Ultimately it is absurd to have a Government funded national overseas television service operated by anyone other than the Government funded broadcaster. However, since the commercial networks first had the Australia Television service tendered out under the Howard Government (won by Seven) that has been the accepted position.
Perhaps having it in commercial hands can provide greater cover for the service upsetting foreign powers; but the powers likely to be offended won't really comprehend the nicety.
The Australian today reports that the second assessment of tenders is going to recommend Sky.
But with its high News Ltd relationship making the decision either way can be spun by the Opposition. If the tender is awarded to the ABC then the action is to "punish" News for its coverage; if it is awarded to the ABC it will be a "bribe" for News to change its coverage.
Ultimately that is always the problem with any process where a media player is the potential beneficiary of a Government contract.
That is an additional reason to have the service run by the ABC. But the decision should be made not to award the contract to the ABC, but to abandon the tender process totally and to amend the ABC charter so that the provision of Australia Television is part of its ongoing function. That change should be accompanied by legislation that entitles Australia Television to a mechanism to "compulsorily acquire" sporting and other culturally (yes sport is cultural) significant coverage content if that content is not otherwise being internationally distributed.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Showing posts with label News Corp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News Corp. Show all posts
Monday, October 17, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Fosters
In a whimsical article in the Age Keith Dunstan bemoans the sale of Fosters. Asking where did it all go wrong he lays the blame at making all the beers taste the same.
Certainly the end of localisation in beers changed the way the global brewing business operated. But that perhaps followed the growing trend for more frequent internal migration and overall more general international travel.
If your local served Carlton Draught and you never went anywhere else then beer was Carlton.
The second big inroad was the cycle in the 1970s and 1980s of the "discount" beer brands...Courage and swan leading. Making price rather than taste a discriminating factor changed the game. Suddenly getting big and getting scale counted.
Carlton United Breweries had achieved that already in Melbourne. To the North Toohey's, Tooths and Castlemain got swallowed up, amalgamated with NZ's Lion and sold to the Japanese.
CUB fell under the control of John Elliott, former McKinsey consultant. He understood the need to get big and broke CUB out of its domestic bounds. As foreign brands arrived in Australia Elliott set out to "Fosterise" the world. When you think about it there is no real reason why a beer can't be as successful as Coca-Cola in creating a single global brand. There are a few more challenges in getting a consistent flavour - you need to brew locally and can't just ship a concentrated syrup.
The Fosterisation had two strands - enter markets with the brand and acquire local breweries. The acquisition strategy was based on having an ongoing valuation of every brewer and being ready to move anytime the proposition was valuable.
The strategy however hit a wall. The wall was the debt mountain built up by Elliott. But that debt mountain wasn't fuelled by the acquisition strategy alone, but by hubris.
Elliott decided he wasn't getting enough reward for his effort in growing shareholder value. The value was coming from his entrepreneurship, not shareholders. So he embarked on a bold MBO to become the owner rather than the manager.
That was the debt mountain that brought the game to an end.
Without that single error - that act of over-reaching by Elliott - we would probably be seeing SAB Miller being acquired by Fosters rather than the other way around.
Mind you as News Corp, TNT,James Hardie and others have shown before once the domestic company becomes truly global they are unlikely to stay headquartered in what Paul Keating once referred to as "the arse end of the world".
PS A really useful policy question to ask is why that should be so. The use of modern ICTs should mean that you can be accessible to global capital markets from anywhere. Indeed there is an argument that by being in somewhere like Australia you could be more readily accessible to them all - by having no home city bias - than making the decision to be based in New York or London.
That would mean changing the focus of strategies around Sydney as a financial centre from housing large numbers of traders in buildings in Barrangaroo to what the ICT infrastructure is - with particular emphasis on videoconferencing.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Certainly the end of localisation in beers changed the way the global brewing business operated. But that perhaps followed the growing trend for more frequent internal migration and overall more general international travel.
If your local served Carlton Draught and you never went anywhere else then beer was Carlton.
The second big inroad was the cycle in the 1970s and 1980s of the "discount" beer brands...Courage and swan leading. Making price rather than taste a discriminating factor changed the game. Suddenly getting big and getting scale counted.
Carlton United Breweries had achieved that already in Melbourne. To the North Toohey's, Tooths and Castlemain got swallowed up, amalgamated with NZ's Lion and sold to the Japanese.
CUB fell under the control of John Elliott, former McKinsey consultant. He understood the need to get big and broke CUB out of its domestic bounds. As foreign brands arrived in Australia Elliott set out to "Fosterise" the world. When you think about it there is no real reason why a beer can't be as successful as Coca-Cola in creating a single global brand. There are a few more challenges in getting a consistent flavour - you need to brew locally and can't just ship a concentrated syrup.
The Fosterisation had two strands - enter markets with the brand and acquire local breweries. The acquisition strategy was based on having an ongoing valuation of every brewer and being ready to move anytime the proposition was valuable.
