Blog, Comment, Guest post, International

Benedetta Brevini: Australia swims against the tide of democratic media reform

by  on  • 0 Comments

By Benedetta Brevini, University of Sydney

This article was first published on the Conversation.

That media ownership rules have been progressively relaxed in many democracies is certainly not news. But that Australia, with one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, is thinking of further deregulation is astonishing.

Communications minister Malcolm Turnbull has suggested that he would like to relax the Keating-era cross-media ownership rules. These prevent any one proprietor from owning print, radio and television outlets in a single market.

Turnbull is also inclined to eliminate the rule that prevents a person controlling commercial television licences that reach more than 75% of the population. In his own words:

…the arrival of the internet and the additional diversity and avenues for competition that it brings really says we should have less regulation and more freedom.

This is the usual neo-liberal argument that the internet will set us free: it is giving us more news to consume, more diversity, more happiness.

“I see a new Athenian Age of democracy forged in the fora the Global Information Infrastructure will create,” Al Gore proclaimed in 1994. Since then, the contention that the internet will disrupt power structures and neutralise traditional gatekeepers has become popular in the new left.

In the UK, for example, the Labour government relaxed media ownership rules in 2003. It explained that “technological development had opened the way for new market entrants”. Well, it did, but only partially.

Old players dominate online

Recent studies show the internet is used primarily for entertainment rather than for news and political information. The most-visited news websites in Europe, Britain, the US and Australia are the websites of the dominant national news organisations.

According to Nielsen Online Ratings, News Corp’s news.com.au topped the Australian rankings in January with an audience of 2.767 million, followed by Fairfax’s smh.com.au and the Microsoft-Nine Entertainment Company’s co-owned site NineMSN. These represent established media institutions rather than new market entrants.

What is even more interesting is that while newspapers are facing an unprecedented decline in revenues, they are also reaching record numbers of readers because of their online editions. This translates into more hegemonic power in the hands of the same few powerful media owners.

At the same time, leading social media and search engines are acting as megaphones of the prevailing elites’ media agenda. This further impairs a variety of viewpoints.

It is this lack of diversity of voices that should worry Turnbull. Excessively concentrated media power does not just entail unchecked ties between political and media elites, as the UK phone-hacking saga demonstrated. This was one of the most remarkable examples of how such dominant media power can undermine the proper conduct of democracy.

The exercise of such power also entails the establishment of a system of control that does not allow space for dissent, for resistance, for minority voices. In other words, media concentration undermines democracy.

To echo prominent US academics Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their analysis of the news media, Manufacturing Consent:

If … the powerful are able to fix the premises of discourse, to decide what the general populace is allowed to see, hear and think about, and to ‘manage’ public opinion by regular propaganda campaigns, the standard [liberal-pluralist] view of how the media system works is at serious odds with reality.

The push for pluralism

Turnbull’s statements are at odds with calls from European media and civil society organisations that are promoting the European Initiative for Media Pluralism. The aim is to secure a European Union directive on national media ownership to avoid concentration in the media and advertising sectors.

This campaign is in line with the promotion of media pluralism by UNESCO and the Council of Europe. In 2005, UNESCO adopted the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. In 2007, the Council of Europe affirmed that:

…media pluralism and diversity of media content are essential for the functioning of a democratic society and are the corollaries of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information.

The council specifically demanded legislation to limit:

…the influence which a single person, company or group may have in one or more media sectors as well as ensuring a sufficient number of diverse media outlets.

These international organisations have indicated resolutely the direction that media reforms should take. The Australian government should follow this course without delay.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Blog

Can charity save the local press?

by  on  • 1 Comment

In a new article in the British Journalism Review, freely available here, Roy Greenslade and Steven Barnett look at the story of Baylis Media, a family-owned local newspaper group owned by a trust. In their view, the Baylis model raises interesting questions for journalism’s charitable status and its rootedness in local community.

They suggest that hyperlocal and community sites have a potential role to play in reinvigorating both local media and local democracy* and assess the scope for allowing more journalism enterprises to become charities, and securing both the reputational and financial benefits that go with charitable status.

While there are obstacles in existing charity law, they conclude that “the defining step which Louis Baylis took in 1962 might – albeit over 50 years later – presage a new wave of journalism enterprises which are just as independent, just as dedicated to serving the local community, and maybe just as long-lived“.

Read full article here

Suggested citation: Greenslade, R., Barnett, S., 2014. Can charity save the local press? British Journalism Review 25, 62–67. doi:10.1177/0956474814526519
*Based on research conducted by this project in collaboration with Cardiff and Birmingham City universities.

 

European policy, Guest post, Media plurality

Des Freedman: When are we going to do something about media power?

by  on  • 0 Comments

This is a guest post by Des Freedman, which originally appeared on the UK Coalition for Media Pluralism site.

Media moguls are losing their power. At least that is what Rupert Murdoch thinks. As he tweeted back in 2012, during a discussion about a possible bid for the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, ‘haven’t you heard of the Internet? No one controls the media or will ever again’.

This is an impressively modest claim for a man whose media interests include Britain’s largest broadcaster, BSkyB, Britain’s best-selling newspaper, Britain’s top commercial radio news wholesaler and a slew of major media companies across the world. The idea that the media is now an anarchic field of competing voices may, after all, seem rather counter-intuitive given the fact that a mere three companies control some 70% of daily national newspaper circulation and that four public service broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) continue to account for nearly three-quarters of total TV viewing in the UK.

The internet, despite Murdoch’s assertion to the contrary, is not going to stop this build-up of media power as similar patterns of concentrated media power are now being replicated online. For example, five groups account for more than 70% of online news consumption (measured by browsing time) and, according to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, the ‘BBC and a few other traditional brands dominate the UK online news market’. Increasingly, we see monopolies firmly entrenched across the online world – Amazon for e-books, Google for search, Facebook for friendship and so on. In the US, Comcast, the giant internet service provider which also owns content producers and TV channels, recently announced its intention to buy Time Warner Cable to produce a company that would control internet access to two-thirds of American homes.

Handing this much influence to unelected individuals and unaccountable firms has a significant impact on who is able to direct the public conversations that take place at any one time. And we learned from evidence presented to the Leveson Inquiry that politicians are still in awe of ‘old media’ power (just as they are desperate to court ‘new media’ power) while proprietors are still able to command the attention of top politicians and to shape news agendas according to their ideological preferences.

So it matters when the Daily Mail launches its regular witch hunts against leading Labour politicians and stands firmly behind the government’s austerity programme, supports NHS privatisation and warns about a stampede of Romanians coming to our shores (a claim which it recently had to correct). It matters when the Sun uses its market power regularly to assault EU membership and when it describes the Guardian’s publication of the Edward Snowden revelations about NSA surveillance as ‘treason’ (rather ironic considering its self-declared support for press freedom).

