Action over Facebook threat has echoes of US President Teddy Roosevelt's bold anti-trust initiative 120 years ago, writes Raynor Asher. Photo / AP
Action over Facebook threat has echoes of US President Teddy Roosevelt's bold anti-trust initiative 120 years ago, writes Raynor Asher. Photo / AP
Opinion
OPINION:
The threat by Facebook to ban all Australian reported news, and prevent its sharing or posting around the world, appears to be over. Now Facebook has abandoned the threat and stopped the ban, it is worth reflecting on what has occurred.
Facebook had implemented a policy that would have prevented the dissemination of Australian-sourced media news to the public. There are two matters to note.
The first is the bold and original initiative taken by the Australian Federal Government. It did something, and introduced a radical new concept of regulation. President Teddy Roosevelt was similarly bold when the United States faced the rampant growth of anti-competitive monopolistic behaviour by big business 120 years ago. He forced a change of practice with anti-trust laws.
The resistance of Facebook to the recent Australian legislation echoed the strenuous efforts made by the US captains of big industry to resist such efforts and the public interest. Those efforts were unsuccessful, and the US Government forced big business to curtail its instinct to be monopolistic and anti-competitive.
Those laws and their adaptions, preventing unfair competition have governed businesses ever since, and have spread around the world.
It would seem that the Australian Government's step to legislate in a new area to protect the public may also be successful. It is important that in any compromise the positive steps to maintain the mainstream media are not weakened.
Australian-sourced articles are back on the Facebook platform, and hopefully the legislation will result in a meaningful payment being made for them.
Thumbs-up "Like" logo on a sign at Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, California. Photo / AP
The second matter is the important issue for democracy that arose. The widespread dissemination of news and opinion is essential for open government. It puts misinformation in balance, and exposes corruption and bad practice.
It is to be remembered that in New Zealand and other similar countries, there is an assurance that the mainstream media is accountable for accuracy balance and fairness. In New Zealand, the mainstream media is required to meet principles and standards by the Media Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority. There is a complaints process.
That assurance of objectively reported news for Facebook users and this check on the news would have been lost if Facebook had continued with its ban.
If there was no mainstream news read by much of our population, where would they find sound information about the affairs of the day? Instead of mainstream media articles on Facebook, news would have come from any author or influencer with an opinion or a cause to pursue, who are accountable to no one. Most do not professionally and fairly report the news. The counter-balance of accountable mainstream media articles would have gone.
The Australian Government is to be applauded for its action, and the implications of the Facebook threat should not be forgotten. It is to be hoped the need for government action to protect the mainstream media will become a given, just as the Roosevelt anti-trust laws are now standard in democracies.
• Hon Raynor Asher, QC, is the chair of the New Zealand Media Council. He is a former president of the New Zealand Bar Association and a former judge of the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
