When Peter FitzSimons asked what kind of legislation actually works – and which countries are doing it better – he pointed to the heart of a quiet national crisis. Australia doesn’t lack intelligence, civics, or interest. Australians desperately want to be well-informed. What we lack is a media system capable of delivering reliable information with consistency, accuracy, and integrity.
Countries with healthier democracies tend to have healthier media ecosystems. Countries that struggle with misinformation, polarisation, and performative outrage tend to have weak or distorted ones.
Australia sits dangerously closer to the second group than the first.
The problem is structural, not cultural.
Here is the forensic breakdown of what’s broken, what works elsewhere, and how we can build something better than anything currently operating overseas.
1. The Australian Problem in Three Parts
(1) Extreme concentration
The ACCC warned in 2019 that Australia has “one of the most concentrated media markets in the world.”
This is not debate – it is bottleneck.
(2) No enforceable accuracy standards
Commercial broadcasters can blur the line between news and opinion without consequence. Mistakes are rarely corrected with prominence. Partisanship drives content selection.
(3) Zero transparency for digital influence
Platforms are not required to disclose how algorithms amplify stories, how political ads are targeted, or who funds influence campaigns.
These three forces shape the information Australians rely on to vote, assess policy, and understand the world.
It is no surprise the public feels confused.
2. What the Nordic Countries Get Right
Nordic nations consistently top global rankings in news trust, democratic stability, and resilience against misinformation. Their secret is engineering, not ideology.
Their system rests on four pillars:
- Ownership caps prevent any one media giant from dominating.
- Public-interest subsidies support regional, investigative and start-up journalism.
- Public broadcasters receive stable, multi-year funding insulated from political interference.
- Independent press councils enforce standards transparently.
This creates diversity, stability, and accountability. Debate flourishes because people share a baseline of trusted information.
3. Public Broadcasting as Democratic Infrastructure
Australia’s ABC and SBS are widely respected. Yet they remain vulnerable to political attack and budget volatility. That weakens the entire media system.
Nordic countries treat public broadcasting the way we treat the Reserve Bank: independent, protected, long-term, and stable.
Imagine a 7-year funding cycle for ABC/SBS, locked in by multi-party agreement. No annual budget brinkmanship. No threats. No intimidation.
A strong public broadcaster forces commercial competitors to lift their standards or lose credibility.
4. How the UK Protects Accuracy Without Silencing Debate
Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code provides a model that balances free expression with public accountability.
It requires:
- due accuracy
- due impartiality
- clear labelling of opinion vs news
- fast correction of major mistakes
This doesn’t censor opinions. It simply sets guardrails.
Australians deserve the same.
5. The EU’s Gold Standard: Transparency Over Censorship
The EU’s Digital Services Act focuses on systems, not content. This is the reform that scares disinformation actors the most.
Platforms must:
- publish political ad libraries
- disclose how algorithms boost content
- assess and mitigate systemic risks
- provide real appeal rights
- allow researcher access to platform data
Australia has none of this. Our debate collapsed into a “free speech” scare campaign before reform even began.
Transparency is not censorship. It is sunlight.
6. What to Avoid: The German Overcorrection
Germany’s NetzDG had good intentions – fast removal of illegal content – but it pushed platforms to over-remove out of fear of fines.
The lesson:
Do not force private companies to play judge.
Regulate transparency, accountability and platform behaviour instead.
7. The Human Cost of Australia’s Weak System
Every Australian has felt the consequences:
- manufactured outrage cycles
- deliberate confusion on climate, energy and health
- culture wars detached from reality
- voters pushed into fear rather than understanding
- important issues drowned out by noise
When information is polluted, even smart people feel overwhelmed. A healthy media system makes the public smarter, calmer and more capable.
We are living proof of the opposite.
8. A Four-Pillar Blueprint for Australia
Based on global evidence and local failures, here is the most effective pathway.
Pillar 1: Stop the Bottleneck (Anti-Concentration Laws)
Apply strong merger caps.
Introduce public-interest journalism subsidies for regional and investigative newsrooms.
Use Canada–Nordic hybrid models to protect plurality.
Pillar 2: Stabilise ABC/SBS (Long-Term Independent Funding)
Adopt multi-year funding cycles overseen by a bipartisan board.
Remove political leverage.