An unhealthy intimacy between media moguls and politicians is hardly new but levels of media concentration across Europe are fostering a climate in which a handful of right-wing figures are able to exert growing political influence. Silvio Berlusconi may no longer be the Italian prime minister but his media interests still dominate Italian culture. In Hungary, the CEO of the second biggest commercial TV channel, TV2, is widely identified with the controversial governing party, Fidesz – an affiliation that has led to some 86% of political comment being dominated by representatives of the ruling parties. The Bulgarian media is dominated by Delyan Peevski who not only controls newspapers, websites, broadcast outlets and magazines, but was appointed head of the national security service in 2013. This decision was later overturned but he remains a hugely powerful political figure.

These are just some of the reasons why we need action to overturn media concentration and to press for genuine diversity in the media. In the UK, the House of Lords Communications Committee recently produced a report on media pluralism which called for more involvement from the communications regulator Ofcom, as opposed to ministers, in deciding on media mergers but still refused to recommend a course of action that might actually challenge existing media ownership structures. So while rumours continue about another bid by News Corp to take full control of BSkyB or about a joint bid by Discovery Communications and Sky to buy Channel 5, there are still no effective rules in place to prevent the further consolidation of the media by corporate interests.

It seems highly unlikely that, given the continuing influence of the largest media groups, any of the major political parties in Britain will make democratic media ownership a manifesto priority. But this should not stop us from trying, particularly as we have learned such a lot in the last few years about the corrosive relationships between senior politicians and media executives. We should also support the European Initiative for Media Pluralism, a grass roots campaign to secure enough signatures to force a European debate on tackling concentration. Today, news outlets across Europe, including La Repubblica in Italy, Le Soir in Belgium and openDemocracy in the UK, are devoting space to alt-phabet, a novel way of encoding news stories, to demonstrate the growing threats from states and media giants to pluralism and independence and to urge people to sign the petition.

Patterns of media ownership might not be able to tell us everything we need to know about how the media operate but they are certainly central to the reproduction of media power. As Stuart Hall once pointed out, media ownership might not be ‘a sufficient explanation of the way the ideological universe is structured, but it is a necessary starting point. It gives the whole machinery of representation its fundamental orientation in the value-system of property and profit.’ As long as we have a media culture that is accountable to a narrow range of corporate and state interests rather than the audiences and users who sustain it, then we will never get a media that is willing to challenge the powerful, to represent ordinary people or even adequately to make sense of the world.

To add your name to the petition please follow this link.

Des Freedman is Professor of Media and Communications in the Department of Media and Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London and chair of the Media Reform Coalition.

This article gives the views of the author/s, and does not necessarily represent the position of the Media Power and Plurality Project. We welcome further views and contributions to the media plurality policy debate: please contact j.townend@westminster.ac.uk if you would like to contribute.

Blog, Comment, Event, Media plurality

Attempts to carve up the licence fee are the real threat to the BBC

by  on  • 0 Comments

Today sees the opening salvos in a debate that will determine the BBC’s future. At the Oxford Media Convention, Tony Hall will mount a strenuous defence of the BBC licence fee – and address the notion (now gaining support among the BBC’s detractors) that its proceeds should be shared with competitors, through either top-slicing or “contestable” funding models.

At the same time, a new Reuters Institute report from economists Patrick Barwise and Robert Picard will spell out, for the very first time, what will happen to the UK’s creative economy if the government continues to refuse to raise the licence fee in line with inflation. It is ideal timing for their forensic analysis.

It has been, to put it mildly, a rocky couple of years for the BBC, with its competitors and critics gleefully painting a picture of terminal decline. Two Newsnight fiascos – a murky editorial decision to drop a story exposing Jimmy Savile as a paedophile, followed by untrue allegations that former Tory party treasurer Lord McAlpine was involved in child abuse in North Wales – resulted in the resignation of a director general after just 54 days in the chair. The newly installed Lord Hall was immediately faced with evidence of inflated senior management salaries and, even worse, payoffs to departing executives far in excess of their entitlement, all apparently sanctioned by the BBC Trust.

It was therefore not difficult to portray the BBC as suffering from a fundamental malaise which demands wholesale restructuring of both its funding and constitution. To its critics, this is the worst crisis in the BBC’s history. Something must be done.

In fact, it is no such thing. Narratives about the BBC in crisis have been all the rage ever since Michael Leapman’s apocalyptically titled book Last Days of the Beeb was published in 1986. From the Hutton Inquiry to “Queengate” to fake callers on phone-in programmes to the Ross-Brand Radio 2 saga and the corporation’s refusal to broadcast a charity appeal in aid of Gaza refugees, anyone under 50 will barely remember a time when the BBC wasn’t apparently in crisis. The current wave of schadenfreude is the latest attempt to taint the BBC with an image of managerial incompetence, editorial mismanagement and general institutional turmoil.

Each episode is deliberately and mischievously exploited by those ideologically opposed to publicly funded institutions, and particularly by powerful press groups which have long been deeply antagonistic to the size and scope of the BBC on both political and commercial grounds. In that respect, little has changed. But the noise of these self-interested attacks has become louder, the excuses are flimsier, and the commercial imperatives behind them are even stronger – especially as the long-standing business model of print journalism is undermined by the flight of advertising revenue to online providers.

So while we should demand that the BBC rectify its corporate and governance mistakes, we should also be frank about the blatant exaggerations of crises that simply do not exist. Much more importantly, we should also focus on the real life-threatening crisis that could eventually engulf the BBC completely: the erosion of its funding base.

Funding the real crisis

As the detailed economic analysis by professors Barwise and Picard shows, the real danger for the BBC is a progressive decline in funding to the point where it is no longer capable of fulfilling its task as a comprehensive public service broadcaster. The authors note the gradual diminution of the licence fee as a proportion of total industry spending on television, projected to fall from its current 22% of the total to 18.5% by 2016.

This “salami-slicing” was seriously exacerbated by the 16% cut that the newly elected coalition government imposed in October 2010, and it is inexorably eroding the BBC’s ability to maintain its status as a major cultural force in Britain.

According to the authors, “It is not scaremongering to project that, if the current policy continues (even if the more radical proposals for scaling back the BBC are rejected), within a generation it will have been reduced to a barely relevant sideshow, the UK equivalent of PBS in America.” As well as public and consumer detriment this continuing decline will impact on the UK’s independent production sector since the commercial sector cannot make up the shortfall.

That is the real threat to the future of the BBC. If Britain wants to sustain a cultural institution which is still trusted and enjoyed by the vast majority of its own citizens while being consistently praised and admired throughout the world, we must have the political will to make the resources available. We urgently need manifesto commitments from all three major parties to guarantee that they will, after 2016, reinstate a licence fee that is index-linked to inflation. They must also commit to withdrawing from the dangerous BBC “top-slicing” strategy, which now sees the licence fee being used to fund broadband rollout and local television stations.

That agenda will not be pursued by our national or regional press. Instead, over the next 18 months, we can expect a concerted attack on the BBC’s size, funding, governance, impartiality, competence and standing in British society as anti-BBC MPs (mostly from the Conservative benches) join forces with ferociously anti-BBC national newspapers determined to undermine the BBC’s legitimacy and funding base.

During the last review of the BBC Charter in 2006, there was an unprecedented joint submission by three major UK newspaper conglomerates –- Associated Newspapers, News International, and the Telegraph Group -– which combined forces to call for a below inflation increase in the licence fee to “curtail the width of the BBC’s remit in the digital arena”. That submission was also signed by the Commercial Radio Companies Association and the Newspaper Society, representing the local and regional press.

