David Gyngell, Kerry Stokes address Reach Rule hearings
Nine and Seven bosses make their case to the Senate committee on the Reach Rule.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Nine Entertainment Co CEO David Gyngell and Seven West Media Chairman Kerry Stokes have today addressed the Joint Select Committee on the Reach Rule.
Stokes was joined by Seven CEO Tim Worner.
David Gyngell said Nine would invest in regional news and reiterated Nine’s commitment to Australian content.
He proposed the legislation should have an enforceable undertaking via ACMA to uphold regional news services.
“I am committing to keeping those people in those marketplaces because it is all about the people and the journalists,” he said.
But he also pushed the need for commercial networks to be able to compete with online content.
Gyngell made the analogy that if 100 people were watching broadcast TV, 7 people would view in PVR catch-up, 1 would view online catch-up but that number was expected to grow to 10.
Nine said it would maintain around 25 regional news offices should it enter merger with Southern Cross Media.
But he also said a merger was not imminent.
Kerry Stokes said Seven neither supported nor objected to the abolition of the reach rule but did not support rushed decision-making.
“Our other issue is we think everybody should have the same starting gun for dropping the 75% rule as everybody else. And we think there should be some understanding of the issues,” he said.
Stokes also said that banking issues would override the “niceties” of merger contracts. He said the two US hedge funds that own Nine were profit-driven, implying that Australian content wasn’t their primary focus.
Stokes told the committee there was not enough room for 3 regional news broadcasters and that he had no immediate desire to take over Prime Media, but if Nine and Southern Cross Media merged he would have to reconsider.
SKY News Business is currently broadcasting the hearings on Ch. 602.
8 Responses
the ABC already does a local(ish) news service for regional doesn’t it?
Don’t the banks have similar so called strict oversight by regulators.
How many times have bank pre-merger negotiations included guarantees of the retention of existing staff, branches and sevices etc, and how many times have these guarantees meant absolutely zilch over the next few years, and lets not forget the good old standby of natural attrition, I wonder if that also applies to the regionals?
MHA, are you seriously saying aggregation was a mistake? Better start building that time machine, yeah? Haha! Although, I do like your ABC regional TV news idea.
This is all about survial of the fittest.
It has long been known in TV land that regional television has not been the pot of gold it once was before Aggregation was introduced back in 1989. As was argued back then by the then existing regional broadcasters, there was no business case for three competing commercial networks in each local licence area. At best, there was only marginal economic room to support two competing networks, but not three. But Hawke and Beazly thought otherwise in a cheap grab for votes to force three competing commercial networks into most regional areas so as to match the choice as enjoyed by metro audiences.
Now, some 25 years later, we are now starting to see the end result of Aggregation with the two of the regional networks (SCA + PRIME) calling for the 75% reach rule being abolished, with the third (WIN) calling for its retention so as to save its skin as they have most to lose.
If the viability of regional TV News coverage is at stake, why not instead impose a industry levy on the whole Australian FTA industry to instead fund weeknight 30 minute regional news bulletins on the ABC instead, produced and screened in each region locally from existing ABC regional offices? This would then possibly make regional commercial stations viable again with or without local news?
Where are these “around 25 regional news offices” “Nine said it would maintain” “should (when) it enters merger with Southern Cross Media”?
These are TV news production bureaux?
@Secret Squirrel – and WIN is against it as they would lose Nine and most likely have to go to TEN – or buy TEN.
Nice to know 9 will maintain 25 regional news offices ‘if’ (read “when”) Macquarie-Bank-Southern-Cross-Austereo (formerly RG Capital & DMG) ‘merge’ (read “takeover”) with 9.
Gee, wonder how much SCA will save by closing down their regional radio newsrooms and let the TV journos feed ’em a drip…?
But of course, that wouldn’t happen… would it Rhys?
ACE and KKR own large chunks of Seven.
And is Stokes claiming that he isn’t motivated by profit?
So, Ten are against removing the rule because they want to hang on to Southern Cross;
Nine are in favour because they want Southern Cross; and
Seven are not too fussed who has Southern Cross because they can always buy Prime.
Despite their platitudes, I suspect that regional viewers don’t really come into consideration.