Memorandum by openDemocracy
SECOND CALL FOR EVIDENCE
OpenDemocracy is pleased to have the opportunity
to contribute to the House of Lords' Communications Committee's
Inquiry on Media Ownership and the News. OpenDemocracy has succeeded
in bringing new voices, new sources of information and extending
and enhancing debate in the UK and overseas. We, and others like
us, can and do mitigate the problems presented by concentration
of ownership and a possible decline in quality in established
UK media. However, our achievements are at risk and could be secured
by what, in comparison to established media, are very modest levels
of public support.
Changes to established, "legacy",
media (the decline in newspaper readership and radio listening,
fragmentation of the television audience) has given rise to widespread
and intense concern about the continued provision of diverse high
quality content and in particular about quality, diversity and
pluralism in news.
However, technological change and the growth
of "new media", notably internet based content and "Web
2.0" dialogic sites, offer signs of positive change. Barriers
to entry have fallen, connectivity (particularly to the home)
is improving and falling prices and improving skills make it possible
for many to produce and disseminate what formerly was possible
only for a few. The problems of established, "legacy",
media sectors are the reverse of the opportunities enjoyed by
emerging sectors.
Broadband internet access is now enjoyed by
more than 60% of UK homes. Using the Internet as a source of news
is among the most widespread of UK online users' activities and
users rate the Internet as more important than television, radio
or newspapers for gathering information and it is more trusted
than newspapers (though television is the most trusted news source)[10].
Threats to "legacy" media are, at least in part, balanced
by the opportunities presented by new media.
However, despite the growth of news and comment
internet sites/media (eg www.indymedia.org.uk www.OpenDemocracy.net
www.18doughtystreet.com www.pickledpolitics.com www.liberalconspiracy.org
www.thefirstpost.co.uk) and a host of blogs many sites have a
mayfly life and survivors are often extremely fragile.
Although the successes of websites such as OpenDemocracy
and a variety of blogs testify to the opportunities to reinforce
success (and prevent premature failure) and reinvigorate public
debate and dialogue by providing public support for diversification
of provision of worthwhile content they require public funding
to survive and thrive. Sites, such as those listed above, depend
on a variety of sources of funding in order both to enter the
public sphere of debate and information distribution and exchange
and to survive within it. Some depend on the modern equivalent
of the aristocratic patron, some on partisan activists and others
on charitable and foundation support. But none have developed
a viable business model—for there is none. Neither advertising
nor subscription finance has yet provided a robust and sustainable
funding.
Ofcom's kite flying notion of a Public Service
Publisher has opened an important debate on public funding which
deserves to continue but it has focused on, and perhaps been captured
by, established broadcasting interests. The debate needs widening
to include new online providers like OpenDemocracy.
OpenDemocracy was incorporated in 2000 and began
online publishing in March 2001. It has built up an unparalleled
reputation for intelligent and well informed debate and for provision
of authoritative news and information from a variety of sources—often
those left at the margin by "legacy" media. Recent coverage
of Kenya, for example, has brought into the public sphere African
writers like Peter Kimani and Roger Southall as well as unusual
academic commentary from the anthropologist Angelique Augerud
and the French expert Gerard Prunier. This coverage has been widely
picked up and praised for its depth and originality in the African
press and blogosphere. OpenDemocracy is well networked internationally
and, for example, uses a large number of Pakistani writers when
a Pakistani issue is under consideration. Its commitment to dialogue
and debate means that typically it commissions more than one piece
on a particular subject. And OpenDemocracy prides itself on using
"non metropolitan voices", its former editor Isabel
Hilton said, "we don't publish on the basis of a metropolitan
outlook".
Testimonies to the OpenDemocracy's achievement
and quality include the following:
Michael Conroy, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
You have created new global dialogue on really
tough and timely issues, and, frankly, the voices of your authors
bring refreshing and courageous new perspectives to U.S. audiences,
which not even the best of our progressive media have the courage
to touch!
Hermes64@bigpond.com:
I am a member of the Australian Parliament. I
have to say that when your email comes in to my inbox, I get so
engrossed that I can't make my way to work.
BBC World Service, during the Orange Revolution
in the Ukraine:
We're having trouble getting onto your website.
When will it be back up? How are we meant to know what to think
and what is going on without it?
Andreas Whittam Smith, Founding Editor of The
Independent:
OpenDemocracy has crossed the line from being
interesting to being essential. There is always something I feel
I must read.
Shaun Chau, UK Cabinet Office.
Just a little positive feedback about OpenD.
I love it—it's great. I in particular like how you email
me with stories because I often don't have time to check OpenD
but the emails often pique my curiosity. I find this works particularly
well when the stories relate to big news stories ie. Kenya and
Pakistan recently. Otherwise, hope you have a good new years—and
I look forward to reading Open Democracy this year. Keep up the
good work!
OpenDemocracy owes its existence to support
from foundations, notably the Ford Foundation, in the USA. It
launched with $5 million of support from foundations among which
the Ford Foundation was the biggest contributor. In the last two
years, in spite of enjoying growing celebrity and reputation,
OpenDemocracy has been in decline. Staffing has fallen from 15
to only four full time staff (supported by interns and contributions
from associated projects) and the range and quality of content
has changed accordingly. Although OpenDemocracy secured 1,000
donations in 2007 its income is substantially exceeded by its
expenditure on core activities of c£150k pa. Of this very
modest sum, only about £15/20k pa can be devoted to commissioning
and paying for contributions.
Without (relatively modest) public funding the
long term future for OpenDemocracy and sites like it is bleak.
There is much room for debate on the amounts, conditions, terms
and duration of public funding and about the criteria on which
public support should be provided (and accepted). OpenDemocracy
is ready to contribute to such debates but asserts that without
public funding the nascent online UK public sphere will falter
in its growth and development. The new media require far smaller
amounts of money to survive and thrive than "legacy"
media, such as broadcasters, claim they need to compensate for
the decline of their sectors.
There are striking opportunities presented by
the new media—they should not go by default because of the
larger claims of well connected "legacy" media and the
effectiveness of their well established lobbyists. The problems
of "legacy" media are often testimonies to the opportunities
enjoyed by new entrants and new media. But to capture such opportunities
fragile new, and established, new media entrants may need public
support—OpenDemocracy is a prime case in point.
5 February 2008
10 It's important not to oversimplify by distinguishing
categorically between the Internet and "legacy" media
not least because of the interdependencies between them-particularly
in news. See Paterson's claim that Internet news emanates from
a limited number of sources, notably four major news agencies,
and that "source diversity" in news has not grown significantly.
Paterson, C (2006) News Agency Dominance in International News.
Paper 01/06 Leeds. Centre for International Communications Research.
At http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/cicr/exhibits/42/cicrpaterson.pdf Back
|
