Contents

Executive summary
Introduction
Media and the public interest
The American experience
‘New Media’
Contemplating the Australian reforms
Change: First indications
Conclusion – lessons for Australia?
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Endnotes

Introduction

The media

There are a number of assessments of the role the media play in society. Most acknowledge their importance in shaping the way people think and their influence on personal choices. Generally, it is agreed that the media play multiple roles in society. The most obvious of these are: Collection and dissemination of information; transmission of social and cultural values; education; and entertainment.

These roles in turn can involve a number of aspects, for example, the information function of the media can include the generation of political and social ideas and the shaping of policy agendas and priorities. In providing information the media can also be responsible for the inspiration and mobilization of political and social groups. Or the media’s information role can involve an accountability aspect; they monitor and criticise governments, bureaucracies and social institutions.

I acknowledge the importance of the various roles of the media. However, this research brief deliberately emphasises their role in providing the public with an informed basis upon which views can be expressed and decisions made about political and social issues. That is, the brief seeks to discuss the media in the context of their role as the collectors and disseminators of information and not to consider the other roles of the media. The paper emphasises also that the role of information collection and dissemination is multi dimensional – dissemination of information means therefore, not just providing information but providing a variety of information and views.

In short, the arguments in the paper have been presented from the perspective that the role of the media in civil society is not only to inform, but also to clarify and illuminate on the information provided. In this way the media act in the public interest.

In defining traditional media, this research brief also restricts discussion to mainstream media. It is not possible within the limitations of the brief to consider ethnic media in either the United States or Australia. It should be noted, however, that there are, for example, hundreds of ethnic newspapers in the United States and that these are published in over 40 languages. [1] Despite this, and while it appears that ethnic media in the United States is growing rapidly, there has been little attempt to date by large media companies to take over ownership of ethnic media outlets. [2]

In Australia, in the 2001 Census, over 3 million people identified themselves as speaking a language other than English. There are over 200 ethnic newspapers in languages ranging from Nepalese to Urdu, as well as a number of ethnic radio stations.  The major media companies in Australia to date, have not shown interest in purchasing ethnic media. [3]

I am aware also that there is a community broadcasting sector in Australia that clearly can be defined as public broadcasting. [4]  The sector also clearly provides diversity of opinion and alternative media outlets for non English speaking Australians. [5] Given the limitations of this research brief, I am unable to discuss this sector in depth. However, the arguments presented concerning the principal public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and the Special Broadcasting Service, apply similarly to the community broadcasting sector. These are principally that the sector needs to be appropriately funded and supported for it to function effectively.

United States

In America, the press has been afforded protection under the First Amendment to the American Constitution, ‘in appreciation of the crucial role it plays in maintaining a free society’. [6] Judicial interpretation in relation to programming also indicates special protection rights apply similarly to broadcasters as protectors of democratic values. [7]

United States media is most often perceived to be commercial media. While public broadcasting exists and commands a substantial audience, it is often not perceived as a central feature of the media landscape. [8] This is possibly because American broadcasting ideology has maintained that a free commercial press, unfettered by public restraint, will deliver a more progressive, socially responsible private enterprise. As one commentator remarks, the fundamental American belief has been that possible failures in a privately–dominated media system ‘could be corrected by appeals to private broadcasters’ conscience, gentle regulatory coercion and an ETV [Educational Television] service supported at minimal levels’. [9]  

For most of the twentieth century, it was generally accepted in the United States that some form of media ownership regulation of the commercial media was essential to serve the public interest. Ownership regulation was considered important because it ensured there were a number of media voices and that these voices delivered a plethora of opinion. Since the 1980s, this view has been challenged. The introduction of new media technologies and new types of media, which coincided in America with an ascendancy of thinking about freeing up the marketplace, resulted in moves towards a more deregulatory media environment.

Prior to the late 1970s, media ownership policy in the United States also relied on regulation created and applied under the auspices of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It aimed to achieve accountability through fostering diversity of opinion and opportunity for criticism of political and social mores. In the last thirty years, however, while the rhetoric of promoting democratic values has continued, media ownership policy under the FCC has increasingly moved from ownership regulation to embrace and encourage deregulatory action.

A number of ownership deregulatory measures have been introduced since the 1980s; the most radical of these was the Telecommunications Act 1996. This Act was initially well received as the changes it promised to telecommunications in five areas, including broadcasting, were promoted as potentially beneficial to all Americans. However, as noted throughout this research brief, some Americans have begun to wonder about the accuracy of the claims made about the Telecommunications Act. These were essentially that ownership deregulation would deliver an abundance of media types that would ensure an abundance of opinion would continue to be generated and promulgated to an abundance of people in a deregulated media environment. (See Appendix A for a discussion of the arguments in support of ownership deregulation).

There is evidence to suggest that despite realisation of the promised increase in media sources, ownership deregulation has at the same time reduced the range of media voices available. As such, some critics of ownership deregulation argue it has undermined free speech and homogenised opinion. (Appendix A considers the arguments against ownership deregulation in more depth).

The most recent proposals for media reform in America were launched amidst considerable ‘grassroots’ public protest. Prior to the 2006 Congressional elections further ownership deregulatory moves were also stalled in the light of judicial decisions. In tandem with judicial questioning of ownership deregulation, crucial debates about the extent to which media ownership regulation protects the public interest have polarised and intensified.   (For a more detailed background on the history of American media tradition and the moves towards deregulation see Appendix B).

One view of American media ownership deregulation Source: Daryl Cagle [10]

Australia

The print media in Australia enjoy a similar freedom from government regulation as in the United States, although there is no constitutional protection. The broadcast media have been subject to regulation in both countries and broadcasting rules were introduced around the same time. Nevertheless, there have been a number of differences between both media environments.

Unlike America, in Australia a number of authorities have been responsible for regulation of the broadcasting sector. The Australian Communications and Media Authority is the latest of these. ACMA’s responsibilities are listed as including the protection of consumers and other users and fostering an environment in which the electronic media respects community standards and responds to audience and user needs. [11]     

Media regulation has been sporadic and inconsistent in the Australian context. This in part has contributed to a more concentrated media environment in Australia. Geography and population density have also been contributing factors in this concentration, as has the sometimes overt influence of major media owners.

