Whither the federal fourth estate?

Until the Howard years, the divisive effects of the executive’s capacity to play favourites were also consistently apparent and starkly reflected in the Canberra Gallery’s history of avoiding action or complaint when major injustices were meted out to their colleagues - for example during the Alexander, Hughes, Browne/Fitzpatrick cases cited above.

Thus it was a tellingly unusual act of solidarity during the Howard years, when in 2002 nine federal Gallery journalists joined in a protest the action. They represented both commercial and public sector mainstream bureaus - News Ltd, Fairfax Media, the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). In a strongly worded collective submission to the Senate Committee of inquiry into “A Certain Maritime Incident” (“children overboard affair”), they accused the Howard executive of a sustained “campaign of censorship and misinformation” … “orchestrated at the highest levels of government”.

A year later, a second strident protest was lodged outlining several extraordinary events during the visit of US President George W. Bush in October 2003. Their submission is contained in the final report (PDF 612KB) of a Privileges Committee inquiry into issues raised by the President's visit. Although this was not an official state visit, and the President a guest of the Prime Minister, the Parliament was especially convened for a joint-sitting and Presidential address. Gallery committee president and secretary, Malcolm Farr and James Grubel claimed the Canberra fourth estate was treated with disdain as part of a “craven capitulation of [parliamentary] sovereignty to the visiting US media”. Problems raised by the Gallery included the fact that:

• the parliament was closed to the public;
• authority over media passes was transferred from the Parliament to the Prime Minister’s department and negotiation with US officials outsourced to a private contractor with no power over the American secret service which in turn, arbitrarily refused entry to several Gallery reporters;
• Gallery photographers’ rights of access to the parliamentary chambers was suspended and restricted to the government’s Auspic bureau;
• there was a ban on distributing photographs taken during president Bush’s meeting with then Opposition Leader Simon Crean.

Furthermore, by the final year of the Howard government the Gallery’s disillusion and discontent had spread beyond the Canberra to the commercial media oligopoly, public sector media and the journalists’ union (the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance) who joined forces to form an historic coalition and independently-fund the first wide-ranging “Audit of the State of Free Speech in Australia”, chaired by Irene Moss.

Systemic remediation

Remediation would require the Parliament and the media industry alike to consider:

• • How to negotiate greater transparency and certainty in the tripartite relationship between the government executive, the Parliament and the fourth estate, through a formal agreement or concordat based on recognition of the quasi-institutional role of the Gallery - first raised in the early 1950s (cited in Lloyd 1988 pp.180-181).
• A re-examination of arguments for relocating Gallery bureaus outside Parliament House to improve the fourth estate’s credibility and independence - and alleviate the executive’s capacity for favouritism.

Media employers could also follow through on their overt concerns about political manipulation. A minority government, or the so-called new paradigm, presents a unique opportunity to effectively assert their right to allocate and increase resources to ensure an even coverage of both the executive and the Parliament.

The argument in favour of the re-locating of Press Gallery bureaus to outside the parliamentary building could also be re-visited. First raised by Keith Murdoch in 1960s and since canvassed from time to time by journalists and employers alike. But the executive’s continuing presence inside the Parliament often de-rails the argument. Such consultations challenge the Parliament to take on the issue of re-locating executive offices outside its realm. Political historian Clement Macintyre in a 2008 lecture speculated:

Having the legislature and the executive housed in their own buildings would allow each to function in a way less inhibited by the presence of the other. If this building [parliament house] was unambiguously the place of the elected representatives of the people rather than being simultaneously the symbol of the government then visitors, elected members, and those who work here in other capacities would view the building in a different light. While I cannot quantify this in any measurable way, it is self-evident that the perceptions of a place change the way that it is used and the way that occupants engage within it.

Remediation and new media

Today’s multi-faceted media environment means resolution of these systemic problems are all the more pressing. There is already robust contention about the impact of Web2.0 media technologies and the pluses and minuses of the multi-faceted capacity for governments to avoid the critical expertise of the specialist political news-round, at the same time as they enhance their capacity to communicate with a wide variety of constituencies.

In this context there are many good reasons for serious consideration of a public TV channel to provide 24-hour coverage of the proceedings of Parliament through a system such as the C-Span service in the USA. This public affairs TV network covers both the Congress and the Senate, Committees, media conferences, speeches. Surveys show 30 per cent of households watch occasionally and 10 per cent regularly, several times a week - altogether reaching around 23 million people, including a significant proportion of young viewers, albeit on an ad hoc basis. More than 60 per cent believe it “enhanced the reputation of congress”. It is clearly worthy of wide concern as a means for generating greater public access and interest in the processes of democracy (Schultz, J. 2002. Two cultures: Parliament and the media. In: Senate Occasional Lecture Series. 15 February. Commonwealth Parliament, Canberra).