The strategy however hit a wall. The wall was the debt mountain built up by Elliott. But that debt mountain wasn't fuelled by the acquisition strategy alone, but by hubris.
Elliott decided he wasn't getting enough reward for his effort in growing shareholder value. The value was coming from his entrepreneurship, not shareholders. So he embarked on a bold MBO to become the owner rather than the manager.
That was the debt mountain that brought the game to an end.
Without that single error - that act of over-reaching by Elliott - we would probably be seeing SAB Miller being acquired by Fosters rather than the other way around.
Mind you as News Corp, TNT,James Hardie and others have shown before once the domestic company becomes truly global they are unlikely to stay headquartered in what Paul Keating once referred to as "the arse end of the world".
PS A really useful policy question to ask is why that should be so. The use of modern ICTs should mean that you can be accessible to global capital markets from anywhere. Indeed there is an argument that by being in somewhere like Australia you could be more readily accessible to them all - by having no home city bias - than making the decision to be based in New York or London.
That would mean changing the focus of strategies around Sydney as a financial centre from housing large numbers of traders in buildings in Barrangaroo to what the ICT infrastructure is - with particular emphasis on videoconferencing.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, September 16, 2011
The Media Inquiry - Part 2
In the SMH this morning Richard Ackland writes
Of course, this is not the first time the print media has been disturbed by officials taking a peek under its skirts. The inquiries of recent human memory both concerned Fairfax, the publisher of this organ.
In March 1992 a House of Representatives select committee produced a report called ''News & Fair Facts - the Australian Print Media Industry''. .... The committee went on to produce a report that lies unstudied and forgotten in the parliamentary library. It even produced a chapter on how to beef up the Press Council and the impact of ''technology''. ...
The other major print media inquiry took place in the 1980s in Melbourne under former judge Sir John Norris. It concluded there was too much concentration of control and ownership, what with Fairfax at that time having large shareholdings in Herald & Weekly Times Ltd and The Age.
It is worthwile in the context of the current inquiry noting the existence of earlier inquiries, but Ackland gets their number wrong.
The Print Media Inquiry report is available online (though at the time of writing the online version is not complete - a matter being rectified by APH staff now).
Ackland also notes that the committee's hearings coincided with the Tourang bid for Fairfax, but this was not its motivation. Its motivation was the acquisition of the Herald and Weekly Times by News Ltd and Fairfax going into receivership.
Mr Packer did go on to give some compelling evidence given the significance of the Tourang bid to the question of concentration of ownership.
But a later committee was actually established in the Senate to fully inquire into the Fairfax issues of 1991 and 1993 producing the report Percentage Players
Intriguingly that committee formed the view that the PM suggesting that the foreign acquisition of Fairfax would be allowed on the condition that reporting be"balanced" was inappropriate. Yet the backdrop to the current inquiry is unbalanced coverage by newspapers owned by a foreign proprietor.
The committee in particular called for the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeover Act and other instruments to be replaced with a single instrument covering all foreign ownership issues. It also called for the Foreign Investment Review Board to be replaced by a new Statutory Authority. This was a report written in 1994 by the then opposition. Interestingly in 12 years in Government neither of these things occurfred.
But on the core issue of standards rather than ownership and concentration the parliament again visited the issue in 2000 with a report by the Senate Information Technologies committee In the Public Interest.
That committee actually recommended
establishment of an independent statutory body, the Media Complaints Commission (MCC), which will be a one-stop-shop for all complaints and will assist to enforce standards established by self-regulation.
This appears to be highly relevant to the current inquiry.
Meanwhile the Member for Bradfield has another Op Ed published claiming Stephen Conroy's media circus is an exercise in revenge.
Fletcher asks;
If an inquiry is needed, why is it confined to the print media as opposed to many other forms of media including free-to-air television, pay-TV, radio and the booming online sector?
In doing so he conveniently ignores the fact the Minister already has a Convergence Review looking at these sectors.
He concludes;
This inquiry is an exercise in retaliation, designed to lead to the imposition of new regulatory burdens on News Limited papers, with those operated by other companies to suffer collateral damage.
It is a political exercise pure and simple. For anyone who cares about the role of newspapers in our democracy, this new inquiry is the last thing we need. It should be cancelled immediately.
It is interesting to note that the committee report from 2000, on which the Howard Government with Richard Alston as Minister (an office in which the Member for Bradfield once worked), was a report from the coalition members of the committee, the dissenting reports were from the ALP and the Democrats.
Finally let's note that the last trigger for this inquiry was the Bolt blog and the pulled Milne article. The error of their publication was revealed by the way that News responded. Clearly that News response wasn't based on a deal about the media inquiry (as suggested).
But Bolt himself raised the concern that an ordinary citizen would not have had the mechanism for redress the PM used - ringing the CEO. And that is exactly the point, there is no effective complaints mechanism, a fact that has been reported as part of two previous committees.
