Book Notes: "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell

Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


I received this book as a gift at around the same time as I had started Hemingway's "The Fifth Column and Four Stories of the Spanish Civil War". I must say I was impressed by Orwell's (or should I say Blair's) writing style as it seemed very distant from 1984. I found it difficult to put Homage down despite being very busy with work and other pressing issues. Nevertheless, I intend to explore the rest of Orwell's work. It is a real shame that he died at such a young age. One can only wonder whether such genius had more to offer or otherwise simply ran out of steam. Regardless, I am rather grateful for being gifted such an important work.



View all my reviews

From: The Conversation: Archaic cross-media ownership laws won't save local content

© Depositphotos.com/@marzolino

Communication minister Malcolm Turnbull’s proposal for changes to cross-media ownership laws has reignited calls for the government to protect local content.

On the surface, it appears reasonable to expect government to regulate for the provision of local news coverage. Indeed, Nationals leader Warren Truss wants to ensure that “genuine localism” is maintained should there be any changes to cross-media ownership laws.

With Australia’s population concentrated in the larger metropolitan regions, “the bush” is rarely seen as a profitable market for commercial media operators, hence the assumption that government should intervene. But are traditional concerns about content versus carriage relevant in the NBN era?

Content is one thing…

Nine Network chief David Gyngell has labelled Australia’s media ownership laws “archaic”, arguing media companies will struggle to invest in their local news content without the ability to expand beyond the current level limited by the law.

Commonly referred to as the “two out of three rule”, ownership of more than two of either television, radio or newspaper services in a given region is prohibited. And no individual provider is permitted to reach more than 75% of the population. Further, regional free-to-air broadcasters are required to provide local media content throughout Tasmania, and regional areas of NSW, Queensland and Victoria. It is likely that any consolidation of existing media interests will signal the end of regional broadcasters WIN TV, Prime Television and Southern Cross. But will this mean the end of local content?

Carriage is another…

When you can access global content via NBN, the distinction between television, radio and newspaper will no longer matter. And how can you limit a provider’s online reach? Improvements to broadband, driven by the NBN, enable global content to be consumed ubiquitously. Consequently, restricting cross-media ownership for the sake of parochial interests will only assist global competitors. Existing ownership rules restrict the business models available to local firms.

With global competition, it is folly to think that government can legislate for localism. Today, major portions of content on television and online are actually generated by consumers (famously labelled “prosumers” by Alvin Toffler in 1980). However, old-school localism is substantially one-sided.

The former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chief Graeme Samuel argues the issues of carriage and content are being confused. If there is demand for local media content, then the market will deliver it. This view reflects the global trend towards the reconvergence of the communications industries that were deliberately segregated during the 19th century.

The concept of the common carrier emerged to ensure telegraph operators could not control the distribution of news stories to newspapers. Obviously, regulating carriage in an era where television, radio and newspaper content can all be delivered via the internet is rather passé.

Part of the cross-ownership legacy is the way we watch television. Many lounge rooms are dominated by a television. Consequently, free-to-air programs remain popular as it is comfortable to simply sit down and watch TV. But devices such as the XBox and Telstra T-Box enable online content from global providers (such as Youtube and Netflix) to be watched in the same manner. This means the government’s ability to protect local content through regulation will be increasingly over-stated as online content becomes part of our ingrained habit of consuming television programming. Indeed, the government has indicated it is unwilling to prevent Australians from accessing legitimate services from overseas providers.

Defining localism

Often neglected in this debate is whether localism ever existed in the first place. Until the 1990s, regional areas such as Queensland’s far north had only two local television stations. Local, yes, but hardly diverse. And viewers had virtually no ability to participate in the development of local content. Localism is much more than simply requiring commercial television stations to provide local news services. Which begs the question: what is “genuine localism”?

Broadband services certainly enable greater consumer participation in news media production. And the rise of Facebook and Twitter have seen changes in the ways that news media content is consumed.

Discrete groups of like-minded individuals sharing information via social networks would be the closest thing to a “genuine” localism. But how any Australian media provider can compete in this global space with one of its three “arms” tied behind its back is anybody’s guess.

The traditionally separate news media carriage services do not have the influential power they once had. The reach of news media services is not restricted by the type of infrastructure used. These older telecommunications and broadcasting networks were necessarily controlled by national governments and regulating content was much more practicable. The reconvergence of news media services, facilitated by NBN, makes the cross-ownership laws increasingly irrelevant.

