The eternal dilemma of $$

First Meta, now potentially the bookies! Funding sources for Australian media seem to be dropping like flies. 

While the decision whether to completely ban gambling advertising on free-to-air television has yet to be made, the prospect has ignited the usual political firestorm, this time centred on the impact such a ban will have on Australia’s free-to-air broadcasters. 

The Minister for Government Services and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Bill Shorten, says free-to-air broadcasters are in “diabolical trouble” and need gambling ad revenue to stay afloat. At the same time, he says that "[i]t’s fair to say a lot of us don’t watch it much”. So why should we care whether the government bans gambling on free-to-air television and the potential existential impact on its revenue? 

One reason we should care, Shorten appears to argue, is the “massive attack by Facebook” against free-to-air media. Like a knight in shining armour, Shorten has valiantly come to the rescue of commercial television and its revenue streams, saying we should continue embracing one evil – gambling – to fight off the effects of another – reliance on platform funding. 

While the current rhetoric is focusing on protecting free-to-air to counteract the scourge of relying on technology companies, there are other valid reasons for ensuring its survival. Despite dropping viewership, free-to-air is still considered a vital source for reliable and trustworthy news, not to mention local content and making freely available “moments of national importance”. Nine's recent free coverage of the Olympics is one great example of this. 

Whatever the motivations may be, one thing we can conclusively note is that the quandary around secure, long-term financial funding for Australian media was present well before the issue of a reduction in gambling revenue surfaced. 

Amid this gambling debate and Meta’s announcement that it won’t be renewing its media funding deals, the idea of a social media levy has been generating interest. 

While such a levy has been proposed specifically as an aid to fund Australian journalism, it should be viewed through a wider lens. News Corp Australia’s Michael Miller called for tech platforms to “pay” for a social licence. Such an approach would fund not only media organisations but broader public initiatives such as mental health programs. 

That is a compelling idea. As the adage goes, “if something is free, you are the product.” A social media or tech levy is, in practice, a resource tax. The information on individual Australians that tech companies leverage for advertising revenue is the resource. Profits on this resource should flow back to Australians. 

Kieran Lindsay, CMT Researcher