It is perhaps time the Member for Bradfield caught up and let the current Minister get on with doing things that the member's former boss ignored!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Of course, this is not the first time the print media has been disturbed by officials taking a peek under its skirts. The inquiries of recent human memory both concerned Fairfax, the publisher of this organ.
In March 1992 a House of Representatives select committee produced a report called ''News & Fair Facts - the Australian Print Media Industry''. .... The committee went on to produce a report that lies unstudied and forgotten in the parliamentary library. It even produced a chapter on how to beef up the Press Council and the impact of ''technology''. ...
The other major print media inquiry took place in the 1980s in Melbourne under former judge Sir John Norris. It concluded there was too much concentration of control and ownership, what with Fairfax at that time having large shareholdings in Herald & Weekly Times Ltd and The Age.
It is worthwile in the context of the current inquiry noting the existence of earlier inquiries, but Ackland gets their number wrong.
The Print Media Inquiry report is available online (though at the time of writing the online version is not complete - a matter being rectified by APH staff now).
Ackland also notes that the committee's hearings coincided with the Tourang bid for Fairfax, but this was not its motivation. Its motivation was the acquisition of the Herald and Weekly Times by News Ltd and Fairfax going into receivership.
Mr Packer did go on to give some compelling evidence given the significance of the Tourang bid to the question of concentration of ownership.
But a later committee was actually established in the Senate to fully inquire into the Fairfax issues of 1991 and 1993 producing the report Percentage Players
Intriguingly that committee formed the view that the PM suggesting that the foreign acquisition of Fairfax would be allowed on the condition that reporting be"balanced" was inappropriate. Yet the backdrop to the current inquiry is unbalanced coverage by newspapers owned by a foreign proprietor.
The committee in particular called for the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeover Act and other instruments to be replaced with a single instrument covering all foreign ownership issues. It also called for the Foreign Investment Review Board to be replaced by a new Statutory Authority. This was a report written in 1994 by the then opposition. Interestingly in 12 years in Government neither of these things occurfred.
But on the core issue of standards rather than ownership and concentration the parliament again visited the issue in 2000 with a report by the Senate Information Technologies committee In the Public Interest.
That committee actually recommended
establishment of an independent statutory body, the Media Complaints Commission (MCC), which will be a one-stop-shop for all complaints and will assist to enforce standards established by self-regulation.
This appears to be highly relevant to the current inquiry.
Meanwhile the Member for Bradfield has another Op Ed published claiming Stephen Conroy's media circus is an exercise in revenge.
Fletcher asks;
If an inquiry is needed, why is it confined to the print media as opposed to many other forms of media including free-to-air television, pay-TV, radio and the booming online sector?
In doing so he conveniently ignores the fact the Minister already has a Convergence Review looking at these sectors.
He concludes;
This inquiry is an exercise in retaliation, designed to lead to the imposition of new regulatory burdens on News Limited papers, with those operated by other companies to suffer collateral damage.
It is a political exercise pure and simple. For anyone who cares about the role of newspapers in our democracy, this new inquiry is the last thing we need. It should be cancelled immediately.
It is interesting to note that the committee report from 2000, on which the Howard Government with Richard Alston as Minister (an office in which the Member for Bradfield once worked), was a report from the coalition members of the committee, the dissenting reports were from the ALP and the Democrats.
Finally let's note that the last trigger for this inquiry was the Bolt blog and the pulled Milne article. The error of their publication was revealed by the way that News responded. Clearly that News response wasn't based on a deal about the media inquiry (as suggested).
But Bolt himself raised the concern that an ordinary citizen would not have had the mechanism for redress the PM used - ringing the CEO. And that is exactly the point, there is no effective complaints mechanism, a fact that has been reported as part of two previous committees.
It is perhaps time the Member for Bradfield caught up and let the current Minister get on with doing things that the member's former boss ignored!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The Media Inquiry
Senator Conroy's media inquiry will at least go at least part way to the issues that I blogged recently were relevant.
It clearly addresses the question of complaint mechanisms. Andrew Bolt was actually right to note that not everyone could ring John Hartigan, like the PM could, to complain about the Milne article. Someone did pose though the question of whether the ACMA is any less toothless than the Press Council. At least we can frame the question "what would a well functioning complaints system look like" (might take some heat off telcos for a while too!)
The second ToR addresses the question of market structure but in a roundabout way;
The impact of this technological change on the business model that has supported the investment by traditional media organisations in quality journalism and the production of news, and how such activities can be supported, and diversity enhanced, in the changed media environment
Michelle Grattan has criticised the ToR for the fact that they don't address "the high concentration of Australian newspaper ownership." But that concentration is in part driven by the "business model." In fact to the <http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/report_register/bycomlist.asp?id=190>last print inquiry twenty years ago the http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/15729267?">News Ltd submission made the compelling case that the future was for only one newspaper in each city - a forecast that still looks increasingly likely for Sydney and Melbourne and applies elsewhere already.