Social networks transform the traditional top-down localism of television programming to a more participatory localism driven by consumers. This further erodes the relevance of Australia’s cross-ownership laws.

There are valid concerns for the regions that market failure may prevent local commercial news service delivery. But equally, regionally-focused companies with markets demarcated by outmoded ideas about communications technologies will not help.

Placing restrictions on cross-media ownership where the distinction no longer exists is hardly the recipe for a commercially viable and internationally competitive communications industry. Ideas about localism need to change too if the advantages of reconvergence are to be realised by Australian media companies. Indeed, regulating for localism may well benefit overseas competitors rather than the people it was designed to serve.

Michael de Percy does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Tragedy of the Television Network: You can't legislate localism

© Depositphotos.com/@lunamarina

In today's Australian newspaper, Communication Minister Malcolm Turnbull's attempt to bring about media reform has met the usual calls for protecting local content. In Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss' words, "genuine localism" needs to be protected so that "local content, diversity and local presence" are not eroded.

Having experienced "genuine localism" in Canada's very diverse and locally-driven communications industry, I find it difficult to see how government can create "genuine localism" here in Australia.  Legislating localism is a purely Australian approach to politics and much of this stems from the Federal Government's centralising tendency which has snowballed since federation over a century ago. But what does "genuine localism" mean?

In the media regulation space, Levy (2003) referred to problems of conducting research on policies relating to competition, diversity, and localism and the impact of new media on traditional media. At the time of Levy's speech, many of the now-popular social media sites were inaccessible to most Australians, either because the sites were yet to be created or otherwise a lack of access to broadband which enables a full multi-media Internet experience. Since then, of course, the impact of new media on traditional media has been significant.

Levy (2003) mentions research that determines how people actually use traditional and new media as an important metric for media regulation. In the reinvigorated Australian media ownership debate, there has been little debate about the impact of new media on localism, with an entrenched belief that somehow local television and radio stations are uniquely placed to "fix" such policy problems and restore localism to communities. But that still does not help us understand what is meant by localism.

In examining different approaches to development, Mohan & Stokke (2000) consider the extent that localism dominates opposing views of how best to develop society. In particular, they point out that "revised neoliberalism and post-Marxism share... a belief that states or markets cannot and should not be solely responsible for ensuring social equality and welfare growth". However, each opposing extreme differs in the impact of "top-down" (revised neoliberal) versus "bottom-up" (post-Marxian) approaches to institutional reform. The former suggests that state agencies and community organisations can enable greater participation whereas the latter suggests an approach which represents "a challenge to hegemonic interests within the state and the market" (Mohan & Stokke 2000: 249). The important point for the discussion here is that an attempt to "valoris[e] the local over the general" may well be a consequence of a "political space" that has been either "imagined" or "constructed" over time. Indeed, the National Party's platform of protecting rural Australia is a value widely shared in the community, as can be seen in the recent government and charitable initiatives for farmers suffering from drought. Car manufacturers were not so fortunate.

Defensive localism may be considered a by-product of an imagined or constructed political space. For instance, the growing trend towards the purchasing of organically-produced food is often conflated with purchasing locally-grown food products which may or may not be organic. Such localism, Winter's (2003: 29) research suggests, is largely "an ideology of localism based on sympathy for farmers" rather than necessarily a demand for higher-quality produce. Localism, then, may be considered an ideal rather than a reality in a national policy context.

Pratchett's (2004: 358) identification of three different conceptualisations of local autonomy is relevant here: "as freedom from central interference; as freedom to effect particular outcomes; and as the reflection of local identity". In an age where, increasingly, Toffler's (1980) "prosumer" (a consumer of media content who also participates in the development of such content) is prevalent, regulating traditional media on the basis of a hierarchical top-down media production model denies the contemporary reality of the ability of "prosumers" to participate in media content production. Albeit consumers may provide suggestions for existing television programs such as "Suggest a Story" for Channel 7's Sunrise program (see also Channel 9), this provides only limited participation at the fringes of Australian commercial television news media. Based on Pratchett's conceptualisations, local autonomy, freedom from central interference and freedom to effect particular outcomes are not present, but local television content may indeed reflect some aspects of a local identity.

There are many other studies which further develop the concept of localism but for my purposes here, the concept of localism in Australian news media content (aside from a handful of community television stations such as 31 Digital in Queensland), there are no truly local, as opposed to national, commercial television programs produced in Australia), is based on an imagined or constructed political space that refers, in particular, to the existing regional television networks and the local consumers of such news media. It is quite a normative idea about how things "ought" to be.

