Australia and the Fourth Estate
The adage ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’, coined by veteran journalist Bob Woodward for the Washington Post has never been more relevant and veracious when it comes to media and its role in our society. In modern Australia, it is a truth that the fourth estates role for the community is to act as a watchdog to government and industry, defending our freedoms, rights and ensuring transparency. Despite this though, the free media has been oppressed by the government and vague laws, and is facing great issues with respect to the quality of independence in writing. Despite these pressing issues though, Australians mostly leave it undiscussed and unrecognised. Few people know the severity of the issue: in a 2016 ‘Who Owns the World Media?’ Study, conducted by Eli Noam and a research team at Columbia Business School, Australia ranked as having the most concentrated newspaper industry in the world with the exception of China and Egypt, amongst other concerning statistics. On this statistic alone it warrants a debate, but unfortunately it is not that well discussed.
The sequential and predatory press raids conducted in 2019 were a watershed moment for the Australian media. A nasty precedent was set: investigation into controversial government and military actions or policy would result in a government inquiry. On the 4th of June, the Australian Federal Police raided the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst after a comprehensive exposé on the growing funding and concerning powers of Australian Intelligence Agencies, which include abilities to collect bank records, emails, messages and other correspondence without leaving a trace. A day later, the AFP raided the ABC’s Sydney headquarters, sifting through 9,214 documents citing that a report two journalists produced on the Australian Special Forces who committed war crimes in Afghanistan was of questionable legality due to “unlawfully obtained” information. Garnering too much press attention, the AFP called off a third raid on the News Corp headquarters, leaving their conquest — fortunately — incomplete.
The concerns generated by the AFP’s serial raids are immensely worrying. In early 2020, the High Court ruled that the raids were indeed legal. The Canberra Times succinctly explains the ramifications if these laws do not change: government agencies ‘will have a free hand to intimidate journalists and whistleblowers for the foreseeable future’. This needs to change. If journalists feel intimidated and forced into submission by creeping authoritarianism, the illuminating force which the media who brings to all facets of society will diminish, leaving our democracy suffering a form of death by darkness.
The fundamental issue can be fixed by none other than our politicians. The legislation which the government agencies are subordinate to gives them too much power that hurts journalism. Under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Act 2015, telecommunication companies are legally required to maintain Australians’ metadata for a minimum of two years, data which police and clandestine bodies can access for ‘law enforcement purposes’ or ‘national security’ — which can be stretched to include almost anything, as was made evident by the media raids. Police agencies have even illegally accessed it: between March and October in 2015, ACT Policing unlawfully accessed a total of 3,365 Canberrans’ metadata — and this doesn’t even count the times it has ‘legally’ accessed metadata. It gets worse: In a 2017 amendment of the same act, it was legislated that the police, ASIO, and the ASD can force telecommunications companies to hack customer data, provided the case they are investigating is punishable by over three years in prison — which is anything relating to the question of national security. By-products of the legislation include the ability for “covert computer access” warrants, and the ability to install malware and remove encryption on target computers. The issues from this are summarised by the Guardian[1]: “This legislation has the potential to take the state deeper into the newsrooms of the nation, to vet or thwart journalism.”
Legislation and the criminal code both have many provisions regarding journalists handling information. In Part 5.6 of the Criminal Code, a journalist who deals with confidential information, such as that of the militaries or intelligence agencies, can be prosecuted for not only publishing the material but simply possessing it. The ‘public-interest’ defences in the law are both lacklustre and inadequate and are easily worked around by the government with shallow buzzwords like ‘national security’. Confidential sources are also at risk, where statutes like the Public Interest Disclosure Act (2013) declare that it’s illegal to blow the whistle if you work for intelligence agencies or some law enforcement divisions. Furthermore, the government has the ability to access a confidential sources’ teleco data without a warrant, which is worrying, as it “means the power can be used by the government to identify a journalist’s confidential sources” (ABC)[2].
