Do we really need public funded journalism?

For myself, someone who today rarely purchases a newspaper (besides the Saturday version of the Border Mail), I am informed by a variety of media sources, some of which I support financially. Sources include extensive use of Google and Wikipedia searches of a topic; use of my Facebook home page with links to my favourite information sources (including the ABC, The Economist and New Scientist); and news and opinion stories from a diverse range of media sources with very different perspectives, including Inside Story, The New Daily, Markets & Money, On Line Opinion, the Institute of Public Affairs, the Grattan Institute, the Centre for Independent Studies, the Australia Institute and Get Up.

Like most Australians, I have my own eclectic range of policy views. In agreement with many Australians, I support gay marriage; believe that humanity is causing global warming with a preference for renewable energy sources rather than coal; and express a desire for Australia to retain a decent minimum wage and universal access to quality education and health services.

However, in line with my lack of complete trust for any single media source, and my recognition that most perspectives offer various strengths and weaknesses, I never expect to read any single media source that will provide the full story as virtually all media sources offer their own slant beyond the mere reporting of news.

Even the ABC, with its mandate to "inform, educate and entertain audiences", will cater to its own audience, despite any charter of editorial independence that commits to being fair and balanced. A 2013 Sunshine Coast University survey of ABC journalists found that 41 per cent voted for the Greens, 32 per cent for Labor and only 14 per cent for the Coalition.

What we should expect from a quality articles, within my belief that there are astute commentators within the centre-left and centre-right, is well grounded arguments that take full account of the various strengths and weaknesses of any policy choice in this much tougher economic environment.  

For example, as one article acknowledges, with a recent Lowy Institute Poll showing majority support for alternative energy, coal exports and our own use of fossil fuels, it is obviously “difficult to reconcile these views”.

Second, many supporters of so-called 'quality journalism' are often influenced by their fear of the centre and far right on economic and social matters. For example, in 2012, fear was expressed at the mining magnate Gina Rinehart's bid for control of Fairfax given that one of her advisers (Jack Cowin) has already told the ABC "this is a business, not a public service", before outlining how profit will drive editorial direction, including on issues such as the carbon price.

In reality, fears about the influence of the far right and even Murdoch papers are exaggerated. Australia does not need even greater government assistance to ensure an independent ABC and SBS to avoid a US-style situation where Fox News dominates TV ratings with powerful interests such as Rupert Murdoch pushing their political agendas through media influence and ownership.

As Rod Tiffen observed in 2015, with the penetration rate of metropolitan newspapers being sold declining from 38.6 per cent of the population in 1947 to 7.2 per cent in 2014 (14.1 per cent in 1996), and Murdoch papers having a 60 per cent share of Australian daily newspaper circulation, this means that Murdoch papers are only being bought by about 4 per cent of the Australian population.

Tiffen also notes that many readers of the Murdoch tabloids (Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and Courier-Mail) have a healthy scepticism given that Essential Research surveys found just 51-54 per cent support for them as "quality" papers, far less than ratings given to The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian with 60 per cent plus with the two Fairfax publications ranking highest (sometimes above 70 per cent).

As Tiffen points out, many purchase tabloids for non-news reasons such as sport and entertainment value.

In the end, as seen by 2017 debate, both of Australia’s major political parties bicker over the degree they support key community concerns. This was seen by both offering versions of the Gonski-inspired school funding plan, bipartisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the related higher Medicare levy, and measures to either tax or crackdown on the banks.