Moreover, for Briffault (2000), localism "is not simply a theory intended to advance certain normative goals. It is also a means of protecting the interests of those who receive advantages from the existing governance structure". Yet "genuine localism" would seem to be very much a normative concept: freedom from interference by a central, market-driven news media provider; freedom to participate in the production of local news media content; all the while projecting a sense of local identity. Based on the limitations of traditional media, broadcasting can only continue to reflect the local identity. This is far from ideal and certainly only as genuine as the producers of such content can reflect the diversity of any given community. It follows that such reflections can only be achieved through regulation as there is hardly a market incentive for such an expensive commercial activity.

Which brings me to the "genuine localism" so staunchly defended by the National Party and the difficulties that now face Mr Turnbull. The localism purported to exist in the traditional news media industry is expensive, short-lived, and can only be achieved through regulation. To enable a diverse, professional and commercially successful news media service in Australia - which can compete with the influx of overseas news media that now permeates both traditional and "new" media (to use the somewhat passé term) - requires much more than staunchly defending the status quo that existed in the previous century. But the major difficulty for Turnbull is navigating through "the interests of those who receive advantages from the existing governance structure". Given that the National Party is firmly entrenched in the Coalition, Turnbull's free market ideals will no doubt be reined in by the National's (along with Labor's) default protectionist position.

While there is no clear answer to the Australian media ownership puzzle, the Right's twentieth century policy dilemma - free trade or protectionism - is a fitting backdrop for those who persist with twentieth century views about news media production. You can't legislate localism.

References

Briffault, R. (2000). Localism and regionalism. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=198822.

Levy, J.D. (2003). Statement by Deputy Chief Economist of the Federal Communications Commission to the Conference on Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning Metrics, and the Public Interest, Fordham University, New York, 15-16 December.

Mohan, G. & Stokke, K. (2000). Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 247-268. doi:10.1080/01436590050004346.

Pratchett, L. (2004). Local Autonomy, Local Democracy and the ‘New Localism’. Political Studies, 52(2), 358-375. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00484.x.

Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 23–32.

Book Notes: "Hemingway: The Paris Years" by Michael S. Reynolds

Hemingway: The Paris Years by Michael S. Reynolds

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


Having read Reynolds' Hemingway in the 30s, I found The Paris Years to be less dull and more like a Hemingway novel. This may well be a result of more information being available about this time period (from A Moveable Feast and so forth) but otherwise, by the second half of the book, this volume had me hooked.



View all my reviews

e-Commerce, not social media, the real driver of Net benefits

© Depositphotos.com/@alexroz

It has long been my hope that the Net would be a great freedom machine that would break down the old institutions, making way for a deeper, richer, more transparent form of citizen-led politics to fulfil the yet-to-be-truly-realised ideals of liberal democracy. In early 2007, I tried as best I could to use social media as the new "public sphere" that would give citizens more power over the "unrepresentative swill". Needless to say, it hardly made a dent.

I used Facebook, Yammer, Twitter, blogs and wikis in my teaching and focused on developing my students' Web 2.0 skills. But by the beginning of 2012, I was disillusioned. Facebook had listed on the NASDAQ, every journalist and their dog had taken over Twitter, and the same old gatekeepers had subsumed the new media into the old institutions. Yammer looked exactly like Facebook, and I could not search for any product online without getting bombarded with ads that either I or my most active "friends" had looked at in the past few hours. Not only that, but social media meant that all I did was endlessly help people who no longer needed to help themselves. It convinced me that there was nothing substantially new about new media, and since then I have focused more closely on the use of historical institutionalism to understand what helps and hinders the deployment of high technology infrastructure rather than the applications associated with such infrastructure. 

I no longer use a mobile phone, I am no longer on Facebook or Twitter or Yammer or LinkedIn, and I bought a typewriter and frequently write letters to the people who are most important to me, rather than endure endless "likes" and snide comments to and from people I only ever reconnected with because of Facebook. I must say life is much simpler, and I try to make effective use of technology rather than use technology for technology's sake. People love to receive hand-written letters and I have so many pen pals now I can hardly keep up. Things couldn't be better.

So while the Web 2.0 bubble might yet burst, does that mean that the Net has had its day? Has the old order really re-plastered the façade of not-quite-liberal democracy? Maybe. Maybe not.

