You can read the lecture here.

Mark Scott gives a good speech – well written and for the most part, well judged.  It will be interesting to see what the mainstream media make of it, if anything, because despite its undoubted significance there is no easy news point or grab. The obvious route would be to pick up on his criticism of Rupert Murdoch’s plans to make people pay for content. Scott depicts this as the last frantic efforts of a media emperor to:

deny a revolution that’s already taken place by attempting to use a power that no longer exists, by trying to impose on the world a law that is impossible to enforce.

No media company has solutions to the collapse of business models and the new threats, says Scott.

For newspapers, the last great hope now seems to be something called Waiting for Rupert…

..now, the man who just four years ago said he wanted to “make the necessary cultural changes to meet the new demands of the digital native” says he’s not going to respond to the demands of these digital natives.  Instead, they – who have never in their lives paid for news online – will be asked to respond instead to his demands and start paying..

The mission to make people pay for content will not work and cannot work, except for a few highly specialised high quality brands, says Scott. I think this is one area of the speech where Scott’s bark is bigger than his bite. Read carefully, and he says a pay model will work for some things. Yet his language is more condemnatory than that message would suggest.

The reason for this slight slippage in rhetoric is in the speech itself. Scott knows that the commercial media organisations are “after” public broadcasters, attacking their right to exist in the new world of media plenty. He is joining the battle.

But more significant  is Scott’s central message that power has shifted to the audiences, and that this cannot be resisted, but must be embraced.

News gatherers cannot compete with the audience, who are everywhere and now able to publish to the world with elan and efficiency. We no longer live in a world in which ownership of a printing press or a broadcasting licence brings unique  power. They very strategies and thinking that built the media empires may now be the things that bring them undone.

Scott depicts the ABC as living in a constant state of fear that it is not moving “fast enough or bold enough to meet the challenge of the times”. Personally, I think that’s a healthy kind of fear. I’d rather be frightened of not changing than frightened of change.

Scott  is thinking in terms of “ten thousand channels, not five delivered to your living room”  and constant reinvention.The ABC is asking:

What is television? What is radio? In doing so, we are questioning nothing less than the very foundations upon which the ABC has been built over the course of 77 years.  You have to be ready to be truly bold.

He reprises the idea of a public “broadcasters” role as being a town square in which citizens can meet and discuss their affairs.

Scott’ speech begins with the feel of an elegy. He quotes an Auden poem on the fall of the Roman Empire, and continues with better turns of phrase than those who used to sub his copy on the Sydney Morning Herald would have expected to find.

He continues through a nice framing of the challenges and the struggles of the declining empires, and ends with some “hestitant suggestions” about the way forward. He says that the only media organisations that will survive are those that accept that all the rules have changed.

The future lies, not in owning everything but in being part of something. This means that the audience “long treated with an oligipolist’s disdain” must be treated with real respect and their contribution valued.

Scott’s central message is about a shift in power relationships from owners to audiences and participants. This is a hard message for any commercial media company to swallow.

It is no accident, of course, that the public broadcaster takes the debate forward. Only public broadcasters can embrace audience fragmentation and is unphased by collapsing business models.  And there is a natural fit between content makers already directly in the pay of the public and the new imperative to embrace audience power.

It is hard, if not impossible, for a stock market owned media company focussed on quarterly results to innovate and experiment with the depth and speed that is necessary to even hope to keep up.

That is why the ABC is more important now than since its creation. Its new justification for existance includes innovation and experimentation at a time of collapsing business models and paradigm change in media. And that is why we can expect it to come under increasingly fierce attack from all of those who want to make audiences pay for content.

I think the battle between public broadcasters on the one hand, and those who want to make us pay for content will be the key media fight in the early part of this century.  It will be of more lasting importance than the ructions in the Fairfax Board, to name just one set of agonies.

It might be described as the battle between “control” media and “participatory” media. (Thanks to Bronwen Clune for those terms).

Scott’s speech should be seen in that context.

Masters, for those who have spent the last few decades under a rock, had the majority of his career at the ABC, most notably at Four Corners, where he broke the kind of stories that changed our country. His achievements are too numerous to list here, but there is a website for those who want to know more.

Masters had a cooling in his relationship with the ABC following its 2006 decision to can the publication of his biography of Alan Jones – which went on to be a best seller for Allen and Unwin. I have reported on the background to this imbroglio on Crikey before.

At a time when the ABC newsrooms are not known for breaking stories, what is the organisation’s former star investigative reporter going to do for the Tele?

This morning Masters told me he hoped to explore not only conventional investigative projects, but also  “anthropological” journalism – “stories that reveal not only what happened but how people behaved and what that says about them and us.”

He will also be assisting the paper with its investigative effort. In his mind this should be not so much a matter of “a few gun slinging stars” but rather an inculcation of investigative attitude throughout the paper. The details of how this will work at the Tele have yet to be nailed down.

He hopes to help counter an “unhealthy and destructive” trend in recent journalistic history in which reporters spend too much time “preoccupied with what to think, and not enough time on how to think.”

Masters’ gig with the Tele is not a full time staff appointment. Rather, he will be paid a retainer plus wordage. As for how the tabloid snaffled him, distressingly and tellingly, it seems there wasn’t much competition.

Masters says that after his retirement from the ABC he wanted to keep writing, while not having to go back to full time work. “I stumbled for a while trying to find the right home.” He did some work for The Australian, but got the impression that neither that newspaper nor the Fairfax broadsheets “needed me or wanted me”. Fairfax, apparently, didn’t even make the call, although since he signed with the Tele “a number of people from there have said they didn’t know I was on the market.”

The key factor in the Tele getting Masters was editor Gary Linnell, for whom Masters has considerable respect. He also admires the Tele. “An under-rated newspaper”. Linnell and Masters had a number of conversations before the deal was sealed. Perhaps things ere helped along by the fact that Clare Masters, Chris’s daughter, is deputy chief of staff at the Tele.

Masters’ first story for the Tele, on the Rugby League Grand Final, was published last Saturday.

His ongoing relationship with Sydney’s tabloid will be one to watch.

Declaration: Chris Masters is on the board of the recently established Foundation for Public Interest Journalism,  of which I am the Chair.

Kate Dundas is the new Director of Radio, replacing Sue Howard, whose departure was one of the first news stories I covered on this blog. Dundas’s appointment is no surprise. She has been acting in the post since Howard’s departure, and was widely tipped as the permanent replacement. Her present post is as Director of People and Learning, in which she was involved in the recent stuff-up around the ABC’s industrial negotiations, which I reported on here.  She has previously been head of national networks for ABC Radio. She was the natural successor, and despite the recent industrial imbroglio one hears more good than bad about her from ABC insiders – and that’s about as much as any ABC executive can hope for. In the media release announcing the appointments, Scott emphasised Dundas’s “depth of experience in…strategic reform”, which is what radio needs. Lack of strategic thinking was perceived as being the reason for Howard’s forced departure.

A slightly more surprising appointment (well, I didn’t predict it ) is Kate Torney as the new Director of News. Torney is presently Head, Asia Pacific News, and has previously been Executive Producer of the TV program Insiders. She has also worked as Producer Stateline (Victoria), a reporter, producer and Bureau Chief 7.30 Report and a reporter for ABC Radio and TV News. This is the first time that ABC News has been headed up by a woman, and while I wouldn’t want to make too much of that, it may help settle what can be a blokey and at its worst bullying culture in some of the state-based newsrooms. Probably more important is that Torney is an innovator, and new-media savvy, having overseen the introduction of broadcast technology to the Australia Network newsroom. The introduction of automated studios for news has not been trouble free. Torney presumably has been there and done that before. Perhaps it was her new media thinking that gave her the edge over the likely candidates I did identify, Craig McMurtrie and Alan Sunderland, both of whom would have been “steady as she goes” predictable appointments.

What do ABC people think of these appoinitments? Tips and opinions received in confidence at margaret@margaretsimons.com.au.

Among the showings was a clip from the Hollowmen, that anticipated how the funding bid might be decided. Good for a chuckle. Go here. The preview is number two on the slideshow display.

UPDATE: ALso available on YouTube here.

Last week, to my amazement, the industry trade journal AdNews reported that Freeview was planning to take action over the spoof, and the claim got another run in The Australian’s Media section this morning.  Could the public relations really be as clumsy as that? Surely Freeview, which is  the promo vehicle for free to air television’s new digital channels, would understand that launching legal action would be the very best way of making sure that a huge audience viewed the spoof? I’d be willing to bet that even the suggestion of legal action has already boosted viewer numbers.

AdNews quickly changed the online version of their story to suggest that instead the spoof had drawn a response from Freeview – whatever that means.

In fact, Fennell and Illic have not heard a word from Freeview – no phone calls, no threatening letters. Nothing. Fennell says that the spoof falls under fair use laws, and that the duo have used more facts in the spoof than appear in the original “cept maybe the gag about one HD’s “sports you’ve never heard of”… Im pretty sure there are some people that have heard of AFL.”

I tried to ring the Chairman of Freeview, Kim Dalton this morning (who is also Director of ABC Television), but have not yet had a response. Could be interesting, given that Fennell also works for the ABC.

UPDATE: Dalton rang me back, and said there was absolutely no truth to suggestions that Freeview was taking legal action over the spoof. “I have no idea where that suggestion came from,” he said.

UPDATE II – Ben Grubb has done an interview with Dan Ilic.

Well that has changed. This morning he tweeted thus:

“Only the ABC can deliver what we are offering in new channels”

and linked to this article from today’s Australian, in which he is quoted as opposing SkyNews’s bid to tender for the international Australia Network TV service by saying it would harm Australian diplomacy:

“There is an agreed understanding that you can’t outsource your diplomatic activities, and you can’t outsource it to Rupert Murdoch’s international operations.”

This needs to be read in the context of the aggressive attempt by pay television to take on the public broadcasters and convince Government that it should not be giving Auntie money for something that the private sector can do. Hence Foxtel’s launch of the public affairs channel, A-PAC, at the very same time as the ABC is trying to get Government funding for a similar project. I have written about this in more detail here and here.

And I would add in passing that given the quality of Foxtel’s public affairs channel A-PAC so far, I would hope that it is possible to do this one a whole lot better, whether with public or private money.

I suspect Scott is playing to the fact that there are plenty of people inside Government with reservations about giving too much control over Australian public affairs to News Limited.

There has been plenty of cause for pessimism in the last few months.  Funding public broadcasters isn’t normally seen as a way of keeping blue collar workers in jobs, which is the government’s understandable preoccupation at the moment.

But the heads of our public broadcasters have not given hope, and I understand there is still a lot of push and pull going on between them and government, which means the cause is not dead.

In this context the Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown, made a speech this morning in which he pushed his own case, and used this rather touching (well…) metaphor on why the fact that SBS gets money from advertising should not be used as an excuse to cut public funding.

During Senate Estimates last week I was asked by a Senator why SBS was asking the Government for a not insignificant amount of additional funding if we were still increasing advertising revenue.
I tried to put into perspective the modest nature of this additional revenue and its important role in lifting our local production to barely acceptable levels.
But what I wanted to say, but wasn’t bold enough, was this. Imagine that SBS is a widow with small children in a Dickensian workhouse. She barely feeds her family on a bowl of gruel a day and is grateful for it.
One day she sells a posy of dried flowers for a penny and buys her children half a loaf of yesterday’s bread. That afternoon the overseer inspects the workhouse and sees the children with the stale breadcrumbs around their mouths. He peers over his round belly and says “I don’t imagine you’ll be needing your gruel this evening!”
Anyway, at the risk of emulating Oliver Twist, we are asking for more, because we can barely survive on what little subsistence we get and because there are vital new challenges to be met.

Brown reprised SBS’s funding submission, with its plans for a new SBS 2 digital channel and more radio services, and made the case for broadcastsing as economic stimulus:

“SBS is a significant contributor to the independent production sector as we commission all of our content externally apart from news, current affairs and sport. We create jobs, invest money and foster skills while at the same time preserving and promoting our cultural identity.
Between 2005 and 2008, SBS invested more than $80 million with the independent production sector. When you add to that the funding leveraged from state and federal funding bodies, the 450 hours of television produced had a production value of $182 million.

As for recent fusses about the possibility SBS and the ABC may merge, Brown restates his passionate opposition:

“SBS is a unique broadcaster with a distinctive Charter. It is imperative as Australia shifts into the digital environment that diversity and plurality is preserved in the media industry and that SBS’s contribution is not diminished or marginalised.
Multiculturalism and diversity cannot be left to become a mere footnote in Australian media.

From Mark Scott:

Dear Colleagues

The ABC’s Director of News, John Cameron today has announced to his News division that after nine years in key leadership roles – first as National Editor and then as Director – he feels it is time for an extended break and then some different challenges. He will be standing down from the Director position at Easter and will take leave for the balance of 2009.

My powers of persuasion failed in convincing him of another course of action. After nearly a decade at the top of his profession – and 25 years at the ABC, the promise of more New Zealand fishing trips, fewer late night and pre-dawn phone calls, and no management meetings, finally held too much sway.

Under John’s leadership, the ABC has cemented its position as the nation’s News leader. On Television, Radio and Online, the ABC reports and analyses the important local, national and international events and issues with a breadth, depth and quality that cannot be found elsewhere in Australia.

On John’s watch, the ABC has developed critically acclaimed new programs, such as Insiders. He has led the push to develop a new capacity to provide a continuous television news service. He has also been a powerful advocate for finding ways new ways to use technology and invest in different programming, like News Breakfast.

The position of Director, News will be advertised shortly and I would encourage appropriately qualified staff across the ABC to consider applying to fill the role.

We will reflect on John’s leadership and thank him formally as he wraps up his time as the Director, but as he announces his own news today, and on behalf of all his colleagues and the ABC Leadership Executive, I want to thank John for his tireless efforts in the role and his passion for ABC News.

Regards

Mark Scott

And from John Cameron:

I’ll be moving on as the ABC’s Director of News next month.

After five years in the job, and the previous four as National Editor, I feel it’s time for a change.

Mark Scott has been good enough to let me take my long service leave, and it’s possible there will be other ABC options for me in a few months.

In the meantime, at least, I’d like to thank the many hundreds of friends and colleagues for their support during my 25 years at the ABC, and especially during my time as Director.

It’s been a great experience and a privilege to help lead the News team into the 21st century and through another decade of editorial excellence and program growth.

The ABC News brand is one of the biggest and best in world broadcasting. I’m confident it will continue to prosper under new leadership.

Cheers
John Cameron

]]> http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/2009/02/26/abc-director-of-news-resigns/feed/ 1 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/2009/02/25/a-true-history-of-religion-on-radio-national/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/2009/02/25/a-true-history-of-religion-on-radio-national/#comments Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:33:16 +0000 Margaret Simons http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/?p=879 A former head of the ABC’s Religion unit has accused management of being “ideologically driven” in downgrading the place of religion at the national broadcaster.

In an article published by Eureka Street, Paul Collins also takes a personal dig at ABC Managing Director Mark Scott, saying: “it would be ironic if a discrete religion unit disappeared while a self-confessed, practicing evangelical Christian was managing director”.

Collins claims that ABC management is  treating the Religion section as being at the sole disposal of one network, Radio National. He describes this as the latest move in “a war of attrition from secularist elements who see belief as a purely private affair with no part in public discourse.”

It springs from a post-modern, secularist belief that religion is dying, is marginal to life and doesn’t impact on the key issues that influence our world. When you point out that religion has become a central issue in post 9/11 politics, secularists shift ground and say: ‘Well, it can be covered by general journalists in current affairs’. This is based on the belief that any journalist can do everything.

Collins also reports that an ecumenical group of religious leaders who met ABC Managing Director Mark Scott earlier this month were met with a “totally inadequate” response. The leaders had asked for the return of a dedicated religious current affairs program, as well as specialist religious journalists to be employed at the ABC.

Collins claims Scott told the leaders that decisions on the future of the religion unit would have to wait until a new head of radio was appointed towards the middle of this year.

Collins’ article is the latest episode in the controversy that followed the axing of ABC Radio National’s Religion Report and other specialist programs late last year. The axing of the programs was announced on air by the Religion Report presenter Stephen Crittenden, who was suspended as a result. (Crittenden has since returned to work on the Background Briefing program.)

The former head of radio, Sue Howard, resigned under pressure shortly afterwards.  At the time, the indications from within the ABC were that Howard had been a barrier to using the ABC’s radio presence as a foundation for new media innovation.

My understanding at the time, as I reported here, was that the emphasis within the ABC was towards using specialist units such as Religion to provide content across platforms, while reducing the emphasis on particular modes of delivery (television, internet, radio, mobile phones and so forth.)

I approached the ABC for comment on Collins’ article today, but was told management had nothing to say at this stage.

I suspect bigger things are brewing, dependent on the success or otherwise of the ABC’s triennial funding submission in the budget.

Personally, I wouldn’t rush to the conclusion that this means a downgrading of religion, but time will tell.