Why we need to fight for media pluralism

Granville Williams of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, is one of Britain’s leading experts on media ownership, and distinguished author of several books on the subject.   Last week he addressed a European audience on the importance of media pluralism, underlining the need for the mobilisation of national and continental public concern. 

Since this issue goes to the very heart of our campaign, we respectfully reproduce the text below.  (The event was ‘Liberta d’informazione in Europa’, organised by European Alternatives in Rome on 5 February.)   

I want to start with a quote from a UK government media policy document written in 1995.
“A free and diverse media are an indispensable part of the democratic process. They provide the multiplicity of voices and opinions that informs the public, influences opinion, and engenders political debate. They promote the culture of dissent which any healthy democracy must have…If one voice becomes too powerful, this process is placed in jeopardy and democracy is damaged.” (1)
The quote captures the essence of media pluralism.
I now want to tell you about an important campaign underway in the United Kingdom to defend media pluralism.
News Corporation, one of the top five global media groups, announced in June 2010 that it wanted to purchase the remaining 60.9% shares of BSkyB and acquire total control of the company.
But the proposed takeover of BSkyB raises vital public interest issues. If successful it would fundamentally change media pluralism in the UK.
News Corporation already controls over 37% of national newspaper circulation in the UK. There is intense competition for both advertisers and readers in the national newspaper market, but the financial strength of the company means that it is able to absorb losses to gain market share.
On present trends this is likely to increase to over 40.5% in three years time.
The company also has three state of the art printing facilities built at a cost of £650 million in 2008. The plant in North London is the biggest printing centre in the world. Its twelve full-colour presses can each print 86,000 copies an hour. Together the three plants have the capacity to print the whole of the UK press. Currently, apart from printing The Times, Sunday Times, News of the World and The Sun they also print the Daily and Sunday Telegraph.
BSkyB, one of only two commercial TV news companies in the UK, supplies Sky News, Channel 5 News and virtually all commercial radio news. The other commercial supplier of news, Independent Television News or ITN, provides the news for ITV and Channel 4. There is a real danger that BSkyB will use its market power to diminish ITN news provision in the future in the way it has in the past.
In 2001 Sky News led a consortium which bid against ITN to provide ITV’s news. ITN was only able to secure the contract by reducing its bid by 25% from £46 million to £35 million. ITV is cutting its costs and the scenario could easily be repeated. It would leave ITN fatally weakened and threaten the existence of the highly regarded hour-long nightly Channel 4 News.
It would be a direct threat to the plurality of news providers essential in a democratic society
BSkyB dominates subscription satellite broadcasting and it has just announced its six-monthly results. Revenue rose 15% to £3.19 billion and profits 26% to £467million. It has also just launched a heavily-advertised new channel Sky Atlantic which provides exclusive viewing of all HBO programmes (The Wire, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire) and the popular Mad Men, previously on the BBC. The BBC said they could not compete with BSkyB’s bid for the series.
BSkyB’s revenues are the same now as the combined revenues of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.
A merged company would completely dominate UK media. It would create the media equivalent of a black hole whose sheer power can distort, damage or destroy other media. The size and scale of the resources (financial, programming and news/information) which News Corporation would deploy against its UK competitors in broadcasting and publishing would put them at a massive competitive disadvantage.
There is a wider democratic issue. With Murdoch economic control of media brings editorial control through the careful selection of editors and heads who are expected to toe the company line or pay the price.
It is no accident that every single one of 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers over the world had the same pro-war line on Iraq in 2003. Sky News risks going the same way, a UK-version of Fox News, which could have a profoundly distorting impact on the British news agenda.
Rupert Murdoch’s media power has also played a corrosive role in UK politics with governments, fearful of antagonising him, shaping policy to win his support. The BBC for example has been relentlessly attacked by Murdoch. Now the UK Conservative-led coalition government has imposed a six-year freeze on the licence fee up to the renewal of the BBC charter in 2016.
Cuts have also been made on the BBC World Services and BBC Online, and more is to come.
There is one other aspect of Murdoch’s media power which I need to mention. The phone-hacking scandal. A journalist on The News of the World and a private investigator were jailed and the line from News Corporation was he was a ‘rogue reporter’. The editor, Andy Coulson, resigned subsequently to be employed by prime minister David Cameron as his Communications Director. He has now resigned from that post as the phone hacking is now being investigated again.
The phone-hacking scandal reveals the dark side to Rupert Murdoch’s media power, and how it penetrates into politics, the Metropolitan Police and pretty much every nook and cranny of public life. The chilling effect of a media company which is too large and powerful to upset was vividly demonstrated by the House of Commons Culture Committee probing the Coulson affair.  The committee deferred when Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of News International, refused a formal request to appear before it. MPs on the same committee confessed they pulled their punches in the investigation out of fear that News Corporation journalists would begin to trawl through their personal lives.
My organisation, the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, has been very active in opposing Murdoch’s bid for BSkyB. When we started out in June 2010 it seemed like the deal would be quickly agreed but we argued that there should be a public interest test and that the media regulator Ofcom should investigate the threat to media plurality.
We were involved in work with an online activist site 38 degrees and the National Union of Journalists in developing opposition to the takeover and twice tens of thousands of signatures opposing the deal have gone to the government.
Separately a number of UK media groups also woke up to the threat such an enormous media group would pose and opposed the takeover.

