Tonight, the Managing Director of the ABC, Mark Scott, will deliver the A.N. Smith memorial lecture at the University of Melbourne. This speech will be closely scrutinised by the ABC’s commercial rivals who are developing plans to place sections of their content behind paywalls in the hope of replacing revenue lost due to decreasing advertising rates and diminishing circulation. Both James and Rupert Murdoch have singled out public broadcasters as an impediment to their plans, not surprisingly it’s going to be hard for them to charge for content that organisations like the ABC and BBC are giving away for free.
In yesterday’s Australian, Geoff Elliott and Simon Canning described the situation as “mounting criticism of the public broadcaster’s role in the internet space”. However the only criticism seems to be coming from their own employer, who has a vested commercial interest in seeing public broadcasters reduce their online news services to reduce competition with himself.
The ABC is entirely funded by Australian tax-payers and it is one of our most beloved public institutions. We pay for it specifically so that we can receive news without commercialism distorting our access or the content. Murdoch’s argument that the ABC should stop giving people what they’ve paid for seems like one of the silliest things you’d ever hear a media CEO say, until he moves to his other pet hate, Google.
According to Rupert Murdoch’s world-view, Google and other content aggregators are stealing his content, making money from it, and giving no benefit to his organisation.
“The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content.”
However, at the end of the very article reporting these comments, on a News Ltd owned site, what do you find?
A request to the reader to use the very sites that Murdoch decries to promote the story. That’s some pretty powerful chutzpah in action. It’s the same at other News Limited sites, where links to del.icio.us, digg, StumbleUpon and other “aggregators and plagiarists” follow each story.
Murdoch’s combative strategy seems doomed to failure, if News Limited genuinely believed his rhetoric about search engines and content aggregators they could stop Google and other online businesses from cataloguing their content almost instantly. Their failure to do so hardly adds weight to Murdoch’s argument. Similarly, his unilateral attack on public broadcasters seems unlikely to gain much traction in Australia or the UK, where public broadcasters are seen as an integral part of the media landscape.
Unless Mark Scott announces that the ABC are pulling the plug on their online division tonight, we can expect more attacks from Murdoch aimed in their direction as we approach the date where the paywalls go live.
40 Comments
Good piece Dave, and for once I have no trouble giving something posted here a 100% thumbs up.
Well done.
It must be intensely galling for Murdoch that, despite the overwhelming Right-wing bias of his news organisations worldwide, he is achieving so little effect on the political landscape. In the US, it looks like his track record on Obama is about to come home to roost.
I see this concerted multinational attack on the public-funded media as little more than an attempt to destroy free speech.
monkeywrench, if you want a laugh have a look at this
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/president_diddums/
The updates are typical deflection of a post that’s been shown up factualy
and another laugh for you http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/13/origins-global-warming-0
@ monkeywrench: I’ve noticed the WH press secretary has made some choice comments about Fox News – good to see!
Like Rudd with his commentary about news ltd, it seems that Obama isn’t willing to just lie down and take all the smears and beatups the Murdoch press dish out to governments they dont like.
Thanks guys, especially SS@3; that Bolt link beggars description. When you consider that Fox News almost NEVER allows a pro-Obama opinion to air, whereas the ‘biased’ ABC gives the likes of Bolt and Akerman equal time like some strange affirmative-action program, you have to wonder where the Bolt contributors get the sheer effrontery to state such drivel. This is just what Murdoch wants: a pliant readership unprepared to question why they should pay to read news.
Fox News, sometimes called pox news,or LTD NEWS here is just dumbing down the voters.Rudd should canel Murdochs Australian passport.
Barry 09
Murdoch hasn’t got one, Obama should revoke his US one so Rudd can deny him one, I’m sure the Chinese would welcome Comrade Rupert as a citizen.
“Murdoch’s argument that the ABC should stop giving people what they’ve paid for seems like one of the silliest things you’d ever hear a media CEO say, until he moves to his other pet hate, Google.”
It’s an extremely difficult argument but it’s not silly.
Put aside the distain for Murdoch and his business, it costs big money to run big newsrooms, to support and staff quality journalism. The model’s barely workable now with the limited ad revenue and will only get worse with government subsidies to one organisation.
