Memorandum by Professor Richard Collins,
the Open University
SECOND CALL FOR EVIDENCE
1. Established media sectors are in decline,
newspaper readership is declining and advertising is migrating
to the Internet (the freesheet sector is a qualified exception).
Radio listening has also declined. In television, as channels
proliferate viewership for individual channels declines and revenues
per viewer hour fall (a trend exacerbated by the migration of
advertising online). In some sectors, eg "broadsheet"
newspapers, firms have responded by raising prices but the high
returns to economies of scope and scale across these sectors mean
that firms are likely to respond to these market changes by merging
and/or reducing costs. Both strategies have potentially adverse
consequences for the quality and diversity of news and suggest
that the House of Lords Communications Committee's inquiry on
Media Ownership and the News is particularly timely.
2. In other sectors, firms' raising of prices
and merging potentially raise important competition concerns.
Such concerns are certainly relevant to the media sector, although
familiar problems in competition regulation, eg market definition
and slow resolution of cases, may pose particularly acute problems,
but in the media sector other considerations also apply—notably
the key role of media in providing information necessary for people
to form views and act effectively as citizens—and have heretofore
mandated special regulatory regimes. The public interest test
for newspaper mergers is a case in point.
3. The public interest test (undertaken
by Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading) identifies the objectives
of accuracy, pluralism and freedom of expression and specifies:
— accurate presentation of news and
free expression of opinion in newspapers; and
— plurality of views in the markets
for newspapers.
Additionally, in respect of broadcasting related
mergers, it identifies the objectives of diversity, impartiality
and protection of the vulnerable and specifies:
— the need for a wide range of high
quality broadcasting services appealing to a wide range of tastes
and interests; and
— media enterprises commitment to the
objectives of section 319 of the CA 2003 (ie protection of minors,
preservation of public order, impartiality of news etc).
To these objectives, the goals of truthfulness
and comprehensiveness might be added.
4. Established media regulatory regimes
have largely been based on government/regulatory control of entry
to media, and particularly broadcasting, markets—hence the
use of media cross ownership regulation (government controlling
entry to terrestrial broadcasting through spectrum assignment)
as a proxy for concentration of ownership regulation. However,
technological change (broadcasting satellites, the Internet etc)
means that government ability to control entry, and thus to set
and enforce regulatory conditions, is diminishing. If public policy
objectives, such as those defined for the public interest test,
are likely to become more difficult to secure through traditional
forms of regulation (prohibition of undesirable conduct and encouragement
of desired conduct by authorising entry, and licencing providers,
only if such goals are secured) what can be done in new circumstances?
5. The problems of established, "legacy",
media sectors are the reverse of the opportunities enjoyed by
emerging sectors. Broadband access to the Internet 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 is more trusted
than newspapers (though television is the most trusted news source).
Although it's important not to oversimplify by making a categorical
distinction between the Internet and "legacy" media
(not least because of the interdependencies between them—particularly
in news) it's clear that the Internet has diversified and extended
the range of sources of news and information available to UK users,[1]
and that threats to "legacy" media are balanced by the
opportunities presented by new media.
6. Although securing public policy objectives
by attaching conditions to licences is diminishing in effectiveness,
opportunities to strengthen and extend the contribution of the
media, and particularly new media, to securing public policy objectives
through public funding remain. Both the BBC and UK Film Council
exemplify this practice of "positive regulation" and
Ofcom's proposal for a "Public Service Publisher" provides
another case in point. Public funding should be conditional on
recipients demonstrating that their services contribute to securing
public policy objectives (notably accuracy, pluralism, freedom
of expression, diversity, impartiality, protection of the vulnerable,
truthfulness and comprehensiveness) and that they adhere to a
suitable code of journalistic and editorial conduct.
7. More work needs to be done to formulate
a suitable code for UK circumstances but possible sources include
the lexicon of European codes of journalistic ethics (at http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/
); the proposals of the Royal Commission on the Press 1977 for
codification of editorial/journalistic rights;[2]
Baroness O'Neill's list of proposed "conventions and standards"
notably:
— Declaration of "relevant interests
and conflicts of interest".
— Declaration of "relations with
lobbyists, political parties, companies and campaigning organisations".
— Publication of "credentials
of reporters writing on technical topics" and warning if
reporters "lacking the relevant competence" are assigned
to a particular topic.
— Declaration of "full financial
information about payments made to obtain material relevant to
`stories'".
— Publication of corrections "of
equal length and prominence, perhaps written by third parties".
— Penalties for "recirculating
`stories' shown to be libellous or invented".[3]
8. In summary, entry by new providers (especially
online) should be encouraged and public finance made available
to incentivise providers to offer services characterised by accuracy,
pluralism, freedom of expression, diversity, impartiality, protection
of the vulnerable, truthfulness and comprehensiveness. Funding
should be conditional on adherence to a suitable journalistic/editorial
code of conduct which should be the subject of public consultation
and might be based on selection from and/or a combination of extant
codes notably those formulated by the Royal Commission on the
Press 1977 and latterly by Baroness O'Neill.
29 January 2008
1 However, 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
2
Including:
The right to reject material provided by central management or
editorial services.
The right to determine the contents of the paper (within the bounds
of reasonable economic consideration and the established policy
of the publication).
The right to allocate expenditure within a budget.
The right to carry out investigative journalism.
The right to reject advice on editorial policy.
The right to criticise the paper's own group or other parts of
the same corporate organisation.
The right to change the alignment or views of the paper on specific
issues within its agreed editorial policy.
The right to appoint or dismiss journalists and to decide the
terms of their contracts of employment within the established
policy of the organisation and the right to assign journalists
to stories (Royal Commission on the Press 1977: 155). Back
3
See pages 186-7 and 190 in O' Neill, O (2002) Autonomy and
Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Back
|
