The ABC will seek more money and  commitment from government to allow the public broadcaster to carry its services to the world in an ambitious roll out involving many new overseas news bureaus, Arabic language services and ultimately a new satellite.

At a speech at Macquarie University tomorrow night  ABC Managing Director Mark Scott will outline a plan to place the ABC at the forefront of Australia’s “soft diplomacy”, with resources and reach to  rival the BBC and CNN as a  provider of news and information in our region.

Scott’s speech is significant both in its own right and as another example of the ABC’s increasingly assertive brand of media politics.

It is  a pre-emptive strike against the commercial television stations seeking to win the Government contract for the Australian Network television presence – which is up for renewal in 18 months time.

The speech is also a continuation of Scott’s strategy of marrying the ABC’s aspirations to other aspects of Government policy. His pitch for funding in the last budget round was largely organised around the Government’s need to encourage take up of digital television technology and the rationale for the National Broadband Network.

In the  speech tomorrow night, Scott places the ABC’s international presence in the context of Rudd’s moves to create the G20 as the pre-eminent global institution for economic policy making. Scott will say:

We have an important role to play and we have to use all the tools at our disposal to continue to do so – one of these tools is soft diplomacy – using the media to put our nation’s culture, values and policies on show.

Scott will announce that the ABC’s Australia Network international television presence, which is funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is to be merged with Radio Australia to become a single “brand”, working seamlessly with online content, podcasting and internet based catch up services.

He will argue that the government needs to spend more money on international broadcasting to become the dominant regional provider of news, information and English language learning material. Without more investment, he says, Australia will risk being overtaken and dominated by China, India and other countries of the region.

Scott is (although he doesn’t say it in so many words) taking the fight up to pay and commercial free to air television. He is positioning public broadcasting as indispensable to Australia’s national interests at a time when many see the ABC’s claim on the taxpayer purse as less justifiable in the new era of media plenty, and when pay television providers are arguing that they can do most of what the ABC does without calling on the public purse.

Scott lays out three steps to enhance Australia’s regional media presence, starting with five new regional news bureaus to make a total of 14 in Asia, the Pacific and India – more than either CNN or the BBC.

In our sights are the two biggest regional markets – China and India. We are intent on securing the all important “landing rights” for the service in China. And we are concious of the need to significantly expand our presence in what is now the third largest television market in the world, India.

Step two, Scott says, would be to expand into Africa and the Middle East with additional news bureaus and Arabic language content for radio and online.

Step three would be a roll out into Latin America, which would require carriage on a new satellite. Also on the cards is a use of broadband delivery to break into the North American and European markets, to find a place amidst their saturation subscription television markets.

Scott describes the blueprint as ambitious, but lists the increasing amounts being spent by other G20 countries  on their international media presence.

Even a doubling of our existing effort adds up to less than half of the budget of Baz Luhmann’s Australia. And for that money, we would be able to showcase the best of Australia, our news, sport and entertainment, our values and our culture, our democracy, round the clock, day in day out, in tens of millions of homes, across the region, across the world.

In our view, a relatively modest investment, certainly in comparison to the vast sums being spent by our fellow members of the G20, would yield immediate, tangible benefits.

Without directly mentioning the challenge from pay television for government money, Scott argues that only the ABC can deliver the benefits.

When you look at the expansion of international broadcasting as an arm of soft diplomacy, Governments are using their public broadcasters to do this work. You shouldn’t outsource your diplomatic efforts.

He argues that the ABC is better placed for the task because it is free of any commercial agenda “that could conflict with its public duty role.”

Scott is giving so many landmark speeches recently that even he is getting the names muddled up. In the AN Smith at Melbourne University a couple of weeks ago, he laid into Murdoch and reflected on the demise of media empires. Tomorrow morning Scott will be talking again on new media at the Media140 conference in Sydney. There will be more announcements there – watch this space.

But the speech scheduled for tomorrow night is a doozy. Scott signals he thinks the Government should spend up to twice as much on the international media effort, and give it all to the ABC.

Expect return fire shortly from pay and free to air commercial television interests. You read it here first.

