Response to DCMS on Plurality October 2013 - Professor Steven Barnett

7/27/2019 Response to DCMS on Plurality October 2013 - Professor Steven Barnett

1/6

1

Media Ownership and Plurality:

Response to DCMS consultation of July 2013

Prof Steven Barnett, University of Westminster

Overview

Before answering the specific questions in the consultation, I would like to make one

contextual point. While the consultation rightly takes the broad-brush approach of the

Leveson report as its starting point, it then appears to limit its scope to issues of

measurement and consumption. While these are important indicators of media

plurality, this approach constrains stakeholder responses in two key ways.

First, it does not allow for what the eminent American political scientist, EdwinBaker, called communicative power. While undue concentration of media

ownership is certainly unwelcome because of its potential influence on diversity ofnews, information and ideas in a democracy, there are other potentially harmful

consequences for democracy.

In particular, as abundant evidence to the Leveson Inquiry demonstrated, undulypowerful media corporations or individuals can influence policy and regulatory

decisions by exerting pressure on politicians and policy makers through their media

outlets; and they can dominate or create news agendas sometimes driven by their

own commercial imperatives which other, smaller outlets feel obliged to follow.

Furthermore, a 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. The role and importance of impact wasrecognised by Ofcom in its report to the Secretary of State last year on Measuring

Media Plurality, but its ideas for measurement proxies (importance, impartiality

and quality) were by its own admission imperfect.1

Second, as I and others testified to the Leveson Inquiry, the current policy regime

around plurality in particular, the Public Interest test is not fit for purpose. The

process is too vulnerable to political intervention and the terms on which a merger (ororganic growth) should be allowed to proceed are too opaque. More clarity is required

about who can trigger a regulatory enquiry and on what terms; about the scope ofregulatory responsibility to avoid overlap between Ofcom and the Competition and

Markets Authority; and on where ultimate decisions should lie about divestments orconditional green lights.

These broader issues all require further consideration by the government, which I trust

will consult again before coming forward with proposed legislation. They are the

subject of a major research project I am now running, with funding from the AHRC,

and which I hope will offer useful ideas and policy recommendations.

1Ofcom (2012) Measuring Media Plurality: Ofcoms Advice to the Secretary of State for Culture,

Olympics, Media and Sport. 19 June 2012, p21:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/measuring-plurality/statement/statement.pdf


2/6

2

In response to the specific questions raised:

1. Which Media?

There is no question that a new policy framework should embrace online and the

internet. We should, however, be very careful about casual assumptions that an

explosion of online news and opinion sites somehow vitiates the need to monitorburgeoning media power. Research by Goldsmiths has demonstrated that the vast

majority of online news is aggregated material which originates from the main

newspaper and broadcast news operations.2 We must therefore interpret very carefully

figures about online consumption and not assume that this is automatically evidence

of a diffusion of influence.

It is still the case that serious investment in original journalism which holds power

to account and provides citizens with factual, verified information to allow them toparticipate in an informed democracy is virtually all conducted by mainstream news

organisations whose stories are then recycled via blogs, tweets, Facebook and otherforms of social media. While stories can sometimes be developed in different

directions online without the constraints of traditional media formats, self-containedonline media operations rarely carry the authority or influence of mainstream, well-

resourced and high-reach mass media organisations.

Huffington Post is often used as an example as a new online presence, as is Guido

Fawkes. Others are trying to establish themselves. But even these are niche operations

and we should, for the moment, be very wary of confusing technological opportunity

and online distribution with influence, reach and power. At the same time, we should

be thinking of new policy initiatives which might help these fledgling media

operations to flourish and make a more significant contribution to plurality. Ielaborate on this a little at the end.

2. What type of content is relevant to media plurality?

3. Do you believe that scope should be limited to news and current affairs, or be

widened to consider a wider cultural context?

4. If so, how might a wider context be defined?

While news and current affairs might be regarded as the everyday lifeblood of

democratic activity, powerful media organisations are capable of influencing thecirculation of ideas, attitudes and opinions in myriad ways. Editorial influence based

on a particular corporate culture or vision of the world can easily extend to drama,comedy, factual programming, or even childrens programmes, all of which can have

implications for the diversity of ideas in a healthy democracy. A corporate culture

which is manifestly sympathetic, for example, to an incumbent government may be

less likely to commission a biting political satire or a powerful drama designed to

expose a particularly egregious aspect of government policy. Similarly, a corporate

worldview dominated by republican sentiments might be more amenable to a comedy

which caricatures the Royal Family.

