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.

Disclosure: I applied for the gig Green got, which was advertised. The one week period for applications suggested to me that there was probably a preferred candidate. I would be very interested to learn if there was ever a shortlist, or if he was in effect the only candidate considered (and effectively head-hunted for the role). I am not casting any aspersions on Green himself, for whom I have worked and for whom I have a liking and considerable respect. But I think there’s a potential issue here about the ABC’s practices in this regard.

Update: Margaret Simons on Green’s departure and the current shake up at Crikey.

Further update: Margaret Simons:

However, I understand that despite appearances, the job was NOT stitched up before hand. Green was interviewed only recently, along with other candidates, and was informed of his appointment late last week.

I’m happy to accept that, but I think some questions remain. The job ad specified that the position could be taken up in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. I was surprised to see an announcement made 6 working days after the applications closed given the logistics of organising interviews with candidates from several cities. Having worked in HR myself in a previous incarnation, I am somewhat bemused – though stuff ups are always a plausible explanation, too.

I’d reiterate that I think Jonathan Green will do a top notch job. But he’s not been done any favours either, when his appointment was bound to come under political fire. Decision makers at the ABC – who we’re constantly told are savvy to how information travels online – need to understand how important good process and transparency are, and there’s a little bit of an object lesson here.

Another update: Margaret Simons has the answer to the question of whether contributors to the ABC Online opinion site will be paid (yes) and has more on the idea of the thing, and the ABC’s digital strategy generally.

Elsewhere: qed on the corporatisation of ABC culture.

The argument about consumer benefit was always spurious – the purported reduction in prices would have been small (and well run public libraries exist precisely to stock books for those for whom marginal prices are a real impact), and the effect would have been to reduce the range of titles available – both because it would have enabled large retailers to further dominate the market and because of its impact on local publishers.

Nevertheless, Guy Rundle is right to say that the interests of authors and publishers are separable, and to highlight the fact that it’s the provisions in the US-Australia free trade agreement preventing particular support for Australian literary production which are the real – but largely ignored – issue.

However, it should be very pleasing to see that governments are not so prone to accepting all free market ideological arguments on trust. And to see the Labor backbench able to influence government policy.

It also might be an appropriate moment to consider what good the Productivity Commission actually serves.

Update: Spike.