The Federal Government has – at last – announced a digital future for Community Television.

It really is not before time, even given the complexities involved. As long ago as June 2007, I wrote about how community television – which has a devoted band of followers and is an important training ground for the industry – was doomed to a slow “fade out” as viewers switched to digital television equipment. Community stations were not granted the spectrum to allow them to simulcast their services in digital as well as analogue, meaning that for quite a while the transition to digital television actually meant a reduction in diversity for Australian viewers.

There have been various suggestions floated, including striking a deal with commercial broadcasters to carry the Community television signal.

Well, now we know. The community sector will get the so called Channel A spectrum, which was once set aside by former Minister for Communications, Senator Helen Coonan, for the nonsense of “datacasting” – a limited service designed around nothing more profound than not upsetting the existing broadcasters’ business models too much. As reports in today’s papers about the debt position of Channels Nine and Seven suggest, it is probably too late to worry about their business models.

So good news for Community Television, but also significant because it is the first small step on the road to carving up the spectrum in the wake of the digital move. Expect much, much more on this carve-up in the years ahead.

Readers of my piece in Crikey yesterday on the Keating/Sunday Telegraph stoush will know that I sought comment from the reporter and photographer concerned. The photographer was not contactable. The reporter referred me to News Limited’s Director of Corporate Affairs, Greg Baxter, who as readers will know has previously engaged me in vigorous correspondence which I published on this blog. Baxter did not get back to me yesterday. This morning the following was in my email inbox. An explanation of Baxter’s references, and my response to his points, follows.

Margaret, Neilsen numbers for The Punch and Crikey. You know as well as I do that my expression that The Punch had “killed” Crikey’s numbers was not literal. The point is that The Punch has been going for 5 months and Crikey must have had a decade’s head start. Anyway, it’s pointless taking you to task on anything really. Your recent piece on the Press Council was almost entirely incorrect but it is useless sending you any solid evidence to the contrary because you simply aren’t interested in anything we have to say other than to deliberately misinterpret it to suit whatever response you can make up at the time. Your piece yesterday about the Keatings was a gold medal performance. The journalism would not cut it here – you spoke to two people, both unnamed, neither saw what happened, yet you took entirely at face their account of what they believed Katherine Keating would or wouldn’t have done and used this as the basis for your accusation that our staff provoked the attack. We on the other hand have a number of signed and witnessed statements from people who were eye witnesses.

Greg Baxter

Baxter’s reference to Neilsen numbers refers to our earlier correspondence in which Baxter asserted that News Limited’s The Punch had “killed” Crikey’s numbers, and my response which quoted the numbers for October to that date, which  showed Crikey ahead of The Punch.   Baxter provides some unique browser numbers that were released yesterday.  ( have not yet had independent access. I hope to get it later today). The numbers are:

These numbers do indeed show the Punch (which I regard as a good and vigorous publication, by the way) opening a lead over Crikey, although “killed” is clearly overplaying it.

Baxter’s reference to the Press Council is about this story and this blog post as well as  this one . Since Baxter does not say how he thinks I am wrong, it is difficult to respond in detail. I would hardly have expected News Limited to be pleased with my analysis, which blamed many of the Council’s recent problems on News Limited high handedness. However, following the publication of the Crikey story, I received an email from the  new Press Council chairman, Julian Disney, in which he said, in part:

I am not used to being quoted quite so accurately (perhaps it is a benefit of the dying art of shorthand).

Regards,

Julian

Shorthand is indeed a valuable thing. Moving on.

As for the Keating story and Baxter’s claim about signed witness statements: In other news reports News Limited CEO John Hartigan has been quoted as referring to two signed witness statements – by the reporter and photographer concerned.  But the reporter has declined to comment to me, the photographer has not yet responded to a message left asking for comment and, as I said, Baxter has not until now responded to requests for comment, let alone released these witness statements. I would be very happy to write about these witness statements or indeed publish them, or any others,  in full, if News Limited wants to make them available. In the meantime I am left with the testimony of others – more than two people -  who were there, though admittedly they did not witness the key moment, and so far have declined to be named.

Is there a growth story for Fairfax, and what might it look like?

