In the wake of the News of the World scandal, the British Government media regulator Ofcom has deferred its decision on whether Rupert Murdoch and his executives are 'fit and proper' to increase their stake in the dominant Pay TV operator BSkyB, which is seen to be the country's most important media property.
Ofcom faces immense challenges in deciding because the law that sets out the requirement does not explain what is meant by 'fit and proper'. If it was about financial solvency there would be no doubt about Murdoch's suitability. More likely it's moral solvency, and that's where his credentials are questionable.
We might think our parents and teachers taught us how to separate right from wrong. But for many, these early influences have been supplanted by others, specifically media opinions and role models.
The media is no doubt the most influential agent in forming the opinions of Australians on the morality of issues such as detaining asylum seekers or imposing a price on carbon. We may not be conscious of the fact that we take our moral cues from the media, and that media proprietors are the most powerful moral arbiters in western society. But if Murdoch has the largest share of media ownership, he is the dominant influence on our choice of right and wrong.
Recent research commissioned by Amnesty International has shown that it matters greatly what we are told, or not told, by the media. Essential Media, which did the polling, found that anti-asylum seeker sentiments are fuelled by misconceptions and a lack of facts rather than racism.
This demonstrates that our judgment of what is right and wrong is largely determined by the information and viewpoints that editors choose to present. For example media headlines and commentators frequently refer to asylum seekers as 'illegals'. Therefore many Australians believe refugees are violating our sovereignty when they arrive in Australia seeking asylum. Editors also decide how much prominence to give to the views of commentators like Piers Ackerman, relative to those of experts such as Julian Burnside.
Obviously it is the task of editors to select which facts the public should be exposed to. But the community needs to be satisfied that editors and the proprietors who employ them are 'fit and proper', and that their selection is geared towards making the world a better place to live in for all. John Menadue of the Centre for Policy Development is one leading