But now to more weighty matters and the latest episode in a long-running saga which never quite reaches the climax.

Media reforms on their way — The Australian, 13 January, 2016

Yes, it's happening at last. After many false alarms, Communications Minister Mitch Fifield told ABC Radio a couple of weeks ago that he's finally going to take the jump.

MITCH FIFIELD: I'm keen to introduce into the parliament, in the first part of this year, media laws which will reflect the world we currently live in ... — ABC RN Breakfast, 13 January, 2016

And it's certainly not before time.

Australia still relies on media laws written 24 years ago, when mobile phones looked like this.

There was no internet for the vast bulk of the population.

No streaming over the net and no Netflix, Stan or Presto...

And CLEO magazine, which will close this month, had 322,000 happy readers.

But how do you bring the laws up to date and what if anything do you put in their place?

Well, according to the Minister, there are two key rules that are likely to be scrapped.

MITCH FIFIELD: The reach rule and also the two-out-of-three rule, as it's known, are the two that I am particularly looking at ... — ABC RN Breakfast, 13 January, 2016

The two-out-of-three rule currently stops anyone owning TV, newspapers and radio in the same market.

And if it goes, as almost all media proprietors want, we're likely to see some mergers:

Like Fairfax Media teaming up with Channel Nine or Channel Seven and perhaps News Corp and Channel Ten doing the same.

And that will mean even greater concentration of media ownership than we have now.

See The ACMA Media Interests snapshot

The government says we shouldn't worry about that-the internet now provides all the competition and choice we need-but many media experts-like Professors Tim Dwyer and Michael Fraser are concerned.

There's going to be a reduction in news source diversity in Australia and that's not a good thing. People need to have a wider range of news sources to get different points of view, especially in an election year. — Associate Professor Tim Dwyer, University of Sydney, Statement to Media Watch, 27 January, 2016

I don't agree with the basic assumptions that have been put forward by government ... it's important to maintain the media ownership laws we have to ensure diversity in the mainstream media ... — Professor Michael Fraser, University of Technology Sydney, Statement to Media Watch, 27 January, 2016

The second rule that's even more likely to go is the Reach Rule that supposedly stops any one TV network broadcasting to more than 75% of Australians.

A big problem with this is it no longer works, as Channel Seven has demonstrated by streaming its TV programs to mobile phones, tablets and computers in areas where it's banned from broadcasting.

Getting rid of this one will likely produce more mergers: between the regional networks Prime, WIN and Southern Cross...

And their capital city counterparts Seven, Nine and Ten.

Bringing once again more concentration of media power.

But it's not yet done.

Previous attempts to change media laws have ended up in the too-hard basket. And these could too.

To get through parliament, they'll need support from the National Party and 6 of the 8 cross-benchers in the Senate.

Assuming The Greens and Labor are opposed.

And they are likely to set tough conditions, as the minister readily admits

MITCH FIFIELD: What it really comes down to, I think, where the rubber really hits the road, is the issue of protection for local content. And what most people mean when they say that is protection for local news service. — Sky News, 20 January, 2016

So ... what does local news on commercial TV currently look like?

Well, if you get it, it can look like this.

But not everyone is guaranteed to receive local news.

TV stations in Tasmania, Most of Victoria, Large parts of NSW And much of coastal Queensland are required by their licence conditions to produce at least 60 mins of local news a week.

But in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory

There are no local content rules, because no one got round to making them.

Bizarre eh? So will these areas now be given protection? Almost certainly not.

But, does it work anyway?

Last year WIN closed its newsroom in Mildura in Victoria which was not protected.

It also scrapped local news in Riverland and Mt Gambier in South Australia in 2013.

And across regional WA in 2012 where again there was no protection

But protected areas have often done no better, even though local content rules are being observed.

Last year WIN closed its Mackay newsroom in Queensland.

And since 2000, Prime has closed regional newsrooms in Newcastle, Wollongong, Ballarat Bendigo and Gippsland.

