Editorial:
The case of John Laws

By now the deal between radio commentator, John Laws, and the Australian 
Bankers' Association is well known. John Laws claims that $300,000 paid to 
him by bankers did not change his opinion about banks. He declares: "I find 
it outrageous that you should say I was paid to change my mind ... the 
banks asked me to tell the whole story..."

John Laws presents himself as a know-all who routinely brow-beats, puts 
down and humiliates anyone who has a difference of opinion not to the 
liking of John Laws.

In his lame attempt to justify the bankers' payments he now claims that he 
did not know all the facts which is an extraordinary admission given that 
"the facts" as seen by the banks are well known.

Only a simpleton would be persuaded that banks paid Laws $300,000 without 
being sure that they would get a return.

Laws also declared that "a Pandora's box" had been opened on media ethics. 
Maybe this is a threat that Laws when brought before the Australian 
Broadcasting Authority (ABA) will spill the beans on all the other bribes 
that have or are being paid by commercial interests to broadcasters and 
journalists.

It is also alleged that Laws had a $200,000 deal going with the Star City 
Casino and another worth $660,000 with the meat industry to promote 
consumption of meat and lamb.

The reality of payment for services is confirmed in a letter written by 
John Brennan, program manager of radio station 2UE to the radio station's 
staff when 2UE landed an advertising contract with McDonalds. The letter 
said: "It is obviously imperative that no derogatory comments about 
McDonald's are made by any broadcaster on the station." McDonalds had 
allegedly threatened to cancel the contract if any such comments were made.

This is how corporations wield their influence and buy those who would 
otherwise claim that they "tell the truth" and that there is a "free" press 
in Australia. It is a bought press!

The current revelations come on a background of the deregulation of the 
media in 1991 by the then Labor Government. Instead of firm control by the 
Australian Broadcasting Authority, a regime of so-called "self-regulation" 
was introduced. It is fatuously claimed that "self-regulation" implies the 
voluntary adoption of a code of conduct, ethics and morality. In fact it 
leads to an abandonment of all such considerations in favour of naked self-
interest and profit-making which is the bottom line objective of all 
private enterprise.

The consequences of "self-regulation" are to be seen at work in many other 
areas as well. The Longford gas explosion in Victoria was a consequence of 
the "self-regulation" by Esso of health and safety standards. The same 
decline in safety is taking place on building sites and in other areas as 
government regulatory authorities are wound down or closed down altogether.

It is not likely that the policy of "self-regulation" is going to come up 
at the hearing into the John Laws case by the ABA but in many minds it is 
this policy which is on trial.

The Australian Financial Review finds it necessary to go in to bat 
for self-regulation and claims that it is "part of the trade-off for a more 
efficient and flexible economy". By "efficient" and "flexible" the 
FR means the right of employers to do as they please — to abandon 
safety and health measures, pay what wages they like, work whatever hours 
they please and, above all, eliminate trade unions which would police such 
issues on behalf of workers.

But McDonalds, John Laws, Esso, radio 2UE and the corporate world which is 
profiting from self-regulation can rest easy. Apart from a rap over the 
knuckles the ABA is not going to do anything to change the present system.

Professor David Flint, chairman of the ABA says that "It is a well-
established principle that the press must not be subject to government 
regulation because it would be too dangerous to do this... The strategy was 
to encourage good behaviour by example, transparency and persuasion..."

When media self-regulation was introduced the ABA was also turned into a 
"toothless tiger".

Only a storm of public opinion will stop a virtual cover-up and restore 
proper ethics and morality and measures to ensure that they are 
implemented.