Ofcom’s report was sent to the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. It recommended that the Competition Commission should fully investigate the takeover. Hunt received that report on 31 December 2010 and has held secret talks with Murdoch to see if there any remedies which would allow the takeover to proceed.
The CPBF thinks any remedies will be worthless. He should bear in mind the words of one of Murdoch’s former editors, Bruce Guthrie, who was editor of his biggest-selling daily newspaper in Australia, Melbourne’s Herald Sun. He was dismissed in October 2008, days after Murdoch had told him with great conviction what a first rate job he was doing editing the paper. Guthrie writes:
‘Not for the first time I found myself reflecting that what Murdoch says and what he does are two different things.
‘I’m not the first person to be lulled into a false sense of security by Murdoch and his assurances, and I won’t be the last…It seems likely Murdoch will offer up some sort of editorial guarantee or independent board in order to be allowed to complete his bid for 100% of BSkyB. Such assurances should be taken with a pinch of salt. Actually a whole shaker of the stuff.’
However we would be foolish to see this as just an issue affecting the United Kingdom. The growth of powerful global media groups has been analysed by Manuel Castells in his book Communication Power. He identifies the emergence of ‘infocapitalists’ who build networks of business and political power by owning the production of information and knowledge. It is done through the expansion of powerful cross-media empires which develop to a new level through technological convergence. (2) The process is epitomised by the BSkyB takeover in the UK and the huge Comcast/NBC merger in the USA.
As citizens we should be seriously concerned about such developments. Anyone who cares about the future of democracy should strive to protect and defend a diverse media and prevent domination by one individual or company.
The media do not just provide information; they mould opinion and shape public debate. As Timothy Wu argues in The Master Switch, ‘The flow of information defines the basic tenor of our times, the ambience in which things happen and ultimately the character of our society.’ (3)
That is why we need to mobilise and channel public concern into a determined campaign to raise the issues of media concentration and media pluralism at a national and European level.
It won’t be easy.
Attempts to raise issues of media ownership at a European level have been fiercely resisted over the years by the big media groups like Bertelsmann and News Corporation. Indeed the Brussels-based trade groups the European Publishers Council and the Association of Commercial Television were created to pursue deregulatory policies and block any attempts to lay down limits on media ownership. Both actively monitor media policy issues in Brussels to ensure their views prevail.
That is why I strongly support this important initiative by European Alternatives to highlight the issues of media pluralism and freedom. I will do all I can, along with the organisation I represent, to realise its objectives.

