The Media in Australia Today is Able to Make a Useful Contribution to the Reproduction of a Vital Public Sphere

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The role of the media in the society
The media in Australia: from 1990s till 2000s
People’s distrust of media and authorities
How the media can contribute to the development of the public sphere
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The role of the media in societies has been analysed throughout decades. It has been acknowledged that the media has rather significant power over communities and societies. The development of technology has increased this influence considerably. Thus, researchers tend to focus on the merging of conventional (newspapers, radio, television) and new media (the Internet) claiming that the media plays an important role in shaping public opinion (Cunningham & Turner 2010).

Interestingly, this influence has been developing throughout several centuries. Now many believe that the media can drastically affect processes that take place in the society. Remarkably, the interest to media in Australia has increased as well. For instance, students’ enrolment in media and communications spheres increased by 16% in 2007. At the same time, overall student numbers increased by 2% (Cunningham & Turner 2010, p. 10).

However, at the same time there is certain distrust in public sphere (Bouchet & Kariithi 2003; Kim & Kim 2008; Cox 1995). People tend to distrust the government and other authorities. It is necessary to note that the media has addressed certain criticism and sometimes people distrust the media as well, as people feel they are being manipulated.

The decreasing number of the media proprietors and monopolization of the sphere of the media can lead to increase in distrust. Nonetheless, these concerns can be easily eliminated as technology provides a variety of solutions.

It is necessary to point out that the media can help to eliminate distrust in the society. The media can shape public opinion and it can positively affect the development of the Australian society. The media can influence the public’s activism which will lead to positive changes in the society.

The role of the media in the society

It is important to note that many people have discovered the great power of the media (e.g. newspapers). Thus, Tocqueville (1999/1840) notes that there can be no better means to drop particular ideas into the minds of thousands of people in a short period of time. Tocqueville (1999/1840) reveals attitude of thousands (or even millions) of people towards newspapers. People could find out some news, they could also adopt certain ideas.

People’s trust to newspapers was unlimited. This trust can be explained by the fact that newspapers were really important. Newspapers were regarded as the major source of information. Up to the twentieth century it was the only tool which enabled people to spread news quickly. Thus, at that time public opinion relied upon the information provided by newspapers.

Nowadays people still have certain amount of trust to the media, though many individuals have criticized this sphere. However, the majority of people continue resorting to the media as to some kind of advisors or, at the very least, the sources of information.

Thus, according to Kim and Kim (2008) people tend to develop their perception of the world around them on the basis of data provided by the media. Interestingly, people are not isolated when developing their views. In other words, they media communication and direct communication are always combined. Kim and Kim (2008) stress that the media provide material for further discussions which, in their turn, shape public opinion.

Of course, it is necessary to note that the media often bombards people with specific news and opinions which can implant particular public opinion. Habermas (1991) also stresses the exclusive role of the media in formation of public opinion. The researcher even states that the media abandoned their role of news providers to become “a dealer in public opinion” (Habermas 1991, p. 182). Thus, the author claims that media has the necessary tools to shape public opinion to certain extent.

The media in Australia: from 1990s till 2000s

Media Proprietors

According to Barr (2000, p. 2) the country’s “media environment has long been dominated by successful family-owned newspapers”. These successful families diversified their businesses. Eventually, they became conglomerates and, actually, monopolists in the sphere.

For instance, Rupert Murdoch was the one to create the Australian which is the only national daily in the country (Barr 2000). Murdoch also created one of the largest media conglomerates, which was known under the name News Corporation.

The Herald and Weekly Times group published about 40% of newspapers sold in the country in 1990s. This trend has not ceased to exist. For instance, two groups were owners of 10 (out of twelve) dailies in the country in 1999 (Barr 2000, p. 3).

Barr (2000) points out that the most influential media conglomerates in Australia in 1990s were News Corporation, Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd (PBL), John Fairfax Holdings Ltd. Notably, these owners also control other types of media.

Thus, News Corporation owned 50% of Foxtel, one of the leading television companies in Australia. It is important to point out that such media ownership has given the country “one of the highest levels of concentration of media ownership in the democratic world” (Barr 2000, p.3).

Regulations

One of the reasons for such trends is seen in Australian legislation. Thus, the Broadcast and Television Act 1942 was enacted to make broadcasters provide ‘adequate’ programs (Barr 2000). Importantly, authorities were responsible for defining whether a broadcaster provided ‘adequate’ programs. This contributed significantly in decrease of the number of broadcasters as only huge conglomerates managed to meet the necessary requirements.

Of course, there have been a lot of concerns about diversity of expression. Thus, Bouchet and Kariithi (2003, p. 11) state that in democratic societies citizens should be “exposed to all shades of opinion”. However, it is hardly possible in the society where the media is owned by a small group of people.

