On Common Ground? Questioning Finkelstein’s Media Inquiry assumptions

I’ve just finished reading Bruce Guthrie’s hugely enjoyable autobiography Man Bites Murdoch. Guthrie was the editor of Australia’s biggest selling daily, the Melbourne Herald-Sun before being sacked in 2008. Guthrie sued for wrongful dismissal and gleefully turned News Corp’s courtroom embarrassment into a fine read. Guthrie was a hugely experienced editor who had two stints with News Ltd and also worked for Fairfax and Time Magazines. What most stands out is the dysfunctional management he had to deal with at every turn. Only in the early days of his stay at Time did Guthrie ever feel that management were on the same wavelength as the editor and even that was short-lived after the disastrous corporate merger with AOL.

I was thinking about this as I read the opening sentences to Justice Ray Finkelstein’s opening remarks in his long-awaited Australian media inquiry. “There is common ground among all those who think seriously about the role of the news media and about journalistic ethics,” began his Lordship, before he proceeded to list the steps along this “common ground”. These were journalism’s “essential role” in democracy, its need to be “fair and accurate”, its powerful effect on the political system, its ability to cause harm, its accountability, and its code of ethics.

But this mixes up concepts of media with journalism, a mistake rarely made by news proprietors, managing directors and senior editors. Finkelstein leaves out one crucial fact in his “common ground”: the need for news media to make a profit. Independent media like Crikey and New Matilda would be the closest in Australia that adhere to Finkelstein’s model but neither are big money-spinning ventures bowing to corporate pressures. The large daily metropolitan mastheads are huge commercial operations with large profit and circulation imperatives, while chasing audiences out of the heavy-duty but fading world of print into the more uncertain terrain of online media.

For owners and managing directors, the primary goals are to make money and add shareholder value. As Guthrie found out time after time in his career, Finkelstein’s editorial assumptions ran a distant second or third. The media’s effect on democracy, fairness and accuracy, accountability or a code of ethics were of little concern to senior management desperate to make profits and cut costs. In Guthrie’s time the Herald-Sun was just another brand to advertising managers who sought to form commercial partnerships and who took a dim view of editorial staff not giving these partners preferential status.

Let’s look at Finkelstein’s assumptions. Firstly, where is the proof of journalism’s essential role in Australian society? If there were no journalists, or if say they were under state control (such as Xinhua in China), would Australia be any worse off? Political journalism is an “inside the beltway” game between the two key players and journos and pollies have a symbiotic relationship. But as we head towards a social media age (and John Howard understood this aspect of talkback radio) journalists will become less necessary to the dissemination of the political message.

What too of journalism’s need to be fair and accurate? Fairness is notoriously difficult to judge. One man’s fair is another woman’s bias. Was former Howard Communications Minister Richard Alston seeking fairness or wasting public money on frivolous challenges with his 68 accusations of ABC bias in 2004? (Only 2 held up.) As for accuracy, the Kurosawa film Rashomon should disabuse anyone of the notion of some universally established truth. Accuracy is at best a function of how many person-hours you can throw at a problem, an informed guess based on the observations of journalists and the estimate of the truth of observers they talk to.

Finkelstein’s said the media is powerful and affects the political system in “dramatic ways”. But so what of that drama? Was it as Robert Manne said, the overt campaign of The Australian that destroyed Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership or was it ruthless backroom boys who obsessed over secret polling and focus groups that told them Rudd was haemorrhaging support? The media exist only as a channel and as they are finding out rapidly, they are not the only channel.

Finkelstein’s next assumption was the harm the media can cause. Should the media “means test” its harm, before it publishes something that someone will be offended by? He then states “a free press should be publicly accountable for its performance”. That already happens. It is called a shareholder meeting. The only accountability the public can have for the publication is not to buy it, and that is all they need.

The last of Finkelstein’s “common ground” commandments is a code of ethics regarding accuracy, fairness, impartiality, integrity and independence. This he said “should guide journalists and news organisations.” Journalists already have a code of ethics – a code followed, for the most part. But there is no organisational code of ethics and no way of forcing them to set one up.

Justice Finkelstein’s Report is well meaning and the fact Big Media doesn’t like it must mean it is useful. But his assumptions neglects the business side of the industry. Saving Australian media is not about getting new technology onto the Press Council or giving it teeth to address journalist failings. It is about persuading an industry its long-term profitability depends on getting back trust from its audience. That means moving away from the assumptions that drive corporate behaviour. This ground is not as common as Justice Finkelstein thinks.


2 thoughts on “On Common Ground? Questioning Finkelstein’s Media Inquiry assumptions

  1. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece Derek. Nearly finished reading Man Bites Murdoch meself and it’s hard to put down. As revelatory in its way as Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins. I know that’s going sideways a bit . . .nevertheless as the old order crumbles the colourful reporting by courageous insiders is providing plenty of entertaining reading.

    Your conclusion is compelling and worth repeating: persuading an industry its long-term profitability depends on getting back its core level of trust with its audience. That means moving away from the assumptions that drive corporate behaviour. This ground is not as common as Justice Finkelstein thinks.

    Bravo. Great stuff and thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s