Annotated Bibliography

Petley, J. (2012). The Leveson Inquiry: Journalism ethics and press freedom. Journalism, 13 (4,) 529-538. doi: 10.1177/1464884912443498

Professor Julian Petley is the head of Journalism Research at Brunel University in London and a published author in the field of media and journalism, in particular the freedom and rights of the press. His article comes in response to the Leveson Inquiry currently taking place in the UK, a public inquiry into the “culture, practice and ethics of the press.” Petley’s article begins by questioning the currently held belief that ‘free enterprise is a pre-requisite of a free press’. This argument states that the market forces will ultimately decide which press products survive. However, Petley argues that this has led to the media now being run as a business. Instead of giving the ‘citizens the information they need’, the press gives ‘consumers what they want’. This in turn has led to the rise in sensationalism style journalism. Petley argues that the press should be a bastion for ‘freedom’ but only if they are prepared to accept the same degree of openness and accountability. He continues ‘the press are to provide people with what they need to in order to function as citizens; in particular a diversity of ideas, perspectives and voices’. Not only should there be rights of the press but also ‘rights of the readers’ Petley says. The freedom of the press means nothing if it used to exacerbate social divisions, prevent certain groups or individuals from speaking or distorting what it is they say. The following news stories following the release of the budget are good examples of the way a story can be affected by outside factors, in this case the business interests of The Australian as opposed to the balanced reporting of the government funded ABC. While the SBS report is very dry and simple, probably due to the fact it caters for a more international audience and don’t feel the need to spend too much time on an Australian issue.

 Iggulden, T. (2012, May 9), Lateline. Canberra:Australia, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Tom Iggulden, a political correspondent with Lateline since 2005, presented a four minute clip on the Federal Government’s budget and the reaction to it from the Opposition. ABC is a government funded network that is required to report in a balanced and non-biased manner. Iggulden’s piece begins with clips of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott on ABC Radio expressing their respective views, for and against, on the Budget. These clips are followed by a press conference with Tony Abbott criticising the Government’s Carbon Tax, and the Schoolkids Bonus proposed in the Budget. This is intercut with clips of Abbott discussing the Bonus with mothers. However, instead of just particular sound bites of Abbott criticising the budget , the Lateline piece also shows a clip of Abbott looking sheepish in regards to questioning about the difference, or lack thereof, between the Schoolkids Bonus and the Baby Bonus policy introduced by former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard. The report ends with Iggulden commenting that instead of the Opposition offering any real ideas in regards to the budget, they appear more interested in attacking Labor and under pressure crossbench MP Craig Thomson. The report was a balanced piece, highlighting the different rhetoric and opinions between the two major parties.

Selvaratnam, N. (2012, May 8). World News Australia Radio. Special Broadcasting Services.

SBS, like the ABC is a government funded network. SBS Radio is in fact the world’s most linguistically diverse media entity. Considering that SBS is based on multiculturalism, it is interesting that there are only three podcasts available in regards to the Federal Government’s budget. The report was compiled on the same night that the budget was delivered; hence the report is only sound clips of Selvaratnam and Treasurer Wayne Swan’s announcement. Selvaratnam starts the report with a brief overview of the effects of the budget on what she calls the ‘low and middle income families and vulnerable Australians’. She states that there has been a $5 billion package in support for these groups, with the package to be funded by benefits of the mining boom. The report makes a point of Australia’s strong economic position despite global economic concerns. Every clip of Swan is an appeal to the low and middle income earners, perhaps the producers thought it would be too dry if they included Swan discussing actual figures, instead they leave that to Selvaratnam. Perhaps a reason for the brevity of the report is that SBS caters to a rather niche market and a decision has been made that although it's audience would be interested in the budget but not to the point of saturation.

Crowe, D & Hepworth, A. (2012, May 10). Budget reform agenda lost in class war. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/budget-reform-agenda-lost-in-class-war/story-fndbwnla-1226351467424

The Australian, owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, is Australia's only national broadsheet. This means that while it competes with statewide circulations such as The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, it has a monopoly on the national market. It is interesting to note that in their section for coverage of the budget every single opinion piece can only be read in full with a subscription. Perhaps that is the first sign that there may be a slight bias towards business in their coverage. One of the few articles that didn't require subscription was co-written by David Crowe, national affairs editor and business journalist Annabel Hepworth. The first three paragraphs are an attack on the Gillard Government's economic credibility and trustworthiness. Big business has complained that the budget is akin to a handout to 'Labor's political heartland' and is a redistribution of wealth as opposed to creation of wealth. The article continues to state that Treasurer Wayne Swan has reneged on five promises made in 2010.  NAB and Woodside Petroleum chairman Michael Chaney, former Macarthur Coal chairman Keith De Lacy and Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott are all given significant space to condemn the government for scrapping the proposed company tax cut of 1%, though Swan says he still supports it if business can reach a consensus on how to pay for it. One of the more concerning aspects of the article is that no business leaders have come out in support of the budget, one could perhaps assume that is because no one in big business does in fact support the budget. That notion seems rather far-fetched and is an example of the slightly skewed balance of the article, and The Australian as a whole.