Such societies can be characterized by corruption. For instance, Barr (2000, p. 10) points out that the history of Australian media reveals “extraordinary political favouritism” on the part of different governments which ‘chose’ broadcasters to suit the party’s interests.

Apart from these concerns, many argue that the state’s control over the media is too strict. The print media is governed in accordance with The Trade Practices Act, which sets particular rules and principles in the sphere. It is also important to note that the print media is also regulated by the Australian Press Council which is funded by major press proprietors (Cunningham 2010). Admittedly, this cannot be regarded as the most appropriate regulatory body.

As far as broadcasting is concerned, this sphere was highly regulated in the 1950s. However, in 1992 the Broadcasting Services Act was enacted. The act aimed at creating more favourable environment for new competitors. The act was to impose a “greater degree of self-regulation” (Cunningham 2010, p. 32). However, the act was highly criticised as it did not meet the expectations of the government as well as the public sphere.

Interestingly, the Internet, being highly decentralized, has been also strictly regulated in Australia. The Broadcasting Services Amendment Act 1999 is the major regulatory document in this sphere. Such bodies as the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Australian Interactive Multimedia Industry Association are the regulatory bodies in this sphere (Cunningham 2010).

It is important to note that the Internet still offers many opportunities to communicate some ideas and opinions. Thus, Chen (2010) dwells upon various uses of the Internet during election campaigns in different countries. Nonetheless, the control is still overwhelming. It is but natural that such strict control has evoked a lot of criticism.

Cunningham and Turner (2010) also point out that the recent financial crisis has also led to redundancies in the sphere of media, which played a negative role in the development of the sphere. Thus, many professional journalists lost their jobs as well as the public sphere was deprived of people who had the necessary experience to balance between broadcasters’ interests and proper ways to provide news. Furthermore, financial constraints also challenge the media environment as it often leads to corruption (Cunningham & Turner 2010).

Positive changes

Nonetheless, the situation in the country has changed for better. It is too early to claim that Australian media environment is free from bias as the media ownership still raises many questions (Cunningham & Turner 2010). However, international broadcasters have entered Australian media market, which leads to competition, which, in its turn, can result in positive changes. Development of technology enabled people to access information from various sources at any time and in any place.

Therefore, at present the connection between the media and the public opinion is not one-sided anymore. Now the media still has influence on public opinion. However, public opinion can also shape various trends existing in the sphere. For instance, by expressing distrust, people can make broadcasters be more precise, more informative and more careful in assumptions and statements.

Apart from development of technology, people have also contributed greatly in the process of development of the public sphere. Thus, the on-going discourse has attracted the necessary attention on the part of researchers, intellectuals, officials, etc. The discourse can spread to other spheres (other than academic sphere). This will lead to the development of the public sphere as people will acknowledge the importance of revealing their will.

People’s distrust of media and authorities

It is important to note that Australian public sphere can be characterized by distrust towards both authorities and the media. The history of Australian media justifies the fact that people have lost trust to some broadcasters (and especially media conglomerates). According to Bouchet and Kariithi (2003) there is certain disconnection between people and the national media. General public tend to distrust national broadcasters, instead people tend to trust local media (Bouchet and Kariithi 2003).

This trend can be explained by the fact that local media do not focus on some global issues concerning politics, international relations, and some national issues. Local media tend to focus on local issues without going into detail when highlighting some events concerning politics, international affairs, etc. It is also necessary to point out that Australian media conglomerates own national media. Therefore, when it comes to local broadcasters and print media, there is quite a lot of competition and people have access to various opinions.

Likewise, people also tend to distrust authorities which have proved to pursue specific interests. Australian legislation has also proved to be somewhat inconsistent as for the media (Barr 2000). Due to these factors, many people have disappointed in the trends which have already existed in relations between political sphere and the media. In fact, all this led to development of particular public opinion concerning the media in Australia. The public sphere has distanced itself from the media and authorities.

Thus, Cox (1995) articulates the idea that Australians do not trust authorities anymore. There is a tendency among Australians to focus on their own life instead of trying to focus on developing the successful society. The public sphere is not constituted by activists who can challenge wrongs in the society. Many researchers express their concerns on the matter. They suggest that such a trend can be dangerous for a democratic society. Admittedly, the society cannot be regarded as democratic if people do not express their will.

The society cannot be democratic if the country is ruled by some kind of elite. For instance, Cox (1995) claims that such trends are dangerous for the society as well as each individual. The researcher states that trust and activism should be regarded as the major tools to develop the society. However, Cox (1995) believes that it is not too late to start focusing on common good. Pusey (2010) also shares the same opinion claiming that public intellectuals can influence the development of the Australian society.