The concept of the media as a vital tool to foster the public interest is also less frequently and passionately articulated in Australia than in America. It is possible this is because Australians are more confident that their version of public broadcasting, inherited principally from the United Kingdom, will provide the necessary diversity and media balance to serve the public interest.

Claims about the influence of major media owners on Australian governments, regardless of the political persuasion of those administrations, have been made frequently. Many Australian politicians have believed media barons can ‘deliver’ electoral consequences and as such, media owners’ preferences have often been indulged in media policy-making. [12]   One media observer claims, for example, that Prime Ministers Lyons, Menzies, Fraser, Hawke and Keating blatantly favoured major media proprietors in allocation of broadcasting licences. [13]   

Limiting expenses has been an important factor in the Australian media environment. This has been a constant in a market geographically almost the size of America, but considerably smaller in terms of population.

Arguably, diversity of views in the Australian media has always been less than in the American press (and the press in many other democracies, such as the United Kingdom). This may be because of the small Australian market place or the fact that there is less political polarisation in Australia. It is likely, however, that diversity has always been a potential casualty of the same economic considerations which limited outlays and encouraged media concentration. As Trevor Barr notes, the Australian media are dominated by a commercial ideology which, while it reflects the institutional reality of economics, also inevitably restricts the range of diverse and antagonistic views the commercial media system can offer the public. [14]      

Print media in Australia has been on the road to concentration since the 1920s. In 1926, there were 26 capital city newspapers published on a daily basis and 21 independent owners. In 2005, this had reduced to 12 newspapers predominantly owned by John Fairfax Holdings and News Corporation. [15]  

Radio ownership was initially dominated by major print owners and while this is no longer the case, it continues to be concentrated in few hands. Four metropolitan companies own the majority of metropolitan stations and each has a radio audience reach of over 50 per cent; one company owns almost 45 per cent of all regional stations. [16]  

Television is a similar story. Kerry Stokes’ Seven Network and the Ten Network (effectively controlled by the Canadian company Canwest, despite existing foreign ownership regulation – see later comment) own the majority of stations in metropolitan areas. Win Corp and Prime Television own the majority of regional broadcasters. [17]

The Australian version of media diversity? Source: Nicholson [18]

The concept of a public broadcaster as an essential feature on the media landscape represents a vital difference between Australia and America. The public broadcaster idea easily transferred to Australia from Britain early in the twentieth century and since then public broadcasting has been seen as a type of public service. From this perspective it has been defined as a ‘cultural, moral and educative force for the improvement of knowledge, taste and manners’. [19] At the same time, it has been seen as a unifying force ‘in the creation of an informed and enlightened democracy’, [20] just as the private media has been lauded as the guardian of American democracy. As such, it may be possible that the existence of a strongly supported and nurtured public broadcasting system could be a vital counter against any vagaries which may result from ownership deregulation, in a way not conceivable in the United States. The potential countervailing influence of an Australian public broadcaster culture is likely only to be influential in a deregulatory environment, however, if it is supported and nurtured to act for this purpose.

Donald McDonald notes that in the concentrated Australian media market, the Australian model of public broadcasting is unique. It is an amalgam of the British and American experiences and ‘the software of effective democracy’. [21]   In McDonald’s view, the principal public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), therefore not only provides the public with news reports, but also with a variety of investigative and other fare not available from Australian commercial media.

Some have criticised the ABC as elitist and consider a public broadcaster unnecessary in an age where a certain proportion at least of the ‘niche’ programs it broadcasts can be seen on pay television and where pay television has more channels to cater responsively to the needs of audiences. But niche programming is only part of the public broadcaster role. The further functions of that role include producing innovative programming that promotes a sense of national identity and cultural diversity and encourages an understanding of the world.

It appears the value of a public broadcaster in achieving these aims is recognised by the majority of Australians [22] and that they agree with the view that the ABC is the ‘yardstick by which the commercials are kept honest’. [23] In short, as Ken Inglis notes, for Australians, the ABC as a public broadcaster is a cherished and trusted institution. [24] (For more detail on Australian media traditions, attempts to address concentration and the media landscape prior to the 2006 media ownership reforms, see Appendix C).

Media and the public interest

One view of the media is that it simply delivers what interests the public; it is no different from other commodities in producing and delivering goods. [25] According to this view, news and entertainment that has broad, mainstream appeal, which attracts and retains advertisers and sells products is valuable. Everything else is ‘narrow and highbrow’, the prerogative of elites who seek to impose their preferences on unwilling citizens. In defending this view in an American context, Adam Thierer accuses past policymakers of promoting ‘fairy tale’ rhetoric in attempting to direct the content or character of the media towards some obscure, non existent noble end – what they label ‘the public interest’. According to Thierer, there is no such thing because in a democracy the public interest is indefinable. In a democracy there can only be ‘numerous and changing interested publics.’ [26]

Definition of the public interest is a challenging task. This is because the term necessarily alters over time to reflect changes in society and because it involves at least a degree of subjectivity. The public interest can be related to ideas, like ‘common advantage’, ‘common good’, ‘public good’, ‘public benefit’ or ‘general will’. For example, a common good can be defined as a factor or set of factors that direct a person’s collaboration with others and likewise, that directs their collaboration with each other and with that person. Following from this perspective, public benefits or goods must be protected in the public interest and for the common good. [27] Another interpretation is that the public interest can also mean more generally what is considered beneficial to the public, that is, that the ‘public interest does not mean what is of interest to the public but what is in the interest of the public’. [28]

There is also the issue of to what extent the public interest is a ‘moving feast’. Despite rhetoric in America about how the media should serve the public interest, there has been some discussion about whether original interpretations of the public interest are actually in contrast to current thinking. It has been argued, for example, that invoking the public interest as a condition for the licensing of radio stations in America in the 1920s meant that authorities could ban, in the name of ‘public interest, convenience and necessity’, broadcasts of the so called subversive ideas of ‘unions, socialists, communists, evolutionists, improper thinkers, non-Christians, and immigrants’. [29]

With reference to the media and taking Thierer’s conclusion as a starting point, however, and for the purposes of the arguments put forward in this research brief, it is possible to define what constitutes the public interest in certain terms. These relate to the capacity of the media to provide citizens with the information, education and quality entertainment they need to participate in political and social life – to be interested citizens, or in Thierer’s terminology, publics. It is possible to conclude from such a definition that, unlike other industries, the media is unique in this capability.   

