Raymond Finkelstein QC - Interview
Raymond Finkelstein QC is an Australian lawyer and judge that was commissioned by the Australian Federal Government to complete an independent inquiry into the media and media regulation which is most commonly referred to as the 'Finkelstein report'. Our interview was conducted over the phone.
What was the intention of the report you released earlier this year and why was it necessary?
I did not have any relevant intention in the sense that you ask the question. The government commissioned the report and I was appointed to provide that report to the government. The terms of reference were set by the relevant minister.
To what extent do you think the government will take up your suggestion of a media regulator?
I do not know whether the government will adopt some or all of the recommendations. I think that is a purely political decision for the government to make. It is not an issue on which they would consult me. Nor is it an issue upon which I would expect them to consult me. I think that traditionally independent appointees, that is, appointees independent of government, provide their report, which will contain recommendations, and then the political process takes over.
In some of the stuff that I’ve been reading other people have said that your report skims over the growing role of smaller media players, such as Crikey, New Matilda, or The Conversation, what would be your response to that?
I am not sure precisely what the intent of the comment is, but the report does pick up within its umbrella, or at least the recommendations do, the Crikey’s of the world. That is, the report deals with online journalists or online organisations that publish news, and Crikey would fit within the umbrella of the recommendations as drafted.
In your opinion what are the main issues facing journalism in Australia?
This is only partly touched on in the report, but I imagine the main issues are going to be, for print journalists, the long term survival of newspapers. But that is only a branch of journalism. There are many other forms of journalism. What I guess is referred to generally as infotainment journalism. There is probably a long life for that form. The main challenge will be how journalism will adapt to the world of the Internet and how news journalists, entertainment journalists, and everyone else in the field adapts to the Internet. There will be financial pressures on journalists from a variety of sources: advertisers, newspaper proprietors and the like. I imagine that really puts the future in terms of a financial challenge.
Do you think the rise of digital and online media has changed the role of the traditional journalist? And if so, how do you think they could move to adapt to this changing environment?
From what I have seen, which might not be a lot, the online journalist seems to be an aggregator. That is they collect a lot of stories or data or facts from traditional news sources and put them together in one way or another via the Internet. So that tells you that the function of the media is changing. The challenge I suppose is whether you will see a growth in organisations like Crikey, which do produce their own news. I once read somewhere a statement by one of the senior editors in the New York Times, who said if you go look at what is on the internet today you will find each story is based on an article in the New York Times. Now that was intended to be an exaggeration. But the point might be true that online players aggregate and collect from other sources and do not produce their own news. There are only a handful of internet organisations here and, as I understand it, around the world that produce, analyse and then publish their own news content.
Do you think that Open Journalism is an approach that could function in an Australian Journalistic landscape?
In a sense it is hard to predict these things. My best guess is probably not. But I still think there is a demand for some organisation that gathers information in the traditional way and publish it on the internet. I think there will always be a demand for that. Especially when it comes to local content, I think that people in Australia are perfectly happy to have information from overseas just to get the facts. They do not care where it comes from. You might have a lot more open participation when it comes to local content. So you could draw a distinction local news and overseas news for example.
Could you discuss your understanding of the current issues surrounding trust and Australian journalism?
I think that the evidence shows – it is survey evidence so there is always a deal of criticism that can be made of survey evidence but the criticism diminishes when you get a consistent pattern over many years –a consistent pattern of decline in what people view as the ‘reliability’ of traditional news providers. The question is whether that decline in ‘reliability’, i.e. the lack of trust, has an adverse effect. Because of the importance that news has to the political scene, where what people read in the newspapers can shape the way they vote, the personalities for whom they vote and the parties for whom they vote, if they are not getting the information which people deserve then the democratic process is diminished. So I see a decline in trust as damaging democracy.
How is it damaging democracy?
I suppose that there is good reason for the decline in trust. People do not believe what they are told in the press. Or they think it is exaggerated. Or they think it is one sided. If there is a lack of necessary information, or a lack of sufficient information then the decisions people make are not necessarily the best decisions that could be made. That is not to say that they do not make decisions. But if a person makes a decision absent of all the material facts, or absent the important facts, or based on a misconstruction of facts, then there is something wrong with the process. There is something wrong with the decisions that are produced as a result of that process.