2Natalie Fenton, ed, New Media, Old News: Journalism and Democracy in the Digital Age, Sage,

2009.


3/6

3

While there might therefore be an emphasis on news and current affairs, pluralitycannot be defined solely in such narrow terms. This has clear implications for any

measurement system, such as share of voice or share of references, which is focused

exclusively on news consumption. Such approaches are inherently deficient because

they cannot embrace wider notions of media influence and power.

For this reason, I favour both the definition and approach to cross-media measurementadvanced by Enders Analysis, based on revenues and a 15% cap.

3This has the dual

advantage of encompassing all forms of media output, including online and digital

(see below), and of capturing the more inchoate notion of media power outlined

above. Those media organisations with the resources and personnel to invest in

newsgathering and other potentially influential content areas, such as documentaries

and drama, will have more influence on the broader cultural environment than the

panoply of small online sites or community initiatives with few resources and small

audiences.

5. What sorts of organisations and services are relevant to media plurality?

6. Do you believe that scope should be limited to publishers or include services

that affect discoverability and accessibility?

The consultation document is right to raise questions both about the role of wholesale

news organisations and digital intermediaries such as Google which, through use of

algorithms, can act as information gate-keeper. That is a further attraction of adopting

a cross-media revenue-based model, which would capture those increasingly powerful

gate-keeping organisations which, while not involved in the newsgathering or cultural

production process, can influence both distribution and access.

That, however, would still leave potentially a small number of very powerful players

on a sectoral level which could have dangerous consequences for plurality. It would

not be democratically healthy, even with a putative 15% cap on total cross-media

revenue, to allow one or two media enterprises to have an excessive share of, say,

national newspaper circulation or television news viewing without any compensating

public benefit obligations.

Thus, while acknowledging the wider definition of plurality, there needs to be

recognition of the particular contribution to democracy of professional newsgatheringand original journalism. This principle should accommodate the needs of media

businesses to mitigate their economic difficulties and, where appropriate, to allow ameasure of consolidation while balancing this with the need for editorial diversity.

This delicate balance is particularly acute at the local level where the decline of thelocal press and inadequacy of other local media to fill a growing lacuna is producing a

profoundly serious democratic deficit within local communities.

I therefore support the principle advance by Media Reform and other civil society

groups for a sectoral two-tier approach, whereby consolidation or organic growth

beyond a certain share will trigger a number of public interest obligations rather than

the nuclear option of divestment. These might include:

3For a definition, see written evidence from Enders to the current Lords Select Committee on Media

Plurality, p129: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-

committees/communications/Mediaplurality/MediaPluralityEvidence.pdf


4/6

4

clear evidence of increased investment in high quality journalism. setting up new - or improving on existing - journalism training schemes. subsidising non-profit media initiatives elsewhere (see below). agreeing to transparent auditing of editorial decision-making processes to

prevent undue corporate pressure on editorial output.

appointment of an independent ombudsman full participation in a self-regulatory scheme recognised according to the terms

of the cross-party Royal Charter.

Where threshold values are clearly open to debate, I would endorse those who have

proposed a 20% share to trigger these behavioural remedies, and a 30% share to

trigger structural remedies around mandatory divestment. While I recognise

arguments about penalising success, they have to be set against an appropriate

ceiling of media ownership in a democracy and our undistinguished history in the UK

of dealing with burgeoning media power. As successive Prime Ministers admitted in

their evidence to Leveson, governments have been too timid to tackle this problemand political life in terms of relationships between media and politicians and media

and the police have suffered grievously as a result. We must have the courage to put

the public interest before political pragmatism.

7. Do you agree that the BBCs impact on plurality should be assessed as part of

a plurality review?

Clearly the BBC is one of the most important cultural and journalistic institutions inthe country. While there are valid arguments for including it in any calculation of

sectoral shares, it certainly should not be subject to the same kinds of behavioural orstructural remedies as other organisations. There are four reasons.

First, there are no proprietorial or corporate influences which guide its output. This is

not just a matter of the application of impartiality rules, which applies to all

broadcasters whether public or private, but the absence of any overarching corporate

pressure which can dictate agendas. There are regular allegations of bias levelled at

the BBC from all sides of the political spectrum, but none based on rigorous empirical

evidence.

