ‘increasingly drawn into the commercial strategies of their employers’ (p.54), the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (1991) told the Print Media Inquiry that, somewhat more insidiously, the economic environment made ‘the victimisation and exclusion of journalists an easy task’ (p.1225) resulting in journalists approaching the ‘reporting about their own company’ with ‘caution’ (p.1226). This is what Cunningham (1994) called ‘the “chill” effect’ – ‘the decline of journalists’ 76 forthrightness’ brought about ‘as a result of having few options other than to work for two major organisations’ (p.121). Supporting these sentiments, the Australian Journalists Association’s Victorian branch (1991) submitted to the Print Media Inquiry that media ownership concentration meant ‘anyone wishing to work as a journalist in mainstream daily newspapers in Melbourne or Sydney may only work for the News group or the Fairfax group’ (p.1964). Being the controller of the largest share of Australia’s newspaper market, Murdoch was mentioned most frequently in regard to bias and self-censorship, with submissions to the inquiry claiming News Limited newspapers consistently featured news favourable to its owner’s interests.

However, for News Limited, Swan and Garvey (1991) told the Print Media Inquiry that ‘tightly controlling, even “messianic” owners’ were ‘critical to the success of a newspaper’ (p.2103). They claimed history evidenced that ‘the most dramatic turnaround of badly-performing newspapers in the 1900s’, involving the London’s Times and Evening News, was the result of ‘the re-emergence’ of Northcliffe, a ‘dominant owner’ who exercised tight control over the content of those newspapers (Swan & Garvey, 1991, pp.2103-2104). Swan and Garvey (1991) claimed that ‘hands-on ownership’ was ‘critical to the running of a print media enterprise’ (p.2104). They said ‘strong editors’ provided ‘a consistency and integrity’ to their respective newspapers, and claimed: ‘If individual journalists could dictate policy from day to day that consistency would be lacking’ (Swan & Garvey, 1991, p.2110). On claims of editorial interference, News Limited submitted:

We are mystified at the presumption that journalists are public spirited and put aside all their own personal preferences, tastes, biases, prejudices, etcetera while at the same time proprietors, who have had to back up their judgements with their own money, are evil incarnate. (Swan & Garvey, 1991, pp.2106-2107)

News Limited newspapers seem to support this argument by reporting instances where the potential for bias towards Murdoch’s interests could occur. In one example, The Australian noted in relation to its British stablemate The Sun:

The republican sentiments of The Sun’s proprietor, Rupert Murdoch – whose empire includes The Times and The Australian – have never been imposed on The Sun and the nation’s biggest-selling paper is not yet advocating a republic. (Wilson, 2002, p.7)

However, the argument that Australia’s newspaper monopolies ‘serve the owner’s interest, whether financial, political, or otherwise’ (Hippocrates & Cunningham, 1991, p.1736) has been maintained following the Print Media Inquiry with the Productivity Commission (2000) noting:

The main Australian media proprietors have links with a variety of nonmedia businesses…PBL now owns Crown Casino, and News Limited has equity in the National Rugby League and Ansett Australia among other businesses. Some participants claimed that such business interests create conflicts of interest which can influence reporting of events relating to those businesses. (p.313)

The Communications Law Centre (1999b) gave three examples of this to the Productivity Commission: Murdoch’s commercial interest in Super League influencing rugby league coverage in his newspapers; Murdoch’s ownership of publishing company Harper Collins influencing News Limited newspapers’ decision not to report on a controversial book – East and West by Chris Patten – about China’s takeover of Hong Kong; and, more generally, major Australian newspapers being sympathetic to their owners’ ‘corporate positions’ during reporting of the Australian digital television debate (p.23).

The Productivity Commission (2000) felt a ‘significant issue’ for ‘media policy generally’ arose with media owners’ investment ‘in nonmedia businesses’, particularly the effect this would have ‘on a media proprietor’s preparedness to accommodate unfavourable comment on his or her interests’ (p.334). But, as Swan and Garvey (1991) told the Print Media Inquiry that News Limited could not afford to be ‘parochial or appeal to only one part of the populace’ (p.2113), so did PBL (1999b) tell the Productivity Commission that ‘consumers now have such a wide range of choices open to them…they would exercise that choice negatively if there was a perception of media bias’ (p.3).

Subsequent to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry, Pearson and Brand’s report on sources of news and current affairs in Australia brought a further argument to the debate: that in Australia’s concentrated media any bias towards proprietors’ nonmedia assets could be offset by one news group’s critical reporting on another. They said that while it was ‘broadly accepted that news producers will be influenced by their proprietors’ commercial interests’ there was an implication that ‘other media’ would ‘cover fairly the corporate interests of that news producer’s employer’ (Pearson & Brand, 2001, p.7). Pearson and Brand (2001) quoted ‘a commercial talkback radio producer’ who said: ‘You don’t see too many Channel 9 stories critical of Packer, but you will find anti-Packer stories elsewhere. That’s balanced out…’ (p.188).

Evidence suggests this is the case. On 21 March 2002, for example, News Limited ran a three-page story in its Australian newspaper’s ‘Media’ supplement detailing Fairfax’s financial woes under its CEO Fred Hilmer. This included a cover- page image showing Fairfax editors being squeezed under a stylised hand-operated printing press. The following week, on 2 April 2002, Fairfax’s Australian Financial Review responded with a page 14 story on News Limited’s parent News Corporation’s ‘huge loss’ of $3.7 billion in the 2001-02 financial year, describing it as ‘the biggest loss in Australian corporate history’ (Collins, 2002, p.14), a story not covered in News Limited’s commensurate daily, The Australian. On 4 April 2002, Fairfax’s Australian Financial Review ran a story on News Corporation’s foray into Chinese television, describing the company’s 24-hour Chinese general entertainment channel as containing ‘lowbrow offerings’ (Hyland, 2002, p.20). On the same date, and again in its ‘Media’ supplement, News Limited’s Australian responded with stories on how Fairfax newspaper The Age doctored photographs on a story on ethics; on how former Fairfax major shareholder Kerry Packer’s Channel 9 television show ‘Shafted’ had bred ‘much distrust’; and on how Kerry Packer was alleged to have called ABC television Media Watch presenter David Marr a ‘f------c---’ (Dodd, 2002a, p.2).21

21 These examples were not garnered through extensive research. They simply fell to hand on the days I was writing this chapter. The obsession of News Limited newspapers to carry adverse stories on Fairfax newspapers, and vice versa, seems so endemic that examples can be drawn from almost any small sample of newspapers gathered at random. 79

Ultimately, the Productivity Commission saw the promotion of structural diversity as the most likely way of offsetting bias and self-censorship, echoing Bowman’s (1991a) earlier connection between ownership concentration, bias and censorship – that ‘fewer alternative avenues of employment’ led journalists to practise ‘greater self-censorship’ (p.309). The Productivity Commission (2000) noted:

Some participants and media observers advocated the retention or strengthening of the ownership and control rules so as to provide multiple employers of journalists. It was argued that editors and journalists, with more potential employers, would feel less constrained to keep to a proprietorial line. (p.313)

Recommendations for diversity

While the Print Media Inquiry gave a significant opportunity to examine the nature and effects of Australian newspaper ownership, many saw its recommendations as ineffectual. I have concluded that the Print Media Inquiry took an ‘each way bet’, with its findings on diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry completely equivocal. For example, on the number of newspaper titles and its relationship to content diversity the inquiry noted: ‘An excessive level of print media ownership can be a potential threat to maintaining the diversity of sources of information’; but concluded: ‘While competition laws may prevent a newspaper… from taking over a competitor, [these laws] cannot prevent the effect of economic forces which may render one of the competitors unviable’ (HRSCPM, 1992, pp.223- 224). On owners’ business interests and news bias the inquiry noted: ‘The key issue for the proponents of editorial independence is the separation of the legitimate business interests of the proprietor…from the editorial process’; but concluded: ‘Such separation…may not be entirely possible’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.290). On corporate cultures and censorship the inquiry recognised the existence of corporate cultures, but concluded: ‘Whether the corporate culture influences the newspaper product is a question which remains open’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.261). This ambivalence led Chadwick (1992a) to remark that the Print Media Inquiry ‘tread so lightly’ it made ‘no impression’ (p.44). Indeed, no recommendation from the inquiry has yet been enacted. 80

Like the Print Media Inquiry, the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting outlined a number of recommendations for improving structural and content diversity and, like the Print Media Inquiry, none has so far been enacted. A main reason for this is the difficulty legislators have had in coming to terms with a converging media environment, a persistent theme throughout the Productivity Commission’s report. For example, the Commission reported:

Convergence is not a theoretical issue: it is a reality which is blurring the lines between the delivery platforms of the media industry, making it counter-productive for government to attempt to create artificial barriers or distinctions between these traditional segments… The blurring effect of convergence means it is no longer practical for the regulatory environment to distinguish between delivery platforms. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.1, p.14)

This observation came despite the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy (1999b) urging for caution against what it called ‘bring[ing] the future into the present’ by making ‘broad assumptions that full deregulation should flow inevitability from…convergence’ (p.5).

News Limited (1999) told the Productivity Commission that while Australia’s regulatory framework ‘may have had merit in a bygone era’, it was now ‘anachronistic’ and no longer ‘serve[d] a useful purpose or public benefit’ (p.21). The company said current media legislation ‘reflects a fear of change…ignores the benefits of open competition [and] places the growth of the media industry in a regulatory straitjacket’ (News Limited, 1999, p.1). News Limited (1999) said ‘[t]he regulatory environment should consist of generic regulation’ (p.21) and contended (somewhat hopefully) that generic regulation would deliver:

1. Economic efficiency (without media specific regulation to shackle its growth and development)

2. Local content (provided ABA administered standards are…adequate…to embrace convergence and new industries)

3. Diversity (diversity of opinions is a commercial necessity…diversity of sources…is assured by the impact of new technologies) [and] 81

4. Quality of content (there will be more capital available for local content production). (pp.19-20)

Flew (1999) told the Productivity Commission that regulation should work towards public communications goals, economic policy goals and cultural policy goals. Public communications goals, he said, included: ‘Openness of access; independence from powerful vested interests; and availability of a diverse range of materials and points of view’; economic goals included ‘effective competition and cost effective delivery of a diverse range of sources, as well as contributions to economic well-being through economic, employment, and export growth’; while cultural policy goals included ‘the economic development of Australia’s cultural industries’ while recognising ‘the immense contribution made by mass media to the everyday life of Australians, and their role in shaping national self-awareness and cultural understanding’ (Flew, 1999, pp.2-3). Turner (1999), meanwhile, sensed growing ennui in the debate, saying:

given the pervasiveness of commercial objectives across the public sphere, and given the untrammelled access media owners enjoy when they wish to put their case to the public, it is often hard to remember what is the point of regulating or inhibiting the commercial operation of the media at all. (p.2)

The Productivity Commission (2000) seemed to agree, saying that in Australia’s media policy environment there had been ‘a history of political, technical, industrial, economic and social compromises’ that left a ‘legacy’ of ‘quid pro quos’ creating ‘a policy framework that is inward looking, anti-competitive and restrictive’ (pp.5-6). But the Commission did note that existing regulation needed to be ‘reformed quickly’ to deal with convergence (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.2). It said that ‘[a]s the boundaries between media dissolve’ the government’s regulatory framework was ‘eroding and being circumvented’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.5-6). The Commission said convergence provided ‘a challenging and uncertain environment for the economic, social and cultural regulation’ of the media (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.47) and regulatory barriers would simply drive convergent media ‘from regulated services to less regulated platforms such as cable, satellite and the Internet’ (Productivity 82

Commission, 2000, p.48). The Commission refrained from making specific proposals for media policy, preferring to place its recommendations in a broader framework, saying:

the main lesson to be drawn from the present uncertainty is the need for regulation that remains as far as possible technologically and competitively neutral, even if complete technological neutrality is not possible. Social and cultural regulation…needs to be designed around achieving the Government’s broad policy objectives, rather than through the imposition of a myriad of platform or industry specific obligations and privileges. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.123)

In his appraisal of the Productivity Commission’s report, Cryle (2001) reflected (correctly I would contend) that the ‘Commission’s findings, while not without merit, confirm a dichotomy between market theory and regulatory practice which is yet to be resolved’ (p.13). Nonetheless, the Commission did recommend changes to the Trade Practices Act, cross-media ownership laws and foreign ownership restrictions to improve Australia’s media diversity while allowing the media to realise the potential benefits of new media and media convergence. The recommendations of both inquiries are discussed below.

The Trade Practices Act

The objective of Australia’s Trade Practices Act 1974 is ‘to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection’ (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2002). The Act is able to regulate Australia’s news media through its ability to ‘rule against collusion between competitors’, to ‘rule against the abuse of market power’ and, importantly, to ‘rule against mergers and takeovers likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition’ (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.4). In 1992, the Print Media Inquiry believed ‘greater competition…and wider diversity of ownership’ of Australia’s newspapers could be effected ‘over time’ through changes to the Trade Practices Act, specifically:

a new section specific to the print media requiring authorisations to examine and take account of the likely impact of a merger on:

(i) free expression of opinion;

(ii) fair and accurate presentation of views; and

(iii) the economic viability of the publication if the merger does not proceed. (HRSCPM, 1992, pp.xxii-xxv)

The inquiry also recommended that newspaper mergers or acquisitions that were likely to raise community concerns should be subject to mandatory notification to the Trade Practices Commission (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxv). This would give the Commission the opportunity ‘to fully assess’ a proposed merger or takeover in light of these concerns (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxv). The inquiry’s report argued, for example, that if the Act was more robust, the Trade Practices Commission could have stopped News Limited’s 1986 buyout of the Herald and Weekly Times group (HRSCPM, 1992, p.225). The inquiry further recommended: ‘When the existing concentration begins to break down, it is essential that the Trade Practices legislation then acts to promote competition and diversity of ownership’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxv). Since the inquiry, however, the Trade Practices Commission has become the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and its inaugural head, Professor Allan Fels, took a pro-market stance on the nation’s newspaper industry, particularly in relation to cross-media ownership laws, which he described as: ‘not unlike a house of cards that could be rather easily blown away by…technological change’ (Hannon, 1998, p.4). Professor Fels resigned as ACCC head in June 2003 and was replaced by Melbourne lawyer Mr Graeme Samuel. Mr Samuel’s views on Australian media regulation were not formally stated at the time of writing this thesis.

The Productivity Commission was less sanguine about the Trade Practices Act’s and the ACCC’s ability to deliver pluralism in Australia’s media. The main reason for this, according to Cryle (2001), was the ‘common failure’ of the ACCC ‘to consider the social and cultural implications of media acquisitions’ (p.9). The Commission reported that a ‘number of media companies’ had expressed concerns that ‘the media market should be defined broadly in the context of competition policy’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.349). This was in opposition to the 84

‘economic’ approach to defining media markets, itself ‘an important feature of trade practices law in Australia and elsewhere’ and used as the policy framework by the ACCC (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.349). This framework ‘led to some narrow market definitions applying to media industries’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.349). These narrow definitions included the ACCC’s view that ‘under the Trade Practices Act, the relevant product market’ for media industries ‘is advertising’ [my italics], whereas:

From the perspective of the social objectives of broadcasting policy, and the normal notions of community welfare, viewers, listeners and readers are the consumers of commercial broadcasting and newspapers, not advertisers… In the context of government and community interest in diversity of sources of information and opinion, it is the market for ‘ideas’, rather than the market for advertising, that is relevant. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.350)

This is a basic dichotomy on the definition of diversity that most proponents of pluralism would see as putting the ACCC at a significant disadvantage in adjudicating media mergers. Submitting to the Productivity Commission, the Communications Law Centre (1999b) claimed the ACCC’s policy framework was ‘set to achieve a competitive market rather than diversely controlled sources of information’ (p.28). The Centre said the Trade Practices Act would be ineffectual in stopping the most likely media acquisition of that time – Kerry Packer’s takeover of the Fairfax newspaper group (Communications Law Centre, 1999b, p.28).22 For its part, Packer’s PBL (1999b) told the Productivity Commission that it felt ‘the supervision of mergers and acquisitions’ within the media could ‘satisfactorily be regulated by the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act’ (p.21). PBL (1999b) said ‘[n]o additional provisions beyond those presently found in the Trade Practices Act need be introduced’ (p.21).

The Australian Press Council (1999) also maintained some belief in the efficacy of the Trade Practices Act in terms of its ability to regulate Australia’s media. It went so far as to recommend ‘that the Trade Practices Act constitutes the

22 Ultimately this assertion was not tested, Packer deciding in July 2001 to sell his 14.9 per cent stake in the group (see ‘Packer sells out of Fairfax – “rivers of gold” lose their glitter’, The Australian, 2001, p.1). The reason for this was understood to be Packer’s belief that classified advertising in the Fairfax group was ‘failing’, particularly on Fairfax’s online sites (see ‘PBL sets course for the future’, The Australian, 2001, p.1). 85 only law governing competition in the media market, in particular determining whether a merger would have an effect, or be likely to have an effect, of substantially lessening competition’ (p.2). But the Council admitted that, in matters of diversity, the ACCC’s narrow economic focus had produced results that ran contrary to pluralism, citing a 1990 request by the owners of Perth’s West Australian to merge with the city’s only afternoon newspaper, The Daily News (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.10). According to the Council: ‘The Trade Practices Commission refused to authorise this [and] The Daily News was closed’ (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.10). Although, in terms of structural diversity, the merging of two newspapers or a non-merger that results in a newspaper closure amounts to the same thing, the Council recommended to the Commission that amendments to the Trade Practices Act be made to counter this; specifically that even if a merger was seen to lessen competition, and without a merger a media outlet would close, then if no alternative was available the ACCC should consider the proposal to be to the public’s benefit and approve it (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.2).

The Productivity Commission concurred with this, despite its misgivings about the ACCC’s economic-based policy framework. The Commission recommended that the Trade Practices Act be amended to provide for ‘a media- specific public interest test to apply to mergers and acquisitions’ to broaden its scope, adding that such tests were ‘a feature of broadcasting regulation in the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.358). The Commission cited one example of how a media-specific test ‘could be implemented in the Australian context’ by quoting a submission from the ACCC that advocated:

• all proposed media acquisitions or mergers above a certain size would be required to be notified in advance to the ACCC. They would be prohibited unless the parties to the acquisition could demonstrate it was not contrary to the public interest

• the ACCC would apply its normal merger guidelines. If the merger was likely to substantially lessen market competition, the matter need not be considered any further (if the parties ignored the ACCC’s advice and proceeded, the Commission could apply to the Federal Court for an injunction, penalties or divestiture)

• if the merger was unlikely to substantially reduce competition, either the ACCC or the media-specific regulator could consider the proposal under a new public interest test. If the parties could not demonstrate that the proposal was not contrary to the public interest, the merger or acquisition would be prohibited, [and]

• there would be a right of appeal to the Australian Competition Tribunal. (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.358-359)

The Productivity Commission noted that ‘[o]ne of the more controversial aspects of the ACCC’s proposal was that media mergers would be prohibited unless it could be demonstrated that they would be in the public interest…a reversal in the onus of proof, compared with the way in which the Trade Practices Act applies to other mergers’, and ‘some inquiry participants were wary of the public interest test’ in any case (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.360). For example, the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters told the Commission:

Such a course would have significant implications for the speed, cost and confidentiality of commercial transactions. It does not reflect commercial realities and may significantly impede investment in Australian media. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.360)

This wariness was reflected by a number of other participants. PBL (1999a) objected strenuously, saying a ‘media-specific public interest test…solely for media mergers’ would see competition law ‘treat one industry differently to others’ and would contravene Australia’s national competition policy laws, which were ‘to apply as far as possible, universal and uniform…market conduct’ (p.10). News Limited (2000) argued that the recommendation ‘undervalued’ the ‘important role played by new media such as the Internet in providing diversity in sources of information’ (p.3). The MEAA (1999b) argued that any public interest test ‘would involve the Government in constant micro-management of the industry as well as leaving the Government to make value judgements about relative media influence’, adding that ‘the UK Government has abandoned its plan to use such a test because of the complexities involved’ (p.12).

But in its recommendations the Productivity Commission (2000) remained committed to a media-specific public interest test, saying it considered that 87 implementing such a test in Australia was achievable and desirable, at least until such time as competition among media firms could be adequately addressed under mainstream competition law (p.363). The Commission added: ‘such is the speed with which convergence is occurring in the ownership of media and communications businesses, that the test should be implemented as soon as possible and apply more widely than the current rules’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.363). However, this recommendation was given in a suite of suggested changes that included amendments to foreign investment and cross-media ownership laws, with each recommendation conditional on the other recommendations being implemented (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.365-366).

Cross-media ownership laws

Cross-media ownership laws, enacted through the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987, limit common ownership of television, radio and newspapers in a single market. They are controlled by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, giving that authority jurisdiction over both print and broadcast media (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.343). When introduced, the Act was not only ‘very effective in breaking up the [media] conglomerates which existed before 1987’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxix), it also increased newspaper ownership concentration. Henderson (1991) contended that ‘cross-media ownership rules…effectively forced Fairfax [and] News Corporation out of television and radio’ (p.8). News Limited (1991a) agreed the Act had changed Australia’s media ownership structure, which in News Limited’s own case involved divesting substantial electronic media interests and directing its human and financial resources to specialise in print (p.1533). The difficulty, according to the Print Media Inquiry, was that cross-media ownership regulations did not extend to national newspapers and magazines (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxix). The inquiry recommended cross-media ownership laws be retained but that the Federal Government ‘proceed with amendments’ to include national newspapers and magazines in them (HRSCPM, 1992, pp.xxxiii-xxxiv).

However, events in the past ten years have well overtaken any intention the Print Media Inquiry may have had with its recommendations on cross-media ownership laws, particularly in relation to new media, which, it was argued to the 88

Productivity Commission, made such laws redundant. Of all the issues canvassed by the Productivity Commission, cross-media ownership laws caused the most debate. Perhaps predictably, arguments to the Commission for the modification of these rules came from proponents of the current market-based newspaper ownership structure, specifically PBL, News Limited, Rural Press Limited and the Australian Press Council; while those advocating their retention were those who saw a link between the laws and the maintenance of pluralism (for what it is, anyway), such as the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy, the Communications Law Centre and the MEAA.

Arguing for the relaxation of cross-media ownership laws, PBL (1999b) emphasised what it saw as the necessary ability for Australia’s media to grow in a global environment by arguing that cross-media rules constrained Australia’s media from building a sufficient capital base to compete globally (p.19). The rules were said to preclude:

• Diversifying • Growing and adding value to the economy • Investing overseas • Operating more efficiently • Using…digital opportunities overseas • Investing in new products • Improving the quality of programming and other community services • Exporting more product, and • Improving the capability of broadcasters to meet broadcasting objectives. (PBL, 1999b, pp.20-21)

To emphasise its point, PBL (1999a) referred to News Limited’s acquiring the Herald & Weekly Times group in the mid-1980s, prior to the introduction of cross- media rules, arguing:

The acquisition, which occurred when Rupert Murdoch was still an Australian citizen, prior to a change in domicile and base to the USA, gave News Limited sufficient domestic scale to give it impetus to fund international acquisitions and compete globally. (p.8)

News Limited (1999) echoed the sentiment, arguing that cross-media regulation would marginalise Australia’s media:

In this context…it is important to realise that Australia is not in the same position as nations like the USA and the UK. Those countries have large pools of resources including capital, experience, knowledge and skill. Australia does not have the same degree of options to a large extent because it does not have the population base to have cultivated them to a comparable level. In order to be competitive with those countries which do have the resources at their fingertips, Australia may need to adopt a different approach. This is why…the fact that other nations continue to have cross- media or other ownership restrictions is not a justification for Australia to do the same. (p.17)

News Limited (2000) argued that the cross-media ownership laws were ‘anti- competitive’ (p.19) and applied ‘only to certain parts of the media industry namely free-to-air television, newspapers and radio’ (p.3). Proposals to have them apply ‘across the entire industry,’ said News Limited (2000), ‘would increase the regulation of the industry rather than decrease it’ (p.3). This reasoning was also used by the Australian Press Council (1999), which argued the cross-media ownership laws were ‘not suitable tools for the determination of [ownership] concentration in each media market’ (p.7). The Council gave the Productivity Commission additional reasons why it believed the laws should be abolished, contesting that:

• cross-media rules ‘do not encompass all aspects of our integrated broad media market. Significant parts…are ignored [such as] videotapes, satellite television, the Internet, magazines, and the non-Anglophone media’

• ‘without frequent legislative amendment’ cross-media rules ‘cannot accommodate technological change’

• cross-media rules ‘lack the desirable attributes of media ownership regulation – particularly flexibility, transparency and neutrality’

• cross-media rules ‘are too blunt to be capable of application on a “case by case” approach with a proper consideration of the various factors which affect competition in a particular market’, and

• cross-media rules ‘measure ownership only. They assume the more concentrated the ownership the less diverse the media’ (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.7).

PBL (1999b) argued that repealing the cross-media ownership laws would not limit diversity (p.3). The company said common ownership of different media forms such as newspapers and television would stimulate rather than reduce the range of media services providing news and information by ‘providing administrative and operational efficiencies’ that would enable ‘both high risk assumption and new investment and growth’ (PBL, 1999b, p.3). PBL (1999b) added:

Common ownership will not affect [the] uniqueness of different media… There will always be diversity between the different sectors, even with a common owner [as] the unique properties of each medium, and the specific needs that each medium is required to satisfy, differentiate the media forms. (p.10)

News Limited (2000) also considered the impact of specific media on diversity, urging the Productivity Commission ‘to accept the important role played by new media such as the Internet in providing diversity in sources of information’ and gave the example of ‘the Drudge Report in breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the world’ (p.3). This point was also highlighted by Rural Press (1999), which said that with the ‘changing face of communications technology’ it did not believe the rules ‘could not or should not be re-visited when the impact of convergence becomes more apparent’ (p.6).

The MEAA (1999b), however, discounted such suggestions, saying there was ‘no evidence to support [the] argument’ that ‘[c]onvergence of technology makes cross media rules anachronistic’ (p.5). The MEAA (1999b) said that ‘[d]espite the claims in 1997 by opponents of cross media restrictions that the burgeoning of new services have rendered the cross media rules redundant…four content houses continue to dominate the traditional and new media markets: Fairfax, PBL, News 91 and the ABC’ (p.6). In the organisation’s view it was ‘just too early to judge whether in the long term the emerging new services will deliver greater diversity of content’ (MEAA, 1999b, p.6). The MEAA (1999a) said cross-media ownership rules had ‘one compelling argument in their favour: they work’, and added:

The likely outcome of scrapping these rules is a reduction in the number of major media owners operating in Australia. The ambitions of the News group, PBL and now Fairfax to extend their existing media interests into cross mediums is a matter of public record. These rules have ensured the existence of five major commercial forces in the media: three major print groups, and three commercial television networks, with Mr Kerry Packer’s Publishing and Broadcasting having interests in both print and television. If the cross media rules had not been introduced, the inevitable move toward networking in television and radio would have resulted in News Limited, which already controls 60 per cent of the newspaper circulation, and PBL, emerging as the dominant duopoly in the industry, each controlling key broadcasting and newspaper properties across the country. (pp.2-3)

The MEAA (1999a) said cross-media ownership laws ‘had a significant impact in regional areas, breaking up previous local monopolies which were just as damaging to their own communities as national concentration is to Australia as a whole’ (p.2). The organisation said it was ‘clearly the case that removal of the cross media rules would result in an almost immediate reduction in diversity of ownership and the establishment of no more than two dominant media players’ and argued that ‘practical steps’ needed to be taken ‘to ensure the dominant players in traditional media’ did not ‘also come to dominate new media’ (MEAA, 1999a, p.2). The MEAA (1999a) said:

One action that could be taken is to use cross ownership rules to create a divide between content providers and delivery systems. By requiring owners of delivery systems – usually telecommunications companies – to sell equally to content providers, the probability of new players emerging would be greatly increased. (p.2)

The MEAA (1999b) succinctly summarised its arguments when it concluded: ‘Any proposal to amend the cross media restrictions should be judged to one single criteria (sic): will it increase media diversity?’ (p.13). 92

The Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy (1999a) also warned that freeing up cross-media ownership laws would assist old media to dominate new media, as it would ‘give rise to economies of scope between different media activities that were previously separated’ (p.9). 23 The Centre said the ‘phenomenon of convergence and the large number of media mergers in recent years are testament to this effect’ (AKCCMP, 1999a, p.9). The Productivity Commission (2000) gave ABC online, a ‘one ABC’ structure ‘where content sourced from one platform – radio, television or online’ was ‘used and adapted for others’, as an example of this (p.113). And the Communications Law Centre (1999b) wanted not only to retain the laws, but to have them transferred from the Australian Broadcasting Authority to the ACCC, to remove the anomaly of having a broadcasting authority controlling the newspaper industry (p.21).

In considering submissions arguing both for retaining cross-media rules and for modifying, abolishing or replacing them, the Productivity Commission (2000) ultimately decided that ‘repealing the cross-media rules…would not be wise’ (p.365). The Commission said the greatest advantage of the current rules was their simplicity, but this was ‘also their greatest disadvantage…they are arbitrary, inflexible and potentially costly’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.365). The Commission agreed with PBL that investing across different media could ‘help firms to diversify risk’, ‘position themselves to take better advantage of opportunities as they arise’ and ‘improve efficiency through whatever economies of scale and scope are available’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.346), and noted:

While the key objective should be to encourage diversity of information and opinion, cross-media regulation should not unduly constrain the development of media companies that would be in the national interest. If cross-media control rules are retained, consideration could be given to permitting cross-media mergers below a specified threshold. This would have the advantages of permitting some smaller mergers to proceed and allowing small media companies to gain strength through economies of scope. (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.356-357)

23 Economies of scale are synergies in the same business and economies of scope are synergies across different businesses (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.345). 93

However, the Commission cautioned that ‘care would be needed to limit the application [of the rules] to markets in which alternative sources of opinion are available’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.357).

The Productivity Commission (2000) also identified with arguments that cross-media ownership laws as they currently stood were inequitable in that they were ‘restricted to newspapers, free to air television and free to air radio on the grounds that these [were] the more influential media’ (p.351). The Commission noted:

times have changed, and if such rules are to be maintained, other related areas might now be considered. In particular, the steady growth in the uptake of subscription television, the imminent arrival of datacasting and Internet broadcasting, challenge the philosophical basis of the cross-media rules and erode their ability to achieve the objectives of the BSA. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.351)

On the issue of the ongoing relevance of cross-media ownership laws in a time when media forms (and the organisations that use them) were seen to be converging, the Commission put forward its view that the laws’ effectiveness ‘in controlling media concentration’ was ‘diminishing as convergence in technology and company ownership gathers pace’, while the laws also ‘constrained the growth and development of old media companies and do nothing about the new’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.23). The Commission believed that ‘[e]ventually, the cross-media rules should be replaced with a more flexible approach suited to the new, emerging media environment’ but only when ‘a more competitive media environment is established’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.3). However, the Productivity Commission disagreed with the Communications Law Centre’s suggestion that responsibility for cross-media regulation should pass to the ACCC, believing that the Trade Practices Act was ‘ill-equipped to cope with cross-media mergers’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.24). As mentioned, the Commission recommended a media-specific public interest test be inserted into the Trade Practices Act (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.24), arguing that the Act could accommodate cross-media regulation if such a test was in place as the test 94

‘would emphasise the social, cultural and political dimensions of the public interest in the control of media businesses’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.358).

Overall, the Productivity Commission came to its conclusions on cross- media ownership laws by considering the entire media spectrum, including the preclusion of new television stations in Australia and restrictive policies on allocating spectrum.24 I would argue that the Commission then based its cross-media recommendations on two main premises: (a) that the laws placed ‘increasingly severe’ constraints on established media’s growth and investments; and (b) that the laws’ effectiveness would ‘decline as convergence proceeds’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.3). The Commission recommended the cross-media laws ‘be removed’, but, to ensure diversity, it recommended this occur only when ‘a more competitive media environment is established’ saying that that was when a media- specific public interest test was in place in the Trade Practices Act, a higher level of foreign investment was permitted, the ban on the entry of new television stations was removed and a significant amount of spectrum was available for new broadcasters (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.3).

Cryle (2001) said this was ‘cautionary advice’ that provided an ‘ongoing dilemma’ for the Federal Government, particularly as the government had ‘continued to advocate a policy of deregulating’ the cross-media ownership laws, but had ‘been inhibited by the complexity of the issues and lack of support from other political

24 By way of explanation, the Productivity Commission included the following in its Broadcasting Report: ‘Planning for free to air television services was based on the assumption (made before the introduction of the BSA in 1992) that there would be a maximum of six free to air television operators in each widely defined licence area. Each potential service was allotted 7 megahertz to transmit its main signal using high powered equipment. The first television sets used in Australia were highly susceptible to the interference caused when adjacent channels were used to send different signals. There were only going to be six channels, so this problem was solved by leaving every second channel vacant. Large blocks of spectrum have been left unused. Further, local geography means some consumers have problems receiving a clear signal (for example, people living in parts of Sydney). Planners have solved this problem by using supplementary transmitters, each using a separate frequency. As a result, Sydney uses 18 frequencies to provide five channels of television programming, plus buffer channels between each of these. The assumption of only six services meant that other, more spectrum efficient solutions were not considered. Improved technology means there are now other solutions to these problems. Modern television sets (those manufactured in the past 10 years) are capable of preventing adjacent channel interference, for example. Similarly, affordable but sophisticated antennae or a cable system could be used to solve problems experienced by consumers who do not receive a clear signal. However, these improvements in technology do not appear to have been reflected in the ABA’s planning process’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.185).

95 parties’ (p.1). That lack of support was readily evidenced when proposed media law reform, in the guise of the Broadcasting Services (Media Ownership) Amendment Bill 2002, was presented to Federal Parliament on 21 March 2002. Then Communications Minister Senator Richard Alston (2002) said the Bill provided ‘the opportunity to update Australia’s outdated media ownership regime in a way that encourages greater competition and use of new technologies whilst providing strict safeguards to ensure diversity of opinion and minimum levels of local news and information’. He said the Bill:

empowered the Australian Broadcasting Authority to grant ‘exemption certificates’ to applicants seeking to acquire media organisations that would otherwise represent a breach of the cross- media rules. Exemptions will be subject to applicants meeting requirements to maintain separate editorial decision-making responsibilities so as to ensure diversity of opinion. Therefore, before receiving an exemption, applicants will be required to demonstrate the existence of:

• separate and publicly available editorial policies;

• appropriate and publicly available organisational charts; and

• separate editorial news management, news compilation process and news gathering and interpretation capabilities. (Alston, 2002)

Alston (2002) said these requirements would ‘not prevent the sharing of resources or other forms of cooperation between jointly-controlled media operations, provided that the requirements above continue to be fulfilled’. The Bill also removed the Broadcasting Services Act’s restrictions on foreign ownership, with Alston (2002) saying the Federal Government was ‘committed to removing the current limits on the foreign ownership of newspapers [although the] general foreign investment framework will continue to apply to television, radio and newspapers’.

Predictably, Senator Alston’s proposals brought on considerable politicking. Stuart Simpson, a co-author of the Productivity Commission’s Broadcasting Inquiry report, was reported as saying: ‘When you’re locking out new players from the digital broadcast spectrum and relaxing cross-media, you’re going to increase the probability of fewer owners and less diversity at a time when diversity is already 96 receding’ (Schulze, Dodd & Macfarlane, 2002, p.4). The Communications Law Centre (2002a) claimed that the Bill’s ‘mechanisms for achieving editorial separation’ were ‘flawed’ and served as a ‘de facto means of achieving the repeal of the cross-media rules without any real substitute to safeguard the public interest’ (p.2). The Centre said it believed the cross-media ownership laws were still ‘the best available mechanism’ for preserving diversity in the nation’s media, adding that they were ‘now more relevant than they were in 1987’ (Communications Law Centre, 2002a, p.3). The originator of Australia’s cross-media laws, former Prime Minister Paul Keating, said the proposed reforms were ‘a good solid whack on diversity and pluralism’ (Schulze, 2002a, p.3), adding they were ‘the work of a “shonky government” ’ (Dodd, 2002b, p.3). Senator Alston rejected this, and referring to new media technologies and convergence, said ‘so much has changed’ since Keating introduced the rules (Schulze, 2002a, p.3). Alston (2002) said the reforms would ‘improve Australian media companies’ access to capital, facilitate investment in new technologies, enable media companies to grow and expand in the new content-driven converging global media environment, and ensure that Australian consumers have access to high quality media offerings’. But the Australian Democrats, key players on whether or not the Bill would pass through the Senate, criticised the proposed reforms, saying they were ‘five years out of date’ and contained no reference to the ‘buzzwords’ of ‘digitisation’ or ‘convergence’ (Milne, 2002). For their part, News Limited and Fairfax newspapers reported the introduction of the Bill objectively, quoting large sections of Senator Alston’s media release on the proposed reforms verbatim, but also covering those who opposed them, including:

• comments by Labor party communications spokesman Lindsay Tanner that the proposed reforms were ‘blatant window dressing’ and that giving Australian Broadcasting Authority head David Flint the power to adjudicate on applications for exemptions from the current cross-media ownership laws would see the process ‘administered by a man who recently called for Australia’s media moguls to be unshackled from the media ownership laws’ (Henderson, 2002, p.1)

• claims of a ‘revolt by Coalition backbenchers’ after Alston ‘had not consulted them sufficiently’ on the proposed reforms and that ‘the [then] acting Prime Minister and National Party Leader, John Anderson, [had] distanced himself from the legislation’ (Patrick, 2002, p.10), and

• examples of the proposed reforms lessening structural diversity, such as speculation that regional newspaper The Sheppharton News might be ‘swallow[ed] up’ by neighbouring Win TV (Dodd, 2002c, p.3), that News Limited or Fairfax might buy the Seven or Ten television networks, that PBL might buy either Fairfax or the Austereo radio network, that Channel 7 might buy West Australian Newspaper Holdings or Rural Press, and that Australian Provincial News and Media might buy Fairfax (Schulze, 2002b, p.4).25

Overall, however, neither media group considered changes to cross-media ownership laws imminent, instead expressing opinions (either directly or through others) that it was unlikely the Broadcasting Services (Media Ownership) Amendment Bill 2002 would pass through the Senate (Patrick, 2002, p.10); that members of parliament were ‘unconvinced of [the] Bill’s benefits’ (Price, 2002, p.4); and that Australia’s principal (and foreign) media owner Rupert Murdoch was ‘sceptical about the prospect’ that reforms to cross-media and foreign ownership of Australia’s media would occur (Kitney, 2002, p.1).

The Federal Senate’s Communications Legislation Committee, which had been studying the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002, subsequently tabled a report on 18 June 2002 that approved the proposed changes (Maguire, 2002). The report concluded: ‘loosening restrictions on foreign ownership and allowing cross-ownership…would not threaten the diversity of media in Australia’ (Maguire, 2002). The Committee said it would agree to the Bill ‘subject to four recommendations’ to ‘protect the public interest’, being that:

25 The key word here, of course, is speculation, a point not lost on The Australian, the newspaper that generated this list of possible takeovers. The list was contained in an article headed ‘We’re not dying to buy TV Station: Murdoch’ in which Lachlan Murdoch, representing The Australian’s owner News Limited, denied that News Limited was interested in taking over commercial free-to-air television networks when it was so involved in Australia’s Foxtel pay TV network (Schulze, 2002b, p.4).

• media outlets disclose cross-ownership when reporting on issues relating to other outlets in its stable

• there be a requirement for the provision of local news in regional Australia

• one company should control only two of the three forms of media (television, radio and newspaper) in one market, and

• incentives be given to provide local content (Maguire, 2002).

However, a dissenting report from Labor and Democrat senators on the committee, recommending the Senate reject the proposed changes, was also was tabled (Maguire, 2002). Without Labor and Democrat support, it is said, the proposed changes would be ‘doomed’ (Lewis, 2002, p.1).

On 7 October 2003, in a Federal Cabinet reshuffle, Richard Alston resigned as Communications Minister and was replaced by Daryl Williams. At the time of writing this thesis, no further word was given on the progress of the Broadcasting Services (Media Ownership) Amendment Bill 2002 or Mr Williams’s intentions on pursuing it to legislation.

Foreign investment

The MEAA (1994) believed that Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) was an appropriate vehicle to limit foreign ownership of Australian newspapers, saying a 20 per cent limit on foreign ownership would increase competition (p.2). The Print Media Inquiry recommended the FIRB control foreign takeovers to a limit of 20 per cent, but it did so for the opposite reason – to encourage overseas investment. The inquiry reported that it was ‘contradictory to seek increased diversity of ownership on the one hand whilst at the same time prohibiting any foreign ownership of Australian newspapers’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxx). The inquiry recommended that the FIRB ‘continue to examine all foreign 99 investment proposals in the print media’, that ‘proposals with up to 20 per cent foreign control be approved’, and that proposals above 20 per cent be considered ‘in the national interest’ (HRSCPM, 1992, pp.xxxiv-xxxv).

In contrast to the cross-media ownership laws polemic, however, the subject of foreign investment in and foreign ownership of Australia’s media was ‘the least problematic for the Productivity Commission’ (Cryle, 2001, p.1). The reason for this was that key players in the inquiry, including News Limited, PBL, the MEAA and the Australian Press Council, agreed with the Productivity Commission that restrictions on foreign investment in Australia’s media were ‘[a]nti-competitive’ and ‘should be removed’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.3). This contrasted significantly with the Print Media Inquiry’s recommendations on foreign investment that, according to Cryle (2001), were made amid ‘long-standing opposition to the presence of foreign ownership’ underpinned by the fear that foreign ownership was ‘capable of neglecting and misrepresenting local cultures as well as exercising undue influence on matters of national importance’ (p.2). But much has changed in the media since 1992 and these changes were recognised by the Productivity Commission, and submitters to it, as the reason for the growing ineffectiveness of foreign ownership restrictions. These changes include the influences of new media and globalism, the allaying of fears that foreign ownership exercised undue influence on national culture and a recognition that much of Australia’s media is already foreign owned and controlled.

The FIRB administers the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and through it examines proposals by foreigners who wish to acquire a controlling interest in Australian radio, television and newspapers (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.58). Media assets valued at $5 million or more are subject to the Act, which empowers the Federal Treasurer to block any acquisition considered ‘contrary to the national interest’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.338). The FIRB consults the Australian Broadcasting Authority for advice when it feels applications may also breach the Broadcasting Services Act, this Act prohibiting foreigners from directly controlling a television licence and restricting two or more foreigners to a combined interest of not more than 20 per cent in a television licence – restrictions that have been in place since television began in Australia in 1956 (Productivity Commission, 100

2000, pp. 332-333). Under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, any foreign proposal to acquire a 5 per cent or more interest in existing mass circulation national, metropolitan, suburban or provincial newspapers; or to establish one of these newspapers; is examined on a case-by-case basis, with a maximum allowable foreign investment of 25 per cent for aggregate shareholders or 30 per cent for a single shareholder (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.339-340).

