The Talkback Radio Genre in Australia - Essay Example

What was ‘cash for comment’? Explain its controversy and issues in relation to the understandings and origins of the talkback radio genre in Australia. Has the behaviour of talkback hosts changed significantly since ‘cash for comment’? Why / why not? In the current real world that fully recognizes right or entitlement to dues of acquiring income or payment in exchange of an independent job based solely on good potentials, ‘Cash for Comment’ should sound like every much sought-after opportunity beyond ethical conduct or moral claim. Equivalently, this is to imply that given liberty of serving personal growth and interests alone without stepping over similar rights of other individuals, one may take pride in earning bucks filthy enough by the quantity and act to the extent of breaching terms of integrity. It is as if the condition imposed by the latter must be absent and related criticisms be relieved of for ‘Cash for Comment’ to prove its state of affairs blameless among involved parties, say of journalists primarily, who could be gaining mass after mass of wealth if allowed the entire freedom from elements of guilt with deliberate immodest advances. This, however, is never the case for the 1999 scandal in the field of mass communication which itself introduced the label phrase ‘Cash for Comment’ through major personalities known to have gone into certain wicked ways running counter to the intended course of noble and responsible journalism. To recall prominent names as John Laws, Alan Jones, 2UE, and the Australian Bankers’ Association is to likewise give key ideas that would in brief concretize depiction of the ‘Cash for Comment’ incident. In particular, the event marked the turning point in history of an industry for which heightened skepticisms were raised following ABC’s Media Watch program expose in July 1999 of Sydney’s talkback radio show host John Laws whose positive on-air opinions regarding financial institutions were alleged to have been arranged as merchandise for the sponsoring banks. Laws basically failed to disclose in public the nature of commercial negotiations made with the sponsors, leading thus to serious charges against the station’s licensee 2UE for not complying with suitable regulations set through the Commercial Radio Code of Conduct which by Australian Broadcasting Authority or ABA requires commercial radio licensees to ensure no viewpoints are misrepresented or relevant information is withheld. ABA divulged findings of breaches incurred by 2UE through Laws’s fault of promoting remarkable critique for banks and banking industry on-air which according to ABA was actually made with the objective of reducing negative comments by J. Laws “from a present average of four a week to nil, concurrently receive positive comments from Mr. Laws, over and above the paid advertisements..” (Johnson, 2000). So, during the incident John Laws, along with Alan Jones whose involvement eventually got dismissed, was in acquisition of massive sum or cash in return after granting affiliates the desired comments within the program and public forum. At this point, the presenter likely gave into a trance-like state of seeing nothing else of significance but his craft while no border distinguished his knowledge of integrity from that of editing a known existing truth. Such shameless deed of crossing the line that resulted to negligence of duty and of respect for responsible broadcasting deserves regulatory sanctions having violated the fourth section of the Broadcasting Services Act of 1992, stating “to encourage providers of commercial and community broadcasting to be responsive to the need for a fair and accurate coverage of matters of public interest and for appropriate coverage of matters of local significance.” (ABA, 2000). Similarly, the Commercial Radio Code of Conduct expressed agreement to the violation committed by the licensee based upon its requisite of guaranteeing that all advertisements be not presented as news or any other programs (ABA, 2000). Consequently, this whole ‘Cash for Comment’ controversy manifests every possibility of imperfections against the established governing regulations either by the aforementioned Act or Code. A rational and ethical mind would not help judging how self-regulated industry as such could be incapable of correcting flaws within talkback radio system especially when the same misdeeds recurred twenty five times in John Laws’s own program at 2UE airing between July of 2002 and March of 2003. As if perhaps the breaching practice has been unconsciously around and adhered to in the earlier times of talkback radio, the medium highly opted by most politicians and high profile public figures in general, it was logically inconvenient to reverse the flow of occurrences with sensationalism that greatly emerged on top of truths and their