Australian journalists demand transparency from politicians, businesses, and public figures they don’t like. They scrutinise their finances, question their motives and investigate who funds the organisations and causes behind them.
But when it comes to the media itself, there is considerably less enthusiasm for transparency.
South Australian Senator Alex Antic is seeking to change that.
Antic has introduced the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Register of Media Interests) Bill 2026, which would establish a public register requiring journalists and others working in the media to disclose what they earn, the gifts they receive and the source of those gifts.
“Today I am introducing the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Register of Media Interests) Bill 2026,” Antic said in announcing the legislation.
“If passed, the Bill would require journalists and others inside the media to publicly disclose what they earn, any gifts they receive and the origin of same.”
If the media really is as powerful and influential as journalists themselves insist, Australians have a legitimate interest in knowing who is financially connected to those shaping the information they consume.
In a video posted to social media, Antic drew a comparison between journalists and federal politicians.
“In this building I’m required to disclose everything I earn, everything I own, everything I take as a gift and put it on the Senator’s Register of Interest register,” he said.
“But journalists, despite the fact that they’re always telling you how important and relevant and influential they are, they don’t have to do that.”
Antic said his proposed register would require journalists to disclose “all of the gifts, all of the earnings they get” so Australians can see “who’s paying the piper.”
That question goes to the heart of the debate.
Politicians are routinely subjected to scrutiny over their financial interests because Australians understand that financial relationships can create conflicts of interest—or at the very least create the perception of one.
The same principle can reasonably be applied to journalists.
A reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry, for example, may be influenced—or perceived to be influenced—by financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. A journalist reporting on politics may have relationships with political organisations, lobby groups or wealthy benefactors. A commentator advocating for particular causes may receive speaking fees, gifts, travel or other benefits from organisations that stand to benefit from their influence.
That does not necessarily mean the journalist is corrupt or dishonest.
But transparency allows the public to make its own judgment.
This is particularly relevant in an era when the traditional distinction between journalists, commentators, activists and influencers has become increasingly blurred. Media personalities can have enormous audiences and wield substantial influence over public opinion, elections and political debate.
If influence is the justification for greater scrutiny of politicians, it is difficult to argue that influence suddenly becomes irrelevant when the person wielding it works for a media organisation.
Of course, the proposal is likely to encounter fierce opposition from sections of the media, with concerns about privacy, editorial independence and the potential for such a register to be abused.
However, a genuinely independent journalist should have little to fear from allowing the public to know whether they have financial interests or relationships that could reasonably be relevant to their reporting.
The media has long insisted that Australians deserve to know who is funding political campaigns, lobbying organisations and advocacy groups.
Now Antic is asking whether Australians should also know who is financially supporting the people who tell them what to think about those issues.
That is not an unreasonable question, because “If the news media in this country are as influential as we are told, then Australians deserve to know this information.”
If journalists expect politicians to disclose their interests in the name of transparency, perhaps the people who scrutinise those politicians should be prepared to accept some transparency of their own.