As Wendy Bacon has commented;
It’s an opportunity for those who allege there is systematic market failure to deliver comprehensive news and current affairs from diverse view points to come up with evidence for that, in the way that Robert Manne has done in his Quarterly Essay. (must go read that now)
Malcolm Turnbull scoffed at the idea the inquiry could do anything to help make the business model for newspapers more sustainable.
However it is abundantly clear that shared printing facilities will go a long way to help the cost structures. There is a real difficulty though with the private incentives (each thinks the other will be forced to close first), and there are potential competition issues (the ACCC might view it as collusion, agreement very hard to write).
Government could intervene by (a) creating an "access right" to printing presses for third parties if you control over a threshold of readership in a market and (b) creating some explicit rules for the management of shared print facilities.
Such a proposal would change the incentives on voluntary co-operation and remove the impediment.
The same is true of a whole host of other savings by sharing. Chris Anderson highlighted the cost of duplicated TV news feeds in his Andrew Olley lecture. He reported on a study conducted by Kevin McQuillan from RMIT that found;
After reviewing the content of the news programmers, (we excluded SBS - as that is often not a typical domestic rundown), the report concluded:
1. That competition, fierce as it is, is often failing to produce significantly different news programs;
2. 'exclusives' rarely lead the network bulletins, or were good enough to be placed in the top four stories.
3. There is questionable value in the current system of each network sending a reporter and crew to the same event for what will inevitably be the same story.
It is interesting to note that the vertical integration of news media recently saw the disbandment of the New Zealand equivalent of AAP. The history of AAP itself is interesting having been formed as a cooperative of a vast number of news organisations to provide common news - especially from overseas. Today it is owned by just the three remaining big print players.
It is interesting also to note (as detailed by Ken Inglis in his two volume history of the ABC) that the ABC began its radio news services by simply reading the daily newspapers and then subscribing to the AAP feed. The newspapers fearing the competition denied the ABC the access thus triggering the decision by the ABC to deploy its own network of international correspondents.
A lot would happen to the media business model if this process were reversed, that the ABC was to take on a role as not just public sector broadcaster but the "official" newsagency and that its raw footage of anything it covered was available to other "subscribing" news organisations. (The subscription model needs to be well designed - but that's an economics blog post).
So we are going to address in more detail the right questions. The ToR also neatly explain that the media inquiry works as a sort of mini-inquiry within the Convergence Review with the final report of the CR to include the outcomes from the media inquiry.
And a final note, UNSW's George Williams backed up in the AFR this morning something I tweeted yesterday. The print media isn't a formal federal power, but the judgement in the Work Choices case indicates the Feds could easily use the corporations power to implement media regulation.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
It clearly addresses the question of complaint mechanisms. Andrew Bolt was actually right to note that not everyone could ring John Hartigan, like the PM could, to complain about the Milne article. Someone did pose though the question of whether the ACMA is any less toothless than the Press Council. At least we can frame the question "what would a well functioning complaints system look like" (might take some heat off telcos for a while too!)
The second ToR addresses the question of market structure but in a roundabout way;
The impact of this technological change on the business model that has supported the investment by traditional media organisations in quality journalism and the production of news, and how such activities can be supported, and diversity enhanced, in the changed media environment
Michelle Grattan has criticised the ToR for the fact that they don't address "the high concentration of Australian newspaper ownership." But that concentration is in part driven by the "business model." In fact to the <http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/report_register/bycomlist.asp?id=190>last print inquiry twenty years ago the http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/15729267?">News Ltd submission made the compelling case that the future was for only one newspaper in each city - a forecast that still looks increasingly likely for Sydney and Melbourne and applies elsewhere already.
As Wendy Bacon has commented;
It’s an opportunity for those who allege there is systematic market failure to deliver comprehensive news and current affairs from diverse view points to come up with evidence for that, in the way that Robert Manne has done in his Quarterly Essay. (must go read that now)
Malcolm Turnbull scoffed at the idea the inquiry could do anything to help make the business model for newspapers more sustainable.
However it is abundantly clear that shared printing facilities will go a long way to help the cost structures. There is a real difficulty though with the private incentives (each thinks the other will be forced to close first), and there are potential competition issues (the ACCC might view it as collusion, agreement very hard to write).
Government could intervene by (a) creating an "access right" to printing presses for third parties if you control over a threshold of readership in a market and (b) creating some explicit rules for the management of shared print facilities.
Such a proposal would change the incentives on voluntary co-operation and remove the impediment.
The same is true of a whole host of other savings by sharing. Chris Anderson highlighted the cost of duplicated TV news feeds in his Andrew Olley lecture. He reported on a study conducted by Kevin McQuillan from RMIT that found;
After reviewing the content of the news programmers, (we excluded SBS - as that is often not a typical domestic rundown), the report concluded:
1. That competition, fierce as it is, is often failing to produce significantly different news programs;
2. 'exclusives' rarely lead the network bulletins, or were good enough to be placed in the top four stories.
3. There is questionable value in the current system of each network sending a reporter and crew to the same event for what will inevitably be the same story.
It is interesting to note that the vertical integration of news media recently saw the disbandment of the New Zealand equivalent of AAP. The history of AAP itself is interesting having been formed as a cooperative of a vast number of news organisations to provide common news - especially from overseas. Today it is owned by just the three remaining big print players.
It is interesting also to note (as detailed by Ken Inglis in his two volume history of the ABC) that the ABC began its radio news services by simply reading the daily newspapers and then subscribing to the AAP feed. The newspapers fearing the competition denied the ABC the access thus triggering the decision by the ABC to deploy its own network of international correspondents.
A lot would happen to the media business model if this process were reversed, that the ABC was to take on a role as not just public sector broadcaster but the "official" newsagency and that its raw footage of anything it covered was available to other "subscribing" news organisations. (The subscription model needs to be well designed - but that's an economics blog post).
So we are going to address in more detail the right questions. The ToR also neatly explain that the media inquiry works as a sort of mini-inquiry within the Convergence Review with the final report of the CR to include the outcomes from the media inquiry.
And a final note, UNSW's George Williams backed up in the AFR this morning something I tweeted yesterday. The print media isn't a formal federal power, but the judgement in the Work Choices case indicates the Feds could easily use the corporations power to implement media regulation.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Media standards
Check out the latest from News Limited. A piece today is headed Labor MP Craig Thomson wanted to resign but party wouldn't allow him.
The first four paragraphs read;
THE Labor MP embroiled in the union credit card scandal told confidants he wanted to quit politics but the party wouldn't let him, sources claimed yesterday.
Close colleagues of former Health Services Union chief turned MP Craig Thomson said the scandal had all become too much for him, a source inside the party said.
"They have expressed the view he'd much prefer to go," the source said. "It would be a lot easier with his family life, but he's not allowed to."
However, Mr Thomson said last night: "That is completely and utterly untrue and I am not resigning."
The only attributed source is the person himself and he says it is not true.
Apart from all the journalistic integrity stuff about unnamed sources not really being sources, let's just remember how newspaper stories are written and read. Peole scan headlines to see stories they want to read. People read the first paragraph if their interest has been grabbed.
"Sources claim" is a weak selling point - it actually won't inspire many readers to follow through to read the rest of the story.
But I'm not going to blame the journalists - they get "measured" by the column inches and where in the paper they get run. It is logical in the culture of News Limited to write and submit this story. But where is the editorial standard that would print it.
I've twice recently blogged about the Mark Antony soliloquy nature of recent reporting.
Media Watch last night got stuck into the Milne story, but didn't really nail the whole trend for "no accusations about X are being made but it does raise the question of judgement". the same crap was used against Mike Quigley!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The first four paragraphs read;
THE Labor MP embroiled in the union credit card scandal told confidants he wanted to quit politics but the party wouldn't let him, sources claimed yesterday.
Close colleagues of former Health Services Union chief turned MP Craig Thomson said the scandal had all become too much for him, a source inside the party said.
"They have expressed the view he'd much prefer to go," the source said. "It would be a lot easier with his family life, but he's not allowed to."
However, Mr Thomson said last night: "That is completely and utterly untrue and I am not resigning."
The only attributed source is the person himself and he says it is not true.
Apart from all the journalistic integrity stuff about unnamed sources not really being sources, let's just remember how newspaper stories are written and read. Peole scan headlines to see stories they want to read. People read the first paragraph if their interest has been grabbed.
"Sources claim" is a weak selling point - it actually won't inspire many readers to follow through to read the rest of the story.
But I'm not going to blame the journalists - they get "measured" by the column inches and where in the paper they get run. It is logical in the culture of News Limited to write and submit this story. But where is the editorial standard that would print it.
I've twice recently blogged about the Mark Antony soliloquy nature of recent reporting.
Media Watch last night got stuck into the Milne story, but didn't really nail the whole trend for "no accusations about X are being made but it does raise the question of judgement". the same crap was used against Mike Quigley!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
News Limited and a Media Inquiry
Suggestions for a "media inquiry" have arisen from the combined perception of the control of all print media in two camps, and the perception coming from overseas that the largest of these has institutionalised illegal practices and has been beyond scrutiny because of its own political power.
The most recent event in Australia has centred around The Australian and publication of a very meandering column and its retraction.
The PM has come out fighting, which News found disappointing. News seems to think it is okay just to apologise and move on.
This contrasts with the position of Andrew Bolt who has been unleashed and writes a snivelling little piece that suggests that the rehashing of the relationship between a young Ms Gillard and a union official is okay because "questions are raised about Gillard's judgment in having had this relationship".
So as far as the News bosses are concerned you make an error, apologise and move on. As far as Bolt is concerned your entire history must be blemish free.