Do you think that the ownership of news outlets in Australia contributes to this lack of trust?
That is a very hard question. I think that concentration of ownership affects the production of news, or the type of news that is produced. That might be one of the factors that produces a lack of trust. But that is to say really that the more players you have in the media market the more likely it is that the service each of them provides is maintained, or does not diminish. So it is a market based view, I guess when you do not have pressure from competitors, that is when there is lack of competition, then there is nothing forcing an outlet to maintain standards.
In the trust section of the Media standards chapter of your report it mentions the findings from a Roy Morgan survey that deems journalists the fourth least trustworthy professionals, in your opinion why is this?
There are probably lots of reasons. I am not sure that any of the reports I read go into that question in detail. I have my own personal views, which include things like: over a period of time, people begin to see that what they read in the newspaper turns out to be untrue. Or they see that a particular news outlet pushes a particular line regardless of facts that show that line is not accurate or appropriate. So I think the attitude reflects a growing awareness based on experience that what they read is not necessarily, I am going to use the word, the ‘truth’. But in a very broad sense I accept that there might not be any “real truth” in anything.
Do you think that the rise of the digital age has allowed for a higher level of transparency to be brought to political powers or institutions?
In theory, it can, and in practice it probably does not. The reason for that is that the statistics that I have looked at show that the main news players on the Internet are the publishers who also publish the daily press. There are thousands of people who you can go and seek out on the Internet but their audience is small. So if I consider how many people read The Age newspaper each day, let us say it is several hundred thousand, there are probably not too many people on the net who have an, probably hardly any at least in Australia on the net, who have an audience of that size. You will have a thousand Internet players each with an audience of a thousand. So although there is a lot of information out there it does not get to the people who are influenced by the mass media.
So do you think that if there was more of a reciprocal relationship between traditional journalists and bloggers and online news outlets that are more independent do you think that could bring a higher transparency to world affairs?
There is no reason why that could not work. It depends on how that kind of relationship would develop. There are examples, one here and some overseas, where traditional journalists are setting up their own internet outlets. You do not have a direct relationship but you have a cross-over of personnel. I think that that might have a long-term effect, if these outlets survive. In America they survive because they get donations from public foundations. Here that will not happen because we do not have that kind of tradition. So it really is a question of survival.
What was the intention of the report you released earlier this year and why was it necessary?
I did not have any relevant intention in the sense that you ask the question. The government commissioned the report and I was appointed to provide that report to the government. The terms of reference were set by the relevant minister.
To what extent do you think the government will take up your suggestion of a media regulator?
I do not know whether the government will adopt some or all of the recommendations. I think that is a purely political decision for the government to make. It is not an issue on which they would consult me. Nor is it an issue upon which I would expect them to consult me. I think that traditionally independent appointees, that is, appointees independent of government, provide their report, which will contain recommendations, and then the political process takes over.
In some of the stuff that I’ve been reading other people have said that your report skims over the growing role of smaller media players, such as Crikey, New Matilda, or The Conversation, what would be your response to that?
I am not sure precisely what the intent of the comment is, but the report does pick up within its umbrella, or at least the recommendations do, the Crikey’s of the world. That is, the report deals with online journalists or online organisations that publish news, and Crikey would fit within the umbrella of the recommendations as drafted.
In your opinion what are the main issues facing journalism in Australia?
This is only partly touched on in the report, but I imagine the main issues are going to be, for print journalists, the long term survival of newspapers. But that is only a branch of journalism. There are many other forms of journalism. What I guess is referred to generally as infotainment journalism. There is probably a long life for that form. The main challenge will be how journalism will adapt to the world of the Internet and how news journalists, entertainment journalists, and everyone else in the field adapts to the Internet. There will be financial pressures on journalists from a variety of sources: advertisers, newspaper proprietors and the like. I imagine that really puts the future in terms of a financial challenge.
Do you think the rise of digital and online media has changed the role of the traditional journalist? And if so, how do you think they could move to adapt to this changing environment?