Whether explicitly or not, that same alliance will be operating again this time around, with the same goal: a financially diminished BBC. It will not be the first time BBC supporters both inside and outside parliament (who still represent the great majority of the British public) will struggle to make themselves heard over the megaphones of BBC competitors. But if the BBC is to survive as a dynamic and thriving institution at the heart of Britain’s creative and cultural life, it might be the most important.

This is an abridged version of Steven Barnett’s chapter in a new book being published on March 1: Is the BBC in Crisis? Eds, John Mair, Richard Tait and Richard Lance Keeble

The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Comment, Media plurality, Media policy, Regional and local

[Oxford Media Convention] Plurality begins at home: policies for invigorating local media

by  on  • 0 Comments

In a preview of his upcoming remarks at the Oxford Media Convention 2014, Steven Barnett, University of Westminster, shares preliminary findings from a collaborative study on hyperlocal media and argues for policy to enhance its role in sustaining media plurality. An abridged version of this post can be found at the LSE Media Policy blog.

While much of the headline debate on plurality tends to revolve around undue concentration at the national level – how to define it, how to measure it, how to prevent it – a growing local problem  risks being ignored. While local newspapers struggle with a failing business model, local radio stations centralise their newsroom operations, and fledgling local television stations are yet to demonstrate any appetite for original journalism, members of the public are increasingly starved of vital civic information. According to Press Gazette, more than 240 local newspapers closed in the seven years from 2004 to 2011 and some areas of the UK “are no longer covered by professional journalists”.

The implications for local democracy are profound. Issues of enormous relevance to citizens in their everyday lives – about their local hospitals, local schools, local transport, police forces, businesses and courts – are simply not being addressed. Local government officials, business leaders, and local politicians are not being questioned or held to account. Information required for knowledgeable participation in local elections is either not available or less reliable.

In the struggle to promote more editorial diversity and a more informed local citizenry there is, however, some room for optimism from the burgeoning number of new hyperlocal initiatives. The rise of online connectedness and broadband has made it easier for small, independent media enterprises to set themselves up and report to their local communities without massive capital outlay. The number of these sites is impossible to count precisely, but closest estimates suggest that around 500 are active in the UK.

As part of our Media Power and Plurality project at Westminster, we collaborated with Cardiff and Birmingham City universities in the UK’s first comprehensive survey of hyperlocals, with responses from around 180. While many of these are shoestring operations, more akin to a parish newsletter than hard-nosed journalism, our preliminary analysis shows that many are still capable of professional, independent local reporting. We found impressive evidence not only of important informational work but of investigative and campaigning journalism normally associated with mainstream news publishers: crusades over road safety and declining council standards, investigations over breaches of national emission limits, illicit council use of a greenfield site, and campaigns on over-spending on a local rail station development, cuts to the local youth service and plans to turn primary schools into academies.

Given the potential role of these sites in reinvigorating editorial diversity and local democracy, we should be asking serious questions about the kinds of policy interventions that would support them. Here are three, all of which have so far had little traction on the policy arena.

1. Charitable status

There is currently very limited scope for allowing journalism enterprises to secure the reputational and financial benefits that go with charitable status. According to the 2011 Charities Act, a charity must have a public purpose and be run for the public benefit. It lists 13 such purposes, two of which are potentially appropriate for local journalism: the advancement of education; and the advancement of citizenship or community development.

While the public purpose hurdles might, therefore, be negotiated at local level, the public benefit test is trickier. It is not enough simply to state or to assume that an enterprise will be beneficial; the public good has to be identifiable. This raises the spectre of finding measurable evidence that, for example, residents are better informed about local issues or more likely to participate in local elections after the launch of a local news initiative than before.

In its 2012 report on Investigative Journalism, the House of Lords Communications committee recommended that the Charity Commission “provide greater clarity and guidelines on which activities related to the media, and in particular investigative journalism, are charitable in the current state of the law”, particularly in light of the financial pressures and journalism’s democratic significance. The Charity Commission has yet to respond, but there is scope for a more relaxed approach, both in terms of its interpretation of the current legislation and – conceivably – in terms of an amendment to the Act aimed specifically at promoting local journalism.

2. Subsidies

There are already explicit and implicit subsidies for local media, a legacy of traditional print and broadcast regimes. The Community Radio Order of 2004 enables Ofcom to license not-for-profit community radio stations according to strictly defined criteria relating to “social gain”. These stations (231 by the end of 2011) receive small grants of around £15,000 out of a Community Radio Fund administered by Ofcom, which in turn comes from DCMS. That fund was worth £321,500 in 2010/11.

Given the rationale for that investment – in particular, to facilitate discussion and a better understanding of the local community – there is little sense in confining such direct subsidies to the medium of radio. It should be possible to expand both the technology scope and the pot: these are tiny amounts of money in terms of government expenditure, but with potentially massive benefits for resourcing local journalism.

Similarly, there are hidden subsidies for the national and local press both through VAT exemptions and through the regime on statutory notices. Figures from a Reuters Institute report put the value of VAT exemptions at £594m per annum in 2008 (though it’s difficult to know what proportion of that benefits the local press). In addition, the statutory duty on local councils to place notices in the local paper on planning, licensing and traffic orders is likely to be worth around £45m per year. It is surely an absurd anachronism that in the 21st century online world councils and other public bodies are obliged to use tax-payers’ money solely to advertise in local hard copy newspapers which in some geographical areas no longer exist.

3. The BBC

Finally, BBC Director General Tony Hall has indicated that partnerships – where the BBC acts as enabler rather than “senior” partner – will play an integral part of its future as the UK’s leading cultural institution. This is very different from top-slicing, which takes money away from the BBC and therefore weakens its effectiveness. At the local level, such partnership could enable those running hyperlocal sites to take advantage of BBC expertise in editorial, web design, legal advice, promotion and marketing. As with the redirection of subsidies, any such initiative would inevitably attract hostility from the major newspapers groups, and would require both central and local government support.

In fact, each of these initiatives will require serious investment of time and energy by those who are concerned about the inexorable decline in local media plurality. Policy thinking in this area – whether on Community Radio, newspaper subsidies or the role of the BBC – has always been predicated on the democratic and citizenship value of local media to their respective communities. That thinking now lags well behind real-world media activity, and takes little account of emerging forms of local and community online initiatives. It is time that changed.

See:

 

Blog, Media plurality, Media policy, Regional and local

New research: How do hyperlocals contribute to local democracy and what do they need?

by  on  • 2 Comments

Collaborative survey asks about hyperlocals’ contribution to the UK media landscape 

Hyperlocal publishing and community websites are becoming an increasingly important feature of the UK media landscape, supplementing existing print titles and other local platforms.  In some places they may even be the only form of dedicated media coverage.

While the term ‘hyperlocal’ isn’t favoured by all, it is recognized at a governmental level, with a brief mention in the Department of Media, Culture and Sport’s recent consultation on media plurality as a “key source of information for people in specific communities”.

