Opinion from Graham Mott.

It was former Prime Minister Paul Keating who, in 1987 as a minister in the Hawke Labor government, introduced media laws that restricted ownership to a potential reach of only 75% of the Australia wide audience and to just two out of the three MSM outlets in any one market. He famously quipped at the time, you could be“queens of the screen or princes of print.” Evidently, he couldn’t think of a relevant alliteration for radio at the time.
 
But that was then and this is now.
 
In  2014, using his own publications to make his point, Fairfax Media chief executive Greg Hywood called for the government to scrap cross-media ownership rules in a move that would allow media companies to own television, radio and newspaper assets in the same city. He argued that Keating’s laws were, “constructed in the pre-­internet era. So, the notion that you are restricted to your distribution outlets based upon pre-internet regulation is just outdated.
 
“You’ve constructed media regulations in 1987 and frankly, Paul Keating, who was the main architect of that, made it fairly clear that it was constructed to stop the reconstruction of the old Fairfax, which had TV and magazines and radio etc and there was a political element in that.”

Then, just last week, on seeing the first of the major mergers/takeovers take place as a result of his media laws having been scrapped in September 2017, Keating reportedly proclaimed that it was, “an exceptionally bad development.”

The Nine network, he said, had never done other than display “the opportunism and ethics of an alley cat. There has been no commanding ethical or moral basis for the conduct of its news and information policy. Through various changes of ownership, no one has lanced the carbuncle at the centre of Nine’s approach to news management. And, as sure as night follows day, that pus will inevitably leak into Fairfax.

“For the country, this is a great pity,” said Keating.
 
The Nine -Fairfax merger – it’s actually a takeover, not a merger – has caused much discussion and lots of arguments, many of them emotional. The biggest of which: We’ve lost a voice.  So, let’s look at the media landscape in terms of voices.
 
News Limited
The right-wing dudes who love to trash the ABC.
 
Fairfax
The lefties who hate big business and rich people.
 
ABC TV & Radio
The do-gooder lefties who hate big business and rich people and favour anything Labor and cry poor when they have to operate at a reasonable level of costs.
 
Nine
In the middle depending on which story they are covering but safe to say they are not left.
 
Seven
The same as Nine.
 
Ten
The project is very left and the rest of Ten doesn’t make any impact in the left or right space
 
Commercial Talk Radio
 
2GB to the extreme right and 3AW middle to right.
 
Now, to the argument we have lost a voice.  Fairfax and the ABC journalists speak from the same hymn book. Many of them switch between the organisations because they fit the culture perfectly.  On a positive note at times they pool their resources and conduct some very good investigative stories that are shared across TV, print and radio.  Perhaps this is the only area that may be reduced under the media landscape.  However, ABC MD, Michelle Guthrie, the former head of Google based in Hong Kong, says she is committed to supporting ongoing investigative journalism – good on her.
 
So, what voice has been lost?
 
The financial argument
 
Fairfax has had the pleasure of some very heavy hitters supporting them over their long, and at times, distinguished existence.  However, in recent years their shareholders have copped a pounding and I reckon it’s safe to assume they’ve had enough.
 
The media has had to compete in what has been a comfortable market where they and their shareholders became used to significant profits and generous return on investment.  Then came the internet.  This changed the environment, not just in Australia, but right across the world.  
 
Who would invest in a singular form of media these days?  Media companies have to be attractive to shareholders and after decades of being the darling of the stock exchange, media is on the nose.  I hear people proclaim that shareholders are too self-interested and I say: Can you blame?  It’s their money.
 
CEOs have to contend with company boards with diverse views and a lot of self-interest.  It’s not easy to get everyone on the same page.  I have to say that self-interest understandably comes from the major shareholders who have invested their hard-earned to make money, not to waste it.  In the Fairfax situation, fortunes have gone down the drain and at a rapid rate.
 
I hate the fact that the media is much smaller and the concentration of ownership is in the hands of so few.  I have fond memories of having the chance to work in regional radio from 1979 to 1981 and I had such a good time.  Sadly, the opportunities are so limited now that many don’t even bother about a career in radio.  However, unlike the Australian car industry did for many years, the media do not get handouts.  It’s the media’s job to compete as best it can and sometimes the decisions that have to be made don’t sit well with anyone, but the media have got a financial responsibility to the people who provide the investment.
 
The “voice” argument is a very different and Emotional argument compared to the Financial argument.  Unfortunately, when the two intersect, the money dictates the end result.

About the Author
 
Graham Mott commenced his radio career in February 1969 at News and Current Affairs station 2GB Sydney.

 He has held various positions at Music and Talk stations over the past 49 years including program producer, operations manager, music director, program director, general manager and CEO.
 
Graham has served as a:

• Director of Commercial Radio Australia;
• Chairman of Digital Radio Melbourne;
• Chairman of Commercial Radio’s Research Committee; and
• Member of Commercial Radio’s Codes and Regulatory Committee

 In October 2012 Graham was honoured to be inducted into the Commercial Radio Hall of Fame.
 
Graham has also lobbied various Ministers of Communication over the years and particularly enjoyed dealing with Kim Beazley, who he says had the best understanding of the portfolio.  Graham Richardson was also very good, but was only in the job for a short time.