According to the Productivity Commission (2000), these restrictions ‘were intended to protect national sovereignty by preventing foreigners from gaining a position of interest on domestic opinion’ (p.332). The Australian Press Council (1999) described this as a ‘principle objection’ of foreign investment in Australia’s media, saying there was ‘a frequently expressed concern that [foreign investment] will reduce Australian content and influence in the media’ (p.13). But the Council told the Commission there was ‘no evidence to suggest that this result follows’, especially if the ‘directors, editors and journalists’ within foreign-controlled media remained Australian (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.13). Even PBL, long a supporter of foreign ownership laws, conceded this, telling the Productivity Commission that previous justifications for restricting foreign investment had ‘become meaningless’ at a time when ‘foreign participation’ in Australia’s media had become ‘a reality’ (PBL, 1999b, p.4). The MEAA (1999b) told the Commission that it believed much of Australia’s media was ‘already foreign controlled as a result of ad hoc decisions in the past’ (p.13). ‘News was permitted to take over the Herald and Weekly Times, CanWest has been permitted to take a 57.5 per cent stake of the Ten network and the O’Reilly group has been allowed to buy 50 per cent of one of the largest regional publishers,’ the MEAA (1999b) submitted (p.13). The MEAA (1999a) said it had ‘regretfully come to the view that foreign ownership of Australian media’ was a ‘lesser evil than domination by a handful of Australian companies’ (p.3). This point was not lost on former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who told the Commission that:

While Australian control of media outlets is desirable…the greater problem for the Australian community is not the possible dissemination by a foreign corporation of material biased against Australia’s national interests, but a lack of diversity and plurality of 101

views among the mainstream outlets. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.335)

PBL (1999b) told the Commission that the Internet, the deregulation of Australia’s telecommunications industries, and pay television, which was not subject to foreign ownership restrictions, were key drivers for ‘transnational companies’ operating in Australia (p.18). New media and the deregulation of Australia’s telecommunications industries have led media analysts to predict wide-spread investment by overseas companies in Australia’s media, one report suggesting that ‘for the first time Australia could see major media investment by foreign groups such as America’s AOL Time Warner and Britain’s Pearson group’ (Schulze, 2002b, p.4). PBL (1999b) said the repeal of foreign ownership restrictions would ‘encourage efficiency’ by giving local media organisations scope to compete with ‘global media companies’ (p.4). Local companies could build a stronger capital base for investment, and with it, the leverage required for growth, the company said (PBL, 1999b, p.4). According to PBL (1999b), these companies could then better meet public interest objectives, diversity and Australian content (p.5). News Limited (1999) told the Productivity Commission that current foreign investment restrictions were ‘anomalous’ in an era of globalisation, especially when Australian companies needed access to ‘excess capital’ to invest in new media technologies (p.1). News Limited (1999) claimed foreign investment restrictions also prevented the Australian media’s access to ‘knowledge and expertise not yet cultivated in Australia’ (p.1).

The Australian Press Council (1999) concurred, telling the Commission that ‘the promotion of plurality, diversity and competition in the media’ required ‘a significant degree of foreign investment’ (p.13). The Council said there was ‘no cogent reason’ for foreign investment to be specifically restricted from new media outlets (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.2). News Limited (1999) agreed that in ‘the age of digital convergence’ it was ‘no longer practical’ to ensure Australian control of the media, particularly when the nationality of a particular company ‘in an economy now so international’ was ‘no longer clear’ (p.12). Indeed, the MEAA (1999b) argued globalism had largely subverted attempts to restrict foreign investment, saying that as media and telecommunications services became more 102 globalised it would be ‘increasingly difficult’ for governments to pursue such regulation (pp.13-14).

In its report, the Productivity Commission (2000) agreed completely with these arguments, contending that, in conjunction with the removal of other barriers to entry, less restrictive foreign investment regulations would encourage both structural and content diversity in Australia’s media (p.334). The Commission said foreign investment was ‘an important mechanism for guarding against concentration in the media’ and would encourage ‘greater diversity in information and opinion’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.334). The Commission agreed with the MEAA’s view that foreign investment regulations were subverted with international companies now investing in Australian media ‘through the use of sophisticated financial instruments and other contractual arrangements’ to a ‘degree that may be difficult to unravel’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.335). The Commission said concerns about foreign proprietors of Australia’s media being ‘less sympathetic’ to Australian culture, political values and local content were unfounded, mainly because these proprietors had to provide content ‘that appeals to Australian audiences’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.23). In its recommendations, the Productivity Commission (2000) called for the removal of ‘restrictions on foreign investment, ownership and control’ from the Broadcasting Services Act (p.23), although, interestingly, it did not call for the repeal of similar restrictions in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, which gives the FIRB control of foreign investment in newspapers. When the Productivity Commission’s report was produced as a draft, News Limited (2000) responded that this was anomalous and argued there were ‘strong reasons’ to support the removal of ‘all media specific restrictions…whether included in the Broadcasting Services Act or FIRB policy’ (p.2). However, the anomaly (if the Productivity Commission ever saw it as such) was not redressed in the Commission’s final report.

The Australian Press Council

The Australian Press Council aims ‘to help preserve the traditional freedom of the press within Australia and ensure that the free press acts responsibly and ethically’ (Australian Press Council, 2000). It achieves these aims by ‘serv[ing] as a 103 forum to which anyone may take a complaint concerning the press’ and ‘keep[ing] a watching brief’ on developments that might ‘impinge’ on the freedom of the press (Australian Press Council, 2000). However, the Council has suffered through a lack of legislative power to enforce its decisions and has been seen by some as a ‘toothless tiger’ (Hippocrates & Cunningham, 1991, p.1747). Kerry Packer told the Print Media Inquiry that the Council was ‘a complete and absolute piece of window dressing’ (Communications Law Centre, 1991, p.5). With regard to the Australian Press Council, the Print Media Inquiry recommended that:

• the Council be restructured to have equal representation from the public, publishers and the (then) Australian Journalists Association

• the Council be funded by the print media industry and adequately resourced to publicise its activities and deal with complaints, and

• newspaper publishers be required (presumably through legislation, although this was not stated) to publish in full the Council’s adjudication on any matter affecting a particular publication (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxxii).

The Australian Press Council also gave considerable input to the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting’s deliberations, but it was not the subject of these deliberations. This is not surprising, since the Commission’s inquiry essentially dealt with broadcasting regulation in Australia, in particular the efficacy of the Broadcasting Services Act. Therefore, while the Print Media Inquiry detailed a number of recommendations for changes to the Australian Press Council to enable it to better deal with complaints made against newspapers, the Productivity Commission gave no such recommendations.

Charters of editorial independence

Charters of editorial independence were seen by the Print Media Inquiry as one mechanism to maintain the separation of owners’ business interests and the editorial content of their newspapers, but the inquiry recommended that charters be 104 initiated as voluntary agreements only (HRSCPM, 1992, p.291). This was a significant recommendation for the then Australian Journalists Association, which had submitted strongly in favour of editorial charters and claimed such agreements ‘were the only way to save the independence of editors and journalists’ (Australian Journalists Association, 1991b, p.1). But no support for charters of editorial independence was offered by the Australian Press Council, which adopted the position that was finally recommended by the Print Media Inquiry: that it would be ‘inappropriate [for] Charters of Editorial Independence [to] be imposed by legislation or made the subject of civil or industrial litigation’ (Australian Press Council, 1991, p.1318). The Council argued that ‘demarcation of powers between publisher and editor’ could be adequately provided by existing principles such as journalists’ codes of ethics (Australian Press Council, 1991, p.1318).

Editorial charters have had a chequered history since these recommendations were made. According to Lawe Davies (1999), editors and journalists at Fairfax newspapers had been the ‘strongest supporters’ of editorial charters, mainly because of takeover attempts in the late 1980s and early 1990s (p.56). But changes to the newspaper group’s hierarchy, particularly the appointment of ‘former Packer senior executive Brian Powers’ as Fairfax’s chief executive officer, had meant there was ‘no more talk of charters’ (Lawe Davies, 1999, p.56).26 There was similarly ‘no talk’ of editorial charters by the Productivity Commission, the Commission making no comment regarding charters in its report or recommendations – save for recognising a submission by the Ten television network that journalists’ codes of ethics (which, the Australian Press Council submitted to the Print Media Inquiry, negated the need for charters of editorial independence) were not sufficient to ensure content diversity in Australia’s media (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.313). The Ten network clearly linked structural diversity, journalistic independence and content diversity saying:

in a country where journalistic independence is enshrined in a code of ethics, journalists and editors should be trusted to uphold balance and objectivity. However, without alternate employment with a number of other media outlets, the risk is that at the very least, some form of self-censorship will influence journalistic and editorial

26 Former academic Fred Hilmer now heads Fairfax. 105

standards… The most effective, objective way of promoting diversity of views is to ensure diversity of ownership. (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.313)

More similarities than differences

The Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting had more similarities than differences, even though they were eight years apart and, in title at least, dealt with different media: print and broadcast. Four particular similarities are germane to discussions about structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry. First, both inquiries showed a clear link between structural and content diversity, regardless of submissions by major media groups that such a link did not exist. Secondly, there was a consistent division of opinion about pluralism expressed to both inquiries. Major media groups submitted to both inquiries that Australia’s current media structure promoted sufficient diverse information and opinion. Opposing this were journalists’ peak associations, independent media research organisations and various individual submissions. Thirdly, both inquiries relied on legislative changes to increase structural diversity (even though the Productivity Commission’s terms of reference included non- legislative approaches), particularly through changes to the Trade Practices Act and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. And fourthly, both inquiries’ recommendations were ultimately ignored by the governments of the day. By summarising the arguments presented to, and the conclusions and recommendations of the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting, these issues are discussed below.

Linking structural and content diversity

The Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting were both clear on how they saw the relationship between structural and content diversity in the nation’s media. The former is necessary for the latter. The Print Media Inquiry recognised this, but indicated it was just about impossible to guarantee structural diversity (and, hence, provide content diversity). As it considered the diverging arguments that content diversity could only be ensured by a diverse number of media owners; and that content diversity could be ensured by 106 diverse views presented by the same owner, for example, the Print Media Inquiry concurred with the former but sided with the inevitability of the latter, finding that ‘an excessive level of media ownership concentration’ was ‘a potential threat to maintaining the diversity of sources of information’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.223). The Productivity Commission (2000), meanwhile, believed the link between structural and content diversity was ‘a fundamental building block’ for media regulation (p.311). The Commission clearly pointed to the existence of such a link in no less than three instances in its report, saying that:

• diversity of sources of information and opinion is most likely to be served by diversity in ownership of media companies (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.2)

• new entrants in the media market could increase the potential for greater diversity of views and opinion in the ‘market for ideas’ as well as provide consumers with a much wider range of services than is available currently (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.12), and

• ownership concentration may also limit the range of ideas and information available to the community (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.21).

In its report summary, the Commission said that while it accepted that diversity of information and opinion ‘may not be inconsistent with a concentrated media sector, other factors being equal, it is more likely to be achieved where there is diversity in ownership and control’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.328).

A difference of opinion

Established media groups and the Australian Press Council essentially gave the same arguments to both the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting, seeing no link between structural and content diversity. Journalists who work for these media groups (through the Australian Journalists Association and later the MEAA), the Communications Law 107

Centre, the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, and independent submissions told both inquiries that they saw a definite link between structural and content diversity. Conversely, and as discussed, News Limited argued to both inquiries that a lack of structural diversity did not impinge on content diversity and that a link between structural and content diversity was ‘demonstrably wrong’ (Swan & Garvey, 1991, p.2112 and News Limited, 1999, pp.10-11). Concurring, the Australian Press Council (1991) submitted to the Print Media Inquiry that ‘a wide divergence’ and ‘pluralism’ existed in Australia’s newspapers, and that ‘within the principal owners of the Australian press there exists…a wide diversity of approaches to the provision of information’ (Australian Press Council, 1991, pp.1315-1316). The Council added to the Productivity Commission that, even when a monopoly newspaper existed in a market, that newspaper ‘typically leans over backwards to ensure diverse views appear’ (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.7). PBL (1999b) told the Productivity Commission, meanwhile, that ‘[s]ince 1992 the array of information and opinion provided by media outlets has grown substantially’ (p.5) and that the influence of major media owners was ‘massively diluted’ because of this ‘abundance of sources of information’ (p.8).

Representing journalists employed by these media, however, the Australian Journalists Association (1991a) told the Print Media Inquiry that ‘a free independent media reflecting diversity of opinion’ was ‘a precondition of democratic societies’; that concentration of media ownership had threatened diversity; and that ‘market forces’ had ‘failed to provide a diverse media’ (p.743). To the Productivity Commission, the MEAA (1999b) continued to argue that diverse media ownership, as opposed to just diverse content, was necessary in Australia’s media (p.2). According to the MEAA, it was only Australia’s cross-media ownership laws that stopped the further concentration of media ownership. The organisation said the ‘likely outcome’ of ‘scrapping’ these rules was ‘a reduction in the number of major media owners operating in Australia’ (MEAA, 1999b, p.2). The Communications Law Centre (1999b) agreed, telling the Productivity Commission that further concentration in Australia’s media would occur if existing regulation was removed (p.24).

108

Regulating for diversity

The Print Media Inquiry placed its greatest faith in the Trade Practices Act to deliver diversity. It believed ‘greater competition…and wider diversity of ownership’ of Australia’s newspapers could be effected ‘over time’ through changes to the Act to give the then Trade Practices Commission greater power to ‘fully assess’ proposals for print media organisations to merge (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxv). The inquiry then somewhat optimistically recommended: ‘When the existing concentration begins to break down’ trade practices legislation should act ‘to promote competition and diversity of ownership’ (HRSCPM, p.xxv). The Print Media Inquiry recommended retaining cross-media ownership laws (and, indeed, sought their upgrading) to preserve what diversity there currently was in Australia’s newspapers (HRSCPM, 1992, pp.xxxiii-xxxiv). The inquiry then recommended the Foreign Investment Review Board encourage overseas investment, saying it was ‘contradictory to seek increased diversity of ownership on the one hand whilst at the same time prohibiting any foreign ownership of Australian newspapers’ (HRSCPM, 1992, p.xxx).

The Trade Practices Commission merged with the Prices Surveillance Authority to become the ACCC in 1995. But the Productivity Commission was less hopeful that structural diversity could be maintained or increased by the ACCC as it believed that, in matters of diversity, the ACCC had a too narrow economic focus. The Productivity Commission also recommended changes to the Trace Practices Act, including a media-specific public interest test, to rectify this perceived failing and give the ACCC a broader focus, although this suggestion was rejected not only by News Limited and PBL, but also by the journalists they employ, all of whom saw this as giving government the role of micro-managing the media (News Limited, 2000, p.3; PBL, 1999a, p.10 and MEAA, 1999b, p.12).

Reflecting changes in thinking since media groups started to converge with new media technologies, the Productivity Commission (2000) cautioned that cross- media laws’ effectiveness in controlling any reduction in structural diversity was ‘diminishing as convergence in technology’ gained momentum (p.23). The Commission recommended the laws ‘be removed’, but only when changes to the 109

ACCC could ensure ‘a more competitive media environment [was] established’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.3), presumably through new media technology, although this was not stated. Changing attitudes since the Print Media Inquiry also saw a reshaping of views towards foreign ownership. Unlike the earlier inquiry, which recommended foreign ownership levels in Australia’s newspapers be capped at 20 per cent, the Productivity Commission recommended the removal of all foreign ownership limits, a recommendation that received consent from most contributors to the inquiry, including News Limited, PBL, the Australian Press Council and the MEAA, all of whom saw foreign investment as a given in a time of global investment by media companies (News Limited, 1999, p.1; PBL, 1999a, p.4, p.18; Australian Press Council, 1999, p.13 and MEAA, 1999b, p.13).

Government indifference

A fourth comparison between the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting shows that both inquiries, having presumably cost taxpayers considerably, were subsequently ignored by the governments that initiated them. In 1992, Chadwick (1992b) remarked that the Print Media Inquiry’s recommendations remained ‘unremarked and untouched’ by government (p.3); while co-author of the Productivity Commission’s report, Stuart Simpson, said the Federal Government had ‘discarded the report’s recommendations’ (Schulze, Dodd & Macfarlane, 2002, p.4).

Why are media inquiry recommendations rarely (if ever) enacted? I see two reasons: the nature of politics and the nature of media regulation. I have worked in politics since 1986 and know only too well that decisions are sometimes predicated on political rather than pragmatic imperatives. In some cases it does not suit the government of the day, politically, to enact media reform. Putnis and Payne (2000) argue that politicians ‘crave media support’ as ‘their political fortunes are influenced by media reporting’ and they remain ‘dependent on the media to promote their status as public figures’ (p.1). To which I might add that in my experience some government inquiries are more to filibuster than to fix and, as such, their objectives are satisfied before any recommendations are made.

110

But this examination of the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting shows that reforming media regulation is genuinely difficult. There are many competing interests to satisfy. During a presentation by Senator Alston in Brisbane on 18 November 2003, I had an opportunity to ask him personally what challenges the Federal Government faced with media reform, specifically whether such challenges might be related to party politics, governments’ fear of dominant media owners or new technology.27 Senator Alston was unequivocal in his reply, saying the single most challenging aspect of media reform for government was the media’s vested interests. ‘With something like cross-media reform, it is very difficult,’ he said, ‘because everyone’s got a vested interest. Every media outlet has a conflict of interest, because they’re either a beneficiary or they’re afraid of what might happen otherwise.’ Senator Alston told me:

I can give you ten good technical reasons why modern technology inevitably means there ought to be changes throughout most cross- media laws. But at the end of the day there’s probably a better than 50 per cent chance that the thing you will buy off on is someone saying: ‘Do you want the world run by Packer and Murdoch?’ So, in other words, you sort of forget all of the other arguments and just say: ‘No, I wouldn’t like them to.’ And that is one of the most difficult aspects to a lot of these debates, that virtually everything gets reduced to a very simple proposition. And, as I said at the very beginning, the media seems to make an art form of turning every issue into a moral issue. So you are encouraged every time to think it’s black and white. And because the print media are the ones who are telling you what they think on these sorts of issues, you are going to get a very one-sided view.

Notwithstanding the former Communications Minister’s recent attempts to reform cross-media ownership laws, both the current Federal Government and Opposition seem committed to maintaining structural diversity through regulation, consistent with a 1999 report in The Australian:

For their part, the Australian Government (and Opposition) remain opposed to calls to rescind foreign ownership and cross- media laws, federal treasurer Peter Costello stating: ‘Our policy

27 Senator Alston was speaking on ‘The Future of the ABC’ at a function hosted by the Brisbane Institute and held at the Brisbane Customs House. 111

hasn’t shifted. The Government policy has been to limit foreign ownership in newspapers…[I]f we were to shift that policy, we’d need good reasons for it,’ while Labor’s communications spokesperson Stephen Smith said: ‘The Opposition remain[s] committed to the cross-media and foreign ownership rules’. (Collins & Lewis, 1999, p.3)

By 2002, two years from the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting and 10 years from the Print Media Inquiry, major Australian media companies maintained their push for ‘a relaxation of cross-media and foreign media ownership laws’, arguing they were ‘outdated and don’t apply to the current media landscape’ (Mealey, 2002) while the Federal Government maintained that ‘all issues [had] to be weighed in the balance’ (Alston, 2002). It would seem that even though the Print Media Inquiry and Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting were in reasonable agreement about the need for media reform to promote structural and content diversity in Australia’s media, immediate change is unlikely.

Defining diversity

Given governments’ reluctance to enact legislation to increase structural diversity in Australia’s media, one might question whether such an increase really is necessary for content diversity, as argued to the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting by major media organisations including News Limited and PBL. But any attempt to define diversity must account for what both these inquiries recognised: that structural diversity and content diversity are intrinsically linked. Comparing and contrasting the deliberations of these media enquiries has allowed me to formulate such a definition, which is:

Diversity in the media includes both structural and content elements and is based on an assumption that an adequate number of media outlets must be provided to ensure an adequate range of news and opinion is available to the public.

In his definition of pluralism, McQuail (1987, p.152) did not ascribe a specific value to ‘adequate’ and neither do I in my definition of diversity. It may be assumed, however, that the present number of media outlets, or at least outlets controlled by different owners, remains inadequate to provide the necessary ‘adequate mix’ of 112

‘voices of society’, including ‘alternative views’ to allow the public to participate effectively in the democratic process (McQuail, 1987, p.152). This definition of diversity applies equally to print and electronic media, but for this thesis I will consider it mainly in terms of Australia’s newspaper industry, as this industry is central to my enquiries. The definition leads to the question: How can diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry be increased? The introduction of the Internet should allow structural diversity to be achieved relatively cheaply, overcoming the ‘insurmountable’ issue (Chadwick, 1987, p.4) of prohibitive costs to enter the industry in a way that would provide viable competition to established players. But is there evidence that this is occurring? If structural diversity is occurring, then the above definition suggests a priori that content diversity will follow. But if the Internet is not providing structural diversity, how then, if at all, might content diversity be increased? This thesis will now examine these issues.

113

Chapter 4

Newspapers online

This chapter reviews literature that identifies worldwide trends in newspapers’ use of news websites and is structured on four online newspaper business models detailed by Mings and White in 1997 and reproduced in 2000:

• a subscription model • an advertising model • an e-commerce model, and • a bundled (or partnerships) model (Mings & White, 2000, pp.64-86 and 1997, pp.1-34).28

This framework is suitable as Mings and White’s business models relate specifically to Australian newspapers and they provide, surprisingly well, a schema that suits the range of literature that I have researched. Furthermore, being detailed in 1997, they provide an opportunity to examine how successful (or otherwise) online newspapers have been, in terms of the models presented, over an intervening five-year period. This examination is undertaken in Chapter 5, which details a survey of Australian newspaper websites that, among other things, provided a ‘snapshot’ of how these were faring online in 2001 and 2002. Conclusions from the literature are discussed at the end of this chapter and an hypothesis regarding the Internet’s ability to introduce structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry, to be tested in Chapter 5, is proposed.

28 Mings and White first detailed these models in a 1997 business brief published by La Trobe University. In 2000, an updated version of this document was published in Kahin and Varian’s text Internet publishing and beyond: The economics of digital information and intellectual property. Both documents are cited in this chapter. 114

Newspapers online

It will be recalled that Siebert, Peterson and Schramm (1956) were among the first researchers to detail individual press theories, including the libertarian theory of the press (Siebert, 1956, pp.39-71). I mention libertarian theory specifically as libertarian views predominated during the Internet’s early development, mainly because this development was, or at least was seen to be, based on ‘scholarly understandings of the free flow of information and ideas’ (White, 1996, p.4). Libertarian views of the Internet can be understood in terms of the Internet’s genesis, which, having been the product of an agreement between the US military and academia, came to be seen as a non-commercial place ‘where existing commercial, moral, and political constraints were largely non-existent’ (White, 1996, p.4). However, much has changed since the Internet became imbued in the public domain. While a tool of the military, for example, the Internet connected about ‘400 computers’ (Miller, 1999, p.137). But once public, the number of connections has grown exponentially, with estimates that 580 million people were online as at May 2002 (NUA Internet Surveys, 2002).

Putting aside that ‘moral’ and ‘political’ constraints might still be ‘nonexistent’ (White, 1996, p.4), I would argue that in terms of newspapers and the news media generally, the Internet is anything but non-commercial and, in becoming thus, is much less of a libertarian news medium. McAllister and Turow (2002) argued that ‘[a]s the Web has matured’ the ‘larger portion of its use…has related to commercial purposes’, purposes that were ‘outpacing by far’ the growth of non-profit, educational and government sites (p.506). They argued that ‘despite a “dot-com bust”…connections between commerce and the Web [and] media firms and the Web’ had become ‘natural paths of the business landscape’ (McAllister & Turow, 2002, p.506). This view is supported by Sparks (2000), who argued that ‘the fundamental reasons’ for the ‘flood of [newspaper] titles online’ that occurred in 1994 and 1995 were ‘economic’ (p.270).

Williams and Nicholas (1999) said the Internet ‘revolution’ hid the fact that electronic delivery of news in printed form had ‘been around for almost 30 years’ and referred to examples such as Prestel and Ceefax in the UK in the 1970s, and later 115

Teletext and Viewtron in Europe and the US in the 1980s (p.122). But according to Morris (1996), most of these types of electronic news delivery platforms were ‘a dismal failure in every country’ where they were established (p.11). The Internet’s greater success, compared with these earlier news platforms, is surely predicated on the ‘massive surge in commercial interest’ in the Internet (Cunningham & Finn, 1996, p.86). At the time, Cunningham and Finn (1996) contended that commercialism was the driver for the Internet’s potential to deliver the ‘grand vision of a connected and empowered electronic democracy’ (p.86).

How much more successful has the Internet been in delivering news electronically? Teletext had a peak of 27,000 users in Australia in 1988, but this had dropped to 9500 users by 1993 (Morris, 1996, p.11). In 1994 there were fewer than 100 newspapers, worldwide, delivering news online (Mings & White, 1997, p.1). But, according to Sparks (2000), 1994 and 1995 saw a ‘real growth’ period in newspapers moving to the Internet (p.269). In a personal e-mail to me on 2 September 2002, Professor Trevor Barr, Director of Convergent Communications at Swinburne University of Technology, suggested there were some 5000 newspapers online worldwide (although he said this figure was far from definite). The Paperboy.Com (at www.thepaperboy.com, accessed 16 August 2002) linked to 5421 newspapers in 2002, while in the same year a similar website, the Online Newspaper Directory (at www.onlinenewspapers.com, accessed 16 August 2002), claimed it had links, worldwide, to more than 10,000 newspapers online.

In Australia, Fairfax began publishing online news from its Sydney and Melbourne newspapers in 1996, followed later that year by The Australian Online, an online version of the national News Limited newspaper (Morris, 1996, p.19).29 My survey of Australian newspaper websites (see Chapter 5) showed that the regional weekly newspaper The Byron Shire Echo also went online in 1995. In February 2000, the National Library of Australia (at www.nla.gov.au/oz/npapers.html, accessed 17 February 2000) provided links to 113 Australian newspaper websites, a number that increased to 262 by July 2002 (at

29 News Limited’s parent company, News Corporation, cited an Internet move one year earlier, announcing in 1995 that it was establishing a 24-hour 7-day per week digital newsroom in New York (Morris, 1996, p.19). 116 www.nla.gov.au/oz/npapers.html, accessed 1 July 2002) and to 427 by April 2003 (at www.nla.gov.au/npapers.html, accessed 1 April 2003). (Note that these figures refer to newspaper links listed by the Australian National Library. If these links are dated or otherwise no longer active, the number of newspapers that were actually online at the time may differ slightly from the figures quoted.) It can be argued that the Internet has surpassed all other platforms for electronic delivery of news in printed form.

There is a clear indication, however, that the proliferation of newspapers online is not matched by any similar growth in profits. Literature and my own research suggest online news sites are still, generally, running at a loss. In 1997, Kimber argued there was ‘not yet a single example of a commercially and editorially successful online newspaper’ (p.595). Kimber (1997) sheeted the cause for this directly at Internet technology, saying the ‘information superhighway’ was, in reality, an ‘horrific, pothole-filled adventure’ (p.596). In 2000, Sparks (2000) claimed that, generally, ‘the online newspaper’ was still ‘not a very promising revenue stream’ (p.277). In 2001, Higgins (2001) said that ‘[f]or all the money spent on billboards and banner ads’ there was still ‘not a single successful new “online only” media brand’ (p.13). And in 2002, a study of 429 newspapers from ‘all over the world’ showed that 58 per cent of newspaper websites in Europe, Latin America and North America were losing money; 25 per cent were breaking even; and just 17 per cent were profitable (Innovation International Media Consulting Group, 2002). In North America itself, 35 per cent of these were losing money, 26 per cent were breaking even and 39 per cent were profitable (Innovation International Media Consulting Group, 2002). In Europe, 71 per cent were losing money, 22 per cent were breaking even and only 7 per cent were profitable (Innovation International Media Consulting Group, 2002). And in Latin America, 58 per cent were losing money, 37 per cent were breaking even and only 5 per cent were profitable (Innovation International Media Consulting Group, 2002).

Why have newspaper websites failed to generate sufficient revenue to make them profitable? According to Alves (2001), one of the main reasons is that they have not found ‘a successful business model for new media’ (p.63). Mings and White (1997) claimed there was ‘some consensus’ that newspaper publishers’ ‘rush 117 to the Internet’ had ‘vastly outstripped their understanding of how to profit from these ventures’ (p.2). In 1997, they detailed one of the first sets of business models for online news – these being a ‘subscription model’, an ‘advertising model’, a ‘transactional model’ and a ‘bundled (or partnerships) model’ (Mings & White, 1997, pp.1-43). Much emphasis is given to the subscription and advertising models. This is something that might be expected, as both models are used to generate revenue in the offline newspaper environment and, according to Mings and White (1997), moving online has not stopped newspapers from continuing to focus on business models that ‘worked in the past’ (p.18).

The subscription model

The subscription model is based on the ‘traditional newspaper model’, where, according to Mings and White (2000), up to 30 per cent of revenue is generated by subscriptions – the cover price of the newspaper itself (p.64). Mings and White (1997) said there were three ways for online newspapers to raise revenue through this model: giving some content away but charging for full access to all content; offering a free trial period and then bringing in charges for content when the trial is over; and offering, and charging for, ‘specialised content to suit particular interests’ (pp.12-16). My research shows examples of a number of online newspapers, both in Australia and overseas, using aspects of this model, even though this research also shows that the greater majority of newspaper websites, worldwide, offer their online content without charge.

Free content has consequences. A 1999 Editor and Publisher survey of 53,000 Internet users visiting 75 US newspaper websites, for example, found that ‘[n]ewspaper readers’ were ‘more likely to give up reading a print version of a newspaper if they can get most of the same news from the Web site’ (Pastore, 1999). A 2002 study of 13,952 visitors to seven US newspaper sites, meanwhile, showed newspaper websites had ‘equally positive and negative effects on [newspaper] subscriptions’ (Crosbie, 2002a). The study, undertaken by Belden Associates of Dallas, Texas, showed 5 per cent of newspaper website visitors started newspaper subscriptions because of their Internet experiences, although this was then countered by 5 per cent of existing subscribers cancelling their subscriptions ‘because of the 118 availability of the Web edition’ (Crosbie, 2002a). In the Australian context, Obijiofor and Green (2001) said the argument that ‘online publication affect[ed] the sales (circulation) figures of traditional newspapers’ was ‘premature’ (p.96); but their contention was based on publishers finding ‘new ways’ to count online publication as circulation rather than any evidence of offline circulation being retained in the face of online news delivery (pp.96-97). However, my primary research has provided evidence that some Australian newspapers’ offline circulation is being retained and, in some cases, has increased since these newspapers added online delivery to their circulation (see Chapter 5).

In 2000, Mings and White cited arguments that experience with the subscription model had led many to consider the online versions of offline newspapers as separate products (p.65) and in 2001 the US Audit Bureau of Circulations began allowing US newspapers to count online editions of their publications as paid circulation (Sutel, 2001). This led some US newspapers to undertake major promotional campaigns ‘to drive subscriptions and market penetration’ (Lavelle, 2002). But the US Audit Bureau of Circulations’ rules included that the online newspaper edition had to be sold to readers for ‘at least 25% of the basic [offline newspaper] price’ (Sutel, 2001), meaning that the newspapers concerned had to introduce subscriptions at some stage. Here, Arizona’s East Valley Tribune followed Mings and White’s (1997) model of offering a free trial period and then bringing in charges for content (p.12). During a 60-day free trial the newspaper increased its online circulation by 6800 ‘subscribers’ (Lavelle, 2002), although, tellingly, there was no mention of how many of these subscribers were retained once the trial was over. According to US media demographic organisation Media Audit, the ‘conventional view’ about introducing subscriptions for online news sites was ‘if a newspaper starts charging a subscription fee for access to its online web site the immediate result will be a steep decline in site visitors’ (The Media Audit, 2002). But the organisation said it was ‘surprised’ when subscriptions for two US newspapers, The Tulsa World and The Albuquerque Journal (introduced in June and July 2001 respectively), saw an (albeit small) online subscription increase of 1.4 per cent each when online subscriptions were introduced (The Media Audit, 2002). The Newspaper Association of America, meanwhile, was tracking ‘sixteen daily 119 newspapers with fee-for-access Web sites’ to monitor whether subscription charges were driving down subscription rates (The Media Audit, 2002).

America’s Online Publishers Association (2002) agreed with Mings and White that revenue could be generated through online news sites offering and charging for ‘specialised content to suit particular interests’ (pp.15-16). The Association believed online publishers would tend more towards revenue from ‘premium paid content offerings’, although it did not elaborate on what these offerings might be (Online Publishers Association, 2002). Sparks (2000) contended that it had ‘proved extremely difficult for newspapers to charge for access to their basic [online] services’ saying ‘[t]he best that can be achieved, so far, is to charge for specialised aspects of the newspaper, like access to its archive’ (p.277). In the US, online archival retrieval of newspapers is ‘very common’, with one newspaper, The San Jose Mercury News, archiving ‘more than a million articles…dating back to 1985’ and hosting ‘the archives of 19 other newspapers’ (Williams & Nicholas, 1999, p.125). There is a dearth of literature, however, to indicate how many US newspapers charge for this service. In the UK, Cowen (2001) found that none of that country’s major newspapers – The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent, The Sunday Independent, The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, The Times and The Sunday Times – charged for access to their online archives (p.193).30

Archives are just one example of specialised content. Outing (2002a) believes specialised content can include anything likely to produce revenue, such as ‘comic strips, editorial cartoons, and columns’. In the Australian context, it is primarily the country’s relatively few online-only news sites that adopt this policy, evidenced by the Crikey website that in 2002 had 4350 paid-up subscribers, with another 6000 signed up for e-mail alerts and (supposedly) earned up to $30,000 per month in revenue (Jackson, 2002a, p.3). Crikey founder Stephen Mayne attributed much of this success to his model of putting ‘general gossip on the site’ and sending ‘the most defamatory or controversial material to our small stable of subscribers’

30 Reviewing this thesis in December 2003, prior to its submission, QUT’s Head of Journalism Prof Michael Bromley said some of the newspapers Cowen studied now charge for access to their online archives. 120

(Mayne, 2001, p.25). Part of the specialised offering is that ‘the emailed stories are often a better read than those published on the site’ (Mayne, 2001, p.25).31

The principal difficulty with the subscription model is that there remains, overall, a belief by most that information available on the Internet should be free. News is no exception, with Moses (2002) saying the Internet had ‘conditioned a generation to the idea of getting news for free’ (p.12). Mings and White (1997) recognised this, saying one of this model’s weaknesses was ‘reluctance for readers to pay for online information’ (p.9). In 2000, however, they cited arguments that this reluctance was fading (Mings & White, 2000, p.65). A US report in 2002 claimed US citizens spent $US50 million purchasing online newspaper content through 2001 and the first quarter of 2002 (Online Publishers Association, 2002, p.11). But the US-based Poynter Institute questioned these figures, saying they were ‘larded with business-to-business spending [and] consumer spending for dating services, greeting cards, games, and downloadable music’ (Crosbie, 2002b). The Poynter Institute claimed ‘only a fraction’ of the reported expenditure was for actual online news content (Crosbie, 2002b). US-based publishers, meanwhile, are themselves moving to end free access to online versions of their publications. The AOL Time Warner group, for example, planned that 12 of the company’s most popular magazines (including Entertainment Weekly, People and Sports Illustrated) would ‘go behind the curtain’ of paid online subscriptions during 2003 (Kelly, 2003).

Building a larger subscription base is seen as one method of increasing subscription revenue, particularly in the youth market, which is seen as ‘the best bet for the subscription model’ (Mings & White, 2000, p.65 and Mings & White, 1997, p.10). Many newspapers are recognising this and are moving to capture the youth market, both to build up subscriptions and to reverse the trend of declining youth readership. Shand (1999) argued that newspapers needed to use the Internet as a way of reaching ‘a larger readership base’ and building ‘stronger relationships with readers’ (p.225). Sparks (2000) concurred, saying the online newspaper reached

31 There is the possibility that Crikey’s commercial success might result, in part, from using defamatory material, in contrast to less commercially successful, mainstream online news sites, whose journalists would commonly eschew such material. It is beyond the scope and aims of this thesis to determine whether this is the case.

121

‘new social groups’, especially those who would not normally read the offline version of the newspaper (p.272). He suggested The New York Times increased its circulation by 1.5 million when the newspaper went online (Sparks, 2000, p.271). 32

Cowen (2001) noted that British newspapers were capturing non-traditional readers by calling their websites names that differed from their offline mastheads. Britain’s Financial Times became FT.com online, The Daily Telegraph similarly dropped ‘Daily’ to become the Electronic Telegraph and The Guardian became Guardian Unlimited (Cowen, 2001, p.195). Cowen (2001) said this was a definitive ‘departure from the offline environment’ that, in the case of The Financial Times, ‘leverages the Financial Times offline brand and tailors it for the Web without disregarding its traditional value’ (p.195). She said the Daily Telegraph ‘omitted the “Daily” from its domain name of www.telegraph.co.uk as this would imply that the information on the Web was only updated daily, instead of virtually real-time information with which the Internet is synonymous’ (Cowen, 2001, p.195). And McGuire (2002), more generally, said ‘leading newspapers in the U.S.’ had shifted from ‘a defensive’ to an ‘active online strategy’ by forming new partnerships and relationships with online readers.

Some see this strategy as a way of addressing the problem of falling newspaper readership among young people, the demographic that, conversely, dominates Internet use. US research on media habits showed ‘fewer people are reading newspapers, and the declines in readership are greatest among young adults’ (Kohut, 2002). Sparks (2000) said ‘the online audience is believed to be younger than the population as a whole, and it is precisely amongst younger age groups that newspaper reading is a less well-entrenched habit’ (p.272). Pavlik (1997) similarly claimed that ‘[m]ost serious news organisations know that young people are turning to online media’, but, according to Kohut (2002), the ‘challenge for newspapers’ was to find ways to ‘push the buttons’ of these readers. Moses (2002) said the Internet was one way of reaching them, as it allowed ‘young adapters to individualise their media experience’. However, she also cautioned that ‘paid newspapers’, those that

32 Sparks (2000) actually said The New York Times had ‘found that half of its 3 million registered online users had never bought an offline copy of the paper’ (p.271). I would argue that, with a little mathematics, this means the same thing. 122 charged for content even with ‘expanded “youth” material’, would be ‘a harder sell’ (p.12).

The fact that some major newspapers have placed their online news business in the hands of circulation rather than editorial managers gives recognition to the emphasis that newspaper organisations place in building larger readerships and the fact that they see their online ventures as a main strategy to achieve this objective. The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Paris-based daily that these two papers co-own, The International Herald Tribune, for example, are trialing the digitisation and delivery of the entire printed version of the newspaper online using specialised software such as Newsstand (Robins, 2001, p.2).33 Robins (2001) observed: ‘The importance of paid circulation for this format is underlined by the fact that at The New York Times, it is circulation chief (Scott) Heekin-Canedy driving the project – not executives from the digital or online division’ (p.2). Robins (2001) said ‘smaller dailies’ in the US were ‘getting into digital-delivery as well’ (p.2). (Suggestions that such moves are less about circulation and more about garnering as large a readership as possible to sell to advertisers are discussed later in this chapter.)

However, a challenge for newspapers trying to raise online revenue via the subscription model, according to Cowen (2001), was that newspaper websites were ‘fairly low down on the list of online places that people go for news’ (p.190).34 She said readers were showing a preference for specialist news sites such as ESPN (a sports site) and Village (a site dedicated to women’s issues), sites that had been ‘picking off parts of traditional newspaper coverage and making it into a business’ (p.190); while Pastore (1999) claimed national US-based online-only news sites, such as MSNBC and CNN, were where readers went for national and international news. Meyer (1996) also challenged the thinking that newspaper websites could build bigger readerships by accessing ‘an untapped generation of non readers’, calling this one of the ‘ten myths of online publishing’. As early as 1996, Meyer

33 A description of Newsstand and similar software is given in Chapter 5.

123

(1996) argued that the ‘dominant’ online audience was ‘composed of voracious readers who seek out the net as a source of augmentation for other material already available to them in traditional form’. More recently, Runett (2002) claimed that online news consumers, on the other hand, looked ‘beyond traditional providers for their information’. Such views are given some support in the Belden Associates online news study that showed 67 per cent of readers who accessed a newspaper website said they did not subscribe to the respective newspaper’s offline edition (Crosbie, 2002a).

Mings and White’s (1997) comment on the subscription model was that while it had drawn ‘industry interest and attention’, it was ‘hard to argue for or against the success’ of the model (p.17). In 2000, they concluded it was still ‘not yet possible to make definite pronouncements about the success of a subscription model’ (Mings & White, 2000, p.71). In the Australian context this bet-each-way summation can be shown as accurate, if we take into account the contrasting histories of Crikey and BusinessGene. Crikey reached its 1000th day online in October 2002 (Jackson, 2002a, p.3), pushing out ‘10,000 words a week as a one-man band’ (Mayne, 2001, p.25), a milestone that founder Stephen Mayne celebrated ‘with beers’ at a Melbourne hotel (Jackson, 2002a, p.3). In 2002, Crikey registered 80,000 page views per month and generated $30,000 per month in revenue, an amount Mayne says ‘is sustainable’ (Jackson, 2002a, p.3). This experience can be contrasted with BusinessGene, another independent subscription-based online-only news site. Its founder, Paul Ham, claimed BusinessGene was ‘Australia’s only online e-business magazine’ and was ‘succeeding beyond [his] wildest forecasts’ with ‘[s]ubscribers…streaming in’ (Ham, 2000). So confident was he that the website would build and retain a large readership and subscriber base that he added: ‘If I fail, I’ll…eat my hat’ (Ham, 2000). By October 2002, however, BusinessGene had gone, a message on its home page (at http://www.businessgene.com, accessed 22 October 2002) stating succinctly: ‘This Web site is closed’.

34 Literature on newspapers and online news is often contradictory. Pastore (1999), for example, quoted a 1999 Editor & Publisher survey of 53,000 Internet users that showed newspaper sites were ‘second only to email (82 to 91 per cent) as the most popular reason people logged onto the Internet’. 124

The advertising model

According to Mings and White (2000), online news publishers pursued the subscription model because ‘that was what worked in the past’ (p.72), but they said that ‘experts’ did not believe online subscriptions could raise the 20 to 30 per cent of income that they generated for newspapers (Mings & White, 1997, p.18). Under the advertising model, they said, newspapers could seek to generate more online revenue by using online advertising as a greater part of the advertising/subscription revenue mix (Mings & White, 1997, p.18). Mings and White (1997) described four types of online advertising in this model: sponsorships and banner advertising; display advertising; separate advertiser websites; and online classified advertising (pp.18- 24). Examples of each of these can be found in research I have undertaken – research that confirms Bogle’s (2001) observation that ‘[a]ttracting advertisers onto the web’ is ‘still a hard slog’ (p.15).

Some suggest online advertising has been able to drive newspaper revenues. Barringer (1999), for example, claimed that established newspaper companies in the US made a Wall Street ‘comeback’ due to a ‘dot-com advertising bounty’ (p.17), although he made this claim before the dot.com bubble burst in 2000. This was the year when ‘billions of dollars’ were wiped off the shares of Internet businesses ‘around the world’, leading many business analysts to dismiss ‘the so-called “dot.com” businesses as dead in the water’ (Howard, 2001, p.16).

However, much literature indicates advertisers have, by and large, been less than satisfied with their online newspaper experience. Readers show low levels of advertising ‘click-throughs’ when visiting newspaper websites, preferring, instead, ‘to skip the ad pages’ (Morton, 1999, pp.80-81). Mayne (2001) claimed these low click-through rates were the result of the ‘short concentration spans’ of Web users and the fact that users were not on the Web to browse through advertisements, but were mostly there to look ‘for something specific’ (p.15). This highlights a significant difference between advertising in newspapers and on the Internet. Morton (1999) argued, for example, that the ‘enduring strength’ of ‘traditional daily newspapers’ was that the advertiser ‘can assume the reader reads the newspaper and sees the advertising by paging through it’ (pp.80-81). This is the opposite of the 125 online world, where readers often ‘skip’ online advertisements entirely (Morton, 1999, pp.80-81). This assertion is given some support by the extremely low advertising revenue generated online. America’s Online Publishers Association (2002), for example, said the ratio of advertising revenue to circulation revenue for US newspapers was ‘roughly 3 to 1’ in 2001 (Online Publishers Association, 2002).35 By comparing online advertising spending in the US ($US7.2 billion) with spending on online newspaper content during the same period ($US675 million), the association said the same revenue ratio for online newspapers was just ‘11 to 1’ (Online Publishers Association, 2002).