Build Australia’s equivalent of the BBC+Nordic hybrid with modern digital capability.
Pillar 3: Regulate Transparency, Not Opinions
Require digital platforms to:
- publish political ad libraries
- reveal how content is amplified
- undergo independent algorithm audits
- disclose moderation frameworks
- provide user rights and appeals
This is the EU model adapted for Australia.
Pillar 4: National Media Literacy Education
Finland leads the world here – and it shows.
Teach source analysis, propaganda recognition, and digital scepticism across school years and adult education.
Media literacy lowers conspiracy uptake and strengthens democratic resilience.
9. Australia Can Leapfrog the World
We don’t need to copy Europe or the Nordics.
We can improve on them by combining their strengths with modern transparency tools.
Australia could become the global leader by adopting:
- real-time political ad databases
- open algorithm registers
- tax incentives for non-profit newsrooms
- a First Nations-led journalism fund
- public data portals that enable independent fact-checking
These are not utopian ideas. They are practical, cheap, and already working elsewhere in pieces.
10. How We Actually Get There
Reform requires three commitments:
(1) Citizens demanding better information
The public is sick of confusion and wants clarity.
(2) Parties agreeing not to weaponise the regulator
ACMA must be independent, like the RBA.
(3) A coherent national strategy
This means treating information integrity the same way we treat road rules, water safety or food standards: essential national infrastructure.
None of this limits free speech. It simply ensures that truth and transparency have a fighting chance.
11. The Decision Point
Australia can keep the fog – or we can learn from the countries that chose clarity and stability.
Every nation with a healthier democracy has one thing in common: They invested in a media system that protects truth, transparency, and diversity.
We can build something even better. We can choose a system that strengthens the public instead of confusing it. We can choose clarity over chaos.
The question is no longer “What works?”
We know what works.
The question is when Australia decides it has had enough of confusion.
A healthy media system doesn’t happen by accident. But when it is built, the entire country becomes smarter, calmer and more capable of solving the problems in front of us.
It is time to choose clarity.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
One concurs, and would add that since Howard, Australian skip dominated RW MSM, politics and influencers have disappeared Europe and Asia as we started becoming a Eurasian nation.
In its place we have narrow shallow focus an shared values with the risible and neoliberal Anglosphere led by the US, and we tag along behind the UK.
The Howards et al & their preferred nations are now in decline thanks to ‘segregation economics’ (Koch) and MAGA white Christian nationalism (Tanton).
One recalls ’80s when eg. environmental & climate science were encouraged and we adopted good policies from Northern Europe; now finally nearing a free trade treaty with the EU.
Thanks for an excellent article Lachlan.
Yes, the ABC and SBS are widely respected, but sorry I have to add not by me anymore.
Today, there were two articles on the ongoing Israeli genocide of Palestinians – that makes two more than usual. But the headline on one article was “Israel launches strikes in Gaza ceasefire’s latest test as hospitals say dozens killed”. No, it was not a ‘test’ of the ceasefire, it was a breach, a violation, a breaking (yet again, for well over a hundredth time) of the agreement.
Having said that, the headline is an improvement on past ABC efforts, at least this time the victims were referred to as ‘killed’ and not ‘died’
and at least Israel was named and the headline didn’t read ‘Dozens died in strike on Gaza hospital’ which was standard fare for the ABC in the beginning. The last time I watched SBS was a while ago, and have not watched it since out of disgust as it was even worse.
Perhaps there should be a consideration of the boards of the ABC and how susceptible they are to political interference, especially by the Liberal party.
Just this morning it was reported that Israel had bombed civilian infrastructure in Beirut (the capital of the sovereign country of Lebanon), evidently looking for a Hezbollah operative who they may or may not have hit alongside other casualties.
I find it quite amazing that we as a society have been normalised to this type of aggression allowing Israel’s incursions on neighbouring countries with no adverse consequences.
A few weeks ago it was a bombing raid into Qatar hitting government and civilian infrastructure allegedly after Hamas peace negotiators – they had to apologise for that one at Trump’s insistence.
It used to be the case that the democratic world’s media, governments and the UN would react strongly with sanctions and warnings of repercussions for these blatant acts of aggression, but all have been silenced by the Threatened smear of antisemitism that Netanyahu wields so effectively.