And wherever it happens it hurts, or so local mayors tell Media Watch:

The loss of the WIN TV news service has made a big difference. Nearly everybody watched it. It also provided a form of balance in that the newspaper might take one view but the TV could take another. — Glenn Milne, Mayor of Mildura, Victoria, Statement to Media Watch, 29 January, 2016

Everyone used to sit down for dinner at the same time and watch the news, so we knew what was going on in our local area. It was really disappointing when we lost that. — Peter Hunt, Mayor of Berri Barmera, South Australia, Statement to Media Watch, 29 January, 2016

The problem in WA particularly is the isolation factor. You're out of sight, out of mind in a lot of ways ... and it's going to get worse if we keep seeing the local media leave. — Dennis Wellington, Mayor of Albany, Western Australia, Statement to Media Watch, 29 January, 2016

So can you halt the process or reverse it?

The regional networks have told the government they're happy to guarantee that local news services will not be cut as a result of any mergers that a change in media laws may bring.

But WIN's CEO Andrew Lancaster admitted to ABC Online a few months ago that more regional newsroom closures are likely, especially if there is no media reform.

"There's a degree of inevitability there, yes ..." "It's something that we have to do and we're constantly reviewing, and more so in the face of increased programming costs, reviewing the amount of news that we can provide in regional Australia." — ABC Online, 7th January, 2016

And a former national news director at WIN, Stewart Richmond agrees that in the long run local news will only survive where it makes commercial sense.

The simple answer to a complex question is that networks will commit to the regional news status quo as long as it suits them and as long as it is not a drain on finite financial resources. — Stewart Richmond, Former National News Director, WIN TV, 28 January, 2016

So is there a way to beat the market and ensure that the regions get what they want? Nationals leader Warren Truss believes there is:

ABC should provide local television news: Warren Truss "I think the ABC should have a presence in regional communities that is capable of delivering not just radio news services but also television news services ..." — Sydney Morning Herald, 20 January, 2016

Now it seems the ABC IS keen on the idea ... But it wants more money to do it, as you can see from this inspired ABC leak to The Australian.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is understood to be plotting an ambitious bid for fresh funding in this year's budget to ramp up news services in regional Australia ... — The Australian, 20 January, 2016

So could regional Australia soon be seeing something like this back on their screens?

WAYNE SHEARMAN: Good evening, I'm Wayne Shearman. On the subject of final episodes this is the last ABC regional television news broadcast for Central Queensland and the west. — ABC Central Queensland, 1 March, 1985

The ABC ditched regional TV news bulletins 31 years ago, in March 1985, when it scrapped more than a dozen nightly local services across Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

We can't see Aunty bringing them back, but the ABC does have 47 regional offices and 352 'content makers' around the regions, so it's clearly capable of doing something.

Although of course the question will be who pays.

Mitch Fifield and Warren Truss have both told The Australian the ABC should find the cash.

Mr Truss said the organisation should allocate regional newsrooms more money from its total annual budget of $1.03 billion. "I would have thought that would have been possible." — The Australian, 25 January, 2016

But WIN's former national news director, who knows what these things cost, is sceptical.

It is simplistic in the extreme to suggest local news TV bulletins for the ABC. Unless a Government is willing to commit vast sums of taxpayer dollars to pay for such a service. — Stewart Richmond, Former National News Director, WIN TV, Email to Media Watch, 28January, 2016

But maybe there is a solution.

Richmond suggests that regional TV news-from the ABC or the commercials-could be delivered over the net.

And filmed with smart phones, with the presenter doing links out on location. And he adds.

There's nothing stopping it being presented at the same time every day for half an hour. And all as cheap as chips. — Stewart Richmond, Former National News Director, WIN TV, Email to Media Watch, 28 January, 2016

We'll see if that idea gets any traction. But we suspect it's much closer to what the ABC has in mind.

Additional information:

Media Watch asked five of the cross bench Senators the following questions. Read their responses below.

1.Would you support the abolition of the reach rule and the 2 out of 3 rule?

2. Would you impose any conditions in return for your support to scrap those laws?

3. Local content provisions, or quotas, exist in some regional TV markets to protect local news services. Do you want these quotas maintained, strengthened or scrapped?

4. Would you support the ABC being given additional funding to fill any gap in the delivery of regional news services?

5. Would you support any changes to the current anti-siphoning scheme, which protects premium sports for the free to air networks?

Senator David Leyonhjelm

Senator Bob Day

Senator John Madigan (statement)

Senator Zhenya Wang(statement)

Senator Nick Xenophon(statement)