Nine-Fairfax merger: Victory for synergy leaves journalism fighting for survival

The Nine-Fairfax merger is a watershed moment for Australian journalism. No matter that it — or something like it — has been long predicted. No matter that it most probably won’t be the last media merger. No matter that reaching for scale is the obvious (though not the only) antidote to digital disruption and the collapse of advertising revenues.

The country’s news landscape — and the provision of quality journalism — will be irrevocably changed if the marriage goes ahead as planned. The question is, will it be for better or worse for journalism?

There are potential positives. Both companies have distinct, ­diverse and largely loyal audiences. Advertisers will love it. Will more money mean more journalism? Probably not. But it really shouldn’t mean less.

Both companies do practise quality journalism, though, it’s fair to say, when I think Fairfax I think of the journalism first, with Nine, I think of sport, entertainment and lifestyle. The Block (brought to you soon by Domain) comes up before, say, 60 Minutes. Both have reach — the merged company will be the dominant force by numbers in online news.

Having scale will increase that reach and should in theory make innovation less of a risky, let’s-not-bet-the-house proposition. And innovation, rather than cost-cutting, in terms of product and content is the name of the game. Whether the impulse to innovate in New Nine will extend first to the journalism is anyone’s guess.

But provided there isn’t ­another mass exodus at Fairfax (or Nine) then there are plenty of ­talented people in the merged entity to seize the challenges ahead.

Getting the video strategy right at both companies — and by extension the mobile strategy — should be a first order. Dealing with (or not) the influence of Google and Facebook another. What will the New Nine news look like on Instagram and Snapchat? How will the companies exploit voice-activated smart speakers to do good journalism? And, what about deep investigative journalism now that Fairfax and the ABC will, presumably, no longer be common bedfellows?

You have to hope the merged entity will be up for most if not all of these challenges. Because the alternative is, frankly, a shit sandwich for everyone; for the journalists, for the role journalism plays in holding the powerful honest and, more ­importantly, for the audiences who rely on what journalists do.

So far, the signs are not overly positive, it has to be said. The ­j-word (for journalism) and the n-word (for news) barely got a mention in the announcement of the merger. Nine’s Hugh Marks was all about Stan and Domain, the final Fairfax stream of silver. Fairfax’s Greg Hywood was all about shareholder value. Fair enough, he is a CEO — a departing one at that. He did mention independence at the staff meeting. But independence isn’t the issue right now. Yes, Nine and Fairfax have very different cultures. But I don’t see editorial interference being the top order issue. What’s at stake is diversity of voice and quality of journalism. Every day.

Rightly or wrongly, Hywood will be remembered as the man who did what a Murdoch or a Packer never managed to do: he killed off the name Fairfax. The name carries weight, history and instant meaning. So do the mastheads and they will survive, though for how long in print is again a pertinent question. Perhaps the recent printing merger with News Corp will buy the print products time. But Marks is not a print fan. My guess, and it is only that, is that print will go within two years.

The New Nine (and the old Fairfax) will not be an overly happy place. The staff will be feeling it. They always do. But this time the Fairfax faithful know the wheel has truly turned. As the ever-sharp SMH investigative journalist Kate McClymont ­observed, “So after 150-plus years this is all we get (from Hywood): ‘I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to Fairfax’.”

More details, many of them unappealing, will emerge over coming days, weeks and months. Talk of $50 million in savings is a) very small given the merger is creating a $4 billion giant so therefore b) most likely an underestimate and c) highly unlikely to be quarantined from the newsrooms. It is hard to know where the big savings are in the journalism front.

Sure, the new company can share, say, staff in Canberra and in state political bureaus. But you’d think the potential brand damage would offset cost savings. The first place to look will be the Fairfax radio stations and the regions. It is possible, likely even, that new buyers will emerge for the Fairfax ­regional assets. That would be a positive result from this merger.

Regional Australians need more diversity of voice than that provided by the ABC, even if it is the most trusted media brand going around. The New Nine will have other priorities. The word synergy will be bandied about ad nauseam. So will the word quality. Let’s all hope that when it is, it will be attached to the word journalism and not just last night’s TV ratings. There are some very fine journalists at both Nine and Fairfax. Their voices need to be heard.

Peter Fray is co-director of the Centre for Media Transition at UTS; a former editor-in-chief and publisher of The Sydney Morning Herald and a former deputy editor of The Australian.