A continuous diet of ‘Big Brother’ style entertainment, [30] or sensationalised news promoted in a homogenised and corporatised environment that discourages public dialogue and fails to expose people to new and /or different ideas, does not correspond with such a definition. In   serving the public interest the media needs to:

This view of the media appears particularly to represent the ideas of a number of Americans, from varying political and social strata, who have rallied for a re–evaluation of the direction media policy in the United States has taken since the 1980s.

While the same intensity in rhetoric about the public interest is not commonplace in Australia, public interest considerations have not been entirely missing in references to the media’s role. A 1954 Royal Commission, which considered the introduction of television to Australia, for example, stressed that the medium should be entrusted to commercial and public broadcasters on the basis that it was to be used to benefit all members of society. [32]

On the other hand, a number of media critics argue the idea of a public interest has played no role in media policy making in Australia. In reflecting on the Hawke Labor Government’s reshaping of the media industry in 1986, it is Julianne Schultz view, for example, that the public interest was not considered. According to Schultz, there was talk of takeovers, share price movements and accusations of deals for mates, but no discussion of why the ownership of the media is important in a liberal democracy. [33]

Regardless of the extent to which the public interest has been of concern in determining past media policy in Australia, it clearly has not been as dominant a concern as in America. It is possible that the confidence Australians place in a principal public broadcaster explains this situation. The Charter of the Australian prime public broadcaster, the ABC, has been clearly framed to reflect public interest criteria. The public broadcaster is required to provide an independent national broadcasting service which educates, informs and promotes awareness for Australians about national and international affairs. Its service is also to contribute to a sense of national identity and to reflect and enrich the cultural diversity of the Australian community. [34]

Australians appear comfortable with this role for public broadcasters. It appears they are also comfortable with a situation where public broadcasters are charged with acting responsibly and independently in protecting the public interest. [35] Such a situation relies on the assumption that a public broadcaster of this type will always be adequately resourced to discharge its responsibilities. [36]

The American experience

Overview

On signing the Telecommunications Act in 1996, President Bill Clinton predicted an overhaul of media ownership regulation introduced under the Act would deliver lower prices for American consumers and better quality services and greater choices. At the same time it would ensure the benefits of ‘a diversity of voices and viewpoints in radio, television and print media’. [37]

The following table would suggest that the Act has not delivered these benefits.

United States: Media consolidation trends: Source: Media Reform Information Centre [38]

Radio

Regulation of radio broadcasting from 1927 was beneficial to local American communities. It not only promoted competition between small local operators, but fostered a diversity of local viewpoints. [39] The Telecommunications Act immediately and dramatically changed this situation. By 2002, one out of every three previous owners had left the radio industry after sales saw more than 4400 stations bought and sold during 1996 and 1997 alone. [40] The industry went from one serviced by a myriad of independent radio broadcasters, to one controlled by radio ‘giants’, (as is illustrated by the example of Clear Channel Communications in Box 1).

Box 1: Clearly an American radio giant - the case of Clear Channel Communications Prior to the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, no single radio corporation in America was able to own more than 40 stations. In 2006, one company, Clear Channel Communications, [41] owned more than 1200 radio stations and boasted a listening audience of over 110 million. Ten companies dominated two–thirds of the American radio audience. Clear Channel and Viacom, (the owner of Infinity Broadcasting), controlled broadcasting to 42 per cent of listeners and amassed 45 per cent of radio industry revenues. [42] In addition, between 1994 and 2001, the number of full–time radio newsroom staff contracted by 44 per cent and part–time news staff by more than two–thirds. The common complaints from the public arising from these changes were about the loss of diversity in radio – there was less or no local news on radio and play lists were homogenised. [43] Clear Channel extended its dominance of radio through a concomitant take over of the live concert industry. It has since been accused of using its market position to indulge in anti competitive practices, selecting play lists based on the payment of promotional fees and on the basis of whether the company agrees with the politics or messages of performers. [44]  The Media Access Project lobby group has claimed Clear Channel’s methods and efficiencies have virtually eliminated local music and local news and that the organisation relies purely on national play-lists, centralised news services and technology. More importantly in terms of maintaining diversity, Media Access has accused Clear Channel of determining which talk show hosts are syndicated, to ensure only one point of view is broadcast over its stations. [45] In opposition, it can be argued that while Clear Channel owns over 1200 stations, because of the extent of the American radio market place, dozens of other companies also own significant holdings in the radio sector. [46] It is argued also that the practice of ‘voice tracking’ used by Clear Channel generates significant savings in overhead and personnel costs at the same time as it develops a uniform voice and brand image. Further, the practice does nothing to prevent stations from adding ‘local flair’ to programs if they so wish. [47]

The deregulated radio environment has been labelled as unresponsive to the needs and interests of local communities. [48] Other criticisms of radio ownership deregulation include the claims of one study that links an average 90 per cent increase in advertising rates between 1996 and 2002 to the decline in independent radio owners. [49]   Programming decisions too are seen as increasingly affecting play time for local artists and there are allegations that broadcasting companies regularly ban particular songs for political reasons. [50]

Australian comparisons

In Australia, local content requirements will apply to regional radio markets from January 2008, despite the introduction of a deregulatory media ownership regime. From that time licence conditions will require stations to broadcast a minimum level of material of local significance. [51] Local content plans will need to be submitted to ACMA when the ownership or control of regional stations is changed. There will also be a requirement that a minimum number of media groups remains in both metropolitan and regional radio licence areas, regardless of any media merger or take over activities. ACMA is to establish a register to identify the ownership and control of media groups. [52]

Television

There is evidence to suggest changes to television ownership rules in America under the Telecommunications Act have led to greatly increased concentration in this market. Between 1995 and 2003, ten of the largest television station owners went from owning 104 stations to 299 stations and more than doubling their revenue return from (US) $5.9 billion to (US) $11.8 billion. [53]

In 1996, mergers in the television market began even before the Telecommunications Act was passed by the American Congress, as corporations anticipated the relaxation of existing rules. Takeovers accelerated once the legislation came into force. Five companies – Viacom (owner of CBS), Disney (owner of ABC), News Corporation, NBC and AOL (owners of Time Warner), now control 75 per cent of all prime-time viewing in American homes. [54]

Liberalisation of cable–broadcast cross–ownership rules under the Telecommunications Act prompted broadcast networks to expand their ownership of cable networks that commanded the largest audiences. Ninety per cent of the top 50 cable stations are now owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks.

