I made some observations a little while ago about Mark Scott’s A. N. Smith memorial lecture, principally concerned with his intervention in the debate about News Limited’s paywall strategy. Much of what Scott said has been discussed in a frame heavily shaped by the claim that there is a developing conflict between public broadcasters and declining commercial media empires, a perspective which Scott himself certainly encouraged. Much less attention has been paid to the implications of the ABC’s digital media strategy itself.
That’s a topic Marni Cordell takes up at New Matilda:
Scott’s speech was warmly welcomed by most if not all of the journalists, new media pundits and academics in attendance at Media140. Not a single hard-hitting question was asked of him at the time — or indeed, since, in any coverage of the event that I have read (people seem to be too busy firing shots at the very soft target of News Ltd journalist Caroline Overington who dared to talk about her own media organisation’s digital ‘vision’). I find this bizarre.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Scott’s efforts to align himself with the cutting edge of digital technology are commendable — a good public broadcaster should keep on top of new media developments and the ABC has mostly done so pretty well.
But how is that going to contribute to the production of “quality journalism” that these very same punters like to fret about? Missing from this debate — and from the uncritical applauding of Scott’s foray into community-driven content — seems to be a collective recognition that Scott oversees a very large part of a dwindling resource: that is, money to be spent on good, original journalism.
In comments on the piece, Cordell recognises that she ommitted to mention one question put to Scott at Media140 by a commenter on the thread – whether the ABC’s new local community hubs (for which 50 digital media producers are being hired) will pay people for their contributions, and if not, what that does to the income opportunities of freelance journos, film makers, and so on. The answer, as she notes, is probably obvious. In that context, it will be interesting to see whether the new ABC Online opinion site – to be edited by Jonathan Green, currently Crikey’s editor – will follow The Punch and The National Times and not pay contributors.
The hackneyed debates between social media proponents and opponents usually tend to obscure the central fact that both big and small media are contributing, whether consciously or otherwise, to a trend to outsource the production of content to unpaid or poorly paid labour. That’s recognised by some contributors to the debate, but tends to be obscured when the big guns are fired. Notions that “journalism will become an avocation” are tossed off too glibly, and in such a way as to obscure the political economy of the emerging media space. It should not be so, and ethically, I would strongly argue that public broadcasters have a duty not to be complicit in this trend.
Elsewhere: Margaret Simons.

Recent comments
myriad74, Fran Barlow, myriad74, myriad74, joe2, Fran Barlow [...]
Voxpop, Chris, Nabakov, Nabakov, Chookie, wbb [...]
Hal9000
Lloyd, Mark, Mark, Mark, tssk, Nickws [...]
Fran Barlow, Jacques Chester, Jacques Chester, Fran Barlow, Ijaz, Andrew Reynolds [...]
anthony nolan, Katz, La Ruée au Larousse du Roux Russe, Katz, joe2, anthony nolan [...]
Ootz, joe2, Paul Burns, adrian, joe2, Zorronsky [...]
Paul Burns, ewe2, David Irving (no relation), joe2, Paul Burns, joe2 [...]
Chookie, jane, Paul Burns, adrian, CMMC, Ootz [...]
Ken Miles, Adrien, Paul Norton, Mervyn Langford, silkworm, Paul Norton [...]
John D, wilful, Elise, Fran Barlow, Fran Barlow, BilB [...]
Liam, Andrew E, Liam, Andrew E, David Irving (no relation), Andrew E [...]