Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)
Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest person and one of the world’s most powerful mining magnates, recently helped finance a deal to acquire a 10% stake in Southern Cross Austereo – the second largest commercial media broadcaster in Australia.
The company owns many major media brands including the Seven Network, West Australian Newspapers and Triple M. The announcement was followed by an 8% increase in share prices for the company – an uncommon feat in the media industry, which is often overlooked by speculative investors.
The deal – worth about $26m – doesn’t give Rinehart an immediate stake in the company. But she could secure a 9% share if her backed partner, former Seven network executive Bruce McWilliam, defaults on their agreement.
Billionaires and the media This isn’t the first time Rinehart has forayed into the Australian media industry, having previously owned stakes in Channel 10 and Fairfax. But what is it that motivates wealthy business people to invest in media companies, especially when they often offer poor returns to investors?
People who own news businesses have the potential to steer the actions of the company towards their own interests. This can include affecting how stories are framed so their political interests are prioritised. They may also set news agendas that emphasise their worldview or prevent them from being critiqued.
Famous examples include the reported decision from the Washington Post to not endorse Kamala Harris for the United States presidency in 2024 after owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, insisted they change their editorial practices just days before the election.
Similarly, Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian prime minister and media mogul, was criticised for leveraging his media empire to further his political ambitions. As such, scholars have argued for decades that media ownership is a critical issue for democracy.
A complicated history of media ownership in Australia Australia has one of the most concentrated media environments in the world. Read more: The Australian media is more concentrated than ever.
Here are the 3 moments that got us here Last century, Australia’s media companies were dominated by four family dynasties, some of whom are still household names today: the Murdochs, Packers, Fairfaxes and the lesser-known Symes family.
In the 1980s there was a shift as broadcast licenses became scarce and elite members of the business world began acquiring stakes in media companies. The most famous examples included Kerry Stokes and Alan Bond.
By then, there was serious concern about media ownership and its impacts on democracy and culture. In 1986, the Hawke government introduced new media ownership reforms designed to curb the influence of media barons.
Paul Keating, when introducing the laws, famously said in his speech to parliament that media proprietors could be “queens of the screen or princes of print, but they couldn’t be both.” Now Australia’s media industry faces increased financial pressure from international tech companies that have become breadwinners in online advertising.
This has also coincided with a shift in audiences towards digital platforms, away from traditional media such as television, newspapers and radio. This has led to some small companies closing, and larger companies being acquired at bargain prices.
In 2017, under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, Australia began unwinding its media ownership laws in an attempt to allow for greater cross-media ownership. The hope was it would allow for more resilient media firms which might be able to stand up to international tech companies and media conglomerates.
Less than a year later, Nine Entertainment and Fairfax Media merged to become the second largest media company after News Corp. However, by 2021 the regulatory attitudes changed. Somewhat ironically, Turnbull returned to parliament alongside former prime minister Kevin Rudd at the Senate inquiry into media diversity in Australia.
There he said News Corp had turned into a “political party with only one member”. Since then, little has been done to stop the tide of media concentration in Australia. Earlier this year, a second cross-media amalgamation occurred when Southern Cross Austereo and Seven West Media shareholders agreed to merge.
It was one of the largest media mergers in Australian history, and solidified Southern Cross Austereo as one of the country’s true media giants. Where does this leave us now? The involvement of business titans in Australia’s increasingly concentrated media industry is nothing new.
But what is concerning is the lack of regulatory action to mitigate ownership and market concentration. The absence of policy reform might be because the industry is already facing an existential threat from the digital advertising sector.
Politicians may also be concerned about attracting the ire of media owners who might seek to use their influence against them. A diverse media environment is necessary for a thriving democracy and it starts with ownership.
Continued investment in public service media such as the ABC and SBS are one way we can ensure Australia has media institutions that cannot be owned by powerful commercial interests. Other options also include nonprofit businesses and philanthropic models.
These approaches come with their own drawbacks. But most can help solve the compounded issues of concentrated ownership and market instability.
The path forward depends on an intricate set of factors: the financial success of the industry, intelligent policy making and the people who own Australia’s media.
Cameron McTernan receives funding from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for the Global Media and Internet Concentration Project.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/05/29/gina-rinehart-and-southern-cross-austereo-what-do-billionaire-media-buyouts-mean-for-democracy/