Adam Thierer’s interpretation of FCC data contradicts claims that the largest networks dominate television broadcasting. Thierer argues the statistics show that the major companies own less than ten per cent of full power commercial television stations in the United States. [55] Thierer continues that the national ownership cap currently in place actually gives smaller operators an unfair advantage over the large networks  since smaller operators ‘face no artificial regulatory constraints when looking to expand their media operations’. [56]

Another view, however, is that while the existence of hundreds of television channels can superficially be seen as an indication of diversity, in reality there is a paucity of programming choices. This is because the major corporations act as gatekeepers and decision makers for broadcast approvals and content inclusions. [57]

According to Charles Layton of the American Journalism Review, local programming content has been reduced on American television. [58] In arguing against further deregulation, Alan Frank of USA Today notes also that even under existing rules, large networks have threatened to penalise individual stations that ‘pre-empt more than a few hours of network programming’ for local items. [59]

The Media Access Project, a non-profit, public interest telecommunications law firm, considers that the experience of radio deregulation provides an object lesson on what can happen to television, cable and daily newspapers if the market is allowed to assess what is in the public interest. [60]

Australian comparisons

Australian television in the deregulated market will maintain a previous audience reach cap of 75 per cent in relation to ownership regulation. This is higher than the United States audience reach cap, which prevents a television network reaching more than 39 per cent of the American audience with broadcasts from stations it owns directly. The audience reach cap in Australia does not prevent affiliated stations from taking most of their programming from the major networks. For example, regional stations owned by Win Corp are affiliated with the Nine Network and able to broadcast Nine Network programming.

There is, however, a requirement for affiliated stations to broadcast ‘a minimum amount of programs about matters of local significance’. This requirement was imposed after community concerns were raised about the closure of a number of news bureaux in 2001 and the adequacy of local television programming and investigations by the then media regulator, the Australian Broadcasting Authority. [61]  

Newspapers

The (free press) constitutional First Amendment limits United States’ government interference in the publishing of news, information and opinions. Lack of specific regulation has not, however, prevented the FCC in the past from prohibiting newspapers from purchasing broadcast radio and television stations in the same market. In justifying the introduction of this restriction, the FCC invoked public interest terminology: the rule both curbed media power in particular communities and promoted diversity of views. [62]

It has been lamented that the print media has been in a slow decline in the United States since World War II. [63] In 1964, 81 per cent of Americans read a daily newspaper, but this figure has since dropped to around 54 per cent, with the slump most obvious for  younger Americans. It has been reported that as recently as 1997, 39 per cent of Americans aged 8 to 34 were reading newspapers regularly. By 2001, the figure was as low as 26 per cent. [64] From the 1970s, some attempts have been made to stem decline of the industry. [65] Such attempts have produced marginal results.

What is important in this context is that over the last few decades two thirds of the independent newspapers, which were the defining feature of the American print industry, have disappeared and large conglomerates are the norm (as can be seen in the case presented in Box 2). Less than 275 of America’s 1500 daily newspapers are independently owned and more than half the market is dominated by one paper. [66] The combined weekday circulation of all daily newspapers in the United States decreased from 62.8 million in 1985 to 55.2 million in 2002. [67]

Box 2: The Gannett Company – growth and consolidation, or domination?      In 2006, the Gannett Company was the largest newspaper publisher in the United States, owning daily newspapers with a combined paid circulation of approximately 7.2 million, or one out of every seven newspapers sold. [68] Following a number of acquisitions from 2000 onwards, the company owns 85 newspapers published daily. All these papers operate as local monopolies. Gannett publications include USATODAY which has a circulation of approximately 2.3 million. USATODAY is also one of the most popular news websites in the United States. In addition, Gannett owns nearly 1000 non–daily publications and USA Weekend, a weekly newspaper magazine with a circulation of approximately 23 million. Gannett also owns 17 daily newspapers in the United Kingdom and 300 non daily publications.

The American newspaper sector contends a relaxation of current cross–media ownership rules will help stem the decline of print and at the same time increase diversity. The industry argues economies of scale generated in cross­­–sector news production will release resources for innovation; coverage of a greater number of topics and subjects will result and these could be tailored to the needs and interests of individuals. [69]

The opposing argument is that consolidated newspapers are not in economic trouble and that newspaper corporation profits have risen. The argument continues that removing cross–media ownership regulation will not be the saving grace of the independent American newspaper; it has already disappeared. However, removing cross–media ownership will add to the profits of mega newspaper publishers. Indeed, it is argued that eliminating cross–ownership rules ‘will have profoundly negative implications for the public interest’ as newspaper/television combinations further ‘dominate the local political and cultural discourse. This will seriously challenge the rights of individuals in a free society to speak and receive all manner of communications’. [70]

Australian comparisons

Cross–media ownership rules in Australia have prevented newspaper/television combinations. These rules have not been able to prevent concentration within industry sectors, however. The print sector is perhaps the most vivid example of this phenomenon.

The newspaper industry in Australia is dominated by two companies, News Corporation and John Fairfax Holdings. This has caused concern because research indicates that notwithstanding the rise of new media, 54.6 per cent of the 16.5 million Australians who are over 15 years read a Monday to Friday newspaper, 63.5 per cent read a Saturday paper and 65.5 per cent read the Sunday newspapers. [71]

As the table in Box 3 indicates, these readership figures have remained relatively stable since 2002.

