Supplementary Submission | Senate Inquiry into Media Diversity in Australia

“I think the important thing is that there be plenty of newspapers with plenty of different people controlling them, so that there’s a variety of viewpoints — so that there’s a choice for the public … Freedom of the press mustn’t be one-sided, just for a publisher to speak as he pleases and try and bully the community.”
Rupert Murdoch, 1967

Senators,

I first appeared before this inquiry nine months ago, with one core recommendation:

That a Royal Commission be established to ensure the strength, vitality and diversity of the Australian media across all platforms to underpin the long-term health of our democracy.

As your inquiry has progressed, the case for such a Royal Commission has only strengthened. You have taken thousands of submissions from industry experts, academics, scientists, journalists, former News Corporation figures and members of the public. Outside the committee, numerous experts – ranging from former US Director of National Intelligence Lt. Gen. James Clapper (retired) and former Fox News contributor Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (retired), to former long-serving Murdoch executives such as Preston Padden and James Murdoch – have backed a Royal Commission or echoed my submission’s concerns about the dangers for democracy.

There is clearly deep public concern about the state of our media, evidenced not only by the more than 500,000 signatories to last year’s petition but the public outcry since. There are also great concerns about the unintended consequences and rent-seeking behaviours encouraged by piecemeal media reforms of the kind we have seen over so many years – most recently the News Media Bargaining Code, which is failing small- and medium-sized outlets.

The media industry is extremely complex. Any effort to regulate or deregulate involve balancing complex values of press freedom, the public interest, competition and privacy. Your inquiry has barely begun to scratch the surface of these questions.

No Australian who has followed your inquiry could think that Australia’s media landscape is healthy. Nor could they think it is fair that a panel of senators, considering these issues part-time during a busy parliamentary year, should be asked to devise a solution to this crisis when there are clearly no easy fixes. More work needs to be done before the parliament can confidently take substantive action.

Only a Royal Commission has the power to properly scrutinise and propose solutions on Australia’s endemic failures of media regulation.

The sobering evidence of News Corporation’s two regulators — their print ‘self-regulator’ the Australian Press Council (APC) and their broadcast ‘co-regulator’ the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) — have exposed their purely symbolic role in upholding media standards in 21st century Australia. It is quite clear that no journalist in the country genuinely fears being reprimanded by these regulators, as evidenced by the journalists’ union announcing its withdrawal from the APC midway through your inquiry.

News Corporation’s witnesses attempted to justify and downplay the scale of their company’s power, their abuses of that power and, perhaps most troubling, the systematic implementation of divisive disinformation-for-profit business models pioneered by the ‘culture warriors’ of Fox News in the United States. Each of you understands personally the power that News Corporation wields in our nation’s capitals by virtue of its monopoly status, and the consequence of this company spreading lies about basic public health information during a pandemic.

There was diversity of opinion among witnesses about the urgency of a Royal Commission. However, only News Corporation embarked on a campaign of attacks on this committee to delegitimise its work and chill debate about any policies that might diminish the power of the Murdoch media relative to its competitors (even if they resulted in a bigger, stronger and more diverse news industry overall). This is because media law reform threatens News Corporation’s ability to exert excessive political influence on our democracy.

The Murdoch media’s overblown attacks on this inquiry elucidate its deep fear of scrutiny. While insisting they have nothing to hide from a Royal Commission, their response to this committee’s work indicates that they view such an inquiry as an existential threat to their political power. There has been no similarly heated reaction from other media organisations that would be investigated by the same Royal Commission.

Much of News Corporation’s case in its own defence has been forcefully refuted, either by witnesses to the inquiry, or outside of it.

News Corporation claimed calls for a Royal Commission were driven solely from the “far left” – a claim that was blown apart by the evidence of Malcolm Turnbull, a former Liberal Party prime minister, and a cabinet minister in the governments of Tony Abbott and John Howard.

News Corporation claimed that the petition which prompted this inquiry, EN1938, was inflated by false signatures and therefore lacked legitimacy – a theory that was comprehensively discredited by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions.

Sky News host Peta Credlin claimed the petition was a ‘data-harvesting exercise’ to invade Australians’ privacy – a claim which she retracted and apologised for as part of a confidential legal settlement (which many ordinary citizens would be unable to obtain given the legal costs involved).

News Corporation’s claim not to tolerate denial of climate science was exposed by the evidence Michael Mann, and the wilful misrepresentation of the science continues despite its supposed ‘Mission Zero’ conversion, particularly through the weekly programme, Sky News Weather & Skeptics’ Ice Age Watch.

News Corporation’s claim that it adheres to industry standards were undermined by its rush to delete videos that spread disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and pushed unproven alternatives. This followed a suspension by YouTube, which exposed the failure of ACMA’s co-regulatory model, given the offending videos were broadcast live to millions without consequence. Even after these videos were presented to ACMA, no enforcement action has been taken.

Esteemed former Murdoch editors, executives and photojournalists have given detailed evidence of the company’s abusive workplace culture, its character attacks, lobbying and political campaigns, and its vendetta tactics.

Some will argue that News Corporation chose not to trouble itself with the particulars of this inquiry given its error-riddled five-page submission, Lachlan Murdoch’s refusal to appear as a witness, and its withdrawal of Sky News anchors Alan Jones, Rowan Dean and Rita Panahi as witnesses. I disagree. The sheer weight of News Corporation’s campaign to delegitimise this inquiry, even before its findings are handed down, and its attacks on other witnesses – both publicly and through backgrounding of senators and other media – demonstrates that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch have taken this inquiry, and its potential findings, very seriously indeed.

Appended to this letter are responses to News Corporation’s three core claims put to this inquiry.

It is clear that the Murdochs do not consider themselves accountable to the Australian Senate, nor to any other institution which they cannot control. You have begun to lift their veil, and they are scared of what a Royal Commission would further uncover.

I commend senators for their insightful questions especially in the face of pressure – explicit or implicit – from News Corporation and those who benefit from its continued domination.

I trust this supplementary submission will assist the Committee in its final deliberations.

Yours sincerely,
The Hon Kevin Rudd AC