Indeed, and there are tons of local monthlies as well which aren’t owned by major players who have a big voice in the community. Even in bigger cities, or especially in bigger cities actually, we’re seeing lots of smaller entities having moderate success and giving voice to local concerns. They’re free as well, so most of the funding comes completely through ads bought by local businesses and real estate agencies. That can be tough to sustain until you can prove through circulation or local influence that you have a sufficient audience.
I don’t mind extra funding for regional voices, but some of that $60 million should be also given to independent outlets in major cities. For instance, here in Brisbane we have only one major daily newspaper for a state of 4 million/urban area of 3 million. While it is completely infeasible to set up a print competitor today, there should at least be a diverse set of local weekly or monthly papers to make up for the fact.
To be fair, a big problem with the industry is that the smaller players aren’t embracing change. They need to start making waves and engaging online more. Local papers and journalism might be very well produced and that’s great, but if it’s only on a medium which a lot of people are going to ignore, then those outlets have lost 50% of their potential readership straight away.
The new world is so much harder though; people may share an article posted on your local news website on Facebook or Twitter, but that doesn’t draw people to your site (not many) as so many people will just stay on FB, so FB gets the ad revenue instead of your local news website.
A report from the federal government’s proposed ACCC investigation into FB/Google/etc. won’t do anything to help. I don’t know what would.
The economics which sustained journalism are basically dead and so of course journalism is in deep trouble.
Yes I agree… partially. The problem is that local papers think that they should put all their content online.
I have recently started working for a small local paper (in a paid role), and one of my ideas is to help overhaul the website. The great benefit of the internet is that it isn’t limited to the extent by which print is. With a physical paper there is a limit as to how many pages you have. That means that you not only can run less stories, but also those stories you will run have to be shorter and more succinct, and oftentimes there are interesting pieces of information which have to be cut because it doesn’t gel with the rest of the story.
This is where a smart local paper could thrive. Keep the print edition catering to the same market and doing the same thing as before, but then start showcasing longer-form stories with deeper analysis as a supplement online. Related stories in the print edition could then be used to plug this: “Want to read more? Check out website here)”. In effect, the website could become a supplement to the print edition where traditional audiences can get more information if they want, and where online audiences can get a better idea of what the local paper does while still forcing them to pick up a physical copy (which is more attractive to advertisers).
Just my 2c, but I think there are ways for local journalism to stand out and cement themselves even in today’s crowded market.
I would’ve liked to see regional tv news mandated at 21mins daily block -live and locally produced to each market.
This change of law better not allow an avenue for Gordon and Murdoch to scuttle the CBS bid for Ten - that would be a travesty of epic proportions and result in huge job losses.
Forgive me if my calculations are slightly off, but under current laws of 720 pts per 6 weeks of local content in the aggregated markets and Tasmania, I calculated that, taking into account a 5 day working week, the current quota is an average of 24 pts per day (or 12 mins news).
Under the proposed increase from 720 to 900 pts for existing markets, and the increase from 0 to 360 pts, the aggregated markets will be required to provide an average of 30 mins per day (15 mins news), while the new markets have 12 pts per day (6 mins news).
The local filming incentive does seem like a good idea though, with 1 minute of local news equal to 3 points. Though would this count individual news reports, or only the bulletin’s studio presentation? And what qualifies as the “local area”, the licence area or the sub-markets?
However, the crossbenchers should’ve proposed a clause into the local content requirements that if broadcasters elect to fill the quota with news, it must be provided in a single block (permitting ad breaks) so that we can finally wipe away the noodle updates.
Edit: I’ve summarised the quotas in a table for easier reading.
You’d think that once the rules get changed, it’s only a matter of time before a flurry of media ownership changes happen? Leaving the current saga with Ten to one side for a moment, I think Nine and (to a lesser extent) Seven would be very interested in purchasing their major regional affiliates so they can cover the entire East Coast.
Personally I think that tougher laws around local news/local content (including incentives to broadcasters who produce live & local bulletins from each area and at least 25% of nationally broadcast Australian content outside of Sydney or Melbourne) should’ve been a condition of allowing the reach rules changes to happen.
I tend to agree here.
I have a feeling Nine will be very interested in purchasing the licenses for the markets they currently broadcast 9 News regional into (i.e. Regional QLD, SNSW/ACT, and Regional VIC).
Doing so would be a benefit to them, as they’d be able to have control over their own brand in each market, rather than dealing with an affiliate who is distributing their brand.
I tend to disagree. The regional TV networks are not worth as much as their owners think. I think at least initially the asking price will be too high. Why would metro Nine bother when they are getting their affiliation fees and SCA are kindly broadcasting what is basically a direct feed of the brand anyway. Of course, at the right price, NEC would be interested.
And if that’s to be believed Fox just want a bigger pay out from CBS from their content contract. Petty to say the least when their dear leader stuffed up Ten in the first place.
Rod Sims said when he handed down the decision about Ten Win and Fox tie up that if it was Seven and Nine he would consider it on the grounds of being too anti-competitive. I don’t care if media companies tie up per se. I only said the ACCC would view it differently.