The Bolt defence ignores the real problem with the stories - which is as I wrote before to act like Mark Antony's soliloquy and have the reader believe the things about which the article says "no accusation is being made."
Cabinet is considering what to do about News Ltd. It has to in any case since Bob Brown has already moved for one.
The challenge for the Government is what could productively come from a "media" inquiry. There is very little room to move on directly regulating content, both through a lack of Federal powers on print media and due to the implied free speech protections the High Court would find on any regulation that could be interpreted as limiting political commentary.
At the last print media inquiry News Ltd produced impressive arguments for why cities would in the future support only one print title. Thus far the market has reflected their forecast.
The two avenues that could be useful would be to formalise the alternative dispute resolution methodology that is the Press Council. Bolt's complaint that not everyone could ring John Hartigan to complain is reasonable. The response is to make it easier for everyone to complain, not make it reasonable to not respond to the PM.
The second would be to contemplate the extent to which the market power of the various news organisations extends vertically and horizontally. If I wanted to publish a new newspaper in, say, Adelaide, it would be far more viable if I could use News Ltd's printing and distribution facilities.
Cross media ownership restrictions will be reviewed by the Convergence Review. But these restrictions don't affect the growth of power through attrition.
So an inquiry could productively consider the possibility and benefits of an "access regime" and divestiture powers to ensure media diversity.
There is significant latitude as Bob Brown has only given notice that he will move "That the Senate establish an inquiry into media in Australia."
An inquiry focussed on complaint mechanism and market structure tools could indeed be productive.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The most recent event in Australia has centred around The Australian and publication of a very meandering column and its retraction.
The PM has come out fighting, which News found disappointing. News seems to think it is okay just to apologise and move on.
This contrasts with the position of Andrew Bolt who has been unleashed and writes a snivelling little piece that suggests that the rehashing of the relationship between a young Ms Gillard and a union official is okay because "questions are raised about Gillard's judgment in having had this relationship".
So as far as the News bosses are concerned you make an error, apologise and move on. As far as Bolt is concerned your entire history must be blemish free.
The Bolt defence ignores the real problem with the stories - which is as I wrote before to act like Mark Antony's soliloquy and have the reader believe the things about which the article says "no accusation is being made."
Cabinet is considering what to do about News Ltd. It has to in any case since Bob Brown has already moved for one.
The challenge for the Government is what could productively come from a "media" inquiry. There is very little room to move on directly regulating content, both through a lack of Federal powers on print media and due to the implied free speech protections the High Court would find on any regulation that could be interpreted as limiting political commentary.
At the last print media inquiry News Ltd produced impressive arguments for why cities would in the future support only one print title. Thus far the market has reflected their forecast.
The two avenues that could be useful would be to formalise the alternative dispute resolution methodology that is the Press Council. Bolt's complaint that not everyone could ring John Hartigan to complain is reasonable. The response is to make it easier for everyone to complain, not make it reasonable to not respond to the PM.
The second would be to contemplate the extent to which the market power of the various news organisations extends vertically and horizontally. If I wanted to publish a new newspaper in, say, Adelaide, it would be far more viable if I could use News Ltd's printing and distribution facilities.
Cross media ownership restrictions will be reviewed by the Convergence Review. But these restrictions don't affect the growth of power through attrition.
So an inquiry could productively consider the possibility and benefits of an "access regime" and divestiture powers to ensure media diversity.
There is significant latitude as Bob Brown has only given notice that he will move "That the Senate establish an inquiry into media in Australia."
An inquiry focussed on complaint mechanism and market structure tools could indeed be productive.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, August 08, 2011
Sharing the presses ... part 2
New reports in the Oz that News and Fairfax are close to a JV for printing newspapers, this time in the . Last time I commented on the story it also came from there - are they trying to put external pressure on Fairfax to do the deal?
As I said before it does raise competition concerns and would be an acquisition under s50. If the ACCC can have concerns about a merger between FOXTEL and AUSTAR one can expect them to be more worried about a print sharing deal.
The challenge is that both transactions clearly do increase "efficiency".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
As I said before it does raise competition concerns and would be an acquisition under s50. If the ACCC can have concerns about a merger between FOXTEL and AUSTAR one can expect them to be more worried about a print sharing deal.
The challenge is that both transactions clearly do increase "efficiency".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, July 25, 2011
More News on News
I'm getting to be a little bit stunned about the ongoing reaction to the NotW story.
We have confessions of a person who pitches the issue of working for the Murdoch's as a kind of addiction. You get addicted to the excitement and ethos and forget about the values.
But elsewhere you have politicians claiming that News International execs tried to blackmail them with statements like "According to one account from a senior party figure, a cabinet minister was told that, if the government did not do as NI wanted, the Lib Dems would be "done over" by the Murdoch papers."
If only those politicians had thought to go the Hugh Grant route and record these conversations.
