When it comes to concentration of media ownership in Australia, the more things change the more they stay the same. The only difference now is that the Murdoch super-dominance of our media is shared, in an egalitarian Australian way, between father and son.
Here are a few sobering facts* for weekend contemplation…
Lachlan Murdoch (together with James Packer) will holds a prescribed interest (ie: greater than 15%) in Cavalane Holdings’s 16.48% interest in the Ten network.
Lachlan Murdoch owns 50% of DMG Radio, which has a 53% reach of the Australian population, and operates in all metro markets.
Lachlan Murdoch holds an estimated one-sixth interest (a defacto prescribed stake) in the potential estate of Rupert Murdoch, which owns around 38% of News Corporation’s voting stock.
Lachlan Murdoch would logically not work against the interests of News Corporation, given the estate value of around $6 billion.
Lachlan Murdoch is a director of News Corporation, which owns News Limited, which owns between 61-78% (weekday, Saturday and Sunday) of Australian newspaper circulations, some 111 suburban newspapers, 25 regional newspapers, 30 magazines, 25% and management control of Foxtel, and 33% of Sky News Australia (through its UK broadcaster BSkyB).
Lachlan Murdoch is deputy chairman of Prime TV and owns 8.9% of Prime TV. With his interests in Prime and TEN he reaches over 75% of Australians (the reach limit) through free-to-air television.
According to media writer James Chessell in today’s Australian: “A paradox of the ‘future of media’ debate is that while most participants agree a digital world creates new challenges for traditional media, the threat of anti-competitive behaviour is raised with alarming regularity.”
But why, given the facts, would anyone rationally raise the threat of anti-competitive behaviour “with alarming regularity”?
*With assistance from media analyst Roger Colman
As I watch Insiders on ‘our’ ABC I want to know who specifically finances Gerard Henderson’s Sydney Institute?
TomMcL – Gerontious is very vague, not to say tendentious to the point of mendacity, on that point, esp since its squalid divorce from Des Moore’s IPA (not sure who got control of the children, however misshappen).
Speaking of whom, I note that nothing ever came of Guy Rundle’s digs at Neil James’ oddly well upholstered ADA. Some very fancy footwork on this by James only made me more curious.
For those beyond their teenage years, recall the denials, lies, equivocations, dissembling and megaton bluster about Quandrant’s benefactor, now admitted as charged, CIA.