Senate Inquiry into Media in Australia
December 2020
Thank you for this opportunity to make a submission to the Media Diversity in Australia Inquiry. I’m a journalist with an MA in International Journalism from City, University of London, and then worked for AAP as a reporter, sub, copy taster and feature writer for nearly 15 years. Since then I’ve been a freelance writer.
I am happy for this submission and my name to be published together, but please do not publish my address or phone number.
Terms of Reference a. The current state of public interest journalism in Australia and any barriers to Australian voters’ ability to access reliable, accurate and independent news
The most significant source of public interest journalism in Australia until recently was the ABC. Its public ownership is important and helped protect its independence, guaranteeing Australian voters access to reliable, accurate and independent news.
In this section I will outline how this independence has been seriously undermined in recent years - so that I would now regard a number of other outlets more reliable. I then explain why I think it is important to remove government interference from the ABC and how we can insulate our national broadcaster from it.
The ABC’s role as a public interest broadcaster Under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1983, the ABC has a clearly enunciated public interest role. In Part II, 6. (1), it is required:
“to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard … (i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and (ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature; (b) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will: (i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
1 (ii) enable Australian citizens living or travelling outside Australia to obtain information about Australian affairs and Australian attitudes on world affairs; …
This extensive role, similar to that of the UK’s BBC, entails informing the public, enabling it to participate in democratic institutions in Australia in a meaningful way. The ABC therefore has a responsibility to represent and engage all sectors of Australian society – including women, First Nations people, and those with disabilities – which the commercial sector might not prioritise.
Furthermore, the duty of the ABC board to protect the independence of the broadcaster is laid out in its charter. Part III, 8. (1) of the act states that it is the board’s responsibility:
(b)to maintain the independence and integrity of the Corporation; (and) (c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism …
Political interference at the ABC However, over many years now, the ABC’s role has been diminished by federal government interference in the national broadcaster, exerted via the board and through funding cuts.
The Guardian online reported in May that cuts carried out since the federal Coalition came to power in 2014 totalled $738 million. On top of that, emergency broadcasting costs during last summer’s bushfires meant the ABC was forced to spend an extra $3 million, added to $84 million for an indexation pause imposed by then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2018.
(See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/04/abc-loses-793m-funding-since- 2014-when-coalition-made-its-first-cuts-report)
During the past seven years, these cuts have led to the loss of a number of major Australian public interest broadcasting services - as detailed by Alexandra Wake, Program Manager, Journalism, RMIT University and Phd student Michael Ward at Sydney University in The Conversation in June - including:
Lateline and state-based 7.30 axed
The World Today and ABC PM radio current affairs programming halved
the closure or reduction of international news bureaus
cuts since 2014 to Radio National (for example, Sunday Nights)
cuts to international broadcasting/media services such as the Australia Network, which was cancelled in 2013
2 the end of short wave radio services to the Northern Territory
(See https://theconversation.com/latest-84-million-cuts-rip-the-heart-out-of-the-abc-and- our-democracy-141355).
In addition to this, current ABC Managing Director David Anderson announced in June that the latest cuts would result in the loss of 250 more jobs and programming cuts, including the axing of its flagship 7.45am radio news bulletin.
(See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-24/abc-announces-cuts-to-programming-and- jobs-funding/12384972).
A generous reading of those cuts would be that consecutive governments have failed to understand the importance of the broadcaster in providing news, entertainment (including locally produced content) and emergency coverage to Australians across the country as well as an international audience.
However, a more sinister interpretation is more likely closer to the truth. One of the most serious incidents of interference involved Mr Turnbull and his criticism of former ABC Economics correspondent Emma Alberici. The then prime minister intervened after a report by Ms Alberici in 2018 that questioned the benefits of the government’s corporate tax policy.
Mr Turnbull later revealed he had complained to an old friend and business associate, Justin Milne, who also happened to be the ABC’s then chairman, about the ABC coverage. Mr Turnbull told journalists:
"My concern has been purely about the accuracy and impartiality of news and current affairs reporting on the ABC.