The episode does bring to mind the words attributed to Edmund Burke (though disputed) that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
The more the NotW story goes on - the more that statement seems true.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
We have confessions of a person who pitches the issue of working for the Murdoch's as a kind of addiction. You get addicted to the excitement and ethos and forget about the values.
But elsewhere you have politicians claiming that News International execs tried to blackmail them with statements like "According to one account from a senior party figure, a cabinet minister was told that, if the government did not do as NI wanted, the Lib Dems would be "done over" by the Murdoch papers."
If only those politicians had thought to go the Hugh Grant route and record these conversations.
The episode does bring to mind the words attributed to Edmund Burke (though disputed) that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
The more the NotW story goes on - the more that statement seems true.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
A classic (not) of sports writing
Many thanks to Ry crozier, Annabel Crabb and Jonathan Holmes for the tweets and retweets that brought this piece to my attention.
Just in case someone at News Limited cares and fixes it I will quote here to immortalise what would sound good as parody coming from Roy and HG, but looks mightily out of place in the Oz.
In an individual test of man and machine, Evans not only ground out a fabulous win, as he not only ate into the 57 seconds Andy Schleck enjoyed at the start of the day, he absolutely slaughtered the opposition for overall champion to record a time of 55min 40sec.
In a superb ride against the clock, the 34-year-old BMC rider destroyed Andy Schleck, who finished just three seconds ahead of older brother Frank, in a time of 58mins 11sec.
Evans will lead the survivors onto the Champs Elysees today by a whopping 1min 34 sec ahead of the field.
Just count them - "grew wings" and two uses of the verb "rip" in thesecond sentence. The slightly excessive "slaughtered" and two "not only"'s in the third sentence.
Makes the writing here look good by comparison.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Just in case someone at News Limited cares and fixes it I will quote here to immortalise what would sound good as parody coming from Roy and HG, but looks mightily out of place in the Oz.
CADEL Evans has produced the ride of his life to become the winner-elect of The Tour de France.
Evans grew wings as he ripped his way through the streets of Grenoble to rip the yellow jersey off the back of Andy Schleck to ride his way into the history books as the first Australian to win the Tour.In an individual test of man and machine, Evans not only ground out a fabulous win, as he not only ate into the 57 seconds Andy Schleck enjoyed at the start of the day, he absolutely slaughtered the opposition for overall champion to record a time of 55min 40sec.
In a superb ride against the clock, the 34-year-old BMC rider destroyed Andy Schleck, who finished just three seconds ahead of older brother Frank, in a time of 58mins 11sec.
Evans will lead the survivors onto the Champs Elysees today by a whopping 1min 34 sec ahead of the field.
Just count them - "grew wings" and two uses of the verb "rip" in thesecond sentence. The slightly excessive "slaughtered" and two "not only"'s in the third sentence.
Makes the writing here look good by comparison.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Good piece on Business Spectator
Robert Gottliebsen and Alex Liddington-Cox have put together the BP spill and the News Corp hack to conclude;
For the second time in less than a year, a major global corporation has failed to understand the fundamental risks of its business.
One could add to that a whole string of investment banks that failed to understand the fundamental risks to their business of certain derivatives!
They also note the similarity of the responses they took to their crises and foreshadowed that
A vast number of other global corporations facing similar situations will make the same mistakes because the BP and News Corporation errors reflect flaws in the global corporation 'rule book'.
The first step is to downplay the severity or claim responsibility lay elsewhere (for the GFC think of blaming the Government for encouraging home ownership).
The early dismissal of the issue makes it much harder to win back trust.
The big question here is whether the form of the modern MNC makes risk management possible anymore.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
For the second time in less than a year, a major global corporation has failed to understand the fundamental risks of its business.
One could add to that a whole string of investment banks that failed to understand the fundamental risks to their business of certain derivatives!
They also note the similarity of the responses they took to their crises and foreshadowed that
A vast number of other global corporations facing similar situations will make the same mistakes because the BP and News Corporation errors reflect flaws in the global corporation 'rule book'.
The first step is to downplay the severity or claim responsibility lay elsewhere (for the GFC think of blaming the Government for encouraging home ownership).
The early dismissal of the issue makes it much harder to win back trust.
The big question here is whether the form of the modern MNC makes risk management possible anymore.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, July 14, 2011
More lessons from News Corp/International/Limited
Just so we are all clear - News Corp is the parent company, originally of Adelaide now of Delaware. News International is the UK operation. News Limited is the Australian operation.
The company name comes from the Adelaide News. Rupert's father was a journalist, editor then manager. He died with shares in some companies, not control of any. The executors sold the share of Herald and weekly Times allowing Rupert, his mother and siblings to retain the Adelaide News and a Queensland title (can't recall if it was the Courier-Mail).
Rupert sold the Adelaide News when he later acquired the HWT group - competition concerns wouldn't allow him to acquire the HWT title the Advertiser otherwise.