How the media can contribute to the development of the public sphere

It goes without saying that people will have to resort to different tools to improve the situation in the public sphere and to encourage activism among Australians. Authorities should also take action to regain people’s trust. However, it is also important to state that the media can play central role in this process. The exclusive influence of the media has already been discussed above, so it is possible to pass on to possible ways to use this influential power.

In the first place, it is important to acknowledge the power of the Internet. Admittedly, this resource can shape public opinion. Politicians have already used this resource in their campaigns (Chen 2010). This resource can be helpful while reshaping the public sphere. Thus, social networks can play an important role in this process. On the one hand, it is necessary to raise awareness about the situation in the public sphere among people. It is important to pay special attention to inertness of people.

It is also important to explain why this inertness can play a negative role in the development of the public sphere. It can be also useful to encourage people to start discussions on the matter. These discussions can shape public opinion. They will also make authorities hear people and understand their inclinations. Fortunately, the development of technology can secure national coverage. The discourse may potentially involve each Australian as the Internet has penetrated almost every household in the country.

It can be also helpful to collaborate with broadcasters. Admittedly, broadcasters will help to shape public opinion as the broadcasters can secure nationwide coverage. Thus, activists can address major broadcasters. The activists should explain why the broadcasters should ensure openness.

For instance, one of the major arguments is the necessity to regain people’s trust which is one of the most important factors for broadcasters. Admittedly, they will lose their profits if people cease to consume their products. Again, the Internet can help the activists to persuade broadcasters, as the latter also have access to this resource.

There is one more issue to be addressed. It is important to understand who can start the discourse and who can start the process of reshaping the Australian public sphere. Admittedly, students and young specialists in the fields of communication and media, international relations can become the driving force that can start the discussions. In the first place, these people have the necessary energy and stimuli. On the other hand, young people are not overwhelmed by various superstitions which can be present in other strata of the society.

Thus, Australians should try to use the media to develop the society. They should understand that many forces tried to use the media environment in Australia to pursue certain interests. Likewise, Australians can make the media serve better purposes. This important source of information can unite people and make them active and responsible, which is very important for the contemporary public sphere.

The media can help to promote activism among Australians. Thus, the public sphere in the country will be characterized by major peculiarities of a truly democratic society where people have unlimited access to information and can influence the political sphere. In other words, Australians will become responsible for the development of their society.

Conclusion

On balance, it is necessary to note that the history of Australian media environment led to the loss of trust among people. Nowadays Australians tend to distrust authorities as well as national broadcasters. These two bodies proved to pursue certain groups’ interests instead of focusing on common good. Therefore, Australians now are inert. They tend to focus on their wellbeing without paying much attention to the public sphere. Nonetheless, the public sphere can be developed.

Nowadays many people try to draw people’s attention to the necessity to actively participate in the process of the country’s development. It is necessary to note that this can be done with the help of the media. Thus, the Internet is one of the most potent tools to raise awareness of the major matters among people. Besides, the Internet is one of the universal means of sharing information and opinions.

Therefore, the Internet can positively affect the development of the necessary public opinion. Apart from this, the activists can collaborate with broadcasters as this collaboration can be beneficial for both sides. On the one hand, this can contribute greatly to the development of the society. On the other hand, broadcasters will regain people’s trust.

Finally, it is not enough to understand major tools which can help to develop the public sphere. It is important to understand who is capable of becoming a driving force in this process. Thus, young people can become the driving force which will make people active and responsible. Thus, it is possible to conclude that Australian public sphere can be and should be developed. In fact, the public sphere can already be characterised by trends that verify positive changes in the society.

Reference List

Barr, T 2000, Newmedia.com.au: the changing face of Australia’s media and communications, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Bouchet, N & Kariithi, NK 2003, Parliament and the media: building an informed society. Web.

Chen, P 2010, ‘Adoption and use of digital media in election campaigns: Australia, Canada and New Zealand’, Public Communication Review, vol. 1 no. 1, pp. 3-26.

Cox, E 1995, A Truly Civil Society, ABC Books, Sydney.

Cunningham, S 2010, “Policy”, in S Cunningham & G Turner (eds), The media and communications in Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 31-49.

Cunningham, S & Turner, G 2010, The media and communications in Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Habermas, J 1991, The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kim, J & Kim, EJ 2008, ‘Theorizing dialogic deliberation: everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue’, Communication Theory, vol. 18 no. 1, pp. 51-70.

Pusey, M 2010, ‘The struggles of public intellectuals in Australia: what do they tell us about contemporary Australia and the Australian ‘political public sphere’’, Thesis Eleven, vol. 101 no. 1, pp. 81-88.

Tocqueville, A 1999/1840, Democracy in America. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!