A journalist working for an Internet news service recently made an interesting point about the present state of online media. ‘To make money on the Web now,’ he said, ‘you’ve really got to be tied to something else, like a newspaper, a television show or a radio program. Otherwise, it’s just too tough.’

Comments such as these spell the end of the old Internet hubris, the hopes for a digital multitude of new sources of information and new choices for entertainment. It’s too early to write online media off, because there are independent sites out there, but Australia’s most popular websites remain those controlled by the old communications establishment — the television networks, the newspapers, Telstra.

Around the world, media companies are seeking new and larger markets beyond their traditional businesses. As the boundaries shift, regulators in Europe and the United States are rewriting the rules for a new era. In Australia we also need to think again about how to secure diversity in the media, remembering that the industry here is already highly concentrated.

The Federal Minister for Communications argues that the old restrictions on media ownership are outdated and should be removed. The crucial question is whether there are other or better ways to promote the plurality of opinion and information which is important for a healthy democracy. There is now some urgency about this issue. The Coalition came to power committed to remove the cross-media rules, which have prevented cross-ownership between commercial broadcasting and newspapers since the 1980s. After an earlier attempt at change, and a prolonged period of toying with the idea, the government says it wants to try again on cross-media in the next parliamentary session.

It is true that the current policy was devised for an older media landscape, before pay television, the Internet and digital broadcasting. The rules have never been updated, and a new web of cross ownership has emerged around them; one example is Foxtel, owned by Telstra, the Packers’ Publishing and Broadcasting Limited, and News Limited. Another case was Telstra’s almost-but-not-quite purchase of the Nine Network a few years ago, which would have been allowed by the current rules.

Changing circumstances do raise questions about our media ownership rules. The Trade Practices Act on its own does not seem to provide an answer; some specific rules are necessary for preserving diversity in the media, because the political, social and cultural value of diversity cannot be equated exactly with the commercial value of competition in media markets.

So far, however, the public debate on this issue has been highly constrained. We know what the media companies want, and we know what the Minister would like to do, but there appears to be little broader support for change. The government cannot change the rules without the support of the Senate. So far, neither the Democrats, nor Labor, nor the Greens have offered Senator Alston much encouragement.

The problem is that ownership rules are only one part of a complex system which stands in need of renovation. They protect a modicum of diversity for the time being, but their usefulness must inevitably be limited as new technologies emerge.

Media diversity will ultimately be better served by a more inclusive and more comprehensive program of reform. Since the Internet can no longer be presented as the answer to all our problems, the immediate need is to fix the mistakes of the past few years. We need to encourage new broadcasters rather than banning them. We need to make the most of digital television rather than handicapping it. And we need to strengthen the mix of services by supporting the indigenous, community and public broadcasting sectors alongside a revitalised commercial industry.