The purpose of this tale is to remind you of the structure of News Corp, and that Murdoch will happily adjust that structure to suit his needs.
An underlying question is what his commitment is to printed media, in particular newspapers. The recent acquisition of The Wall Street Journal clearly indicates Murdoch hasn't given up on print. Despite the public perception that Governments these days are made by television or even social media, Murdoch knows that enduring contributions stem from the daily drip of print that gets recycled in the electronic media.
That changes only when the contagion effect of rapid news transmission takes hold - the mob effect that I earlier referred to in the closure of News of the World.
That closure hasn't yet contained the damage, having to now walk away from the BSkyB bid.
The biggest issue with News Corp remains the ability of the 80 year old Murdoch to maintain control, and to create a family succession. The group faces periodic shareholder actions and the latest turmoil adds to those.
Some have speculated that Murdoch will go a step further and abandon the entire UK business. The challenge is that the shareholding base probably sees a change of executives not a change of structure as the solution.
This creates the possibility of the unthinkable - is the only way to save News Corp and the possibility of a family succession for Rupert to go now. If he accepts the blame for the culture and every other error there is no one left to pursue.
James and Elisabeth are both tarnished by the News International story (and the purchase of Shine). Lachlan is currently a relative clean skin - having effectively rejected the culture of his father.
Finally there is ample evidence that what goes on in News is cultural - by which one means unstated by widely accepted norms of behaviour. News Limited has been playing the game pretty solidly over its support of the Sky News bid for Australia Network - even though the ownership is through News International.
Today the Oz has run a story as a kind of "counter corruption" story suggesting inappropriate behaviour by ABC execs in support of the ABC bid. Ultimately the prohibition on lobbying during tendering is an obligation on those being lobbied not the lobbyists. I would be dearly interested in knowing if anyone from News or Seven or lobbyists acting on their behalf has said anything to any Minister about the tender. The difficulty is getting anyone to admit to it - on either side.
Note: A couple of reading recommendations. The Shawcross biography of Murdoch
is far better than Wolff's The Man Who Owns the News
, but the latter is more up to date. The story of subscription television in the UK, and the eventual merger of Sky and BSB to make BSkyB is well told in Dished! The Rise and Fall of British Satellite Broadcasting.
)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The company name comes from the Adelaide News. Rupert's father was a journalist, editor then manager. He died with shares in some companies, not control of any. The executors sold the share of Herald and weekly Times allowing Rupert, his mother and siblings to retain the Adelaide News and a Queensland title (can't recall if it was the Courier-Mail).
Rupert sold the Adelaide News when he later acquired the HWT group - competition concerns wouldn't allow him to acquire the HWT title the Advertiser otherwise.
The purpose of this tale is to remind you of the structure of News Corp, and that Murdoch will happily adjust that structure to suit his needs.
An underlying question is what his commitment is to printed media, in particular newspapers. The recent acquisition of The Wall Street Journal clearly indicates Murdoch hasn't given up on print. Despite the public perception that Governments these days are made by television or even social media, Murdoch knows that enduring contributions stem from the daily drip of print that gets recycled in the electronic media.
That changes only when the contagion effect of rapid news transmission takes hold - the mob effect that I earlier referred to in the closure of News of the World.
That closure hasn't yet contained the damage, having to now walk away from the BSkyB bid.
The biggest issue with News Corp remains the ability of the 80 year old Murdoch to maintain control, and to create a family succession. The group faces periodic shareholder actions and the latest turmoil adds to those.
Some have speculated that Murdoch will go a step further and abandon the entire UK business. The challenge is that the shareholding base probably sees a change of executives not a change of structure as the solution.
This creates the possibility of the unthinkable - is the only way to save News Corp and the possibility of a family succession for Rupert to go now. If he accepts the blame for the culture and every other error there is no one left to pursue.
James and Elisabeth are both tarnished by the News International story (and the purchase of Shine). Lachlan is currently a relative clean skin - having effectively rejected the culture of his father.
Finally there is ample evidence that what goes on in News is cultural - by which one means unstated by widely accepted norms of behaviour. News Limited has been playing the game pretty solidly over its support of the Sky News bid for Australia Network - even though the ownership is through News International.
Today the Oz has run a story as a kind of "counter corruption" story suggesting inappropriate behaviour by ABC execs in support of the ABC bid. Ultimately the prohibition on lobbying during tendering is an obligation on those being lobbied not the lobbyists. I would be dearly interested in knowing if anyone from News or Seven or lobbyists acting on their behalf has said anything to any Minister about the tender. The difficulty is getting anyone to admit to it - on either side.
Note: A couple of reading recommendations. The Shawcross biography of Murdoch
is far better than Wolff's The Man Who Owns the News, but the latter is more up to date. The story of subscription television in the UK, and the eventual merger of Sky and BSB to make BSkyB is well told in Dished! The Rise and Fall of British Satellite Broadcasting.)Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)