The Australian government's newly established $74.4 million Journalism Assistance Fund, intended to promote public interest journalism, media diversity, and financial sustainability, has drawn criticism for primarily benefiting large, incumbent media organizations. Critics argue the fund's administration and distribution methods have resulted in substantial payouts to major players like Nine and Seven, raising concerns about accountability and the program's stated goals.
The fund's approach has been described as a "Canberra-made rort" that rewards "double-dipping." Instead of targeting new positions or demonstrably at-risk roles, the fund operates on a formula of $13,000 per eligible full-time journalist employed. This has led to substantial allocations for companies that may simultaneously be undergoing redundancies. Nine secured $16.1 million across multiple grants, while Seven received $11.3 million through different entities. The application process, described as "first come, first served," saw the fund fully subscribed within four weeks, months before its advertised closing date.
This structure has allowed companies like Nine to receive significant funding in the same week they announced editorial job cuts, highlighting what critics call an "absurdity of the scheme." The fund's mechanics are seen as subsidizing existing payrolls without requiring recipients to demonstrate a path toward long-term financial viability through measures like subscription growth or market expansion. The subsidy is set to cease in March 2028, potentially creating a "funding cliff" that could lead to renewed calls for permanent government assistance.
Further concerns revolve around the potential impact on public trust. Critics argue that a government partially funding the wage bills of organizations responsible for scrutinizing it creates an appearance of dependence, even if no direct influence on coverage is proven. Labor's own media policy acknowledges the risk of government support influencing journalism, yet the fund's disclosure rules are considered inadequate. Recipients are not mandated to prominently display their taxpayer support, and if they do, specific wording is required to assure readers that content is not influenced.
In contrast, organizations like the Daily Mail, News Corp, and The Guardian were ineligible for the fund due to their parent companies being based outside Australia. The article highlights that beneficiaries have shown little enthusiasm for publicizing their grants, with information only readily available through a government database. Suggestions for improvement include directing public funding towards genuinely endangered services, assessing applications through an independent body, capping funding by corporate group rather than individual ABN, and requiring recipients to demonstrate plans for long-term sustainability, alongside permanent and prominent masthead-level disclosure of funding.
The Journalism Assistance Fund, as currently structured, is seen by critics as having failed to deliver media diversity or sustainability, instead bolstering established players and postponing the industry's financial reckoning. The author contrasts this approach with Thomas Jefferson's ideal of "newspapers without government," suggesting Labor's policy fosters a quiet dependence on the state.