Notes
(1)Department of National Heritage, Media Ownership: The Government’s Proposals, Cm2872, HMSO, 1995, p.2.
(2)Manuel Castells, Communication Power, Oxford University Press: New York, 2009.
(3)Tim Wu, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 2010, p.12.

Who should own our media?

In this campaign we draw attention to the problems and abuses connected with the media, which  inevitably tends to concentrate on the negative.  Today’s blog, however, is more positive, and looking to the future.

DemocracyFail argues for fundamental change, but what sort of change?  Recognizing that the system is very complex and constantly evolving, we do not claim to have the answers ourselves.  We do, however, follow expert opinion and, hence, advocate the appointment of a media commission to review all our current practices and regulations and to change the rules on ownership.  

But what sort of ownership is appropriate and fairest in a democracy?  Thanks to the behaviour of News International et al, there is now more reason to hope that the idea of change is not quite as remote as it once was.  Now is perhaps the time to start engaging more deeply in the direction we need to go. 

We were prompted to pursue this theme by a letter in today’s Guardian on media ethics by Professor Robert Wade of the London School of Economics.  The Professor stated an important truism:

“As long as media are owned by profit-maximising corporations, editors and journalists will be under intense pressure to invade privacy in order to run gossip and scandal, under a banner which fudges the distinction between what the mass public is interested in and what is in the public interest”

The same reasoning is true, of course, for political bias.  Leaving aside their general economic role in society, profit-maximising organisations are self-interested and self-serving and will inevitably support the political party that will help to maximise their profits.   This tends to be Conservative or, in recent history, Blairite.   Hence there will always be right wing bias in the press under the current system of ownership.

Professor Wade suggests the way ahead:

“The future of quality media can only be assured when owned either by a trust with a cross-subsidising cash cow (such as the Guardian’s Scott Trust) or by a low-profit limited liabilitycompany.  The latter makes profits, but has legal protection from shareholder demands for open-market profits.”

There are many mountains to climb before one dare to hope for this transformation in media ownership, but it is not an impossible dream.  Having the vision can certainly help us achieve our goal.

1966 and all that

Vince Cable will be feeling the heat.  Those urging him to intervene in the Sky takeover bid now include the might of leading national newspapers and broadcasters.

We think it will be hard for Mr Cable to turn a blind eye.  His instincts will surely be against a takeover, and, despite the complexities of the case, there is the legal provision for him to make the required referral.  Moreover, coalition partner or not, to supporters of his party, his failure to intervene would make it hard to describe him as either a Liberal or a Democrat.

What is of fundamental importance, though, is to remember that this particular battle is another symptom of the underlying problems of media ownership in Britain.  As today’s Guardian editorial reminds us, we are the victims of our failure to act over four decades ago: 

In 1966 the Monopolies Commission was asked to pronounces on whether it was even right for the Times and Sunday Times to be in the same ownership.  The only reason the merger was waved through was that it was believed Lord Thomson never used newspapers as a vehicle for his own views.  …  Some will look back at that age and see either misguided paternalism or rank naivety.

We have to return the drawing board.  We must have a media commission

Britain’s media ownership rules must change

Following last night’s Dispatches on Channel 4, word is beginning to spread about our campaign for a media commission.  For the benefit of everyone visiting our blog for the first time, we thought we should briefly restate the reasons behind our mission.

DemocracyFail was formed by concerned members of the public at the beginning of September, in response to an article in The Observer by Will Hutton, where he warned  about the inadequacies of the existing rules on media ownership and how Britain is lagging behind the laws of other democracies: 

What wealthy people do with their media empires is contentious in all western democracies. Ownership is not just a source of public power, a means to shape the world to suit one’s interests.  Politicians court editors and proprietors for the very good reason that they can deliver votes and move opinion.