On that subject, it not entirely clear what the consultation document means when it

says: There is also a body of research suggesting that broadcast impartiality is

challenging despite strong governance arrangements. There is no question that

impartiality is a challenging aspiration, for the BBC as much as for ITN and Sky. In

fact, the governance and regulatory arrangements combined with strong internal

cultures of journalistic norms and practices ensure that all three organisations strive

to meet their statutory obligations and institutional aspirations. Politically motivatedaccusations of bias from whichever side of the political spectrum should not be

confused with a failure to meet those obligations.

Second, because the BBC cannot express any views, either explicitly or implicitly, it

can have little impact in determining (as opposed to informing) the formation ofattitudes and opinions. The ability to be impassioned and to infuse not just

commentary and opinion pages but news pages (and their online equivalents) with


5/6

5

one-sided arguments is an integral and powerful element of a free press. While wecannot measure to what extent such editorialising drives popular opinion, intuitively a

one-sided approach will carry more influence than a carefully balanced approach.

Third, the BBC is accountable to its licence payers and to Parliament through

transparent mechanisms, in particular the BBC Trust, which ensure that its output

complies with detailed obligations laid down in the Charter, Agreement andaccompanying Service Licences. It cannot be captured for private gain and operates

transparently in the public interest. It therefore operates entirely differently from

corporate owners willing and able to promote a single worldview.

Fourth, the BBC itself pursues a policy of internal plurality, whereby individual

services and programmes are encouraged to develop their own editorial voices

within an impartiality framework. Both in the way stories are covered and in terms of

story selection, there will be different editorial agendas between news programme ondifferent channels or news bulletins reaching different audience demographics. This

theme was developed further in the BBCs own submission to Ofcoms mediaplurality review.4

While some consideration should therefore be given to the presence and consumption

of BBC services in overall calculations of plurality, it is important to recognise thatthe BBCs ability to editorialise and set agendas is severely circumscribed. In that

context, it is worth emphasising again that neither opinion-forming impact nor news

agenda-setting are properly accounted for in any consumption-based metric. For that

reason- and because it overrepresents the role of television in peoples everyday lives

I believe that Ofcoms favoured share of reference approach needs to be treated

with great caution as a cross-media consumption metric.

8. Are there specific factors that you think a measurement framework needs to

capture in order to provide a picture of plurality in local communities?

9. Do you agree that a measurement framework should also seek to assess the

plurality of media serving other audiences or communities of interest? If so,

which ones?

The Consultation is right to point out the difficult position of local media, theirimportance for sustaining local democracy, and the potential for new online initiatives

such as hyperlocal sites. Because of the necessarily small numbers of users involved,current measurement frameworks are probably inadequate for capturing the level of

exposure to relevant media at the local level. A better, more sophisticated frameworkwould be helpful.

Much more important, however, than measurement issues are new structural,

regulatory and funding initiatives to reinvigorate local media. Serious consideration

must be given to ideas for new ownership and funding models which might add to the

plurality of voices at local and regional level where investment in journalism is

becoming increasingly parlous and monopolistic. Some creative options around

charitable and non-profit enterprises were explored by the Lords Select Committee on

Communications during its inquiry on Investigative Journalism, and thought might be

4BBC Response to Ofcoms Invitation to Comment on Measuring Media Plurality, March 2012.


6/6

6

given to ways of incentivising or rewarding enterprises which can sustain journalismwith its roots in local communities.

At the moment, these tend to be precarious, shoestring operations, run by enthusiasts

but without the resources to report across a range of local issues, or to scrutinise local

elites. New platforms do offer the potential for increasing plurality, but realistically

require structural and financial support to be both viable and effective. As part of mycurrent AHRC funded project on plurality, I am looking at ways in which charity law

might usefully be amended to offer some financial assistance to local initiatives. The

Community Radio model, with financial assistance available according to strictly

defined criteria relating to social gain, might provide a further useful model.

21 October 2013

Prof Steven BarnettProfessor of Communications

School of Media, Art and DesignUniversity of Westminster

Watford Road, HarrowMiddlesex HA1 3TP

Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7911 5981

email: [email protected]

Documents

Response to DCMS on Plurality October 2013 - Professor Steven Barnett