Cash for Comment was the big scandal in 2000 that embroiled radio’s biggest stars, John Laws and Alan Jones. Between them, they were responsible for perhaps four out of five breaches of the Broadcast Standards investigated by ACMA . And Laws has long left the industry. Since then, there has barely been a free lunch left undisclosed on air. Yet ACMA has not rested on its laurels. Here we are a mere decade later and it has just released a ‘research document’ that coupled with an ‘issues paper’ will form the basis of a ‘review’. Now we’re getting somewhere!
The long promised research document has thrown up some astounding findings. For example, that the vast majority of listeners to talkback radio think that its pretty important for social, political and economic matters. And guess what, the vast majority who don’t listen to talkback don’t.
The research also confirmed what everybody knew a decade ago (with the exception perhaps of Laws and Jones) that people expect program content not to be influenced by commercial interests and that they expect to be able to easily distinguish between advertising and content.
You certainly can’t accuse ACMA of shooting from the hip. Perhaps if they had been in charge of the government’s insulation initiative, Peter Garrett may have avoided the trouble he finds himself in today.
Is it a case of better late than never? Or have they taken too much time and resources to make a decision on an issue that is long dead?
As usual, you are under no obligation to stick to this topic. You may use this forum to express any view you like, provided it has something to do with radio and provides no grounds for litigation.
If you’re a paid subscriber, type your comments in the box below. If you’re a non-subscriber, or you would like to post anonymously, you can send your post in an email to [email protected].
I would just like to offer a few words on the subject of Cash For Comment. The rules which apply to the big name radio stars have improved levels of confidence in commercial radio and TV. But for some reason, the rules do not seem to cover the interests of media proprietors.
For instance, if a young kid straight out of Max Rowley school gets a job in Broken Hill, and he hosts trivia at the local RSL, he has to declare it. But not so with newspaper proprietors. The Daily Telegraph run many articles criticising commercial TV sporting coverage. They never declare the relevant fact that they part- own Foxtel. Once the Telegraph ran a 2 page article on actress Anna Torv, who was guest starring in McLeod's Daughters. They never mentioned the fact that she was Rupert Murdoch's niece. Just a thought.