Derek Wilding

How Australia's competition regulator is supporting news, but not quality

Publisher: Routledge

Date: 20-01-2023

DOI: 10.4324/9781003257998-15

Digital Platform Complaint Handling: Options for an External Dispute Resolution Scheme

Publisher: University of Technology Sydney

Date: 2022

DOI: 10.26195/7M5K-WP38

Improving News Media Oversight: Why Australia Needs a Cross-Platform Standards Scheme

Publisher: Intellect

Date: 06-2022

DOI: 10.1386/AJR_00086_1

Abstract: Australia currently has fourteen standards schemes that oversee journalists and news media, making for both duplication and inconsistency. The result is a torn and frayed patchwork leaving broadcasting heavily regulated but some areas of online content without any applicable standards or clear avenues for consumer complaint. In this article, we describe Australia’s confusion of news media standards schemes amid the global challenges to media oversight in a digital age, including from the algorithmically driven delivery of news via social media and other digital services. We argue that internationally the ongoing disruption of news media is being accompanied by a parallel disruption of news media standards schemes. This creates significant uncertainty, particularly since citizens and journalists have contrasting expectations about news media oversight. However, this uncertainty also presents an opportunity for reform. We then draw on international scholarship and regulatory developments to make four high-level arguments. First, Australia should implement a coherent cross-platform standards scheme to cover news content on TV, on radio, in print and online. Second, digital services and platforms ought to be brought under this scheme in their role as distributors and lifiers of news, but not as ‘publishers’. Third, this scheme ought to have oversight of algorithms. And fourth, citizens ought to be afforded a greater role in the operation of this scheme, which has significant potential to serve the public interest by improving public discourse.

The Summer 30 Royal Prank Call: Outcomes for Australian Broadcasting Regulation

Publisher: Informa UK Limited

Date: 02-01-2015

DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2015.1055946

Towards Responsiveness: Consumer and Citizen Engagement in Co-Regulatory Rule-Making in the Australian Communications Sector

Publisher: SAGE Publications

Date: 18-02-2021

DOI: 10.1177/0067205X21993148

Abstract: This article begins the process of evaluating the adequacy of the procedural and substantive requirements that Australian communications regulators (and hence industry bodies) must satisfy before co-regulatory codes of practice can be registered. It considers if the procedural requirements relating to consumer and public consultation, included in the statutory frameworks that authorise and govern co-regulation in the media, online and telecommunications sectors, ensure co-regulatory rule-making is sufficiently responsive to the interests of consumers and citizens. Drawing on publicly available information about seven industry bodies that have drafted codes of practice and round table discussions with industry, consumers and regulators, the article highlights that the current engagement practices of industry bodies often fall short of the ‘democratic credentials’ of responsiveness. It suggests that the code registration criteria relating to consumer and public consultation must be overhauled if these weaknesses are to be rectified.

CIS controls the functional polarization of GM-CSF-derived macrophages

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Date: 05-12-2023

DOI: 10.1038/S41423-022-00957-Z

Where to next with Australia's News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code?

Publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Date: 22-06-2023

DOI: 10.1515/COMMUN-2022-0100

Abstract: Taken at face value the introduction in 2021 of Australia’s News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code (“the Code”) may appear “world leading,” innovative, and, in general, a productive and strategic intervention to reverse the decline of public interest journalism. It is claimed that in the Australian news industry context, an annual transfer of around $200 million between two platform companies – Google and Meta – and news businesses has now been put in place (Sims, 2022). All major news media companies in Australia, if not smaller more independent ones, have greatly benefitted from the new Code, and anecdotally it appears that the funding has resulted in the creation of significant numbers of new journalists being hired. Yet the exact investment destination and ultimate beneficiaries of the funding are not known beyond the corporate walls of the recipients. The article points to the transparency and sustainability problems inherent to the new Code, arguing that an alternative approach to funding public interest journalism might be a levy funded by the platforms.

Regulating News and Disinformation on Digital Platforms: Self-regulation or Prevarication?

Publisher: Telecommunications Association Inc.

Date: 29-06-2021

DOI: 10.18080/JTDE.V9N2.415

Abstract: In February 2021 two initiatives for regulating digital platforms in Australia were implemented. The News Media Bargaining Code (“News Code”) attracted international attention as a legislative means of forcing platforms to pay for news content, while the Australian Voluntary Disinformation and Misinformation Code (“Disinformation Code”) was modelled on an international initiative. Both were developed to meet Government policy formulated in response to Australia’s Digital Platforms Inquiry. Whereas the Inquiry recommended the use of co-regulation, Government policy switched to voluntary codes for both, then to a legislative scheme for the News Code. This article examines the schemes and critiques the policy on which they are based. It applies a conceptual framework to assess the optimum conditions for the use of co-regulation and self-regulation. It finds that a self-regulatory scheme of voluntary codes was never a suitable approach for the News Code, and that the close involvement of the regulator on the Disinformation Code — without a suitable remit or enforcement powers — distorts the self-regulatory model. This can in part be explained by the failure to address well-recognised flaws in the co-regulatory framework for telecommunications and broadcasting, the consequences of which are now being seen in attempts to regulate digital platforms.

The Case for Reviewing Broadcasting Co-regulation

Publisher: SAGE Publications

Date: 20-04-2022

DOI: 10.1177/1329878X211005524

Abstract: This article applies principles from the Department of Communications’ policy review of telecommunications consumer protection to broadcasting co-regulation. The Consumer Safeguards Review establishes six principles for good regulation, including that rule-making processes should ‘enable a wide range of views to be considered’. It notes that processes for developing telecommunications codes of practice are likely to lead to ‘sub-optimal’ consumer protection measures. The article draws on original empirical research to assess development of commercial television and commercial radio codes of practice, with particular emphasis on public engagement in co-regulation. It finds the broadcasting codes of practice fail to meet the principles adopted by the Department for good co-regulation. It concludes by arguing there is a pressing need for a more holistic review of communications co-regulation, as broadcasting legislation is similar to the telecommunications legislation, and there is a risk that ‘sub-optimal’ practices could be applied in attempts to regulate digital platforms.

Australia: Media Concentration and Deteriorating Conditions for Investigative Journalism

Publisher: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg

Date: 2021

DOI: 10.48335/9789188855404-2

University Of Technology Sydney

Location: Australia

View Organisation

Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP230101322

Start Date: 2023

End Date: 12-2025

Amount: $386,451.00

Funder: Australian Research Council

Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP180100034

Start Date: 03-2018

End Date: 02-2024

Amount: $315,700.00

Funder: Australian Research Council

Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment And Facilities - Grant ID: LE230100069

Start Date: 04-2023

End Date: 04-2024

Amount: $215,000.00

Funder: Australian Research Council

Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP220100589

Start Date: 11-2022

End Date: 10-2025

Amount: $423,769.00

Funder: Australian Research Council