supposed balanced publicity. ‘Cash for Comment’ affair could have then begun as early as the birth of the talkback genre itself involving money and power which has generously served talkback personalities who trade in astute cleverness to produce the ever wanted biases that have never gotten out of style and function. By function, media of this form could either make or break a rising subject of popularity and twist reputations as seen fit through the mode of mutualism between the people behind the talkback operation and any one among the sectors of prominence to be endorsed. Because the talkback radio trend unavoidably coexists with television and medium via news prints (Gould, 2007), anomalous connections are by experience a commonplace and the struggle to achieve power or the most privileged social and economic status has been politically manipulated among these media. Seemingly, there could be no other potential route without having to go through tight and dirty competition and in a cycle, media and people herein have grown real tough in dealing with the tradition of one party generating scandals or sensitive issues for huge bucks at the expense of the other party, falling back on scratches or the ground of no return. It appears that regardless of their substance, comments are conveyed out to the public of interest to stream in cash. Out of this scenario could be pictured the shape of seeking and understanding justice where a rightful distinction may be put on stating ‘there is nothing wrong with earning or accepting payments’ but ‘doing so incredulously’ draws a bold line somewhere to suggest that paths taken to obtain success or rewards truly matter in this kind of industry. To an Australian society thoughtful enough to scrutinize about how talkback radio mechanism works, since advertising prevails in it more than in the opposite music stations, the appreciative multitude of listeners may as well infer that talkback presenters are more lucratively compensated so that prior to the regulatory provisions of ABA, ‘Cash for Comment’ affair could have already transpired in a number of attempts, knowing that by nature, increased revenues for an organization amplifies likelihood to profit orientation more than quality or anything else, making it prone to corruption. Since this fast-paced spontaneous course of incidence takes no other route than to attribute the talkback service with the nature of commerce, it goes to the fate of several usually harsh criticisms of the general mass and fellow reporters alike. To Gillian Appleton, program presenters have their ‘right-wing, populist’ tendencies which have caught media’s attention (Appleton, 1999) and for Kate McMillan, “talkback’s propensity to focus discussion on divisive issues such as racial or sexual politics, in which ethnic, cultural and religious minorities are the focus of negative debate” (McMillan, 2005, p75). Phillip Adams and Lee Burton, better known as Emperors of Air, expressed: “Talkback is the nadir of Australian media. It is characterized by sleaze and hypocrisy, by bombast and bigotry, by cynical populism and feigned rage.” (Adams & Burton, 1997, pp25-26). Furthermore, a study by Glen Lewis of Pauline Hanson’s media coverage in 1996 had assessed that “commercial talkback radio is a seeding ground for discriminations, ignorance, and prejudice in Australia, just as it has been in the US” (Lewis, 1997, p11). Talkback radio critiques have for several years maligned or dismissed talkback radio as ‘populist’, perfunctory or excessive. By concentrating on the sensational aspects of the genre nevertheless, they have often overlooked the agency of this form of communication. Anyway, adequate basis has surfaced besides the famous, almost trademark case of John Laws, broadcasting regulators identified that a number of other talkback radio hosts such as Jeremy Cordeaux in Adelaide and Howard Sattler in Perth had been remiss in declaring all commercial interests, and that henceforth all radio announcers must openly declare all commercial affiliations (Gould, 2007). Station owner and Adelaide broadcaster Jeremy Cordeaux, for example, was criticized during the regulatory inquiry for the initiative taken by his station in raising revenue. The ABC reported at the time that – For $30,000 businesses could secure industry authority status on the Jeremy Cordeaux program, and whenever a comment on the client's area of business was required, Cordeaux would use someone from that organisation. The station's former news director Neil Vissy claims he was subjected to pressure from management to tailor news bulletins to meet the desires of clients. (ABC, 2000) John Laws has indeed set the benchmark for active product endorsement since the 1970s abruptly becoming known in the industry as a master salesman and holding commercial agreements with a number of sizeable corporations: Qantas, Toyota, Valvoline, McGuigan Simeon Wines, Sony BMG Music, Biomedica, Dymocks, Telstra, Key Sun Laboratories, and Insurance Australia Limited (Gould, 2007). His long career in radio included penning of poetry books and inspiring two autobiographies. Laws’s personal endorsement contract type is offered generally only to show hosts capable of attracting advertisers through their established names with enormous audience size. Perhaps it was due to this overwhelmingly strong reputation that 2UE did not care much about overlooking policies when John Laws was found to commit the same breach of neglecting to reveal commercial affiliations three years after his first ‘Cash for Comment’ scandal. According to the watchdog, the station had "repeatedly" failed to adequately disclose on air Laws's arrangements with Telstra paying him between $100,000 and $500,000 and NRMA Insurance which subjected 2UE to random spot checks (Marriner, 2003). Upon evaluation that these breaches bore serious outcomes following a 13-month investigation, ABA referred to the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions and DPP correspondingly offered to fine a total charge of $1.4 million if the court shall find 2UE guilty of all 25 breaches (Marriner, 2003). Clearly, this concrete instance of repeated erroneousness demonstrates that no significant change or adjustment to misbehavior has taken place at least in the case of John Laws whose influence and affluent connections have earned for him a shield against opposing regulations. Apparently, regulations themselves are weak to this extent even as the Broadcasting Services Act gives the ABA authority to create and administer the Commercial Radio Code of Conduct. It turns out ten years after the Media Watch aired allegations that led to the ‘Cash for Comment’ inquiry and subsequent industry shake-up, while commercial radio regulations were tightened intensely, both J. Laws and Alan Jones of the 2GB’s breakfast program continued to breach the codes and standards of the Australian Communication and Media Authority or ACMA formed upon the merging of ABA with the Australian Communications Authority. Jones and Laws occur to think of themselves as above the law as they came up with joint funding of more than one lawyer’s retirement from a string of defamation and contempt case fees (Smith, 2009). At present, the result of such misbehavior is rather looked up to in a modern perspective of considering flexible possibilities for which regulations might find coping with difficulty, especially that the presence of internet and the means to explore it have gone beyond control of pertinent legislations and citizen journalism as a result has developed into a new source of current affairs. Dissemination of relevant information and other visible materials which could be made under various presentations are all over the worldwide web and almost any computer literate individual may have access to all sorts of uploaded information or ideas through this alternative popular medium. Independent writers who are not completely aware about compliance to codes of ethics in this aspect of journalism cannot be held liable and regulated for the content of their paid written articles unless they plagiarize with frequency. Advertising nowadays has mostly preferred the use of ‘blogs’ where advertisers pay ‘bloggers’ to commercialize products in their terms so whether or not the writer chooses to disclose agreements behind such promotion, the blogger is under no obligation to follow and be suppressed by certain regulations that impose upon him the necessity to publish compromise made with the advertiser from which the writer receives ‘cash’ for ‘comments’ filled with wonders. References Adams, P. and Burton, L. (1997) Talkback: Emperors of the Air, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Australian Broadcasting Authority (2000). Commercial Radio Inquiry. Sydney, Australia, Commonwealth of Australia: 141. Appleton, G. (1999) ‘The lure of Laws: an analysis of the audience appeal of the John Laws program’, Media International Australia, No. 91, May, pp. 83-97. Gould, L. (2007) ‘Cash and Controversy: A Short History of Commercial Talkback’, Media International Australia, No. 122, pp. 81-95. Johnson, R. (2000) Cash for Comment: The Seduction of Journo Culture, Pluto Press, Annandale. ABC TV (2000) Media Watch, 24 May and 25 October. Marriner, C. (2003). John Laws and 2UE Are At It Again. [online] Available at: [Accessed 21 May 2011]. McMillan, Kate. (2005). Racial Discrimination and Political Bias on Talkback Radio in New Zealand: Assessing the Evidence. Political Science, 57(2), 75-91. Lewis, Glen. (1997). The Media and the Pauline Hanson Debate: Cheap talk or free speech? Australian Journal of Communication, 24(1), 9-41. Smith, B. (2009). Law and Regulation. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 May 2011]. Read More