If you’re happy with the state-run media outlet being the only serious local news supplier, then hope like hell that the government of the day hold your same definition of independent news.
The ABC should supplement other media, not replace them.
Upyasmum @ 8 – I agree “it costs big money to run big newsrooms, to support and staff quality journalism”. The problem in particular is that it is Murdoch who is raising this issue, and the idea that he of all people is concerned about his ability to deliver quality journalism is laughable.
As for “The ABC should supplement other media, not replace them.” what’s the ABC supposed to do? Sack half its journalists? Should we cut the ABC’s budget and leave us without *any* in-depth news? And it’s not subsidised – it’s a public utility.
“The ABC should supplement other media, not replace them” Why?
Your whole argument is based on a the words “state-run Media” The ABC (and BBC) have been state-run for decades and aside from the whinging of Right-wing comentators they have remained pretty independent. Many other democrocies have “state-run” media and most seem to work quite well.
Rupert is worried because he cannot think of a way of controlling the internet so he is lashing out. The landscape of the media has changed and some of the old players have been left behind.
Jason Wilson writes about this in New Matilda.
http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/14/news-corps-chorus-complaint
The “state-run media” already are the only serious local news suppliers.
Monkeywrench at #2.
I’m utterly lost. What do you mean by Murdoch’s track record on Obama may “come home to roost?” I checked the link and still have no idea what you are trying to suggest.
I always wondered why I feel so attracted to Google and now Rupie has supplied the reason!
Pedro @ 13
My impression was that Fox ‘News’’ concerted and explicit campaign of personal partisan attacks on the Democrats generally, and Obama and anyone who he expresses support for specifically, since the early days of the election; the Fox News support of the Teabagging lunacy, of Beck’s insane 9/12 ‘movement’; all of this has shown Fox’s bad faith, above any pretence of ‘balance’ or even sane opposition.
And Obama’s White House has now told them “You know what? Fine. But this is a game you can play all on your own. Buh-bye, now.”
I mean, what are Fox going to do in response? Start attacking him? Publish outright lies as ‘legitimate news’? Organise astroturf organisations of lunatics, conspiracy theorists, survivalist militia, secessionists, LaRouchians and assorted Useful Idiots to complain?
How could you tell?
Malcolm, I reckon you’re spot on. The problem here is Murdoch. If it was Beecher that was raising this, I’d bet you’d see it as a serious issue around the future of media.
One trustworthy news outlet doesn’t make up for media diversity.
It ain’t a fourth estate if it’s owned and run by the government.
More power to Obama in going after FixNews. I don’t know why Labor don’t take the same approach here. The Rightards will come back with “oh, but look at all the tewwible things that were said about GWB when he was Prez; look at all the awful things that were said about the Man of Steal” but that’s utter crap. Both GWB and JWH were given a very good run until towards the end of their tenures, when a lot of people (BLOODY FINALLY!!!) began to see thru their crap, and began to see how much damage they were doing.
OTOH, FixNews and the Rightards have been after Rudd and Obama like rabid dogs, from the moment they took office. Maybe putting a few of the little darlings behind bars might wake them up a bit….Won’t happen though.
Crikey already has a subscriber base and content behind a paywall, they have done so without trying to eliminate the ABC from the market and without childish name-calling aimed at Google et al.
The difference here is that the internet does not fit Murdoch’s traditional strategy of entering a market and squeezing the hell out of his competitors, he can’t fight the whole world the way he can use the Herald Sun and Mx to beat up the Age.
Upyasmum@16
But it is it a forth estate if it’s in the hands of people whose main motive is profit? How does the Guardian (owned by a non-profit trust) fit into you conspiracy of “state-run” media?
What we are fighting for here is a free press and that only works if we have choice, and part of that choice is free or non-profit news organisations. One trust worthy news outlet (and that is the ABC in case you were wondering) is better that none and in Rupert’s world that’s what we would have.
BTW doesn’t Rupert own one of the Social Media web sites he is railing against?
I get all that, Catshide. The question (to Monkeywrench) was what does the “come home to roost” part mean.
And we all think that’s terrific, Dave. But Crikey’ never brought down a government, never applied serious heat to a police minister, never driven a hospital to be properly funded, never forced serious legislative change etc., etc., etc.