"That is the critical thing and I do believe it has deteriorated over recent years which is regrettable.
"Everybody is entitled to express their views about the ABC, and ministers and prime ministers do and have done always.
"It's important that the ABC engages with government. But I want to be very clear that the ABC is independent, the chairman and the board are independent of the government."
Mr Turnbull added:
"The bottom line is I've never called for anyone to be fired; my concern had been the accuracy and impartiality of reporting.
3 "The chairman of the ABC and managing director of the ABC and director of news at the ABC are talking to politicians and other members of the public presumably all the time - just as editors in the private sector are."
(See https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/standards-have-deteriorated- malcolm-turnbull-weighs-in-on-abc-accusation-20180927-p5068h.html).
Mr Milne, who was appointed to his position by Mr Turnbull, then went on to complain to then ABC Managing Director Michelle Guthrie about Ms Alberici and ABC Political Editor Andrew Probyn, saying they should be removed because their reporting had angered the government and that keeping them on staff would hamper efforts to increase the ABC's government funding.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported in September 2018 that Mr Milne had said in an email to Ms Guthrie at the time that:
“They [the government] hate her (Alberici).” “We are tarred with her brush. I think it’s simple. Get rid of her."
This incident, which led to Ms Alberici leaving the ABC, along with Mr Milne and Ms Guthrie, was a clear example of political interference at the ABC by a prime minister who did not approve of reporting by an expert economics correspondent at the peak of her career. Her loss to the ABC is multi-dimensional:
firstly, because of her economic expertise, depth of experience and fearless attitude, which is so important for a journalist;
secondly because of its impact on other ABC journalists, many of whom will now self-censor to avoid a similar fate or are likely to have taken redundancies because of low morale at the broadcaster;
thirdly because younger, less experienced journalists will miss out on training and/or mentoring from Alberici and her peers;
and finally because senior staff may be less likely to hire journalists who are seen to be in Ms Alberici’s mould.
Another recent intervention that will have a chilling effect on the ABC’s independence and reliability as a public interest broadcaster, is the request by federal Communications Minister Paul Fletcher for ABC chair Ita Buttrose to explain how a recent Four Corners episode revealing alleged affairs between ministers and staffers was in the public interest.
(See https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-government-asks-abc-to-please- explain-controversial-four-corners-episode-20201201-p56jg2.html).
4 Combined with job cuts (which translate to a loss of reporters to cover stories in a range of locations including courts, parliamentary inquiries, business meetings, health summits and other events), these incidents have undermined the ability of the ABC to report on issues that enable the public to make informed decisions in all aspects of their lives – including when they vote.
The government also exerts control of the ABC via the prime minister’s selection of the ABC chair. Although a panel puts together a short list of candidates who have been matched to selection criteria for the job, the Coalition government ignored those recommendations when appointing the current chair, Ita Buttrose – as it has done in the past.
(See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/09/two-media-executives-and-lawyer- passed-over-for-ita-buttrose-as-abc-chair-foi-confirms
How to insulate the ABC from political interference It is therefore urgent and important that we insulate the ABC from political interference. All control of the ABC should be totally removed from government hands. No matter what a prime minister’s expertise, previous career, or what other prime ministers have done in the past, they and other politicians should not be allowed to comment on the accuracy or impartiality of reporting by the ABC – because its independence is impinged on whenever they do.
To reduce politicians’ opportunities to intervene, the ABC and SBS budgets should be predetermined by parliament as a fixed percentage of the national budget in perpetuity – much like a trust fund. A new, independent body should be set up with control of that funding. Its executive should include senior journalists (including former ABC staff), media academics, the media union known as the Alliance (the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance), and represent a range of professions and ordinary ABC viewers. The ABC board, its chair and the managing director should be appointed by the trust, while the independent body itself should initially be appointed and overseen by the federal communications department – and not the minister or prime minister. Once established, the body could possibly appoint a proportion of its members itself. Any complaints about the ABC that cannot be settled inhouse should be resolved by a beefed-up media watchdog, as for other outlets. b. The effect of media concentration on democracy in Australia
The effect of media concentration in Australia and the Murdoch media have been well- researched and goes back to at least the 1970s and the Whitlam government. A declassified diplomatic cable released in 2014 by the US National Archives revealed the extent of Mr Murdoch’s involvement in the 1975 constitutional crisis created by the then prime minister’s sacking. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that:
5 “US News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch directed his editors to ‘kill Whitlam’ some 10 months before the downfall of Gough Whitlam's Labor government, according to a newly released United States diplomatic report.”
