Why do the champions of the so-called free enterprise system consistently clamour for fair and open markets yet consistently ignore evidence of market failure? The Institute of Public Affairs is well funded right wing think tank that specialises in spewing out free market libertarian thought bubbles that frequently find their way into the mainstream media. That’s why they exist, to propagate a view the encompasses
the free market of ideas, the free flow of capital, a limited and efficient government, evidence-based public policy, the rule of law, and representative democracy.
Strangely they don’t like Mark Scott’s idea of a expanded trans-national ABC, particularly since Sky News (33% owned by news.corpse) has thrown its hat into the ring, calling for “an open tender process” in the federal government’s soon to be expanded public diplomacy program.
Is it reasonable to observe that Foxtel itself has a complete monopoly on the Pay TV market in Australia? Is that an example of a fair and open market? Of course there is a pretty good argument that Pay TV in Oz is only a big enough market to support one player but all that does is underline the weakness of the free market idea, ie they tend to monopolies like Foxtel or duopolies like Woolworths and Coles.
Besides the opportunistic rhetoric of the IPA there is another problem with the Sky News idea. Sky News has long had the ABC news service in its sights. Historically they have piggy backed on the ABC TV service for much of its nationally significant coverage and operated their Parliament House bureau out of a shoe box, relying on contributions from the rest of the press gallery (particularly the Seven and Nine networks who also have a stake in Sky News as well as News.corpse) to offset their shoestring approach. All good free market stuff, taking from the publicly funded ABC and achieving cost efficiencies in cooperation with other free market players.
But there is a worry here. TV has already done much to trivialise the news agenda and is also guilty of reducing its both the quantity and quality of news and current affairs in response to the profit imperative. Is Sky News somehow exempt from this consideration; are we expected to believe that its shareholders are different to the shareholders of other profit making corporations, that they do not expect a return on their investment? Well that would run counter to the idea of free flowing capital so how else might we rationalise the aggressive Sky News expansion? Could it be part of a long term plan with the intended outcome being one of market dominance?
If that’s the case what does that mean for diversity in the marketplace of ideas, how would a single dominant news provider benefit the Australian public because ultimately, this is the likely long term strategic goal for Sky News, to be the dominant source of news and current affairs in Australia. Perhaps dominant to the point of a near monopoly. Given the pedigree of its owners (particularly the predatory news.corpse) it is difficult to see an alternative motivation, which, in conjunction with other developments in the online news space could see a scenario emerge where all content, broadcast or online, remains quarantined by boundaries that reflect the capacity of consumers to pay.
Given the degree of vertical integration in the mainstream news media industry and the sentiments recently expressed by Rupert Murdoch regarding copyright and fair use together with the financial fallout from collapsing newspaper empires in the face of online competition, the Sky News vs ABC flashpoint look likes becoming a serious test between the so-called free enterprise model (based on advertising and subscription) and the publicly funded model. Historically the free enterprise model had some claim to an imaginary fourth estate but it fails the public good simply on the basis that it is completely dependent on a major player in public policy, the free market system. On the otherhand, the publicly funded model which struggles to maintain independence from the source of its operational budget must at the same time deliver an acceptable point of view to its constituent audience, who are in part, conditioned to expect what the free enterprise model produces.
The Mark Scott plan sounds ambitious and probably is, especially given the the ABC is not exactly renowned for its frugality, however if Murdoch does declare the equivalent of a media war and pursues his dogma on fair use and copyright to a successful conclusion then the cosy little sharing arrangement between the ABC and the other players in the mainstream news industry will be greatly overshadowed with legal uncertainty. It might be seen as a content battle between the big media players but it also speaks volumes about the idea of a public right to know. In a game of poker, this is raising the financial stakes on the one hand and then pretending that all the players have the same chance in a game that’s anything but fair.
A monopoly on news, especially a Murdoch inspired monopoly has dangerous implications for freedom and representative democracy, something the IPA should consider the next time it advocates public policy.
