Regulating journalists? The Finkelstein Review, the Convergence Review, and News Media Regulation in Australia

This paper identifies two major forces driving change in media policy worldwide: media convergence, and renewed concerns about media ethics, with the latter seen in the U.K. Leveson Inquiry. It focuses on two major public inquiries in Australia during 2011-2012 – the Independent Media Inquiry (Finkelstein Review) and the Convergence Review – and the issues raised about future regulation of journalism and news standards. Drawing upon perspectives from media theory, it observes the strong influence of social responsibility theories of the media in the Finkelstein Review, and the adverse reaction these received from those arguing from Fourth Estate/free press perspectives, which were also consistent with the longstanding opposition of Australian newspaper proprietors to government regulation. It also discusses the approaches taken in the Convergence Review to regulating for news standards, in light of the complexities arising from media convergence. The paper concludes with consideration of the fast-changing environment in which such proposals to transform media regulation are being considered, including the crisis of news media organisation business models, as seen in Australia with major layoffs of journalists from the leading print media publications.

Defining a ‘democratic elite’ : key media in the battle for social responsibility

This paper offers a definition of elite media arguing their content focus will sufficiently meet social responsibility needs of democracy. Its assumptions come from the Finkelstein and Leveson Inquiries and regulatory British Royal Charter (2013). These provide guidelines on how media outlets meet ‘social responsibility’ standards, e.g. press has a ‘responsibility to be fair and accurate’ (Finkelstein); ethical press will feel a responsibility to ‘hold power to account’ (Leveson); news media ‘will be held strictly accountable’ (RC). The paper invokes the British principle of media opting-in to observe standards, and so serve the democracy. It will give examples from existing media, and consider social responsibility of media more generally. Obvious cases of ‘quality’ media: public broadcasters, e.g. BBC, Al-Jazeera, and ‘quality’ press, e.g. NYT, Süddeutscher Zeitung, but also community broadcasters, specialised magazines, news agencies, distinctive web logs, and others. Where providing commentary, these abjure gratuitous opinion -- meeting a standard of reasoned, informational and fair. Funding is almost a definer, many such services supported by the state, private trusts, public institutions or volunteering by staff. Literature supporting discussion on elite media will include their identity as primarily committed to a public good, e.g. the ‘Public Value Test’, Moe and Donders (2011); with reference also to recent literature on developing public service media. Within its limits the paper will treat social media as participants among all media, including elite, and as a parallel dimension of mass communication founded on inter-activity. Elite media will fulfil the need for social responsibility, firstly by providing one space, a ‘plenary’ for debate. Second is the notion of building public recognition of elite media as trustworthy. Third is the fact that elite media together are a large sector with resources to sustain social cohesion and debate; notwithstanding pressure on funds, and impacts of digital transformation undermining employment in media more than in most industries.