You may enjoy seeing the back end of the Herald Sun and mx but how happy will you be to see The Age fall over? Will Google hold people like Cain, Kirner, Kennett, Bracks, Brumby to account for the show they run in Victoria? Can you be sure the ABC will?
The ABC could be seriously contributing to the death of the newsroom in Australia. I don’t want my tax dollars paying for that.
You do understand the word ‘consequences’, don’t you Pedro? That if a media company spends practically their entire output abusing and insulting someone, like, say, the President of the United States of America, then he might just stop speaking to them. Or releasing information to them. Or inviting them to his press conferences. Or inviting them on Airforce 1. Or any number of other things which neither you nor I can think of.
(PS, it’s “Catsidhe”: Cat – Sidhe, pronounced something like ‘caught-she’. HTH, HAND.)
Oh cry me a river! What an hysterical piece of rubbish – in fact the entire comment 21 is just alarmist concern trolling.
These claims about the ABC dominating the news space as a bad thing is a very recent complaint, like, since companies such as Newscorp started losing money because of the boon of free online material. If they never cared about the ABC except for when Media Watch turned its blowtorch on them, why the sudden *concern* about there only being one credible news agent?
Upyasmum@21
Who said anything about google provide the news, all google will do (and does now) is help you find that news. There are and will continue to be news sources on the net and many of them free (that is free of the constraints of the profit motive). News and fairfax will probably survive but they are going to have to adapt. Whinging about competition is not going to help them adapt, if people won’t pay for there services they are going to have to find other ways to generate cash.
The model we have for the Media is evolving as it always has in the face of new technology, and if News and Fairfax can’t adapt they will go the way of the Argus et al.
Crikey (and the ABC before it got wingnutted) treat all governments equally, without partisan bias. You can’t say the same thing about news ltd. And please spare me the usual rightard response of this paper on election day advocated for Rudd – I’m talkiing about the overall editorial philosophy on those other 900-odd days in the 3 year period.
The silly war that news ltd is waging against Rudd and Obama administrations is being played back against them: Rudd has not shied away from Rupe and his stable (even cutting Glen Milne down by calling him the “liberal party journalist of choice”), and the WH is giving it back to Fox news. What these outlets gain in brownie points from their base, they lose in access to government sources, scoops, and credibility among independent voters. Crikey has never “brought down a government”, but news ltd is unlikely to ever do so again: The Australian these days simply preaches to the converted, and as polls keep telling us, those people alone will never again re-elect a coalition government.
Blogging originated in part as a response to the partisan myopia of the MSM. The days of Rupert’s stable of journos, opinion editors and columnists being the sole gatekeepers of information are over, whether he (or you for that matter) likes it or not. If all he’s prepared to offer is more of the same rubbish only packaged differently I’d be prepared to bet my house he’ll keep losing audiences and money.
Also, to claim that the non-MSM don’t have a role in influencing policy is to ignore how large and influential the blogosphere is in the US.
You’re not suggesting that mx is squeezing The Age out of the market, are you?
No, I’m suggesting that the News Ltd modus operandi has always been to start a circulation war in particular markets to try to cripple their competitors. News has been able to cross subsidise these circulation wars for years, but with the global reach of the internet the idea of newspapers in particular markets has all but lost its relevance.
1) All News Ltd online publications in Australia have spent the past five years specifically optimising their news sites to rank highly in Google. A large percentage of their traffic comes from Google, and ranking high there means bigger hits which can tanslate to bigger ad revenue. Redesigns of the sites are done with Google in mind. Captions, headlines, intros and excerpts have all been specifically coded for Google.
That Rupert now says Google is a thief is hilarious. His little minions have prided themselves for years on Google rankings and even triumphantly pass around screengrabs showing News Ltd domination of Google news pages. The “Google is evil” attitude has left many online staff perplexed as their core traffic-enhancing strategies rely largely on Google news rankings.
2) The shrinkage of News Ltd and Fairfax will have very little effect on investigative journalism. They like to go on about this angle, but really how many truly important stories has the Daily Telegraph or Herald Sun broken this year ? Those publications are far more active in the promotion of titillation, inane sport reports, regurgitated PR and celebrity froth. It’s the ABC and programs like Four Corners that do the real stories. And even if the newspapers do die there won;t just be this big vacuum, it’ll be filled with new forms of journalism, and it’s hard to imagine they could be worse than what we have now.
