Man the barricades – next year is far too soon to relax cross
media ownership regulation. The proposal
to do so is dangerous and makes no sense. It goes against recommendations of the Productivity Commission and every
other independent commentator who understands the field. Senator Helen Coonan has offered no rationale
for the early lifting of regulation before analogue switch-off, which creates at least
the possibility of increased diversity. Journalists should be demanding reasons from
Coonan.

The 2007 date for relaxation of cross media
ownership is the Big Bad Thing in Coonan’s package of media reforms, which
otherwise contains some good, and quite a lot that is still too lacking in
detail to judge. Talking to a friend yesterday morning about
what Coonan might announce in the afternoon, I said that if cross media
ownership regulation was to be relaxed in 2007 then we should man the
barricades, but that if she delayed this move until after analogue switch-off
in 2010-2012 then I for one would not be taking to the streets.

Who knows where the barricades will be in
2012? Analogue switch-off will mean a
wealth of spectrum becomes available, creating the possibility of new players. All
media players will be podcasting and exploring internet television, making
redundant any regulation that is based on types of media. I am not saying that it will not be necessary
to regulate in order to guarantee diversity, but new methods will be needed
focusing on content ownership and generation rather than media platforms.

So man the barricades. Lobby the Senate. Do what you can. We need not so much a backdown on the lifting
of cross media ownership regulation as a delay. Come on Coonan. You can do it!

Relaxing cross media ownership restrictions
next year will simply increase the might of existing moguls. It is not so much their control of media
platforms that worries me, but the chance they will get to extend their control
over the business models that support the creation of new content. This will make it harder for new players to
get established.

Look at what is already happening, and
extrapolate it five years hence and it is possible to see hope for media
diversity in the future. Already we have
sole operators selling their content to mobile phone companies. We have overseas media companies, such as the
Guardian, experimenting with
providing online news services to locals in the USA as
well as to the Brits. Australia
is the next likely cab off the rank.

The
blogosphere in this country is only just getting off the ground, but already a
couple of the leading political blogs attract tens of thousands of page views a
day, and are earning their founders modest incomes from advertising. Internet
protocol television is with us, and is virgin territory for both regulators and
content providers. Take all this and imagine what it will look like in five
years time, and the argument that new media provides alternatives to the
existing club might just hold up.

But we are not there yet. A government that was truly interested in
free and fair markets would be concerned to give these new players some air
space in which to grow. Instead the
government is effectively extending the protection racket that is commercial
free to air television, delaying its natural decline.

Put off the lifting of cross media
ownership laws until 2012 and make the new datacasting channels useful, broad
and independently owned, and I for one would expect Coonan’s package as a
reasonable compromise between vested interests and public interest. As it is, I’m looking for that barricade.