And new – and extensive – funding is being made available: through NESTA’s Destination Local project and the Technology Strategy Board.

However, there has been little systematic collection of data about the practice and direct needs of hyperlocal producers and consumers.

The hyperlocal strand of the Creative Citizens project at Cardiff University and Birmingham City University aims to fill this gap by looking at the emergence of neighbourhood news websites that have started to materialise in scores of communities around the UK.

These researchers have now joined forces with the media plurality project at the University of Westminster to design a research questionnaire.

The survey, supported by TalkAboutLocal, aims to understand better the nature of hyperlocal operations, and the problems or issues that those who run them are facing.

It has already been sent out to hundreds of hyperlocal sites on the TAL mailing list and in the Openly Local directory. The initial response has been very encouraging.

But we think there are more voices to hear. If you have already participated, please pass the link to fellow publishers. If not, please consider taking part – it shouldn’t take any longer than 15 minutes.

Our collaborative survey

We want to collect information about your main hyperlocal activity: it could be a website, blog, Facebook page, Facebook group, forum, Twitter feed, Tumblr, or something else. For simplicity, we use the word ‘site’ throughout the questionnaire although we will occasionally ask questions about specific media such as Facebook.

In the survey you will be asked about the way in which you run your site, the kinds of content you produce and your reach, and the support you would like in future.

This questionnaire should take around 15 minutes to complete. The data will be aggregated and anonymised which means your replies cannot be linked to you or your site’s name in any published findings.

There is a space at the end to leave your name, email and site name if you would like to be sent results and subsequent reports. Many thanks for your participation, which we believe will benefit all those involved in hyperlocal projects.

The questionnaire can be accessed at this link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/J8XDSRF

Please do not fill in the survey twice – if you took part at the end of 2013 there is no need to do so again.

For further information, please contact:

Or leave comments and questions below!

 

Blog, Comment, Media plurality

Lords Communications Committee report on Media Plurality: two cheers

by  on  • 0 Comments

The House of Lords communications select committee publishes its report on media plurality today [Tuesday]. While there are a few holes in its policy approach, the recommendations provide a practical basis for a long overdue upheaval of the UK’s plurality framework, argues Professor Steven Barnett

There are two ways of looking at the House of Lords select committee’s report on Media Plurality, published today. The less charitable view is that it has ducked the crucial issue of how Parliament should lay down clear, unambiguous guidelines to prevent undue concentrations of media power. In doing so, it leaves a hole in the central plank of its proposals for reform, and breaches the very specific advice given in evidence by Chris Goodall, a former Competition Commissioner now working with Enders Analysis: “Whatever you decide to propose, I hope you leave no discretion to anybody.”

The more charitable – and probably fairer – view is that the report has provided both the philosophical and practical basis for a long overdue upheaval of Britain’s plurality framework. Since the positives outnumber the negatives, I will start with those.

From the beginning, there is a welcome and unambiguous declaration about the need for a dedicated plurality policy within a democratic society. In an important passage which sets the context for the rest of the report, there is a clear exposition of why plurality cannot simply be left to the market or to competition policy: “we believe that determining clear demarcation lines between plurality and competition policy is crucial”.

There is also common sense and restraint in dealing with the BBC, where the committee rejects any suggestion that the BBC should be subjected to plurality “control measures” from outside its own regulator. It floats the idea of a more creative role for the BBC, in which the next Charter might give it explicit responsibility “to stimulate consumption of diverse viewpoints from different external sources”. That is wholly in line with Director General Tony Hall’s recent pronouncements about the BBC’s potential contribution to fostering partnerships. Moreover, in a powerful rejection of top-slicing, the committee urges Government “to support our view that the licence fee should be for the BBC alone”.

Revamped framework

But the meat of this report lies in its suggestions for revamping the plurality framework. In what they call “the centre-piece of our approach”, the committee recommends a statutory periodic review of plurality, to be undertaken by Ofcom every 4-5 years. This idea was first floated by Ofcom itself, and is a wholly laudable and desirable proposal measure designed to account for organic growth in a dynamic and fast-changing market. At the same time, the committee recommends keeping the “transactional” review to be triggered – as now – by specific merger or acquisition activity.

Perhaps the most intriguing set of recommendations is the proposed regime for who should make the ultimate decision, with different approaches being advocated for the two types of review. For periodic reviews, a final decision would rest with the Secretary of State. Ofcom would rate any concerns across or within media markets (including the so-called digital intermediaries such as Google) on a three point scale from moderate to high to severe. Where it finds “immediate and pressing concerns resulting from organic change”, the report even allows for Ofcom to order divestment although it warns that the bar should be high, and would be subject to offers of mitigation. Moreover, with the final recommendations resting with a cabinet minister, it could of course still be overturned.

For transactional reviews, however, the final decision would rest with Ofcom. This is the most radical part of the report, including recommendations for “a new statutory responsibility for the assessment of a transaction’s impact on plurality”. It is a role for Ofcom which stems directly from the committee’s opening argument that competition policy and plurality policy are entirely separate concepts and that “a plurality assessment must focus on the interest of the citizen”. While the competition authorities would still have a role in assessing the competition aspects of a transaction, it would ultimately be left to the Ofcom board to reach a “Public Interest Decision” to resolve any conflict. The committee have therefore taken the perfectly logical view that, since decisions on plurality are ultimately about citizenship and democracy, the final decision should rest with the body which has a statutory duty to promote the interests of citizens as well as consumers.

Why no final decision on transactional reviews for the Secretary of State? Because, says the committee – clearly influenced by the evidence of Jeremy Hunt to Leveson as well as several witnesses to their own enquiry – “it is impossible for the Secretary of State to [make that decision] without the appearance of being influenced by political motives”.  There is some logic in making this distinction between periodic and transactional reviews, though the same political considerations will no doubt apply equally to any divestment recommendations stemming from organic growth.

Ofcom’s discretion

All those elegantly argued and positive recommendations are slightly diminished by the huge amount of discretion left to Ofcom and the measurement process in carrying out either type of review. Parliament should, says the report, lay down guidance for a new framework but “there should be flexibility for Ofcom to interpret statutory guidance, design the assessment framework and select appropriate metrics according to the circumstances at the time of the review”.  Although the report is not specific about the guiding framework for periodic reviews, it is essentially based around ensuring a sufficient diversity of viewpoints and preventing too much editorial influence. For transactions, it follows the same guiding principles and concludes that negative decisions should be based on the likelihood of a “material and unacceptable lessening of plurality”.

While Parliament’s role in providing a clear framework is essential, the discretion left to Ofcom to interpret that guidance, design an appropriate assessment framework and select metrics leaves it wide open to accusations of selective and subjective approaches. The biggest media companies are notoriously litigious; it is difficult to see either kind of review – if it results in recommendations for divestment or prevention of a transaction – avoiding lengthy legal challenges and judicial reviews.