From what I have seen, which might not be a lot, the online journalist seems to be an aggregator. That is they collect a lot of stories or data or facts from traditional news sources and put them together in one way or another via the Internet. So that tells you that the function of the media is changing. The challenge I suppose is whether you will see a growth in organisations like Crikey, which do produce their own news. I once read somewhere a statement by one of the senior editors in the New York Times, who said if you go look at what is on the internet today you will find each story is based on an article in the New York Times. Now that was intended to be an exaggeration. But the point might be true that online players aggregate and collect from other sources and do not produce their own news. There are only a handful of internet organisations here and, as I understand it, around the world that produce, analyse and then publish their own news content.
Do you think that Open Journalism is an approach that could function in an Australian Journalistic landscape?
In a sense it is hard to predict these things. My best guess is probably not. But I still think there is a demand for some organisation that gathers information in the traditional way and publish it on the internet. I think there will always be a demand for that. Especially when it comes to local content, I think that people in Australia are perfectly happy to have information from overseas just to get the facts. They do not care where it comes from. You might have a lot more open participation when it comes to local content. So you could draw a distinction local news and overseas news for example.
Could you discuss your understanding of the current issues surrounding trust and Australian journalism?
I think that the evidence shows – it is survey evidence so there is always a deal of criticism that can be made of survey evidence but the criticism diminishes when you get a consistent pattern over many years –a consistent pattern of decline in what people view as the ‘reliability’ of traditional news providers. The question is whether that decline in ‘reliability’, i.e. the lack of trust, has an adverse effect. Because of the importance that news has to the political scene, where what people read in the newspapers can shape the way they vote, the personalities for whom they vote and the parties for whom they vote, if they are not getting the information which people deserve then the democratic process is diminished. So I see a decline in trust as damaging democracy.
How is it damaging democracy?
I suppose that there is good reason for the decline in trust. People do not believe what they are told in the press. Or they think it is exaggerated. Or they think it is one sided. If there is a lack of necessary information, or a lack of sufficient information then the decisions people make are not necessarily the best decisions that could be made. That is not to say that they do not make decisions. But if a person makes a decision absent of all the material facts, or absent the important facts, or based on a misconstruction of facts, then there is something wrong with the process. There is something wrong with the decisions that are produced as a result of that process.
Do you think that the ownership of news outlets in Australia contributes to this lack of trust?
That is a very hard question. I think that concentration of ownership affects the production of news, or the type of news that is produced. That might be one of the factors that produces a lack of trust. But that is to say really that the more players you have in the media market the more likely it is that the service each of them provides is maintained, or does not diminish. So it is a market based view, I guess when you do not have pressure from competitors, that is when there is lack of competition, then there is nothing forcing an outlet to maintain standards.
In the trust section of the Media standards chapter of your report it mentions the findings from a Roy Morgan survey that deems journalists the fourth least trustworthy professionals, in your opinion why is this?
There are probably lots of reasons. I am not sure that any of the reports I read go into that question in detail. I have my own personal views, which include things like: over a period of time, people begin to see that what they read in the newspaper turns out to be untrue. Or they see that a particular news outlet pushes a particular line regardless of facts that show that line is not accurate or appropriate. So I think the attitude reflects a growing awareness based on experience that what they read is not necessarily, I am going to use the word, the ‘truth’. But in a very broad sense I accept that there might not be any “real truth” in anything.
Do you think that the rise of the digital age has allowed for a higher level of transparency to be brought to political powers or institutions?
In theory, it can, and in practice it probably does not. The reason for that is that the statistics that I have looked at show that the main news players on the Internet are the publishers who also publish the daily press. There are thousands of people who you can go and seek out on the Internet but their audience is small. So if I consider how many people read The Age newspaper each day, let us say it is several hundred thousand, there are probably not too many people on the net who have an, probably hardly any at least in Australia on the net, who have an audience of that size. You will have a thousand Internet players each with an audience of a thousand. So although there is a lot of information out there it does not get to the people who are influenced by the mass media.
So do you think that if there was more of a reciprocal relationship between traditional journalists and bloggers and online news outlets that are more independent do you think that could bring a higher transparency to world affairs?
There is no reason why that could not work. It depends on how that kind of relationship would develop. There are examples, one here and some overseas, where traditional journalists are setting up their own internet outlets. You do not have a direct relationship but you have a cross-over of personnel. I think that that might have a long-term effect, if these outlets survive. In America they survive because they get donations from public foundations. Here that will not happen because we do not have that kind of tradition. So it really is a question of survival.