3) The financial pain of the newspaper industry is absolutely no different to that of any industry facing technological, social or demographic change. Industries die. Businesses close. That’s as it’s always been. The *only* difference here is that the newspaper industry is in a position to bleat loud and long about themselves over and over again.
This year the Tele gave us Godwin ‘Grant’ in a front page faked email designed to give readers the impression such an email had actually been sent from treasury public servant to the PM’s office. They couldn’t even get Grech’s name right. Meanwhile the ABC was breaking news that Grech’s home had been searched by AFP, computer had been taken away, and no email had been found on his home computer. The ABC broke the story that Grech was a Liberal party treasury mole and had been feeding to them for years.
What was News ltd doing in this period? Too busy clapping itself for its ‘Kingmaker’ role in that it was one if its journos who had the ’scoop’. When the ABC did Lewis’ work for him and actually investigated, News were forced to try and spin their way out of how one of their senior press gallery journos had fallen for something he should of checked out first, and why the paper decided to go full front page without the authenticity of the information being verified. Bring down a government? Please don’t make me laugh.
Crikey’s not biased? Well done.
And as usual, you’ve managed to miss the point completely. This is not an argument about News Corp., it’s a question about the future of a robust local media.
If the ABC is funding a free service with tax dollars, it has the potential to squeeze other large players out of the market. It’s only the big operators that can afford big newsrooms, big pictorial department, big back benches, the ability to insert journos into the rottenest places on earth, etc., etc., etc. And they can only spend money on these things if they’re making it.
For a bunch of people that place such high standards on media, you seem strangely comfortable with it moving towards a monopoly in this country. Unless, of course, you’re full of shit and just want media that agrees with you. At the moment.
And confessions, you bemoan the government-forced inclusion of wingnuts or rightards or whatever to ABC programming. Good to see that you’re now pleased with this potentially being the only large local media outlet. Flawless thinking.
The sooner News Ltd disintegrates, the better we all will be as a polity.
No other organisation has done more to degrade the standards of journalism and public debate in 3 significant industrial democracies — USA, UK and here.
Page 3 girls, beating up on minorities, moral panic and “publish first, verify later” attitudes — News misinforms a large number of people in every market it operates in. And when you complain or criticise, it will claim it is essential to democracy because of some guff about the fourth estate or free speech. Balls.
Mark Scott:
Murdoch’s public statements simply confirm this view IMO.
It took a long time coming but now that Murdoch is no longe regarded as ‘the Emperor’ perhaps he may decide to provide better product so that we will want to read it again.
Upyasmum – sorry if you have someone involved in Murdoch publications but most of us don’t feel the least bit sorry for the proprietor of them.
New media will take old media’s place more than adequately even if the adjustment will be hard for some to take.
I love crikey.
Dave, what’s a circulation war and how often are News Ltd starting them?
Great to see Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal today became the US’s top selling daily, actually picking UP circulation. Looks like people will pay for an online edition – as long as the content is worth it.
And better news on Fox News’ ratings this week….
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-finishes-4th-in-prime-time-demo-for-7th-consecutive-weeknight/
Watch them climb higher now that now that IT’S WAR!
Bertus: “Maybe putting a few of the little darlings behind bars might wake them up a bit….Won’t happen though.”
And why on earth should it???
Pedro @ 34 – WSJ is like the AFR – it has a near-monopoly in its market on business-related detailed coverage in its market and hence is a “must-have” for a well-heeled and large business audience. Its and the AFRs success with paywalls have no relevance for more general newspapers.
Maybe we could direct some public funds towards News Ltd.
Then News Ltd would also represent an orgainsation delivering news “without commercialism distorting our access or the content”
Related advertising “evils” would be made redundant.
The Left would certainly accept that, wouldn’t they?
Well Pedro perhaps News Ltd’s Australian publications should become specialist financial publications too. I’m sure that would do wonders for their circulations. *burp*
Dear, dear.
A specialty daily overtakes the circulation of ANY US mainstream daily for the first time, and you’re dismissing it as pffft, happens all the time??
Hilarious.