In Australia, annual online advertising was reported to be ‘$80 million to $90 million’ – a fraction of the $8 billion worth of advertising spent annually in all media (Bogle, 2001, p.15). Burton (2001) said website advertising in Australia was ‘only one percent of all ad spending’ in the country (p.15). As well, major advertisers are scarce on the Web, with Bogle (2001) saying Australia’s ‘top five advertisers – Telstra, Coles Myer, Nestle, Toyota [and] Unilever rarely appeared on the Internet’ (p.15). Bogle (2001) claimed most Australian news websites used banner and display advertising – the first and second of Mings and White’s (1997) advertising forms (p.18) – but noted these did little except promote other sites within the network (p.15).

But if banner and display advertisements are failing, the Web may facilitate quite different experiences for classified advertising. Sparks (2000) contended the Internet represented ‘a valuable new medium for [newspaper] advertisers’ (p.277). He gave three reasons for this, saying first, ‘the fact that it is searchable means that classified advertising [is] much more appropriately placed in this medium’, secondly that ‘it is much easier on the internet...to be sure of the number of people who have seen your advertisement’, and, thirdly, that ‘the core online audience remains younger and richer than the population as a whole [and] constitutes a particularly attractive prospect for advertisers’ (pp.277-278). Indeed, a 2003 study of 246 US daily newspapers found ‘the bulk of online dollars’ came from online classifieds,

35 Sparks (2002) quotes a higher figure, saying that for US newspapers advertising accounted for ‘around 80 per cent of income’, with the most important sector being classifieds, which accounted for up to half of total advertising income (p.273). 126 particularly recruitment, automotive and general merchandise classifieds (Borrell Associates Inc, 2003, pp.1-2). But Sparks (2000) warned that newspapers faced competition here, as there were now ‘a number of websites devoted exclusively to the publication of classified advertisements’ (p.280), as did Cowen (2001), who said British newspapers faced an advertising decline in the face of websites exclusively dedicated to advertising (p.190). One website that illustrates this is Monster.com, a site that specialises in recruitment advertising. The site’s chief executive officer, Paul McIntyre, said that while newspapers ‘around the world pulled their biggest revenues from recruitment advertising in 2000’, in the face of specialised online classified advertising sites, newspapers ‘would never see those levels again’ (McIntyre, 2000). This prediction appears fulfilled. Outing (2004a) reported figures showing US newspaper-owned recruitment websites generated a total of $US354 million in 2003, while Monster.com – alone – generated $US420 million in the same year.

Not all feel online advertising to be a lost cause. Chief executive officer of The Washington Post and publisher of the Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, Christopher Shroeder, believed advertising was not just a sustainable business model for newspaper websites, but was ‘the model’ [his italics] (Shroeder, 2002). He said it was his ‘firm belief that over time the major driver’ for newspaper websites would be ‘advertising attuned to this medium and on the medium’s terms’ (Shroeder, 2002). He said he believed that ‘in six to eight years’ The Washington Post’s website would be ‘well-established as an extremely powerful advertising medium’, and added:

I truly think that next year the Internet story people will be talking about is the efficacy of online advertising. There are times of day when you can reach people with your ad information on a regular basis, i.e., at the desktop, which you couldn’t do before. People are on-task when they’re looking at their screens. They’re not getting up and making a sandwich when the ads come on. That’s where the focus should be. (Shroeder, 2002)

Mings and White (1997) also mentioned an advertising form where newspapers would create separate websites for advertisers as an additional service and then link to these sites from their own online news pages (p.22). My frequent visits to a range of newspaper and online-only Internet news sites in the research for 127 this thesis has provided little evidence of this occurring, in the sense that it was apparent the news site was linking to an advertising site of its own making. There are, however, numerous examples of product names being mentioned in news texts, with that text itself being a link to the particular product’s website, even though Web content experts argue this practice disrupts readability and takes emphasis away from the content (McGovern, 2003).

Since 1997, however, this form of advertising appears to have evolved into the ubiquitous ‘pop-up’ advertisements that, according to a New York Times report at least, ‘continue to gain momentum and drive up [Web] traffic numbers’ (Mariano, 2001). Pop-up advertisements are advertisements that open automatically in separate Internet browser ‘windows’ when a host website is accessed. It is not surprising that this New York Times article was favourable to them, as The New York Times uses pop-up advertisements extensively. Mariano (2001) has, however, quoted others who feel pop-up advertisements are ‘intrusive’, something many would agree with. They are so prevalent on The New York Times website that on occasions up to four extra browser windows have to be closed on leaving the site. One might assume the number of pop-up advertisements on this site indicates their success as a revenue generator, but for the author, a non-US-based reader with little affinity for the advertising shown, they intrude on, and slow down, the main news site. Outing (2002b) said pop-up advertising was ‘doomed’ because there were ‘so many efforts to quash them by ISPs and software developers’, a view supported by AOL Time Warner’s announcement that it would progressively remove pop-up advertisements from its website citing readers’ annoyance and advertisers’ dissatisfaction with ‘intrusive pitches that commandeer computer screens’ (Kirkpatrick, 2002).

Mings and White (1997) identified specific problems with the advertising revenue model. First, they cited arguments that advertisers ‘don’t really buy an advertisement, or even the space for an advertisement, in a print paper, what they actually buy is the production and door-to-door distribution of the advertisement’ and commented that a newspaper ‘doesn’t necessarily reproduce those services online’ (p.21). They also claimed that online advertisements were ‘easily ignored’ (Mings & White, 2000, p.74). Both are certainly the case if trends such as those described by Morton (1999) of readers skipping advertisements (pp.80-81) – be that 128 the result of short concentration spans (Mayne, 2001, p.15) or otherwise – are widespread. Mings and White (1997) also argued that there was no consensus regarding online advertising rates (p.21). Online classified ‘strategies’ and ‘functionalities’ were described as ‘weak’ (Mings & White, 1997, p.24) meaning, among other things, that media organisations were ‘not likely to have complete information on the audience’ that was online (Cohen, 2002, p.537).

Indeed, my research suggests that it took until 2002 for the online advertising industry as a whole to try to address these issues. Stone (2002) said the ability to accurately measure online advertising statistics was a ‘key ingredient…missing from online advertising measurement’, prompting industry-wide moves to address the issue, including:

• the founding of an international Alliance for Online Media Measurement in France in 2002 to develop industry standards for online audience measurement

• the founding of an Interactive Advertising Bureau to formulate international standards for purchasing online advertising space

• calls from the Newspaper Association of America and the World Association of Newspapers for the industry to develop online audience measurement that was ‘more accurate and relevant to the way users consume news Web sites’

• online audience measurement research funding from a range of US-based advertising and research consortia, and

• developing better software systems to capture online audience data (Stone, 2002).

Mings and White again took a bet-each-way approach to conclusions about the advertising model, saying in 1997 (p.26) and confirming in 2000 (p.80) that there were both ‘positive and negative predictions’ about the future of online advertising. But again, the conclusion is correct as there are greatly disparate views on 129 advertising as an online revenue model. This ranges from Schroeder’s belief that advertising was ‘the model’ for online revenue (Schroeder, 2002) to Sydney Morning Herald website manager Tom Burton’s view that it was ‘futile’ to try to build a Web-based publishing business ‘supported by advertising’ (Burton, 2001, p.15). Indeed, in August 2002 the Fairfax group, which owns The Sydney Morning Herald, began selling online classified advertisements for a fifth of the rates charged for the printed version ‘due to the smaller online audience and online price competition’ (Schulze, 2002c). For its part, Fairfax’s only major competitor, News Limited, stated the core business of its online news arm News Interactive was not news per se, but ‘classified opportunities’ and ‘building services for users and advertisers’ (Buchanan, 2001, p.13).

The transactional model

Mings and White’s third online news business model is the transactional model. This model is based on e-commerce and sees the newspaper providing a specific online ‘transactional space…where advertisers and consumers can meet’ (Mings & White, 1997, p.27). The newspaper then raises revenue ‘by facilitating transactions and charging commission[s] on the sales[s]’ (Morton, 1999, pp.80-81). The model changes the focus of newspaper website visitors from readers or ‘just surfers’ to ‘specific information seekers’ wanting specific advertising material (Mings & White, 1997, p.27). Mings and White (1997) say the benefit of this model is that the newspaper can act as a portal to ‘commercially sponsored electronic places’ (p.27) a strategy seen as ‘having tremendous potential and tremendous opportunities’ (p.28). White (1996) had earlier discussed the idea of ‘transactional spaces’, which he described as ‘virtual spaces’ that replaced the physical spaces ‘where funds and goods are exchanged’ (p.8). White (1996) said:

We are used to the idea that transactions occur in specialised, often purpose-built physical spaces (such as shops, where merchants display goods). But the new media and communications systems are leading to the development of equivalent electronic transactional spaces. (p.5)

130

In her study of British broadsheets’ online experiences, Cowen (2001) noted that many had combined their traditional advertising base with e-commerce (p.196). A US study found that up to 65 per cent of that country’s newspaper website users were involved in e-commerce sponsored by the respective newspaper site (Dibean & Garrison, 2001, p.84). Kimber (1997) claimed ‘many experts’ believed ‘the key to success of the electronic newspaper’ was ‘in taking advantage of its traditional role of connecting people within a defined geographic setting’ and allowing readers within that setting to do everything from ‘fil[ing] a court action to reading a church bulletin’ (p.596). Some equate the notions of transactional space, meanwhile, with a shift in the economy of the new media and with the relationships between readers, audiences and advertisers. As such, Mings and Whites’ transactional model subtly alters the way these concepts are viewed. Marshall (1997), for example, supported White’s proposition of transactional space becoming the central arena of new media’s economic activity, saying ‘[i]n classical Marxist thinking’ newspapers had specific ‘commodity constructions’ (p.52), including the ‘commodifying’ of ‘readers’ into ‘audiences’, which were then sold as ‘definable commodities’ to ‘advertisers’ (Marshall, 1997, pp.52-56). In this instance, new media has done little to discourage the news media from their ‘main function’ of ‘delivering audiences to advertisers’ (Lawe Davies, 1999, p.56) or to stop them turning the ‘old fashioned notion’ of ‘the reader’ into the notion of ‘the audience’ (Hartley, 1996, p.47).

Mings and White (2000, p.82 and 1997, p.28) said there were both ‘optimistic and pessimistic’ projections for the success of the transactional model. Problematic issues impacting on the success of the model include slow access speeds, insecure transmission of financial data, privacy concerns and limited experience with consumer behaviour (Mings & White, 1997, pp.28-29).

The bundled (or partnerships) model

The bundled (or partnerships) model is where ‘online newspapers have established, or considered establishing, partnerships with other publishing and/or Internet entities as a means of gaining revenue’ (Mings & White, 1997, p.30). This might take the form of ‘newspapers partnering with online proprietary servers, with Internet access providers, with Web browsers, with other newspapers, or with other 131 content providers’ (Mings & White, 2000, p.82). Although Mings and White said in 1997 (p.30) and 2000 (p.83) that the take up of this model had been ‘flat’, there is evidence in Australia and internationally that it has been used both to generate online revenue and, more adversely in terms of media diversity, to ensure established media organisations continue their domination of news markets online.

It has been argued, for example, that established media players moved as quickly as possible to establish themselves on the Internet to stay ahead of their competition (Auh, 2000, p.129), to ‘protect their positions as entertainment and information sources’ (Marshall, Luckman & Smith, 1998, p.65) and to ‘control what is seen and left unseen on Web sites re-presenting print and broadcast news’ (Cohen, 2002, p.544). One of the strategies for doing this was for the established media to form ‘billion dollar alliances’ with other media owners and telecommunications infrastructure providers’ (White, 1996, p.3) in the process transforming themselves into ‘global communications industries’ (Hughes, 1997, p.78). The result, far from encouraging new players into the media market, ‘strengthens barriers to entry for new players’ (Hughes, 1997, p.80). As discussed in Chapter 3, the Internet’s role as a catalyst for increased globalisation of news conglomerates and the formation of commercial alliances (often involving media corporations that were originally in competition with each other) is a significant impact of new media technology.36 These events have been consistent with market-based models of the media and preclude many of pluralism’s goals for diversity, including the recommendations for more pluralism in the newspaper industry made by the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting.

However, industry observers continue to recommend this model as one that provides significant opportunities to make online news ventures pay. Cowen (2001), for example, said newspapers should leverage ‘their most valuable asset’ – news – by selling it to websites that were ‘strong in utility and services but not in editorial content’ (p.191). She said major websites like AOL and MSN were, in terms of

36 Hammond, Petersen and Thompson (2000) pointed out that partnerships and alliances were in train well before the advent of new media, saying ‘convergence occurred before new media’ and was ‘driven by the profit imperative’ as news organisations ‘initiated cooperation between their electronic media holdings and print holdings in order to create a competitive advantage in the marketplace’ (p.17). 132 news, ‘faceless’ and did not add ‘context or meaning’ to the information they disseminated (Cowen, 2001, p.198). News Limited is adopting this strategy in Australia, generating revenue and increasing its online readership through commercial partnerships ‘with internet service providers…to carry news.com.au headlines on their sites’ (Kidman, 2000). So, too, are US-based news organisations Knight Ridder, the Tribune Company and The New York Times, which ‘distribute their headlines and stories to national sites such as MSNBC.com and Yahoo’ (Runett, 2002).37

Rosenbush (1999) believed these types of partnerships were ‘crucial to established media conglomerates’, if their clamour to form them was any indication (p.1). He gave the example of Disney corporation chief executive Bob Igor who said: ‘The content people are looking for distribution and the distribution people are looking for content’ (Rosenbush, 1999, p.1). The ultimate example of this was the $US525 billion merger between content producers Time Warner and Internet service provider America Online (AOL) in 2000 (Hopkins, Burke & Romei, 2000, p.1). Cowen (2001) claimed this particular merger ‘sent shockwaves throughout the business world’ and ‘virtually eclipsed’ traditional offline media companies (p.199).

Examples of the bundled (or partnerships) model, where Australia’s media industry was ‘forming and reforming itself into various alliances’ in the new media environment (Morris, 1996, p.18), were given in Chapter 3 and included:

• News Limited’s, PBL’s and Telstra’s three-way ownership of the Foxtel and Austar pay television networks (Collins, 1999, p.43)

• Foxtel’s subsequent alliance with Telstra competitor Optus to enter the satellite broadcasting market (Collins, 1999, p.43), and

37 Knight Ridder is the US’s second largest newspaper publisher, with 31 daily titles. The Tribune Company publishes 13 US daily newspapers.

133

• News Limited and PBL each taking a 20 per cent share of Australia’s largest Internet service provider, One.Tel (Mathieson & Burke, 1999, p.21) to bring News Limited in ‘from the Internet wilderness in Australia’ (Butler, 1999, p.20).

Mings and White (2000), however, suggested a ‘significant drawback’ of this model was that newspapers had to share their revenue with a partner (p.83), the suggestion being that such revenue sharing may be a disadvantage, particularly when contributions to the overall venture are unequal. The outcomes of the AOL/Time Warner and the News Limited/PBL/One.Tel partnerships indicate such drawbacks exist. For example, while Rosenberg (2002) claimed AOL Time Warner would ‘dominate’ in a world where most ‘old media moguls’ remained ‘clueless about the value of the Internet’, and Bagdikian (2000) suggested the merger would result in other media mergers of similar scale (p.xi), the AOL/Time Warner partnership ultimately proved disastrous.

Cohen (2002) noted that many large media mergers could only occur if the companies concerned took on ‘a substantial amount of debt’, a debt that often ‘imperiled the economic performance of the parent corporations’ (p.534) and AOL Time Warner was not immune from this. As the world’s largest media organisation, in 2002 the company posted the world’s largest corporate loss – $US100 billion – more than the gross domestic product of many small countries (Williams, 2003, p.27). It was claimed AOL Time Warner had found ‘online advertising in a deep slump [and] online subscriber growth waning’ to the point where the AOL division had become ‘an anchor dragging down the combined company’ (Lohr, 2003). Its 2002 loss ensured the resignation of AOL Time Warner’s chief executive officer Stephen Case, who headed AOL before the merger (Harmon, 2003). With the benefit of hindsight, some have called the AOL Time Warner merger a ‘flawed idea’, suggesting Time Warner executives showed ‘credulousness’ by being sold the ‘sparkling vision of synergies between the old media and the new’ (Lohr, 2003).

For News Limited and PBL, meanwhile, their partnership with One.Tel also proved disastrous. As AOL Time Warner’s fortunes failed, the Australian Federal Court was trying to untangle the business dealings of failed One.Tel directors Jodie Rich and Brad Keeling, with investigators suggesting neither Lachlan Murdoch of 134

News Limited or James Packer of PBL had paid sufficient attention to the running of the company after they had purchased their combined 40 per cent stake in it (Hughes, 2002, p.7). 38

Mings and White (1997) say an additional problem with the model is that ‘lines’ within partnerships can become ‘blurred’ (p.34). This appears the case and impacts adversely on media diversity. Lawe Davies (1999), for example, said that with new media, ‘overlapping in ownership’ was ‘hopelessly complex’ as once ‘fierce competitors’ like News Limited and PBL found ‘ways to work together’ (p.59). Before the News Limited/PBL/One.Tel partnership failed, for example, Ries (1999) said:

James [Packer] and Lachlan [Murdoch] are in bed with Telstra’s Frank Blount, a man who happens to run the country’s dominant mobile-telephone service operator. And in One.Tel, James and Lachlan are now in bed with Brad [Keeling] and Jodee [Rich], who dearly want to knock Frank off. (p.20)

These relationships reduced structural diversity to the extent that Kingston (1999) argued the ‘struggle to protect what is left of diversity of ownership’ was ‘almost a lost cause’ (p.33). But content diversity is also affected as these alliances appear to subtly change the way one media organisation reports on the other. Kingston (1999), for example, cited Fairfax newspapers’ refusal to report a ‘controversial tax win’ that the group’s owners had ‘in the courts’ while ‘Murdoch media buried the story’ (Kingston, 1999, p.33). There are also increased opportunities for self-censorship, Kingston (1999) saying:

all the Murdoch papers decided – independently they assured us in a Herald article – not to report the James Packer/Kate Fischer breakup, a story broken in New Idea. Gossip among journalists was that Lachlan Murdoch was doing a favour for his mate James Packer. The farce was highlighted by the comment of Australian editor Campbell Reid that ‘we had more important things to do than follow up New Idea stories’. (Kingston, 1999, p.33)

38 One.Tel’s chief finance officer Mark Silbermann told Australia’s Federal Court in March 2002 that News Limited ‘did not receive critical reports on the discount phone company’s cash position in its dying days’ as the company preferred to let PBL monitor One.Tel’s financial performance (Hughes, 2002, p.7).

135

Kingston’s last example may seem trite (and, indeed, both examples contrast with the examples I gave in Chapter 3 of news Fairfax carried that was adverse to News Limited and vice versa), but the ability of one media organisation to critique the reporting of another becomes more important in terms of content diversity as the news media market becomes more highly concentrated.

Other business models

While this chapter uses Mings and White’s online news business models as its framework, other online news business models have been suggested by:

• Williams and Nicholas (1999), who said there were ‘indications’ that the future of online newspapers lay in the ‘exploitation of the potential of multimedia’ and discussed a model that leveraged what they saw as the eight attributes of online newspapers: hyperlinking, currency, relatively unlimited space, archival storage, reference services, customisation, interactivity and multimedia (pp.126-131). (These attributes are further discussed in Chapter 6.)

• Sparks (2000), who argued that the commercial models for the offline press may not transpose easily to the online world and, indeed, threatened newspapers’ offline success by modifying ‘the cost bases and the revenue streams of newspaper operations’ (p.276). Sparks (2000) argued that ‘going online’ added ‘to the overall costs of the newspaper company’ (p.276). He placed some stead in online newspapers generating revenue through advertising (particularly as online advertisements were searchable) and subscriptions (particularly to a burgeoning Internet-savvy youth market), but he was less optimistic that charging for additional services could generate significant revenue (Sparks, 2000, pp.277- 278) and

• Cowen (2001), who proposed three strategies: a portal strategy, a community publishing strategy and a content-related strategy. She said newspapers should 136

become portals – ‘an opening, doorway, gateway outlet, entry or foyer to other places’ – and ‘could add value to their websites by guiding the user to reliable sites’ (Cowen, 2001, p.191). To adopt a community-publishing strategy, she said newspapers could ‘reassess their traditional role and extend it by offering services [and] employing tools that permit community groups and individuals to self-publish on the Web, under the aegis of the publisher’s brand names’ (Cowen, 2001, p.191). In a content-related strategy (as has been discussed), newspapers ‘would leverage their most valuable asset by selling news to websites that are strong in utility and services but not in editorial content’ (p.191).

Conclusions and an hypothesis

This chapter used Mings and White’s four online news business models to discuss a range of issues about online newspapers and online media practice. The literature reviewed suggested that libertarian theories about the Internet have given way to market-based principles as the Internet, in terms of the news media, has become an almost exclusively commercial environment. How has Australia’s newspaper industry fared in what Mings and White (1997) suggested was its ‘rush to the Internet’? (p.2). This question is examined in Chapter 5, which details my study of Australian newspapers’ experience online and looks particularly at these newspapers’ use of Mings and White’s business models.

In terms of this thesis’s research question, the literature reviewed in this chapter and the study of Australian newspaper websites can also assist in determining how the Internet is delivering structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry. If established newspapers find their transition online relatively easy, for example, then independent online-only news sites may similarly be relatively easily established. The converse is that if established newspapers face difficulties in establishing and/or maintaining an online presence, then independent online news sites (that often lack the resources of the established media) will similarly find difficulty in setting up an online presence (such a presence increasing the industry’s structural diversity). This line of reasoning and the literature reviewed 137 can therefore suggest an hypothesis that can be tested by the following study of Australian newspaper websites, this hypothesis being:

H1: While libertarian theory suggests the Internet can promote multiple sources of information to the public, the Internet’s commercial imperatives work to preclude such diversity from occurring in Australia’s newspaper industry.

138

Chapter 5

Australian newspaper websites

This chapter discusses the primary research I have undertaken on Australian newspaper websites; compares and contrasts the Australian experience with the discussions of Chapter 4; determines what effects, if any, Australian newspapers’ move to the Internet have had in terms of structural and content diversity in the nation’s newspaper industry; and in doing so tests the first hypothesis.

Methodology

It will be recalled from Chapter 4 that at the time of writing more than 400 Australian newspapers had websites. The constraints of this thesis did not allow all of these newspapers to be studied individually, so a sample of this population was selected with the intention of surveying newspapers within the sample (via a written survey) on their website use and experiences.39 This methodology is consistent with Miles and Huberman’s (1994) qualitative sampling methods where ‘(q)ualitative researchers usually work with small samples…nested in their context and studied in- depth’ (p.27). The sample population was not intended to be representative of the Australian newspaper industry as a whole, but was selected in line with ‘Maximum variation’ and ‘Stratified purposeful’ sampling strategies (see Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp.28-29). These strategies help obtain a wide range of views, the maximum variation strategy used to ‘document diverse variations and identify important common patterns’, and the stratified purposeful strategy to ‘illustrate subgroups’ and ‘facilitate comparisons’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.28).

39 When this sample population was defined, in mid-2001, there were 113 Australian newspapers with websites, according to the number of newspaper links registered by the Australian National Library, making a proportionally larger sample population at that time compared with the current number of Australian newspapers with websites. 139

As such, the sample population for the survey, comprising 20 newspapers, was selected to reflect a broad cross section of newspaper markets (metropolitan, regional, rural and special interest) and a range of subgroups including newspaper ownership (including News Limited, Fairfax, Rural Press, APN, WANH and independents) and publication frequencies (including daily, weekly, twice-weekly, thrice-weekly, fortnightly and monthly newspapers). The sample population also reflected a range of geographical locations, with all Australian states and territories (except the ACT) being included. The strategy behind this sample was to see if newspapers in different markets, catering for different readerships, and reflecting a range of ownership structures and publication frequencies, had differing views about, experiences with and objectives for their websites. The sample population, which is detailed in Table 5.1, was kept to a maximum of 20 newspapers to maintain manageability of the survey and to assist in highlighting issues relating to the above strategy. This is consistent with Patton’s (1990) contention that the credibility and usefulness of ethnographic studies such as these have ‘more to do with the information-richness of the cases selected’ rather ‘than with sample sizes’ (p.185). (Nevertheless, in analysing the data from this research it must be noted that the sample size suggests rather than determines conclusions, particularly in relation to findings on issues such as website profitability on which later conclusions are made.)

In this chapter I use frequency tables and bar charts to display the results of this research. Frequency tables have been described as a ‘natural and useful technique for summarizing qualitative data’ and bar charts as the ‘common means of graphically presenting the frequencies…for qualitative data’ (McClave & Benson, 1989, pp.19-20).

140

Newspaper & URL Owner Location Metropolitan (daily and non-daily) The Courier-Mail News Limited Brisbane, QLD www.thecouriermail.news.com.au The Sydney Morning Herald John Fairfax Holdings Sydney, NSW www.smh.com.au N.T. News News Limited Darwin, NT www.news.com.au/nt The Brisbane Independent Brisbane Independent Newspaper Brisbane, QLD www.theindependent.com.au Group Pty Ltd The West Australian West Australia Newspaper Perth, WA www.thewest.com.au Holdings Regional dailies The Queensland Times Australian Provincial News and Ipswich, QLD www.qt.com.au Media [APN] The Northern Daily Leader Rural Press Tamworth, NSW http://tamworth.yourguide.com.au The Advocate Harris Print (Harris & Company Burnie, TAS www.theadvocate.com.au Ltd) Shepparton News McPherson Newspapers Shepparton, VIC www.sheppnews.com.au The Bendigo Advertiser News Limited Bendigo, VIC www.bendigoaddy.com.au The Newcastle Herald John Fairfax Holdings Newcastle, NSW www.nnp.com.au Rural weeklies Alice Springs News Erwin Chlanda Pty Ltd Alice Springs, NT www.alicespringsnews.com.au Byron Shire Echo Echo Publications Pty Ltd Byron Bay, NSW www.echo.net.au Whitsunday Times 75% owned by APN and 25% Whitsunday, QLD www.thewhitsundaytimes.com.au owned by founder Mr Bill Smith Geraldton Guardian Geraldton Newspapers Ltd Geraldton, WA www.geraldtonguardian.com.au Eyre Peninsula Tribune Rural Press Cleve, SA www.cleve.yourguide.com.au Special interest The Catholic Leader Based in Brisbane, QLD, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of http://catholicleader.com.au but distributed Australia- Brisbane wide Bizreview Qld (became Queensland Business Review in July 2002) Publishing Services Australia Brisbane, QLD www.qbr.com.au Blaze (Gay and lesbian media) Blaze Media Pty Ltd Melbourne, VIC www.blazemedia.com.au The Guardian (Weekly newspaper of the Communist Communist Party Of Australia Sydney, NSW Party of Australia) www.cpa.org.au/guardian/guardian.html Table 5.1 - Sample population of Australian newspaper websites 141

The survey sent to these newspapers was designed in line with Wimmer and Dominick’s (1991) guidelines for survey research (pp.107-137). In particular:

• a pilot study of the survey (see Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, pp.120-121) was conducted with John Grey, The Courier Mail’s online editor, on 31 July 2001. Based on his responses, the survey was modified slightly to avoid repetition and to improve clarity

• the survey was consistent throughout the sample population and included ‘closed-ended’ and ‘open-ended’ questions (see Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, pp.109-110), and

• to maximise the response rate (see Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, p.123), I contacted each newspaper personally, by telephone, before sending the survey, identifying the person who should receive it and letting them know what I hoped to achieve with it.

The surveys were progressively e-mailed to each newspaper’s contact from September 2001, with each recipient asked to type in their responses and return the survey to my e-mail address.40 Follow-up telephone calls were made to clarify responses where necessary. Survey responses were entered into the SPSS statistical software program and, as the survey included a number of open-ended responses, coding sheets (see Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, p.109) were developed to allow data from these questions to be entered as well. Securing responses to the surveys required many follow-up telephone calls, and by August 2002, I had received 18 responses from the 20 newspapers that received the survey. Fifteen respondents were male. Three respondents were female.

40 The Burnie Advocate’s respondent returned the survey by mail. Owner/editor of the Alice Springs News, Erwin Chlanda, claimed he had no time to complete a survey but would be happy to answer questions ‘over the phone’. In this instance I read the questions to Mr Chlanda and typed in his responses as they were given. 142

Due to the subject of both the survey and the overall discussions of this thesis, it is germane to mention who failed to respond: The Brisbane Independent (published fortnightly by Brisbane Independent Newspapers Pty Ltd) and The Sydney Morning Herald (published daily by Fairfax). I telephoned contacts at both these newspapers over a period of a year to try to elicit responses, but to no avail. Brisbane Independent editor Don Gordon-Brown was keen to receive the survey (and indeed, said at one point that the response to same was ‘in the mail’) but no response was forthcoming. When I first contacted Mr Gordon-Brown he spoke enthusiastically about his newspaper’s website, but did comment that it was difficult to maintain as most resources were directed to the newspaper itself. He mentioned that he intended to employ online staff in the future to work full-time on the website. However, I noted on frequent visits to the site that it was consistently more than a year out of date and I suspect this may have been the reason he did not feel disposed to respond.

Contacting The Sydney Morning Herald, meanwhile, was an exercise in frustration. During the period of the survey I sought dialogue with three contacts referred to me: Mr Tom Burton, manager of The Sydney Morning Herald’s smh.com.au online news site; Mr Mike van Niekerk, Fairfax’s online editor based in Melbourne; and Mr David Higgins, technology manager for The Sydney Morning Herald. At the newspaper’s request, the survey was e-mailed to Messrs Burton (twice) and van Niekerk and messages were left on their voice mail networks. No calls or surveys were returned. It was unfortunate that Fairfax chose to dismiss the survey as it would have been valuable to compare and contrast the online experiences of Fairfax and News Limited – the two print media organisations that dominate most Australian newspaper markets (see Chapter 2).

Even though Fairfax did not figure in the survey results, two points of contrast can be seen between this organisation and News Limited. First, it has been shown that Australia’s national and capital city daily newspaper market is essentially a duopoly between News Limited and Fairfax, with these companies in 2002 commanding 67.9 per cent and 21.6 per cent of the market’s circulation respectively (see Chapter 2). News Limited’s majority share of most Australian newspaper markets has also led to the company’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, being described, 143 among other things, as ‘evil incarnate’ (Swan & Garvey, 1991, pp.2106-2107). But in seeking to contact both newspapers to survey them about their websites, my experiences could not have been more different. In contrast with Fairfax, I gained relatively easy access to News Limited’s Brisbane facilities and extensive time with the company’s online editor John Grey on the strength of one phone call. (Mr Grey had not heard of me prior to that call.) Mr Grey’s responses were fulsome and he took the time to provide further comment on the survey itself as part of the ‘pilot study’ process.

It may be argued that, being Brisbane-based, I would naturally have better access to News Limited in a town where that newspaper company has metropolitan daily monopoly status – but I was prepared to travel to Sydney to meet with Fairfax staff as I had done with News Limited and I intimated that to them. Secondly, while Messrs Burton, van Niekerk and Higgins have publicised various positive aspects of Fairfax’s websites (see Burton, 2001, p.15; van Niekerk, 2001, p.14 and Higgins, 2001, pp.12-13) it has been claimed Fairfax’s online news ventures lost the company $42 million in 2000 and a further $30 million in 2001 (Jackson, 2002b, p.7). Under such fiscal pressure it might be reasonable to expect that the last thing Fairfax would want is an inquiry about their online strengths and weaknesses – even if such an inquiry was a small survey from an unknown, out-of-town PhD student.

The survey questions were arranged in categories where responses provided information on the sample population; on the establishment, costs and aims and objectives of the newspaper websites; on issues relating to online news and online advertising; on the performance of the websites in terms of profitability, hit rates and effects on circulation; on the newspapers’ future plans for their websites; on what is seen (by the sample population at least) as the value of newspaper websites; and on other issues raised by the survey respondents themselves. Trends are identified in each of these sections and are discussed. A copy of the survey used in this study is at Appendix 1. Home page images of the newspaper websites surveyed are at Appendix 2.

144

Information on the sample population

As can be seen in Table 5.2, of the 18 newspapers surveyed, eight (44.4 per cent) were independent and nine (50 per cent) were part of a newspaper group. One respondent (5.6 per cent) considered their newspaper independent although a major newspaper group had a 75 per cent shareholding in it. The newspaper’s founder held the remaining 25 per cent.

Frequency Per cent

Valid Independent 8 44.4 responses Group-owned 9 50.0 Independent with group-owned 1 5.6 shares Total 18 100.0

Table 5.2 - Ownership status for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

As Table 5.3 shows, eight newspapers (44.4 per cent) were dailies excluding Sundays; one (5.6 per cent) published seven days per week; six (33.3 per cent) were weekly publications; one was fortnightly; and one was a daily online newspaper with a weekly e-mail edition and a quarterly print edition.41

Frequency Per cent

Valid Daily (excluding Sunday) 8 44.4 responses Daily (including Sunday) 1 5.6 Weekly 6 33.3 Fortnightly 1 5.6 Other 1 5.6 Total 17 94.4 Missing 1 5.6 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.3 - Publication frequency for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

41 All the frequency tables in this chapter (and almost all in Chapter 7) have been generated automatically by the SPSS software program. If the percentages in these tables are added it will be noted that in some cases they do not total exactly 100 per cent, despite the SPSS tables indicating that they do. The error, in most cases + or - 0.1 per cent, occurs as SPSS rounds percentage figures to the number of decimal places specified by the user. 145

Nine newspapers (50 per cent) had circulations of between 5000 and 25,000. One (5.6 per cent) had a circulation of more than 100,000. Two (11.1 per cent) had circulations between 50,000 and 100,000 and one had a circulation less than 5000. (See Table 5.4.)

Frequency Per cent

Valid 1001~5000 1 5.6 responses 5001~25,000 9 50.0 25,001~50,000 3 16.7 50,001~100,000 2 11.1 More than 100,000 1 5.6 Total 16 88.9 Missing 2 11.1 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.4 - Circulation figures for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Seven respondents (38.9 per cent) saw their newspapers as having a monopoly status in their circulation area; the remaining 11 (61.1 per cent) saw their newspapers as having a non-monopoly status (see Table 5.5). However, this information was contrasted somewhat by a later survey question that asked respondents to identify competing newspaper titles, where only three (16.7 per cent) identified their newspapers as having a monopoly within their circulation area; a further three said their newspaper competed with one other title; two (11.1 per cent) said their newspaper competed with two titles; one each (5.6 per cent) said their newspapers competed with three and five titles respectively; four (22.2 per cent) said their newspaper competed with four titles; and three said their newspaper competed with more than 10 titles (see Table 5.6).

Frequency Per cent

Valid Monopoly newspaper 7 38.9 responses Non-monopoly newspaper 11 61.1

Total 18 100.0

Table 5.5 - Monopoly/non-monopoly status for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

146

Frequency Per cent

Valid Duopoly 3 16.7 responses Competes with 2 titles 2 11.1 Competes with 3 titles 1 5.6 Competes with 5 titles 1 5.6

Competes with 6~10 titles 4 22.2

Competes with more than 10 3 16.7 titles

Newspaper is a monopoly 3 16.7

Total 17 94.4 Missing 1 5.6 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.6 - Competition for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Establishment, costs and aims and objectives

As can be seen from Table 5.7, eight of the newspapers surveyed (44.4 per cent) were more than 100 years old. Only one newspaper (5.6 per cent) was established post-2000. The remaining newspapers (bar one non-response) were established in relatively evenly distributed years between 1900 and 2000.

Frequency Per cent

Valid Pre-1900 8 44.4 responses 1900~1920 2 11.1 1921~1940 1 5.6 1941~1960 1 5.6 1961~1980 1 5.6 1981~1990 1 5.6 1991~1995 1 5.6 1996~2000 1 5.6 Post-2000 1 5.6 Total 17 94.4 Missing 1 5.6 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.7 - Years in which the newspapers surveyed were established (n = 18)

147

The length of time newspapers have been operating their websites was relatively evenly distributed from 1995, the year Australian newspapers first started appearing online, to 2002 (see Table 5.8). One newspaper (5.6 per cent) went online in 1995. Three newspapers (16.7 per cent) went online in 1997; three in 1998; two (11.1 per cent) in 1999; another three in 2000 and a further two in 2001. The most recently established newspaper website went online in 2002. Three non-responses were recorded. While some newspapers had out-of-date websites while this survey was being conducted, by the end of the survey period all websites were up-to-date.

Frequency Per cent

Valid 1995 1 5.6 responses 1997 3 16.7 1998 3 16.7 1999 2 11.1 2000 3 16.7 2001 2 11.1 2002 1 5.6 Total 15 83.3 Missing 3 16.7 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.8 - Date the newspapers surveyed went online (n = 18)

Correlations between the date individual newspapers were established and the year in which their respective websites went online showed no specific trend. Although in this case the longest established newspaper (first published in 1833) was the newspaper with the most recent website (set up in 2002), as can be seen in Figure 5.1, there is no trend suggesting that ‘younger’ or ‘older’ newspapers are first or last online. The third oldest newspaper surveyed, for example, was established in 1861 but was the first newspaper to go online, in 1995. This compares with a relatively ‘young’ newspaper, first printed in 1981, which did not go online until 2000. There were two non-responses to questions that asked for newspaper and website establishment dates. 148

Correlation between newspaper and website establishment dates

2003

2002 1833

2001 1910 2001

2000 1892 1928 1981

1999 1901 1999

1998 1888 1890

1997 1853 1876 1994

1996 1971 Year website established website Year 1995 1861 1986

1994 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year newspaper established

Figure 5.1 - Correlation between newspaper and website establishment dates for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

149

As Table 5.9 shows, newspapers located their website management in different areas. Eleven newspapers (61.1 per cent) located their website management in the editorial department. Four newspapers (22.2 per cent) had this function in the newspaper’s information technology department. The remaining newspapers located their website management, respectively, in the accounts department, in the human resources department (a ‘Teams Manager’ led this particular website) and in the newspaper’s overall management (that is, outside editorial management).

Frequency Per cent

Valid Editorial (Online Editor) 4 22.2 responses Editorial (Managing Editor or Editor) 6 33.3

Editorial (General) 1 5.6 Information Technology 4 22.2 Accounts 1 5.6 Manager (non Editorial) 1 5.6 Other 1 5.6 Total 18 100.0

Table 5.9 - Website management for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

The costs of setting up newspaper websites varied. Six respondents (33.3 per cent) said their website establishment costs were ‘negligible’ with the websites produced in-house. One website cost more than $50,000 to set up. One respondent (5.6 per cent) said it cost less than $1000 to set up their newspaper’s website; one said between $1000 and $5000; one between $5000 and $10,000 and one between $10,000 and $25,000. Seven respondents (38.9 per cent) said this information was not available (see Table 5.10). Note that this question referred to establishment costs and not to the costs of maintaining the site. One respondent identified that website maintenance costs should have been considered and said their website cost around ‘$10,000 per year’ to maintain.

150

Frequency Per cent

Valid Produced in-house at negligible 6 33.3 responses cost Less than $1000 1 5.6 $1001~$5000 1 5.6 $5001~$10,000 1 5.6 $10,001~$25,000 1 5.6 More than $50,000 1 5.6 Information not available 7 38.9 Total 18 100.0

Table 5.10 - Website set up costs for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

It may be assumed the costs for setting up and maintaining a major daily newspaper website would necessarily be more than the costs for a regional weekly newspaper website, but correlations between website costs, circulation and publication frequency showed no specific trend. Of the 10 daily newspapers surveyed, for example, website costs ranged from $1 million for one, to $20,000 for another, to less than $3000 for another, to negligible costs for two that set up their websites in-house using existing resources. (Six daily newspapers said this information was not available.) Two weekly newspapers also said their websites were set up at negligible cost, while one weekly newspaper website cost $10,000 to establish and then up to $35,000 per year to maintain. A thrice-weekly newspaper’s website cost $6000 to establish, while a fortnightly newspaper’s website was produced in-house at negligible cost. One respondent, owner of a weekly newspaper, said his website cost $200 to set up and ‘was put together in an afternoon’. All these newspapers had widely varying circulations, from a major daily with a 221,000 Monday to Friday circulation and a 343,000 Saturday circulation to a rural weekly publication with a 1950 circulation. It is clear from this study that website set up and maintenance costs are predicated more on the sophistication or simplicity of the website itself, rather than the circulation or the publication frequency of the newspaper concerned.

In terms of setting up their websites, and as shown in Table 5.11, seven newspapers (38.9 per cent) established their websites independently, that is, no alliances were formed with external parties or other news media for that purpose. Eight newspapers (44.4 per cent) formed alliances of some description to set up their 151 websites and of these, three (16.7 per cent) were with organisations not related to either media or Internet service providers. Two newspapers (11.1 per cent) formed alliances with other news media in their news groups; one (5.6 per cent) formed an alliance with a news organisation outside its news group; and two formed alliances with a range of external organisations. Three non-responses were recorded.

Frequency Per cent

Valid With non-media, non-ISP 3 16.7 responses With other news media in group 2 11.1

With other news media outside group 1 5.6

With a combination of some of the 1 5.6 above All of the above 1 5.6 No alliances formed 7 38.9 Total 15 83.3 Missing 3 16.7 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.11 - Alliances formed to set up the websites of the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

A multiple response question sought newspapers’ aims and objectives in setting up their websites. Responses were varied – from commercial reasons:

• ‘to be a citizen of the e-world and hopefully make a buck…before someone else did’ • ‘keeping pace with technology and maintaining market share’ • ‘placement of classified ads’ • selling news photographs online, and • having ‘technical information available to advertising agencies’

– to editorial reasons including:

• ‘for interactive communications and breaking news’ and 152

• offering ‘additional services that an Internet news site offers such as access to archive material, search functions, email news functions and email and web links’.

One respondent (5.6 per cent) identified their website as being able to include all the news the organisation wished to publish but ‘could never be printed in the newspaper for space reasons’.

Specific sections of this multiple response question asked respondents if, through establishing their websites, they sought to offer readers additional services; to increase circulation; to increase advertising revenue; to keep pace with other newspapers’ use of the Internet; or to provide ‘portal sites’ for other parts of their organisation’s operations. The responses to these questions are provided in Table 5.12.

Did not Yes No Reason for establishing website respond n (%) n (%) n (%) To offer readers additional services 11 (61.1) 0 (0.0) 7 (38.9)

To increase circulation 7 (38.0) 1 (5.6) 10 (55.5)

To increase advertising revenue 4 (22.2) 3 (16.7) 11 (61.1)

To keep pace with other newspapers’ use of the Internet 8 (44.4) 1 (5.6) 9 (50.0)

To provide ‘portal sites’ for other parts of the organisation’s operations 5 (27.8) 3 (16.7) 10 (55.5)

Table 5.12 - Reasons for establishing the websites of the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

News and advertising online

All newspapers offered their website content free of charge, although two respondents (11.1 per cent) said they were considering charging for content in the future. In terms of news content, nine websites (50 per cent) contained news only; five (27.8 per cent) contained news and classified advertising; one (5.6 per cent) contained all news and advertisements that appeared in the newspaper itself; one 153 contained news, display advertising and classified advertising and one contained news and display advertising. One non-response was recorded. Asked how their online news content differed from the news appearing in the newspaper itself, 11 respondents (61.1 per cent) said their websites contained the same news ‘cut and pasted’ from the newspaper. Six (33.3 per cent) said their news was edited specifically for their website. (One non-response was recorded.) Of these, however, nine respondents (50 per cent) said their websites contained fewer news stories than the newspaper itself; one (5.6 per cent) said their website and their newspaper contained the same number of news stories; while one said their website contained more stories than the newspaper. Seven non-responses (38.9 per cent) were recorded.

Thirteen newspapers (72.2 per cent) offered additional news-based services (including ‘archive material, search functions, news email functions and…web links’) and these were also free; although a further three newspapers (16.7 per cent) offered these services on a fee-paying basis. Two newspapers (11.1 per cent) offered no additional online news-based services. Only one (5.6 per cent) of the newspapers surveyed employed specific online news staff to generate news content for their website. All remaining 17 newspapers (94.4 per cent) used existing staff to generate their online news content.