The solution is simple. We need to redraft these Machiavellian laws. In a 2019 ABC report ‘Australian Broadcasting Corporation submission to the Senate Environment and Communications References inquiry into Press Freedom’ all the laws that need to be changed or added are duly laid out in exceptional detail. Instead of inefficacious Senate inquiries, we need legislative action. The powerful tool of a citizens ballot vote is the solution to the problem.
While the external forces of government anti-libertarian zeal threaten media, there are subliminal and nuanced problems with the way our media operates. The aforementioned ‘Who Owns the World Media?’ study concluded that Australia has the 10th most concentrated content media industry, 11th most concentrated news media, 3rd most concentrated newspaper industry and a single entity — the Murdoch media — controls 57% of the newspaper market by circulation. Sadly, this concentration has been increasing. The 2018 Nine takeover of Fairfax Media has further exacerbated the figures, where in an updated study saw an 8% increase in C4 (sum of the market share of the top four companies).
The issues arising from this are numerous. Described by the Guardian as “tribal, aggressive and centred around powerful editors”, the Murdoch Media empire has dominated the Australia political and economic sphere with its ownership of many major and popular media institutions. Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s controversial 29th Prime Minister, said the “outside forces in the media” were responsible for the internal coup his party launched against him. After first leadership spill, Malcolm phoned Murdoch as to inquire why he tried to replace him, but to no avail. There was no doubt Murdoch was backing Dutton. A few days before the spill, media mogul Kerry Stokes told Malcolm Turnbull that “Murdoch and his media company News Corp were intent on removing him from power” (Guardian)[3]. But after the initial leadership spill failed, a week later Scott Morrison was in power.
During Turnbull’s incumbency and fall from grace, the Murdoch press manipulated the media narrative, turning public favour against Turnbull. Headlines like “Malcolm Turnbull Has Thrown Up His Hands As We Sink In Debt”, “Turnbull Can’t Ignore Polls Pointing To Defeat” and “Turnbull Sell The Neg You Have To Be Kidding” all show this: wielding the power of his press, Murdoch media wanted Turnbull out and their selected candidate in. Individually, you can do a lot to make sure you are not being manipulated by a singular media viewpoint. Foremost, diversify your sources you read — like Michael West Media or the Guardian as well as Murdoch or Nine — to try and form an informed understanding.
The example of Turnbull’s ostracism demonstrates the power and problems of concentrated media. But what solutions are there? Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd — who did face his own tribulations with the press — launched a petition on the 11th of October 2020 to address the “overwhelming control” the concentrated press possesses in a royal commission, which has attracted close to 350,000 signatories (20/10/2002). Kevin Rudd’s thesis regarding the royal commission is as follows: “What Australia needs is a far-reaching royal commission covering not just the abuse of media power in pursuit of personal gain, but also examining future models for public and private media ownership — to preserve the press and democratic freedoms on which our nation has been built”. Hitherto, this seems like a good start. A royal commission, which is an independent and authoritative body, can produce a series of recommendations as to remedying the problems which legislators could enact. For this reason alone, you should sign the petition.
Naturally, there is a place for industry and government in our media. It’s important not to become polarised and blind oneself to the essential roles they play. The government, while they have overreached in the recent years, are guarding our national interest and our sovereignty. Intelligence Services prevent our state from being damaged by threats internal or external, and the military guard our state with vigour and will make immense sacrifice if need be. Still, the major issues of oppression and wrong legislation need to be addressed. Industry conglomerations also play a role; there are advantages, such as more operational and political capital, and the obvious outlined drawbacks. Ultimately however, these issues boil down to the individual and what they can do to protect our media: vote, sign and diversify. These things will make sure our democracy, indeed, does not die in the darkness.
[1] Suppression and secrecy: how Australia’s government put a boot on journalism’s throat, The Guardian, 1st September 2019
[2]Australian Broadcasting Corporation submission to the Senate Environment and Communications References inquiry into Press Freedom
[3] A very Australian coup: Murdoch, Turnbull and the power of News Corp
