New code ought to improve variety of media possession

When Main telephoned Kelvin MacKenzie, then editor of Murdoch’s flagship British newspaper The Solar, to ask how he deliberate to cowl the story, MacKenzie replied: “Prime Minister, I’ve on my desk in entrance of me a really massive bucket of shit which I’m nearly to pour throughout you.”

Giant information publishers nonetheless possess buckets of political affect, even in an period of social media and shrinking newspaper circulations.

Proof of that energy is presently enjoying out within the Australian Parliament, the place the federal authorities has created laws designed to pressure two international digital gamers, Google and Fb, to compensate Australian information publishers as a result of their previous enterprise mannequin doesn’t work any extra.

Information Corp, together with 9 Leisure (proprietor of this title), has apparently satisfied the federal government that the 2 digital giants have stolen their content material (they haven’t – media corporations actively present snippets or their full journalism to the platforms as a result of they achieve big profit from the publicity their content material attracts on Google and Fb) and stolen their promoting income (they haven’t – many of the categorised promoting that used to assist newspaper journalism has really ended up within the pockets of, owned by Information Corp, Area, owned by 9, and web sites similar to Search and Carsales).

However Google and Fb are hardly saints. Though they aren’t straight liable for the collapse of the massive earnings that crammed the coffers of the homeowners of massive every day newspapers for many years, these two digital gamers are virtually definitely too highly effective. Their market dominance and the knowledge they accumulate about their customers’ on-line behaviour is horrifying. And there ought to be legal guidelines to ensure they pay Australian company tax on all their Australian earnings that stem from all their Australian income.

For these causes, not due to spurious allegations of stealing content material or promoting income, there’s a highly effective argument that Google and Fb ought to pay what’s, in impact, a social license to assist the general public curiosity journalism that has been severely affected by the industrial web, which they dominate. A contribution to society for the oblique collateral harm inflicted on high quality journalism by their immense success.

Curiously, it’s an argument supported by the 2 digital giants. Not solely do they agree they need to contribute financially to the journalism that underpins wholesome democracies, they’re already doing this in a number of nations (together with, on a small scale, in Australia). The difficulty is now not ought to they pay, however how a lot and thru what mechanism.

As a small unbiased information writer watching this stoush between three massive gorillas – the 2 dominant Australian industrial media gamers, the 2 international digital behemoths and the federal authorities – I really feel like I’m viewing a re-run of just about each episode of The Making of Australian Media Coverage over the previous century, the place the plotline is at all times a few authorities bestowing favours on massive media corporations in return for unspoken, however often detectable, advantages.

This “ground-breaking” laws, as the federal government and its massive media supporters continually describe it, mustn’t simply be a mechanism to make sure the majority of Google and Fb cash strains the pockets of a few multibillion-dollar public corporations for whom information journalism is a small a part of their enterprise.


The brand new legislation, now in draft stage, ought to be modified to explicitly defend and improve variety of media possession. It ought to create significant monetary assist for Australia’s 100 or so small-to-medium regional and city-based information publishers, for whom public curiosity journalism is their main enterprise.

It ought to structurally handle one of many nice endemic issues that compromises and embarrasses our democracy: an excessive amount of energy within the arms of two massive media homeowners.

Eric Beecher is chair of Non-public Media, which publishes nationwide digital mastheads Crikey, The Mandarin and Good Firm, and of Solstice Media, which publishes InDaily in Adelaide and InQueensland in Brisbane. These corporations have a content material licensing settlement with Google Information Showcase. He’s a former editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and former editor-in-chief of the Herald and Weekly Instances.

Most Considered in Nationwide