CHECK AGA! ST DELIVERY EMBARCOED UNTIL DELIVERY
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
PRESENTATION OF 1990 WALKLEY AWARDS
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB 12 DECEMBER 1990
At face value, it's not exactly the best time to be a
journalist. " Financial difficulties" is hardly an adequate phrase for an
industry where two out of three TV networks are in
receivership; where the Fairfax chain is in receivership;
where News Corporation has its own share of debt problems;
where commercial radio and some regional media are also
struggling. Unfortunately, many employees, including journalists, have
paid the price, with their jobs, for their employers'
mistakes.
And those still in the industry are having to do more with
less, as financial resources available for news gathering
and presenting dry up.
But despite the gloom, today's presentation of the 1990
Walkley Awards is, legitimately and genuinely, a cause for
celebration. This is an occasion to honour individual award winners
journalists who have risen to the heights of excellence over
the past twelve months.
And it is also an occasion for celebrating the
professionalism and excellence of journalism itself.
I am not trying to put any false gloss on what have been
traumatic events for the news industry over the past couple
of years. Jobs have been lost, outlets have been closed,
programs have been axed, and editorial budgets have been
trimmed. But the faults and failings of management haven't stopped
the news industry from carrying out its essential task.
As ever, that task is to keep the public informed, so that
it can exercise its sovereign role in our democratic
society.
And as ever, whether that task is performed depends for the
most part not on the quality of the managers but on the
quality of the journalists on their professionalism, their
dedication, their integrity and their thirst for news.
So it is essential to our democracy this quality survives
and flourishes. Today we are celebrating the fact that it
does. It's interesting to ask ourselves why this is so. What are
the conditions under which journalism will continue to
flourish as a vital and independent source of information
and opinion in Australia?
I know that many journalists, and others, are deeply
concerned that the nature and the concentration of media
ownership in Australia poses a threat to journalism.
The recent rally at the Sydney Opera House shows the depth
of passion, if not the factual insight, that exists on this
issue.
I am not going to deny that it is preferable for the
Australian media to be owned by a diverse range of
Australian proprietors.
Indeed, the effect of the ownership rules that my Government
has introduced has been of course to enhance the diversity
of media owners in any one market.
As far as the average person is concerned, diversity of
media sources is guaranteed. We have placed an insuperable
structural impediment in the way of anyone who might seek to
impose a monolithic editorial view on a community.
And as I made clear in my press conference yesterday, my
preference is for continued Australian ownership of the
Fairfax group.
But let me state my belief here, as someone who is about as
avid a consumer of the media as anyone, that such issues of
ownership, while significant, do not constitute the sole, or
necessarily even the most important, determinant of the
media's capacity to exercise its crucial democratic role.
Diverse ownership has not necessarily created diverse
output; and uniform ownership has not necessarily created
uniform output.
The truth of the first statement is apparent in the
programming history of the three commercial TV networks.
Australia's networks, each owned by-separate companies, have
nevertheless adhered, for decades, to almost identical
programming strategies. They have provided the broadcasting
equivalent of the Two Airlines Agreement, offering the same
formulas of news, sport and entertainment, at the same hours
of the day, for the same broad markets. I hope the current
shake-out in television will, within the framework of
adequate and comprehensive services, lead to some bolder
departures from those well-tried formulas.
The proof of the second statement I made that uniform
ownership does not necessarily create uniform output is
obvious in the very different coverage of Canberra provided
by the Telegraph Mirror in Sydney and the Herald-Sun in
Melbourne. The fact that these newspapers are News
Corporation stable-mates does not prevent each paper from
taking quite different stances on a number of issues.
Indeed, regardless of media ownership, Australians today are
being exposed to a greater diversity of opinion within the
media than ever before. There are more columnists, and
reporters themselves are exercising greater interpretative
and analytic powers especially as newspapers take up the
role of backgrounding the news that is reported in more
truncated form by TV.
So while I repeat that of course I do not dismiss the
significance of ownership, the quality and diversity of
editorial output is determined by many other factors.
In the final analysis, it is determined by the quality of
the editorial staff.
It is determined by the people at the coal-face of news
gathering and news presenting: reporters, news editors,
producers and editors.
Ultimately, the responsibility for maintaining the media's
performance in a democratic society rests on those people.
And judged by that criterion, the Australian media, that is
to say, the profession of Australian journalism, is doing a
great job though I must say that even after all my years
in public life I've never lost the capacity to be amazed at
the performance of some of the Canberra Press Gallery. But
that is another story.
It is for all these reasons that I particularly welcome the
concept of a Charter of Independence.
I know the Charter idea originated in response to a
particular ownership question at a particular newspaper
the 1988 Robert Maxwell attempt to take over The Age. But
its significance now extends beyond that circumstance to
embrace a fundamentally important facet of the media today.
Because if what I have said so far is true that it is
output rather than ownership that ultimately determines the
quality of the finished product then any movement that
defends the significance and sweep of control by the editor
rather than the proprietor must be welcome.
My friends,
I don't want to spend a lot of time today singling out
individual award winners. But it would be remiss of me not
to express particular congratulations to the journalists who
have won awards for overseas reporting:
Peter Cave for his radio news reports on the fall
of the Berlin Wall;
Greg Wilsemith for his radio current affairs
reports on the Iran earthquake. Since that tragic
earthquake, Wilesmith's superb work has continued
in his coverage of the Gulf crisis;
and Four Corners cameraman Wayne Harley for his
extraordinary camera work on the Ethiopian famine.
We have seen over the past year or so the very world change
before our eyes.
What used to be accepted axioms of international affairs
have been jettisoned with the relaxation of tensions between
the superpowers, the overthrow of the repressive regimes of
eastern Europe, the reunification of Germany, and the
reemergence of an effective United Nations Organisation.
Today we confront a new set of profoundly testing problems:
the Gulf crisis, the possibility of trade war, the daunting
legacy of economic, social and environmental problems
bequeathed to the new democratic rulers of Eastern Europe.
If ever there was a time in the past four decades when
Australians needed expert and informed coverage of global
affairs, surely it is now. And it is very important that
such coverage be provided by Australian reporters.
It's clear today that we are being well served in this
regard and it is probably no coincidence that the three
Award winners I have named are all employed by the
Australian Broadcasting Corporation whose reputation for
informed international reporting is secure.
Let me close as I began.
In what are generally gloomy times for your industry, these
awards demonstrate the continuing commitment of Australian
journalists to the standards of excellence and the
continuing capacity of the best of them to attain those
standards.
It is important that once a year the profession of
journalism gathers in this way to pay tribute to those of
its members of surpassing quality.
It is all to the good that journalists and the sponsor of
the Walkley Awards reward excellence with public acclaim,
and display excellence so that it can be emulated by others.
In this way, you are ensuring in a direct way that your
vital standards of professionalism are safeguarded and
promoted.