The rumble I hear around town is that the low standing of Fairfax Media at present is already being reflected in decisions being made behind closed doors by government and other key media decision makers. If there is a growth and a renewal story, it needs to be found soon.

The Australian Council of Super Investors’ report on the contest for the Fairfax Board got a fair bit of airplay last week.  A copy of the  document has landed in my intray and can be read here. The contenders for the Board include Gerard Noonan, Steve Harris and Stephen Mayne. ACSI rejected the Board’s recommendation of a vote against all three, instead giving qualified support for Harris and Noonan. 

Relatively unreported were the results of the ACSI’s interviews with board candidates. Harris  told them

There was a need for Fairfax to create and sell a “growth story” on the company’s future
prospects. He would be eager to see the company focus on growth and not become overly
concerned with print media competition and cost control.

That will be music to the content makers’ ears. But what is that growth story?The Board’s actions mean we will probably never know what Harris has in mind. As for Noonan, he told ACSI that if elected he would focus on:

ensuring the Fairfax Media board on his departure would have at least half of its
membership “under 40” with significant experience and knowledge of new media.

Perhaps a woman as well? With Julia King’s retirement, the Board is presently composed entirely of men.

As reported elsewhere, the ACSI report favors  abstention or a vote for Noonan and Harris. It would be “reasonable” to vote for them because of their media experience. Mayne also has media experience, but is not  supported because

his status as a perennial board candidate and shareholder activist…makes it less likely he would be able to work
constructively with the incumbent board.

(Noonan, it should be said, is a director of  ACSI, but did not take any part in its assessment of the candidates for the Fairfax Board.)

ACSI says that it normally opposes non-board endorsed candidates because they create the risk of factionalised and dysfunctional boards, but in a tart comment, adds

In the case of Fairfax Media ACSI notes that the incumbent board has clearly suffered from division
and has presided over a decline in returns to shareholders. The commitment of the chairperson
elect to board renewal is positive but ACSI notes that this commitment includes the appointment
of directors with media experience – and all three non-board endorsed candidates have significant
media experience. ACSI notes that the risk of the Fairfax Media board becoming divided as a result of the election of
non-board endorsed candidates must be balanced by the recent divisions among the incumbent,
board-endorsed, directors.

What might the growth story for Fairfax look like? We are unlikely to find out. The Fairfax board has declared there are only two vacant positions. One of them belongs to the new chairman, Roger Corbett. No candidate can be elected with less than 50 per cent of the votes, which means with the Board recommending against, Noonan, Harris and Mayne are faced with mission impossible.

But what happens after the AGM? The Board has made it clear it wants to recruit media experience. Where will it turn? What is the “growth story”?

*Declaration: Harris and Noonan are on the Board of the recently established Foundation for Public Interest Journalism, of which I am the Chair.

I’ve been waiting for the dust to settle from ABC Managing Director Mark Scott’s lecture two weeks ago to say this, but the dust doesn’t seem to want to lie down.

So I will say it anyway. I think we have missed the main point.

Sure, the attack on Emperor Rupert was entertaining and an easy headline, but I think the thread of Scott’s speech that will have more long term significance is what he said about the power of the audience, and how the ABC might respond to this. Remember this bit?

Successful organisations will be willing to empower their audiences to contribute, to create and to share media. Will cede power to audiences to gain engagement and respect.

They will be willing to let other voices to be heard. They will learn how to protect brand integrity whilst entrusting their brand to others.

To a degree everyone is doing this, but the greatest success will come when an audience, long treated with an oligipolist’s disdain, is treated with real respect and the contribution is seen as a valued contribution. The simple fact is that young audiences – the future of every media organisation, including the ABC – have the tools and now the experience and the expectation to create and share media.

They do it with their friends, they want to do it with us. It is how they connect and belong.

And the media organisation that doesn’t make audience contribution a central part of their strategy, fades to black. We recognised immediately that by mixing content that comes from within the ABC with content from without, the pro–am model we end up with the most powerful content possible.

We are still working on getting the balance right.

The rumble in the jungle is that we might be hearing more about this soon. Watch this space.