News Limited chief executive Kim Williams warns on media curbs

MOVES to impose greater government regulation on the media were a threat to democracy, says News chief executive Kim Williams.

Kim Williams

MOVES to impose greater government regulation on the media were a threat to democracy and could provide for "star chamber" judgments on journalism, says News Limited chief executive Kim Williams.

"It can never be the role of government regulators to oversee editorial positions, it's a basic democratic line that should never be crossed, no matter how aggrieved a government feels," Mr Williams said at the 2012 A.N. Smith Lecture in Journalism at the University of Melbourne last night.

Noting massive changes to digital modes of news delivery and print, he took aim at the government-instigated Convergence Review and Finkelstein Inquiry into Australian media, saying they reflected "a grave threat to press freedom".

"The best thing government can do in this environment is accept the realities of digital empowerment and craft policies that respect and travel with this change rather than try an inevitably futile route to contain, control and supervise in the service of political interest," Mr Williams said.

"Journalism and the democracy it celebrates and serves depend on it."

He said a central recommendation of the Finkelstein inquiry was a statutory body with power to seek court orders to fine and jail those it judged to have contravened regulations.

"But it is unfettered by the normal checks and balances such as a requirement that it must publish reasons for its decisions or even that its decisions are appealable," Mr Williams said.

"In short, it junks natural justice in favour of fast processes and absolute authority - it is nothing more than a star chamber.

"This is not trite banter on my part, it is a serious issue requiring serious and persistent resistance."

He said the Government's motivation was an alleged bias and continued attempts to influence policy through the press.

"Who determines anti-government bias in a democracy?" he said.

"Since when has it been wrong for newspapers to have clear and distinct editorial positions on key questions of the day?"

He said strong media knew what it stood for and based their economic welfare on knowing their readers.

"Good publications know what they believe in, they know their readers. They should take positions, otherwise they risk becoming mush."

Those who supported greater regulation of a free press "think that the judgment of sophisticated regulators is superior to the judgment of ordinary Australian citizens.

"That judges, ministers and bureaucrats know better than people who buy newspapers. There is a profoundly undemocratic undercurrent at the bottom of the media regulation push today."

Mr Williams said the challenges facing the media in the "third industrial revolution" were significant but new digital technologies and accessibility were themselves drivers of media diversity.