Keane: TV networks’ peculiar definition of free speech

In some of the public debate there has been an overemphasis on coverage that some people believe is egregious with little comment (other than from some media commentators) on the important principle which is at stake here. This principle is: press freedom and the need for an independent press to hold all Governments, institutions, business, regulators and others in power to account.

There are certain principles that unite our media companies. The CEOs of Nine, Seven, Foxtel, Sky, News Ltd, AAP and APN wrote of them in their letter to the Prime Minister early this month rejecting a media-specific public interest test and further regulation in the name of free speech. Since the time of Magna Carta, the CEOs majestically declared, there has been a progressive empowerment of the citizenry in making those in power accountable, accessible and addressable. Central to that process over the last three centuries has been the operation of the media.

The CEOs were content to put their faith in the citizenry, in the abundant good sense of Australians to make up their own minds.

But all that talk of empowerment of the citizenry and holding all to account vanishes when free speech clashes with commercial self-interest. GetUp!s ad campaign against Coles and Woolies is the most recent case in point. Im a serial critic of GetUp! and disagree with its stance on gambling, but the rejection of both of its ads by all the commercial television networks and SBS is another demonstration of the networks bare-faced free speech hypocrisy.

According to a Fairfax article today, the Nine Network is concerned about the tone of GetUp!s latest ad, including a reference to suicide. But according to GetUp!s communications director Rohan Wenn both ads (the first one, in which a checkout somewhat unsubtly turns into poker machine; the second, a straightforward but moving interview of the wife of a gambling addict who took his own life) were cleared by FreeTVs Commercial Advice process, which vets ads for suitability.

The CAD process was used to block an ad by Philip Nitschkes Exit International in 2010 on the basis that it discussed suicide (the ad was approved but then, mysteriously, approval was withdrawn at the last minute), but in this case, the second GetUp! ad had been fully cleared; Nines concern about the tone is disproven by the very process the commercial networks have set up to vet ads.

In May, Nine was more forthcoming about refusing to air the first ad, withPeter Wiltshire of Nine telling Fairfaxs Richard Willinghamsomeone new coming along who chooses to use their own gritty tactics to foster their own business at the expense of ours, and our relationships with our existing client base does not make any sense to me.

Nick Xenophonfor whom Wenn used to work as media adviserhas now proposed an amendment to the Broadcasting Services Actreducing broadcasterss discretion to reject ads.

What about SBS refusal? SBS loves to portray itself as a key addition to Australias media diversity. Among SBScharter responsibilitiesis the the requirement to present many points of view and using innovative forms of expression. In a submission to the Convergence Review, SBS called for greater emphasis to the objective of supporting successful civil and democratic institutions. The public interest, SBS insisted, is served by inclusive, participatory media which facilitate democratic culture.

Well, not so much. In its refusal to screen the GetUp! ad, SBS seems to have confirmed every paranoid fear ever expressed by public broadcasting advocates who claimed a public broadcaster showing ads would lose its independence.

Original post:
Keane: TV networks’ peculiar definition of free speech