“Today”, the communications minister Mitch Fifield intoned on Thursday, Nine and Fairfax “are taking the opportunity that our media laws present to bring together two great Australian media organisations.”



As Tony Abbott once observed in a happier context, a context where he imagined himself on a grand adventure shirt-fronting the Russian president, Vladimir Putin: you bet they are, you bet I am.

The federal government’s decision to remove regulatory barriers to media acquisitions makes a Nine takeover of Fairfax possible. Just in case you’ve forgotten, the Coalition, with the support of various crossbenchers in the Senate, last year scrapped rules safeguarding diversity of media ownership in Australia – in essence paving the way for mergers, increasing the power of the biggest media companies.

The Fairfax takeover is a great pity – Nine has the ethics of an alley cat | Paul Keating Read more

Nine swallowing Fairfax whole and spitting out a content conglomerate (whatever that is) isn’t a shock. Analysts were speculating about it during last year’s media-reform debate.

The Turnbull government’s argument for scrapping the old regulatory regime has always been twofold: the internet renders it redundant, and mergers will shore up Australian media companies struggling to remain viable as a consequence of the internet destroying the business models of commercial media companies.

As well as styling himself as midwife at the birth of a piece of Australian media history – in this case, the disappearance of a newspaper company that had amassed more than a century of history as an independent identity in the Australian media firmament – Fifield was out reinforcing all the old arguments again on Thursday.

“I think it’s important to recognise that we can’t pretend we’re still in the 1980s,” the minister said. “We can’t pretend the internet doesn’t exist”.

This really is a stupid argument; it’s beyond patronising.

No one in the Australian media is pretending the internet doesn’t exist.

Even if someone was inclined to indulge in that sort of delusion, it would be hard to sustain, given the internet has disrupted our operations, triggered substantial lay offs, smashed the business models of commercial media companies, and transformed what journalism is, changing the conduct of political discussion and society along with it.

So here’s some free advice for the communications minister.

Spare us, Mitch.

Really.

Don’t even bother.

Fifield then transited nimbly in a tone of great reassurance to the second line of defence. If the government had maintained the previous media laws, “we could have seen significant Australian media organisations going out the back door”.

Nine's Fairfax takeover: what is the deal and what will it mean? Read more

The communications minister’s contention does hold in this sense: it is very hard for media companies to survive and prosper when most everything is ranged against them surviving and prospering.

It follows as a matter of logic that allowing media companies to get bigger might help make those businesses more commercially viable.

But it doesn’t automatically follow that those bigger, more viable businesses, will produce quality journalism, or even give a stuff about producing quality journalism.

Maybe increasing scale helps, maybe it doesn’t.

More than 20 years at the coalface has taught me that commitment to producing quality journalism – the sort of journalism that makes things better, that speaks truth to power and gives voice to the voiceless – actually depends on committed editorial leadership and – I’m sorry to break this to you – enlightened editorial leadership is not a function of scale.

The other problem that Australia has is a chronic lack of media diversity, which is largely the consequence of many Australian politicians over many years not valuing diversity in the media landscape sufficiently to stick up for it when push comes to shove.

The history of media reform in this country tells us one thing: when those media moguls have come knocking in Canberra, wanting their special deals, saying yes has proved easier than saying no.

But those decisions, those concessions to powerful bloviators with TV licences and printing presses, cumulatively have an impact.

Media organisations taking over other media organisations, or merging with their competitors, makes Australia’s lack of diversity problem worse.

It narrows the range of voices in the public square. There are no political weasel words to get around it.

Privileged media consumers can be lulled into thinking all is well because they can now get the New York Times on their smartphone, so diversity has never been better, isn’t it all marvellous – except that overlooks the fact that local voices are shrinking as our access to the world increases, and our collective gateway to the world, the internet, is making it harder for domestic media voices to prosper.

It really is a wicked problem.

Is there any good news to be had?

Perhaps it will be Nine’s takeover of Fairfax that will show Australian news consumers the crossroads the media now stands at. Perhaps the risks will now seem more clear. Perhaps that will be galvanising.

Perhaps this event will show readers and viewers the elemental truth that can be hard to see in our cluttered and hyperconnected lives: the Australian media industry is in the fight of its life.

So if people value journalism – independent, vibrant, noisy, messy journalism of any bent, point of view or persuasion, I’m sorry to be blunt but there is only one thing to do. Support it.