(See https://www.smh.com.au/national/murdoch-editors-told-to-kill-whitlam-in-1975- 20140627-zson7.html).
During the Whitlam years, the wider media reported on a series of supposed scandals involving Mr Whitlam and his government – including the Khemlani loans affair and the relationship between Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns and his staffer Juni Morosi. The Murdoch media also executed a campaign beating up stories about “dole bludgers” living it up on social security payments and failed to report the massive strikes and demonstrations that erupted after Whitlam’s sacking. Many of these allegations were later revealed to be false, as Rodney E. Lever recorded in Independent Australia at the time of Whitlam’s death in 2014.
(https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/gough-whitlam-and-the- rupert-murdoch-memory-hole,7027)
In fact, journalists from Mr Murdoch’s own newspaper, The Australian, were so enraged by editorial interference with their copy at the time that they went on strike.
(See https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-day-the-australians- reporters-stopped-writing-lies,5107).
Mr Murdoch’s power has only grown since the 1970s with the introduction of laws that have progressively enabled the concentration of media to increase, so that he is now the pre-eminent owner in Australia (and elsewhere). The Sydney Morning Herald, owned by Murdoch’s major competitor Nine Entertainment Co, reported in October that:
“News Corp is the country’s biggest newspaper owner when taking into account the amount of mastheads it owns and how many people read them. Its titles include national broadsheet The Australian and Sydney's The Daily Telegraph, Melbourne’s Herald Sun, Brisbane’s The Courier Mail and Adelaide’s The Advertiser. But it isn’t just the large capital cities where News Corp has a big audience – it has a newspaper in nearly every state and territory, owning the major newspaper in the Northern Territory, The NT News, and Tasmania’s Mercury as well as a large number of online suburban and regional titles. And it runs Australia’s second-biggest digital website, news.com.au, according to August figures from measurement provider Nielsen.
“News Corp is also the controlling shareholder of pay TV company Foxtel; and it owns 24- hour channel Sky News in Australia. Sky's mostly conservative commentators include Alan Jones and Peta Credlin. Some of Sky’s coverage appears on free-to-air regional channel WIN. And Nova Entertainment, the radio network that broadcasts Nova FM and Smooth FM across Australia, is a privately run company owned by Rupert Murdoch’s eldest son, Lachlan.”
6 (See https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/how-much-influence-does-the- murdoch-media-have-in-australia-20201015-p565dk.html).
With this reach, Mr Murdoch’s power has grown, as former Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard experienced when the Murdoch media campaigned against them. A recent article, ‘Kick this mob out’: The Murdoch media and the Australian Labor Government (2007 to 2013), the Global Media Journal (Australian Edition):
“examines the relationship between Rupert Murdoch and the Labor governments from 2007 to 2013. It describes the campaigning role of his newspapers in attacking key policies of the first Rudd government and the subsequent Gillard government”.
(See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269710349_%27Kick_this_mob_out%27_The_M urdoch_media_and_the_Australian_Labor_Government_2007_to_2013).
Malcolm Turnbull, who also fell foul of the Murdochs, has revealed the extent of their influence in his memoir, A Bigger Picture, published in April:
“I wasn’t going to run my government in partnership with Rupert or Lachlan Murdoch or their editors, and I knew [News Corp would] resent that.
“It attacks its enemies and protects its friends, as it did [former prime minister Tony] Abbott and as it is today protecting [Scott] Morrison to the point of ignoring big issues of accountability.”
