Lecture: Week 7

Before attending this week’s lecture, I had a look at the assigned reading on commercial media. Margaret Simons’ article (from Crikey.com) is titled The Content Makers, and is both entertaining and educational. It begins by comparing the friendly family that is Channel 7 to the somewhat abrasive, brusqueness of channel 9 news. The disparity between the two businesses is portrayed quite convincingly; however, I did wonder whether channel 9 did receive the short straw: it was illustrated as such terrible place to work that I’m wondering why anyone works there!

The article ends by commenting on the dying career that is journalism. It infers that other television channels will be overrun with reality TV and other “cheap” programmes. Although this seems rather grey, she states at the end of the chapter that there is hope for up and coming reporters: “if you get good content it can hardly be doubted that there will be buyers. Good content will always find buyers”. The message that I took from the article was that commercial media will, in the near future, pay for (and thus, will rule) the news.

This reading gave me a good background on the use and purpose of commercial media in Australia; the subject which the lecture focused on this week. Now, on to the lecture which focused on COMMERCIAL MEDIA. Please excuse the length of this blog, it was the most informative JOUR1111 lecture that I’ve been to this semester, and there’s a lot of material to retell.

Commercial media is profit-driven media production which is neither funded by government or licenses. As such, it survives or fails on how well it generates profit through selling advertising. Producing cable TV, newspapers (especially local newspapers), films, magazines, books, digital media and telecoms allows for commercials, propaganda and social advertising to be spread to audiences, who subscribe, sponsor or subsidize this.

“So?” I hear the smartie journalism students/lecturers ask, “What impact does commercial media have in a democratic society like Australia’s? In fact, according to the Hutchins Commission of 1947, commercial media has a social responsibility to be truthful and contextual, stand as a forum for criticism, be representative of all people and model the goals and values of society, as well as to have “full access to the day’s intelligence”.

However, as its success depends on how much money it makes, could commercial media simply be about making money? Authorities have clearly asked this question, and have taken steps to ensure that commercial media remains moral. For example formal state requirements, as well as legal prescription and state oversight have been put in place, as well as an “ethical wall” between commercial and social mediums. As C. Scott (Editor and Owner of The Guardian, once a “moral” paper) stated “comment is free, but fact is scared”.

John McManus believed that commercial media was corrupt and would cause a lack of quality in media, as the need for profit would override social responsibilities. However, controls have been put on commercial media in Australia, to avoid such corruption:

1.       Government agency which regulates content (such as the ban of Facebook in China)

2.       State press subsidies

3.       Licensed journalism (such as in Indonesia and East Timor)

McManus also inferred that unprofitable consequences would arise because of the inflated use of commercial media. These include:

·         A general “dumbing down” of information and news

·         Tabloidization

·         Newspapers only writing to please the audience

·         Third rate “Mickey Mouse” news

Thus it can be seen, there are many challenges related to the use and rise of commercial media. Jonathon Holmes stated on Media Watch this year, that:

“There was a time, not so long ago, when running a media company -be it one that specialized in newspapers, in radio, in television, or in all three -was a pretty simple job. Keep the costs within bounds, use your clout to ensure that governments didn't permit too much competition, make sure your content delivered audiences of a quality and in a quantity that your advertisers expected, and the money rolled in.”

There appears to be a fair degree of truth in his words. The diagram below demonstrates the process of that the appearance of more channels has caused.

But there is not only bad news. It could be that quality media is not disappearing, just moving to the digital sphere.

However, the future of commercial media does hold a lot of unanswered questions. For example:

·         How does Commercial Media continue to make profits if advertising revenue is declining?

·         How does it continue to serve the advertisers, audience and the public good?

·         What kind of audience can it expect to get?

·         What cumulative effect does this have on the practice of journalism and public communication?

Some suggest that quality news will always be sought after, while others (such as Guy Dobson) state that commercial media will bring fiercer competition and thus better programmes. It is expected that there will be a great move of existing customers to digital versions of their newsfeed, as well as an increase in pay walls on these news sites. Regardless of these challenges and supposed “solutions”, it seems to me that a growth of commercial media is inevitable, and that news must evolve with this in order to stay afloat.