Memorandum by The Chartered Institute
of Journalists
The Chartered Institute of Journalists and its
sister organisation, the Institute of Journalists (Trade Union)
welcome the opportunity of responding to the House of Lords Communications
Committee's inquiry in to media ownership.
The Institute, founded in 1884 and granted a
Royal Charter in 1890, represents staff and freelance journalists
in every sector of the industry.
In response to the inquiry we would make the
following points:
1. The most significant way in which agendas
have changed is that it is now often virtually impossible to distinguish
(in newspapers at any rate) between news and comment. With a glut
of television and—to a lesser extent—radio coverage,
newspapers are more likely to concentrate on the facts behind
the news, rather than the news itself. The consequence of this
is that newspapers have for a long time now taken on the appearance
and presentation of daily magazines. Hence many headlines tend
to be statements of a newspaper's editorial policy rather than
a reflection of the news.
2. The galloping growth of modern technology
illuminates how the method of access to news is changing. Although
millions of newspapers are still sold daily, newspaper circulations
are diminishing alarmingly at national, regional and local level.
Central to this trend is the preference, particularly among the
young, of obtaining information on-line rather than from more
traditional formats.
In addition to this, the constraints imposed
on editorial budgets mean that more often journalists are desk
bound. The once common "meet the people" methods of
reporting have been replaced by the telephone to economise on
manpower (and hence employment numbers). It follows that this
lack of staff prevents local newspapers being able to send reporters
to cover councils, courts, inquests etc. One journalist on a telephone
can "cover" more ground in a morning than one sat taking
notes in a council meeting. The result is that papers can often
rely on a "sanitised" version of council affairs by
courtesy of the town hall's press office.
Furthermore, trends such as modern celebrity
cults and the lack of interest by the young in politics and current
affairs have an effect on news coverage. In radio and television,
saturation point has been reached with round-the-clock news and
a proliferation of staff to provide it.
3. Newsgathering in the electronic media
has clearly changed, notably in the endless hours of coverage.
It is now much more `live' broadcasting; many more cases of journalists
interviewing journalists and many more journalists working on
the end product.
Newspapers have less inclination to cover a
story on-site. More information is gleaned on the telephone and
from local papers as well as the nationals. There is a tendency
to ignore the activities of local government and Parliament or
court cases, with an emphasis, instead, on so-called human-interest
stories.
4. The Chartered Institute of Journalists
has always held the view that too-concentrated ownership of the
media is unwelcome and could have an adverse effect on democratic
media. On the other hand we are in the business of protecting
and encouraging the creation of jobs and so sometimes have reluctantly
to prefer change of ownership to the extinction of a title.
Clearly, ownership has an impact on editorial
priorities and news values.
A case in point is Rupert Murdoch. Alastair
Campbell in his published diaries—The Blair Years—recounts
how Murdoch editors of The Times and The Sun were
influenced by the proprietor to take a favourable view of New
Labour in the period leading up to the 1997 landslide, Alastair
Campbell, The Blair Years—Extracts from The Alastair Campbell
Diaries, published by Random House, released on 9 July 2007—see
pp 73 onwards.
5. Nevertheless, the Institute takes the
view that existing regulation is sufficient and opposes any further
restriction intended to control a free Press.
September 2007
| 