Perhaps that is the nature of the plurality beast, and no set of proposals was ever going to fulfil what is by definition a difficult and contested policy aim. But while I sympathise with the sentiment that “a concept as complex as plurality can [not] legitimately be reduced down to one (measure)” – and indeed that proposals around behavioural remedies raise as many questions as they answer – I worry that a 21st Century Fox bid for Sky or a Google bid for ITV or an Associated Newspapers bid for the Independent would all receive an eventual green light whatever creative combination of metrics might be cooked up by Ofcom.

Local initiatives?

One further aspect of the report is disappointing. Although it mentions in passing the importance of new initiatives and interventions to stimulate media enterprises, particularly at the local level, there is little attention paid to the different creative approaches that might be feasible or the potentially enabling role of government policy. Apart from reiterating the charitable funding idea raised in a previous report, there is a missed opportunity to call for new approaches along the lines of existing small grants to Community Radio, or allowing hyperlocal sites to share revenue from statutory notices.

These, plus other ideas for generating revenue to help boost new local media, could have been included as complementary initiatives to the reformed regime for plurality reviews. Overall, however, we should certainly welcome a report which puts the citizen and Ofcom firmly at the centre of a new plurality regime.

Steven Barnett is Professor of Communications at the University Westminster, and is currently leading an AHRC funded project into Plurality and Media Power. He acted as specialist adviser to the Lords select committee on four earlier inquiries.

Blog, Comment, Media ownership, Media plurality

Steven Barnett: Murdoch and media power – déjà vu all over again?

by  on  • 0 Comments

This week saw the announcement of half-year results from BSkyB. There was a slight dent in its relentless profitability following recent competition from BT for Premier League rights, but very little deviation from the last full-year results: annual revenues of £7.2 billion with an annual operating profit of £1.3 billion. One and a third billion is an awful lot of spare cash to be generating each year.

That was precisely why Rupert Murdoch, who still owns just 39% of BSkyB, was desperate for his 2010 News Corp bid for the whole company to succeed, until it was finally derailed in July 2011 by the Milly Dowler phone hacking revelations and subsequent Leveson Inquiry. While in previous years his UK newspapers were the company cash cow, they have been increasingly overshadowed by the sports-driven pay TV business of Sky. Unfortunately for Murdoch, only 39% of that £1.3 billion belongs to him.

According to the Daily Telegraph, he may be lining up a new bid and “the move makes more strategic sense now than it did in 2010”. Any bid would now come from his new 21st Century Fox business, created when he split the film and TV business from his publishing interests (still called News Corp) in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal. But in media ownership terms, Murdoch chairs both companies and the end result would be no different from the highly profitable and enormously powerful conglomerate which was eventually sidelined in 2011.

There is in some circles an increasingly relaxed view of a new Murdoch bid: a sense that, with the emergence of global social media and online giants like Google, Facebook and Amazon, anxiety over an expanded Murdoch empire would be yesterday’s problem. This is misguided. A wholly Murdoch-owned BSkyB would still mean that a single media enterprise – and ultimately one individual – controlled over a third of national newspaper circulation (and their associated websites) in the UK and the only commercial 24 hour UK news channel – which in turn supplies the news for Channel Five and almost every commercial radio station in Britain.

Apart from the news plurality issue, a new takeover bid would raise other issues. A unified corporate culture can determine editorial direction across a range of media outputs beyond news, including drama and comedy. Moreover News Corp, like all media conglomerates, are adept at exploiting their media outlets to promote their own products and ignore or disparage those of their rivals. A wholly owned Sky will give Murdoch more leverage for cross-promotion across his empire, thereby entrenching his competitive advantage and further reducing the number of alternative voices.

And apart from influence over editorial content, there’s the scope for consolidating power by putting undue pressure on regulators. Sky has already shown a healthy appetite for expensive litigation, draining the resources of regulators and competitors. Allied with strident editorial assaults on Ofcom in News Corp newspapers, this can create formidable barriers to public interest interventions which reinforces an unfair competitive advantage in the battle for rights and talent.

All of these fears about the potential consequences for unhealthy dominance of the newly merged conglomerate were rehearsed in the months before the News Corp bid fell victim to the phone-hacking scandal. It was, however, on the verge of going through and the lengthy process exposed serious flaws in the UK’s regulatory regime around media plurality. As ministers and prime-ministers past and present explained during the Leveson hearings, politicians became too enmeshed in the Murdoch empire and were given too much discretion in determining the outcome of such bids. If a second bid is also to be thwarted – which the public interest surely demands – that plurality regime must be overhauled.

Next Tuesday sees publication of the long-awaited report by the influential House of Lords Communications committee on media plurality. It will, I hope, propose a number of recommendations for reforming the media plurality public interest test, which was a last minute addition to the 2003 Communications Act (courtesy of some nimble political footwork from David Puttnam in the House of Lords). Without it, the Murdoch takeover would have been waved through.

But now the plurality regime urgently needs updating to embrace a broader view of plurality and media power than just news. Moreover, a new framework needs to re-engineer the complicated sequence of interventions which currently can only start and end with the Secretary of State. If we have learnt anything from the phone-hacking scandal and the relationship between politicians and the press, it is that powerful press barons still command a deeply unhealthy genuflection from politicians in desperate search of a positive headline. It is the independent and competent regulator, Ofcom, which should be tasked with ensuring that the public interest is not sacrificed to political expedience.

Governments are not bound to accept the recommendations of select committees, and there is no guarantee that the Lords committee will propose sweeping changes. But without them it is quite likely not only that Murdoch will launch another bid for the Sky cash cow, but that this time he will succeed. The consequences for democracy of such undiluted media power being concentrated in the hands of a single individual are just as dire as they would have been three years ago.

A version of this post first appeared on the Huffington Post.

Blog, Comment, Media plurality, Media policy

Philip Schlesinger & Alex Benchimol: The future of the Scottish press

by  on  • 0 Comments

By Professor Philip Schlesinger and Dr Alex Benchimol

In the run-up to the independence referendum on 18 September, Scotland’s newspaper press is facing a double challenge. First, can print journalism adapt to the digital revolution, given a continuing decline in newspaper sales? Second, can the press perform its civic role in contributing to an increasingly distinct democratic culture north of the Border?

Oddly, such questions have been largely neglected in recent debate about the media and Scottish independence. Of late, the focus has been on ideas set out in Scotland’s Future, the Scottish Government’s White Paper.

While this discusses culture, broadcasting and communications, it is prudently silent on the future of the press. A wise move, no doubt, after hostile media and political reactions to the ‘McLeveson’ report, commissioned by Alex Salmond and published in March 2013.

This report was widely seen as going further in proposing the regulation of the press and online journalism than anything that might be agreed, post-Leveson, south of the border and so the First Minister kicked it into the long grass. In fact, separate Scottish regulation is now effectively off the agenda.

As it happens, we don’t think that regulation is the fundamental issue for Scotland, although it’s the only issue concerning the press to attract political attention. It’s a truism that for anyone to regulate the press at all it first has to survive and flourish – and that really is not being as widely discussed as it ought. In a rare intervention, more than three years ago, a study by the Scottish Universities Insight Institute concluded that while there was a profound challenge of falling circulations and advertising migrating online, new media developments could also bring new opportunities for the press. That transition is still under way, and no major Scottish titles have yet disappeared.