Which is why most democracies have developed complex rules about media ownership.  Britain, dumb to its importance, has the lightest of touches.  We impose no nationality requirement; we do not tightly police the share of any media market held by one proprietor, nor make demands about limiting owners’ power to take ownership chunks across the media domains; we do not even care much about preventing market dominance.  The assumption has been that lightly applied competition law, along with self-regulation, is all that is required, with little thought for any political and cultural consequences.  It is, I submit, the attitude of a declining civilisation that is losing its pride and sense of national purpose.

The current situation is clearly dangerous to a democracy yet, astonishingly, Murdoch is poised to take even more  control.  His bid for the remaining 61% of BSkyB and the prospect of relaxation in the rules of cross media ownership, means that his empire could soon control over 50% of the newspaper and television markets respectively.  Who is set to stop him?  Not, it seems, David Cameron or Jeremy Hunt. 

Clearly there must be a change in the rules and laws governing media ownership, competition and regulation.  Will Hutton proposes the establishment of a media commission to make this come about, but it is unlikely to come about without public support.  DemocracyFail was set up to mobilise that support.  As a first step, please follow us on Twitter and join us in spreading the call for a media commission.  And please watch this space for further developments.

We’ve already overtaken Berlusconi

“Somewhere between 2015 and 2020 News International and Sky will control 50% of the newspaper and television markets respectively”, according to media analyst, Claire Enders.  As for comparisons with Berlusconi, we have not so much as caught up with him, but overtaken him.  “The level of concentration [of News Corp media] already seen in the UK is substantially greater than would be allowed in Italian law.  We are already way past any Berlusconi moment in Britain.” 

This represents a huge danger to our democracy, but it doesn’t have to go that way if there is the political will to challenge it.  And yet, as we have stated before, there is an unwillingness for politicians and public figures to come out against Murdoch. 

The choice is  simple.  Either we sleepwalk into the clutches of a foreign media empire, or we do something about it by pressing for a media commission to investigate ownership and competition.

Beginning with the Twitter community, we ask you to ask MPs, celebrities and anyone in public life to join this campaign.   With their  support and followers,  we  could make a serious impact.  If we do nothing,  the future looks very bleak indeed.

The infectious silence

Murdoch’s ambitions must be held up to real political scrutiny and be vigorously debated in parliament, for the health of our democacy, says today’s Observer’s editorial.  While plurality of ownership is clearly desirable, it warns, as we warn, that things seem to be moving in the opposite direction. 

We believe that the appointment of a royal commission on media ownership and regulation is  the route to attaining the plurality so essential for our democracy.  This depends on politicians taking up the cause.  But will they?

The Observer tells us what we already know:  newspapers and TV channels are predictably poor at reporting the affairs of their proprietors.  But, more worryingly,  it states that  “Media silence seems to be infectious, spreading to politicians who are glad to avoid causing offence to powerful proprietors.”

It is precisely because of this silence that we have begun this campaign.  If politicians and other high profile people are too afraid to speak out, it’s up to us.  Please, therefore, take every opportunity to spread the word on Twitter about DemocracyFail and sign the 38 Degrees online petition against the Sky takeover.

The British media is in dangerously few hands – the public must fight back

Hello and welcome to the blog of DemocracyFail.  We hope you will join us in our fight and contribute to this blog.  Please read our first post to see why we think it’s so important.

Ordinary members of the public are increasingly alarmed by the growth of powerful media empires and their erosion of our democracy.  These corporations are not elected, representing only their shareholders, but have the ability to make or break governments, organisations and individuals.  They can influence policy and opinion at a stroke, support and oppose wars,  and have a profound impact on our lives.

It’s getting worse

The stranglehold of print and broadcast media threatens to get tighter and tighter under the present government.  We ignore it at our peril.

What will happen, for instance, if industry regulator, OfCom, goes ahead with its plan to relax the rules governing cross-media ownership?   This would pave the way for a single company to own all the newspapers and broadcasting media in a town or city.  So if you happen to live in Extown, your local radio station, local paper and TV could all belong to a multinational company based thousands of miles away in another continent and owned by someone called Rupert Murdoch.  Everything you read, watch and hear will be under his control.

