Tracks Bites Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch might just be the most influential man in the world. It’s estimated that his print, television and radio companies reach about 4.7 billion people. That’s three quarters of the world’s population. Murdoch’s media company, News Corporation, is often accused of slanting the news to suit the right wing interests of its CEO, which is a worry when you’re main game is supposed to be reporting hard news. The latest media insider to take a swing at News Corp is veteran Australian newspaper editor, Bruce Guthrie. In his book, Man Bites Murdoch, he writes: “The most highly regarded people at News are little more than Murdoch robots, programmed to consider him first and the issue second”. Ouch. In keeping with a long held tradition at Tracks to occasionally meddle in non-surfing matters we spoke to Guthrie about the increasingly slippery business of news reporting.   

So you were demoted from a Fairfax paper because you upset Jeff Kennett and 11 years later you were sacked from New Ltd because you were more focused on journalism than the paper’s commercial interests. Is that a fair assessment?

In simple terms I reckon it is Kirk. The first one, the Kennett one, Jeff had been putting pressure on management for a long time to move me on. For much of that time the management had resisted but then there was a change of ownership. It had a lot more to do with what happens when you’ve got a really volatile share register and a different owner every couple of months.  Eventually a new owner came in and kind of agreed with Jeff.

You write that at News Ltd there were certain people who were effectively black-banned from favourable coverage and others who couldn’t be criticised. You also talk about how advertisers and corporate sponsors have increasing power over the print media. It begs the question: do we have a free press any more in Australia?

It’s a really good question. In the case of News Ltd... in the old days when I first worked for Rupert in the mid eighties you would actually get contact from him. 25 years later when he’s running Fox and he’s got TV interests and everything else you didn’t hear from him but you might hear from the next bloke up the line. To a large extent we do have a free press but there are real qualifications on that and my concern is at News Ltd or many other companies the news to some extend gets put through a sifting process. The first one is will the story upset the owner? If it does then maybe it falls over at that point. If it gets past that hurdle then the next check is will it upset the owner’s family? The next one is will it compromise the corporate interests of the company? So there’s all these hurdles you’ve to clear along the way before you can get the story in the paper. One of the latest ones to emerge is the so-called corporate partner. It’s a we’ll scratch your back you scratch mine arrangement. So that’s another potential hurdle. So we do have a free press but what I was alarmed about is that we end up with a homogenised news coverage and there seems to be more and more points in which a story could fall over for reasons that I didn’t feel were particularly valid.

How does the Australian press stack up against other western countries?

It’s probably no better and no worse. Wether it’s the USA or Britain the same process exists. The problem in Australia is that we just don’t have enough owners so if News Ltd operated the way it does and it was just one or half a dozen or a dozen owners it would be fine because the stories would emerge elsewhere. If we had a more diverse group of owners in Australia it wouldn’t matter because the stories would emerge elsewhere. But because News Ltd control 70% of Australia’s press those stories just don’t get out at all.

News Ltd are often accused of taking a right wing slant on the news. Is it also true that Fairfax papers have a left wing bias? Or does it just appear that way alongside News?

I think it appears that way but I can see it happening more often. Because I reckon with the arrival of the internet people are going to have to look after their communities of readers. I think The Australian has already done this quite well.  The Australian more so than any other newspaper in Australia has unashamedly stamped out its turf. It’s gone our readership are business people, they’re conservative, so we’re going to talk to them. And that’s fine so long as it doesn’t influence the way you report issues. If that’s going to be their opinion position and they flag it as opinion then fine. But the worry is that its starts to influence how they report stories. The Aus would probably say the SMH and the Age are green papers and slant their news coverage accordingly but that’s less true. I can see as everyone fights for their dollars – because newspaper circulation is under pressure – they’ll want to deliver for their readers so more and more I can see papers becoming positioned in a way they haven’t been in the past.

We’ve seen historically tight elections in Australia and England recently. Can an organisation like News Corp effect the result of an election?

I think they can be very influential. When I was editing papers and they used to do the pre-election editorial on the way you should vote – I’m not sure that swayed too many people but I think the way you cover stories  during an election campaign and the way you cover issues can really influence the debate. And given that News Ltd have such an extraordinary reach in Australia – almost 70% of papers and a big share of Foxtel, a magazine group, Lachlan Murdoch has just bought into Channel Ten, the radio network DNG... The reach of the Murdoch Empire is extraordinary which means it has incredible influence over its audience. It gives them tremendous power with politicians. The short answer is that they are enormously influential and powerful. Politicians need them on their side.

Does Murdoch have a view on climate change? Is he a sceptic?

He’s not actually. In 2006 or 2007 he made a statement that he wasn’t quite sure about the science and he’d listened to the debate but he thought that we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt. I thought that was quite a reasonable position for someone like Rupert Murdoch to take. So you’ll find that most of his papers are fairly open-minded even though The Australian is undoubtedly sceptical even to the point of non-believers. Murdoch’s position may have changed but he’s public comments suggest that he’s not sceptical. 

