澳洲《新聞議價法》的爭霸過程：批判論述分析

Abstract

本研究從新聞平台化下的新聞報酬議題出發，考察2020年間澳洲《新聞議價法》公共辯論的爭霸過程。本文採取批判政治經濟學的視野，欲探問：公共辯論在何種政經權力結構下，突顯哪些意識形態的爭霸？而這又如何反映在澳洲政府的官方論述，並影響《議價法》的最終定案？具體而言，本研究以批判論述分析法分析兩次公聽期間，各方意見論述所隱含的價值衝突，及其如何影響澳洲政府的最終決策。

本研究首先從政治經濟分析的角度，爬梳澳洲《議價法》形成背後的政治、產業、社會條件。其中，2016至2017年澳洲「媒體所有權法」修法，不僅為日後的《議價法》提供關鍵的政治條件，也揭露澳洲媒體政策場域裡，「私人媒體利益」與「公共利益新聞價值」兩種政策價值的霸權競逐。前者是以梅鐸為首的本地商業媒體集團，在政策行動上強調媒體與平台的分潤爭議；後者為訴求公共利益新聞發展的公民社會與在野陣營，要求正視本地商業媒體／公共利益新聞的資源不均問題。兩者在《議價法》的公眾諮詢分別發展為「市場修正主義」、「基進多元主義」兩種論述模式，並持續在政治場域形成主宰與反制的力量；與此同時，還有來自數位平台的「市場與科技自由」的新興霸權崛起，爭奪對於《議價法》的意義詮釋。綜觀《議價法》的公共論述鬥爭，可說是鑲嵌在澳洲媒體政策場域裡既有的價值衝突。

本研究發現，在官方論述強調仲裁規範，以及對於公共利益新聞政策的「不作為」之下，顯見澳洲商業媒體集團仍在政策場域位居霸權地位，與管制者共享市場修正主義的意識形態。而跨國平台為首的市場與科技自由論述，雖然欲以商業數據化來合理化自由市場邏輯，以爭奪霸權，卻仍不敵政商結盟的舊霸權運作。但平台業者在論述鬥爭失敗後，轉向以獨斷的科技技術反制，終使澳洲政府在修法前夕讓步；這顯現國家逐漸難以再用傳統的媒體治理技術介入當代的數位傳播場域。相較之下，基進多元論述則試圖從公共利益新聞的角度重新定義《議價法》，但從結果來看，《議價法》的政策建構過程，仍主要備受大型平台與大型媒體交織的政經角力所形塑，而未能積極保障中小或地方媒體、健全公共利益新聞的發展。這終使新聞付費之爭——更確切的說，是商業媒體集團與跨國科技巨頭的利益之爭，成為澳洲媒體政策的主要基調。

Starting from the issue of news remuneration under the news platformization, this research examines the hegemonic struggle in the Australian News Media Bargaining Code (the Code) in 2020. This study adopts the approach of critical political economy, and asks: what kind of political and economic power relations and ideological hegemony process was represented in the civil discourse struggle? How did this reflect in the official discourse of the Australian government and affect the final decision of the Code? To answer the questions, the study uses the method of critical discourse analysis to examine the different ideologies in the opinions of different actors during the two public hearings.

This study firstly examines the political, industrial and social conditions behind the formation of the Code from the perspective of political economic analysis. The 2016-2017 amendment to Australia's "Media Ownership Law" not only provided key political conditions for the future Code, but also revealed the two competing policy values, "commercial media interests" and " public interest journalism value", in the field of Australian media policy. The former was the Australian media group headed by Murdoch, emphasizing the distribution of profits between the media and the platform; the latter was the civil society and opposition camp that seeks the development of public interest journalism, demanding the government to solve the problem of the uneven resources of local media industry. The two competing policy values respectively developed into two discourse modes of “market modification” and "radical pluralism" during the public hearings of the Code, and continued to form dominant and counter-forces in the field. Meanwhile, the rise of emerging “tech hegemony” from digital platforms, which represented "free market", also competed for the interpretation of Code. Overall, the public discourse struggle of the Code was an inherent value conflict embedded in the Australian media policy field.

This study found that, despite the official discourses emphasizing arbitration and “inaction” on public interest journalism policy, it was clear that Australian media group still occupied a hegemonic position in the policy field, sharing the same “market modification” ideology with regulators. The “market and technology freedom” discourse led by platforms, seeking to legitimize the free market policy by means of the logics of commercial datafication, in order to compete for hegemony. However, after the platform industry failed in the hegemonic struggles, they turned to countermeasures with arbitrary technology, and finally made the Australian government gave in on the eve of the amendment of the Code. This showed that the government has been gradually unable to use the media governance strategy to intervene the contemporary digital communication field. In addition, the radical pluralism discourse attempted to reposition the Code in public debate, but the policy process was still mainly affected by the intertwined political economic struggles of large-scale platforms and news conglomerates. The Australian government has failed to protect the public interest journalism, such as the diversified development of small and medium-sized or local media; this eventually made main tone of Australia's media policy the contention for news payment -- more precisely, the competition for the commercial interests between the media groups and tech giants.