While I have removed myself from social media, my online purchasing is quickly surpassing my face-to-face shopping. I assumed this was true of everyone but several vox pops suggest otherwise.

What does this have to do with the Net and liberal democracy? Well, first off, our political representatives are more likely to remind us of our responsibilities rather than to protect our rights. To quote the National Archives website:

The relationship between citizens and government is blurred by the absence of a clear definition of Australian citizenship, its rights and obligations.

The Australian Constitution merely sets out the administrative rules for the customs union of the former colonies, with no mention of citizens (except to exclude citizens of foreign powers from being elected) or rights beyond the right of "residents" to be treated equally in each state, and that the Commonwealth shall not make laws concerning religion. But that doesn't stop local councils from interfering in the practice of one's religion. The rights of citizenship require much more than the support of a political document to be "actualised".

The Museum of Australian Democracy outlines the major definitional problems associated with liberal democracies, and thankfully such resources which are still supported by the public purse are pure gold. And I am yet to see a display at Old Parliament House that does not cut through the patriotic blinkers. Moreover, I am constantly surprised by an increasing number of people who no longer believe in the old-fashioned "lucky country" propaganda - especially those who regularly travel overseas. But that doesn't mean that consumers have sufficient choice when it comes to available products and services.

The way I see it, if Australian citizens have more money in their pockets, then they are more in control of their own lot. If citizens have greater access to a range of choices of products and services, then they have more power as consumers. Indeed, the Boston Consulting Group suggests that the digital revolution was driven by consumers. So waiting around for political power to come to citizens as part of some trickle-down fantasy is just crazy talk. Especially now that Web 2.0 evolved into little more than the same-old-same-old with new typewriters.

There is little doubt that in protectionist economies, consumers are at the very bottom of the power tree. Where there are more firms competing for consumers' purchasing dollar, consumers have more power. It may not be sexy, but there is little doubt that the concept of liberal democracy as we know it was the result of the increasingly wealthy merchant class clawing their political representation from their (increasingly broke) former lords and masters.

For too long, Australians have been subjected to protectionist dogma in a market that can "bear" almost any price. It is certainly a "first-world problem", but compared to almost anywhere else in the developed world, and increasingly in the developing world, we pay far too much for inferior service and limited product choice. I may not have political representation, but I certainly don't have to pay for inferior products and services as long as I can purchase globally via the Net.

Which brings me to e-commerce. Why is it that an online book retailer in the UK can send me a copy of Hemingway's A Moveable Feast with free postage for less than the same book from an Australian store where the postage is also free. Is it because Australia Post charges more than Royal Mail? I doubt it. Try searching for something obscure like food-grade Dolomite and see how that turns out (US$4.79 in the US, not available from online retailers in Australia, apparently).

And while not every consumer will have access to a Costco warehouse, it is pretty clear that the Great Australian Grocery Duopoly (not to mention tyres, electronics and so on) in Australia has a limited shelf-life. Change is possible, but it takes a major overseas player to change the rules. While the average consumer has no ability to usher in the next Costco to the Australian marketplace, the Net, that great freedom machine, provides a power far greater than any Web 2.0 application is ever likely to achieve other than assisting with targeted marketing.

My prediction is that Web 2.0 will eventually become like unwanted telemarketers and television advertisements which get the old mute button treatment once viewers reach a certain age. It will certainly make many people rich in the meantime, but its political clout, much like the television, will likely benefit the news media and politicians directly while citizens will only (marginally) benefit from the indirect benefits of greater access to information.

But e-commerce is where the power really lies, especially for consumers geographically confined to Australia's still-mostly-protected market. The Net increases choices for consumers and although e-commerce is yet to mature in Australia, it is clearly only a matter of time. Maybe not clear to some people, but to the average consumer it makes good sense.

The industrial revolution didn't happen overnight, and the dot.com bubble burst and maybe the Web 2.0 bubble will burst soon enough, too. But keep your eye on e-commerce. And focus on the Net as infrastructure. There is no such thing as a "killer app". Institutional change is more likely to occur as a result of a redistribution of wealth as the old guard gives way to the new. 

Liberal democracy came about as a result of increasing commercial power, coupled with an increasingly free market. It makes sense that increasing consumer power will enable greater citizen power. It wasn't citizen-led power that brought about political change, it was economic prosperity brought about by the increasingly free movement of goods and services. Just ask Adam Smith. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen...