Murdoch's Hayman Island Follies Exaggerate The Power Of His Empire

Sydney Morning Herald

Tuesday July 18, 1995

Padraic P. McGuinness

LAST time at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation management conference it was a male stripper who attracted all the attention; this time at Hayman Island it is Britain's prime minister-in-waiting, Tony Blair.

But both are sideshows to the real business of the conference, which is about reinforcing the Murdoch stamp on his huge multinational enterprise, and papering over the gaping cracks between the elements of that empire. When Rupert falls down the empire will fall apart.

I was at the Aspen conference three years ago and the stripper, an attractive young man who sparked considerable interest among the female editors present, was significant mainly because his act was a deliberate expression of contempt on the part of some of the younger Californian invitees towards the tame politicians and right-wing ideologues Rupert likes to have around him as a kind of palace guard.

Much to the shock of the Californians, the Murdoch toughness became immediately apparent (along with his generosity) - the offender was sacked, with El Supremo quoting from Othello ("Cassio, I love thee, but never more be officer of mine") and in the event paying the offender out handsomely. But it finally convinced the dopes of Hollywood that Murdoch was there to stay, and not to be trifled with.

What was clear was that the then three main elements of the empire would never be integrated. News Ltd in Australia, under Murdoch's powerful satrap Ken Cowley, has nothing in common with the British News International (and it was obvious that the smartest of the then UK editors, whom Murdoch held in some awe, was the extraordinary Kelvin McKenzie of the gutter-Tory Sun), and neither has anything in common with the California-based Fox film and TV interests.

Nobody except Murdoch could hold such disparate and mutually antagonistic groups together - and when he goes nobody will want to, especially since there have since been added additional centrifugal forces in Asia and Europe.

This apart, there is nothing remarkable about the Hayman Island conference - it is typical of the kind of management conference put on by many giant multinational corporations. You have a good time, you make a few friends, you worship at the feet of the master, and you go home and get on with your job. The Aspen conference was fun, and I am sure that the Hayman Island one is also.

But how powerful in fact is Rupert Murdoch as a media figure in Australia and Britain? As a devil figure, his detractors have an interest in exaggerating his power. The British are once again looking at placing limits on his interests, and the Australian Government has never hesitated to interfere in media ownership to influence policy. That is one reason why he is courting and charming Tony Blair, as well as forging an alliance with Paul Keating. But a closer look at the nature of media influence suggests that Murdoch is not as dominant as the fearmongers or paranoid media critics like to think.

Professor David Flint, chairman of the Australian Press Council, has had a look at an analysis of media influence in Britain prepared by The Daily Telegraph company (through which Conrad Black holds his 25 per cent stake in Fairfax). This uses the concept of media "voice", which includes access to television, suburban and regional newspaper, and radio audiences as well as metropolitan newspaper audience.

Government agencies like the BBC and the ABC also have to be taken into account. It turns out that the Murdoch "voice" is not nearly so dominant in Britain as thought. Using available figures for Australia, Flint estimates the actual voice of various media proprietors here. In terms of capital city and national newspapers, regional dailies, and national TV audiences it emerges that the Murdoch "voice" is less than 20 per cent of the total. Kerry Packer's is less than 10 per cent, and Conrad Black's is 1.55 per cent.

The companies are treated as shells, so Black has 25 per cent of Fairfax's voice and Packer 17.7 per cent; while Murdoch has 14.9 per cent of Channel 7's voice. It is possible to argue about control and shareholding - it is clear Black's control over Fairfax's voice is greater than Packer's, but it is still threatened by changes in shareholdings and therefore is hardly absolute.

The ABC's share of voice nationally is greater than Packer's or Black's - even discounting radio by 50 per cent because of its high music content, the ABC holds 16.22 per cent of the national voice. This would increase to 28.72 per cent if radio were not discounted.

Professor Flint notes that this kind of analysis provides an alternative basis for media policy which is transparent, unaffected by cross-ownership, and unaffected by media technological convergence. Thus it could be the basis of a more sensible approach to media policy than the arbitrary bludgeon and licence which is obviously the present Government's preferred approach. It would be sufficient to impose a ceiling of, say, 34 per cent of national voice on any one proprietor or government corporation, after which anti-market dominance provisions would come into play.

Certainly the present system, which allows the Government to play the decisive role in who owns what and how large his voice will be, is open to corruption and manipulation. The British approach also serves to remind us of the fact, often neglected, of the powerful share of national voice possessed by the ideologues of the ABC.

Internet: ppmcg@ozemail.com.au

© 1995 Sydney Morning Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home