By Peter Reid
The return of ABC TV's Media Watch, revamped with a new presenter and producer, is a timely reminder of how vital it is to keep an unflinching eye on the press.
The need for media sentinels has never seemed more imperative, saddled as we are with a rubber-toothed Press Council and the western world's most concentrated media ownership. Moreover, with a federal election looming, our overwhelmingly conservative print media will doubtless play their usual one-eyed role in the outcome.
While Media Watch didn't shrink from ruffling ABC management with damaging disclosures about the national broadcaster, critical self-examination in the media is singularly rare.
Most if not all newspapers are far more prone to self-censorship than self-examination. News stories that risk conflicting with a paper's proprietorial interests tend to get ignored, toned down or distorted.
The vexed issue of censorship from within cropped up again when Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp empire were embroiled in controversy over an alleged attempt by its UK subsidiary publisher, HarperCollins, to water down the memoirs of Chris Patten, last British governor of Hong Kong.
After paying Patten a hefty advance, HarperCollins abruptly dropped his manuscript when it was found to be critical of the Beijing regime. British analysts depicted the rejection as kowtowing to the leadership elite in China, where Murdoch has satellite TV and other business interests. Several noted HarperCollins authors threatened to defect to other publishers in protest.
Murdoch denied trying to censor the book or having excuses made not to publish it. He acknowledged the decision to veto the book had been his initiative, but said that senior executives at HarperCollins had "screwed up". He later expressed "total confidence" in the entire publishing team at HarperCollins.
Patten took his unfinished book to another publisher, threatening to sue HarperCollins for breach of contract. Later, he accepted a legal settlement offered by HarperCollins and an apology for any suggestion that his book was rejected for not being up to professional standards.
The story drew hostile fire from News Corp competitors in Britain. The Murdoch-owned Times, while claiming opposition papers had "overplayed" the story, conceded its own coverage might have been "underplayed" and less than comprehensive. In Australia, rival Fairfax papers had a field day with the story; Murdoch papers gave it scant mention. A News Corp spokesperson regarded its papers' coverage as "adequate" and treated on merit.
Before the row over Patten's book, News Corp had again been the focus of media attention, over reports last month that the company's tax affairs were under investigation by revenue officials in four countries.
Page-one prominence was given by the Sydney Morning Herald and its Fairfax stablemate, the Financial Review, to reports that tax experts from Britain, the US, Canada and Australia had agreed at a secret meeting, held by the Australian Taxation Office in Sydney recently, to set up an international task force to examine News Corp's tax structures.
News Corp has reportedly used offshore tax havens and paid relatively modest tax in recent years, but there was no suggestion its taxation arrangements were illegal. The Independent in London suggested, however, there was a political and moral ground swell of opinion that News' tax bills should mirror its healthy profits.
The tax audit story, if accurate, was clearly significant, given that Murdoch controls the world's biggest media and entertainment conglomerate, with considerable political clout here and abroad. Yet the Murdoch mass circulation Sydney Daily Telegraph, which Prime Minister John Howard lauds as admirable, didn't carry a single word about it that day, not in the editions I saw. Asked for an explanation, editor Col Allan declined to comment.
Murdoch's flagship national daily, the Australian, ran a short item tucked away on the last of its financial pages. It quoted a company spokesperson declining to comment on the reports, beyond saying that News was subject to normal taxation reviews, which all big corporations underwent, and that the company complied with international tax laws in various countries where it operated.
Next day, the tax story was swamped in the print media by the apparently coincidental — some might say fortuitous — release of News Corp's half-yearly earnings showing a rise in profit. The Daily Telegraph (surprise, surprise) gave the tidings a five-column spread. The Australian splashed it over seven columns.
And in a brief passing reference to the News Corp tax audit, both papers quoted Murdoch dismissing complaints about his company's tax bill as "sour grapes" from competitors.
If Murdoch papers in Australia were open to suggestions they underplayed both the tax probe and the book row, it's worth noting a Fairfax insider's comment. "Just suppose the Fairfax group instead of News Corps had been involved in those stories", she put to me. "Do you think the SMH and Fin Review coverage would have been so extensive?"
Maybe not. And you don't need to be prescient to tell how News Corp papers might have played it, either.
[Peter Reid, a journalist for some 35 years both here and abroad, was the director of ABC-TV public affairs programs (Four Corners, Nationwide) for three years before taking early retirement to tackle a book-length study of investigative reporting.]