In terms of advertising content, nine websites (50 per cent) contained advertising material. Of the nine that did not, four respondents (22.2 per cent) said advertising was planned for the future. Asked how their online advertising content differed from the advertisements appearing in the newspaper itself, two respondents (11.1 per cent) said their newspaper and their website carried the same advertisements; two said their website contained more advertisements than their newspaper; and a further two said their website contained different advertisements entirely. One respondent (5.6 per cent) said their website contained fewer advertisements than the newspaper itself and one said their website contained a combination of display advertisements from the newspaper and banner advertisements specifically created for the website. Two non-responses were recorded.

154

Of the newspapers that have advertisements on their websites, four (22.2 per cent) employed specific online advertising staff. The remainder used existing staff to generate online advertising content. Seven (38.9 per cent) of the newspapers surveyed registered advertising revenue increases after their website went live. However, three of these respondents (16.7 per cent) did not relate these increases to the website itself. Two respondents (11.1 per cent) said their advertising revenue had decreased after their websites went live. Three respondents (16.7 per cent) said their advertising revenue had remained static after their websites went live.

Profitability, hit rates and effects on circulation

Only two respondents (11.1 per cent) said their newspaper websites were considered profitable.42 Thirteen respondents (72.2 per cent) said their websites were not profitable. Two respondents said this information was not available. One non- response was recorded. Three newspapers (16.7 per cent) registered fewer than 100 ‘hits’ on their websites per day. A further three registered between 100 and 500 hits per day and two (11.1 per cent) registered more than 1000 hits per day. One newspaper (5.6 per cent) did not record website hit rates and five respondents (27.8 per cent) said this information was not available. Two respondents would not disclose their website hit rates.

Six (33.4 per cent) of the newspapers surveyed registered circulation increases after their website went live; but three of these respondents (16.7 per cent) did not relate the increase to the website itself. A further three newspapers registered circulation decreases after their websites went live but none related these decreases to the websites. Five respondents (27.8 per cent) said their newspaper circulation had remained static after their websites went live. Three respondents said circulation information was not available. One non-response was recorded.

42 It is interesting to note the two profitable news organisations’ website operations in relation to advertising. One did not employ specific online staff to generate its online advertising and the other did not have online advertising on its website. 155

Future plans

The survey also asked respondents to identify their newspaper’s future plans for their websites. This was an open question and varied responses were received, including:

• Seven respondents (38.9 per cent) identified improving the website to generate increased subscriptions: one by moving to full newspaper content online; one by improving ‘clarity and look’; one by ‘winning back readers that have drifted away’; one by introducing reader services such as a ‘photo library’, ‘community involvement’ and ‘paid subscriptions’; one by introducing a fully subscription- based website; one by installing new computer servers, employing ‘new newspaper publishing software’ and then introducing a subscription scheme; and one by encouraging more reader feedback.

• Four respondents (22.2 per cent) wanted to increase advertising revenue: one by increasing news content and news immediacy thereby making the website more attractive to advertisers; one by introducing paid advertising ‘links’ to advertisers’ own websites; one by bringing their website up-to-date and then introducing paid classifieds online; and one by ‘development with banner advertising’. (One of these respondents also nominated increased subscriptions as a future goal.)

• One respondent (5.6 per cent) identified ‘commercial exploitation’ as a future plan for their newspaper’s website, which, it might be assumed, could include both subscription and advertising revenue.

• Two respondents (11.1 per cent) related their future plans, respectively, to better reader services by providing ‘more information and links to other sites that might be of interest’ and to progressively expanding all services available on the website.

156

• Four respondents indicated their future plans were undetermined or still being evaluated. One of these indicated they were ‘still procrastinating’ about their website’s future while another said their future plans were ‘conservative’.

• One non-response was recorded.

The value of newspaper websites

Relating to questions germane to this thesis, respondents were also asked (a) whether they believed their newspaper’s website had given their newspaper an ‘edge’ and if that edge was commercial or related more to prestige; (b) whether they believed the value of newspaper websites was generally commercial or related more to prestige; and (c) whether they believed newspaper websites led to news diversity.

As shown in Table 5.13, four respondents (22.2 per cent) said their newspaper’s website provided a commercial edge on competing newspapers while two respondents (11.1 per cent) said their website had given them an edge by raising their newspaper’s overall profile. However, eight respondents (44.4 per cent) said their website had not provided an edge of any description. Four non-responses were recorded.

Frequency Per cent

Valid A commercial edge 4 22.2 responses An edge through higher profile 2 11.1

Has not given an edge 8 44.4 Total 14 77.8 Missing 4 22.2 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.13 - The ‘edge’ provided by the websites of the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Twelve respondents (66.7 per cent) said they believed the value of newspaper websites was generally non-commercial and related more to ‘prestige’, ‘presence’ and the ‘profile’ of the newspaper. Two respondents (11.1 per cent) said this value related equally to these non-commercial aspects and to commercial aspects. One 157 respondent (5.6 per cent) said both values existed, but rated a commercial value higher. One respondent said neither value applied and one respondent said the value was in ‘information provision’ rather than commercialism or prestige (see Table 5.14). One non-response was recorded.

Frequency Per cent

Valid Prestige or presence 12 66.7 responses Both, with commercial value higher 1 5.6

Both, to the same degree 2 11.1 Neither 1 5.6

Values other than prestige and 1 5.6 commercial value

Total 17 94.4 Missing 1 5.6 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.14 - The ‘value’ of the websites of the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Most respondents did not equate newspaper websites with increases in news diversity. Ten respondents (55.6 per cent) said newspaper websites did not lead to news diversity. Six respondents (33.3 per cent) said they believed newspaper websites could lead to news diversity (see Table 5.15). Two non-responses were recorded.

Frequency Per cent

Yes 6 33.3 Valid No 10 55.6 responses Total 16 88.9 Missing 2 11.1 responses Total 18 100.0

Table 5.15 - Respondents who equated newspaper websites with news diversity (n = 18)

Other issues

The survey concluded with an open question that invited respondents to detail issues they felt the survey did not address. Five responded. One comment was 158 about website maintenance costs and has already been mentioned. The other comments related to the future of newspapers; piggy-backing the website onto other technological improvements; providing an open media in countries where the media are censored; and the synergies between newspaper websites and other digital newspaper processes. Taken from survey responses as direct quotes, these comments were:

• ‘I think one of the major reasons newspapers all run web news services is the vague possibility that the future will not be on crushed trees. None of us are sure the Net is it, certainly not in its cumbersome present form, but as it becomes more defined and user-friendly, it could be, and none of us can afford to miss the bus.’

• ‘The development of the infrastructure for [the] site was associated with other technological innovations such as the transmission of the newspaper via FTP [file transfer protocol] to our Queensland printer via the 128 K pipe [a 128 kilobyte/second connection between computers], so we needed to add personnel and equipment to [our] organisation anyway that embraced new technology.’

• ‘As a result of our internet presence we have made many contacts and provided people in countries where the media is heavily censored or monopolised with information that they might otherwise have been denied. For example, our analysis of the “war against terrorism” does not rely on John Howard, George W Bush and CNN.’

• ‘It’s easy to run a website because the entire paper is electronic. Everything is digital. We have a decentralised newsroom and everyone works from their own offices. We get our advertising by email. We send our newspaper to the printers by email. We get some of our artwork done in India, because it’s so cheap and it’s good, and we get that by email. Without computers and without email we wouldn’t exist. The website fits snugly into the production process, and it only takes two hours a week to maintain.’

159

Analysis and discussion

In Chapter 4, I cited Sparks’ (2000) argument that ‘the fundamental reasons’ for newspapers moving online were economic (p.270). Sparks (2000) added that newspapers’ online versions incurred no ‘production and distribution’ costs, costs that have been estimated to make up 50 per cent of the total cost of producing a newspaper (p.271). The Internet’s ability to negate these production and distribution costs is central to the belief that the technology will increase the structural diversity of Australia’s newspaper industry (Colvin, 1999, p.370). Saving production costs, however, does not automatically equate to generating online revenue. Furthermore, while the Internet may have reduced the start-up costs for would-be competitors – it will be recalled Morris (1996) suggested these costs would drop from $300 million to $30,000 (p.14) – experiences like those of The Brisbane Independent indicate the costs of maintaining an online news site can be formidable and may still form a barrier to the entry of new players. As shown in Table 5.9, the survey’s results show that set up costs for larger websites can be up to $50,000 with maintenance costs in the order of $10,000 per year.

While established media players have the potential to offset website set up and maintenance costs against other areas of their business, as Fairfax continues with its news websites despite their $72 million loss from 2000 to 2002 (Jackson, 2002b, p.7), it may be assumed that fledgling online media players do not have this advantage. Indeed, it will be recalled from Chapter 4 that a significant finding from the literature reviewed is that most newspaper websites do not make a profit. In the Australian context, the survey showed that just two newspaper websites were profitable while 13 were losing money, as detailed in Figure 5.2.

160

Missing responses Website profitable Information not (1) (2) available (2) 5.6% 11.1% 11.1%

Website not profitable (13) 72.2% Newspaper website profitability

Figure 5.2 - Website profitability for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Newspapers face ‘an increasingly painful dilemma’ because of this (Leadbetter, 2002). Although their websites were ‘unlikely to make money’ they were, nonetheless, attracting ‘many millions of hits a month’ and ‘to close them down would be met with howls of complaint from disgruntled customers’ (Leadbetter, 2002). While my literature searches have found no link between website hit rates and profitability, my survey did garner hit rate statistics, which are shown in Figure 5.3. Cross matching both of these sets of results would seem to indicate no link between hit rates and profitability. Both respondents who declared their websites profitable also provided hit rates – one claiming 12,000 weekly – equating to slightly more than 1700 each day; but the other claiming just 1000 hits a month, a paltry 33 hits (roughly) each day.

161

Newspaper website hit rates

Missing responses Would not disclose (2) (2) 11.1% 11.1% Fewer than 100 per day (3) 16.7%

Information not available (5) 27.8%

101~500 per day (3) 16.7%

Do not count (1) More than 1000 5.6% per day (2) 11.1% Figure 5.3 - Website hit rates for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Online subscriptions

It will be recalled from Chapter 4 that Mings and White’s (2000) subscription model for online newspapers was based on traditional newspaper models where up to 30 per cent of revenue was generated by the cover price of the newspaper itself (p.64). Mings and White (1997) outlined three ways for online newspapers to raise revenue through subscriptions: providing some content free but charging for access to all content; offering a free trial period and then charging for content when the trial was over; and offering and charging for specialised content (pp.12-16).

All 18 of the newspapers surveyed offered their online editions free of charge, although two said that they intended to charge for online content at some future time. It will be recalled that concern was expressed that readers were ‘more likely to give up reading a print version of a newspaper if they can get most of the same news from the Web site’ (Pastore, 1999). One of the respondents reflected this concern, saying they intended to charge for content in future to ensure their website did not ‘become an alternative to paying for the paper’.

162

The most interesting (and perhaps most curious) Australian example of the subscription-based online business model that proposes giving some content away but charging for full access to all content is the f2 network of online newspapers and magazines. It will be recalled the f2 network is a resource sharing arrangement between the Fairfax, Rural Press and APN news groups. Online access to The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Financial Review, The Sun Herald, The Illawarra Mercury, The Newcastle Herald and The Standard, as well as magazines BRW, Personal Investor, Shares, Assets, CFO, MIS and Boss is through the f2 site, which lists headlines and gives a small introductory paragraph for stories within whatever online publication is accessed, but then requests $2.20 per story to gain full online access to them. This content is called ‘pay-per-view premium content’. However, subscribers to the print editions of the above publications do not have to pay to access the full online versions of articles – they have a special ‘access code’ that they can enter to see all content. But even this comes at a price, a yearly subscription to the Australian Financial Review’s print edition, for example, is quoted on the newspaper’s website as ‘$379 a year’ (at www.fairfax.com.au/cgi- bin/subs/afr.cgi, accessed 25 February 2003). The curious thing about this arrangement is that the f2 network promotes not the virtues of its online news, but the ‘convenience and versatility’ of its print editions. The blurb on the subscription page of the f2 site, under a heading that asks ‘Why subscribe to a print publication’ tells readers:

When you consider the convenience and versatility of having a paper edition delivered, a subscription to Fairfax’s range of publications really makes sense. Ensure the flow of ideas, opinions and information throughout your day with a subscription to a Fairfax newspaper or magazine. You’ll enjoy considerable savings on the cover price and receive prompt, reliable delivery. You’ll also benefit from the full, expanded details, stories and listings not available in the online editions. (at www.fairfax.com.au/cgi-bin/subs/afr.cgi, accessed 25 February 2003)

One conclusion from this arrangement is that the f2 model, seemingly the reverse of that employed by the newspapers surveyed, is trying to counter the perceived consequence that some readers who access a newspaper’s website for free will give up reading the publication’s print version. 163

My research indicates Australian newspapers are also adopting the third component of Mings and White’s (1997) subscription model: offering and charging for ‘specialised content to suit particular interests’ (pp.12-16). As shown in Figure 5.4, 13 respondents from the 18 newspapers surveyed said they offered ‘additional news services’, such as archives, free of charge, while three respondents said their newspapers offered these types of services for a fee. Australia’s largest newspaper organisation, News Limited, offers free archival access across all its newspapers for a period of just one week back from the current date, before directing readers to a separate News Text website that provides archived news articles on a paying basis.

Additional online services Special services are offered for a fee (3) 16.7%

No special Special services are services offered offered (2) at no charge 11.1% (13) 72.2%

Figure 5.4 - Additional online services offered by the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Subscriptions are intrinsically linked to circulation, and on this issue it will be recalled Chapter 4 discussed literature indicating newspaper circulation was declining in the US and the UK (see Kohut, 2002; Cowen, 2001, p.190 and Sparks, 2000, p.272). However, I have argued that Australian newspaper circulation defied this trend (Lewis, 2001a, pp.107-108). Data generated by this research support this contention, 11 of the 18 respondents claiming their newspaper circulation either increased or remained static after their website went live, with only three identifying that their circulation decreased. While it should be noted (as detailed in Figure 5.5) that not all attributed circulation movements to their website, these offline circulation figures add support to Obijiofor and Green’s (2001) contention that it was 164

‘premature’ to ‘argue that online publication affects the sales (circulation) figures of traditional newspapers’ (pp.96-97).

Newspaper circulation movements

Circulation up (3) Circulation up, but Would not disclose 16.7% not because of (1) website (3) 5.6% 16.7%

Information not available (3) 16.7%

Circulation down, but not because of Circulation static (5) website (3) 27.7% 16.7%

Figure 5.5 - Circulation movements for newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

It was also discussed in Chapter 4 that, internationally, some major newspapers have placed their online news ventures in the hands of circulation rather than editorial managers. This recognises the importance that newspaper organisations place in building larger readerships and the fact that they see their online ventures as a strategy to achieve this objective. The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Paris-based daily these two papers co-own, The International Herald Tribune, were given as examples. My survey’s results did not reflect this trend, however. Eleven of the 18 newspapers surveyed placed their online management within their respective editorial departments – six as managing editors or editors, four as specific online editors, and one from the general editorial department. As shown in Figure 5.6, four of the newspapers’ online managers were based in their respective newspapers’ information technology departments rather than in editorial departments. Of the remaining respondents, one identified himself as an ‘Accounts and Administration Manager’, one as a ‘Teams Manager’ and one as a generic ‘Manager’. 165

Newspaper website administration

Manager - Non editorial (1) Other (1) Accounts (1) 5.6% 5.6% E ditorial - O nline 5.6% Editor (4) Inform ation 22.2% Technology (4) 22.2%

Editorial - General (1) 5.6% Editorial - Managing Editor or Editor (6) 33.3%

Figure 5.6 - Website administration for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Online advertising

In Chapter 4, I cited Mings and White’s (2000) contention that online news publishers pursued subscription and advertising models because that was what worked in the past (p.72), even though ‘experts’ did not believe online subscriptions could raise the 20 to 30 per cent of total income they generated for newspapers (Mings & White, 1997, p.18). It will be recalled Mings and White (1997) described four types of advertising in this model, these being sponsorships and banner advertising, display advertising, specific advertising websites and online classified advertising (pp.18-24). While examples cited in Chapter 4 supported the statement that getting advertisers onto the Web was ‘a hard slog’ (Bogle, 2001, p.15), the results of my newspaper website survey provided only limited support for any of the online advertising arguments suggested in the preceding chapter – save for Burton’s (2001) contention that online advertising in Australia was but 1 per cent of all advertising across all media in the country (p.15). This was mainly because only half of the newspapers surveyed had advertising on their websites (see Figure 5.7). Of 166 these, seven newspaper websites carried classified advertising. This was the type of advertising with the highest response rate, which supports literature that suggests online classified advertising is at least the most popular, if not profitable, online advertising form (see Figure 5.8). One of these seven newspapers carried both classified and display advertising online, while another identified that all of the newspaper’s offline advertisements appeared online.

Newspaper website advertising

No, but plan to Yes (9) (4) 50% 22%

No (5) 28%

Figure 5.7 - Website advertising for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Online advertising / news breakdown

All news, all advertisements News, display (1) ads, classified Missing 5.6% ads (1) responses (1) 5.6% 5.6% News and display ads (1) 5.6%

News and classified ads (5) 27.7% News only (9) 49.9%

Figure 5.8 - Online advertising breakdown for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

167

Asked to identify how their online advertising content differed from their offline advertising content, two respondents said their newspaper carried more online advertising than did their offline edition, while two further respondents said their online advertisements differed entirely from those appearing in the newspaper itself (see Figure 5.9). For two of the respondents (11.1 per cent) at least, the contention that attracting advertising to the Web was considerably difficult appears not to have applied. The fact that seven of the nine respondents (77.7 per cent) whose websites contained advertising said their overall advertising revenue increased after their website went live (see Figure 5.10) – although three did not believe this could be attributed specifically to their website – suggests that gaining online advertising (as opposed to gaining overall profitability) has proved successful in some cases.

Online / offline advertising comparison

Combination of display and banner More advertisements Different advertising (1) (2) advertisements 5.6% 11.1% entirely (2) 11.1% Same advertisements (2) 11.1%

Fewer advertisements (1) 5.6%

No advertising on Missing responses website (8) (2) 44.4% 11.1%

Figure 5.9 - Online and offline advertising comparison for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

168

Online advertising revenue Revenue up (4) Missing responses 22.2% (2) 11.1% Revenue up, but not because of website (3) 16.7%

No advertising on website (4) 22.2% Revenue static (3) Revenue down (2) 16.7% 11.1%

Figure 5.10 - Online advertising revenue for the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Online transactions

Mings and White’s (1997) third online news business model was the transactional model (p.27), based on e-commerce where revenue could be generated by facilitating online transactions and charging commissions on the sales (Morton, 1999, pp.80-81). In Australia, both major newspaper groups, News Limited and Fairfax, have used the transactional model, News Limited setting up the online e-commerce site gofish in 1998 (see Figure 5.11) and Fairfax setting up the online e-commerce site Sold.Com in 1999 (see Figure 5.12).

169

Figure 5.11 - News Limited’s gofish e-commerce site

Figure 5.12 - Fairfax’s Sold.Com e-commerce site 170

News Limited has since abandoned the gofish concept, providing instead a range of online reader services from its linked websites, including searchable real estate and motoring listings plus an online ‘general trading’ site that indexes more than 52,000 classified advertisements. Fairfax, meanwhile, continues with Sold.Com although, consistent with Cowen’s (2001) content strategy where newspapers form alliances with Internet service providers (p.191), Sold.Com is now ‘powered by Yahoo’ (at http://au.sold.yahoo.com, accessed 9 April 2003) and can be accessed through either Fairfax or Yahoo websites. This is a trend reflected throughout the world, with the ‘Big Three’ Internet portals – AOL, MSN and Yahoo – being the types of Internet sites that have largely taken over e-commerce (McAllister & Turow, 2002, p.511).

Results from my survey showed little evidence of a significant use of the transactional model in its true sense. Of the 18 newspaper websites surveyed, only one contained an e-commerce link. That was the Newcastle Herald, a Fairfax newspaper that had a Sold.Com link on its home page. Nor was e-commerce mentioned specifically as an aim or objective of any newspaper website surveyed, nor was it mentioned in any future plans for these websites, aside from an oblique reference from one respondent who said their newspaper’s future plans included ‘[c]ommercial exploitation’. This respondent added: ‘[B]ut we are a small staff. Most of our ideas are in the “too-hard” basket at the moment’, which may indicate, in general, the resource implications for newspapers providing online services such as e-commerce. A final point on the transactional model relates to literature that links the commercial news media with the ‘commodifying’ of readers into audiences that are then sold as ‘definable commodities’ to advertisers (see Lawe Davies,1999, p.56; Marshall, 1997, pp.52-56 and Hartley, 1996, p.47) and that is that one of the 18 respondents surveyed identified having ‘technical information available to advertising agencies’ as an aim of their website.

Online partnerships

It will be recalled that the bundled (or partnerships) model was where online newspapers established partnerships with other publishing and/or Internet businesses to share start-up costs and to generate revenue on an ongoing basis (Mings & White, 171

1997, p.30). Although Mings and White (2000, p.83 and 1997, p.30) said the take up of this model had been ‘flat’, literature discussed in Chapter 4 suggested the model was being used to some extent to generate online revenue, both in Australia and internationally. The results of my research continue to support this. Of the 18 newspapers surveyed, for example, eight had formed partnerships of some description to set up their websites (see Figure 5.13). Seven newspapers established their websites independently, that is, they formed no partnerships for that purpose. Of the eight newspapers that did form partnerships, three of these partnerships were with organisations related to neither media nor Internet service providers, two formed alliances with other news media in their news groups, two newspapers formed alliances with a range of external organisations and one newspaper formed an alliance with a news organisation outside its news group.

Alliances formed for newspaper websites

With non-media, With other news non-ISP (3) media in group (2) Missing responses 16.7% (3) 11.1% 16.7% With other news media outside group (1) 5.6%

With a combination No alliances formed of alliances (1) (7) All of the alliances 5.6% 38.8% mentioned (2) 5.6%

Figure 5.13 - Alliances formed to establish the websites of the newspapers surveyed (n = 18)

Survey results also show that some partnerships have been formed to extend the newspapers’ range and the services they make available to their readers. There were examples of regional newspapers forming partnerships with their respective local authorities to promote their local community to residents and potential visitors. Other partnerships were with specialist advertisers, such as local cinemas, and provided additional information services to readers, such as film screening times and film reviews. One newspaper formed an alliance with Telstra to extend its online 172 delivery to WAP mobile phones.43 Other partnerships with businesses such as Internet design companies, ISPs and, in one case, a health insurance company and the TAB, were in the vein of providing advertising and promotion for the ‘partner’ in return for assistance with set up costs.

Mings and White (1997) gave additional examples of this model being used to establish ‘newspaper consortiums’ like ‘Associated Press and New Century Network in the US’ that aimed ‘to marry the interactivity, breadth and cool conversation of the Net with the credibility and dedicated insight of hometown newspapers across the country’ (p.33). The f2 partnership between Fairfax, Rural Press and APN has to a certain extent delivered this in Australia, allowing smaller Rural Press and APN newspapers, particularly, to go online by using shared resources. Overall, the results of this part of the survey indicate that while the aborted alliances/mergers of News Limited/PBL/One.Tel and AOL Time Warner garnered much media coverage because of their scale, Australian newspapers are forming online alliances behind the scenes with other media and non-media businesses.

Other business models

In terms of other business models, it will be recalled Williams and Nicholas (1999) suggested the future of online newspapers lay in exploiting multimedia and discussed a model that leveraged their eight attributes of online newspapers: hyperlinking, currency, relatively unlimited space, archival storage, reference services, customisation, interactivity and multimedia (pp.126-131). In my survey, one newspaper mentioned specifically that its website was set up to promote ‘interactivity communication’ and to make use of the Internet’s ability for currency by facilitating ‘breaking news’.

43 WAP stands for ‘Wireless Application Protocol’, a technology standard that allows mobile telephones to connect to the Internet.

173

It will also be recalled that Sparks (2000) believed online newspapers could generate revenue through advertising, because online advertisements were searchable; and through subscriptions, particularly to a burgeoning youth market; but he was less optimistic that any significant revenue could be gained by charging for additional services (pp.277-278). Only one of the 18 respondents listed ‘providing additional services’ as an objective in setting up their website, saying this was to ‘provide our readers with additional services that an Internet news site offers, such as access to archive material, search functions, email news functions, and email and web links’. This website, incidentally, was not considered profitable.

And finally, it will be recalled that Cowen (2001) proposed that newspapers should adopt three specific strategies to successfully move online: a portal strategy, a community publishing strategy and a content-related strategy (p.191). In this study, five of the 18 newspapers surveyed were adopting portal strategies, including linking to youth-, auto-, property- and jobs-oriented websites and to other media websites.

Conclusions: Testing the hypothesis

The discussions of Chapter 4 and the research results of Chapter 5 highlight a key issue: that building and maintaining an online news service still consumes resources – in a sufficient amount, it would seem, that most news websites, even those connected with established media enterprises, lose money. The commercial nature of the Internet (for news media purposes) can be supported by the fact that it is the commercial media that have, in the far greater majority, moved online while there is a significant absence of successful independent online media. Literature supports this (see Higgins, 2001; Cunningham & Romano, 2000; Sparks, 2000 and Kimber, 1997) and a principal reason for this was highlighted by one comment returned from my survey of Australian newspaper websites. This was that the synergies between newspaper websites and other digital newspaper processes make it extremely resource efficient for the established media – those producing content for an offline newspaper – to ‘shovel’ that content online. The development of specialised software like Newsstand, mentioned in Chapter 4, further enhances these 174 efficiencies.44 Independent online news outlets have no such synergies, evidenced by Crikey, described as one of Australia’s very few successful online-only news publications (Colvin, 2002), where content is produced by a ‘one-man band’ in a process that is ‘fairly haphazard’ and ‘shambolic’ (Jackson, 2002a, p.3).

Similarly, independent online news outlets generally have no ability to offset losses against other operations, as presumably is the case with established media outlets. And while it may be assumed that ‘one-man band’ online publishing would not accumulate losses of the $72 million scale achieved by the Fairfax group (Jackson, 2002b, p.7), the $250,000 loss by Australia’s first online-only news publication The Zeitgeist Gazette, in nine months (Salter, 2001, p.23), gives some indication of the resources such an enterprise can consume.

In terms of Mings and White’s subscription model, my survey showed that all newspapers in the sample population offered online content free of charge, and revenue from this model was only being generated through the offering of specialised online services. However, while 16 respondents offered these services, just three respondents (16.7 per cent) did so on a fee-paying basis. In terms of Mings and White’s advertising model, my survey showed that only half of the newspapers surveyed had advertising online. Classified advertising from the offline newspaper was the most common form of online advertising. While, overall, 7 newspapers (38.9 per cent) achieved an advertising revenue increase after their website went live, three of these respondents did not associate the increases with the website itself. In terms of Ming and White’s transactional model, my survey showed no evidence of this model being used to generate revenue in its true sense. Nor did the respondents show any real intention of adding e-commerce to their online operations in the future. Overall, my survey gives relatively little indication that, even for the established media in Australia, these online business models are being used to generate a sustainable revenue base for online news ventures.

44 Specialised software packages ‘Newsstand’ and its competing product ‘Olive Software’ provide a delivery mechanism that is fundamentally different from newspaper websites, delivering the offline edition of a newspaper, in its ‘printed’ format, digitally via the Internet. The ramifications of many newspapers’ move to this form of delivery, in terms of news media diversity, are discussed in Chapter 6. 175

In terms of Mings and White’s bundled (or partnerships) model, however, my survey showed that eight of the 18 newspapers surveyed (44.4 per cent) had formed alliances of one sort or another to facilitate their Web presence. This model may give greater support to independent online news ventures than the subscription or advertising models. In Brisbane, for example, a successful news and opinion website On Line Opinion (at www.onlineopinion.com.au, accessed 9 April 2003) is supported by The Brisbane Institute, on whose website On Line Opinion is located. On Line Opinion is edited by former Queensland Liberal Party vice president Graham Young, but its content is written by diverse authors representing academics, religious, Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples, political parties, the trade union movement and others. In terms of the goals of pluralism, the quasi-political content of this website is particularly relevant to an ‘adequate mix’ of ‘voices of society’ (McQuail, 1987, p.152), and the website has been providing these ‘voices’ since 2000.

Notwithstanding this example, my survey generally supports the arguments detailed in Chapter 4, particularly that it remains difficult to charge for online content and just as difficult to attract advertisers to news websites. This is particularly relevant when it is proposed that the Internet is now almost a fully commercial environment in terms of the news media, for until these issues can be resolved it is unlikely any change in the number of successful online-only news ventures will occur. As such, and considering the key result of my survey – just two of the 18 newspaper websites surveyed were profitable – it can be argued that the Internet has thus far delivered the conditions to support only very limited structural diversity in the nation’s newspaper industry, and further that it has delivered little media pluralism. As such, the hypothesis proposed in Chapter 4

176

An important point to note in testing this hypothesis, however, is that while this study suggests the preclusion of structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry, the Internet’s potential to provide the benefits that libertarian theorists extol still exists. Certainly, six of the 18 respondents surveyed believed newspaper websites had the potential to add to news diversity. For two of the special interest newspapers I surveyed, it may be argued that that potential is already being realised. Catholic Leader editor Michael Kuczynski, for example, said his newspaper’s website provided extra content for readers that ‘could never be printed in the paper for space reasons’. The Australian Communist Party’s Guardian newspaper, meanwhile, accessed a wider readership through its website, which its editor, Anna Pha, said enabled the newspaper to ‘offer an alternative to Murdoch and Packer’. 177

Chapter 6

The Internet and source diversity

Considerable hopes were held that the Internet would introduce more structural diversity into Australia’s newspaper industry. However, the upholding of the hypothesis proposed in Chapter 4 – that the Internet’s commercial imperatives have to a large extent precluded it from adding structural diversity in the industry – backed with the definition of diversity (see Chapter 3) that links structural diversity with content diversity, suggests the Internet will not promote the diversity of views through online news sites that it had initially promised. This has a real impact on pluralism in 21st century Australia if we accept both that ‘journalism is a reflection of the community’ (Kurpius, 2002, p.853) and that the Australian community is now a ‘multicultural society’ (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.272). Deuze (2001b) suggested western society’s moves towards multiculturalism put ‘pressure on media organizations…to include more professional members of diverse ethnic backgrounds’ to bring an ‘emphasis on pluriformity’ within the news media (p.11). This reflected claims that ‘media diversity’ also refered to the ethnic diversity of media staff (Voakes, Kapfer, Kurpius & Chern, 1996, p.583), the belief being that an ethnically diverse staff would be better able to ‘understand the diverse perspectives and concerns’ of the society about which they write (Ross & Patton, 2000, p.25).

This type of diversity is argued by some to be more important than structural diversity per se. Barr (2000, p.7) and Butler (1998, p.30), for example, both suggested the ability to increase structural diversity within Australia’s media would be meaningless if new media owners subscribed to the same ideology as existing media owners. But, with the staff redundancies of the 1990s (Chadwick, 1994a, p.23; Rodgers, 1994, p.9 and Henningham, 1993, p.66); the ongoing desire by the commercial media to produce their products as inexpensively as possible (McManus, 1995, pp.327-328); media convergence; and further journalist redundancies as new media fortunes declined from 2000 (Dunt & Harper, 2002, p.327; Arant & Anderson, 2001, p.67 and Deuze, 2001a, p.2), it seems unlikely that the news media will move 178 in the short term to add more staff from diverse ethnic backgrounds. In these circumstances it may be argued that the only viable way of increasing content diversity in the media, particularly content that reflects ‘the diverse perspectives and concerns’ of society (Ross & Patton, 2000, p.25), is to increase the availability of diverse information sources to journalists. This chapter proposes that one way to do this is through the Internet.

Journalists regularly use the Internet. Ninety-two per cent of US journalists were accessing it on a regular basis by 1997 (Singer, Tharp & Haruta, 1997, p.30), a figure that increased to 98 per cent by 2000 (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.4). If these journalists are using the technology to access more diverse sources of information – and it is suggested this is the case (Thomas, 2000, p.1553 and Singer, Tharp & Haruta, 1999, p. 30) – it would seem logical that the proponents of media pluralism would welcome this trend. But literature gives little reason for untrammelled joy that pluralism can be delivered by electronically supported source diversity, mainly because it is at best equivocal about any direct relationship existing between journalists’ Internet use, source diversity and content diversity.

Source diversity

Voakes et al. (1996) said that ‘[b]y far the most common definition of diversity…has involved diversity of sources’ (p.584). They defined source diversity (rather long-windedly) as ‘a dispersion of the representation of affiliations and status positions of sources used to create a news product… The more even the dispersion of the representation among source affiliations, status, and proximity in a given story or medium, the greater the diversity’ (Voakes et al., 1996, pp.583-584). But they argued that while it was ‘often assumed’ that ‘the more source diversity…in a news story, the more content diversity there will be’ (Voakes et al., 1996, p.585), their US- based studies have shown that ‘the common assumption that source diversity begets content diversity is fallacious’ (Voakes et al., 1996, p.590). Thomas (2000) also suggested it was not clear that greater diversity in sources would deliver greater diversity in content (p.1551). Reasons for this will be discussed and (in terms of the Internet facilitating greater source diversity) include the fact that journalists continue to rely on established norms and practices and that there are questions about the 179 usability of online information. There is also ongoing suspicion and distrust by traditional ‘offline’ journalists towards online information, online journalism practices and the changes these practices are said to bring to what were once universally accepted journalism tenets.

Established norms and practices

The Internet has been considered a ‘boon’ as an information source for journalists (Singer, Tharp & Haruta, 1999, p.30) and, in the US at least, has ‘changed the way journalists do their work’ by allowing them to ‘keep up with the news by reading the sites of other news organizations, get background information for stories from the Web…and search for or receive press releases’ (The Poynter Institute, 2003). The Internet is an enormous information repository. According to McGovern (2003), there are now 700 billion documents on the World Wide Web. Cole (2001) said Internet information was so extensive that ‘an exhaustive search’ of it was ‘a contradiction in terms’ (p.128). But if the Internet has changed the way journalists work (and the point is debated) it may not lead in any final sense to content diversity. This is because, it is argued, journalists use sources ‘according to the norms and practices of their news organizations’ (Kurpius, 2002, p.854). Kurpius (2002) said:

If journalism is a reflection of the community, the quality of that reflected reality depends to some extent upon sources used… Journalists gather information for their stories according to the norms and practices of their news organizations. Historically, the sources journalists turned to for information reflected a narrow section of society. Research shows sources are predominantly white, male officials who are situated in proximity to the media organization and are easily regarded by journalists as providing credible information. (pp.853-854)

From the 1960s, the US media have been criticised for presenting news ‘from a white male perspective’ (Ross & Patton, 2000, p.24). Kurpius (2002) suggested little had changed with ‘[s]everal researchers’ finding ‘low gender diversity and a heavy reliance on elite male sources’ by journalists, sources that particularly excluded women and ‘[p]eople of color’ (p.854, p.861). These established norms and practices were behind Voakes et al.’s (1996) conclusion that source diversity and content diversity varied independently of each other. They said it was ‘the content of 180 the news story that transmits diversity to the audience – not the personnel and processes by which the news was gathered’ (Voakes et al., 1996, p.591). Established norms and practices are doubtless behind Middleberg and Ross’s (2000) findings that journalists tend not to ‘troll the Web’ for story ideas, but rely instead on more traditional ‘press releases and sources’ (p.8).45 Kirsner (1997), meanwhile, said journalists’ Internet use was mainly to access online wire service copy. So entrenched are these norms that it is argued journalism practice has changed little since the 1950s studies of Breed and the Chicago School (Reese & Ballinger, 2001, p.651).

The usability of online information

Literature continues to suggest that traditional (read ‘offline’) journalists are suspicious about online information (even when this information is produced by other journalists) and about the nature of online journalism practice (Fitzsimmons, 2001, p.16). There are a number of reasons for this, including the usability of online information and the changes online journalism is said to bring to the journalism profession as a whole.

It can be argued that the usability of online information can adversely affect journalists’ ability to use it on a large scale for increased source diversity. It is perhaps stating the obvious to suggest that much online information is written by people who are ‘not trained journalists’ and who ‘lack ethical training, backgrounding in editing and checking news, and knowledge of news ethics’ (Arant & Anderson, 2001, p.67). Pack (1999) argued that the traditional processes of editors ‘determin[ing] the accuracy and overall quality of their articles’ constituted a ‘peer review process’ that were ‘traditional filters’ denied to ‘a good deal of online information’ (p.24), although Loo and Beng (1998) suggested it was just such ‘unfiltered, first-person accounts’ that brought an ‘attraction’ to Internet information (p.135).

45 To ‘troll’ in this sense relates to fishing, with the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1985) defining the term as fishing with a line drawn along behind a boat (p.1149), a good analogy for a journalist casting their ‘line’ on the Internet and moving through websites in the hope of ‘hooking’ a news story. 181

However, Pack (1999) maintained that the difficulty with ‘[a]nyone’ being able to ‘put up a Web site’ was that it was ‘often difficult to tell how frequently the information is updated, how well the facts have been checked, and whether or not the publisher is trying to promote a biased view of the data’ (p.24). Keshvani (2001) agreed, saying journalists were ‘protected’ by layers of staff, from rounds reporters to sub-editors to editors, representing up to ‘seven sets of eyes’ (p.112). But, he said, these layers were ‘drastically removed’ online, allowing stories to be published ‘without a sub-editor or editor’s approval and a round of sub-editing’ (Keshvani, 2001, p.112). Deuze (2001b) said ‘information and sources obtained through the worldwide network of computers’ was considered by many to be ‘too “immediate” and hard to verify to use by journalists’ (p.14).

All of the above may well be true if it refers to what Day (2002) described as the online ‘ramblings of fixated nutters’. However, it is suggested that ‘real journalism’ is practised on the Internet, particularly by online journalists (Fallows, 1999, p.58), of which 10,000 are said to be working in the US alone (Brill, 2001, p.31).46 This ‘real journalism’ can be found on bona fide online news sites, many run under the auspices of established media organisations, and on independent news websites that practise what Loo termed ‘avant-garde journalism’. 47 Indeed, it might well be argued that it is within this ‘avant-garde journalism’ that journalists may find online sources offering just the ‘alternate voices of society’ (McQuail, 1987, p.152) needed for pluralism. But notwithstanding that the ability to turn these sources into diverse news content might be precluded by established journalism norms and practices, there still remains a basic distrust between ‘the professional community of traditional journalists’ (Singer, 2003, p.157) and exponents of online journalism. The latter is where, Auh (2000) suggested, ‘the players, rules of the game, and the game itself’ were ‘radically different from their off-line counterparts’ and where ‘antiquated rules of traditional journalism have to be rewritten, taboos smashed, and the very definition of news revisited’ (p.130).

46 Brill (2001) said ‘online journalists’ referred to ‘anyone working with editorial content in the online environment’ (p.32), but no indication was given as to whether this referred to independent online journalists, or journalists working for established media, or both.

47 In e-mail communication with the author on 29 June 2003. 182

Some online journalism practices seem to be the antithesis of traditional journalism, even when both groups work for the same employer. Giles (2002) said online journalism had ‘introduced a fundamentally different culture built on interactivity, fewer rules, and fewer limits’; was ‘combative’; and took on ‘the traditional newsroom’ with ‘values’ such as ‘freedom, irreverence, advocacy, and attitude’. On the other hand, Bulauitan (2000) argued that online journalism was ‘a wild and woolly environment’. Fitzsimmons (2001) said online journalists were ‘more often than not…treated with suspicion by their colleagues in main newsrooms’ (p.16). Singer, Tharp and Haruta (1999) said online editors had ‘concerns about their inability to get the print side to take them seriously, their desire to make their own staffs feel important, and their unique emphasis on both credibility and profitability’ (p.43). Singer (2003) further noted:

Traditional journalists have watched the growth of computer- mediated communication warily for years. As the Web entered their consciousness in the mid-1990s, their immediate reaction was to distinguish between their skills and values and those of the people producing content online. They emphasized an increasing need for credible, contextual information – the kind professional journalists provide – amid a rising tide of raw and potentially rank data. (p.147)

This has led to competition between online and offline journalists, with newspaper editors ‘accused’ of keeping breaking stories from online editors in order to have something ‘fresh…for the morning paper’, while online journalists were similarly accused of ‘following a breaking story’ without notifying the offline editors (Hammond, Petersen & Thomsen, 2000, p.21). A recent US study found one in three print journalists worked actively to ensure their Web-based product did not ‘scoop’ the printed publication, while almost half claimed their website ‘routinely scoop[ed] the print publication’ (Middleberg & Ross, 2002, p.18).

Interactivity

Studying online and offline journalists in the US, Brill (2001) found that online journalists adhered to ‘some tenets of journalism’ but ‘view[ed] their roles differently’, particularly in relation to ‘letting the public express views, setting the 183 political agenda, and providing entertainment’ which, she said, were ‘considered more important by online journalists than by print journalists’ (p.38). The ability to let the public express their views relates to interactivity, one of two attributes of online journalism (the other being hypertextuality) that literature suggests are major differences, and major points of contention, between online and offline journalism (Bardoel & Dueze, 2001, p.94 and Williams & Nicholas, 1999, p.126).48 Interactivity refers to readers’ ability to interact directly with journalists, most commonly via e- mail, and with other readers, often through online chat rooms, bulletin boards, forums and discussion groups and often through the electronic auspices of the news organisation that published the story at issue (Auh, 2000, p.133 and Elliott, 1999, p.126).

While it has been suggested that ‘mixing instant and incessant user feedback’ creates ‘a stressful and sometimes chaotic atmosphere’ in a newsroom (Lowrey, 1999, p.19), using e-mail to provide ‘content exchanges’ between readers and journalists has been described as an important development for all news media (Berger, 2002, p.39). Offline media see e-mail as a way ‘to bridge the gap between writer and reader’, allowing readers to ‘communicate directly with journalists’ (Keshvani, 2001, p.113) and ‘respond with their point of view’ (Day, 2002). A survey of 203 US daily newspapers in 2000 showed 48 per cent of them carried e- mail links to reporters (Arant & Anderson, 2001, p.63). For online journalists it has been said ‘life before email’ was ‘virtually nonexistent’ (Bulauitan, 2000). A US survey has shown journalists ‘overwhelmingly preferred e-mail to telephone, fax or

48 The attributes of online newspapers and news websites are research topics in themselves. Williams and Nicholas (1999, pp.126-131) detailed eight specific attributes, being hyperlinking (which they describe as ‘the outstanding feature of the World Wide Web’; currency (or the ‘immediacy’ of news); space (the relatively infinite size of the Internet that gave online newspapers ‘thousands of pages’ for ‘greater depth and background); archives; reference services (such as information for teachers and students); customisation (where ‘the reader has some control over the information’); interactivity (discussed above) and multimedia, which, according to Bardoel and Deuze (2001), remains limited because of bandwidth problems (p.95). Bardoel and Deuze (2001) list ‘interactivity’, ‘hypertextuality’ and ‘multimediality’ as key characteristics of online news (p.92). They said interactivity had ‘essential importance’ by making ‘the reader/user part of the news experience’ (p.94); defined hypertextuality as discussed above; and defined multimediality as ‘the convergence of traditional media formats – moving image, text, sound – in one story’ (Bardoel & Deuze, 2001, p.95). Massey (2000, pp.227-237) and Massey and Levy (1999, pp.138-151) conducted extensive research into the interactivity of Asian online newspapers and based much of their studies on Heeter’s (1989) work with ‘the interactivity of communication technologies’ (pp.221-225). Heeter (1989) segmented online interactivity into six discrete ‘dimensions’: complexity of choice, the effort needed to use the online 184 in-person interviews, both when working with new (or unknown) or established sources’ (Middleberg & Ross, 2002, p.22). A similar earlier survey found 98 per cent of US journalists used e-mail ‘at least once a day’ (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.4).

