Peter Mair spent almost 40 years at the Reserve Bank and now is a consumer guru on banking, racing and, on this occasion, media issues.

Not only is the economics against them but they risk losing the public’s trust as ‘the journal of record’. Habits of accessing basic ‘news’ and ‘product information’ change at a glacial pace. It may appear as if nothing is happening — unless you follow the number of ‘hits’ on the ABC’s website.

The economics of the print media

Presses, paper, transport and agents — means the internet offers cheaper distribution. However, internet publishing is not viable because ‘click-me’ advertising is not turned on. Conversely, for businesses — “our story @ our site” — offers more bang per buck than print advertising. People will go to websites — especially websites that run independent product test results.

The integrity of the print media

Now this is sometimes questionable. Tabloid ‘standards’ now characterise the content and promotion of the quality broadsheets. Unqualified commercial lobbying — the virtual free kick — shows up in some ‘news’ stories. These slanted stories from journalists acting as placement-brokers, that would be ignored if they appeared on the promoters own site, have no place on the ‘journal of record’.

The future of the media houses

The big question for the media houses is whether they can sell their news on the internet — and whether the advertising revenue then ‘lost’ is more than offset by cost savings for presses, paper, transport and agents. Like the Pay-TV business, except the ‘cable’ is already in.

There are a couple of other questions here.

Which media house will run the industrial relations gauntlet when the ‘stable’ realises state ‘papers’ are ‘not on’ (save for some local content)?

Who will tell the paper shops that they should buy an ink-jet printer, a turnstile and a long, eye-level notice board?

Will the ‘greens’ even say thank-you for saving the trees?

So what’s next?

One option is for commercial businesses to pay electronic ‘news agencies’ to run their spin-doctored in-house ‘news’ in segmented buckets that are accessible on-line to subscribers. One social policy issue will be the scope for the broadcast media to subsequently pick up such ‘agency stories’ and otherwise broadcast (and publish) back-chat about those stories that, in turn, would be accessible free-of-charge on the internet. A ‘sea-change’ of this kind in Australia will favour the ABC — the more so as perceptions of the ABC’s greater integrity will grow if the print media compromises its integrity.

Bias is good!

‘Bias’ is a view different from “mine” — and entirely appropriate provided there is reasonable opportunity for “my view” to be put somewhere. Bias is essential for efficient media communication and ‘opinionated’ journalists having ‘brand image’ attract loyal followers.

The media can determine life and death. Journalists get to wear the black cap — and someone properly humped and dumped in the media cannot be put back together again. Good journalism is a serious responsibility — Mark Westfield and HIH, Fairfax and Westpac, et al.

There is a form guide for ‘bias’ — and it is a good one. The system works. A well-informed journalist and a confident editor are a winning team for the public interest.

There are ‘checks and balances’ on bias in the print media. Journalists, editors and legal departments would prefer not to be defending stories in the courts. Almost worse apparently would be the rarely required publication of an unfavourable adjudication by the Australian Press Council.

Acceptable bias is not the ‘genuine mistake’ that misleads judgment commonly enough and is, presumably, corrected once revealed. ‘Carelessness’ is a complication that, presumably, attracts quick retribution from those offended — including editors who wear some responsibility for correcting sloppy stories.

Discretionary content

The focus about media integrity is on what may be called ‘discretionary content’.

Nothing ‘discretionary’ appears in the media by accident — and the inclusion of discretionary content is negotiated. Professional advocates ‘place’ stories with journalists on behalf of commercial interests — and many such stories appear to be run pretty much as presented, without intelligent qualification (but probably shortened). The process of negotiating ‘placements’ is not transparent — that is the worry.

The presentation of some discretionary content is so bumbled it constitutes a declaration that a story was ‘placed’. As well, the journalists’ code of revenge (for ‘placing’ stories) seems to require a deliberate mistake be made in the spelling of the surname of a “client”. [This dispels (for the client only) any quite obvious suggestion of a story being written to order.]

Many journalists do identify the source of a discretionary-content story, at least implicitly — including in reports that could be regarded as placed to commercial order. A ‘name’ is a useful implicit warning to be sure, but often it is not enough. Some stories, run without qualification, are a natural injustice to readers even where the source is named. More importantly, news stories with a clear ‘this-was-placed’ tag would be ignored — but those stories are read when they appear ‘unmarked’ with a staff-writer’s by-line. That can be deceptive.

Checks and Balances

Media proprietors have obligations — to shareholders and customers — that are truly aligned in the long run, but are sometimes traded in the short run.

“Media Watch” exposed some tricks a couple of years ago. But, ‘cash for comment’, revealed without a ‘leak’ — no way.

There is, presumably, an acceptable and workable process for the pursuit of ‘placed discretionary content’ in the public interest. Editors — or an in-house ‘ombudsman’ — could undertake to review perceptions of ‘placements’ and correct important lapses of journalistic judgment. Some abuses could be of interest to the ACCC.

Media sites do offer ‘feedback boxes’ but customer responses are apparently not directly exposed to other readers. At worst, feedback from a perceptive reader could be shared with a ‘placer’ and misused to refine a deceptive spin, rather than correct it.

Will media proprietors say — “We don’t do placements”? When?

End Piece

A greater potential for ‘placed’ stories to be exposed may well discourage both advocates and broker-journalists from trying it on.

The challenge would seem to be for readers to bring their concerns to the attention of journalists and editors, in the first instance — and, if then necessary, to the attention of the Australian Press Council and the ACCC for considered assessment.

I would like to see some more of that.

I would like to see the Australian Press Council get ready for that. And, in particular, have cause for having special regard for its admonition that a ‘publication’ treats its readers fairly by “disclosing any commercial or other interest which might be construed as influencing the publication’s presentation of news or opinion”.

I would really like to see some more of that.