Scotland’s press is certainly not unique in facing the impact of the online revolution. A key issue for newspapers everywhere is how to make their digital presence pay, as print sales continue to fall and advertising migrates online. That’s why in a 2011 Herald article, one of us called for a new business model for the Scottish press.

Can Scotland learn lessons from what’s happening elsewhere? To see how the press was faring in nations comparable to Scotland, at the University of Glasgow’s Centre for Cultural Policy Research we brought together leading national and international experts – academics, journalists, media executives and policymakers from Scotland and the wider UK, Denmark, Norway, Catalonia, the Basque Country and Quebec. In closed seminars, we discussed intensively what is happening to the press in other small nations and states as well as in Scotland.

The ensuing debate showed that at best the constitutional question is secondary to the strategies of those running the Scottish press. That’s because the fundamental issue of creating sustainable conditions for their enterprises dominates, regardless of whether Scotland is independent or not.

In fact, there was a consensus that in national regions in Europe and North America such as Catalonia, the Basque Country and Quebec, as in the rest of the UK, the need for new press business models and the need to attract new readers stand out as the most urgent issues facing their press systems. That’s because (as a recent Reuters Institute study has shown) there is an increasing divergence in how news is consumed across generations, with younger ‘digital natives’ increasingly moving to mobile devices like tablets — as well as using social media — to access news content.

The quest for a new balance between print and digital has enormous implications for the way that newsrooms are organized and how newspapers actually produce daily copy. There is also a new challenge to how news judgments are being made that is posed by the increased editorial use of live web analytics – information about real-time use of content. We are working on precisely this issue in current research at CCPR.

The overriding focus of our international discussion was on technology and economics with politics, surprisingly, playing second fiddle. What became quite clear was that each nation’s institutional history has affected the development of its press system. How each political culture has evolved has also influenced the extent of state intervention in subsidizing national press systems and the reasons that are deemed acceptable for doing so.

While explicit public subsidy to keep a wide range of titles in existence would be regarded as dangerous political interference with press freedom and plurality in the UK, in Norway it is simply taken for granted. There, it relates to both a strong sense of national identity developed over time and the wide geographical dispersal of the Norwegian population. Just think of how this contrasts with the UK press’s reception of Leveson’s proposals for press regulation last year.

It is also clear that national regions for which cultural identity is closely bound up with language have opted for state intervention. In Spain, leading national/regional newspapers like the Basque-language Berria and Catalan-language newspapers like El Periódico de Catalunya and El Punt Avui benefit from wider regional government subsidies to sustain these languages in the wider Spanish-speaking context.

In Scotland, this kind of subsidy is familiar in public service broadcasting, where government funds flow to BBC Alba to sustain Gaelic-language production. It would be unimaginable for such a policy to be applied to the press, however.

In each national press, digitization is re-shaping the economics and very identity of leading national newspapers, including La Presse in Quebec  and ARA in Catalonia. Sustained by substantial language communities, both have sought to implement aggressive digital strategies as a means of actively engaging with the new multi-platform media landscape. They have gone digital in ways as yet unthinkable in Scotland.

Taking a long view, technological and existential anxieties about the role of the Scottish periodical press are nothing new. After the Union of 1707, Scottish editors and publishers framed their ambitions in terms that resonate with the ‘double challenge’ facing Scotland’s national press today. How could they provide a dedicated focus for Scotland’s cultural ambitions and distinctive civil society in the face of fierce commercial and technological competition, then, as now, from the London press? How could they promote Scottish national interests in a new constitutional framework and global economic context?

In the first issue of The Glasgow Advertiser in 1783, editor John Mennons described his new venture as engaged ‘in the task of informing and instructing his fellow citizens’, from the perspective of ‘the foremost commercial city in Scotland’. Mennons projected the new venture as part of a wider civic and national effort to maximize both Glasgow’s and Scotland’s commercial potential during a period of economic transition, when the cessation of trade with America had constrained the wealth of Glasgow’s Tobacco Lords, making the kind of commercial and political intelligence available in Scottish newspapers like the Advertiser all the more relevant to the city’s and nation’s economic survival.

The key issues about the current state and future shape of the Scottish press—economic survival; technological adaptation; and the national interest—have been with us since the earliest years of Scotland’s national press. So has the question of how the press might sustain a distinctive national cultural identity in a British, European and global context. These issues will remain an urgent national challenge, regardless of the result of Scotland’s independence referendum on 18 September.

Philip Schlesinger is Professor in Cultural Policy and Dr Alex Benchimol is Senior Lecturer in English Literature at the University of Glasgow. The ‘Securing Scotland’s Voice’ seminars were supported by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. This post first appeared on Policy Scotland. Many thanks to the authors for allowing us to publish it here.

Event, Media policy, Non-profit

Upcoming event, 27 January – ProPublica’s Richard Tofel at University of Westminster

by  on  • 0 Comments

Richard Tofel, president of the New York based non-profit investigative organisation ProPublica will be addressing an audience at the University of Westminster tonight, 27 January at 18:30 [details here]. His question: How do you measure the impact of journalism in 2014?

According to organisers OneWorld:

This is a rare chance to see Tofel discuss how ProPublica, an independent non-profit newsroom funded by philanthropic funds, operates and how he measures the impact of ProPublica’s journalism. The event will include input from media and impact experts, followed by audience Q&A.

Richard Tofel’s talk will be based on his white paper: ‘Non-Profit Journalism: Issues Around Impact’ [PDF], which he also mentions in an interview with the Guardian:

In Tofel’s new world of philanthropic journalism – ProPublica receives about $12m a year from 3,000 donors – the demand for more sophisticated methods is becoming increasingly loud, in tune with a trend sweeping the whole philanthropic sector.

Full interview here.

The event ties in closely with one of the themes of our media plurality project: we have been have involved in discussions about the potential for charitable and non-profit journalism.

New platforms offer the potential for increasing plurality, but realistically require structural and financial support to be both viable and effective. We are looking at ways in which charity law might usefully be amended to offer some financial assistance to local and national initiatives. The Community Radio model, with financial assistance available according to strictly defined criteria relating to “social gain”, might provide a further useful model.

Blog, Comment, Media plurality, Media policy

Government’s focus on measurement runs risk of neglecting crucial media plurality issues

by  on  • 0 Comments

Media coverage following Maria Miller’s appearance in front of the culture, media and sport select committee in December 2013 focused on press regulation, but she was also asked about the government’s progress on media plurality, in light of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.

The Secretary of State’s comments, reproduced and highlighted in red below, indicate that the government is focusing on the development of a measurement framework and runs the risk of neglecting broader issues of media plurality.

In written evidence to the government’s consultation, Professor Steven Barnett raised his concern that while the consultation paper started with the broad-brush approach of the Leveson report, it then appeared to limit its scope to issues of measurement and consumption.

This focus does not allow for what the eminent American political scientist, Edwin Baker, called “communicative power”. While undue concentration of media ownership is certainly unwelcome because of its potential influence on diversity of news, information and ideas in a democracy, there are other potentially harmful consequences for democracy.

A measurement framework which is constructed purely around statistical models of consumption or “share of references” by definition takes little account of opinion-forming impacts of different media forms.

Furthermore, the government must look at the current policy regime around plurality – in particular, the Public Interest test – which we suggest is not fit for purpose.

These and other concerns are also addressed in our recommendations to the House of Lords select committee inquiry on media plurality.

Extract from oral evidence by Maria Miller, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the Culture, Media and Sport committee, 18 December 2013:

Q49 Mr Bradshaw: Not quite. I had one other question on Leveson. What progress has your Department made in implementing Sir Brian’s recommendations on media plurality?

Maria Miller: Mr Bradshaw is absolutely right to say that media plurality was another aspect of Lord Justice Leveson’s report. A consultation on plurality closed on 22 October, and we are due to publish the consultation report early next year. I think that that will give us a foundation from which we can move forward on that really important issue.

…..

Q51 Chair: On Mr Bradshaw’s first question about media plurality, your communications and creative industries Minister said to the Lords Communications Committee that it is unlikely that there would be any legislative measures taken on media plurality in this Parliament. I take it you would agree with him on that.

Maria Miller: What we are focusing on, Chair, is the importance of understanding how we deal with media plurality in what is a very different and ever-changing environment. Our consultation has been seeking views on the scope of a measurement framework, and then, when we have got through that particular part of our deliberations, we intend to commission the development of a clear measurement framework and work that up in partnership with the industry.

This is a highly complex area which is, frankly, only getting more complicated, but at the heart of our approach is ensuring that British people have the ability to access a wide range of news and views, and information about the world in which they live. We believe that that plurality of information is at the heart of having a healthy and vibrant democracy.

Q52 Chair: From what you say, it sounds as if it is unlikely that it will be in the next Parliament either.  It is going to take a long time.

Maria Miller: Again, I think it is important that we get it right. I think the Committee would be urging us to get it right and it is certainly a complicated area.

 Chair: Let us move on to something completely different.

Blog, Comment, European policy, Guest post, Media plurality, Media policy

Alison Harcourt: EC should encourage transparency and co-ordination, not duplication & liberalisation

by  on  • 0 Comments

Media concentration continues to grow in Europe. Pressure from the European Parliament and NGOs prompted the European Commission to establish a High Level Group, which reported on media pluralism in early 2013. The Commission’s DG Connect then responded to the Group’s report with its own proposals. University of Exeter’s Alison Harcourt, a member of our media power and plurality research advisory board, points out the problems with these proposals and suggests the Commission focus rather on using soft policy initiatives to encourage transparency and co-ordination among existing stakeholders. This post originally appeared on the LSE Media Policy Project Blog and is reproduced here with thanks. 

Media concentration is recognised as a threat to democracy, freedom of speech and pluralist representation. However, media ownership restrictions have been replaced in EU states with competition law due to market pressure.

Pluralism remains a key consideration, as evidenced in competition decisions taken on the 2005 proposed takeover of ProSiebenSat by Axel Springer in Germany; the 2007 17.9% stake in ITV by BSkyB in the UK; the 2009 26% Communicorp stake in INM; and the 2011 proposed acquisition of BSkyB by News Corporation.

Interest groups, including some from the UK, are calling for EU action. A 2013 European Initiative for Media Pluralism, by over 100 civil society groups, called upon the EU for “legislative actions to stop big media and protect media pluralism in Europe”.

The arguments focus on: why continued statutory restrictions should remain in place to ensure pluralism of opinion, adequate political representation, and a citizen’s participation in a democratic society; why market forces alone cannot be trusted to deliver these democratic goals; and how increased technological delivery of media content is leading to the establishment of gateway monopolies.

But what form can EU action take? Article 151(4) of the Treaty is a weak instrument on which to base a Directive as its link to media pluralism is tenuous and it requires unanimity decision-making in the Council of Ministers. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that “The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected”, needs only to be respected under EU law and cannot be utilised as a basis for a Directive.

The European Commission’s proposals

In May 2013, the European Commission (EC) made 30 recommendations in response to the report of the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism on “A free and pluralistic media to sustain European democracy” and following a public consultation.

Condensed into 9 main categories these are to:

1) fund a European fundamental rights agency (EFRA) or independent monitoring centre to monitor the role of media freedom and pluralism;

2) set up a national audiovisual regulatory authority (NRA) network based upon the IRG to report directly to the European Commission;

3) recommend EU‐wide standards for media councils, journalistic practise and media literacy;

4) subsidise media content, in particular “increasing national coverage of EU affairs”, journalism scholarships, academic research, cross national media networks, and open access policies;

5) revise EU legislation on privacy and introduce libel restrictions at the EU (which would also cover the internet);

6) include media pluralism under competition rules at the EU level;

7) make a pluralist media environment a pre‐condition for EU membership and receipt of EU aid;

8) promote net neutrality;

9) mandate opt-outs to third party data transfer.

The problems with the EC’s proposals

Why are these proposals problematic? Rather than addressing media plurality, the proposals seek to support and promote the existing agenda of the European Commission:

1) an EU monitoring centre could repeat work of other organisations;

2) an NRA network would flank existing efforts by EPRA on best practise and information exchange but such a fora should not set the agenda;

3) there is no EU legal competence for media councils/journalistic practise. Media literacy is already funded under the EU’s lifelong learning programme;

4) promoting EU media coverage does not address problems of media concentration;

5) the 2012 proposed General Data Protection Regulation covers privacy and data protection; libel is protected by subsidiarity;

6) Article 21 (4) under the Merger Regulation protecting national media pluralism rules should not be transferred to the EU level but remain protected under subsidiarity;

7) market liberalisation in third countries does not address existing EU ownership problems;

8) net neutrality is covered under the EU Regulatory Framework;

9) third party data is being discussed under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and does not address media ownership.

Transparency and soft policy co-ordination

What should the EC be doing? 1) it should identify and extend existing provisions protected under subsidiarity to cross-border broadcasting 2) it should increase requirements on transparency of media company reports and activities via application of existing EU company law 3) enable public availability of media monitoring via existing EU transparency provisions 4) establish soft policy coordination for safeguarding editorial independence and freedom of expression in collaboration with interest groups.

Specifically, the EU should build upon best practise and policy learning under stakeholder governance. Soft policies can and should be initiated under the “media pluralism” clause of the 2008 Audiovisual Services Directive to be implemented by the Contact Committee in cooperation with EPRA and third sector groups.

Ownership monitoring and recommendations on editorial independence and freedom of expression can be made in conjunction with third sector actors without the need for the establishment of an EFRA. Information should be exchanged amongst the EC, NRAs and the third sector.

Provision of a publically accessible database for monitoring media ownership can be made available through third sector groups listed in the EU’s joint Transparency registry. Resources should be pooled and links made between existing databases such as the KEK’s database on German companies (e.g. detailing ProSiebenSat1′s ownership in the Cayman Islands) and OpenCorporate’s online database and made available in French and English.

Finally the EC could co-ordinate the identification of national best practices, such as the non-media-specific transparency requirements under the UK 2006 Companies Act (Section 854) and the Austria’s Open Government Data Portal, for application on a European-wide basis under the EU’s 2004 Transparency Directive and 2007 Transparency Recommendations.

Blog, European policy, Media plurality, Media policy, Submissions

Recommendations on plurality to the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications

by  on  • 0 Comments

After wide-ranging discussion at a seminar at the University of Westminster involving leading figures in media policy, law and regulation, a group of academics reached agreement on a number of policy reforms. Our recommendations, set out below, were sent for consideration to the House of Lords select committee inquiry on media plurality, which is due to report in January 2014.

[A more detailed overview of the discussion is available to download here – PDF]

 

  • There should be periodic plurality reviews more often than those proposed by Ofcom.
  • The scope of media involved in such reviews – and in the current PI/merger regime – should be broadened and not tied to old technologies.
  • A sliding scale of market concentration (with soft rather than hard caps) should  be considered, with discretion to impose behavioural remedies on those with the largest share.
  • Parliament needs to set guidance on sufficiency, and on regulatory discretion.
  • Decision-making discretion on individual mergers or whether a PI inquiry has been triggered should be invested in an independent board/body rather than Secretary of State.
  • That might be a statutory Board of Ofcom, of equivalent status to the Content Board.
  • Data gaps in relation to measurement need to be addressed by Ofcom.
  • Plurality also needs financial support. Ideas might include some kind of consolidated fund, subject to contestable funding bids for media start-ups in local, regional areas.
  • New ideas for revenue-raising should also be considered, based on media subsidies and transfer of resources (within reason) from new technology companies which have benefited from the creativity/journalism of others.
  • Ways of harnessing BBC expertise should be sought without top-slicing the licence fee.

 

Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of Westminster

Natalie Fenton, Professor of Communications, Goldsmiths, University of London

Tom Gibbons, Professor of Law, University of Manchester

Peter Humphreys, Professor of Politics, University of Manchester

Martin Moore, Director, Media Standards Trust

Horatio Mortimer, Consultant, Sovereign Strategy

Stewart Purvis, Professor of Journalism, City University London

Justin Schlosberg, Lecturer in Journalism and Media, Birkbeck, University of London

Damian Tambini, Director, LSE Media Policy Project

Judith Townend, Research Associate, University of Westminster

Lorna Woods, Professor of Law, University of Essex

Blog, Media plurality, Media Plurality series

Media Plurality Series: all the posts

by  on  • 0 Comments

In the last few weeks we’ve been running a special series on media plurality with the LSE Media Policy Project. Here’s a list of the featured posts, from first to last. Please feel free to comment under the individual posts, and if you would like to contribute to the blog in the new year, please email j.townend@westminster.ac.uk.

 

Blog, European policy, Guest post, Media ownership, Media Plurality series

Media Plurality Series: Interview with Robert Picard on policy priorities for a pluralistic society

by  on  • 1 Comment

For the last post in our special Media Plurality Series with the LSE Media Policy Project, LSE MSc student Emma Goodman interviewed Robert Picard, Director of Research at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, on definitions and measurement of pluralism, the role of the internet and overall policy priorities.

P_28074512e9[EG] You have said that the UK tends to use a more narrow definition of plurality than that employed in other countries. Would you suggest a wider definition, and if so what would that be?

[RP] The question is: what are you trying to achieve? The definition of plurality used in the UK is designed to try to maintain an existing range of plurality, primarily in the press, and a range between Conservative party views and Liberal/Labour views. It doesn’t really worry about other parties’ views. It doesn’t really care if the Greens or UKIP have anything to say, so in that regard it’s problematic, because it’s essentially designed to maintain existing power relations among the parties, and that’s not a really effective policy. It only concentrates on political plurality and ignores all other aspects.

There are many other aspects of plurality and many other influences on plurality besides just ownership. If you’re not really looking at plurality in terms of how varieties of cultures and classes and varieties of ethnic groups in the country are covered, you are taking a very narrow view of what society needs to do to be able to discuss itself, understand its identity and explain its problems to each other. That is why I say there is too narrow a conceptualization in the UK. And it’s not that the ownership of the press isn’t a problem, that’s just part of the problem.

While citizens of a country all share a particular culture as national citizens, there are often several sub-cultures within a country that need to be well represented. For Britain this is a particular problem now, as we have devolution going on and other such things – how do you represent that but still maintain some sort of broader national identity? That’s a huge problem. You can only do that if you’re not just looking at politics.

Does increasingly widespread internet access make plurality of traditional media ownership less important? Is there inherent plurality on the internet?

There’s no question that there’s the opportunity for more people to express their views on the internet. But it does not increase the opportunity to be heard, and in fact much of what goes on on the internet actually restricts the ability to be heard. We know that the majority of people go to the sites that are primarily the big brands of offline media, and when you use search engines, the first results they give you are companies that pay them money – usually people with a good deal of money.

The second thing they give you are sites that don’t pay them money but are the most visible. So the algorithms tend to promote established powerful organisations rather than the alternatives. And when you get a page of search results, about 90% of people will go to the top 10 sites. A lot of people don’t realize how skewed those searches are because of the algorithms.

Are we better off than we were? Yes. Is it dramatically better in terms of what the other person sees and hears, no. The traditional media is still very, very important.

There has been a lot of focus on how to measure plurality – but more importantly: who decides, and on what basis, when it’s enough?

We, as human beings, tend to read the things that are most comfortable for us or tend to reflect our viewpoints the most. One of the terrible limitations of the human mind is that a lot of us don’t want to be confronted by other ideas, although of course there are some who seek out other ideas and want to hear debates. So you have a problem: can you force people to listen to views they don’t want to listen to? You can’t force people to read a particular newspaper or magazine. But you can ask broadcasters to make sure that they show a range of views.

Right now the range that’s demanded is pretty small, and in fact the broadcasters get yelled at if they go too far outside the normal range. UKIP, for instance, for all those people who think it’s racist and xenophobic and all of those things, does have some interesting arguments about whether Britain is losing sovereignty because of the EU – a reasonable question for any citizen anywhere to ask. But it’s hard of them to get their voices heard. That is problematic and it means that certain debates won’t take place. It’s very difficult in this country to have a debate about a topic like euthanasia, for example.

What should be the number one priority for policy makers going forward?

I think the biggest problem that policy-makers in the UK have to look at right now is what they are going to do about cross media ownership, the range of cross media ownership that is occurring and growing, and those who want to go further. Currently today nobody has effectively come up with a measurement system that really works. Some of the best ones, I think, ultimately come down to audience measures rather than ownership measures, because ownership isn’t the issue, the effect on the public is the real issue. So I think audience measures make sense, there are different ideas as to where the limits should be placed or how you should measure them – those are up for debate and should be discussed.

I think the second thing that needs to be discussed is how to meet the needs of many urban areas today where there are large communities of people who never see themselves in the press, or on television, unless there is a riot or some sort of problem. That is bad for society: somehow, we need to solve that. It’s not a peculiar problem for Britain. It is a problem for many countries, but it is one that needs to be addressed in policy because it is so important in a pluralistic society to make sure that they are represented. Because if they don’t see themselves in the media, in the news, in the issues that are put forward, they can never integrate, they can never fully become part of society.