Readers interacting online with other readers, meanwhile, has less of a take- up. Some believe this form of interactivity will become ‘the key to success’ for online and offline newspapers (Kimber, 1997, p.596). Others are more cautious, saying journalism’s online ‘community aspect’ had yet to prove its worth (Auh, 2000, p.133). Meyer (1996) argued that readers were more interested in ‘news content’ than ‘creating little boxes on the cyber-hillside’ in which to ‘engage in ticky-tacky conversation’. Fallows (1999) said that ‘online interaction’ was ‘a nightmare’ with those ‘most actively involved’ comprising ‘a minority of thoughtful people interested in real discussion – and a majority of cranks and those with too much time on their hands’ (p.59). Rosenkrans (2001) said this form of ‘synchronous discussion’ was rarely productive and ‘frequently disintegrate[d] into online contributions of minimum depth’ (p.52).

Perhaps because of this, Cohen (2002) found that ‘[a]lthough Web sites such as CNN Interactive and MSNBC offer viewers the opportunity to add to online discussion in virtual “chat-rooms” and Web boards, the sites frequently maintain limitations on the type of discourse allowed in the forums’ (p.540). Cowen (2001) said some UK newspapers were ‘making some advances’ in ‘developing discussion forums and feedback mechanisms’, with The Financial Times making ‘the greatest effort’ in this regard (p.189). In Australia, meanwhile, News Limited is said to be ‘really keen to play with the differences’ that online newspapers have, such as ‘audio or online polls’ (Kidman, 2002). Deuze (2001a) took reader interaction further, suggesting that it led to ‘open-source journalism’ where a draft news story was posted online for reader ‘scrutiny and corrections’ before appearing in its final form (p.11). Literature gives no indication of how traditional journalists might react to this kind of reader involvement in their story drafting processes.

system, user responsiveness, user feedback, the ease of adding information and the facilitation of ‘interpersonal communication’ (pp.221-225). 185

The credibility of readers who go online is another reason why reader interaction may not lead to an abundance of news sources for journalists. Senior and Smith (1999) found that Internet users often assumed ‘any identity or gender’ as part of ‘role-playing’ while online (pp.442-443). Taylor (1999) suggested Internet users also adopted different persona online ‘often in complicated configurations’ (p.439). What this meant, according to Taylor (1999), was that those seeking Internet information needed to ‘grapple with the question…are my online [readers] telling me the truth?’ (p.443). Reddick and King (1997), meanwhile, said this form of Internet ‘chat’, while being ‘fun to use’, was ‘filled with rumors and mistakes, particularly about current affairs’ (p.183).

Hypertextuality

Hypertexts have considerable potential to challenge traditional journalism practice and can lead to further distrust between traditional and online journalists. Hypertexts are links embedded in words on a Web page that, when clicked, direct the reader to other information on the website or other websites entirely. A hint of the potential that hypertexts have to change journalism practice is given in Bardoel and Dueze’s (2001) definition of ‘hypertextuality’, as it refers to journalism, which is:

For online journalists, hypertextuality refers to the very nature of journalism online, specifically the professional aspect of offering information about information, producing ‘beyond information’ or annotative journalism… Journalists online use hyper techniques to supply original news content with, for example, hyperlinks to original documents such as press releases and annotated reference material which could include links to the pros and cons of the issue at hand, other sites with information, and a selection of material in the news archives. (p.94)

Hypertexts represent ‘the most common additions’ that offline newspapers make when posting their content online (Singer, Tharp & Haruta, 1999, p.41), to the extent that it has been claimed some newspapers insert hypertexts into online news stories for little purpose except ‘to give readers a false sense of interactive control over content’ (Massey & Levy, 1999, p.139). My research shows hypertexts often link news stories to advertising sites. Cohen (2002) described this as the news organisation ‘providing “eyeballs” for its advertisers’ (p.538-539) and the practice 186 remains consistent with the trend of ‘blurring…editorial and commercial contents’ online (Bardoel & Deuze, 2001, p.98). Bardoel and Deuze (2001) said this practice was one of the threats online journalism posed to traditional journalism (p.98).

However, studies have shown hypertexts can bring more understanding and meaning to the reader if they link to other material relating to a news story (Ketterer, 2001, p.10). Bulauitan (2000) said hypertexts had the potential to allow the reader ‘to use the main text as a jump off point to layers upon layers of subjects’, linking the reader to ‘the entire history of a story’ and giving them ‘more information and more of an insight into how a story has developed’ (Fitzsimmons, 2001, p.17). From the journalists’ perspective, these links might not just be to other news texts, but to ‘a host of “raw data” such as reporter’s notes, interview transcripts [and] government documents’ as well (Huesca, 2000, p.7).

Bardoel and Deuze (2001) said hypertexts represented a shift in the relationship ‘between journalists and their publics in a fundamental way that affects the profession as a whole’ by ‘shifting [the] balance of power between information suppliers and users’ (p.96). Huesca (2000) similarly suggested hypertexts brought ‘fundamental changes in the journalist/reader relationship’ by allowing readers to ‘take on the role of authors’ by defining their own narrative (p.5). This is possible as, while journalists or their employers can control the initial links a reader might take, once linked to a separate website further hypertexts, with no connection to the original news story, are then available. Huesca (2000) says that under such conditions a news story ‘does not exist until readers produce it through a series of choices made according to their desires and interests’ (p.5). This produces a conundrum for news organisations, as the lack of control over hypertexts on other websites means readers can be led ‘to less-than-credible sources and information’ (Auh, 2000, p.131). Auh (2000) said many online newspapers displayed ‘a disclaimer page between their sites and the rest of the Net’ because of this (p.131).

By their non-linear nature, hypertexts are said to bring other fundamental shifts to journalism practice. Bardoel and Deuze (2001) said hypertexts allowed various ‘possible entries into the news story’ leading ‘towards alternate ways of storytelling’ (p.95). Deuze (2001a) said this turned journalism’s ‘inverted pyramid 187 into an octagon – a collection of pyramids where a reader can enter at any point’ (pp.13-14). Huesca (2000) said hypertexts removed the ‘single voice of authority’ of news stories, replacing it with ‘multiple perspectives and expressions to tell the same story’ (p.6). Thus, he said, ‘hypertexts embrace notions of contradiction, fragmentation, juxtaposition, and pluralism, rather than pursuing “truth” that is at the heart of the traditional journalistic enterprise’ (Heusca, 2000, p.6). He said online journalism would, instead, value ‘the polyvocal, fragmented, and contradictory reality’ (Huesca, 2000, p.7).

From open-source journalism, to challenging the once universally accepted inverted-pyramid writing style, to questioning the pursuit of truth, it is unsurprising that ‘some influential authors’ feel such changes are ‘a dangerous road to take’ (Bardoel & Deuze, 2001, p.95). Critics say online journalism is ‘endangering the core values of professional journalism’ (Deuze, 2001a, p.6) and forcing ‘classic journalism skills’ to take ‘a back seat’ (Auh, 2000, p.130). It is unsurprising also that such changes are proving slow to gain momentum in the offline environment (Cohen, 2002, pp.538-540 and Dibean & Garrison, 2001, pp.80-82). Day (2002), for example, maintained that readers still required ‘a menu of news, information and ideas, tightly distilled and smartly packaged’ provided by journalists who ‘strip away the unnecessary, the waffle, the padding and the pointless.’

Other issues

Interactivity and hypertextuality are considered the attributes of online journalism that most fundamentally place it in opposition to traditional offline journalism, but literature indicates there are other issues that separate the two crafts. These include defamation, training, ethics and work conditions. Critics have argued that online journalism ‘holds a host of problems…that journalists have not seen before’ including ‘the worldwide audience’ and a ‘changing media environment’ (Brill, 2001, p.29). The worldwide audience and the changing media environment both figured in the Australian High Court’s ‘landmark decision’ in December 2002 that Victorian businessman Joseph Gutnick could sue US-based publisher Dow Jones in Victoria for defamation over an article published in New Jersey and posted on the 188

Internet (MEAA, 2003, p.6).49 The decision is believed to be the first ever national court ruling on Internet defamation anywhere in the world (MEAA, 2003, p.6) and could ‘open the floodgates to an unimaginable amount of litigation’ (Stroehlein, 2002).

More generally, the changes brought to journalism by the Internet have resulted in some journalists being ‘nervous and concerned about the “omnipresence” of the Internet in their work’ (Deuze, 2001a, p.4), especially when it is suggested that online journalism will become the mainstream journalism of the future (Katz, 1999, pp.14-15). These journalists cite their lack of training to deal with the ‘ethical dilemmas’ of ‘deciding which information to use (for example e-mails, chats, or private home pages)’ and ‘linking to external sites or copying parts of original sources into the main news site itself’ (Deuze, 2001b, p.14). Such concerns are valid when it is considered, for example, that US daily newspapers offer few ethical codes that deal with online journalism (Arant & Anderson, 2001, p.59).50 Middleberg and Ross (2000) argued that confusion over Internet ethics ‘can only increase’ as the news media relied on ‘[c]asual training and anecdotal advice’ rather than ‘in-depth knowledge of what the Internet is all about’ (p.24). They said while journalists remained ‘blind to many of the ethical issues and to the dangers professional use of the Internet presents’ they would continue to ‘repeat rumours that originate online’, they would be ‘increasingly willing to use e-mail for interviewing’, and they would remain ‘unwilling to expand their readers’ understanding by linking to other sites, even when those sites are not competitive’ (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.24).51

For their part, online journalists felt they were ‘compelled to supplement their basic skills in writing, interviewing, and research with technical know-how’ (Bulauitan, 2000); had to deal with a ‘chaotic work environment’ (Hammond, Petersen & Thomsen, 2000, p.19); were denied the ‘luxury of time’ to write their

49 The article alleged Gutnick associated with known criminals (Haslam, 2002). 50 Arant and Anderson’s (2001) study of 33 US daily newspapers found that 30 per cent of their survey respondents ‘agreed that online newspaper journalists are not as likely to follow traditional journalism ethics/standards as are their traditional print colleagues’ (p.64). 51 Middleberg and Ross did not elaborate on why interviewing by e-mail should be any better or worse than phone or face-to-face interviews. Indeed, Reddick and King (1997) suggested interviewing via e- mail was better than other interviewing methods as, among other things, it was more convenient and allowed journalists to easily ‘check facts and quotes’ (p.38). 189 stories (Selirio, 2001); and had to contend with staff sizes that were ‘too small to adequately support a quality online product’ (Singer, Tharp & Haruta, 1999, p.31). Online journalists at major US daily newspapers have gone on strike to obtain working conditions more commensurate with their offline colleagues (Strupp, 2002, p.7 and Singer, Tharp & Haruta, 1999, p.45). In a general sense, these perceived differences between online and offline journalism have led Singer (2003) to suggest the former was ‘distinct from the professional community of traditional journalists’ (p.157). She argued that for online journalism to become more accepted by traditional journalists ‘there will need to be either considerable accommodation in the self-perception of what a journalist does or considerable change in the way that online journalism is carried out’ (Singer, 2003, p.153).

All of this may at first seem only indirectly related to journalists using the Internet to garner additional source diversity. But I would argue that it suggests that journalists working within mainstream media are suspicious and distrustful about both online journalism professionalism and online information credibility (Fitzsimmons, 2001, p.16, p.43). If this is indeed the case, then it may be argued these journalists are less likely to use the Internet for ongoing source diversity and that this, in turn, limits the potential to increase content diversity within the existing media structure. Overall, Kurpius (2002), who described himself as studying ‘the path to achieving greater diversity since research on this subject began in the early 1970s’ (p.853), concluded: ‘What works to improve source diversity? The answer is not much’ (p.855).

Promoting online source diversity

Of the literature reviewed for this chapter there is more to suggest that traditional journalists will not garner any great source diversity from the Internet, for the reasons discussed, than there is literature that suggests otherwise. The latter does exist, however. And, as a practising journalist for 25 years, I find it difficult to accept that journalists summarily dismiss online news sources, especially at a time when a ‘typical newsroom’ has ‘far more Internet connections than phone lines’ (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.4). For example, official documents are increasingly being made available online in the US (Thomas, 2000, p.1553) while, locally, many rural 190 newspapers in Queensland accept ‘official’ online documents as credible news sources, downloading media releases and other information from government websites to insert directly into their news columns (Lewis, 2001b, p.7).

While it may be argued that downloading information from government sources does little to add to content diversity in terms of alternate views, government information online has led to an interesting phenomenon – voices critical of government setting up their own websites to mimic official sites. A tactic used by the Australian Wilderness Society, for example, is to set up websites that look identical to official government sites, but which contain anti-government messages and images. The society gives its websites addresses that mimic government websites (perhaps with just one letter changed), meaning readers are often misled into thinking they have entered a government site (Lewis, 2001b, pp.4-5). This sleight-of- hand aside, journalists are still able to access alternative views through these alternate websites. In Queensland, a group calling itself ‘National Parks Net-Au’ has set up a website (at www.nationalparks.net.au) to critique the Queensland Government’s environmental record.

Are journalists likely to access these alternate sites? Literature is unclear on this, but in the US, 76 per cent of 4000 journalists surveyed in 2000 said they used the Internet to find ‘news sources’ and ‘experts’ (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.4) and it might be assumed that in the course of this, these journalists would come across websites offering alternative comments and critiques of official statements.

Literature highlights what can be considered salient concerns about online information credibility. But the Internet can also be viewed as simply another tool for journalists to collect information. Day (2003), for example, commented that:

Reporters and editors work constantly with untested allegations… It is grist for the mill, and it is the reporters’ job to look at these claims sceptically. Many are dismissed at the outset because the informants are either well known as ‘nutters’ or the claims have been previously disproved. But where there is a glimmer of credibility, the reporters’ job is to investigate and seek supporting evidence, or proof. If the claims can be made to stand up, and if they are newsworthy, they can justify a story. (p.6) 191

And Fallows’ (1999) suggested news editors treated online sources the same as they treated ‘other unverified tip sources’ – they regarded them as ‘interesting but not sufficient’ until they ‘satisfied their own pre-Net standards of plausibility’ (p.58). From the literature and from my own journalism experience, I believe there are plausible arguments to suggest journalists do use the Internet to garner additional news sources, although the extent to which this occurs, or might lead to content diversity, is yet to be studied in any great detail (Brill, 2001, p.39; Deuze, 2001a, p.5 and Deuze, 2001b, p.14). These arguments will be discussed and relate to:

• ongoing examples of established media obtaining information and story leads from online sources and turning these into mainstream news

• the rise of weblogs

• the positive impacts of online interactivity and hypertextuality

• the assistance the Internet gives to computer assisted reporting and public journalism

• the role online journalism is playing in burgeoning democracies, and

• the increasing pervasiveness of online training in formal journalism education.

Mainstream news media use of information obtained from online sources

Cunningham and Romano (2000) suggested ‘smaller media organisations’ were frequently ‘breaking’ the stories ‘that are only “made” into “hot” news and current affairs items after commercially successful media organisations with large audiences follow them up and [give] them wider popular currency’ (p.24). There is much evidence to suggest this news gathering process is ongoing. This ranges from the original and most well-known online news ‘scoop’ – Matt Drudge’s revelations of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair – to more local but similar revelations about a ‘grand 192 consuming passion’ between Australian federal politicians Cheryl Kernot and Gareth Evans, a story that was broken by online news site Crikey and then run by Australia’s mainstream news media (The Courier Mail, 2002, p.16).52 In Queensland, The Courier-Mail has published alternate views on issues such as euthanasia, by accessing and quoting from Gold Coast cancer patient Nancy Crick’s personal website (Stolz, 2002, p.3), and on local government, by accessing Gold Coast mayoral candidate Sheryl Richards’ soft-porn website (Thomas, 2000, p.23). In the US, meanwhile, the online Women’s E-News was set up to counter a perception that ‘U.S. daily newspapers weren’t covering women’s issues often enough or well enough’ (Astor, 2002, p.25). Content from this website has subsequently appeared in The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post (Astor, 2002, p.25).

The rise of weblogs

Related to this is the rise of weblogs. Weblogs began as Web pages that simply contained links to other Web pages (Shachtman, 2002a and Ozawa, 2001), but over time they have transformed into online journals in their own right with content ‘that can range from deeply personal works…to gripping accounts from the front line’ (Mackenzie, 2003, p.5). A weblog written by a 29-year-old Baghdad architect during the 2003 war on Iraq, under the pseudonym ‘Salam Pax’, was so ‘gripping’ that it became ‘an important part of the coverage of the [Iraqi] conflict’ (Eng, 2003). On the strength of his (or her) weblog, ‘Salam Pax’ now writes a fortnightly column in the UK’s Guardian newspaper (The Australian, 2003, p.7). Originally viewed as the bailiwick of the ‘amateur journalist’ (Hiler, 2002), Weblogs are gaining credibility as the more established ones are bought out by mainstream media organisations (Ali, 2003), as ‘[t]rained journalists from well-known media outlets’ begin establishing their own weblogs (Lasica, 2002) and as ‘blogging’

52 Although this Courier-Mail editorial said the Kernot/Evans affair was ‘revealed first (as a rumour) on the Crikey website, and then detailed by [Laurie] Oakes himself on the Channel 9 news’ (The Courier Mail, 2002, p.16), the intimation that Crikey ‘broke’ a story that was otherwise unknown (as Drudge did with the Clinton/Lewinsky affair) is not strictly accurate. Oakes, for example, knew of the Kernot/Evans affair for some time prior to Crikey’s revelations and had made cryptic references to it in his own Bulletin column before Crikey went public with the information (see Jenkins, 2003, pp.48- 63). It may be argued that Oakes would have released the information in the mainstream media with or without Crikey’s involvement. 193 becomes established in journalism studies curricula (Tynan, 2002). Outing (2004b) quoted a US newspaper report that suggested ‘bloggers’ as ‘aggregators of news’ were already competing with news agencies like Associated Press. It may be argued that as weblogs gain further exposure and credibility more traditional journalists will follow The Guardian’s lead and give their contents wider and more mainstream exposure.

Online interactivity and hypertextuality

Much has been said about the negative impacts of interactivity and hypertextuality and, without dismissing these concerns, it may also be argued that the former can act positively in terms of increased source diversity and the latter in terms of increased content diversity. Online editor for The Courier-Mail, John Grey, for example, said Courier-Mail journalists were encouraged to invite reader feedback via e-mail and to review this feedback for story leads.53 And hypertexts, by definition, lead the reader to as many diverse points of view as they elect to read. Certainly, much of this information may lack credibility, but the process goes to the heart of pluralism’s goal that a ‘barrage of information and opinion’ be made available to the public, with the public then ‘trusted’ to discard information that was ‘false’ or ‘not in the public interest’ (Siebert, 1956, p.51).

Internet and computer-assisted reporting

If we accept that a ‘typical newsroom’ now has ‘more Internet connections than phone lines’ (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.4), we might also accept the ‘omnipresence’ of the Internet in these newsrooms (Deuze, 2001a, p.4) has greatly benefited computer assisted reporting, a process that is designed to enhance the number of news sources available to journalists.54 An earlier study of Australian journalists found that computer assisted reporting was at a ‘transition’ stage (Quinn, 1997, p.87), possibly constrained by the cost of database access – at times up to $25 per minute (Quinn, 1997, p.83) – and by a ‘luddite tendency’ among some journalists

53 In conversation with the author on 31 July 2001. 194

(Quinn, 1997, p.80). By 2000, however, the Internet had ‘given birth’ to a ‘myriad of options in information gathering’ by opening ‘vast reserves of human knowledge… to sift through and get results from using search engines, online archives, libraries, and databases’ (Bulauitan, 2000). Bulauitan (2000) added ‘[t]he harvesting of data has never been this easy’. Giles (2002) similarly argued that the Internet gave journalists ‘efficient ways to probe more deeply for information’ by enabling them ‘to search documents, compile background and historical context, and identify authoritative sources’.

Much of this information is now free (Thomas, 2000, pp.1553-1554) or provided with a levy to cover ‘the expense of maintaining electronic journals’ (Senior & Smith, 1999, p.442). With computer assisted reporting also now a standard subject in many journalism degrees (Tynan, 2002) and online search engines becoming more intuitive, there can be little doubt that this type of news gathering will exist ‘not as a separate part of the information process but as an integral part of the production process itself’ (Loo & Beng, 1998, p.131).

Similar to computer assisted reporting, public journalism (or civic journalism as it is known in the US) was historically constrained by ‘staff time and financial expense’ (Romano, 2001, p.43). Public journalism aims to ‘inculcate a greater sense of connections between the community and the media’ (Romano, 2001, pp.43-44) and is seen as a viable method of increasing content diversity by enabling journalists to make ‘a stronger connection [with] non-traditional sources, leading to greater diversity of sources in news stories’ (Kurpius, 2002, p.853). Kurpius (2002) said:

If it is true that reporters tend to use people they know and trust as primary sources, and if civic journalism creates a routine of getting to know and trust people in diverse communities, then it makes sense that civic journalism practices would improve the diversity of sources. (p.861)

54 Computer assisted reporting includes ‘using email to arrange interviews or to locate experts’ to ‘database-style journalism’ with ‘online searches’ that allows journalists to ‘dig for stories’ (Quinn, 1997, p.78, p.85). 195

But public journalism is resource consuming. Journalists are required to spend time ‘regularly visiting community organisations’ and attending public events as well as ‘engaging in basic “civic mapping” and similar activities’ (Romano, 2001, p.58). As well, a ‘power imbalance’ between journalists and the public, with respect to the ability ‘to define what is a socially relevant news agenda’, also works against productive outcomes (Romano, 2001, p.44, p.50). The Internet can assist in both circumstances, allowing journalists to interact more cost-effectively with the community – through e-mail and online data about public events – and by allowing readers to provide immediate feedback on what they perceive as a relevant news agenda. Schultz and Voakes (1999) said newspapers, particularly, had launched a number of public journalism-related initiatives on the World Wide Web and believed the future for public journalism ‘is positive’ (p.37).

The role of online journalism in advancing democracy in developing nations

While public journalism provides greater connections between journalists and their local communities, the Internet allows similar ease in connecting journalists beyond national borders. Journalists’ ability to place their stories online, often circumventing government censorship, is seen as a considerable aid in developing democracies. There are many examples of this. Berger (2002) said ‘cyberspace’ was ‘the most vibrant part of the public sphere’ in Africa, for example, because ‘its anonymity makes it the safest’ (p.39). He tells of ‘inspiring cases of journalists with no offices, telephones or computers still being able to function as successful local and international media stringers by utilizing cybercafes’ (Berger, 2002, p.39). Online journalism is assisting the burgeoning democracy of Russia’s independent states – where ‘state-owned printing plants’ led to ‘coercion and influence over the media’ – by ‘reducing the extent of state domination in the media’ (Chalaby, 1998, pp.78-80). Loo and Beng (1998) said that while Asian societies ‘have long complained about the imbalance in the flow of information and misrepresentation by the global media’, they can now be ‘heard through the Internet’ (p.132). When Yugoslavian print and broadcast media were closed down by that country’s military during the 1999 Serbian crisis, an independent radio station, Radio B92, continued to broadcast uncensored news to the world through its Internet site. An editorial contained on the site said, in part: 196

Over the years, our free voice has on a number of occasions been smothered. On April 2, as war raged in our country and NATO bombs continued to fall, that voice was silenced. But our struggle for free speech…goes on. (http://www.opennet.org/ accessed on 15 April 1999)

Radio B92 continues to break major news stories. On 18 September 2001 it was the first non-US media organisation to interview Noam Chomsky about the ‘9/11’ terrorist attacks on the US (Chomsky, 2001, pp.29-38). It is also claimed that online media are ‘the sole opportunity’ for a ‘free and independent press’ in Malaysia, a country where ‘most media are government-controlled’ and government regulations ‘make it almost impossible for independent and “critical newspapers” to publish’ (MEAA, 2001, p.8). While these examples may seem to link only indirectly to a discussion on the Internet promoting source diversity, it should be realised that, by virtue of being online, any journalist anywhere in the world can access the above as an independent news source. It can similarly be argued that the need for source and content diversity is to promote pluralism and pluralism is itself about promoting democracy.

Online journalism in journalism education

One final argument that suggests journalists may increase their sourcing of content from the Internet is the increasing occurrence of online training in formal journalism education. This covers a range of subjects including online ethics (Arant & Anderson, 2001, pp.59-67); convergence issues (Tynan, 2002; Hammond, Petersen & Thomsen, 2000, p.21 and Huesca, 2000, p.4); computer assisted reporting (Quinn, 1997, p.85); general Internet skills (Jarrah, 1997, p.18) and weblogging (Tynan, 2002 and Shachtman, 2002b). As well, these skills are increasingly taught to journalists throughout the world, being introduced in university courses in Europe (Pack, 1999, p.24) and the US (Outing, 2002c), in Australia (Tynan, 2002) and in Asia, most recently in China (Xihua News Agency, 2002) and in India (The Times of India, 2001). This benefits not just up-and-coming journalists, but working journalists as well, with a number of US, European and Australian universities providing online ‘information checklists’ to help journalists 197

(and any interested person, presumably) check the veracity of online information (Pack, 1999, p.24).

Conclusions and an hypothesis

Much of the literature reviewed for this chapter suggests traditional journalists are unlikely, at present at least, to unreservedly accept Internet-based information generally and online journalism practice specifically, for all the reasons discussed. This conclusion is based on the suspicion and distrust traditional journalists are said to have for Internet information and online journalism per se. However, it can also be argued that many journalists are using the Internet to ‘expand the reporter’s toolbox’ (Giles, 2002) and to ‘tap online sources’ to enrich news content (Berger, 2002, p.40). From the examples given, it may be concluded that this practice is occurring and will be ongoing.

What the literature does not quantify, however, is the degree to which online journalism has permeated traditional journalism practice or the degree to which the latter is genuinely distrustful of the former. Nor does the literature address the connection between using the Internet as a medium to garner additional news sources and the amount of content diversity that this actually delivers. This is a particularly important point, for it may well be argued that it matters little how many additional sources are gleaned online if established journalism norms and practices, or any other issues, then preclude online alternate voices seeing their way to actual news content.

These omissions in the literature reviewed possibly result from the fact that studies of journalists’ Internet use and online journalism practice are rare, as discussed in Chapter 1.55 These omissions notwithstanding, literature reviewed for this chapter suggests more that it is unlikely the Internet is promoting source

55 This is not to say they do not exist. In the US, Middleberg and Ross (supported by Columbia University) undertake an annual survey of US journalism practice that includes Internet use and online issues while online journals such as The Online Journalism Review (sponsored by the University of Southern California) and eJournalist (sponsored by the University of Central Queensland), and a variety of online academic, business and personally hosted media discussion lists and newsletters review online news issues on an ongoing basis. 198 diversity and that source diversity promotes content diversity in any event. In view of this (and vis-à-vis my own journalism experience) this leads me to propose this thesis’s second hypothesis, which is:

H2: Journalists’ distrust of online information and online journalism practice limits the amount of source diversity that can be gleaned from the Internet while established journalism norms and practices similarly limit online source diversity translating to increased content diversity.

With the assistance of QUT’s Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre and the MEAA, I conducted one of Australia’s largest academic surveys of Australian journalists from December 2002 to March 2003 to see how they were using the Internet for their work. The results of this survey are discussed in Chapter 7 and are used to test the above hypothesis. They also add to the apparently scant literature on online journalism practice. 199

Chapter 7

Australian journalists and the Internet

This chapter discusses my primary research on Australian journalists’ Internet use, compares and contrasts the research’s findings with the discussions of Chapter 6 and uses these findings to test this thesis’s second hypothesis. The chapter details the survey’s methodology and results and draws conclusions on the Internet’s ability to increase content diversity in Australia’s media generally, and newspapers specifically, by increasing the source diversity available to journalists. Survey data are divided into three groupings. The first is the total population of journalists surveyed. As this thesis deals with newspapers and the online media, the second grouping consists of journalists working for newspapers and the third grouping consists of journalists who have had online media experience.

Methodology

To obtain data on how Australian journalists use the Internet, a four-page, 62- question survey was devised and mailed to journalists throughout Australia by the MEAA’s Australian Journalists Association division. The MEAA has 10,000 journalists on its national mailing list and surveys were mailed to each of these in December 2002 with the organisation’s ‘Summer 2003’ edition of its Walkley magazine (Issue 19). A copy of the survey is provided at Appendix 3. As this survey was intended to reach as many Australian journalists as possible, its methodology was based on two specific sampling strategies as detailed by Miles and Huberman (1994): the ‘Typical case’ strategy, which highlights ‘what is normal or average’ across a given population (p.28) and the ‘Convenience’ strategy, which provides results with the ‘time, money, and effort’ that is available (p.28).

The survey was peer-reviewed in its design stage56 and, as with the survey used to obtain data on Australian newspaper websites (see Chapter 5), it was consistent

56 By QUT research adviser Dr Stephen Cox. 200 with Wimmer and Dominick’s (1999) guidelines for media survey research (pp.107- 137). Specifically:

• pilot studies of the survey (Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, pp.120-121) were undertaken by five working journalists. These were from The Courier-Mail, The Queensland Country Life and The Proserpine Guardian (to provide feedback from the newspaper industry) and from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (to provide feedback from the electronic media). Based on responses and feedback from these journalists the survey was modified slightly to avoid ambiguity and to improve clarity

• the survey was consistent throughout the population surveyed and consisted of ‘closed-ended’ questions with an invitation for respondents to provide additional comments separately if they desired (Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, pp.109-110)

• many questions compiled ‘interval data’ through scales (Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, p.167) that variously measured frequency, credibility and agreement to certain statements about the Internet, online information and journalism practices, and

• to maximise the response rate (Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, p.123), the survey included an introductory letter outlining its objectives and a reply-paid envelope for survey returns.

By March 2003, 563 responses had been received, giving a response rate of 5.63 per cent. Despite the number of responses received, the response rate was still reasonably low and was somewhat consistent with the ‘Convenience’ sampling strategy that saved ‘time, money, and effort’ but often at ‘the expense of information and credibility’ (Miles & Huberman, 1990, p.28). In this regard it can noted that 23 respondents (4.1 per cent) worked within government media, while a further 23 respondents listed their employment as ‘other’, often representing public relations rather than news media journalism. In the following data analysis all valid responses have been considered (see page 197), however the response rate may have been 201 marginally higher if the responses of non-news media MEAA members (8.2 per cent of total responses) were discounted. As shown on page 198, the responses were highly representative of the MEAA’s overall journalism membership (and therefore in all likelihood representative of Australian journalism as a whole) but the response rate still limits the data analysis to suggested rather than emphatic conclusions.

These responses were entered into the SPSS statistical software program. The SPSS software allows data to be looked at from every angle to determine trends across whatever respondent groupings are desired. I have selected three specific groupings that best align with this thesis’s research question and hypotheses: responses from all journalists (n = 563), responses from newspaper journalists (n = 206) and responses from journalists with online media experience (n = 107). These groupings are used henceforth when data are analysed, and are particularly useful when discussing overall trends about how Australian journalists use the Internet. (The groupings are not discrete, however. Newspaper journalists and journalists with online media experience are included in the ‘all journalists’ grouping, for example, while some newspaper journalists would also be included in the grouping of journalists with online media experience. When percentages for these groupings are quoted, therefore, they should not be viewed as cumulative. When percentages are quoted within the text of this chapter (mostly in parentheses) they refer to the number of respondents in the specific grouping being discussed, not the total number of responses, unless otherwise stated.)

Information on the respondents

Newspaper journalists represented the largest media group that responded to the survey, with 206 responses (36.6 per cent of total responses received). The overall print media were divided into three groups: newspapers (206 respondents, 36.6 per cent); magazines (39 respondents, 6.9 per cent); and ‘other’ (11 responses, 2.0 per cent). Forty radio journalists responded (7.1 per cent); 28 television journalists responded (5.0 per cent); while responses from those employed in government media numbered 23 (4.1 per cent). Only 6 respondents (1.1 per cent) identified themselves as working exclusively in online media. The gender breakdown saw 298 male respondents (52.9 per cent) and 263 female respondents 202

(46.7 per cent) with two respondents not identifying their gender. The employment of all respondents is given in Table 7.1.

Frequency Per cent

Valid Print media (Newspaper) 206 36.6 responses Print media (Magazine) 39 6.9 Print media (Other) 11 2.0 Radio 40 7.1 Television 28 5.0 Government media 23 4.1 Online media 6 1.1 Freelance 46 8.2 Other 23 4.1 Multiple News Media 57 138 24.5 Total 560 99.5 Missing 3 .5 responses Total 563 100.0

Table 7.1 - Current employment for all journalists (n = 563)

Data provided to me by the MEAA on 4 February 2004 showed that survey respondents’ employment was strongly representative of the employment of the MEAA’s overall journalism membership, as shown in Table 7.2.

Percentage Percentage Media category of survey of MEAA respondents membership Print media 45.5 50.0 Radio 7.1 9.0 Television 5.0 5.0 Government media 4.1 5.0 Online media 1.1 3.0 Freelance 8.2 20.0 Other 4.1 8.0 Table 7.2 – Survey respondents’ employment compared with the employment of the MEAA’s overall journalism membership (as at February 2004)

The gender distribution of survey respondents, 52.9 per cent male and 46.7 per cent female, was also strongly representative of the MEAA’s overall journalism

57 The category ‘Multiple News Media’ did not appear on the original survey, but was added during data entry to capture respondents who listed multiple media as current employers. This does not affect the validity of the results, however, as all responses from this category are captured in the survey results being discussed. 203 membership, gender distribution for the latter being 54.0 per cent male and 46.0 per cent female as at February 2004.

Literature reviewed in Chapter 6 suggested some 10,000 journalists worked in online media in the US (Brill, 2001, p.31). As seen in Table 7.1, the survey suggests the number of journalists working in the online media environment in Australia is extremely low, with just six respondents (1.1 per cent) identifying themselves as working exclusively in online media. However (and germane to these discussions), 107 respondents (19.0 per cent, including the 6 respondents who identified themselves as working in online media) identified that they have had online media experience. Of this number, 24 respondents (22.5 per cent) worked in the print media, including 14 newspaper journalists (13.1 per cent); 4 respondents (3.7 per cent) worked in radio; while no television journalists said they had online media experience. A breakdown of the current employment for respondents who have had online media experience is given in Table 7.3.

Frequency Per cent

Valid Print media (Newspaper) 14 13.1 responses Print media (Magazine) 8 7.5 Print media (Other) 2 1.9 Radio 4 3.7 Government media 2 1.9 Online media 6 5.6 Freelance 9 8.4 Other 4 3.7 Multiple News Media 58 54.2 Total 107 100.0

Table 7.3 - Current employment for journalists with online media experience (n = 107)

Journalists using the Internet: number and duration

A 1997 study showed 92 per cent of US journalists used the Internet (Singer, Tharp & Haruta, 1997, p.30), a figure that increased to 98 per cent by 2000. My survey showed similar findings with 97.4 per cent of the 563 Australian journalists surveyed using the Internet in the course of their professional work. In groupings: 97.5 per cent of newspaper journalists surveyed used the Internet while (as might be expected) all journalists with online journalism experience surveyed used the 204

Internet. For all journalists, the largest group within the whole (257 respondents, 45.6 per cent) had been using the Internet for between three and five years. Only 8 respondents (1.4 per cent) said they did not use the Internet at all. A breakdown of the number of years all respondents have been using the Internet for work purposes is given in Table 7.4.

Frequency Per cent

Valid Do not use the Internet 8 1.4 responses Less than a year 9 1.6 1-2 years 89 15.8 3-5 years 257 45.6 More than 5 years 193 34.3 Total 556 98.8 Missing 7 1.2 responses Total 563 100.0

Table 7.4 - Number of years all journalists have used the Internet (n = 563)

The survey showed that the majority of newspaper journalists, 105 respondents (51.0 per cent), had also been using the technology for between three to five years. But the survey showed journalists with online media experience had been using the Internet for the longest duration, 60 respondents (56.1 per cent) saying they had used the technology for more than five years.

Journalists’ most frequent Internet uses

Literature reviewed in Chapter 6 showed most US journalists use the Internet for e-mail (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.4). But other activities are important. It was argued, for example, that established journalism norms and practices limited journalists’ ability to garner diverse news sources via the Internet (Kurpius, 2002, pp.853-854). Middleberg and Ross (2000) found journalists did not use the Web for story ideas, but relied more on ‘press releases’ and traditional sources (p.8). Similarly, it has been suggested a way to increase source diversity is for journalists to interact with readers online, allowing the ‘gap between writer and reader’ to be closed (Keshvani, 2001, p.113), and thus giving readers an opportunity to set a relevant political agenda (Brill, 2001, p.38). This also allows journalists to follow up 205 story leads to increase source diversity (and, therefore, content diversity) through practices such as computer assisted reporting (Quinn, 1997, pp.77-89) and public journalism (Romano, 2001, pp.43-62).

The survey determined the purposes for which Australian journalists were using the Internet by nominating 16 online activities and asking them to indicate which activities they undertake. Journalists could select multiple activities and by counting the number of times an activity was indicated, an activity ranking was established. The results showed Australian journalists mostly use the Internet for the same purpose as their US counterparts – for e-mail. Their most selected activity was to e-mail work colleagues, with 512 respondents (90.9 per cent) identifying this as one of their Internet uses. Other processes that reinforce established journalism norms and practices also rated highly. E-mailing work colleagues, for example, was followed by using the Internet to undertake preliminary research (436 respondents, 77.4 per cent); to access media releases (405 respondents, 71.9 per cent); to verify facts (362 respondents, 64.3 per cent) and to search the archives of other news organisations (330 respondents, 58.6 per cent). In terms of generating diversity, accessing different views for news stories and interacting with readers scored extremely lowly, being journalists’ thirteenth and fifteenth most frequent Internet activities respectively. Journalism-related Internet activities, and the number of journalists that identified undertaking them, are provided in descending order in Table 7.5.

206

Respondents using the Internet for this Percentage of Internet use (all journalists) purpose respondents (n = 563) E-mail work colleagues 512 90.9 Undertake preliminary research 436 77.4 Access media releases 405 71.9 Verify facts 362 64.3 Search other news archives 330 58.6 Access online publications 328 58.3 Access information and/or quotes for news stories 325 57.7 Obtain ideas for news stories 302 53.6 Access new sources or ‘experts’ 281 49.9 Search employers’ news archives 276 49.0 Interview via e-mail 251 44.6 Interact with news sources 249 44.2 Access ‘different views’ for news stories 223 39.6 Participate in news or current affairs discussion 190 33.7 groups Interact with readers 181 32.1 Access news images or video 155 27.5

Table 7.5 - Most frequent Internet use for all journalists (n = 563)

The survey showed that newspaper journalists’ five most frequent Internet uses mirrored those of all respondents in all instances save one (although there were variations in the percentages of the respective totals that indicated these uses). Newspaper journalists’ most frequent Internet use was the same as for all journalists: e-mailing work colleagues. Their second most frequent Internet use, however, was accessing media releases. Then followed undertaking preliminary research, verifying facts and searching other organisations’ news archives. And, although similar, there were slight variations in the remaining Internet use rankings between these two groupings, as can be seen in Table 7.6. 207

Respondents using the Internet for this Percentage of Internet use (newspaper journalists) purpose respondents (n = 206) E-mail work colleagues 172 83.5 Access media releases 147 71.4 Undertake preliminary research 143 69.4 Verify facts 130 63.1 Search other news archives 119 57.8 Access new sources or ‘experts’ 113 54.9 Access information and/or quotes for news stories 112 54.4 Search employers’ news archives 104 50.5 Access online publications 103 50.0 Obtain ideas for news stories 97 47.1 Interview via e-mail 92 44.7 Interact with news sources 81 39.3 Access ‘different views’ for news stories 75 36.4 Interact with readers 64 31.1 Access news images or video 61 29.6 Participate in news or current affairs discussion groups 54 26.2

Table 7.6 - Most frequent Internet use for newspaper journalists (n = 206)

For the most frequent Internet uses by journalists who have online media experience, journalists still most frequently used the technology to e-mail work colleagues (100 respondents, 93.5 per cent) and then to undertake preliminary research (92 respondents, 86.0 per cent). However, they then listed accessing online publications as their third most frequent Internet use (89 respondents, 83.2 per cent), this use not being included in the top five Internet uses of the other groupings. They then most used the Internet to access media releases (83 respondents, 77.6 per cent), followed by verifying facts (again, 83 respondents, 77.6 per cent) a rank order commensurate with the other groupings. The most frequent Internet uses, in descending order, for journalists with online media experience are provided in Table 7.7. 208

Respondents using the Internet Percentage of Internet use (journalists with online media experience) for this purpose respondents (n = 107) E-mail work colleagues 100 93.5 Undertake preliminary research 92 86.0 Access online publications 89 83.2 Access media releases 83 77.6 Verify facts 83 77.6 Search other news archives 76 71.0 Access information and/or quotes for news stories 75 70.1 Obtain ideas for news stories 72 67.3 Interview via e-mail 69 64.5 Interact with news sources 63 58.9 Access new sources or ‘experts’ 60 56.1 Interact with readers 59 55.1 Access ‘different views’ for news stories 57 53.3 Search employers’ news archives 56 52.3 Participate in news or current affairs discussion groups 55 51.4 Access news images or video 40 37.4

Table 7.7 - Most frequent Internet uses for journalists with online media experience (n = 107)

Australian journalists’ most frequent Internet uses, compared across all groupings, are shown in Figure 7.1.

209

Most frequent Internet uses

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 % of journalists 20.0 10.0 0.0

l es s .. i . rs u ct . .. e g ries rces s d deo a fa -ma a vi e g sto e ou l n archives s s iscu re or ol fyi s news s w d s c ri r e ith e w irs g rk e fo a w o Ve s r n ff ct fo a ima il w s terview via ra online publications In te other n s In E-ma g idea Access media releases n /or quote current s news hi d in r s rc Acces ta Interact with news o a b s O Acce Undertake preliminary research Se ion an new in format e n pat ci ccess i arti A P

All journalists Newspaper journalists Journalists with online media experience

Figure 7.1 - Australian journalists’ most frequent Internet uses by groupings of all journalists (n = 563), newspaper journalists (n = 206) and journalists with online media experience (n = 107)

210

Online information credibility

A key argument that the Internet may not lead to increased source diversity is that journalists working within mainstream media are distrustful about the credibility of online information (Singer, 2003, p.147 and Fitzsimmons, 2001, p.16). If this is indeed the case, then it may be argued these journalists are less likely to use the Internet for ongoing source diversity and that this, in turn, limits the potential to increase content diversity within Australia’s existing media structure. Two questions in my survey addressed this issue directly. Journalists were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement – on a 1 to 5 scale (1 equalling ‘Strongly agree’ and 5 equalling ‘Strongly disagree’) – with the statements (a) that there was little quality control over information on the Internet and (b) that the Internet should be used sparingly as a news source.

By adding the percentages of journalists who said they ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ with these statements, the results showed that for all journalists, 410 respondents (72.8 per cent) expressed agreement that there was little quality control over information on the Internet. Furthermore, 254 respondents (45.1 per cent) agreed the Internet should be used sparingly as a news source. For newspaper journalists, 150 respondents (72.8 per cent) agreed there was little quality control over information on the Internet and 96 respondents (46.6 per cent) agreed the Internet should be used sparingly as a news source. For journalists with online media experience, 83 respondents (77.5 per cent) agreed there was little quality control over information on the Internet, but proportionately far fewer, 39 respondents (36.4 per cent), agreed the Internet should be used sparingly as a news source. All groupings’ responses to these statements (including those who disagreed) are provided in Figure 7.2.

