Search

Speaking at the Oxford Media Convention on January 19th, Hunt made 2 major announcements about the future of media in the UK, including plans for a new Communications Act and the launch of a new local news channel at the end of 2012.

City University’s journalism school held one of their excellent half-day ‘speed-dating’ conferences on media plurality in the light of the Newscorp/BSkyB merger issue. We had our own session just before Christmas. I couldn’t make it, but my colleague Dr Damian Tambini went – here’s his report.

In this guest blog, my colleague Dr Damian Tambini gives his analysis of how Nick Clegg achieved that break-through for the Lib Dems thanks to last week’s TV debates. A mixture of body language and power games did the trick, but what does it mean for our ability to handle coalition politics?

Jeremy Hunt has indicated that he plans to refer the merger to the Competition Commission. But News Corporation have a few days to persuade him not to, by offering undertakings– i.e. ‘sweeteners’ to alleviate concern that the merger will lessen media plurality.

The DCMS has announced a quick consultation.

The eve of the Leveson report has found newspapers launching a last minute bid to prevent “statutory regulation” of the press. Editorials published in the last week prior to the report’s release reveal an increasingly recalcitrant sector that is resigned on the need for reform—following gross misconduct by some of its members—but is also resolute in its desire for continued self-regulation.

Ofcom’s analysis of the implications for plurality of the proposed merger between News International and BSkyB met a mixed reception at this gathering of experts. Many of them were of the view that the evidence is of limited use because the decision will be – rightly in their view – ultimately a political decision, which should be made by accountable politicians rather than regulators.

How is the rise of new media and online journalism affecting the traditional journalistic standards of objectivity, accuracy, and verification? How can the media show that it remains committed to a strong ethical code and to effective self regulation in a rapidly changing media environment? This is the subject of a speech just given by my colleague Dr Damian Tambini to the World Congress of the International Press Institute in Vienna. It’s a bloody long read, but I think it has huge amounts to say about the quality and value of journalism in the digital age.

When the Prime Minister presented the cross-party deal on press regulation to Parliament , he described it as a way of avoiding the “statutory underpinning” called for in the Leveson Report. Editorials in daily newspapers the following day suggest that most broadsheets are ready to accept the combination of a Royal Charter and a small clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill while tabloids are holding back, but none of them bought the claim that it was not statutory underpinning.

Major scandals involving business journalists are rare, but they do happen. In London, journalists on the infamous Daily Mirror City Slickers column were found guilty of market manipulation in 2005

An apparent proliferation of inaccurate and misleading news stories has led to calls for new policy interventions, from fact checking by social media companies to new laws imposing fines for posting or sharing fake news. This raises some difficult issues in media policy. Is this a new problem? Is so called ‘fake news’ distinct from longstanding problems with accuracy or objectivity in journalism? Is the controversy rather a response to the scale of current political changes, and their impact on various interested parties? Are there fundamental changes going on in our Western media systems which undermine traditional journalistic crafts of fact checking and verification, and incentivise more emotionally resonant content, at the expense of quality, reliable journalism?

Campaign regulation aims to ensure that elections are free and fair and not captured by a narrow range of interests. Since 1883, the UK has had legislation1 on its statute books that limits candidates’ spending on political campaigns. Broadcasting legislation ensures impartiality and fairness in elections, and rationing of air time. This policy brief examines the impact of social media on these rules.

There has been little empirical research to date on the consequences of mass media change for the processes of government in the UK, despite a well-documented concern since the 1990s with ‘political spin’. Studies have focused largely on the relative agenda setting power of political and media actors in relation to political campaigning rather than the actual everyday workings of public bureaucracies, although UK case studies suggest that the mass media have influenced policy development in certain key areas. The study of government’s relations with media from within is a small but growing sub-field where scholars have used a combination of methods to identify ways in which central bureaucracies and executive agencies adapt to the media. We present the results of a preliminary study involving in-depth interviews with serving civil servants, together with archival analysis, to suggest that media impacts are increasingly becoming institutionalized and normalized within state bureaucracies; a process we identify as mediatization. A specific finding is a shift in the relationship between government, media and citizens whereby social media is enabling governments to become news providers, by-passing the ‘prism of the media’ and going direct to citizens.

It has now been confirmed that 21st Century Fox, the Film and TV entertainment business controlled by the Murdoch family, wishes to acquire the 61% share of Sky plc (formerly BSkyB) that it does not already own. This proposed expansion of the Murdoch media business raises numerous issues which would engage public interest legislation.

Digital intermediaries such as Google and Facebook are seen as the new power brokers in online news, controlling access to consumers and even suppressing or targeting messages. After reviewing literature that raised this concern, this paper examines empirical evidence for the claim that intermediaries pose a threat to news plurality. We introduce a three-stage analytical framework for measuring the role of intermediaries within the current policy framework for media plurality: (i) analysis of share of online in news consumption (ii) role of intermediaries (iii) degree of bias versus neutrality of intermediary control of news. Through secondary analysis of UK industry data on referrals of online news traffic, we find that an increasing proportion of news is delivered online, and a significant proportion of online news is accessed via intermediaries. However, we find that not all news that is filtered through intermediary services is subject to the same shaping and editorial forces, in part because user agency is also an important factor. The role of intermediaries in news distribution is thus complex; market share and market concentration does not translate automatically into influence due to the complex interplay between user agency and the editorial influence of intermediaries.

This article examines developments at public-service and state-administered media organizations based on a global sample of country case studies and selected secondary data. Most public-service and state media organizations have experienced a decline in revenue and audience and a tendency to weaken the program remit, but the overall direction of change is not one of uniform, marked, or irreversible decline. Although successful models of public service for the digital age have emerged, recent evidence suggests that neither the weakening of state broadcasters nor their reform into independent public-service media are inevitable results of digitization.

The Leveson Report on the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press proposed a system under which the independence and effectiveness of a self-regulator set up by the press could be assured through a process of independent “audit” or “recognition”. The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press establishes an independent Recognition Panel, which does not regulate the press, but decides whether a self-regulator meets pre-set criteria for regulatory independence and effectiveness. The Recognition Panel is independently appointed and protected from political interference by the terms of the Royal Charter and by a statutory requirement that a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament is required to amend that Charter. There is a “double lock” on political interference with the recognition system. Under the system proposed by Leveson the press remains in operational control of its own regulation and politicians are excluded from any role in the process. The Recognition Panel is an auditor, not a regulator.

Progress in digital skills has stalled. Despite growing broadband adoption and a range of media literacy initiatives, the evidence shows little improvement in adult or children’s levels of knowledge over the past few years. This is especially the case for the crucial dimensions of critical and participatory literacy. Yet citizens and consumers must rely on their digital skills as never before. Rapid transformations in the digital media landscape have put increasing pressure on individuals to navigate highly complex technologies, risking digital exclusion, consumer detriment, low participation and growing inequality. Government support has been cut just when it is most needed. Industry support is also vital, but needs a national effort to maximise visibility and coordination. Carefully targeting the promotion and resourcing of media literacy for those most in need could make a real difference. The effective promotion of digital skills and media literacy across the population should be a priority for the upcoming Communications White Paper.

Since the Leveson Inquiry, academic and civil society experts have proposed a range of new limits on media ownership, both ceiling limits and threshold triggers of targeted behavioural intervention. The impact of these limits in the current situation would be relatively minor, even if the ceiling limits were set at the lower bounds of 15% or 20%, and need not necessarily result in enforced divestment or equate to a cap on growth. The BBC should be included in the measurement and monitoring of media plurality, but not in prescribed remedies. Plurality policy should address both individual markets for news and information (newspapers, radio, television and internet) as well as the total media market that extends beyond news providers.

As advertising revenues shift to non-journalistic platforms, news organizations face financial difficulties. To safeguard pluralism and editorial competition, alternative funding sources should be considered. Policymakers can support private media organizations with mechanisms such as tax relief or even direct subsidies to specific media companies. Such support need not compromise media independence if safeguards such as statutory eligibility criteria are in place. Given convergence, support for private media should also be extended to online media.

Rising numbers of complaints and surveys of consumer experiences show that nuisance calls are an increasing problem in the UK. Enforcement of regulations on nuisance calls has not been sufficient: illegal nuisance calls, such as recorded messages and repeated silent calls, as well as spam texts to mobile phones, are widespread and form a significant problem according to consumers. Calls which are legal but which consumers still find a nuisance are also a problem. To deal with these, various filtering technologies will be needed; the range of these should be improved and consumers must be properly informed about them. A review of the regulations may also be required. An integrated plan is needed, with a single point of overall control. Consumers will continue to suffer unless Government takes urgent action to enable coordination between the regulatory agencies responsible for dealing with nuisance calls and also the telephone companies who carry them. These bodies need to make it easier for consumers to complain, and work with Government to review existing rules.

In the wake of the Woolwich murder and the April Jones trial, Culture Secretary Maria Miller, urged internet service providers, search engines and companies exploiting social networking sites to act more decisively regarding access to what is often called ‘harmful content’.

The creative industries are innovating to adapt to a changing digital culture and evidence does not support claims about overall patterns of revenue reduction due to individual copyright infringement. The experiences of other countries that have implemented punitive measures against individual online copyright infringers indicate that the approach does not have the impacts claimed by some in the creative industries. A review of the UK Digital Economy Act 2010 is needed based on independent analysis of the social, cultural and political impacts of punitive copyright infringement measures against citizens, and the overall experience of the creative industries.

Examining interactions between global, regional and national media processes, European Media emphasises the transformation of political communication in Europe and the alleged emergence of a European public sphere and identity. Damian Tambini finds it offers an excellent overview and reference on some of the big shifts that characterise the evolving media scene in Europe.

Examining interactions between global, regional and national media processes, European Media emphasises the transformation of political communication in Europe and the alleged emergence of a European public sphere and identity. Damian Tambini finds it offers an excellent overview and reference on some of the big shifts that characterise the evolving media scene in Europe. European Media: Structures, Politics and Identity. Stylianos Papathanassopoulos and Ralph Negrine. Polity. July 2011.

The Leveson Inquiry should recommend use of a broad range of policy instruments to regulate media power and pluralism: not just press self-regulation but also those that deal with the root cause of media capture of politicians: media ownership and concentration There is no infallible policy prescription but the approach should be holistic; looking at both internal and external plurality of the media, and ensuring maximum transparency of ownership for citizens and consumers. To protect citizens and enhance certainty for industry, fixed ownership limits should be (re)-established for media mergers and a regular review of the market carried out by an independent media regulator to assess media plurality and concentration of media power and influence. Politicians should play no role in deciding individual cases involving media competition or plurality issues.

New evidence shows that a digital underclass is forming in Britain. Although there is some improvement in access, skills and use of the internet among those who have lower education levels and no employment, these groups remain far behind other groups. As the government plans to make public services ‘digital by default’ these individuals will be unable to access them, not because of a lack of infrastructure but because of a lack of (effective) take up of the available connections. Exclusion of these most vulnerable groups has become entrenched. Gaps based on education and employment persist independent of age or other characteristics. They therefore represent a problem that is unlikely to go away even with better infrastructure or as younger generations grow up. These individuals are those that rely most on the government services that are now becoming ‘digital by default’ and will continue to do so. Those who need access to services most, from where the biggest cost savings through the digitisation of services are supposed to come, are the least likely to take these up even when access is available.

Progress in digital skills has stalled, the evidence shows. This is especially the case for the crucial dimensions of critical and participatory literacy. Yet citizens and consumers must rely on digital skills more than ever before. Rapid transformations in the digital media landscape are putting ever more pressure on individuals to navigate complex technologies, risking digital exclusion, consumer detriment and inequality among citizens. Government support has been cut just when it is most needed. Industry support also is vital. Carefully targeting the promotion and resourcing of media literacy for those most in need could make a real difference.

Communications consumers in the UK do not switch provider enough, and when they do they sometimes do so irrationally. As the government conducts a welcome review of the landscape of consumer representation in the UK, they should be aware that there is an ongoing, permanent need for consumer representation that is specific to the communications sector. The government’s proposals, by shifting consumer advocacy to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, are likely to result in an increase in costs to the public purse. Within the current model Ofcom and its consumer panel receive almost half their funding from the private sector. If the body is moved to Citizens Advice, the proportion met by public funding will be higher. The fast changing, technical complexity of the communications sector makes a consumer representative particularly important. Consumer advocacy in communications will be most efficient if it is within Ofcom, but has much more effective operational independence from it.

The current model of press regulation in the UK has failed. Journalism ethics in future needs to be enforced by a more robust organisation with support from a wider group of stakeholders. Where the old system had strengths they must be built upon and lessons learned from the experience of the PCC and European counterparts. In the long term, it is likely that ethical codes will be applied to journalism rather than a particular mode of delivery. Current reforms should establish incentives for the development of a cross media ethics body to which journalists on all platforms are able to opt- in, supported by legal and fiscal incentives. There is a role for the state in press self-regulation, in providing incentives to join, setting criteria for the formation of a self-regulatory body, and/or part funding the body. There is a range of options between light state support for self-regulation and co-regulation, but other press and journalism councils have state involvement without state capture. The PCC’s replacement should be a genuinely multi-stakeholder body designed to balance interests of the public, journalists and owners. The body should therefore be established by both media owners and journalists, with prominent public representation, and cover all media. Lay members of the public should be involved in decisions.

As the 2010 UK General Election saw an increased use of social media by politicians, activists, journalists and citizens, a number of consultancy firms began “semantic polling” – the employment of natural language processing technology to “read” and codify vast datasets gathered online, and then the use of this data to illustrate and understand public opinion. - The semantic polling techniques employed are largely experimental and vary widely between firms. There is also very limited methodological transparency. This is problematic as academic research suggests that statements about public opinion made in media can actually drive as well as reflect popular attitudes. - Both those carrying out semantic analysis and those in the media reporting it have a responsibility to offer appropriate explanations about the meaning and limitations of the conclusions, and the methods used in data analysis. They can do this by: increasing media literacy among citizens; increasing data literacy among journalists and editors; developing structures for self-regulation; and developing institutions that ensure a greater level of methodological transparency.

As part of British Politics and Policy at LSE’s new series of articles on Reforming the press (after the hacking scandal), Damian Tambini looks at the deficiencies of the current media self regulatory framework, and calls for genuine reforms which will create a regulatory body that belongs to the journalistic profession rather than the owners of newspapers.

Reports emerged yesterday that the News of the World allegedly hired a private investigator to hack into the voicemail of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler back in 2002. Damian Tambini argues that such scandals are undermining the legitimacy of the Press Complaints Commission and that industry-led self regulation has clearly failed. We are now facing a critical juncture and a Media Commission should be appointed to review the current state of the news media and intervene where necessary.

With the deadline for the government’s Communications Review fast approaching, Damian Tambini highlights certain areas that the Review may touch on and advises policy makers to use this listening exercise wisely because potentially difficult decisions await in the fields of regulation and infrastructure, as well as the tricky BskyB – Newscorp merger

The DEA gets the balance between copyright enforcement and innovation wrong. The use of peer-to-peer technology should be encouraged to promote innovative applications. Focusing on efforts to suppress the use of technological advances and toprotect out-of-date business models will stifle innovation in this industry.Providing user-friendly, hassle-free solutions to enable users to download music legally at a reasonable price, is a much more effective strategy for enforcing copyright than a heavy-handed legislative and regulatory regime. Decline in the sales of physical copies of recorded music cannot be attributed solely to file-sharing, but should be explained by a combination of factors such as changing patterns in music consumption, decreasing disposable household incomes for leisure products and increasing sales of digital content through online platforms.

Damian Tambini suggests that journalistic privileges should be given to bloggers and citizen reporters who fulfil a public interest role. But he questions whether ‘journalists’ who seek merely to serve investors – rather than the wider public interest – should not be deserving of such privileges

In order to understand why so little media attention was paid to risks in the banking sector in the run up to the financial crisis, we need to understand the framework of law, regulation, self-regulation and professional incentives that structure the practice of financial and business journalism. This paper focuses in particular on what role financial journalists play in the system of corporate governance, the ways in which law and regulation recognize that role, and the extent to which this role is accepted and understood by financial journalists themselves. The first part of the essay reviews recent debate on financial journalism and investigates the role of financial journalism from a systemic perspective: looking at its role in corporate governance, and its impact on market behaviour. I develop the notion that financial and business journalists operate within a framework of rights and duties which institutionalize a particular ethical approach to their role. The second half of the article, which draws more extensively on interviews conducted with journalists and editors, asks how journalists themselves understand and describe their role and what they see as the key challenges they face as they attempt to perform it. It emerges that there is no consensus among financial and business journalists about their “watchdog” role in relation to markets and corporate behaviour, and whilst the financial journalists interviewed tended to agree on the key challenges they face, they are uncertain how to respond to them.

This is the first in a series of ippr/Citizens Online papers which explore the social and democratic role of new media. This paper discusses all the relevant issues around the 2005 target set by the Government, and proposes a coherent strategy to ensure that the benefits of the digital age reach all citizens. The full text can be downloaded from the IPPR website.

The current crisis in global banking, markets and economies has reminded us all of the importance of financial and business journalism. It has also raised a set of profound questions as to the quality of that form of reporting. Why didn’t we know this was coming? Did the journalists fail to put the financial system under proper scrutiny? Are they equipped to deal with the continuing complex story? Is this representative of a wider problem with the news media? This pamphlet seeks to address some of these questions