A 2006 poll indicated that more than a third of the Americans suspect that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Is a distrust of the media partly to blame for so many people believing in conspiracy theories?

It’s a really good question. Up until 1995 most people got there news through a small number of sources – free to air TV and some well established mast-head newspapers and that was it. In the 15 years since there’s been an explosion of alternative sources – bloggers, internet sites, community radio, pay TV. I think that’s feed all the different opinions. If people have a leaning in a particular direction they’ll now seek out that information. They won’t wait for it to come over their front fence in the morning. So I think its less to do with distrust and more to do with this explosion of new sources and that people have the ability to go in search of information.

If Murdoch is unduly using his enormous influence to effect elections and direct major issues of the day – like climate change, like wars – and it’s documented and widely known. How does he get away with it?

I don’t think he’s in danger of breaking any laws.  Having said that I think there’s an expectation both in America and in Australia and even in Britain – that if you’ve got access to the public’s airwaves or if you’re publishing mass market newspapers than there’s kind of an expectation that you’ll do so with an eye on the community that you’ll discharge that responsibility honestly and fairly and objectively and in a balanced way. I don’t think he’s breaking any laws but there would be some who argue that sometimes he doesn’t discharge that duty as fairly as he should. I think overall my concerns are less about the deliberate slanting of stories to suit a political agenda, although I think it does happen from time to time. It’s more that the organisation has become so big and there are so many arms to it that where does serving the corporate interests and serving the public interests can clash. My concern is that when companies put corporate interest ahead of the public interest. That’s when you start to worry that people are not getting the information they should be getting.    

Where should people go to get unfiltered information in today’s media market?

I think people should be quite demanding and careful about who they trust. If they don’t feel they are getting the truth from one particular source then find a source they can rely on. One of the great thing about journalism and the consumers of journalism is that we’ve got an enormous number of outlets - more than we’ve ever had. We’ve got a million more ways now to tell stories. We can tell stories on the internet, we can put video up, we can take photographs, we can email, we can twitter.  And I just think consumers need to be very demanding and discerning about who they trust. It might be a newspaper, a TV channel, a couple of internet sites, or a blogger and stick with them.  And be forever searching for people who can tell the truth and share their view of the world in an honest and balanced way.

Are you optimistic about the future of print media?

I think print media has got a few problems. Newspapers are under pressure. The good news is that journalism is booming. The problem is how to make a buck out of it. But that’s more a problem for the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the companies that have been making millions and millions out of newspapers. The tide’s turning. While they might be a bad thing from their point of view I think in the long run it might end up being better for not only journalists but for consumers of journalism. We’re just going through a transition period which might take three years five years or ten years until we get the business model right. Once we get that right I think it’ll be a golden era again.

Will there still be newspapers in ten years time?

I think the short answer is that no one really knows. Increasingly we’ll be living in a digital world of journalism. But I still think their might be some print products. Tracks is a really good example of a magazine that’s delivered for a certain audience very well for a long time. And I think that’s the way of the future. The future won’t be mass market tabloids. Increasingly in a digital word and even a printed world you’ll have to identify you’re community of interests and then deliver on it. In ten years greenies will know the paper that delivers for them and they’ll go to it every day. And the business people will go to their sites and their magazines. I think that’s the way of the future. Mass is changing and disappearing and will one day go completely. It will be all about serving communities of interest. I think the term is the super niche. If you and I could come up with the next super niche we’d probably make some money. I just don’t know what it is.

Is there a danger though that people just end up seeking news sources that tell them what they want to hear?

That’s a good question too. When I was editing a paper you had to do two things: you had to reflect but you also had to lead. If you only reflected than you become kind of dull and boring and your audience began to think “these bloke just telling me what I already know so I’ll go somewhere else”. If you did nothing but lead you got out of step with your readership and they think “this blokes too far ahead of me. He’s going off on a tangent and I don’t want to know”. So you’re always doing the two things. In answer to your question, there’s’ natural forces at work . If you only tell people what they want to know they’ll turn off and if you tell them stuff they don’t know too often they’ll turn off as well. So if you’re in touch with your community you do both and you know what to pull back and when to lead and they’ll follow you. That’s the job of an editor really to make sure those things don’t to far out of whack.

Have you had any feedback from “The Great Man” about your book?

A mate of mine whose sort of a shareholder/activist flew over to the News Ltd AGM in New York  recently. He took the book with him and he got me to sign it and I wrote: “To Rupert, thanks half a million”. That was the dough I made out of the dismissal court case. And Steven got up at the AGM and said “Mr Murdoch I’ve got some reading for you from a friend of mine in Melbourne called Bruce Guthrie and I’d like to present you with the book”. And as he put it in front of Murdoch he said you needed of bothered. The AGM finished the book was still there but Rupert was gone. So I don’t think he’s read it. And I don’t think he will.

By Kirk Owers