211

Quality control over information on the Internet and Internet use as a news source

40 % of journalists

0 There is little quality control over There is little quality control over The Internet should be used The Internet should be used Internet information (Agree) Internet information (Disagree) sparingly as a news source (Agree) sparingly as a news source (Disagree)

All journalists Newspaper journalists Journalists with online media experience

Figure 7.2 - Journalists’ perception of quality control over information on the Internet and Internet use as a news source

212

Comparing these responses finds that across the entire number of respondents more journalists agree that there is little quality control over information on the Internet than disagree (72.8 per cent against 11.9 per cent respectively), and more journalists agree the Internet should therefore be used sparingly as a news source than disagree (45.1 per cent against 32.7 per cent respectively). However, journalists that had experience in online media broke this trend. For, while collectively 77.5 per cent of these journalists agreed there was little quality control over information on the Internet, only 36.4 per cent of this group agreed that the Internet should be used sparingly as a news source. What this indicates is that while most journalists agree there is a question about the credibility of information on the Internet, those journalists who had experience in the online media environment were more likely to use the Internet as a news source than journalists who had no such experience.

If we accept that online information ranges from ‘the ramblings of fixated nutters’ (Day, 2002) to ‘official documents’ that are ‘increasingly being made available online’ (Thomas, 2000, p.1553) – with ‘real journalism’ practised by online journalists (Fallows, 1999, p.58) somewhere in between – it is germane to know exactly where on the Internet journalists are going for their news sources. The survey assessed this by asking journalists to identify the credibility they give to certain categories of websites and then indicate how often they visit these websites. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 representing ‘Highly credible’ and 5 representing ‘Almost no credibility’), journalists were asked to rate the credibility of government websites, the websites of political parties, major news organisation websites (CNN, ABC Online etc), independent news websites, corporate and company websites, interest groups’ websites, private individual websites, Internet news and current affairs discussion groups, and university and/or research institution websites. All journalists’ responses to the question assessing the credibility they give to specific website categories are provided in Table 7.8.

213

Almost no Total Highly credible Credible Difficult to say Lacks credibility Website category credibility respondents n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Government 126 (22.4) 292 (51.9) 95 (16.9) 30 (5.3) 5 (.9) 548 (97.3) Political party 20 (3.6) 145 (25.8) 238 (42.3) 106 (18.8) 31 (5.5) 540 (95.9) Major news organisations 170 (30.2) 312 (55.4) 54 (9.6) 6 (1.1) 3 (.5) 545 (96.8) Independent news organisations 15 (2.7) 164 (29.1) 296 (52.6) 51 (9.1) 12 (2.1) 538 (95.6) Corporate / company 9 (1.6) 144 (25.6) 248 (44.0) 199 (21.1) 26 (4.6) 546 (97.0) Interest groups 5 (.9) 84 (14.9) 304 (54.0) 120 (21.3) 29 (5.2) 542 (96.3) Private individuals 2 (.4) 16 (2.8) 243 (43.2) 180 (32.0) 100 (17.8) 541 (96.1)

Online news current affairs discussion 4 (.7) 73 (13.0) 260 (46.2) 133 (23.6) 59 (10.5) 529 (94.0) groups University / research institution 160 (28.4) 306 (54.4) 69 (12.3) 4 (.7) 3 (.5) 542 (96.3) Table 7.8 - All journalists’ perceptions of website credibility (n = 563)

214

A credibility ranking can be established for comparing across these website categories by adding the percentages for ‘Highly credible’ and ‘Credible’ responses. This ranking, in descending order, is given in Table 7.9.

Website category % of all journalists rating website category credible Major news organisation websites 85.6 University/research institution websites 82.8 Government websites 74.3 Independent news websites 31.8 Political party websites 29.4 Corporate/company websites 27.2 Interest group websites 15.8 Internet news/current affairs discussion groups 13.7 Private individual websites 3.2

Table 7.9 - All journalists’ credibility rankings for all website categories (n = 563)

Website credibility rankings for the other groupings can also be established by similarly adding the percentages for ‘Highly Credible’ and ‘Credible’ responses for newspaper journalists and journalists with online media experience. For newspaper journalists, this ranking, in descending order, is provided in Table 7.10.

Website category % of newspaper journalists rating website category credible Major news organisation websites 88.8 University/research institution websites 81.6 Government websites 76.7 Political party websites 33.0 Independent news websites 30.5 Corporate/company websites 26.3 Interest group websites 13.1 Internet news/current affairs discussion groups 11.2 Private individual websites 2.0

Table 7.10 – Newspaper journalists’ credibility rankings for all website categories (n = 206)

For journalists with online media experience, this ranking, in descending order, is provided in Table 7.11.

215

Website category % of journalists with online media experience rating website category credible Major news organisation websites 92.5 University/research institution websites 85.1 Government websites 80.3 Independent news websites 43.0 Political party websites 29.9 Corporate/company websites 29.9 Interest group websites 20.5 Internet news/current affairs discussion groups 15.9 Private individual websites 5.6 Table 7.11 - Credibility rankings by journalists with online media experience for all website categories (n = 107)

Using percentages, credibility rankings for these website categories can be compared across all groupings, and this comparison is provided in Figure 7.3.

216

Website credibility rankings

100 90 80 70 60 50 40

% of journalists 30 20 10 0

s s s s s e te te it ps si si s sites u site b b o eb ebsite eb gr eb w w we we n w o nt s w y n e w n ual websites o d ti ne pa tu t group ti nisation m t iscussi s a en d in litical party websites d res indivi s o te/co e e h Governm en a air rc P r Int vat ff a ws org ep o i e e rp Pr t a s n Ind o r C ren /re jo r ty rsi Ma s/cu e iv ew n t n U e n er Int

All journalists Newspaper journalists Journalists with online media experience

Figure 7.3 - Website credibility rankings by groupings of all journalists (n = 563), newspaper journalists (n = 206) and journalists with online media experience (n = 107) 217

These website credibility rankings suggest journalists associate the most online information credibility to information produced by their own kind – that is, journalists working for established news organisations. They attach the least credibility to websites set up and maintained by private individuals, by private individuals contributing to online discussion groups and by organisations that would promote single issues, as might be expected from individual political party websites, corporate and company websites and websites set up by interest groups. All journalists, newspaper journalists and journalists with online media experience ranked website credibility identically save for one exception. Newspaper journalists ranked political party websites fourth and independent news websites fifth in terms of credibility, a ranking that was the reverse of those by all journalists and by journalists with online media experience. More significant, however, is that journalists with online media experience consistently ranked private individual websites, independent news websites, Internet news/current affairs discussion groups and corporate/company websites – all categories at the lower end of the rankings – with a proportionately higher credibility ranking than the groupings of all journalists or newspaper journalists. This suggests journalists who have online media experience are more likely to have greater faith in online information sources (from these website categories at least) than journalists who have not worked in online media.

To determine how frequently Australian journalists were accessing these website categories, the survey asked them to indicate access frequency on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 representing ‘Routinely (daily or almost daily)’ and 5 representing ‘Never’). All journalists’ responses to the question assessing website access frequency are provided in Table 7.12. 218

Routinely (daily or Frequently (at Occasionally (at Rarely Never Total respondents Website category almost daily) least weekly) least monthly) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Government 132 (23.4) 190 (33.7) 144 (25.6) 69 (12.3) 15 (2.7) 550 (97.7) Political party 15 (2.7) 46 (8.2) 133 (23.6) 247 (43.9) 109 (19.4) 550 (97.7) Major news organisations 212 (37.7) 170 (30.2) 100 (17.8) 47 (8.3) 22 (3.9) 551 (97.9) Independent news organisations 47 (8.3) 127 (22.6) 157 (27.9) 157 (27.9) 57 (10.1) 545 (96.8) Corporate / company 67 (11.9) 161 (28.6) 188 (33.4) 105 (18.7) 28 (5.0) 549 (97.5) Interest groups 34 (6.0) 114 (20.2) 201 (35.7) 141 (25.0) 56 (9.9) 546 (97.0) Private individuals 9 (1.6) 41 (7.3) 115 (20.4) 260 (46.2) 122 (21.7) 547 (97.2)

Online news current affairs 18 (3.2) 40 (7.1) 82 (14.6) 188 (33.4) 217 (38.5) 545 (96.8) discussion groups University / research institution 59 (10.5) 172 (30.6) 186 (33.0) 83 (14.7) 47 (8.3) 547 (97.2) Table 7.12 - Frequency with which all journalists accessed website categories (n = 563)

219

An access frequency ranking can be established for comparing across these website categories by adding the percentages for journalists that access respective websites routinely (daily or almost daily) and frequently (at least weekly). This ranking, in descending order, is given in Table 7.13.

Website category % of all journalists that most frequently accessed this category Major news organisation websites 67.9 Government websites 57.1 University/research institution websites 41.1 Corporate/company websites 40.5 Independent news websites 30.9 Interest group websites 26.2 Political party websites 10.9 Internet news/current affairs discussion groups 10.3 Private individual websites 8.9

Table 7.13 - All journalists’ access frequency rankings for website categories (n = 563)

By similarly adding the percentages for journalists that access these websites routinely (daily or almost daily) and frequently (at least weekly), access frequencies for newspaper journalists and journalists with online media experience can also be established. For newspaper journalists, this ranking, in descending order, is provided in Table 7.14.

Website category % of newspaper journalists that most frequently accessed this category Major news organisation websites 63.6 Government websites 52.0 Corporate/company websites 42.3 University/research institution websites 35.5 Interest group websites 23.3 Independent news websites 22.3 Political party websites 8.7 Private individual websites 6.8 Internet news/current affairs discussion groups 6.8

Table 7.14 - Newspaper journalists’ access frequency rankings for website categories (n = 206)

For journalists with online media experience, this ranking, in descending order, is provided in Table 7.15.

220

Website category % of journalists with online media experience that most frequently accessed this category Major news organisation websites 76.7 Government websites 69.2 University/research institution websites 53.3 Corporate/company websites 52.3 Independent news websites 44.9 Interest group websites 39.2 Internet news/current affairs discussion groups 20.5 Private individual websites 15.0 Political party websites 12.2 Table 7.15 - Access frequency rankings for website categories for journalists with online media experience (n = 107)

Using percentages, access frequency rankings for these website categories can be compared across all groupings, and this comparison is provided in Figure 7.4.

221

Website access frequencies

80 70

50 40

30 % of journalists % of 20 10

s s s s s tes te te te si si bsi bsi roups eb e eb e g website w w s l websites on ny w up w on website arty w o ssion i p r u l isati ne g ividua itut nt t d de res inst e/compa e Government websites olitica en t t irs disc ch P s organ ra In a r ep ivate in ew n orpo Pr r Ind o C sity/resea Maj r

Unive rnet news/current aff Inte

All journalists Newspaper journalists Journalists with online media experience

Figure 7.4 - Australian journalists’ website access frequency by groupings of all journalists (n = 563), newspaper journalists (n = 206) and journalists with online media experience (n = 107)

222

These results show a broad correlation between the website categories journalists see as providing the most credible online information and the website categories they access most frequently. And there is consistency between the perceptions of online information credibility and the frequency of access for the three groupings. For example, for all journalists, major news organisation websites were seen as providing the most credible information, followed by university/research institution websites, government websites, independent news websites and political party websites. Websites seen as providing the least credible information were those that hosted online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals. By comparison, in terms of access frequency, major news organisation websites were accessed most frequently, followed by government websites, university/research institution websites, corporate/company websites and independent news websites. The least frequently accessed websites were those that hosted online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals.

For newspaper journalists, major news organisation websites were seen as providing the most credible information, followed by university/research institution websites, government websites, political party websites and independent news websites. Websites seen as providing the least credible information were, as for all journalists, those that hosted online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals. In terms of access frequency, newspaper journalists most frequently accessed major news organisation websites, followed by government websites, corporate/ company websites, university/research institution websites and interest group websites. The least frequently accessed websites were those set up by private individuals and those that hosted online news and current affairs discussion groups.

For journalists with online media experience, the websites seen as providing the most credible information were those of major news organisations, followed by university/research institution websites, government websites, independent news websites and political party and corporate/company websites (the last two website categories receiving the same ranking). Websites seen as providing the least credible information were those that hosted news and current affairs discussion groups and 223 websites set up by private individuals. In terms of access frequency, this grouping showed the most frequently accessed websites were those of major news organisations, followed by government websites, university/research institution websites, corporate/company websites and independent news websites. In terms of the least frequently accessed websites, however, an exception occurred with political party websites being the least accessed category, following websites set up by private individuals. The survey did not show why this was the case. However, one assumption might be that a perception of online information credibility does not automatically mean high access frequency. In this instance, for example, journalists might believe political party website information was credible (and 29.9 per cent did), but may not have a high demand for it (only 12.2 per cent accessed these websites frequently) if they were not intending to write news stories based on that information.

Comparing journalists’ views on the credibility of online information with the website categories they most frequently access suggests that the increased source diversity journalists might obtain from accessing online information may not necessarily translate to increased content diversity. The survey shows journalists across all groupings place the most credibility in online information produced by their colleagues at other news organisations and most frequently access news organisation websites that carry that content. This suggests a ‘closed circle’ of online information gathering and content publishing that would continue to promote the status quo and limit diversity. Websites produced by independent news organisations, which conceivably would carry more diverse content, including what Loo termed as ‘avant-garde journalism’58, consistently ranked in the middle of the nine website categories for both credibility and access frequency rankings. Similarly, websites hosting news and current affairs discussion groups, which might also carry alternate views on current news issues, consistently ranked as the websites journalists see as the least credible and are, therefore, the least accessed. These results support literature discussed in Chapter 6, that there remains a basic distrust between ‘the professional community of traditional journalists’ (Singer, 2003, p.157) and producers of online information, even from those that may practise ‘real

58 In e-mail communication with the author on 29 June 2003. 224 journalism’ online (Fallows, 1999, p.58). The results underscore the fact that the usability of online information, linked to credibility and frequency of access, can and does adversely affect journalists’ ability to use the Internet on a large scale to increase source and/or content diversity.

Accessing diverse sources online

Reinforcing the closed circle of online information gathering and content publishing, and reflecting the established norms and practices journalists carry with them online (Kurpius, 2002, pp.853-854), Middleberg and Ross (2000) found that US journalists tend not to ‘troll the Web’ for story ideas, but rely instead on more traditional ‘press releases and sources’ (p.8). Trolling the Internet to obtain ideas for news stories is an activity that 56.3 per cent of Australian journalists undertake, but it was ranked eighth in the list of 16 online activities journalists might undertake. Newspaper journalists ranked it lower – ninth – with 47.1 per cent saying they undertake this activity. Journalists with online media experience also ranked trolling the Internet for story ideas eighth, although the percentage of respondents that undertook the activity, 67.3 per cent, was proportionally the highest of all groupings. Australian journalists instead placed greater emphasis on accessing traditional ‘press releases’ online and this is consistent with Middleberg and Ross’s findings. All journalists ranked accessing media releases third in the list of 16 online activities, 71.9 per cent saying this was an activity they undertake. Newspaper journalists ranked this activity second, with 71.4 per cent saying it was an activity they undertake. Journalists with online media experience ranked it lower – fourth – with 77.6 per cent saying it was an activity they undertake. The survey asked journalists to identify the frequency with which they accessed prepared media releases from the Internet and the following results were obtained:

225

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Routinely (daily or almost daily) 84 14.9 22 10.7 30 28.0 responses

Frequently (at least weekly) 115 20.4 43 20.9 29 27.1

Occasionally (at least monthly) 152 27.0 62 30.1 17 15.9

Rarely 101 17.9 31 15.0 14 13.1 Never 100 17.8 42 20.4 16 15.0 Total 552 98.0 200 97.1 106 99.1 Missing 11 2.0 6 2.9 1 .9 responses 100.0 Total 563 206 100.0 107 100.0

Table 7.16 - Frequency with which journalists access prepared media releases from the Internet 226

Using the Internet to source media releases written by other journalists (or, in the case of government, corporations, companies and other non-media businesses, written by people who have had journalism training if not practising journalists) further supports the argument that journalists are, by and large, missing out on the alternate views and avant-garde journalism that exists online and are therefore limiting the Internet’s potential to add to content diversity. This was directly tested by the survey, which asked journalists to nominate the frequency with which they accessed diverse views from the Internet before writing a news story. The following results were obtained:

227

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Routinely (daily or almost daily) 72 12.8 14 6.8 32 29.9 responses

Frequently (at least weekly) 116 20.6 39 18.9 25 23.4

Occasionally (at least monthly) 152 27.0 50 24.3 29 27.1

Rarely 111 19.7 50 24.3 10 9.3 Never 93 16.5 46 22.3 8 7.5 Total 544 96.6 199 96.6 104 97.2 Missing 19 3.4 7 3.4 3 2.8 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0 107 100.0

Table 7.17 - Frequency with which journalists seek diverse views from the Internet before writing a news story

228

The results showed that for all journalists, 188 respondents (33.4 per cent) sought diverse views from the Internet prior to writing news stories on a daily or weekly basis. For newspaper journalists, 53 respondents (25.7 per cent) did this on a daily or weekly basis, while for journalists with online media experience, 57 respondents (53.3 per cent) did this on a daily or weekly basis. In this case, however, it is also important to note the number of journalists that rarely or never sought diverse views from the Internet prior to writing news stories. In this case, for all journalists, 204 respondents (36.2 per cent) said they rarely or never sought diverse views from the Internet. For newspaper journalists, 96 respondents (46.6 per cent) said they rarely or never did so, while for journalists with online media experience, 18 respondents (16.8 per cent) said they rarely or never did so. These results are compared in Figure 7.5.

Diverse views sought from the Internet

60 All journalists 50

Newspaper 40 journalists

30 Journalists with online media experience % of journalists 20

0 Seek diverse views Rarely or never seek routinely or frequently diverse views

Figure 7.5 - Journalists seeking diverse views via the Internet

The results are an indication from journalists themselves that more of them rarely or never seek diverse views from the Internet before writing news stories than do. The situation is reversed only for those journalists with online media experience. This group proportionately had more respondents seeking diverse views via the Internet prior to writing news stories than other journalist categories, but even so, only 53.3 per cent did so. 229

Reader interactivity

Interactivity between journalists and their readers is seen as one way of increasing source diversity. As discussed in Chapter 6, using e-mail to provide ‘content exchanges’ between readers and journalists has been described as an important development for all news media (Berger, 2002, p.39). Offline media see it as a way ‘to bridge the gap between writer and reader’, allowing readers to ‘communicate directly with journalists’ (Keshvani, 2001, p.113) and ‘respond with their point of view’ (Day, 2002). For online journalism it has been said ‘life before email’ was ‘virtually nonexistent’ (Bulauitan, 2000). However, the survey showed Australian journalists rank interacting with readers extremely lowly.

For all journalists, interacting with readers was ranked second last in the list of 16 Internet activities they might undertake, with 32.1 per cent saying this was one of their online activities. For newspaper journalists the activity was ranked fourteenth, with just 31.1 per cent saying this was an activity they undertake. Journalists with online media experience ranked interacting with readers twelfth, although more than half of these respondents (55.1 per cent) used the Internet for this purpose. These results are in spite of the fact that the majority of journalists made their e-mail addresses available to readers. For all journalists, 64.0 per cent made their e-mail address available; 67.5 per cent of newspaper journalists did so, as did 74.8 per cent of journalists with online media experience.

For each grouping, more than half of the respective respondents said they received reader feedback. For all journalists, 306 respondents (54.4 per cent) received reader feedback via the Internet with 129 respondents (22.9 per cent) saying this occurred on a daily or weekly basis. For newspaper journalists, 115 respondents (55.8 per cent) said they received reader feedback with 40 respondents (19.4 per cent) saying this occurred on a daily or weekly basis. For journalists with online media experience, 75 respondents (70.1 per cent) said they received reader feedback with 46 respondents (43.0 per cent) saying this occurred on a daily or weekly basis.

230

In terms of source diversity, however, the essential point is whether journalists use this feedback to create or follow up news stories, as per Courier-Mail online editor John Grey’s contention that Courier-Mail journalists were encouraged to invite reader feedback via e-mail and to review this feedback for story leads.59 The survey tested this issue directly by asking journalists to indicate the frequency with which they used reader feedback via the Internet to create or follow up news stories. The following results were obtained:

59 In conversation with the author on 31 July 2001. 231

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Routinely (daily or almost daily) 19 3.4 3 1.5 14 13.1 responses

Frequently (at least weekly) 30 5.3 15 7.3 12 11.2

Occasionally (at least monthly) 100 17.8 34 16.5 20 18.7

Rarely 152 27.0 59 28.6 28 26.2 Never 246 43.7 89 43.2 30 28.0 Total 547 97.2 200 97.1 104 97.2 Missing 16 2.8 6 2.9 3 2.8 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0 107 100.0

Table 7.18 - Journalists’ use of reader feedback via the Internet to create or follow up news stories

232

These results are less than encouraging for diversity, showing that for all journalists, just 49 respondents (8.7 per cent) used reader feedback to create or follow up news stories on a daily or weekly basis. The vast majority, 398 respondents (70.7 per cent) rarely or never did so. For newspaper journalists, 18 respondents (8.8 per cent) used reader feedback to create or follow up news stories on a daily or weekly basis; 148 respondents (71.8 per cent) rarely or never did so. For journalists with online media experience, 26 respondents (24.3 per cent) used reader feedback to create or follow up news stories on a daily or weekly basis and, in an environment where it might be assumed most journalists would be using reader feedback as story leads, 58 respondents (54.2 per cent) rarely or never did so. As shown in Figure 7.6, the fact that most journalists make their e-mail addresses available to readers and more than half of them receive reader feedback via e-mail, is no indication that journalists embrace the practice and use it to increase their news sources and therefore increase the potential for source diversity.

Online reader feedback and use as news sources

80 All journalists 70 Newspaper journalists 60

50 Journalists with online media experience 40

30 % of journalists%

0 E-mail address Receive online reader Use this feedback for available feedback (daily/weekly) news sources

Figure 7.6 - Comparing journalists’ receiving online reader feedback and using same to increase news sources

Meanwhile, the survey showed that readers interacting with other readers through the auspices of news websites also had a low take-up, despite some researchers believing this form of interactivity would become ‘the key to success’ for online and offline newspapers (Kimber, 1997, p.596). The survey asked journalists 233 to identify whether readers could interact with other readers through their news organisations’ website. For all journalists, 85 respondents (15.1 per cent) said readers could interact with other readers through their organisation’s website. For newspaper journalists, 24 respondents (11.7 per cent) said readers could do so. For journalists with online media experience, 31 respondents (29.0 per cent) said readers could do so. The results show that while some literature argues readers do not want to create ‘little boxes on the cyber-hillside’ in which to ‘engage in ticky-tacky conversation’ (Meyer, 1996), they may not have an opportunity to do so in any case, with so few news websites providing this facility.

A lack of online journalism training

Literature reviewed in Chapter 6 highlighted concerns regarding journalists’ lack of training to deal with the ‘ethical dilemmas’ of using Internet information (see Deuze, 2001b, p.14) and that, in the US at least, few news organisations offered ethical codes to deal with online journalism (Arant & Anderson, 2001, p.59). As discussed in Chapter 6, in Australia the Gutnick case highlighted the difficulties that arise when news and information is written and published around the world via the Internet. Middleberg and Ross (2000) argued that confusion over Internet ethics would only increase in the absence of ‘in-depth knowledge of what the Internet is all about’ (p.24). The survey asked journalists to indicate the extent of online journalism training they had received, especially training in relation to ethics, copyright and defamation, and the following results were received: 234

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Yes, internal, provided by my employer 78 13.9 32 15.5 16 15.0 responses Yes, external, provided by my 17 3.0 7 3.4 4 3.7 employer

Yes, at my initiative 102 18.1 25 12.1 29 27.1

No 356 63.2 138 67.0 55 51.4 Total 553 98.2 202 98.1 104 97.2 Missing 10 1.8 4 1.9 3 2.8 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0 107 100.0

Table 7.19 - Journalists who have received online journalism training

235

For all journalists, 197 respondents (35.0 per cent) had received some form of online journalism training, although of this, 102 respondents (18.1 per cent) had to organise this training themselves. For newspaper journalists, 64 respondents (31.0 per cent) had received some form of online training with 25 respondents (12.1 per cent) having to organise this training themselves. For journalists with online media experience, 49 respondents (45.8 per cent) received some form of online training with 29 respondents (27.1 per cent) having to organise this training themselves. Again, these results show that, percentage wise, it is the journalists who have worked in online media that received the most online journalism-related training, although in all cases the majority of journalists who received training were required to organise this themselves. Training ranged from MEAA workshops to one- to five-day courses run by a multitude of training providers, to TAFE diploma courses, to undergraduate and postgraduate university degrees. Training subjects covered issues of ethics, defamation and copyright as well as Internet technology and Internet and journalism legal subjects.

The survey also asked journalists to indicate their level of agreement to a statement that they received sufficient online journalism training – and the results are not encouraging. They show that for all journalists, 97 respondents (17.2 per cent) agreed their online journalism training was sufficient, a number strongly outweighed by the 273 respondents (48.5 per cent) that felt they did not receive sufficient online journalism training. For newspaper journalists, 35 respondents (17.0 per cent) agreed they received sufficient training, but 117 respondents (56.8 per cent) said they did not. For journalists with online media experience, 28 respondents (26.2 per cent) said they received sufficient online journalism training, while 45 respondents (42.1 per cent) said they did not. According to Middleberg and Ross (2000), without such training journalists would be ‘blind to many of the ethical issues and to the dangers professional use of the Internet presents’ (p.24). These dangers include an ‘unwilling[ness] to expand their readers’ understanding by linking to other news sites’ (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.24), which may go some way to undermining the diversity afforded by hypertexts. On a larger scale, a situation where close to half of all journalists identified their online training as insufficient may continue to reinforce journalists’ nervousness and concern about the omnipresence of the Internet in their 236 work, leading to an ongoing reluctance to use the technology in ways that increase source diversity.

Improving source diversity

While the literature reviewed in Chapter 6 mostly suggested that ‘not much’ worked to improve source diversity (Kurpius, 2002, p.855), it did suggest ways in which the Internet could have a positive effect on diversity. These included journalists using the Internet to find new news sources and to access news sources they would not normally access, the rise of weblogs, enhanced use of computer assisted reporting and public journalism and, supporting all of these, an increasing focus on online training in formal journalism education. In Chapter 6, I argued that from the literature reviewed and from my own journalism experience I believed there were plausible arguments to suggest journalists do use the Internet to garner additional news sources, but the extent to which this occurred, or might lead to content diversity, had yet to be studied in any great detail. The survey addressed this issue directly by asking journalists to indicate the frequency with which they found new news sources online, and the following results were obtained:

237

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Routinely (daily or almost daily) 60 10.7 15 7.3 21 19.6 responses

Frequently (at least weekly) 119 21.1 30 14.6 31 29.0

Occasionally (at least monthly) 193 34.3 76 36.9 32 29.9

Rarely 112 19.9 46 22.3 18 16.8 Never 68 12.1 34 16.5 5 4.7 Total 552 98.0 201 97.6 107 100.0 Missing 11 2.0 5 2.4 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0

Table 7.20 - Frequency with which journalists find new news sources on the Internet 238

The results show that almost a third of all respondents, 179 journalists (31.8 per cent), found new news sources on the Internet on a daily or weekly basis. For newspaper journalists, 45 respondents (21.9 per cent) did so, while for journalists with online media experience, 52 respondents (48.6 per cent) did so. While this result might be considered encouraging for diversity, it must be realised that any potential for online information to add to content diversity is predicated on the way journalists treat online sources, particularly in terms of satisfying their ‘pre-Net standards of plausibility’ (Fallows, 1999, p.58). The survey addressed this directly by asking journalists to indicate how they were prepared to use online information as a news source, how much of this information was used as a primary news source and, importantly in terms of diversity, how frequently their online sources varied from ‘traditional’ news sources. The following results were obtained:

239

Newspaper journalists Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Valid responses Yes 123 21.8 36 17.5 36 33.6

Yes, but only when confirmed with the source 168 29.8 56 27.2 38 35.5

No 262 46.5 112 54.4 33 30.8 Total 553 98.2 204 99.0 107 100.0 Missing 10 1.8 2 1.0 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0

Table 7.21 - Journalists who use online information as a news source

240

The results show that just over half of all journalists (51.6 per cent) were prepared to accept online information as ‘plausible’ and use it as a news source, although 29.8 per cent of them confirmed the online information with the source as a way of satisfying their ‘pre-Net standards of plausibility’ (Fallows, 1999, p.58) prior to publication. But less than half of the newspaper journalists surveyed (44.7 per cent) said they used online information as a news source, with 27.2 per cent saying they did so only after confirming the information with the source. Again, as might be expected, journalists with online media experience were far more accepting of online information, 69.1 per cent of them saying they use the information as a news source, with 35.5 per cent saying they did so only after confirming the information with the source. Asked how frequently journalists use online information as a primary news source, the following results were obtained:

241

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Routinely (daily or almost daily) 52 9.2 14 6.8 22 20.6 responses

Frequently (at least weekly) 86 15.3 24 11.7 22 20.6

Occasionally (at least monthly) 123 21.8 39 18.9 27 25.2

Rarely 156 27.7 64 31.1 23 21.5 Never 131 23.3 61 29.6 10 9.3 Total 548 97.3 202 98.1 104 97.2 Missing 15 2.7 4 1.9 3 2.8 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0 107 100.0

Table 7.22 - Journalists’ use of online information as a primary news source

242

These results show 46.3 per cent of all journalists use online information as a news source and almost half of this total, 24.5 per cent, use this information as a primary news source on a daily or weekly basis. Newspaper journalists were the lowest grouping to do this, with 18.5 per cent of them using online information as a primary news source on a daily or weekly basis. Journalists with online media experience again rated much higher, with 41.2 per cent of them using online information as a primary news source on a daily or weekly basis. These results are an indication that close to half of all journalists are actively using the Internet to source news and information and close to a quarter of them are prepared to use this as primary information for their news stories. Care must be taken in interpreting this, however, as in this instance the survey did not identify the nature of the information journalists were obtaining online. As it has been shown that journalists most often visit major news organisation and government Internet sites, the information being obtained may not intrinsically lead to diverse content, although it can be argued that such Internet use is a step in the right direction.

Literature reviewed in Chapter 6 suggested the rise of weblogs provided journalists with new online news sources, particularly when the weblogs provide ‘gripping’ personal accounts of newsworthy issues (Mackenzie, 2003, p.5). Furthering weblogs is the increased credibility they obtain when they are written by journalists themselves (Lasica, 2002), an argument supported by this survey’s results, which suggest journalists favour online information that is produced by other journalists. The survey identified the number of journalists who had experience writing weblogs, but the results show weblogs are still to make any significant impression in mainstream journalism in Australia, in terms of journalists having had experience writing them at least. For all journalists, just 19 respondents (3.4 per cent) had written weblogs. For newspaper journalists, only 2 (1.0 per cent) had written weblogs. For journalists with online media experience, 7 respondents (6.5 per cent) had written weblogs. Although literature and data from this survey are limited in this regard, both suggest that weblogs may continue to be used as news sources when the issues they address have currency and news value – such as Salam Pax’s writings during the Iraq war and Nancy Crick’s online diary that added to the euthanasia debate – but they are not currently websites that journalists visit with any great frequency. 243

Computer assisted reporting and public journalism

In Chapter 6, I proposed that the Internet would support computer assisted reporting and public journalism in the pursuit of increased source diversity. The survey was able to provide information on how the Internet might provide this support. It will be recalled that Quinn (1997) found computer assisted reporting was constrained by a ‘luddite tendency’ among some journalists (p.80). But this finding was in 1997, six years ago. In the meantime, Australian journalists’ Internet use has risen to a level where, in 2003, 97.4 per cent of those who responded to my survey use the technology. In terms of ‘luddite’ referring to journalists’ computer expertise, it may be argued that the extent to which the luddite tendency still affects journalists’ Internet use can be determined by assessing the ease these journalists have in using the Internet and, again, this was tested directly by the survey. Journalists were asked to indicate their level of agreement to a statement that the Internet made their jobs easier. By adding percentages of journalists who said they ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ with these statements, the results showed an overwhelming response by journalists that the Internet does make their jobs easier. For all journalists, 509 respondents (90.4 per cent) agreed with the statement; for newspaper journalists, 181 respondents (87.9 per cent) agreed; and for journalists with online media experience, 102 respondents (95.4 per cent) agreed. The results suggest (as might be expected) that as Internet technology becomes more pervasive in the journalists’ workplace, the luddite tendency decreases. If this tendency was said to limit computer assisted reporting, then it may be argued as almost all journalists find the Internet makes their work easier, computer assisted reporting may be similarly enhanced.

Public journalism, meanwhile, has been limited by the resources it consumes. As discussed, it is said that to engage in public journalism journalists have to spend time ‘regularly visiting community organisations’ and attending public events as well as ‘engaging in basic “civic mapping” and similar activities’ (Romano, 2001, p.58). A ‘power imbalance’ also existed between journalists and the public with respect to the latter’s ability to define a relevant news agenda (Romano, 2001, p.44, p.50). In Chapter 6, I argued the Internet assists in both circumstances: allowing journalists to interact cost-effectively with the community and allowing readers to provide feedback that, among other things, may assist in defining a relevant news 244 agenda. Has this worked in practice? Perhaps not in terms of the public setting a news agenda, as it has been shown that although 54.4 per cent of Australian journalists received reader feedback via the Internet (on a daily or weekly basis) only 8.7 per cent of them felt inclined to act upon this feedback. But the survey did directly test the assumption that the Internet provided a more cost-effective means for journalists to access more diverse public groups by asking them to indicate the frequency with which they accessed individuals or groups via the Internet that they would not otherwise access. The following results were obtained:

245

Newspaper journalists Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Routinely (daily or almost daily) 77 13.7 20 9.7 30 28.0 responses

Frequently (at least weekly) 152 27.0 49 23.8 27 25.2

Occasionally (at least monthly) 180 32.0 70 34.0 34 31.8

Rarely 101 17.9 40 19.4 11 10.3 Never 43 7.6 23 11.2 5 4.7 Total 553 98.2 202 98.1 107 100.0 Missing 10 1.8 4 1.9 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0

Table 7.23 - Journalists who access information from individuals or groups via the Internet that they would not otherwise access

246

The results show that for all journalists, 229 respondents (40.7 per cent) used the Internet on a daily or weekly basis to access information from individuals or groups that they would not otherwise have accessed. For newspaper journalists, 69 respondents (33.5 per cent) did so. For journalists with online media experience, 57 respondents (53.2 per cent) did so. The results give some encouragement for public journalism, with journalists’ tendency to use the Internet to access information from individuals or groups not otherwise accessed being commensurate with the goals of this practice (although it is noted that newspaper journalists rated lowest of all groupings, with just a third of them using the Internet on a regular basis to access individuals or groups that they would not otherwise have accessed).

Online journalism education

I have argued that the increasing focus on online training in formal journalism education supports the Internet providing increased source diversity by providing future journalists (and practising journalists that access such education) with the necessary skills to comfortably use the technology to expand their ‘reporter’s toolbox’ (Giles, 2002) and to ‘tap online sources’ as a way of enriching their existing news content (Berger, 2002, p.40). As discussed, the survey showed that 35.0 per cent of Australian journalists had received such training, and when asked to identify what type of training this was, responses showed a large range of undergraduate and postgraduate university degrees and TAFE diploma courses were available and were being accessed by journalists. That journalists are already using the Internet as an expanded ‘toolbox’ was also supported by the survey, which asked journalists to indicate the frequency with which they used the Internet to supplement traditional newsgathering techniques. The following results were obtained:

247

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Routinely (daily or almost daily) 139 24.7 38 18.4 45 42.1 responses

Frequently (at least weekly) 198 35.2 74 35.9 35 32.7

Occasionally (at least monthly) 152 27.0 58 28.2 23 21.5

Rarely 40 7.1 19 9.2 2 1.9 Never 23 4.1 13 6.3 2 1.9 Total 552 98.0 202 98.1 107 100.0 Missing 11 2.0 4 1.9 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0

Table 7.24 - Journalists who supplement traditional newsgathering techniques with information from the Internet

248

The results showed that for all journalists, 337 respondents (59.9 per cent) used the Internet to supplement their traditional news gathering techniques on a daily or weekly basis. For newspaper journalists, 112 respondents (54.3 per cent) did so. For journalists with online media experience, 80 respondents (74.8 per cent) did so.

New information on online journalism and source and content diversity

I argued in Chapter 6 that there were significant omissions in the literature reviewed in terms of the degree to which online journalism has permeated traditional journalism practice, the degree to which the latter is genuinely distrustful of the former and the connection between online source diversity and the amount of content diversity that this actually delivers. My survey provided new information on these three issues.

The degree to which online journalism occurs in Australia depends on the definition of what ‘online journalism’ actually is. If we loosely define the term as Reddick and King (1997) did – any journalist that uses the Internet in the course of their work (p.v) – then it can be said online journalism is now almost totally imbued, to a level of 97.4 per cent according to my survey, in Australian journalism. But I define online journalism more strictly for these discussions. If online journalism is defined as journalism practised solely in the online environment, then it remains a very minor part of Australian journalism, with just 6 respondents (1.1 per cent) identifying that they worked exclusively in online media. If the definition is broadened to include journalists who have had online media experience, however, then this percentage increases, with 107 journalists (19.0 per cent) having worked in online media at some stage. The survey provided further statistics by asking journalists to identify whether they wrote news stories solely for online publishing. The results from this question continue to suggest that the online media, be they independent or a part of the established media, play a minor role in Australian journalism. For all journalists, only 43 respondents (7.7 per cent) said they wrote stories solely for publishing online on a daily or weekly basis. For newspaper journalists this drops significantly, with just 3 respondents (1.5 per cent) saying they did so. For journalists with online media experience, 31 respondents (29.0 per cent) said they did so. 249

Much of the argument that the Internet does not lead to increased source diversity is based on the perceived distrust traditional journalists have of their online colleagues. As discussed, Singer’s (2003) comments best expounded on this, her assertions being that ‘[t]raditional journalists’ had ‘watched the growth of computer- mediated communication warily for years’ (p.147) and that for online journalists to become accepted by traditional journalists there needed to be ‘considerable change in the way that online journalism is carried out’ (Singer, 2003, p.153). As Chapter 6 discussed, much of this distrust is based on the credibility that traditional journalists place in online information. The survey tested this assertion directly by asking journalists to indicate their level of agreement with the statement that the Internet provided credible information. The following results were obtained:

250

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 11 2.0 1 .5 1 .9 responses

Disagree 37 6.6 15 7.3 1 .9

Slightly disagree 53 9.4 23 11.2 8 7.5

Slightly agree 143 25.4 58 28.2 16 15.0 Agree 251 44.6 85 41.3 63 58.9 Strongly agree 41 7.3 13 6.3 13 12.1 Total 536 95.2 195 94.7 102 95.3 Missing 27 4.8 11 5.3 5 4.7 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0 107 100.0

Table 7.25 - Journalists’ agreement with the statement: ‘The Internet provides credible information’

251

These results show that for all journalists, 292 respondents (51.9 per cent) strongly agreed or agreed that the Internet provided credible information. For newspaper journalists, 98 respondents (47.6 per cent) did so and for journalists with online media experience, 76 respondents (71.0 per cent) did so. However, these results can also be seen in terms of journalists who did not agree that the Internet provided credible information. Here, just 18.0 per cent of all journalists, 19.0 per cent of newspaper journalists and 9.3 per cent of journalists with online media experience disagreed with this statement. Viewed in these terms, journalists’ overall level of agreement that the Internet provided credible information is an overwhelming response that counters arguments that traditional journalists have an innate distrust of online information and suggests that any distrust between the two professions – if they are to be considered separate – is based more on journalism practices (such as Web journalists ‘scooping’ traditional journalists, traditional journalists keeping leads to themselves and concerns about the changes online journalism might bring to traditional journalism) than on the quality of online information. This is a key point, for if it can be argued that the distrust between traditional and online journalists is limited to journalism practices and not online information per se, then, the survey suggests, 97.4 per cent of Australian journalists should be able to use the Internet for source diversity. The literature reviewed only allows this argument to be taken so far, however, as it did not address the connection between the Internet as a medium to garner additional news sources and the amount of content diversity that this actually delivered. But the survey tested this connection directly by asking journalists questions that gauged their views on how the Internet assists diversity. One question asked journalists to indicate how they believed the Internet enhanced media diversity by selecting one or more of the following statements:

• by helping journalists gain wider access to news sources • by helping journalists gain wider access to diverse points of view • by enabling news to be delivered to wider sections of society • by enabling individuals to set up their own websites, and • by enabling readers to contribute their own content to news websites.

252

The question also gave journalists the option of indicating that they believed the Internet had no impact on media diversity. Table 7.26 displays the results that were obtained and Figure 7.7 compares these results across all groupings. 253

Number of Percentage of Number of all Percentage of Number of all Percentage of all journalists with journalists with How does the Internet newspaper newspaper journalists who journalists who online media online media enhance media diversity? journalists who journalists who agreed (n = 563) agreed experience who experience who agreed (n = 206) agreed agreed (n = 107) agreed By helping journalists gain wider access to news 459 81.5 173 84.0 92 86.0 sources By helping journalists gain wider access to diverse 418 74.2 157 76.2 89 83.2 points of view By enabling news to be delivered to wider sections 345 61.3 125 60.7 76 71.0 of society

By enabling individuals to 225 40.0 74 35.9 63 58.9 set up their own websites By enabling readers to contribute their own 164 29.1 56 27.2 48 44.9 content to news websites

The Internet does not 14 2.5 4 1.9 0 0.0 impact on media diversity Table 7.26 – How journalists believe the Internet enhances media diversity

254

How journalists believe the Internet enhances media diversity

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0 % of journalists 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 By helping journalists By helping journalists By enabling news to be By enabling individuals to By enabling readers to The Internet does not gain wider access to gain wider access to delivered to wider set up their own websites contribute their own impact on media news sources diverse points of view sections of society content to news websites diversity

All journalists Newspaper journalists Journalists with online media experience

Figure 7.7 - How journalists believe the Internet enhances media diversity 255

While this question addressed diversity generally, and included statements about both structural and content diversity, a further question addressed content diversity specifically, asking journalists to show their level of agreement or disagreement with the statement that the Internet had little impact on news diversity. This question delivered the following results:

256

Journalists with online media All journalists (n = 563) Newspaper journalists (n = 206) experience (n = 107)

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent

Valid Strongly agree 10 1.8 4 1.9 1 .9 responses

Agree 59 10.5 23 11.2 9 8.4

No opinion 123 21.8 43 20.9 10 9.3

Disagree 320 56.8 119 57.8 72 67.3 Strongly disagree 37 6.6 9 4.4 14 13.1 Total 549 97.5 198 96.1 106 99.1 Missing 14 2.5 8 3.9 1 .9 responses Total 563 100.0 206 100.0 107 100.0

Table 7.27 - Journalists’ agreement with the statement: ‘The Internet has little impact on news diversity’ 257

The results show that for all journalists, 69 respondents (12.3 per cent) agreed that the Internet had little impact on media diversity. For newspaper journalists, 27 respondents (13.1 per cent) did so and for journalists with online media experience, 10 respondents (9.3 per cent) did so. Seen in the reverse, the results show 63.4 per cent of all journalists did not agree that the Internet had little impact on news diversity; 62.2 per cent of newspaper journalists did not agree and 80.4 per cent of journalists with online media experience did not agree. The results support the findings of the first question that showed that for all journalists, just 14 (2.5 per cent) believed the Internet had no impact on media diversity; for newspaper journalists, 4 respondents (1.9 per cent) believed the Internet had no impact on media diversity; while no respondents with online media experience believed the Internet had no impact on media diversity.

Conclusions: Testing the hypothesis

Chapter 6 and this chapter examined the relationship between source diversity and content diversity and the Internet’s ability to provide source diversity to journalists. The literature reviewed in Chapter 6 suggested traditional ‘offline’ journalists were unlikely to use the Internet for increased source diversity because these journalists rely on established norms and practices, because questions exist about the usability of online information, and because there is ongoing suspicion and distrust by traditional journalists towards online information, online journalism and the changes online journalism brings to accepted journalism practice. But there was literature that suggested otherwise. This included examples of the established media obtaining story leads from online sources, the positive impacts of online reader- journalist interactivity, the enhancements the Internet gives to computer assisted reporting and public journalism, the role online journalism is playing in burgeoning democracies and increasing online training in journalism education. However, in concluding Chapter 6 (and somewhat against my own journalism experience), I reflected that of all literature reviewed, there was more that suggested it was unlikely the Internet was promoting source diversity, with little also to suggest source diversity would enhance content diversity. In view of this I proposed a second hypothesis, which was:

258

A survey of Australian journalists was used to test this hypothesis. The survey suggested 97.4 per cent of Australian journalists used the Internet for their work and that their top five Internet uses were (in descending order) to e-mail work colleagues, to undertake preliminary research, to access media releases, to verify facts and to search other news websites. Conclusions from this were that journalists’ established norms and practices were reflected online, particularly in relation to accessing pre-prepared media releases. In terms of generating diversity, accessing different views for news stories and interacting with readers scored extremely lowly.

A key argument that the Internet may not lead to increased source diversity is that journalists working within mainstream media are distrustful about the credibility of online information (Fitzsimmons, 2001, p.16). The survey suggested this was indeed the case, showing that 72.8 per cent of journalists agreed there was little quality control over information on the Internet, leading 45.1 per cent of them to agree the Internet should be used sparingly as a news source. The survey showed journalists accessed major news organisation websites most frequently, followed by government websites, university/research institution websites, corporate/company websites and independent news websites. The least frequently accessed websites were those that hosted online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals. This broadly reflected the credibility journalists placed in information they accessed from websites, with major news organisation websites seen as providing the most credible information, followed by university/research institution websites, government websites, independent news websites and political party websites. Websites seen as providing the least credible information were those that hosted online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals.

These results suggest journalists associate the most credibility to online information produced by their own kind – journalists working for established news 259 organisations, and they associate the least credibility to websites set up and maintained by private individuals, by private individuals contributing to online discussion groups and by organisations that would promote single issues, as might be expected from individual political party websites, corporate and company websites and websites set up by interest groups. This suggests a closed circle of online information gathering and content publishing that would continue to promote the status quo and limit diversity. Websites produced by independent news organisations, which conceivably would carry more diverse content, consistently ranked in the middle of the list of websites journalists perceived as credible and the websites they most frequently accessed. Websites hosting news and current affairs discussion groups, which might also carry alternate views on current news issues, consistently ranked as the websites journalists see as the least credible and were the least accessed.

These results were further reinforced when the survey found just 33.4 per cent of Australian journalists sourced diverse views online, on a daily or weekly basis, prior to writing news stories. Overall, the results suggest there remains a level of distrust between the ‘professional community of traditional journalists’ (Singer, 2003, p.157) and online content producers, even those that may practise ‘real journalism’ online (Fallows, 1999, p.58). The results suggest that the usability of online information – as it is linked to credibility and access by journalists – can adversely affect journalists’ ability to use the Internet for increased source diversity. Reader interactivity is seen as one way of increasing source diversity. But the survey showed Australian journalists rank interacting with readers extremely lowly – second last in a list of 16 Internet activities they might undertake. Less encouraging for diversity, the survey showed that although more than half of Australian journalists (54.4 per cent) received reader feedback via the Internet, just 8.7 per cent used this feedback to create or follow up news stories on a daily or weekly basis.

However, the survey did obtain results that supported source diversity and content diversity. It showed, for example, that almost a third of Australian journalists (31.8 per cent) were using the Internet to garner additional news sources and, although 45.1 per cent believed online information should be used ‘sparingly’, close to half of all journalists (46.3 per cent) were prepared to accept online information as 260

‘plausible’ and use it as a news source. Indeed, 24.5 per cent of journalists were prepared to use online information as a primary news source. Assisting computer assisted reporting, meanwhile, was the fact that the Internet has made journalism ‘easier’ for 90.4 per cent of Australian journalists, overcoming earlier ‘luddite’ tendencies (Quinn, 1997, p.80) and expanding the ‘reporter’s toolbox’ (Giles, 2002), with 59.9 per cent of journalists saying they use the Internet to supplement their traditional newsgathering techniques on a daily or weekly basis. For public journalism, meanwhile, the Internet has allowed 40.7 per cent of journalists to access information from individuals or groups they would not otherwise have accessed.

Seeming to counter arguments that traditional journalists believe online information lacks credibility, when asked directly if the Internet provided credible information, 82.0 per cent of journalists generally agreed that it did. (It will be recalled that this specific question showed that 18.0 per cent of all journalists did not agree that the Internet provided credible information, see page 250.) This is a key point, for if it can be argued that the distrust between traditional and online journalists is limited to journalism practices and not online information per se, then the vast majority of Australian journalists who do not work solely in online journalism, 98.9 per cent of them, should be able to use the Internet for source diversity. Further support for this argument was provided when 81.5 per cent of Australian journalists said the Internet enhanced diversity by helping them gain wider access to news sources, while 74.2 per cent said diversity was enhanced because the Internet helped them gain wider access to diverse points of view. Only 12.3 per cent of Australian journalists believed the Internet had little impact on news diversity.

But the reader could be forgiven if, in reading the results of this survey, they felt many journalists’ responses to various survey questions contradicted each other.

For example:

• 64.0 per cent of journalists made their e-mail address available; 55.4 per cent received reader feedback this way; but only 8.7 per cent acted upon it

261

• 72.8 per cent of journalists agreed there was little quality control over information on the Internet; but 82.0 per cent believed the Internet provided credible information

• 74.2 per cent of journalists said diversity was enhanced because the Internet helped journalists gain wider access to diverse points of view; but just 33.4 per cent of them said they sourced diverse views online on a daily or weekly basis, and

• 81.5 per cent of journalists said the Internet enhanced diversity by helping journalists gain wider access to news sources; but just 31.8 per cent of them said they actually found new news sources on the Internet on a daily or weekly basis.

Other contradictions may be found throughout the survey’s results and, as with the contradictions cited, they tend towards the same thing. When journalists were asked if they believed the Internet could in principle add to either source diversity or content diversity, reasonably high percentages replied in the affirmative. When asked if they might in practice use the Internet to increase this diversity, the percentages tended to be much lower. This reinforces the suggestion that it is established journalism norms and practices that limit the Internet’s potential to increase diversity rather than journalists’ particular distrust in either online journalism or online information. That established journalism norms and practices still hold sway in journalism today is further reinforced by the fact that, when asked how they felt the Internet would impact on their work and their profession, only 30.3 per cent of all journalists believed the Internet would become their medium of choice for information gathering while only 30.7 per cent believed the Internet would become consumers’ medium of choice for news and information. This also supports views that the changes the Internet is bringing to journalism are proving slow to gain momentum in the offline environment (Cohen, 2002, pp.538-540 and Dibean & Garrison, 2001, pp.80-82).

262

In terms of the hypothesis, then, the survey does not uphold the contention that traditional journalists’ distrust of online information and online journalism practice limits the amount of source diversity that can be gleaned from the Internet. However, it upholds that established journalism norms and practices limit potential online source diversity being translated into increased content diversity. In doing so, a connection between source diversity and content diversity is also suggested. It may be assumed, for example, that if journalists relied less on established norms and practices and more on their own initiative to source diverse views from the Internet, then those views will form part of more diverse media content.

263

Chapter 8

Conclusions and implications

It will be recalled the research question addressed by this thesis – ‘How has the Internet delivered pluralism by promoting structural diversity and/or content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry?’ – was separated into four component questions. These component questions sought first to determine the nature of structural diversity and the relationship between structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry. They then examined if the Internet promoted structural diversity and/or content diversity in this industry. Following the previous chapters’ inquiries, a number of conclusions can be made about these issues.

Conclusions about the research question

Chapter 2 identified that structural diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry is limited in the extreme. The chapter examined the nature of this diversity by examining individual newspaper markets and found that, in 2002, just four newspaper owners competed in the national and capital city daily newspaper market. With a combined 89.5 per cent of the market between them, this market is, in reality, a News Limited and Fairfax duopoly. Furthermore, with a combined 86 per cent share of Australia’s Saturday national and capital newspaper market in 2002, this market is also a News Limited and Fairfax duopoly. News Limited and Fairfax maintained a combined 99 per cent share of Australia’s Sunday newspaper market in 2002. Six newspaper owners predominated in Australia’s regional daily newspaper market, with APN, News Limited and Fairfax controlling 61.4 per cent of the market in 2002. Seven newspaper owners predominated in Australia’s suburban newspaper market in 2002, but again, this market is controlled by a small number of owners. News Limited and Fairfax share 69 per cent of it. News Limited holds an additional 10 per cent of this market through its partnership with West Australian Newspaper Holdings.

264

Chapter 2 also showed Australia’s newspaper industry was exclusively market-based. Buy-outs and rationalisation from 1986 to the early 1990s, mainly by News Limited, reduced the number of Australian newspaper titles in that period by twelve. Turner and Cunningham (1997) have remarked that following this, Australia’s media ownership, generally, appeared ‘comparatively stable’ (p.3). Buy- outs and closures are still occurring, however. News Limited purchased United Media’s 50 per cent holding in Western Australia’s suburban newspaper market from 2000 (Communications Law Centre, 2002b, pp.22-26), for example, while in 2002 the company closed down its afternoon editions of The Daily Telegraph in Sydney and The Herald Sun in Melbourne (MEAA, 2002b, p.20). Rural Press, meanwhile, planned a $47.6 million takeover of Tasmanian independent newspaper publisher Harris and Company in October 2003 (The Australian, 2003, p.19).

The analysis of Australian newspaper ownership undertaken in Chapter 2 did not generally support arguments that newspaper circulation was in decline. The Sunday newspaper, Saturday newspaper and suburban newspaper markets all had circulation increases from 1995 to 2002, with the suburban newspaper market growing by 17.1 per cent. Regional daily newspaper circulation fell by 9.3 per cent and national and capital city newspapers by 3.6 per cent in the same period. It must be noted, however, that in terms of structural diversity, increasing newspaper circulation carries little significance, especially when one owner, News Limited, is the dominant player in all but one of these newspaper markets. APN is the major owner in the regional daily newspaper market, with a 27.6 per cent circulation share, but News Limited comes in second with 17.4 per cent.

Chapter 2 also analysed Australia’s newspaper oligopoly. It argued that this oligopoly was supported by the economies of scale that market dominance provided, by increasing globalism that (among other things) allowed foreign investment to increase the capital of Australian newspaper owners, and by high-level political support. It is this high-level political support, particularly, that frustrates the proponents of pluralism who, I argued in Chapter 2, shared a desire for some form of public intervention to ensure media pluralism existed. Political support for newspaper owners has not stopped Australian governments from holding media inquiries, but it explains why they remain reluctant to enact legislation aimed at 265 encouraging diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry – save for 1987’s cross- media ownership laws that effectively increased Australia’s newspaper ownership concentration (Henderson, 1991, p.8).

Two media inquiries, the Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting, were examined in Chapter 3 to answer the second of the research question’s component questions. By examining these inquiries’ reports, the relationship between structural and content diversity, as they apply to Australia’s newspaper industry, was clear. Both inquiries saw structural diversity in this industry as essential for content diversity in the nation’s newspapers. From examining these inquiries, I distilled a definition for diversity that identified this relationship. The definition was:

But Chapter 3 also highlighted other issues relating to pluralism and media regulation. For example, it detailed the changes in thinking regarding the media and media regulation that occurred in the eight years between these inquiries. Most of this change centred on new media. A review of the submissions to and the recommendations from the Print Media Inquiry, for example, showed little if any common ground between the proponents of pluralism and the owners and supporters of Australia’s market-based press. The then Australian Journalists Association, the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism and independent media observers submitted to the Print Media Inquiry that Australia’s newspaper ownership structure was inherently detrimental to pluralism. Almost all expressed views that legislation was required to counter this. Opposing were the owners of the nation’s press and their supporters, notably the Australian Press Council, which, consistent with press theories based on market principles, advocated self-regulation rather than legislation. The Print Media Inquiry recommended a number of changes to existing legislation to improve structural and content diversity and these were discussed in Chapter 3.

266

The national media landscape had itself changed by the time the Productivity Commission came to consider the state of Australia’s media. Pluralists still rallied against decreasing structural diversity and the need for legislation to counter this, but they now also had to contend with the effects of new media convergence. Among other things, these blurred the ‘previously clear technical boundaries’ between the media (Productivity Commission, 2000, pp.105-106) and contributed to an ever- increasing ‘web of cross ownership’ nationally and internationally (Lawe Davies, 1999, p.59).

Owners of the market-based press, particularly News Limited and PBL, and the Australian Press Council, saw convergence as inherently good for its perceived ability to ‘ensure a greater diversity of views’ by allowing newspapers to move online (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.6). Although, as concluded from Chapter 2’s inquiry into newspaper ownership and circulation, and by comparing this claim with the definition of diversity (above), this argument can be seen as disingenuous as it supposes increased circulation (in this case via the Internet) of itself delivers greater content diversity. Media owners, particularly Kerry Packer and son James, also argued that convergence made media-specific legislation such as foreign ownership and cross-media laws ‘redundant’ (Collins & Lewis, 1999, p.3). This view was supported by the permutations and combinations of media partnerships described in Chapter 3 that showed ‘a growing nexus between content producers and [content] carriers’ (MEAA, 1999b, p.8) that turned former media competitors into business allies.

New media was also a reason why submissions to the Productivity Commission suggested less of a dichotomy between pluralists and market supporters than did submissions to the Print Media Inquiry. Key submitters to the Productivity Commission – representing both pluralists and the market-based press (including the MEAA, News Limited and PBL) – agreed that foreign ownership laws had lost their significance, with media analysts predicting wide-spread foreign investment by new media conglomerates such as AOL Time Warner (Schulze, 2002b, p.4). Like the Print Media Inquiry, the Productivity Commission looked at changes to Australia’s Trade Practices Act (administered by the ACCC) although proponents of pluralism, such as the Communications Law Centre (1999, p.28), and the market-based press, 267 such as PBL (1999b, p.21), were in agreement that little could be done through the Act to assist in adding to media diversity.

This is not to say that opposing views did not exist. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the debate on cross-media ownership laws. For their part, supporters of the market-based press argued to the Productivity Commission that the laws were losing their relevance as new media technology, such as pay television and online- based media, gained market share while remaining outside this legislation (Australian Press Council, 1999, p.7.) PBL (1999b) argued the rules inhibited the established media’s investment in new media (pp.3-10). News Limited (2000) claimed new media made cross-media rules ‘anachronistic’ (p.5). However, the MEAA (1999b, p.2, p.13) and the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy (1999a, p.9) remained committed to the legislation, seeing it as the only check to decreasing structural diversity in the established media and established media’s domination in the new media. In October 2003, a voluntary group of working journalists, supported by the MEAA, continued this call, setting up a website to ‘harness opposition to the Howard Government’s plans to deliver changes to Australia’s cross media ownership laws’ and to ‘inform the public of the tragic consequences of allowing Australia’s two largest media barons to gobble up what remains of the country’s independent media’ (at www.xmedia.org.au, accessed October 20, 2003).

The Productivity Commission made a number of recommendations regarding cross-media ownership laws to promote media diversity, and these were discussed in Chapter 3. However, three years from the Commission’s recommendations, changes to these laws, through the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002, are still being passed from the House of Representatives to the Senate and back again with little agreement in sight. The Australian Democrats, key to the Bill’s success in the Senate, earlier rejected the amendments because (among other things) they contained no reference to new media and convergence (Milne, 2002). This highlights an example of what Flew (1999) saw as the ‘fundamental and profound’ changes that would be wrought by new media (p.9). For while this thesis’s research question sought to discover how one component of the new media – the Internet – could deliver media pluralism, this study of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry 268 showed that new media as a whole had the potential not only to make media legislation redundant, but media reform through legislation nigh on impossible.

As such, this thesis placed more emphasis on the Internet’s ability to deliver increased media diversity, which addressed the third component of the research question. But literature showed the Internet, in terms of a news media platform, had become almost exclusively commercial and was based on market principles. The literature reviewed in Chapter 4 confirmed the ‘rush’ (Mings & White, 1997, p.2) online by Australian newspapers. But it also showed most newspaper websites were hopelessly unprofitable and were being maintained, presumably, by profits from other areas within the respective newspaper’s business. In the absence of any more than a handful of successful online-only media brands either in the US (Kimber, 1997, p.595) or in Australia (Higgins, 2001, p.13), a key assumption was that if established newspapers found the transition online relatively easy then independent online-only news sites might be similarly established – and vice versa. Coupled with the literature reviewed, this assumption helped form the thesis’s first hypothesis:

The case study of Australian newspapers’ online experiences detailed in Chapter 5 upheld this hypothesis. A key finding of this research was that only two newspaper websites of the 18 surveyed were profitable. In a sample population that included 10 daily newspapers, the two that were profitable were an online-based special interest newspaper that spawned a weekly e-mailed newsletter and a quarterly print edition, and an established thrice-weekly regional newspaper. Neither publisher belonged to a major newspaper group.

In hindsight, and acknowledging that an independent online-based newspaper was one of the two profitable online news ventures, the sample population for this case study was perhaps limited in that it was biased towards established newspapers. It can be argued that these newspapers starting websites and populating them with shovelware adds neither structural nor content diversity to Australia’s newspaper 269 industry. A study containing more online-based news operations may provide different data, although, as discussed, there is a dearth of independent online media outlets from which to choose. While literature shows that independent online-based media face resource costs that established media can avoid – through shovelware mainly – and that online news ventures, generally, were yet to generate sustainable revenue, the fact that it was an independent online newspaper that was profitable goes against these arguments. This notwithstanding, the conclusion that the Internet is not generating structural diversity to any extent is supported by the very absence of that diversity.

In this absence, Chapter 6 posited that one way of providing a more pluralist media was to increase content diversity by increasing, via the Internet, the source diversity available to journalists. Addressing the research question’s final component question, the literature reviewed found such diversity was militated by journalists’ established norms and practices, particularly their reliance, even when online, on ‘predominantly white male officials’ as sources (Kurpius, 2002, pp.853-854) and on conventional press releases (Middleberg & Ross, 2000, p.8). Literature also suggested that journalists had a basic distrust of online information, in terms of its credibility, which made them more reliant on their established sources. Journalists were also eschewing online practices that could conceivably enhance content diversity, including online interaction with the public.

However, literature did provide some support for increased source diversity via the Internet. This included specific examples of journalists using online information for mainstream news, weblogs, the Internet’s enhancement of computer assisted reporting and public journalism, the role of the technology in building democracy in developing nations, and online training in formal journalism education. From this literature review a second hypothesis was formed:

270

This hypothesis was tested by a survey of Australian journalists’ Internet use that confirmed (among other things) that the Internet mostly assisted journalists with their traditional tasks rather than enhancing source diversity. Most journalists used the Internet as a preliminary research tool and as a way to check facts. The survey showed journalists’ top five Internet uses were, in descending order, to e-mail work colleagues, to undertake preliminary research, to access media releases from websites, to verify facts and to search other news organisations’ websites. The survey showed journalists accessed major news organisation websites most frequently, followed by government websites, university/research institution websites and corporate/company websites. The least frequently accessed websites were those that could conceivably provide the alternate views demanded by pluralism: online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals. This encouraged a closed circle of information gathering and content publishing, a process that limited rather than promoted content diversity.

The types of websites journalists most frequently accessed broadly reflected the credibility they placed in online information. Major news organisation websites were seen as providing the most credible information. These were followed by university/research institution websites, government websites, independent news websites and political party websites. Websites seen as providing the least credible information were, again, those that hosted online news and current affairs discussion groups and websites set up by private individuals. In terms of interacting with readers, which literature suggested was a viable way of increasing source diversity, the survey found that less than 20 per cent of journalists undertook this activity on a regular basis, while less than 10 per cent said they used this interaction to create or follow up news stories.

The survey, however, also provided results that supported source diversity. It showed, for example, that almost a third of Australian journalists had garnered additional news sources via the Internet. Although nearly half believed online information should be used ‘sparingly’, nearly half were also prepared to accept online information as ‘plausible’ and use it as a news source. Some 60 per cent of the journalists surveyed said they used the Internet to supplement their traditional newsgathering techniques. Enhancing computer assisted reporting, meanwhile, was 271 the fact that the Internet has made journalism ‘easier’ for 90 per cent of Australian journalists. For public journalism, the Internet has allowed more than 40 per cent of journalists to access individuals or groups that they would not otherwise have accessed. Thus, I have concluded that my survey did not uphold the part of the hypothesis that suggested traditional journalists’ distrust of online information limited the amount of source diversity that can be gleaned from the Internet. However, it upheld that established journalism norms and practices can limit potential online source diversity.

The survey’s results for ‘traditional’ newspaper journalists vis-à-vis journalists who have had experience working in the online media environment provide an interesting comparison. The survey showed, for example, that journalists with online media experience consistently used the Internet more productively, in terms of diversity, than newspaper journalists, the largest group of journalists surveyed, or any other journalist grouping. Journalists with online media experience interact online with readers more, participate in online discussion groups more and appear more willing to seek online information from non-traditional sources such as independent news websites and the websites of private individuals or groups.

Journalists with online media experience also represent the group that has most sought to train themselves in online journalism and online media practice, and that most believes the Internet will play an increasingly important role for journalists and news consumers in the future. If this survey is representative of the sum of Australia’s journalists, it suggests only 19 per cent of them presently have this level of online experience. But literature suggested an increasing amount of online journalism is included in formal journalism education, so it may be assumed the number of journalists with online media experience in the workforce will steadily increase. These journalists’ greater acceptance of the Internet as a viable news source should then assist in greater source diversity leading to greater content diversity in Australia’s newspapers, specifically, and news media generally.

Overall, the results of the study undertaken by this thesis show that the answer to the research question is that the Internet has so far delivered little in terms of structural and content diversity in Australia’s newspaper industry. The Internet’s 272 potential to do so remains, however, particularly if independent online-based media ventures find ways to become commercially viable and if journalists adopt the technology as a means of finding more diverse sources.

Implications

The study undertaken by this thesis highlights a number of implications for Australia’s newspaper industry, for media regulation and for media diversity. In terms of Australia’s current newspaper oligopoly, Chapter 2’s newspaper ownership and circulation study supports pluralists’ views that the control four newspaper owners – News Limited, Fairfax and to a lesser extent APN and Rural Press – have over most of Australia’s newspaper markets is unlikely to be challenged in the foreseeable future. The fact that governments are reluctant to enact any recommendations for media reform, or simply cannot agree on what such reform should be, was clearly shown in Chapter 3. This implies that actions to promote pluralism in the nation’s newspaper industry will need to be non-legislative in their approach. It further suggests that future media inquiries need to consider more the ‘non-legislative approaches’ that were included in the Productivity Commission’s terms of reference. Ultimately, most of the Commission’s recommendations were based on legislation, but it did acknowledge that the Internet had a non-legislative role to play in the promotion of media pluralism (Productivity Commission, 2000, p.326).

There are also implications for the definition of diversity used by this thesis. It will be recalled this definition implied a direct link between structural diversity and content diversity by contending the former is necessary for the latter. As shown in Figure 8.1, this diversity model sees a one-to-one correspondence between structural and content diversity and assumes that the way to increase the diversity of views available to the public is to increase the number of media outlets. 273

Figure 8.1 - Diversity model linking structural diversity directly with content diversity

Chapters 4 and 5 continued to use this model, although they argued the Internet, rather than legislation, could increase structural diversity. But the experience of independent and group-owned online news ventures has a serious implication for this model. Internet-based media outlets are unable to generate subscription and advertising revenue to become commercially successful. Reasons for this, related to online news business models, have been discussed, but another issue lies outside these models. This is Internet technology, which itself can limit online subscriptions and advertising.

274

Figure 8.2 - Diversity model showing small Internet audience placing downward pressure, and larger Internet audience placing upward pressure on structural diversity

As shown in Figure 8.2, while Internet access remains both limited and problematic in Australia (see ‘Limitations and further research’ on page 271) the relatively low number of Internet users, compared with users of the established media, maintains a downward pressure on both subscriptions to, and advertising on online news sites, and thus limits the number of these sites. But the Internet is here to stay, not only because it has become a venue for significant commercial activity (Cunningham & Finn, 1996, p.86), but also because it is based on pervasive and economic desktop computer technology. This places it in an entirely different domain to earlier forms of electronic news delivery that required their own specific infrastructure. If we assume that in future general Internet access and speed will improve to broadband standards, then it may also be assumed (as shown in Figure 8.2) that a subsequent increase in Internet audience size will produce an upward pressure on subscriptions and advertising. This will make online-based news ventures more profitable and, therefore, greater in number. 275

The arguments presented in Chapters 6 and 7 move away from the model defined in Figure 8.1. By linking Internet-based source diversity to content diversity it can be shown content diversity can be increased within a fixed media ownership structure, as in Figure 8.3.

Figure 8.3 - Diversity model showing the Internet providing content diversity within a fixed media ownership structure

The success of this model, however, is predicated on journalists’ acceptance of online information as a viable news source. The implication for journalism is that established journalistic norms and practices, which were shown to limit online- supported source diversity, need to be overcome. The discussions in Chapters 6 and 7 suggested journalists graduating from formal journalism education were more likely to embrace the Internet for this purpose, allowing this model to work more in practice as these journalists mature. This process will take time, however. In the short term, the implication for journalism practice is that making online journalism training available to the 81 per cent of Australian journalists who have not had any substantive online experience may be the only way for this model to work.

276

Limitations and further research

One of the enjoyable aspects of my study of the Internet and its impact on Australia’s newspaper industry has been the number of tangential inquiries I have undertaken into various elements of the issues discussed. These all related to the research question in some way and difficult decisions had to be made to leave them out, for reasons of their overall applicability to the research question and hypotheses, or simply for reasons of space. Four of these tangential inquiries have relevance to this thesis and it is germane to mention them to indicate the limits of the thesis and the possibilities for further research.

The first deals with the Internet itself. In writing this thesis I avoided detailed discussions about Internet technology, as I believe it is not necessary for an Internet user to have a deep understanding of how the technology actually works. I have often told delegates at journalism and public relations forums that: ‘You don’t have to know how to spell HTML to use HTML’. But Internet technology does play a part in the success or otherwise of online ventures. As I prepared this thesis for submission, for example, a brouhaha erupted over Telstra Corporation’s Big Pond Internet service that ground almost to a halt under a barrage of virus-based e-mail spam, posing enormous difficulties for businesses that had a commercial reliance on the service (Dudley, 2003, p.8). Apologising to Big Pond customers, Telstra chief executive Ziggy Switkowski said Telstra realised the technology was ‘mission critical’ for its customers and it had to operate at ‘industrial strength’ (Nicholas, 2003, p.18).

But an industrial strength Internet seems a while away. Literature shows that users often face considerable difficulties with the technology. A Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation report, for example, said problems with online communications links to rural Australia, particularly, would continue ‘for some time’ (Groves, 2001, p.1). The report based this assertion on current and projected data transmission speeds for Australian telecommunication lines. The metropolitan standard transmission speed was 28.8 kilobytes per second (kbps) in 2000. At this speed, a Web page can take more than 60 seconds to download. Outside metropolitan Australia, transmission speeds drop to 9.6 kbps, more than 277 doubling downloading time (Groves, 2000, p.1). Location is no guarantee of access speed, however. Some new housing estates in Brisbane, for example, are cabled with standard twisted-pair wire, where Internet connection speeds cannot exceed the 28.8 kbps capacity of that particular cabling (Lewis, 2001b, p.5). The Federal Government’s 2002 Telstra Inquiry found ‘an unsurprisingly clear signal that [Internet] services in regional Australia are widely considered inadequate’ and that most complaints to the inquiry revolved ‘around data speed’ (McGrath, 2002). These difficulties are alluded to in this thesis.

Internet technology (or the lack of it) also impacts adversely on readers’ ability to use online news services to their maximum potential. Bardoel and Deuze (2001), for example, said the media’s use of online multimedia is limited by bandwidth problems (p.95). These limitations are highlighted when it is realised that ‘heavy’ Web pages, those with moving images and sound, can take more than a minute to download at the metropolitan standard Internet speed (Lewis, 2001b, p.5). How might a user react to this? According to McGovern (2003), most users will abandon attempts to log on to a website in seconds rather than minutes. This has an impact on the commercial sustainability of online news sites in terms of their ability to garner and retain a reader base sufficient to maintain advertising revenue. My research on this issue was published in the academic journal eJournalist, but most of it did not make the final version of this thesis.

Secondly, there is a specific field of study on the way users ‘read’ documents on the Internet, notably led by online researchers Steve Outing and Jakob Nielsen. Nielsen (1997), in a seminal and much used online paper examining how users read on the Web, said succinctly that they did not. ‘Nielsen’s first law,’ he said, ‘is that users don’t read it’ (Neilsen, 1997). Nielsen (1997) said Web surveys had shown ‘over and over again’ that users preferred documents in hard-copy format, even if these were downloaded from the Internet itself. He said online content producers needed to write specifically for the Web (Nielson, 1997), something my research has shown online newspapers generally do not do (see Chapter 5).

It is argued that online newspapers need to lose their proclivity for shovelware and generate more online-specific content. But what constitutes the most 278 appropriate writing style for this content? If models of ‘reader-based writing’ are followed, then it becomes important to understand online newspaper readers’ requirements. In the early stages of my PhD I became interested in this aspect of online journalism practice and had designed a case study based on my family’s weekly newspaper to identify how readers ‘read’ newspaper websites. This study had progressed to the stage of building a fully operational Guardian website and designing a user/reader survey. But other case studies overtook this and ultimately this study was not pursued. In terms of how online newspapers might successfully cater for their readers, especially at a time when subscription-based news websites are being considered more (see Chapters 4 and 5), such a study would have value.

Chapters 6 and 7 argued that increasing journalists’ source diversity was one way of increasing content diversity within Australia’s limited newspaper ownership structure. This argument is valid, but it is based on a critical assumption – that the editorial policies of the newspaper concerned will allow these alternate views to be published. This is the third issue on which future research could be based. Chapter 3 discussed how journalists could be made, almost subconsciously, to practise self- censorship by reporting what editorial management requires and, by definition, censoring information that conflicts with these policies. I have experienced this in my own employment as a journalist with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (DPI). The DPI actively promotes genetically modified (GM) foods, having invested in GM research and development. But Courier-Mail staff intimated ‘off the record’ that the newspaper had an editorial stance opposed to GM foods and it was unlikely that positive views on the issue would be published.

Similarly, in Chapter 3 it was argued News Limited journalists censored unfavourable news about Ansett Airlines when that company was half-owned by Rupert Murdoch. For this thesis I had undertaken a content analysis of how News Limited and Fairfax newspapers covered one incident related to this, the crash- landing of an Ansett passenger jet at Sydney Airport in October 1994. The analysis showed News Limited newspapers dedicated less than half the editorial space to this news item than did non-News Limited newspapers. News Limited consistently reported the incident in a positive light, to the extent that a letter to the editor in Brisbane’s Courier-Mail suggested News Limited readers’ intelligence had been 279

‘insulted’ by ‘blatant bias’ towards the newspaper owner (Palmer, 1994, p.8). However, for reasons of space, the fact that the incident is now dated, and the fact that Murdoch sold his interests in the airline in 2000, the analysis was not included in the final thesis. But this example, and the DPI experience, suggests that the censorship described in Chapter 3 does occur. In terms of the Internet providing additional content diversity through enhanced source diversity, it would be valuable to map how additional sources garnered online are affected by editorial policies.

And finally, research for this thesis has shown that online news produced by offline newspapers is based on existing newspaper production models. That is, news is gathered and written by journalists and entered into word processing systems (be they PC-based or specialised newspaper systems) as draft news stories. These stories then pass through the traditional editorial process of copy-tasting, sub-editing and publication. From there much of this content is shovelled online. Using this model, the online version of the newspaper remains an addendum to the production process. When discussing this research with advisors and colleagues, one suggested journalists could enter the editorial process at the online stage by entering their news copy directly into Web publishing software.60 This is similar to word processing software in many respects and would allow traditional sub-editing to occur. Under this model, news content can be simultaneously edited and placed online while being prepared for offline publication. The model reverses the traditional news production process and, in doing so, has journalists by definition preparing copy for online as well as offline readership. It also places online news production within the editorial process itself.

My research on Australian newspaper websites has shown that at least one newspaper proprietor, while not fully moving to the model suggested above, is leveraging online processes to make his offline processes more economic and efficient. Erwin Chlanda, owner/editor of the weekly Alice Springs News, credited the Internet as the reason he was able to set up and successfully maintain his newspaper (which, he said, was the only competition for News Limited in the Northern Territory). Chlanda said his newspaper’s website drew in additional

60 A work colleague, Chris Bragg, whose expertise lies outside the news media, suggested this. 280 revenue, particularly from US companies connected with the nearby Pine Gap military facility, and helped support a television production company that he also owned. Chlanda used the Internet in almost every production phase for both the online and offline editions of his newspaper, decentralising his news gathering tasks and undertaking production processes offshore to gain efficiencies. This included artwork produced in India. He claimed: ‘It’s easy to run a website because the entire paper is electronic. Everything is digital’ and added: ‘Without computers and without e-mail we wouldn’t exist’.61 Chlanda’s highly positive experience with the Internet is unique in the newspapers I surveyed and deserves further research. Further research on news production models that focus on online rather than traditional offline news production processes would also be valuable.

61 Quotes taken from survey responses. 281

References

Ali, R. (2003, January 6). If they mated in 2003: The year the weblogs got hitched. paidContent.org. Retrieved April 16, 2003, from www.paidcontent.org/stories/blogmna.html

Alston, R. (2002, March 21). Modernising Australia’s media ownership laws. Retrieved April 14, 2002, from www.richardalston.dcita.gov.au

Alves, R.C. (2001). The future of online journalism: mediamorphosis or mediacide? Info - The journal of policy, regulation and strategy for telecommunications, 3 (1), 63-72.

Arant, M.D., & Anderson, J.Q. (2001). Newspaper online editors support traditional standards. Newspaper Research Journal, 22 (4), 57-69.

Armstrong, M. (1992). Media ownership: New issues and old remedies. Communications Law Bulletin, 12 (2), 3-4.

Astor, D. (2002). Web-based agency shows net gains. Editor & Publisher, 135 (23), 25.

Auh, T. S. (2000). Online journalism: Challenges and opportunities. Media Asia, 27 (3), 129-133.

Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2002). Trades Practices Act 1974. Retrieved 7 April, 2002, from www.austlii.edu.au

Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. (1991). Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 5 (46), 1208-1258.

282

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2002). About the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Retrieved April 7, 2002, from www.accc.gov.au/about/fs-about.htm

Australian Key Centre For Cultural And Media Policy. (1999a). Submission To The Productivity Commission Inquiry Into Broadcasting (pp.1-22). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Australian Key Centre For Cultural And Media Policy. (1999b). Supplementary submission to Productivity Commission Inquiry into Broadcasting on matters relating to content regulation for pay TV, advertising and the transmission quota (pp.1-5). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Australian Journalists Association Victoria Branch. (1991). Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 9 (100), 1964-1991.

Australian Journalists Association. (1991a). Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 4 (35), 737-876.

Australian Journalists Association. (1991b, October). Bosses rapped: Charter ‘saves independence’. The Journalist, p.1.

Australian Press Council. (2000). About the Council and its Website. Retrieved 8 February 2000 from www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apc.html

Australian Press Council. (1999). Submission from the Australian Press Council to the Productivity Commission (pp.1-17). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Australian Press Council. (1991). Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 6 (57), 1309-1387.

283

Bacon, W. (1999). What is a journalist in a university? Media International Australia, (90), 79-90.

Bagdikian, B. (2000). The Media Monopoly (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Bardoel, J., & Deuze, M. (2001). ‘Network journalism’: Converging competencies of old and new media professionals. Australian Journalism Review, 23 (2), 91- 103.

Barr, T. (2002, August 8). Letting journalism off the leash. ABC Radio National. Retrieved August 18, 2002, from www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/stories/s641572.htm

Barr, T. (2000). newmedia.com.au. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Barringer, F. (1999, December 13). On Wall Street, newspaper companies make a comeback, partly on the strength of the Internet. The New York Times, p.17.

Bellas, A., Downing, L., Downing, T., & Taylor, T.J. (1985). Insight into Economics (Book 1), McGraw-Hill Book Company Australia Pty Limited, Roseville, NSW.

Berger, G. (2002). Theorizing the media-democracy relationship in southern Africa. Gazette: The Internetional Journal for Communication Studies, 64 (1), 21- 45.

Bogle, D. (2001, August 15). Advertisers stay offline. The Australian, p.15.

Bolton, R. (1986). The problems of making political television: A practitioner’s perspective. In P. Golding, G. Murdoch, & P. Schlesinger (Eds.), Communicating politics: Mass communication and the political process (pp.93-112). New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc. 93-112.

284

Bowman, D. (1991a). Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 2 (25), 304-317.

Bowman, D. (1991b). A long winter of fudged politics. Australian Society, August 1991, 22-23.

Bowman, D. (1988). The captive press. Ringwood, Vic.: Penguin Books Australia Ltd.

Bowman, D. (1987). Murdoch’s monopoly. Australian Society, 6 (1), 33-34.

Branigan, T. (1998). How will new media affect television. Media International Australia, (86), 54-62.

Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces, 33 (4), 326-335.

Brenchley, F. (1999, February 2). The new media war. The Bulletin, pp.32-33.

Brill, A.M. (2001). Online journalists embrace new marketing function. Newspaper Research Journal, 22 (2), 28-40.

British voice for Baghdad blogger. (2003, June 19). The Australian [Media supplement], p.7.

Brown, A. (1991). Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 1 (14), 112-141.

Buchanan, B. (2001, April). Back to the future. The Walkley, p.13.

Bulauitan, J. C. (2000, August 4). We @re online: New media for the new economy: A web of possibilities. Businessworld. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from the LexisNexis Academic Database.

285

Burton, T. (2001, April). Always a price. The Walkley, p.15.

Butler, B. (1998). Information subsidies, journalism routines and the Australian media: Market liberalization versus marketplace of ideas. Prometheus, 16 (1), 27-45.

Butler, G. (1999, February 16). One.Tel: Packer, Murdoch deal. The Australian Financial Review, p.1, p.20.

Caughey, B. (1994). Become indispensable or die. Editor and Publisher, 127 (12), 12-52.

Chadwick, P. (1994a). Print media: Challenges ahead. Communications Update, (96), 23-24.

Chadwick, P. (1994b). Print media inquiry: First impressions mixed. Communications Update, (100), 16.

Chadwick, P. (1992a). Print media inquiry treads so lightly it makes no impression. Media Information Australia, (65), 44-52.

Chadwick, P. (1992b). Print media report languishes. Communications Update, (77), 3.

Chadwick, P. (1992c). The print media inquiry. Communications Law Bulletin, 12 (1), 1-2.

Chadwick, P. (1990). Forum: Foreign ownership of the media. Communications Law Bulletin, 10 (3), 5-12.

Chadwick, P. (1989). Media mates: Carving up Australia’s media. Melbourne: The Macmillan Company of Australia Pty Ltd.

286

Chadwick, P. (1987). Journalists, their owners and disasters of 1986-7. Australian Journalism Review, 9 (1&2), 4-11.

Chalaby, J.K. (1998). The media and the formation of the public sphere in the new independent states. Innovation, 11 (1), 73-85.

China starts research on online journalism. (2000, May 11). Xihua News Agency. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from the LexisNexis Academic Database.

Chomsky, N. (2001). September 11. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Chung, C. (1994, October 11). More power to press watchdog: report. The Courier- Mail, p.16.

Clark, P. (2000). Keeping an eye open. The Walkley Magazine Summer 2000 Yearbook, p.22.

Cohen, E.L. (2002). Online journalism as market-driven journalism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46 (4), 532-548.

Cohen-Almagor, R. (1999). Ethical boundaries to media coverage. Australian Journal of Communication, 26 (2), 11-34.

Cole, P. (2001). What chance serious debate in the modern media? Aslib Proceedings, 53 (4), 124-129.

Collins, L. (1999, January 15). Media switched on for year of change. The Courier- Mail, p.43.

Collins, L. (2002, April 2). News to make headlines with huge loss. The Australian Financial Review, p.14.

Collins, L., & Lewis, S. (1999, March 25). Packer pushes for easier media laws. The Australian Financial Review, p.3. 287

Collins, R. (1992). Public service broadcasting and freedom. Media Information Australia, (66), 3-15.

Colucci, M. (2002). The impact of the Internet and new technologies on the workplace. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Colvin, G. (1999, October 25). What Internet revolution? Fortune, p.370.

Colvin, M. (2002, May 22). Interview with Brian Toohey on media diversity, PM. Sydney: ABC.

Communications Law Centre. (2002a). Submission to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee. Retrieved June 6, 2002, from www.comslaw.org.au

Communications Law Centre. (2002b). Media ownership update. Communications Update, (164), 22-26.

Communications Law Centre. (2000). Media ownership update. Communications Update, (162), 22-24.

Communications Law Centre. (1999a). Media ownership update. Communications Update, (151), 22-24.

Communications Law Centre. (1999b). Submission to the Productivity Commission Review of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and associated Licence Fees Acts (pp. 1-38). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Communications Law Centre. (1998). Media ownership update. Communications Update, (140), 24-28.

Communications Law Centre. (1997). Media ownership update. Communications Update, (129), 22-26.

288

Communications Law Centre. (1996). Media ownership update. Communications Update, (118), 18-22.

Communications Law Centre. (1995). Media ownership update. Communications Update, (107), 20-24.

Communications Law Centre. (1993). Media pluralism and concentration. Communications Update, (87), 8-9.

Communications Law Centre. (1992). Another look at the Press Council. Communications Update, (83), 6-7.

Communications Law Centre. (1991). Packer: Quotable quotes. Communications Update, (72), 5.

Communications Law Centre. (1988). From the archives. Communications Update, (140), 32.

Computer course for scribes launched. (2001, July 18). The Times of India. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from the LexisNexis Academic Database.

Concise Oxford Dictionary (7th ed.). (1985). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cowen, N. (2001). The future of the British broadsheet newspaper on the World Wide Web. Aslib Proceedings, 53 (5), 189-200.

Crosbie, V. (2002a, December 9). The need for better reports of online consumer content spending. The Poynter Institute. Retrieved December 11, 2002, from www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=12581

Crosbie, V. (2002b, July 26). Web editions don’t cannibalize print, and aid single- copy sales. The Poynter Institute. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from www.poynter.org/tidbits/2002_07_21_tidbitsarchive.htm#85286276

289

Cryle, D. (2001). Media ownership and the Productivity Commission. eJournalist, 1 (1), 1-15.

Cryle, D. (1998). Niche markets or monopolies? Regional media, government policy and the cross media review. Media International Australia, (88), 79-88.

Cunningham, S., & Romano, A. (2000). W(h)ither media influence? Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, (95), 19-27.

Cunningham, S., & Finn, M. (1996). Media theory and the Internet. Media International Australia, (80), 84-92.

Cunningham, S. (1994). Diversity: Rhetoric & Reality. In J. Schultz (Ed.), Not just another business: Journalists, citizens and the media (pp.115-129). Leichardt, NSW: Pluto Press Australia Limited.

Curran, J. (1991). Mass media and democracy. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp.82-117). London: Edward Arnold.

Day, M. (2003, May 15). G-G makes pre-emptive strike. The Australian, p.6.

Day, M. (2002, October 4). Illusory inclusiveness. The Australian. Retrieved 4 October, 2002, from http://australianit.news.com.au/print_page/0,2865,2969562%5E442,00.html

Delli Carpini, M.X., Keeter, S., & Kennamer, J.D. (1994). Effects of the news media environment on citizen knowledge of state politics and government. Journalism Quarterly, 71 (2), 443-456.

Deuze, M. (2001a). Educating ‘new’ journalists: Challenges to the curriculum. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 56 (1), 4-17.

Deuze, M. (2001b). Understanding the impact of the Internet: On new media professionalism, mindsets and buzzwords. eJournalist, 1 (1), 1-20. 290

Dibean, W., & Garrison, B. (2001). How six online newspapers use Web technologies. Newspaper Research Journal, 22 (2), 80-93.

Dodd, A. (2002a, April 4). The dairy. The Australian [Media supplement], p.2.

Dodd, A. (2002b, March 28). Keating blasts media proposals. The Australian [Media supplement], p.3.

Dodd, A. (2002c, March 28). One owner, two news outlets. The Australian [Media supplement], p.3.

Douglas, P. (1999, October 11). Internet shapes public policy. PR News, p.1.

Drobesh, D. (1997, September). Fletcher buys Australian company. Pulp & Paper, p.21.

Dudley, J. (2003, October 15). Surge in e-mail likely to cause even more delays. The Courier-Mail, p.8.

Duffy, M. (1998, December 7). Rules for a backwater. The Courier-Mail, p.8.

Dunt, E.S., & Harper, I.R. (2002). E-Commerce and the Australian Economy. The Economic Record, 78 (242), 327-342.

Elliott, C.W. (1999). The Asian online newspaper. Media Asia, 26 (3), 123-131.

Eng, P. (2003, March 27). War of words on the Web: Internet sites offer varied views and news. ABC News.com. Retrieved April 16, 2003, from www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/SciTech/iraq_warweb030326.html

Engwall, L. (1978). Newspapers as organisations. Westmead, UK: Saxon House.

Ethics code needs overhaul says Qld study. (1994, Autumn). The Alliance, p.3. 291

Fallows, J. (1999). But is it journalism? The American Prospect, 11 (1), 58-60.

Fitzsimmons, H. (2001, April). Riding the boom and bust. The Walkley, pp.16-17.

Flew, T. (1999). Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Australian Broadcasting (pp.1-12). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Flew, T. (1991). Foreign ownership and Australian content: Do they matter? Media Information Australia, (62), 22-30.

Gans, H.J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books.

Garnham, N. (1986). The media and the public sphere. In P. Golding, G. Murdock, & P. Schlesinger (Eds.), Communicating politics: Mass communication and the political process (pp.37-53). New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc.

Gee, K. (1989). What ails the media – a lawyer’s view. Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch, (9), 8-11.

Giles, B. (2002, January 26). Era of web technology and journalism today. The Independent. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from the LexisNexis Academic Database.

Gluyas, R. (1999, March 24). Packer family now backs foreign ownership. The Australian, p.1, p.25.

Golding, P., & Murdock, G. (1991). Culture, communications, and political economy. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp.15-32). London: Edward Arnold.

Groves, J. (2000), Web sites for rural Australia: Designing for accessibility, Barton, ACT: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. 292

Hall, J. (2001). Online journalism: A critical primer. London: Pluto Press.

Ham, P. (2000, June 22). It’s Really The Message, Mate, Not The Medium. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from the LexisNexis Academic Database.

Hammond, S.C., Petersen, D., & Thomsen, S. (2000). Print, broadcast and online convergence in the newsroom. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 55 (2), 16-26.

Hannon, K. (1998, December 4). Media ownership limits attacked by law authors. The Courier-Mail, p.4.

Hardt, H. (1993). Authenticity, communication, and critical theory. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10 (1), 49-69.

Hargreaves, I. (1999, September 13). Are electronic newspapers just a load of bullshit.com? New Statesman, p.51.

Harmon, A. (2003, January 14). Resignation may help ground a visionary medium. The New York Times. Retrieved January 16, 2003, from www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/business/media/14ONLI.html?todaysheadlines

Hartley, J. (1996). Popular reality: journalism, modernity, popular culture. London: Arnold.

Haslam, B. (2002, December 11). High Court threatens net’s liberty. Australian IT. Retrieved March 9, 2003, from http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/ 0,7204,5654113%5e15318%5e%5enbv%5e15306,00.html

Hattam, G. (1991). Print media ownership. Communications Law Bulletin, 11 (1), 4- 5.

293

Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of Interactivity for Communication Research. In J. Salvaggio, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use (pp.217-235). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Henderson, G. (1995, October 17). Playing media power games. The Age, p.13.

Henderson, G. (1991). The media inquiry - a victory for the interventionists. Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch, (18), 3-10.

Henderson, G. (1989). The nine myths of Murdochphobia. In J. Henningham (Ed.), Issues in Australian journalism (pp.199-207). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty Limited.

Henderson, I. (2002, March 22). Plan to regulate the press. The Australian, p.1.

Henningham, J. (1996). The shape of daily news: A content analysis of Australia’s metropolitan newspapers. Media International Australia, (79), 22-39.

Higgins, D. (2001, April). Online breathing space. The Walkley, 12-13.

Hiler, J. (2002, April 11). Are bloggers journalists? On the rise of amateur journalism and the need for a blogging code of ethics. Microcontent Web. Retrieved December 4, 2002, from www.microcontentnews.com/articles/bloggingjournalism.htm

Hippocrates, C. (1999). Public journalism: The media’s intellectual journey. Media International Australia, (90), 65-78.

Hippocrates, C., & Cunningham, S. (1991). Treading the regulation tightrope. Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 8 (80), 1733-1753.

294

Hopkins, N., Burke, F., & Romei, S. (2000, January 11). Giants wed in $525b deal. The Australian, p.1.

Horne, D. (1994). A Marketplace of Ideas? In J. Schultz (Ed.), Not just another business: Journalists, citizens and the media (pp.7-10). Leichardt, NSW: Pluto Press Australia Limited.

House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. (1992). News & fair facts. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Howard, P. (2001). Dot coms. Dead in the water. Australian CPA, 71 (10), 16-17.

Huesca, R. (2000). Reinventing journalism curricula for the electronic environment. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 55 (2), 4-15.

Hughes, P. (1997). Can governments weather the storm in the new communications climate? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56 (4), 78-86.

Hughes, S. (2002, March 27). PBL updated News on One.Tel, court told. The Australian, p.7.

Hulteng, J.L., & Nelson, R.P. (1971). The fourth estate: An informal appraisal of the news and opinion media. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Hurst, J. (1991). Journalistic objectivity and subjectivity in news reporting and news selection. Australian Journalism Review, 13 (1&2), 23-30.

Hyland, A. (2002, April 4). Jury’s out on News Corp’s China battle. The Australian Financial Review, p.20.

Innovation International Media Consulting Group. (2002). An international survey: re-examining the web business model. Retrieved October 15, 2002, from www.innovacion.com/english/eng_report2002.htm

295

Jackson, S. (2002a, October 17). Crikey! It’s lasted 1000 days. The Australian, p.3.

Jackson, S. (2002b, September 19). In for long haul, but jury’s out on Hilmer. The Australian, p.7.

Jarrah, F. (1997, February 6). Internet opens fresh platform for journalists to experiment. South China Morning Post, p.18.

Jenkins, C. (2003). Private lives, public interest: Did we need to know about the Kernot/Evans affair? Australian Studies in Journalism, (12), 48-63.

Katz, J. (1999). The future is the Net. Media Studies Journal, 13 (2), 14-15.

Kelly, K. J. (2003, March 27). Free EW, People web sites are history. New York Post. Retrieved March 31, 2003, from www.nypost.com/business/71936.htm

Keshvani, N. (2001). Trends in the Online Newsroom: A Study of the Straits Times Interactive. AsiaPacific MediaEducator, (9), 106-118.

Ketterer, S. (2001). Links engage readers of online crime stories. Newspaper Research Journal, 22 (2), 2-13.

Kidman, A. (2002, July 25). War of the websites at News, Fairfax. The Australian. Retrieved July 25, 2002, from www.australianit.com.au

Kimber, S. (1997). The message is (still) the medium: The newspaper in the age of cyberspace. Information Processing & Management, 33 (5), 595-597.

Kingston, M. (1999, August). Holding The Line. The Walkley, pp.33-34.

Kirkpatrick, D.D. (2002, October 16). AOL says it will eliminate some of its pop-up ads. The New York Times. Retrieved October 17, 2002, from www.nytimes.com/2002/10/16/technology/16AOL.html?todaysheadlines

296

Kirsner, S. (1997). The breaking news dilemma. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved October 2, 2002, from www.cjr.org/year/97/6/breaking.asp

Kitney, D. (2002, March 22). Lachlan Murdoch lashes monopoly claims. The Australian Financial Review, p.1.

Kohut, A. (2002). Young people are reading everything but newspapers. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved August 11, 2002, from www.cjr.org/year/02/4/kohutvoice.asp

Kurpius, D.D. (2002). Sources and civic journalism: Changing patterns of reporting. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79 (4), 853-866.

Lane, A. (1998). The message or the media. Communication World, (August/September), pp.30-35.

Lasica, J.D. (2002, September 24). When bloggers commit journalism. Online Journalism Review. Retrieved April 16, 2003, from www.ojr.org/ojr/lasica/1032910520.php

Lavelle, C. (2002, July). Digital delivery: The next generation. Newspaper Association of America. Retrieved August 25, 2002, from www.naa.org/TheDigitalEdge/DigArtPage.cfm?AID=4325

Lawe Davies, C. (1999). Journalism, corporatism, democracy. Media International Australia, (90), 53-64.

Leadbeater, C. (2001, December 2). The internet’s way forward. FT.com. Retrieved December 2, 2001, from http://specials.ft.com/creativebusiness/FT3XAQN4RUC.html

Lewis, K. (2002). Deliberating on diversity: Australia’s Print Media Inquiry and the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Broadcasting. Australian Journal of Communication, 29 (3), 31-42. 297

Lewis, K. (2001a). Pluralism in the Australian print media. AsiaPacific Media Educator, (11), 100-112.

Lewis, K. (2001b). The Internet: Not the “be-all-and-end-all” for government public relations. eJournalist, 1 (1), 1-8.

Lewis, K. (1998). Barriers to entry: An assumption is challenged. Australian Journalism Review, 20 (1), 153-165.

Lewis, S. (2002, June 19). Media reforms on the scrapheap. The Australian, p.1.

Littlemore, S. (1993). Our media: What is good for Australia probably is not good for business. Communications Law Bulletin, 13 (1), 14-15.

Lohr, S. (2003, January 14). Slowed by a flawed new media idea, AOL hopes for comeback. The New York Times. Retrieved January 16, 2003, from www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/business/media/14AOL.html

Loo, E., & Beng, Y. S. (1998). Cyber-colonialism in Asia: More imagined than real? Media Asia, 25 (3), 130-153.

Lowrey, W. (1999). From map to machine. Newspaper Research Journal, 20 (4), 14- 27.

Lunn, H. (2001). Working for Rupert. Sydney: Hodder.

MacDougall, C.D. (1963). Newsroom problems and policies. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Mackenzie, K. (2003, March 27). Internet wins the info battle. The Australian [Media section], p.5.

298

Macphee, I. (1990). Three years on: Australia’s print media since the Herald and Weekly Times takeover. Media Information Australia, (55), 35-38.

Maguire, T. (2002, June 19). Cross-media laws ‘should be relaxed’. The Courier- Mail. Retrieved June 19, 2002, from www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/ common/story_page/ 5936,4539280%255E421,00.html

Mariano, G. (2001, October 15). Pop-up ads influence Web traffic numbers. The New York Times. Retrieved October 16, 2001, from www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_0-10005-200-7532261.html

Marshall, P.D. (1997). The commodity and the internet: Interactivity and the generation of the audience commodity. Media International Australia, (83), 51-62.

Marshall, P.D., Luckman, S., & Smith, S. (1998). Promotional desires: Popular media’s presence on the Internet. Media International Australia, (86), 63-76.

Massey, B. L. (2000). Market-based predictors of interactivity at Southeast Asian online newspapers. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 10 (3), 227-237.

Massey, B. L., & Levy, M. R. (1999). Interactivity, online journalism, and English- language web newspapers in Asia. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76 (1), 138-151.

Mathews, R., Burns, C., Walker, S., & Chadwick, P. (1991). Victorian inquiry into print media ownership. Communications Law Bulletin, 11 (2), 12-14.

Mathieson, C., & Burke, F. (1999, February 16). Murdoch, Packer buy into One.Tel, The Australian, p.21.

Mayne, S. (2001, April). In cyberspace everyone can hear you gossip. The Walkley, pp.24-25. 299

McAllister, M. P., & Turow, J. (2002). New media and the commercial sphere: Two intersecting trends, five categories of concern. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46 (4), 505-514.

McClave, J.T., & Benson, G. (1989). A first course in business statistics (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Dellen Publishing Company.

McCracken, H. (1999, December). How the web was spun. PC World, pp.138-139.

McGovern, G. (2003, March 18). Simplicity in information architecture design: How to design a simple, yet robust information architecture. Computer training conference: Brisbane.

McGrath, C. (2002, October 1). Inquiry submissions reveal Telstra services still inadequate [Radio broadcast] AM, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

McGuire, P.A. (2002, July). Media analysts describe positive shift in newspapers’ online business strategy. Newspaper Association of America. Retrieved August 16, 2002, from www.naa.org/artpage.cfm?AID=4341&SID=92

McIntyre, P. (2002, August 15). Monster warning to papers. The Australian. Retrieved August 15, 2002, from www.australianit.com.au

McManus, J. (1995). A market-based model of news production. Communication Theory, 5 (4), 301-338.

McQuail, D. (1987). Mass communication theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

McQuail, D. (1976). Review of sociological writing on the press. Royal Commission on the Press. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

300

Mealey, R. (2002, September 17). Big companies upset at current media laws. ABC News Online. Retrieved September 25, 2002, from www.abc.net.au/pm/s678823.htm

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (2003, Autumn). Internet defamation. The Walkley, p.6.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (2002a, Autumn). Digital burden gets no reward at AAP. The Walkley, p.20.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (2002b, Autumn). News Ltd closes afternoon editions. The Walkley, p.20.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (2001, April). Pushing the boundaries. The Walkley, p.8.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (1999a). Submission By The Media Entertainment And Arts Alliance To The Productivity Commission Review Of Broadcasting Legislation (pp. 1-18). [Submission 2]. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (1999b). Submission By The Media Entertainment And Arts Alliance To The Productivity Commission Review Of Broadcasting Legislation (pp. 1-36). [Submission 1]. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (1996, Autumn). What the parties have on offer. The Alliance, pp.2-3.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (1994, Autumn). Senate enquiry into foreign ownership of the media. The Alliance, p.2.

Media group defends takeover. (2003, October 27). The Australian, p.19.

301

Meyer, E. K. (1996). The 10 Myths of Online Publishing. American Journalism Review. Retrieved August 15, 2002, from http://newslink.org/emco13.html

Middleberg, D., & Ross, S.S. (2002). The Middleberg/Ross media survey: Change and its impact on communications (8th annual national survey). Middleberg Euro RSCG: New York.

Middleberg, D. & Ross, S.S. (2000). The Middleberg/Ross survey of media in the wired world (7th annual national survey). Middleberg Euro RSCG: New York.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Miller, D. (1999, December). The birth of the internet. PC World, p.137.

Milne, G. (2002). Seven Sunrise [Television program]. Brisbane: Channel 7.

Mings, S., & White, P.B. (2000). Profiting from online news: The search for viable business models. In B. Kahin & H.R. Varian (Eds.), Internet publishing and beyond: The economics of digital information and intellectual property (pp.62-96). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Mings, S., & White, P. B. (1997). Making money from the Web? Business models for online news. (Business brief 1). Melbourne: La Trobe University.

Morgan, P. (1989). Patrick Morgan on Paul Chadwick. Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch, (10), 15-17.

Morris, P. (1996). Newspapers and the new information media. Media International Australia, (79), 10-21.

Morton, J. (1999). Untapped cash discovered by online papers. American Journalism Review, 21 (9), 80-81. 302

Moses, L. (2002). Youth must be served...but how? Editor & Publisher, 135 (22), 12-14.

National Office for the Information Economy. (2001). Homepage of the National Office for the Information Economy. Retrieved May 17, 2001, from www.noie.gov.au

Nerone, J.C. (1995). Last rights: Revisiting four theories of the press. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Newport, F., & Saad, L. (1998). A matter of trust. American Journalism Review, 20 (6), 30-33.

News Limited. (2000). Comments On The Draft Report Of The Productivity Commission Inquiry Into Australian Broadcasting Legislation (pp.1-4). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

News Limited. (1999). A submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry Into Australian Broadcasting Legislation (pp.1-21). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

News Limited. (1991a). News Limited Part II. Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 7 (75), 1526-1701.

News Limited. (1991b). Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 2 (27), 329-441.

Nicholas, K. (2003, October 22). BigPond’s dewormed: Switkowski. The Australian Financial Review, p.18.

Nielsen, J. (1997). How users read on the Web. Retrieved March 28, 2000, from www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html 303

NUA Internet Surveys. (2002, September 11). How Many Online? Retrieved September 15, 2002, from www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/

Obijiofor, L., & Green, K. (2001). New technologies and the future of newspapers. Asia Pacific Media Educator, (11), 88-99.

Officer, R.R. (1991). An economic overview of concerns on the print media. In News Limited Part II, (1991). Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media, Print Media Inquiry, 7 (75), 1526-1701.

Online newspapers and consumer behavior (2002). Editor & Publisher Online. Retrieved July 9, 2002, from www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/ search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1536242

Online Publishers Association. (2002, August 1). Online Paid Content: U.S. Market Spending Report. Retrieved August 18, 2002, from www.comscore.com/news/cs_opa_study_080102.htm

Outing, S. (2004a, January 8). One dollar forward, four dollars back. The Poynter Institute. Retrieved January 13, 2004, from www.poynter.org/ column.asp?id=31&aid=58988

Outing, S. (2004b, January 12). The bloggers on the bus. The Poynter Institute. Retrieved January 13, 2004, from www.poynter.org/ column.asp?id=31&aid=59171

Outing, S. (2002a, August 2). Syndicates branch out digitally. The Poynter Institute. Retrieved August 3, 2002, from www.poynter.org/tidbits/2002_07_28_tidbitsarchive.htm#85308419

Outing, S. (2002b, December 17). Are pop-ups defendable? The Poynter Institute. Retrieved April 16, 2003, from www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=14237 304

Outing, S. (2002c, March 27). USC J-school to teach convergence to all. Editor & Publisher Online. Retrieved August 1, 2002, from www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/features_columns/article_display.jsp ?vnu_content_id=1448331

Ozawa, R. K. (2001, August 4). Journal vs. weblog. Diarist.net. Retrieved April 16, 2003, from www.diarist.net/guide/blogjournal.shtml

Pack, T. (1999). Can you trust Internet information? Link Up, 16 (6), 24.

Packer sells out of Fairfax – “rivers of gold lose their glitter”. (2001, July 20). The Australian, p.1.

Palmer, R. (1994, October 25). Ansett report shows bias. [Letter to the editor]. The Courier-Mail, p.8.

Pastore, M. (1999, July 16). Newspaper sites cut into other media. Editor & Publisher Online. Retrieved August 11, 2002, from http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/traffic_patterns/article/0,1323,5931 _156111,00.html

Patrick, A. (2002, March 22). Ownership bill faces rough time in the Senate. The Australian Financial Review, p.10.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pavlik, J. V. (1997). The future of online journalism: A guide to who’s doing what. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved October 22, 2002, from www.cjr.org/year/97/4/online.asp

PBL sets course for future. (2001, July 20). The Australian, p.1.

305

Pearson, M., & Brand, J. (2001). Sources of news and current affairs. Sydney: Bond University/Australian Broadcasting Authority.

Perry, C. (1993). A structured approach to presenting PhD theses: Notes for candidates and their supervisors. Unpublished document, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Petelin, R., & Durham, M. (1992). The professional writing guide: Writing well and knowing why. Melbourne: Longman Professional.

Peterson, T. (1956). The social responsibility theory of the press. In F.S. Siebert, T. Peterson, & W. Schramm (Eds.), Four theories of the press (pp.73-103). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Phelan, M. (1995, March 10). Cable TV giant launched. The Courier-Mail, p.1.

Price, M. (2002, March 22). MPs unconvinced of bill’s benefits. The Australian, p.4.

Productivity Commission. (2000). Broadcasting Inquiry Report (Report No. 11). Retrieved June 6, 2001, from www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/broadcst/finalreport/index.html

Publishing and Broadcasting Limited. (1999a). Submission in Response to the Productivity Commission’s Draft Report on Broadcasting Regulation (pp. 1- 13). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Publishing and Broadcasting Limited. (1999b). Submission to the Review of Broadcasting Regulation by the Productivity Commission (pp. 1-29). Canberra.

Putnis, P., & Payne, T. (2000, December). Convergence of regulation: Implications for the press. Paper presented at the Journalism Education Association Conference, Mooloolaba.

306

Quinn, S. (1997). Computer-assisted reporting in Australia: Do we need deeper newsgathering methods? Australian Journalism Review, 19 (1), 77-89.

Reddick, R., & King, E. (1997). The Online Journ@list (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Reese, S. D., & Ballinger, J. (2001). The roots of a sociology of news: Remembering Mr. Gates and social control in the newsroom. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78 (4), 641-658.

Rich, F. (1999, December 4). The strange legacy of Matt Drudge. The New York Times, p.17.

Ries, I. (1999, February 16). Telco rivals linked in a modern marriage. The Australian Financial Review, p.20.

Robins, W. (2001, July 18). Are newspapers ready for digital delivery? Editor & Publisher Online. Retrieved February 8, 2002, from www.mediainfo.com/ephome/news/newshtm/stories/071601n1.htm

Rodgers, S. (1994, June 15). The medium that just won’t die. The Courier-Mail, p.9.

Romano, A. (2001). Inculcating public journalism philosophies into newsroom culture. Australian Journalism Review, 24 (2), 43-62.

Romei, S. (2002, January 31). Angry Murdoch cans NY meeting. The Australian, p.2.

Rosenberg, S. (2002, August 13). The media titans still don’t get it. Salon.com. Retrieved August 16, 2002, from http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/13/media_titans/print.html

Rosenbush, S. (1999, July 12). Media moguls cast Net for profits: Tech titans acknowledge Web’s reach. USA Today, p.1. 307

Rosenkrans, G. (2001). Design considerations for an effective online environment. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 56 (1), 43-61.

Ross, F. J., & Patton, J. P. (2000). The nature of journalism courses devoted to diversity. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 55 (1), 24-39.

Runett, R. (2002, July). Newspaper sites add audience; improve stature as Net marketplace. Newspaper Association of America. Retrieved August 16, 2002, from www.naa.org/TheDigitalEdge/DigArtPage.cfm?AID=4332

Rural Press Limited. (1999). Productivity Commission Broadcasting Services Inquiry Submission on Behalf of Rural Press Limited. (pp. 1-7). Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Salter, D. (2001, April). Adventures in the Net trade. The Walkley, p.23.

Schiller, D. (1986). Transformations of news in the US information market. In P. Golding, G. Murdock, & P. Schlesinger (Eds.), Communicating politics: Mass communication and the political process (pp.19-36). New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc.

Schroeder, C. M. (2002, August 14). The future of news sites is “Content Orbiting”. iwantmedia. Retrieved August 16, 2002, from www.iwantmedia.com/people/people18.html

Schultz, J. (1994). Media convergence and the fourth estate. In J. Schultz (Ed.), Not just another business: Journalists, citizens and the media (pp.15-33). Leighardt, N.S.W.: Pluto Press.

Schultz, J. (1992). Encouraging competition and diversity without offending the monopolists. Media Information Australia, (65), 53-62.

308

Schultz, T., & Voakes, P.S. (1999). Prophets of gloom: Why do newspaper journalists have so little faith in the future of newspapers? Newspaper Research Journal, 20 (2), 23-40.

Schulze, J. (2002a, April 4). Alston sees safe sex for Keating’s princes and queens. The Australian [Media supplement], p.3.

Schulze, J. (2002b, March 22). We’re not dying to buy TV station: Murdoch. The Australian, p.4.

Schulze, J. (2002c, August 19). Fairfax online offer bothers broker. The Australian. Retrieved August 19, 2002, from www.australianit.com.au

Schulze, J. (1999, June 16). PMP buys magazine distributor. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved February 9, 2000, from www.smh.com.au/news/9906/16/text/business18.html

Schulze, J., Dodd, A., & Macfarlane, D. (2002, March 22). Ex-adviser fears an end to diversity. The Australian, p.4.

Select Committee on Information Technologies. (2000). In the public interest: Monitoring Australia’s media. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved October 10, 2002, from www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/it_ctte/selfreg/index.htm

Selirio, G. M. (2001, February 26). Infotech, it’s still the news that matters in old or new media. The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from the LexisNexis Academic Database.

Senior, C., & Smith, M. (1999). The Internet...a possible research tool. The Psychologist, 12 (9), 442-444.

Shachtman, N. (2002a, December 23). Blogs make the headlines. Wired News. Retrieved January 3, 2003, from www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56978,00.html 309

Shachtman, N. (2002b, June 6). Blogging goes legit, sort of. Wired News. Retrieved June 7, 2002, from www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,52992,00.html

Shand, D. (1999, September 27). Web is big news at media companies. The 11th Annual Informationweek 500, pp.225-230.

Siebert, F.S. (1956). The libertarian theory of the press. In F.S. Siebert, T. Peterson, & W. Schramm (Eds.), Four theories of the press (pp.39-71). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Siebert, F.S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Simper, E. (1994, September 9). Walkley winner lashes out at pack mentality. The Australian, p.3.

Simper, E. (1992, March 28-29). Killing the media myths. The Australian, p.17.

Singer, J.B. (2003). Who are these guys? The online challenge to the notion of professional journalism. Journalism: Theory, practice and criticism, 4 (2), 139-163.

Singer, J. B., Tharp, M. P., & Haruta, A. (1999). Online staffers: Superstars or second-class citizens? Newspaper Research Journal, 20 (3), 29-47.

Sparks, C. (2000). From dead trees to live wires: The Internet’s challenge to the traditional newspaper. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (3rd ed.) (pp.268-292). London: Arnold.

Sparks, C. (1992). Popular journalism: theories and practice. In P. Dahlgren and C. Sparks (Eds.), Journalism and popular culture (pp.24-44) London: Sage Publications.

310

Spotlight on political affairs [Editorial]. (2002, July 5). The Courier-Mail, p.16.

Stolz, G. (2002, May 2). Suicide vow renewed. The Courier-Mail, p.3.

Stone, M. (2002, August 15). A time to compare numbers. Online Journalism Review. Retrieved September 25, 2002, from www.ojr.org/ojr/business/1029471539.php

Stroehlein, A. (2002, December 10). Publish here, get sued everywhere. The Poynter Institute. Retrieved May 21, 2003, from www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=12776

Strupp, J. (2002). Calling All Webblies. Editor & Publisher, 135 (25), 7.

Suich, M. (1990). Press independence. Communications Law Bulletin, 10 (2), 1-2.

Super sport: An idea that suits the times [Editorial]. (1995, April 3). The Courier- Mail, p.8.

Sutel, S. (2001, July 18). ABC approves electronic sales of newspapers. Editor & Publisher Online. Retrieved August 2, 2002, from www.mediainfo.com/ephome/news/newshtm/stories/071701n3.htm

Swan, P.L., & Garvey, G. (1992). A response to comments by Allan Brown. Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 16 (161), 3036-3049.

Swan, P.L., & Garvey, G. (1991). Can government intervention into the print media to reduce concentration be justified? Submission to the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media. Print Media Inquiry, 9 (102), 2025-2178.

Taylor, T. L. (1999). Life in virtual worlds. American Behavioural Scientist, 43 (3), 436-449. 311

The Constitutional Centre of Western Australia. (n.d.). Brian Thomas Burke (Labor) February 19, 1983 to February 25, 1988. Retrieved December 18, 2003, from www.ccentre.wa.gov.au/html/prems_governors/premiershtml/ brianburke.html

The Internet changes the way news is gathered. (2003, April 10). The Poynter Institute. Retrieved April 30, 2003, from www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28844

The Media Audit. (2000, April 9). Charging for access doesn’t slow growth of newspaper Web sites. The Media Audit. Retrieved August 25, 2002, from www.themediaaudit.com/charging.htm

The Online Newspaper Directory. (2002). Retrieved 16 August, 2002, from www.onlinenewspapers.com

Thomas, H. (2000, February 26). Body politics. The Courier-Mail, p.23.

Thomas, J. (2000). Liberal machines. American Behavioural Scientist, 43 (9), 1548- 1560.

Tiffen, R. (1989). News and power. Sydney: Allen & Unwin Australia Pty Ltd.

Tuccille, J. (1989). Murdoch: A biography. London: Judy Piatkus (Publishers) Ltd.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The Free Press.

Turner, G. (1999). Submission to the Productivity Commission Broadcasting Inquiry. Canberra: The Productivity Commission.

Turner, G., & Cunningham, S. (1997). The media in Australia today. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The media in Australia: Industries, texts, audiences (2nd ed.) (pp.3-19). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. 312

Tynan, L. (2002, October 18-20). Online journalism: An educational experience. Paper presented at the W4C Creative Web Conference, Hobart. van Niekerk, M. (2001, April). Finding common ground. The Walkley, p.14.

Voakes, P.S., Kapfer, J., Kurpius, D., & Chern, D.S. (1996). Diversity in the news: A conceptual and methodological framework. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73 (3), 582-593.

Ward, M. (2002). Journalism online. Oxford: Focal Press.

White, P.B. (2001). Where the national meets the global: Australia’s Internet censorship policies. In N. Morris & S. Waisbord (Eds.), Media and globalization: Why the state matters (pp.21-34). Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

White, P.B. (1996). On line services: The emerging battle for transactional space. Media International Australia, (79), 3-9.

Williams, D. (2003, January 31). Media giant records staggering loss of $US100,000,000,000. The Courier-Mail, p.27.

Williams, P., & Nicholas, D. (1999). The migration of news to the web. Aslib Proceedings, 51 (4), 122-134.

Wilson, P. (2002, April 11). The Sun sets on monarchy. The Australian [Media supplement], p.7.

Wimmer, R.D., & Dominick, J.R. (1991). Mass media research: An introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

313

Windschuttle, K. (1988). The media (3rd ed.). Ringwood, Vic.: Penguin Books.

Wu, H. D., & Bechtel, A. (2002). Web site use and news topic and type. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79 (1), 73-86. Appendices

Appendix 1 A survey of Australian newspapers on the Internet

Appendix 2 Website home pages for the sample population of Australian newspapers

Appendix 3 Australian journalists and the Internet – a nationwide survey

Appendix 1 A survey of Australian newspapers on the Internet by Kieran Lewis Queensland University of Technology CIRAC (Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre) Creative Industries Faculty

Thank you for your time in completing this survey. If you believe a question does not apply to your circumstances, please indicate with "n/a". If you believe an answer to any question can be found on your newspaper's Internet site, feel free to refer me to that site.

YOUR NAME ______

YOUR POSITION/TITLE: ______

YOUR CONTACT PHONE NO.: ______

Introductory questions

1. Who is the owner of your newspaper (company name)?

2. Do you operate an independent publication or is your newspaper a member of a newspaper group? (If a member of a group, please identify the name of that group.)

3. In what year was your newspaper first published?

4. What is your newspaper's current circulation?

5. Is your newspaper a daily or weekly publication? (If other, please specify.)

6. If not a daily publication, what is your newspaper's publication day(s)?

7. Is your newspaper an Internet-only publication?

8. What population centres are covered by your newspaper's circulation area?

9. Is your newspaper a monopoly within your circulation area?

10. If other newspapers publish in your circulation area, how many are there?

Your newspaper's use of the Internet

11. Does all of your newspaper edition appear on your Internet site? If not, which sections do (e.g. news only, or classified advertising only)?

12. What were the aims and objectives of your newspaper moving to the Internet:

For example, was it: • to provide additional services to readers (and if 'yes', what specific services)? • to increase circulation? • to increase advertising revenue? • to keep pace with other newspapers' use of the Internet? • to provide 'portal sites' for other parts of the newspaper group's operations (if applicable) or for other organisations generally? • other aims and objectives?

13. Would you consider having an Internet presence has given you a market-edge over competing newspapers, and if so, what is that edge?

14. What alliances (if any) have been formed with other organisations to facilitate your newspaper's Internet presence?

15. When did your newspaper's Internet site go 'live'?

16. What are the average 'hit' rates for your newspaper's Internet site (if this information is available)?

17. Does your newspaper provide free Internet services, or do you charge a subscription? If subscription-based, what subscription is levied and were Internet services free at some stage?

18. Do you charge for any special newspaper services (e.g. for story/picture searches on your newspaper's Internet site)?

19. Has newspaper circulation increased or decreased for your newspaper since your Internet site's 'go live' date?

News content

20. Are specific staff employed to write news for your newspaper's Internet site(s)?

21. How does news content on the Internet differ from content in the printed version of your newspaper (i.e., is your news cut and pasted from your printed version, or is it re-written for the Internet?)

22. Do the same number of stories feature on both your newspaper's printed version and Internet version (e.g. Brisbane's Courier-Mail sometimes features stories on its Internet site that did not get published in the hard copy of the newspaper).

Advertising

23. Do you display advertisements on your newspaper's Internet site? (If not, please go to question 26.)

24. Are specific staff employed to solicit or write advertising for your newspaper's Internet site?

25. Does advertising content on your newspaper's Internet site differ from content in the printed version of your newspaper (e.g. your site might contain linked banner advertising, or advertisements lifted as an image from the printed version of your newspaper)?

26. In general terms, has advertising revenue increased or decreased for your newspaper since your Internet site's 'go live' date?

Financial

27. What were the costs of setting up your newspaper's Internet site? (If this figure is available, it can be fairly general.)

28. Is your newspaper Internet site considered profitable?

General

29. Does your newspaper offer other "non-news" services through its Internet site (e.g. dating services)?

30. What is your newspaper's future plans for its Internet site?

31. Is it your opinion that operating a newspaper Internet site leads to a diversity of news content? 4

32. In terms of newspaper Internet sites generally, do you believe their value lies in prestige (i.e., a heightened presence for the newspaper title) or in commercial value (i.e., operated specifically to generate income, through advertising or commercial transactions)? If both, which value is considered higher?

33. Are there any other issues that you think are important that this questionnaire does not address?

34. If I need further information re your newspaper's use of the Internet, whom in your company should I contact?

September 2001

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.

Would you like further information?: Kieran Lewis, telephone (07) 32340149 (bus.); (07) 3399 8964 (res.); [email protected].; or write to P.O. Box 241, Morningside, Qld 4170. 1

Appendix 2

Website home pages for the sample population of Australian newspapers

(Shown alphabetically by newspaper title)

Alice Springs News (at www.alicespringsnews.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002)

Bendigo Advertiser (at www.bendigoaddy.com.au, accessed 5 September 2002)

Blaze (at www.blazemedia.com.au, accessed 30 August 2002)

The Burnie Advocate (at www.theadvocate.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002)

The Byron Shire Echo (at www.echo.net.au, accessed 3 September 2002) 4

The Catholic Leader (at http://catholicleader.com.au, accessed 1 September 2002)

The Courier-Mail (at www.thecouriermail.news.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002) 5

Eyre Peninsula Tribune (at www.cleve.yourguide.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002)

The Geraldton Guardian (at www.geraldtonguardian.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002)

The Guardian (at www.cpa.org.au/guardian/guardian.html, accessed 4 September 2002)

N.T. News (at www.news.com.au/nt, accessed 5 September 2002) 7

Newcastle Herald (at www.nnp.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002)

The Northern Daily Leader (at http://tamworth.yourguide.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002) 8

Queensland Business Review (formerly BizReview Queensland, at www.qbr.com.au, accessed 9 April 2003)

The Queensland Times (at www.qt.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002) 9

Shepparton News (at www.sheppnews.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002)

The West Australian (at www.thewest.com.au, accessed 4 September 2002)

Whitsunday Times (at www.thewhitsundaytimes.com.au, accessed 30 August 2002)

Appendix 3 SURVEY DATE: DECEMBER 2002 SURVEY NO: [ ] Australian journalists and the Internet – a nationwide survey Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre Queensland University of Technology

Dear MEAA colleague I am researching how Australian journalists use the Internet as part of my journalism PhD studies at the Queensland University of Technology and I am seeking your help by inviting you to complete this survey. Your responses will be most valuable, as little research has been done in this area. Even if you do not use the Internet for your work, your responses are still valid and will be appreciated. If you can assist me by completing this survey, I would appreciate you returning same within 21 days from when you receive it (although later responses can be accepted). A reply-paid envelope is included with this survey for your convenience. It should take about 15 minutes to complete this survey. If you have questions, please telephone me on (07) 3234 0149 (bus. hours) or e-mail [email protected]. If you have concerns or complaints about the conduct of this survey, you may contact the secretary of QUT’s University Human Research Ethics Committee on (07) 3864 2902 or e-mail [email protected]. Your responses to this survey will remain confidential. Individuals and organisations will not be identified when findings are published. Thank you for helping me with this research. – Kieran Lewis P.O. Box 241, Morningside, Qld 4170

Section 1 – Introductory questions

Your name ______(All responses will remain confidential.) Your contact phone no. ______(To be used only if I need to clarify your responses. Leave blank if you do not wish to be contacted.)

1 In what media do you currently work? (Please tick what applies)

Print media – newspaper: Please specify (metro, regional, daily, weekly, circulation etc) ______

Print media – magazine: Please specify (national, special interest, frequency etc) ______

Print media – other: Please specify ______

Radio: Please specify (AM, FM, commercial, ABC, SBS, metro, regional etc) ______

Television: Please specify (commercial, ABC, SBS, metro, regional etc) ______

Government: Please specify (Federal, State, Local) ______

Online media: Please specify ______

Freelance: Please specify ______

Other: Please specify ______

Section 2 – Your journalism experience

2 How long have you worked as a Public relations (private sector) journalist? Online journalism 0~2 years Other______ 3~5 years ______ 6~10 years

More than 10 years 5 Does your current job entail work

outside “traditional” journalism tasks, 3 Your gender? such as (tick all that apply)? Male

Female Online media copywriting

Web logs 4 What media have you worked in? (Tick Audio streaming all that apply) Video streaming Print Other______ Radio Television ______ Magazine Does not apply Public relations (public sector) Æ

Section 3 – Your Internet use (Note: The Internet includes e-mail.)

6 How long have you been using the Internet for your work?

I do not use the Internet 3~5 years Less than a year More than 5 years 1~2 years

The following questions try to identify how often journalists use the Internet for a variety of journalism tasks. Please respond by circling a number to the right of each question.

Routinely Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never How often do you … (daily or (at least (at least almost weekly) monthly) daily) 7 Use e-mail for work purposes 1 2 3 4 5 8 Visit websites for work purposes 1 2 3 4 5 9 Source news stories totally from the Internet (that 1 2 3 4 5 is, use no other news gathering techniques) 10 Supplement traditional newsgathering 1 2 3 4 5 techniques with information from the Internet 11 Seek out diverse views on a subject via the 1 2 3 4 5 Internet before writing a news story 12 Use online information as a primary source 1 2 3 4 5 13 Use online information without indicating it was 1 2 3 4 5 obtained via the Internet 14 Find new news sources via the Internet 1 2 3 4 5 15 Find information from individuals or groups via 1 2 3 4 5 the Internet that you would not otherwise access 16 Source prepared media releases from the 1 2 3 4 5 Internet 17 Receive public feedback via the Internet 1 2 3 4 5 18 Respond to public feedback via the Internet 1 2 3 4 5 19 Use public feedback via the Internet to create or 1 2 3 4 5 follow up news stories 20 Write news stories solely for publishing online 1 2 3 4 5

21 For what purposes do you use the 26 How does this compare with other Internet? (Tick all that apply) means of feedback (phone calls, letters, E-mail work colleagues etc)? Interview via e-mail Less feedback via the Internet Online publications About the same amount of feedback Internet news / current affairs via the Internet and other means discussion groups More feedback via the Internet Story ideas I do not receive reader feedback Media releases New sources or “experts” 27 Have you received training in online Interacting with sources journalism issues (eg ethics, copyright, Interacting with readers defamation)? Different views to add to a news story Yes, internal provided by employer News images or video Yes, external provided by employer Preliminary research Yes, at my initiative Information and/or quotes No Searching your news outlet’s archives Searching other news outlets’ archives 28 If “yes”, what was this training? Verifying facts ______ Other ______29 Can readers contribute content to your 22 From the above, list your top 5 uses of news outlet’s website? (This might be the Internet feedback or other content.) 1______ Yes No 2______ My organisation has no website 3______30 Can readers interact with other readers 4______through your news outlet’s website? 5______ Yes No

My organisation has no website 23 For what story type do you most use the Internet? (Tick all that apply) 31 How do you think the Internet enhances Breaking news media diversity? (Tick all that apply) Follow up By helping journalists gain wider Investigative access to diverse points of view Human interest By helping journalists gain wider Feature writing access to news sources Editorial By enabling news to be delivered to Other ______wider sections of society ______ By enabling readers to contribute their own content to news websites 24 Do you use website information as a By enabling individuals to set up their primary news source? own independent news websites Yes Other______ Yes, but only when confirmed directly ______with the source No The Internet does not impact on media diversity 25 Do you receive reader feedback via the Internet (this includes e-mail)? 32 Do you agree or disagree that the Yes Internet provides credible information? No, although my e-mail address is Strongly disagree available to readers Disagree No, I do not disclose my e-mail Slightly disagree address to readers Slightly agree Does not apply Agree Æ Strongly agree

The following questions try to determine how journalists rate the credibility of website information. Please respond by circling a number to the right of each type of website.

Highly Credible Difficult Lacks Almost How would you rate the credibility of … credible to say credibility no credibility 33 Government websites 1 2 3 4 5 34 Political party websites 1 2 3 4 5 35 Major news websites (CNN, ABC Online etc) 1 2 3 4 5 36 Independent news websites 1 2 3 4 5 37 Corporate/company websites 1 2 3 4 5 38 Special interest group websites 1 2 3 4 5 39 Private individual websites 1 2 3 4 5 40 Internet news/current affairs discussion groups 1 2 3 4 5 41 University and/or research institution websites 1 2 3 4 5

The following questions try to determine how often journalists access these various websites. Please respond by circling a number to the right of each type of website.

Routinely Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never How often do you access … (daily or (at least (at least almost weekly) monthly) daily) 42 Government websites 1 2 3 4 5 43 Political party websites 1 2 3 4 5 44 Major news websites (CNN, ABC Online etc) 1 2 3 4 5 45 Independent news websites 1 2 3 4 5 46 Corporate/company websites 1 2 3 4 5 47 Special interest group websites 1 2 3 4 5 48 Private individual websites 1 2 3 4 5 49 Internet news/current affairs discussion groups 1 2 3 4 5 50 University and/or research institution websites 1 2 3 4 5

The following statements try to determine how the Internet affects journalists and the news media generally. Please respond by circling a number to the right of each statement.

Strongly Agree No Disagree Strongly agree opinion disagree 51 The Internet makes my job easier 1 2 3 4 5 52 I receive sufficient online journalism training 1 2 3 4 5 53 The Internet is limited in providing news sources 1 2 3 4 5 54 Websites are bona fide news sources 1 2 3 4 5 55 Most news and information I access is via the Internet 1 2 3 4 5 56 There is little quality control over Internet information 1 2 3 4 5 57 The Internet should be used sparingly as a news 1 2 3 4 5 source 58 The Internet has little impact on news diversity 1 2 3 4 5 59 Readers should be able to contribute content to news 1 2 3 4 5 websites 60 News websites should allow readers to participate in 1 2 3 4 5 reader forums 61 The Internet will eventually become journalists’ 1 2 3 4 5 medium of choice for information gathering 62 The Internet will eventually become consumers’ 1 2 3 4 5 medium of choice for news and information

Thank you for completing this survey. Do you have additional comments on the Australian media’s structural and content diversity; on how the Internet assists diversity (or otherwise); or on related issues not covered by this survey? If you would like to provide further comments you are welcome to include them with this survey in the reply-paid envelope provided.