Healthy Skepticism Library item: 12519

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Le TV.
Money talks
Reportage 2002 Sep
http://www.reportage.uts.edu.au/stories/2002/media/pr2k9.html

Full text:

Three years after the ‘Cash for Comments’ scandal uncovered the influence corporate business played in the world of talkback radio, the ethical and practical consequences for journalism are still being debated. A panel at the Public Right to Know Conference, held last month at the University of Technology, Sydney, discussed the implications of the inquiry set up to investigate the relationship between Sydney’s top rating radio hosts and their corporate sponsors. Tuan Van Le finds out more.

The distinction between media and commercialism is becoming increasingly blurred, according to Michael Gordon Smith of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). Smith, the chairperson of the ABA’s inquiry into the Cash for Comments scandal, led a handful of industry experts on the conference panel.

“There is no aftershock,” says Smith, “few people care of the ethical task of people who fill public space. There doesn’t seem to be a universal feeling that what they did was wrong.”

The Cash for Comments inquiry began in July 1999, after ABC TV’s Media Watch program uncovered a financial agreement between 2UE presenter John Laws and the Bankers’ Association. Under the agreement, Laws received large sums of money while providing the association with his ‘personal sponsorship’ – without informing the public of the nature of the deal. As a result, the ABA launched an inquiry that investigated the operations of Laws and his colleague, Alan Jones, the two most powerful figures in talkback radio.

The panel found that Jones had significant financial agreements with Optus, Qantas, the State Bank of NSW, Walsh Bay and Walker Corporation. While Laws had agreements with the Australian Bankers’ Association, Foxtel, NRMA, Optus, Qantas, RAMS Home Loans, the Registered Clubs Association of NSW and Star City.

The deals were valued at $18 million.

One letter from Jones to his agent read: “I notice the press release from Walker Corporation talking about the net profit before taxation of $18.6 million, an increase of 107 percent … Are we being paid enough? Let’s face it, they wouldn’t be in the public place without moi!”

While the extent of greed has not surprised Smith, the aftermath of the inquiry has.

“There have been no changes to the ratings,” he says. “What has surprised me is there has been no change to political patronage.”

By political patronage Smith means the power of public figures. He believes more needs to be done to limit or regulate their powers. He also believes journalists need to reveal their processes of information gathering, so the public can distinguish between corporate propaganda and independent journalism.

“In a system which is reliant on complaints, how can you, as a viewer, complain that something is wrong when what is wrong is precisely the thing you don’t know about?” Smith says.

Anne Davies, Urban Affairs Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, disagrees. “The biggest conflict facing journalists is their sources,” she says. “You’re obliged to protect them.” A transparent process will threaten this relationship, Davies claims.

But Davies agrees that at the root of journalism there is inherent conflict. “Basically good journalism is dependent on well-resourced media organisations,” she says. When resources only come from businesses or government the objectivity of the media is corrupted, according to Davies.

“It is almost a daily struggle to keep journalism from commercialism,” Davies says. At Fairfax gifts and invitations are sent daily to their offices. Companies offer big money for advertisements, and organisations are unwilling to publish stories that may affect this relationship.

Even the travel pages are tainted by commercialism, with free trips and accommodation offered for favourable reviews or slight advertisements. At Fairfax, this practice has been banned.

“As a result our travel section has gotten thinner,” Davies says. “We tend to do Europe on a shoestring, rather than luxury holidays in Europe.”

Kerry Henderson, an ethics consultant who was also on the Cash for Comments inquiry panel, quickly adds: “there are other forms of currency but cash.”

Journalists are offered ‘scoops’ and access to events and information if they print favourable stories, according to Henderson. She also agrees with Smith that transparent processes need to be incorporated, so that press release and independent journalism can be differentiated.

“You can make the process transparent without burning the source,” Henderson says.

While Davies agrees a significant proportion of content is from press releases distributed by corporate image makers, she also believes PR journalism has become a necessity for organisations who are under-resourced. Davies, the reporter who uncovered the Bulldogs salary cap scandal, knows that investigative journalism is extremely expensive and slow.

“They weren’t exactly forthcoming with information,” she says.

The commercialisation of the media is an increasing problem according to all of the speakers. Henderson takes this notion a step further, placing the responsibility for fighting the problem on the public.

“We talk about it as being a problem for the journalists, a problem for the media, a problem for the company boards,” she says. “We need to think of it as a problem for all of us.”

Under new regulations made by the ABA after the Cash for Comments scandal, radio stations have to publicly disclose their presenters’ financial arrangements. 2UE’s website says Laws has eleven such arrangements, with companies including Qantas, Toyota, Valvoline, Sony and Telstra, worth a potential value of $3.5 million.