In a decade of grubby politics, there's something particularly tawdry about the Turnbull government being so keen to curry favour with the Murdoch empire that it was willing to acquiesce to demands from Pauline Hanson's One Nation to whip, embarrass and damage the ABC.

It's a sad and desperate day when Australia's government is prepared to share a tinfoil hat with the One Nation flat earthers in forcing the national broadcaster to provide "balanced" coverage of anti-vaxers and give equal weight to the small minority of climate change denialists.

And for what? To grant the Murdoch family clearer title to what they've already had - control of radio stations, subscription television, most of the nation's newspapers and a television network, albeit by the backdoor and around various corners in the case of Ten.

If the government was interested in media ownership reform on its own merits, it could unbundle the two legs of the legislation that just failed to get up and one would pass without too much difficulty - scrapping the current 75 per cent cap on a television network's national audience reach.

With free-to-air television under attack from streaming services, allowing a national network to be national is a no-brainer. That wouldn't be seen as doing the Murdochs a particular favour and, therefore, could win agreement from Labor, never mind the Senate cross bench.

The ultimate goal

But that's not the leg most dear to the Murdochs, or the other major media companies, including Fairfax Media. They want the two-out-of-three rule abolished, allowing a single entity to own print, radio and television assets in a capital city market.

There are allegations that Labor types concede behind closed doors that the two-out-of-three rule is out of date and irrelevant when multinational internet giants are destroying traditional media's revenue faster than the legacy operators can cut costs. But because Murdoch so clearly wants the change and is the main force in pushing it, Labor can't agree to it. The Murdoch media's consistent attacks on the Labor Party have come at a price.

It's no surprise that the Murdoch national paper billed the failure of the media laws as a disaster for Ten.

"Senate deadlock cuts Ten Network's rescue hopes" headlined the Australian.

"Hundreds of staff and thousands of shareholders are hoping for a series of competitive bids from local companies and foreign investors to help the company trade its way out of debt."

Which is pure poppycock. The shareholders have done their dough regardless. The best hope for staff is that someone doesn't pay too much for it and therefore will be able to run the thing at a profit.

There will always be a certain lingering interest about the timing of the Ten receivership, precipitated by Lachlan Murdoch and Bruce Gordon, coinciding with the Senate considering the media ownership laws.

For the Murdochs, being allowed open ownership slather appears more about the exercise of power than money. For the other media companies that have formed a cheer squad, the motives are less obvious.

Dropping the 75 per cent television reach rule would result in a flurry of consolidation in the sector, to the joy of the owners selling out and the investment bankers and lawyers who getting a slice of it.

Takeover talk overblown

Contrary to plenty of speculation, dropping the two-out-of-three rule is much less likely to promote a takeover frenzy.

Oh the investment bankers will talk it up but, quite simply, there's little to be financially gained by putting together a newspaper and a television station.

Their "content" is not easily shared. As someone who has worked in newspapers, radio and television, I can assure you they are very different beasts.

The golden era of Kerry Packer's media empire saw successful cross-promotion of television and magazines, but the world has moved on from getting much out of having your own TV personality on the front page of the Women's Weekly.

Offering a package for advertisers "across multiple channels" is a clich?? that offers marginal benefit by adding one more medium in a bundle. Semi-competent media buyers should be capable of tailoring and targeting their clients' spend more precisely in a buyers' market.

The executive talent required to run print or television successfully is rare; to run both of them, non-existent.

The unceasingly drive to cut costs could achieve more across the same medium - the ACCC allowing - than across different media.

Murdoch aside, the legacy operators live in hope that "something" might turn up, that some good might evolve from an unimpeded media market. With Google and Facebook eating their lunch - and breakfast and dinner - it's fair for them to so hope.

For some, there could be the short-term hope of achieving a little "shareholder value" by being taken over. Take the money and run.

The last media ownership law overhaul saw that happen with the three commercial television networks all changing hands as Bond, Skase and Lowy blew fortunes. And they were the good old days. There's no sign of them returning.