Box 3: Circulation of Australian metropolitan dailies Monday-Friday 2002-2006
Title	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002
The Australian	131,538	133,841	133,711	132,213	130,378
The Financial Review	86,182	85,373	85,366	85,120	88,674
The Canberra Times	36,027	36,695	38,155	38,813	38,694
The Daily Telegraph	396,497	397,915	403,127	407,498	406,200
The Sydney Morning Herald	212,078	210,085	216,827	225,737	228,800
The Age	201,000	193,000	198,500	197,700	197,700
The Herald Sun	554,700	551,500	551,100	550,032	548,764
The Courier-Mail	216,075	211,279	214,814	219,451	215,371
The Advertiser	195,903	201,323	202,135	204,502	203,582
The West Australian	205,610	207,914	205,362	205,266	207,793
The Mercury	48,886	49,601	50,382	50,368	49,895
The N.T. News	21,172	22,090	22,367	22,409	22,151
TOTAL	2,305,668	2,300,616	2,321,846	2,339,109	2,338,002

Source: Australian Press Council [72]

In light of these statistics, The Australian Press Council makes the point:

It can be argued that the actual numbers of newspaper titles are not indicative of the problem in achieving this Press Council aim. There are 49 English language newspapers that service a relatively small Australian population; the problem is the lack of diversity of opinion that Australia’s concentrated ownership produces within these publications. Prior to the 2006 media reform legislation only two of the forty nine titles, The Canberra Times and The West Australian, were controlled by proprietors independent of News and Fairfax. Since the passage of the legislation, Fairfax has announced its intention to merge with the third largest media group, Rural Press, the owners of The Canberra Times, in what has been suggested is a move to make it less desirable as a takeover target under the new environment. [74]

There is the risk, according to some, that not only would this move further restrict diversity, but management changes which would be a likely result of the proposed merger would potentially affect content and journalistic standards. [75]

‘New Media’

Cable/pay

In June 2003, there were approximately 70 million cable subscribers in America. [76] In exchange for the grant of local monopolies, cable operators have been expected to deliver a number of public interest benefits. These have included constructing, maintaining and operating facilities for public, education and government access (the PEG channels) and providing service guarantees and discounted rates for older, disadvantaged and disabled customers. [77]

Some specific rules relating to cable systems were established by the FCC in 1965, but generally, until October 1984 cable television operators were subject to provisions similar to radio and television broadcasters. In 1984, Congress tempered regulations on cable broadcasters but as this action resulted in dramatic price increases, in 1992 certain conditions were re–imposed. [78]

The 1992 regulations placed a 30 per cent (horizontal) limit on the number of subscribers each cable operator could serve nationally and a 40 per cent (vertical) limit on the number of cable channels operators could control. Limiting control and reach was seen as promoting the public interest: it allowed companies to expand within reasonable limits and restricted the market power of the largest companies, thereby ensuring diversity in ownership and program delivery.

Box 4: Suspending cable limit rules – the Adelphia Communications case Suspension of cable limit rules in the United States has meant that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was able to approve a Comcast/Time Warner takeover of the local cable franchises of Adelphia Communications in July 2005. This merger delivered over 28 million subscribers to a new entity and a significant portion of the cable market. Prior to the takeover, Comcast alone serviced about 29 per cent of homes paying for basic cable. [79] In approving the merger, the FCC imposed conditions to require Comcast and Time Warner to provide access to local sports programming to competitors. In 2003, it had imposed similar conditions on News Corporation’s purchase of satellite television provider DirecTV. As part of the approval of that merger, News Corporation was to refrain from using DirecTV to withhold programming from competitors or to charge higher prices. [80] In approving the News Corporation takeover, the FCC argued customers would benefit from stronger competition; new services would be delivered and localism would be promoted. [81]

In March 2001, a federal appeals court ruled that restricting cable ownership limits was not constitutionally valid. [82] The court found that the rules not only restricted the ability of operators to obtain customers and curtailed editorial control, but they also prevented them from responding to developments in the market.

The FCC reviewed the cable rules late in 2001. At that time public interest groups argued that the Commission needed to articulate better the rationale for the retention of regulation, as abandoning it would mean cable companies would dictate customer prices and terms of service. The largest operators would also inevitably stifle competition by excluding independent programmers from access to their services. [83]

In response, the FCC concluded that while it was obliged to establish vertical and horizontal limits ‘at some number’, it would suspend this enforcement pending further consideration of the rules. [84]   It sought additional comment on the cable horizontal and vertical ownership limits in May 2005, but no clear future policy direction emerged from that consultation.

The Telecommunications Act removed restrictions on rates charged to cable consumers for non–basic cable services, permitted the FCC to relax broadcast–cable cross–ownership and telephone–cable cross–ownership restrictions and prohibited states from enforcing laws impeding competition, for example, laws that required carriers to share their networks with potential competitors. [85]

Since the removal of these restrictions, cable subscription rates to consumers have increased significantly; one estimate is by over 90 per cent. [86] The relaxation of cross–ownership restrictions has allowed the major broadcasting companies to expand their interests by acquiring successful cable networks. All cable news networks, including CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox, MSNBC, and CNBC are owned by Time Warner, GE and News Corporation. In addition, as cable companies have increasingly faced competition from digital television, they have begun to limit programming from external sources. [87]

Australian comparisons

Pay television was introduced in Australia in the 1990s when the government owned domestic communications satellite, Aussat, was sold to private enterprise. Satellite delivery of pay television was given preference initially, but from the mid 1990s, cable and wireless platforms have also been used.

ACMA is the technical licensor and regulator for the telecommunications industry. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), in addition to having a general role as competition regulator, is responsible for telecommunications–specific regulation of anti–competitive conduct, access and monitoring of price controls.

There have been few domestic ownership regulations imposed on subscription television in Australia. [88] Foreign ownership of pay television has been restricted, however, [89] and ACMA,  has the power to specify conditions which may apply to particular licensees.

There are three major Australian pay television providers, Foxtel, Optus and Austar. Foxtel, which is jointly owned by Telstra, News Ltd (wholly owned by News Corporation) and Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, has the largest number of subscribers and the widest reach on cable and satellite networks with almost 1.3 million homes directly connected, or in receipt of services provided to other companies on a wholesale basis. As such, prior to the media reforms, Foxtel already controlled most of the programs available on pay television in Australia through ownership or distribution arrangements. [90]

Internet

Americans originally accessed the Internet through dial up telephone lines which, according to laws relating to common carriers, were accessible to a variety of companies. During the 1990s, as cable operators developed broadband technologies, the right of entry to the Internet became the lines used to transmit cable television.

In 2002, the FCC agreed to a petition from cable operators that they were not common carriers. As such, the cable operators were not required to provide access to other operators; a decision confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005. Following the Supreme Court decision, telephone companies also persuaded the FCC to deny other operators access to their telephone lines. [91] These rulings have meant that cable and telephone companies now have considerable control over the Internet experiences of Americans. Some critics claim that despite rhetoric about the freedom the Web provides for participants, these companies control and restrict the range of sites people can visit, as well as divert traffic to their own, or preferred sites. [92] Allegations that cable and telephone companies block Web sites are not proven, but there is evidence that tolls are charged for ‘priority’ services. This situation may imply that those who are unable to pay for ‘priority’ service may be marginalised. [93]

Members of the American Congress and public interest advocates have expressed concern that such practices may become commonplace and have called for the introduction of a policy of ‘Net neutrality’. This concept is discussed in more detail later in this paper.