News International, which publishes The Times, Sunday Times, The Sun and News of the World, is not exactly coy about its role, proudly proclaiming on its website:  “We’re delivering more news to more people, more often, in more ways than ever.” They certainly are, accounting for a chilling 37% of the UK’s newspaper circulation.

And what is to be the future of the BBC, prized for its quality and independence?  The Murdochs would like it to shrink and the government seems willing to go along with this by cutting its funding.  Meanwhile, Murdoch’s News Corporation wants to take over the 60.9% of BSkyB it does not already own. Great potential gains for his Sky Television, and its multiple channels of news and entertainment, which will spread further into our living rooms.  (Already over 9 million households subscribe to Sky.)  Dire news for plurality and democracy, which is why 40,000 people have signed a  petition to Vince Cable. 

It doesn’t stop with newspapers and television.  The Murdoch empire’s worldwide interests include extensive book publishing, magazines, film production and distribution, technology and multimedia, to name just some.  Their impact on our hearts and minds is far greater than any of us realises.

Our argument isn’t with moguls

It may be the largest, but Murdoch’s is not the only media empire in Britain.  Richard Desmond owns the Express titles as well as Channel 5.  The non domiciled and aloof Barclay Brothers own the Telegraph group. The Independent, The Independent on Sunday and The Standard belong to a Russian oligarch.

Although we use a picture of Rupert Murdoch to illustrate our campaign, our argument is not with him or any of the other moguls.  It is with the system that allows any individual or corporation to have such a dominant role – and also their potential to completely disrupt society.  Imagine, for instance, if one of them became a convert to fascism.  Sounds far fetched perhaps but history teaches us never to underestimate the power of propaganda.

Britain lets it happen

The distinguished journalist, Will Hutton, recently reminded us that ownership of media empires is “a source of public power, a means to shape the world to suit one’s interests.  Politicians court editors and proprietors for the very good reason that they can deliver votes and move opinion.”

Yet, despite our long history of democracy, Britain is lagging behind and “dumb” to the importance of complex rules about media ownership.

“We impose no nationality requirement, “ says Hutton, “we do not tightly police the share of any media market held by one proprietor, nor make demands about limiting owners’ power to take ownership chunks across the media domains; we do not even care much about preventing market dominance.  The assumption has been that lightly applied competition law, along with self-regulation, is all that is required, with little thought for any politician and cultural consequences. “

Where is the opposition?

We are apparently sleepwalking into a real danger zone, and we, the people, need to wake up.  Politicians are mostly a lost cause because so many are afraid to stand up to the media giants.  Similarly there is little protest from our opinion leaders and celebrities – it takes courage to bite the hand of one’s employer or potential employer, or the newspaper with a columnist ready to rubbish you.  Hence, for decades, there has been little more than a rumbling of high profile protest, leaving it mostly to the brave voices of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, and a range of dedicated trade unionists, organisations and activists who have largely had to fight the battle on their own.

It’s time now for more of us to get on board.  The recent 38 Degrees campaign  to protect  the BBC successfully mobilised thousands of members of the public.  We need to continue this trend and involve people from all walks of life.  We need to be able to demonstrate our anger, our fear, our concern for the integrity of our media.  And if we do it together, we’ll succeed because, at the end of the day, we are the consumers who the media empires depend upon.

We must have a royal commission

Will Hutton has made an overwhelming case for the appointment of a media commission to examine Britain’s ownership and competition rules.  We are convinced that this is fundamental  to our democracy and needs to happen urgently.  But it won’t happen unless we press for it.

This is why, from a kitchen in Kent, we have just launched DemocracyFail, initially a Twitter campaign to spread the word about the need for a media commission.  It’s starting to get noticed and the reaction so far has been very positive.  People seem pleased to be able to do something tangible instead of tearing their hair out.  We hope that, by growing in numbers and sending links to different articles and websites, the idea of a media commission will become an increasingly high profile topic and that Westminster will not be able to ignore our request.   We shan’t rest until it happens.