A submission to the 2020 Senate Committee Inquiry into Media Diversity in Australia Submitted by Michael Charles Taylor and Carol Anne Taylor of The Australian Independent Media Network Address: Email: [email protected] Phone numbers: Michael Taylor: Carol Taylor: Introduction For several decades the Murdoch media have enjoyed an unbridled run as the major source for news, information and opinion in this country. It is a position, many would suggest, that they have protected without ethics or morals. Especially when it comes to opinion. Theirs, and only theirs counts. For example, anyone wishing to have their own ideas and opinions published on their media sites have had to contend with the editorial policies that are generally based on the ideology of the editors and of course, on what is sellable. However, this regime of control over what content is allowed to emerge is now collapsing in today’s world of participatory media. For the Murdoch media the loss of this power and ability to mould public opinion has shown them to be less of news purveyors and more of propagandists. Our submission begins on Page 2 Points a, b, d, e, f, i and j of the Terms of Reference are addressed. 1 (a) The current state of public interest journalism in Australia and any barriers to Australian voters’ ability to access reliable, accurate and independent news. While it is laudable that this Inquiry into media diversity in Australia has been established, we can’t see how any recommendation it might make could be implemented. With the conservatives flexing their muscles and pushing their ‘free speech’ agenda aggressively, any recommendation would likely to be smothered under a pile of rhetoric designed to frighten people into believing that their liberties were being threatened. We guess we don't need to mention the fact that we don't actually get "paid" as such, public interest journalism, in particular independent media, do it for the love of the truth, passion for advocacy and determination to counteract the general populist rhetoric. Regarding the terms of reference, obviously the influence of concentrated media ownership and the lack of fact-checking is a big issue. The use of the Murdoch media for leaks from government is also a concern. And the encroachment on the national broadcaster's independence is a problem. If we take Joseph Kahn’s definition of “fake news” (rather than Donald Trump’s spurious definition) as: “a piece of content that takes the form of a news story but has little or no basis in reported fact, created by someone fully aware of its lack of factual basis with the express purpose of going viral, either to achieve some political or social purpose or to earn money for the author, or both”, then “fake news” is straight out lying. “Disinformation” is a mildly stated misnomer if the information is patently false. Whilst it might be possible for the Committee to ‘examine’ “fake news”, how can our society police and penalise those who deliberately and knowingly promulgate it? Especially when so much of it is promulgated through lightly controlled social media? And as there are degrees of misleading information from the almost harmless to the malicious and malignant, control looks like an impossible dream. It seems to us that the Committee has set itself an impossible task if it believes it can identify “Australian voters’ ability to access reliable, accurate and independent news” to the satisfaction of all concerned, and can take effective remedial steps, given the vast array of public information in both the regular and social media, here and overseas. What one person says is false, another will say it is not. Things such as cuts to ABC do not help with fact-checking. Fact-checking is extremely important but rarely present in the mainstream media. What concerns us is that the mainstream media is the recipient of government leaks designed to influence public opinion. The 24-hour news cycle means the MSM are constantly looking for new stories rather than taking the time to collate past and current information and to question what is being said by politicians. We are distracted every day by breaking scandals with the focus being diverted from important issues. 2 When we have continued lies, e.g., about refugees seeking asylum by boat, gays, welfare recipients, Indigenous people etc, with mainstream media lapping it up and dutifully reporting it as "fact", then independent media is vital for public interest journalism. Not sure what can be done about the mainstream media dutifully reporting on lies without challenging it - it's not about "freedom of speech" when it is "fake", anything which is factually incorrect, or ideology passed off as fact can be misleading. Which isn't to say it's "fake news", it's just part of the bigger picture of how hard public interest journalism is when you have to question every source and every article. If all the mainstream media are perpetuating the same lies (some from the politicians and people of influence), it has the side-effect of reducing the credibility of independent media, which are then exposed to claims of "fake news", and "conspiracy" when in fact, they are reporting on the real news. Examining fake news requires money and other resources. It would be good to set up an independent body to monitor, advise and educate journalists and consumers. However, as the current government is a primary source of propaganda and disinformation, we cannot see any steps being taken towards this examination anytime soon. It seems to me the parties most interested in dissemination of false information are generally political. (b) The effect of media concentration on democracy in Australia. “The democratic ideal of a media which is impartial, and designed to inform citizens, is inevitably compromised as media ownership becomes more concentrated. The fundamental threat that concentrated media poses to any society is that, as the influence of privately funded media increases, the democratic capacity of the media as an instrument to inform and educate citizens is diminished. This is due to a reduction in the number of perspectives that are available to citizens on any given issue, at any given time; and this interferes with an individual’s ability to formulate an opinion, as access to information presented in an unbiased and balanced fashion becomes more and more restricted. In Australia, this problem is markedly more acute than elsewhere in the world and thus governments should strive to ensure that the Australian media is impartial and informative.” (David Vadori, Democracy and Diversity: media ownership in Australia, theaimn.com, 23 June 2014). (c) The impact of Australia’s media ownership laws on media concentration in Australia. Not addressed. (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. Their impact is considerable, and we do not know what measures are in place to counteract the circulation of fake news, click bait etc. They are not sufficient, whatever they are. As we have many academics among our writers, we have always been accustomed to the requirement of peer-reviewed journals that sources of information be quoted in detail to allow the verification of facts, figures and assertions. No reputable journal would accept material 3 that is not adequately referenced to sources that can offer verification. Why is this not a requirement for public journalism? The challenge though would be firstly to create a peer review process with qualified and honest reviewers; secondly to fund such a process given there is so much in the public domain to vet; and thirdly to establish a system of penalties that could be applied to those who defaulted. That seems to make the idea of ‘counter measures’ an impossible proposition. The question of penalties is crucial. If none are applicable, no amount of peer reviewing will make any difference. There are dangers of confirmation bias when you are directed to places based on your browsing history. Also, many politicians block people who express contrary views from their social media presence. This has happened to many people we know on many occasions, not through being abusive in any way, but for providing factual information that was at odds with the claims the politicians were making. Such censorship can lead to echo chambers. (e) The impact of online global platforms such as Facebook, Google and Twitter on the media industry and sharing of news in Australia. Our observation is that the laws are inadequate in a fast-moving landscape increasingly dominated by aggressive companies that filter news, such as Facebook and Google. As far as we can tell, these companies have pretty much carte blanche. They are vulnerable to infiltration by political sources with secret agendas. Genuine public interest journalism doesn’t offer the same opportunities for propaganda and manipulation. (f) The barriers faced by small, independent and community news outlets in Australia. Small independent sites like ours need funding to support the journalism they now provide free of charge. The quality of the offerings is such that they deserve to be in the public domain without imposing an undue financial burden on the proprietor. A modest government subsidy to cover the cost of web hosting and authoring would lessen the need for seeking advertising or simply paying out of one’s own pocket. Many commercial outlets now seek financial subscriptions, and some restrict access to those who do not subscribe. As few know how well they do in attracting subscriptions, smaller operators are probably uneasy about seeking subscriptions themselves lest they inhibit users.