Considered opinion on the Internet? Source: The New Yorker [94]

Australian comparisons    

To date, the main debate on Internet access in Australia has focussed on whether laws that censor material deemed objectionable or unsuitable for minors should be in place. The federal government believes these laws have made the Internet safer [95] and ACMA argues regulation has effectively addressed community concerns about content while not placing an unnecessary burden on the Internet industry and encouraging Internet take-up. [96]  

On the other side of this debate,  Electronic Frontiers, an on–line civil liberties group, claims the laws are draconian, that they have not made the Internet safer and they have resulted in  adults censoring their speech in offline publications in Australia or paying overseas Internet Service Providers or Content Hosts to host their web pages. [97]

Further American reform?

Under the Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required to review media regulation every four years [98] and in its 2002 review a Republican–dominated Commission [99] adjudged that further media ownership deregulation would be in the public interest. In making this judgement the FCC argued a plethora of media choices and unprecedented access to information available to Americans in the twenty first century made broadcast ownership rules redundant. [100]

Two Commissioners dissented from this view. They claimed that the same big companies that owned networks and newspaper chains also dominated cable, satellite and Internet media. In a dissenting statement Democrat Commissioner Michael Copps insisted further that ownership deregulation would be disastrous, leading to ‘more media control by ever fewer corporate giants’. [101]

The majority Commissioners dismissed Copps’ argument and in June 2003 signalled their intention to relax ownership controls further.

Box 5: FCC: Further ownership relaxation proposals Restrictions to be removed Remove the ban on companies owning television stations and daily newspapers in the same market; Allow companies to own television stations that together could reach up to 45 per cent of all households in the United States. In the case of UHF stations, a single company would be allowed to reach up to 90 per cent of all households; and  Relax the rules on local television ownership to allow one company to own two stations in so–called ‘midsize’ markets and as many as three stations in the largest markets. Restrictions to be retained In markets where there were less than four television stations, a cross–ownership ban would continue and in medium and larger markets only one of the stations in any group could be in the top four ratings. In recognition of the adverse consequences of its previous decision to deregulate radio, the FCC intended to amend radio ownership rules. These would be changed to prevent one company from owning all local stations in a city. A rule to prohibit mergers among the top four networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) would also be maintained. Source: ‘What rules could change’ [102]

Response to the United States’ reforms

The FCC announcement caused immediate public outrage, with various critics decrying the failure of the Commission to convey its intentions regarding cross–media ownership and of the media to publicise the decision–making processes. [103]  

Many groups also argued the FCC proposal could only deliver more power to the largest corporations. [104] Conservative organisations led by the National Rifle Association and the Parents Television Council, joined hundreds of other groups, from all sides of the political spectrum, to protest against the proposed rule changes. Concern expressed by these groups ranged from apprehension about the negative impacts on democracy which would result from the increased influence of media corporations over journalism, culture and public opinion, to fear that allowing further media concentration would violate the notion of competition in the marketplace. [105] The outpouring of dissent, the greatest in the history of the FCC, overwhelmed the Commission’s phone lines and Internet server, but failed to elicit much response from the organisation, which held only one official public consultation. [106]

Ironically, much of the initial conservative interest was kindled after pop star Janet Jackson, revealed one of her breasts to an estimated United States television audience of 140 million during half time entertainment at a football grand final. The conservative debate centred on the powers of the FCC to censure impropriety on radio and television, which initially distracted attention from the media regulation issue. It later combined with thinking about the ownership deregulatory regime, however, and led many to conclude that ownership deregulation had given large media corporations enormous political clout and ‘defanged the FCC’. [107] Conservative religious and social groups blamed media concentration for the airing of ‘vulgar and sexually explicit programs that offend community standards’ [108] and many believed more ownership concentration would exacerbate the problem. [109]

Box 6: David, Goliath and the Court – the fight to restore cross–media ownership In June 2003, public interest groups and some smaller broadcasters, under the label of the Prometheus Radio Project, petitioned a three–judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to restore media cross–ownership restrictions. The Prometheus Radio Project asserted that the FCC had originally used the wrong standard of review and flawed theoretical models about consumer behaviour to create the ownership rules. It asked the court, which consisted of a majority of Democrat nominees, to reverse rules that would make it easier for a broadcaster to own more television stations in one market. At the same time, a group of newspapers, television networks and other broadcasters, including Clear Channel Communications, argued that the Commission had failed to deregulate the media industry enough. [110] A year later the Circuit Court found largely in favour of the Prometheus petitioners and ordered the FCC to review its media cross–ownership proposals, effectively stalling their implementation. [111] In January 2005, the Bush administration decided against appealing the earlier Circuit Court’s decision to the United States Supreme Court. A number of media companies, on the other hand, did appeal. The Supreme Court rejected their applications in June 2005. In June 2006, the FCC sought comment on ways to address the issues raised in the case as part of its review of media ownership rules required under the Telecommunications Act. [112]

Box 7: FCC: Current media ownership deliberations The most recent FCC review of ownership regulation concluded on 21 December 2006, but the Commission’s report is not as yet available. Submissions from an initial public comment period, which concluded on 23 October 2006, provide some indications of the issues which were possibly raised for the FCC’s consideration. Comments from the October submissions include academic studies by the Benton Foundation and the Social Science Research Council. These focus on how the concentration of media ownership affects content, from local news reporting to radio music programming and how underserved minority audiences have fared in an increasingly deregulated media environment. [113] Media ownership rules currently being reviewed by the FCC are: Local Television Ownership Limit allowing ownership of up to two television stations in the same market area, as long as one of the stations is not ranked among the four highest–ranked stations and the market has at least eight independently owned stations. Local Radio Ownership Limit allowing ownership of up to eight radio stations (on a sliding scale) in local markets, depending on the total number of stations in the markets. Newspaper/Broadcast Cross–Ownership Ban prohibiting ownership of a local radio or television station and a major local daily newspaper. Radio/Television Cross–Ownership Limit permitting ownership of up to two television and six radio stations (or one television and seven radio stations) as long as there are at least 20 independent voices in the market. Dual Network Ban preventing ownership of two broadcast television networks by a single entity. The rule only applies to the four largest networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, & FOX) and not to cable television networks or smaller broadcast networks. This rule remained untouched in the Commission's 2002 review and it is unlikely the ban will be lifted as a result of the current review.

