Why Australia's Gina Rinehart could be the saviour of news

Look out, Murdoch. Australia has a new media baron on the make. Australia's richest woman, Gina Rinehart, is making a play for Fairfax, one of the country's largest media groups. It's a serious concern for a country that has waxed and waned on the topic of media control over the decades. 


Fairfax has long held its head high, thanks to its Charter of Editorial Independence stipulating that the board and owners have no input on media content. In light of Ms. Rinehart's plans, however, it has come to light that none of the current board has signed that Charter. It was understood to be a standing agreement between the board and staff, but some people now fear that a new owner could argue that the lack of current signatories renders the Charter moot.


Given that both Australia's economy and its politics is in the red hot grip of the resource and mining sector, it's a huge concern. But what does this really mean for media independence in Australia? The government is openly debating the need for stricter regulation and greater government control over media ownership. But in the current, turbulent media landscape, the Fairfax issue could in fact speed up the transition to the new future of media, without the need for government to pull the strings.


If Rinehart dismisses the Charter to push for a more conservative, mining-friendly editorial direction, she renders the Fairfax brand worthless. She robs herself by devaluing her brand. Turning Fairfax into yet another conservative mouthpiece (as if Australia needs more conservative voices in its public discourse) will attract a certain kind of reader, yes. But it will lose many more.

Of course, this has huge implications for news coverage. If yet another news outlet is having layoffs and heading to the conservative hills, that means there will be less unbiased reporting to go around, which is a tragedy for democracy. But those (huge) concerns aside, without the charter, Fairfax has a greatly reduced editorial value, and today's readers will treat it as such.

Mass media has almost always been in the hands of barons and super-elite owners. To retain a position of broad authority, a media outlet must maintain a strong editorial reputation. Without it, the outlet becomes a mouthpiece of dubious value and integrity. It always was and ever will be thus.


What is different now? Readers. While they cannot democratize media ownership, they certainly are democratizing consumption. Moves like the scrapping of the Charter actually open the door for a new kind of news provision, perhaps one that leaves the barons out of the loop entirely (think spot.us and the like). If Gina Rinehart buys Fairfax and does not sign the Charter, she might just help usher in a new future of news, a future in which she has no place at all.