This problem is especially acute for women in politics, which a recent article by Blair Williams in The Conversation highlighted:
“Murdoch’s conservative morality, traditionalist values, and opposition to left-wing movements appear constantly in his newspapers, making them uniquely hostile to women.
“Gillard did not simply threaten the political status quo as Australia’s first woman prime minister. As an unmarried, child-free, atheist woman from the left of the ALP, she also threatened Murdoch’s conservative ideology. His newspaper therefore portrayed Gillard in a highly gendered — even misogynistic — manner intended to undermine her. This was evident in the criticisms of her fashion choices, such as a headline condemning her “technicolour screamcoat” in The Daily Telegraph.”
(See https://theconversation.com/theres-a-big-problem-with-the-murdoch-media-no-one- is-talking-about-how-it-treats-women-leaders-149986).
Ms Williams says not much has changed since Gillard’s time as Prime Minister and cites the Murdoch media’s treatment of Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk – including a
7 page 1 photograph of her with crosshairs focused on her face, bearing the headline, “Anna, you’re next”.
This contrasted with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s media treatment, which although it focused on her gender, appearance and personal life – did so less frequently than was Ms Gillard’s experience. Williams attributed this to the greater control of the media in Australia by Murdoch.
Finally, News’ (and the former Fairfax’s) buyout of local newspapers, radio and TV stations across the continent has meant that in addition to major political and other news obtained through subscriptions to AAP, local news is syndicated through News or now Nine, reducing local input, relevance, independence and diversity. With the onset of COVID, many small communities have now lost those outlets altogether. For example, more than 100 of News Corp’s regional and community titles moved to digital-only formats in May and another 14 titles ceased to exist earlier this year, Mumbrella reported in May.
(See https://mumbrella.com.au/news-corp-closes-over-100-print-papers-with-14-titles-to- disappear-completely-629436).
Furthermore, minor parties such as The Greens or candidates to the left of the political spectrum are either routinely demonised or totally ignored by the Murdoch media. For example, a Daily Telegraph opinion piece on December 12, targeting the left of the Liberal party, claims that:
“The Greens are the kings of getting basic things profoundly wrong yet the Liberal-National Left faction headed up by Matt Kean are emulating them.”
(See https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_G GL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fvikki- campion-people-of-nsw-dont-want-a-green-government%2Fnews- story%2F7f46d268ba0a1f79287089086e3529fb&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium”).
Mr Murdoch’s influence is so pervasive in Australia that the title attributed to him of “media barron” can only be described as incorrect; he is more accurately an emperor or king.
How to break down that influence will be a challenge – and given his influence on elections via the commercial media, I believe it is only through the development of a strong public interest media that this will be possible. This would involve strengthening the ABC as an independent broadcaster and fostering existing and emergent small, independent and community media outlets in Australia.
8 c. The impact of Australia’s media ownership laws on media concentration in Australia
Without detailing the history of cross-media ownership laws in Australia, predictions have come true that changes to them in 2017 would see even more amalgamations of major media companies.
In those changes, laws imposing “two out of three” restrictions on the ownership of newspaper, television and radio stations in the same city were lifted, along with a rule that prevented television broadcasters from reaching more than 75 per cent of the population.
We can now see that those liberalisations paved the way for the merger of Fairfax Media and Nine Entertainment, which also led to the withdrawal of those two companies’ support for AAP. The effect on the media landscape has been consolidation of two already large companies, near close destruction of AAP, loss of journalists and hence reduced coverage and media diversity on a number of platforms in Australia. d. The impact of significant changes to media business models since the advent of online news and the barriers to viability and profitability of public interest news services
The drastic contraction in mainstream media in Australia – particularly print media, both major and local – is a direct result of the loss of advertising revenue. The accompanying collapse in the traditional media model in which advertising heavily subsidised or made profits for outlets was then inevitable. However, the failure of Fairfax to recognise the threat and find an online space for its “rivers of gold”– its revenue from classified advertising in its newspapers – is a modern day tragedy.
The impact on journalism has been profound. The Public Interest Journalism Initiative has recorded a total of 194 contractions in newsrooms since January 2019 and only 59 expansions. (See https://anmp.piji.com.au/)
The New Beats Project, in 2018 published its report on Mass Redundancies and Career Changes in Journalism, with an estimate from the media union, The Alliance, that 3,000 journalists in Australia had lost their jobs in large media companies since 2011. That was in addition to about 700 jobs lost during the Global Financial Crisis.
(See http://www.newbeatsblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/07/New_Beats_Report.pdf)
Some outlets carrying public interest news have bucked the trend and emerged online, including The Guardian Australia, The New Daily, The Conversation, Michael West Media, Croakey, The Crinkling News, Junkee, Buzzfeed, The Hoopla, Mamamia and the HuffPost – although some of these have since collapsed too. However, the New Beats project notes that these outlets have hired fewer journalists than traditional print news rooms.
9 So while a range of media have emerged that have broadened the range of political stances adopted by outlets in Australia, fewer journalists are employed and many readers consume their news in silos – especially when mediated by social media. The loss of generations of senior journalists (especially their experience, depth of knowledge and judgement) in continuing rounds of redundancies means news culture and history have been lost, which has a huge impact on the production of public interest journalism.
Additionally, many of the new online outlets struggle to survive on grants or subscriptions alone, with the big advertising bucks going to companies like Google and Facebook. e. The impact of online global platforms such as Facebook, Google and Twitter on the media industry and sharing of news in Australia
Apart from having captured the majority of media advertising in Australia (as elsewhere), these online platforms effectively employ algorithms as editors – despite the fact that their digitally determined decisions can be ethically challenging. An obvious example of this was footage of the terrorist attack by an Australian on the Christchurch Mosque in March 2019 - which was broadcast on Facebook and later uploaded to other platforms.
The NZ Classification office described the footage in the following way:
“It is 16 minutes and 55 seconds long. It contains dialogue in English. The video features footage of the mass murder of worshippers in a New Zealand mosque viewed in a ‘first person’ perspective via a camera apparently fixed to the attacker’s helmet…”
The office classified the video as “objectionable”, which it said under NZ law was warranted if:
“it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good”.
(See https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/featured-classification- decisions/christchurch-mosque-attack-livestream/)
This would appear to be inimical to public interest journalism.
Since the broadcast, Facebook has announced curbs on its streaming platform (See https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48276802). It has also announced millions of dollars in grants for research to automatically detect banned content. However, months after the attacks, the videos were still circulating online.
Without a human mind that can actively make on the spot value judgements, lack of fact checking and simple selection criteria for posts that feature lively photographs or videos, public interest journalism is not likely to feature prominently on these online global platforms. The algorithms’ propensity for reinforcing users’ preferences with more of the same type of material as previously viewed is what creates the silos, presenting a
10 selective view of reality. And of course, their tendency to promote advertised content is a feature shared with the commercial legacy media. f. The barriers faced by small, independent and community news outlets in Australia
The barriers faced by small independent media are mainly financial. As mentioned above, commercial media funding was traditionally raised via advertising – but it’s hard for a small player to capture advertisers in competition with the massive online global players.
Forcing the big online digital platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay other media companies for use of their material, could help fledgling and other independent media groups to survive.
However, a digital services tax, as proposed in some European countries, could overcome the problem of massive multinational tech companies making arrangements to provide “a service in one location but to recognise the revenue from that transaction for tax purposes in another location (usually with low rates of tax)”.
(See https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Li brary/FlagPost/2019/August/Digital_Services_Taxation).
That tax in Australia could provide a pool of funding for media startup companies. g. The role that a newswire service plays in supporting diverse public interest journalism in Australia
As an AAP journalist for many years, I believe the newswire service plays a major part in supporting public interest journalism in Australia. The establishment of AAP as a not-for- profit cooperative in 1935 by a group of newspapers, to bring international news into Australia, I think was in part responsible for the culture within the company. The fact that newspaper proprietors were at a remove from the editors, appeared to give it a freedom from editorial interference – in addition to its reputation for fast and accurate reporting. During the years I worked there, I never saw a story pulled for fear of upsetting any public figure – except once when a significant business person was involved in a legal case and it was unclear if comments regarding them had been made inside or outside a court.
As a news wholesaler, AAP also provides major international, national and state-base news stories to media outlets remote from capital cities – which along with the ABC keeps regional and rural residents informed of political and other stories. The loss of staff with the sale of the wire service to a group of investors, including philanthropists, will have cut the number of categories of news now available to subscribers – in other words reducing the diversity of stories available.
11 AAP also played an important role in providing a news diary to other media outlets, monitoring other major news organisations’ stories, and breaking stories that other outlets could follow up later when they might have their own reporter available to cover it. Going out on a job, other journalists would often be checking AAP preview copy. Newspapers and broadcast outlets based in a capital city where a major news story was underway could rely on complete coverage of it – and editors would ring the AAP Newsdesk at times with requests.
One satisfying aspect of reporting for AAP was that I always felt politicians were being held to account – an important aspect of media independence and reliability. That was irrespective of whether or not a story was published by another media outlet later. MPs had access to stories in which they were mentioned in the AAP wire services and you would very quickly find out about it if one of them wasn’t happy with something you’d written! Bureau chiefs and editors would check a reporter’s account in case of a complaint but I always felt that they had our backs and did not bow down to bullying from politicians.
However, AAP editors and bureau chiefs closely followed the agendas of their subscribers – tracking what stories they used – so that to a large extent the company was captured by the priorities of commercial news outlets and hence their advertisers. This could lead to some “gotcha” style reporting, particularly in politics.
With the loss of so many journalists around Australia, I believe the role of AAP is even more critical. Even large city newspapers that in the past employed hundreds of journalists have shrunk, so that the many parliamentary committee hearings, business meetings and the lower profile social affairs events are less likely to have a journalist covering them. So AAP could be filling the gap – except that it’s range of stories has now diminished.
Therefore, I think it is important for the government to ensure AAP survives and thrives long-term – and should be open to supporting it financially if need be. h. The state of local, regional and rural media outlets in Australia: Sydney’s Northern Beaches as an example
The gradual, and more recently dramatic, loss of so many local, regional and rural newspapers in Australia has had a significant impact on the availability of news at all in these centres – let alone reliable, independent and diverse media.
The new environment has created opportunities for small start ups, and most recently, with the closure of traditional, mainstream media in local areas associated with the Covid pandemic.
On Sydney’s Northern Beaches where I live, the local newspaper, The Manly Daily, has gone from being a free newspaper printed and distributed between Manly and Palm Beach five days per week, to an edition twice per week in January 2018, and finally with the onset of Covid this year, the printed edition was dropped altogether with stories accessible only behind an online paywall.
12 A number of local print magazines already existed - the monthly Pittwater Life and Peninsula Living, which have recently developed online editions as well - along with the independently published Pittwater Online News. However, new titles have also appeared, both in print and online, since the Manly Daily stopped printing. These include the free Northern Beaches Review (in print and online) which belongs to the Australian Community Media stable, the Northern Beaches Advocate, which is also free, and independently published The Tawny Frogmouth – also free.
Start ups with a major media company backing them – such as the Northern Beaches Review – that are capitalising on the demise of The Manly Daily print edition, have an advantage over some smaller outlets. The NBR already seems to have picked up glossy real estate advertising that used to go the The Manly Daily. However, we are yet to see if the competition between them produces a more balanced news output into the future.
Some other outlets are potentially political vehicles, with the publisher of The Northern Beaches Advocate a member of the local Liberal Party who has stood for election. i. The role of government in supporting a viable and diverse public interest journalism sector in Australia; and
Changes in government media protocols and access to information Working as a journalist around the early 2000s, I noticed a change in the freedom to access to government information as the Howard government faced growing criticism over its treatment of refugees, the Tampa affair, and following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. The most obvious change came with the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Previously, a reporter would simply phone the media contact and ask to speak to the most appropriate expert for an answer. However, at some point during these years, this was replaced with a system in which when you rang the media contact, you had to have your questions ready. They would then take them away to the expert and call you back later with the answers – which could take some time. However, if those answers prompted more questions (which they often would), you then had to go through the whole process again. So for a story that you needed to file quickly, it was sometimes impossible to get to the crux of an issue.
This appeared to be an attempt to shut down discussion of sensitive issues. However, I believe the government has a duty to be open and transparent with the public in the vast majority of situations, and the media should be able to speak directly to public servants who are experts in a field and responsible for the implementation of government policy - without media officers massaging the message.
Reporting on security issues Australian journalists cannot feel confident about reporting on security issues of national interest after police raids in June 2019 on three Sydney journalists.
13 Officers searched the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst after publication of her story about Australia’s intelligence agencies increasing powers of spy agency the Australian Signals Directorate). The following day police and IT specialists visited the ABC HQ in Sydney where journalist Dan Oakes and his producer Sam Clark work, with computer technicians searching through material for a series of stories known as The Afghan Files. These contained allegations that Australia’s defence forces killed unarmed civilians - including children - in Afghanistan.
Since then, the Australian Federal Police has declared that it won’t charge the journalists with any offences.
However, the source for Mr Oakes’ and Mr Clark’s story, former military lawyer and whistleblower David McBride, has been charged with five offences including theft of Commonwealth property and the unauthorised disclosure of material to journalists.
(See https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7019615/afghanistan-inquiry-calls-to-drop- prosecution-of-whistleblower-david-mcbride/).
Federal Attorney-General Christian Porter has used laws in Mr McBride’s case that have never been used before, along with others in recent years, which have allowed for closed proceedings in whistleblower cases, such as that of former ASIS officer Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery.
(See https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/drop-the-charges-against-former- military-lawyer-david-mcbride/)
The federal government thus appears determined to crack down on the reporting of security matters and discourage potential whistleblowers from speaking up.
However, this sort of journalism clearly lies within the realm of public interest journalism, and their sources play an essential part in revealing criminal or corrupt actions by government and other figures. We need politicians who are prepared to recognise their responsibilities to the public and work together to repeal these laws.
Similarly, the latest changes to ASIO surveillance laws rushed through parliament on its last sitting day this month, with barely a whimper from the media, are likely to stifle public interest journalism. The laws extend the spy agency’s powers to interrogate journalists and other adults – as well as children as young as 14 - about activities it considers counter to Australia’s interests.
Advice commissioned before the law’s passage by lobby group GetUp - prepared by Sydney- based barrister Dominic Villa SC, an expert in public and administrative law, and fellow barrister Diana Tang - suggests they could make people reluctant to speak to journalists.
“A journalist would then be obliged to provide information pursuant to the warrant, where the failure to do so would be a criminal offence punishable by five years imprisonment.
14 “Despite well-recognised professional and ethical obligations of a journalist to maintain anonymity and confidentiality of a source, if so questioned under a warrant, a journalist would be required to disclose the identity of a confidential source.”
(See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/20/chilling-attack-on-democracy- proposed-asio-powers-could-be-used-against-journalists).
The government also needs to take positive action to improve the independence of the media watchdog – the Australian Press Council, which is responsible for responding to media complaints. The council, which is funded by media outlets, has 26 members, 15 of them journalists and 11 of them drawn from media organisations who belong to the council’s constituent bodies. As a result, many adjudications have been criticised as more sympathetic to journalists than complainants.
Independent funding for the press council could also be controlled by an independent body that keeps ABC funding at arm’s length from the government and oversees distribution of grants to media start ups. j. Any other related matters
Staff and media diversity For media outlets to create public interest journalism that is relevant to all members of the community, covering the large range of different public concerns and being respectful to all sectors, it should employ staff that represent a broad range of personal characteristics. In that way, their perspectives are more likely to be integrated in public dialogue.
A media accessible to all Public interest journalism should be accessible to all members of the community, which is why it is important that the ABC should remain a free service – rather than funded by a licence fee.
Miranda Korzy
15