The FCC’s proposal also initiated considerable debate in Congress. The House of Representatives passed a resolution in July 2003 calling on the Commission to reconsider the decision to lift the audience reach cap from 35 to 45 per cent. The Senate approved a rarely invoked resolution of disapproval in 2004 for a repeal of the new rules and the restoration of stricter limitations on ownership. In response to these actions, President George W. Bush threatened to veto any legislation preventing the FCC changes and at one stage Congress considered the option of a congressional veto to override the President. [114]   In the end, Congress compromised by allowing broadcasters to own up to 39 per cent of media outlets in a local market.

Stanford Washington Research analyst Paul Gallant concluded from this effective closure of the review process that there was a low probability the FCC could significantly relax ownership rules in the future. [115] The irony may be therefore, that at the same time deregulation succeeded in delivering the impetus for the consolidation major media companies desired, it released a social and political backlash, which may be a serious impediment to further amalgamation and concentration.    

While support from conservative groups has waned, a plethora of interest groups, such as Free Press and Common Cause, [116] remain committed to continuing protest action on media ownership rules.

Net neutrality – an added complication?

Since 2005, the American debate about the public interest has extended to encompass concern about the new media, particularly in relation to the Internet. Particular unease in this area is about proposals to impose fees on access to broadband infrastructure. Public interest advocates have argued that adopting such policies will further inhibit public debate by limiting information sharing on the Internet.

The code of Net neutrality is based on equal access by users to content of choice and the running of applications and devices they prefer. Maintaining Net neutrality means that the job of carriers is ‘to move data – not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service’. [117] But this principle is considered under threat as the result of the actions and proposals of broadband carriers. Carriers who want to restrict access, have lobbied the American Government to pass legislation which will allow them to discriminate and determine who is able to receive content and under what conditions. [118]

Box 8: FCC support for Net neutrality? – The AT&T/Bell-South Merger The FCC stance on Net neutrality has allowed it to consider a proposed merger of the carriers AT&T and Bell–South without needing to impose a Net neutrality clause. There was apprehension that the FCC approach would result in a merged entity that could dictate the terms of Internet access for customers and bring about the effective end of neutrality. [119] AT&T/Bell–South merger stalled in the FCC for some time as the result of a declared conflict of interest by one Commissioner, [120] however, so called ‘legal manoeuvring’ eventually allowed the Commissioner to vote on the matter. [121]   It is speculated that the manoeuvring may have involved striking a deal to approve the merger in January 2007, after AT&T agreed to the continuation of a neutral network for two years. An FCC press release predicted significant public interest benefits from the merger, such as the deployment of broadband throughout the entire AT&T and Bell–South territory in 2007 and increased competition in the market for advanced pay television services. [122] Interestingly, however, while critics of the merger did not agree it was in the public interest, they saw it as an opportunity to use it to that end because it involved a definition of Net neutrality. It could therefore serve as a ‘blueprint’ for members of Congress to reintroduce bills that would prevent ‘network operators like AT&T from charging extra fees to content providers for added perks’. [123] At the same time, it appears the neutral network condition of this merger may indicate a tempering of the previous FCC stance on the role of the media in light of the Democrat majority now in Congress.

Many critics argue the demise of Net neutrality would stifle the phenomenon of citizen journalism, which the new media has fostered. This, in turn, would further limit opportunities for people to access differing opinion and information. The media reform group, Free Press, cites possible situations that may result from allowing broadband carriers to restrict Internet access – some search engines would pay more fees to be able to open faster than others, advocacy groups would be required to pay ‘protection’ fees to ensure their sites work correctly and bloggers would be priced off the Net. [124]

United States’ telephone companies in particular oppose the principle of Net neutrality. They consider they are entitled to practice net discrimination to exert control over material that is accessed through their high–speed networks. However, there is little evidence that any of them have actually prohibited access to their services. [125]

The FCC has stated its support for the principles of Net neutrality, but arguably it has done little to enforce those principles. In 2006, it noted that Net neutrality operates within the construct of the freedom of Internet service providers to offer tiers of services with variable speeds of access to different sites. [126]

Telecommunications companies have also opposed the delivery of non profit high–speed Internet services by some municipalities to remedy the fact that in 2005, only about 24 per cent of United States households in rural areas had this access. [127] The telecommunications companies have argued that providing public Internet access amounts to unfair competition with private enterprise. They have successfully lobbied some state governments to prevent government entities from offering these Internet services.

Since 2005, in the context of deliberations on the updating of the Telecommunications Act and consideration of the issue of public access to the Internet, Congress has debated the possibility of including Net neutrality in legislation a number of times. However, despite an increase in public lobbying and the receipt in 2006 of over one million signatures supporting a ‘fee free’ Web, Congress failed to approve Democrats’ proposals to include comprehensive Net neutrality provisions in telecommunications bills introduced in May and June 2006. [128] One Republican argued the enactment of Net neutrality would result in a reduction in broadband infrastructure investment, making it increasingly difficult to sustain necessary capital in the industry. [129] Other opponents considered the Democrat–backed proposal would let the FCC ‘exercise complete discretion over the Internet’ and ‘begin down the dangerous path of Internet regulation’. [130]

Australian comparisons

In Australia, the prinicple of Net neutrality is only beginning to elicit serious discusssion. One blogger recently was amused to discover that service providers appear not to recognise the term. [131] But that perception, as media commentator Dan Warne suggests, is naive. The major telcommunications carrier, Telstra, is not happy that competitiors ‘piggyback’ on its network. [132] It has hinted that it ‘will start prioritising Internet traffic according to the type and source of the data’. [133] Journalist Nick Miller predicts that the end of Net neutrality in Australia is unavoidable because users have high expectations of what they can access and because prioritisation is necessary for next generation Internet applications. [134]

Media Ownership December 7 2006 Source: Age [135]

What happens with regards to regulation of the Net in the United States will affect Australia, in spite of any local policy on the Net. [136] Nearly sixty per cent of Australian online visits are currently directed to overseas websites. [137] These directions could be exclusively controlled by United States’ telecommunications carriers unless the principle of Net neutrality is maintained in America.

Contemplating the Australian reforms

Proposal

The policy on broadcasting that the Howard Government took to the 2004 election contained similar justifications for reform as had been argued in the United States since the 1980s. Media regulation was antiquated; it needed to change to cope with the digital age. Abolition of out–dated rules would increase competition in the Australian media sector, which in turn, would benefit the sector itself and media consumers. [138] (Appendix A discusses the opposing arguments relating to ownership deregulation in more depth).

Following its third election victory in 2004 and some consultation with the public, [139] the government introduced legislation in 2006 to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to

Certain regulatory requirements were to remain under the new media regime. Cross–media transactions, for example, would not be allowed unless a minimum number of commercial media groups remained in relevant markets (four in regional markets, five in mainland state capitals) following takeovers or mergers. The legislation was also to maintain existing limits on broadcasting licences including a 75 per cent national television coverage limit. The ACCC was to assess the competitive impacts of transactions and the media was to remain a ‘sensitive sector’ under the nation’s Foreign Investment Policy. [140]

Box 9: A Public Interest Test for Australia? The Howard Government dismissed inclusion of a public interest test as part of its legislative package arguing that subjective judgement by individuals or organisations would inevitably occur in deciding what constitutes the public interest and that this would create uncertainty for the media industry. [141] In relation to media acquisitions involving foreign interests, however, the Treasurer was to be able to consider if such acquisitions were 'contrary to the national interest'. [142] It is interesting that the government dismissed the idea of a public interest test, given that the Australian Treasurer has a vital role in considering mergers and that the ACCC is entrusted with examining the potential competition effects of mergers in other industries. It is puzzling that the government did not respond to suggestions that a public interest test would enhance its legislative package, given that it had revised legislation in the past to accommodate public scrutiny. This was the case with its response to concerns about the lack of transparency in relation to bank mergers that were raised following the merger of the Commonwealth Bank and Colonial Finance in 2000. [143] Following that merger the government revised legislation [144] There is a legislative public interest component that at present applies to foreign ownership of United States media. [145] Similarly, a media public interest test applies in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, which introduced such a test when it relaxed media ownership regulation. The United Kingdom Enterprise Act 2002 and the Communications Act 2003 specify public interest considerations which can be applied to mergers involving newspaper and broadcasting enterprises. The United Kingdom public interest test was intended as: a safeguard to prevent media mergers bringing about undue concentrations of ownership, which may operate against the public interest… to ensure a sufficient plurality of media ownership, to protect the availability of a wide range of high quality broadcasting and to ensure that those with control of media enterprises have a genuine commitment to the broadcasting standards objectives set out in the Communications Act 2003. [146] Adopting the approach of defining matters of public interest that were to be addressed in relation to media ownership activity could possibly have dampened some of the criticism to which the Australian media reform package was subjected.

Similar promises also accompanied the recent media ownership legislation in Australia as had accompanied the Telecommunications Act in America; changes would advantage the media industry allowing it to pass on benefits to consumers.

In addition, the Australian legislation was promoted as promising a new media environment that would:

Box 10: Press commentary on the proposed changes During 2006 some comments in the Australian media were particularly scathing of the proposed media ownership changes, as the following example from the independent online media service, Crikey illustrates:  Removing or weakening the cross–media rules will reduce the number of ‘media of influence’. The importance of the cross–media rules is not about the number of commercial media owners, it is about the number of media outlets which have the power to influence the public debate. Most media companies don't have that influence because they're in the entertainment business, not the news and current affairs business. The substantive “media of influence” are daily newspapers -- which set the news agenda, publish editorials, run campaigns and are highly influential in their communities -- and a handful of TV current affairs and radio talkback programs. If the new laws lead to a reduction in the number of owners of these “media of influence”, media power will concentrate in even fewer hands. Furthermore, how can a law that legislates for the minimum number of media owners in the country's major markets to be cut from 11 to five be described as anything other than reducing diversity of media ownership? Removing or weakening the cross–media rules is based on a myth about the current state of the media. The government's main rationale for introducing the new laws is that “new media” is rapidly assuming dominance over “old media”, thus making cross-media regulation redundant. We would argue strongly that this is not the case. Firstly, the old media still totally dominate the flow of serious information in Australia. The arrival of websites and blogs may have added more numeric voices to the debate, but they are minute blips on the information radar compared to the societal and political influence that is wielded by newspapers or talk radio. Moreover, as a statement of fact, the biggest news and current affairs sites on the internet are overwhelmingly owned by the old media companies… Removing or weakening the cross–media rules is against the spirit of a vigorous democracy. Axiomatically, the removal of the cross-media rules will result in fewer owners of the media that set the national agenda. By consolidating political and societal power in the hands of a tiny number of individuals, this legislation will curtail public debate and make Australia a less democratic country. In the process, the role of the fourth estate as the scrutineer of government will be weakened, perhaps irrevocably. [148]

It was argued also that Australian consumers would benefit because a less concentrated commercial media market would emerge from a deregulated environment. Further, they would continue to enjoy a greater diversity of media delivered by the principal public broadcaster, the supplementary multicultural public broadcaster, the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) and the community broadcasting sector. [149]

Debates, minor concessions and the final outcome

As in the American case, the potential to enhance industry efficiency was an important ‘selling point’ of the deregulatory proposal. Some traditional media owners in particular lauded the legislation as their saviour; a means to combat what they insisted was increasing irrelevance as the result of the rise of the new media. [150]

Similar arguments to those put forward in the American context surfaced in the reform debates and they were as passionate, if not as prevalent. (See Appendix A for a more detailed account of the arguments for and against deregulation). The press in particular was critical of the legislation with sections publishing warnings of the consequences of ownership deregulation (as can be seen in the commentary example in Box 10). Opposing views were largely ignored, however.

The government did make some concessions to placate the concerns of a number of its backbenchers, but these did not satisfy all the backbencher demands. One government Senator, who crossed the floor in support of further amendments, expressed particular  disappointment that more people were not willing to stand up to protect the freedom of the fourth estate. [151]

The media ownership legislation was passed by both houses of the Australian Parliament in October 2006. [152]

The new media regime will not entail the total deregulation that some in the industry desired. It will retain certain ‘safety net’ provisions. These include: