Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1314
- 1319)
WEDNESDAY 9 JANUARY 2008
Ms Jocelyn Hay, Professor Ivor Gaber and Mr John
Clark
Q1314 Chairman:
Welcome. As you know, we are looking at the concentration of media
ownership: the impact that can have in terms of the range of news
and the range of views that appear and, essentially, whether the
public's interest is being protected, so it is a pretty wide brief.
We are grateful for the paper that you have sent to us. I wonder
if I might start by asking a question about the organisation itself,
the Voice of the Listener & Viewer. How big an organisation
is it? You say that you represent the viewer. How do you measure
that?
Ms Hay: We consult our members and we hold a
number of public events. We have experts who advise us. Our membership
covers the whole country. Individual membership is not enormous,
it is something under 2,000, but we have a number of organisations
in corporate membership which together number a huge number of
people. They range from the Townswomen's Guild to the NSPCC to
the RNIB to the RNID to the National Institute for Adult and Continuing
Education (NIACE). They cover a very broad spectrum of society
and a large number of people. We have somewhere between 25 and
30 organisations like that in membership, most of which are registered
charities. The other very valuable input we have is our academic
membership. We have more than 25 academic institutions, university
departments, colleges and so on in academic membership. We value
enormously and use the intellectual input that we get from both
the lecturers and the contact with students. We use a lot of their
venues and personnel for the annual public events that we hold
in Scotland and Wales and one we held in Belfast. We work very
closely with them.
Q1315 Chairman:
On the corporate side, would it be that if the NSPCC were very
concerned about particular issues concerning television programmes
or something of that kind they might be in touch with you, so
that you could add your voice to whatever concerns they had?
Ms Hay: Yes. But Members, whether they are corporate
or academic or individual people, only get one vote at the AGM
for instance. We do not allow them to dominate our agenda. We
listen to them and we take on board their issues and concerns
but we do not allow any individual organisation to dominate us.
Professor Gaber: At our AGM or meetings, the
representatives of, for example, the RNIB and RNID are extremely
vocal. The interests of those groups are, if you like, disproportionately
represented by us. It is a particular concern. We do, through
a process not necessarily of counting numbers but of listening
to what they say, represent particularly those viewers and listeners
who are highly dependent upon broadcast media.
Ms Hay: We try to provide a voice for those
who do not have an effective voice themselves. One of the things
I have tried to be throughout is to be as inclusive as possible.
Q1316 Chairman:
Let us go to the agenda. We have seen and are seeing consolidation
of media ownership, not least of course in the television and
radio area. Does that lead to any concerns on your part?
Ms Hay: Yes, it does. I think I would like to
say that one of our principal concerns is to represent the citizen
interest. More and more we have come to focus on the citizen,
as opposed to the consumer, about whom we have also been concerned,
because there are other champions now for the consumer, from the
National Consumer Council to the Ofcom Consumer Panel, but not
so many on the citizen side. It is the impact and influence of
the media on citizenship and democracy, in particular, that is
of greatest concern to us. Some of the concern that we have, for
instance, is that in the Communications Act the word "consumer"
(or "consumerism") is mentioned 79 times; "citizen"
is mentioned three times. Ofcom, the regulator, has tended to
continue with this emphasis and at the beginning, in conflating
the two when the interests are not the same, and its regulatory
approach focuses much more on the economic value for money than
on the citizenship side. We are concerned very much about the
impact on democracy of media ownership. Two of my colleagues,
Ivor Gaber, who was instrumental in drafting our short response,
and John Clark, I would like to ask to speak on that.
Professor Gaber: I am going to pass the ball
on the specific question we have been asked: Are we concerned
about the concentration of ownership? Do you mind if I ask John
to respond to that question?
Mr Clark: Yes, we are extremely concerned about
it. Thinking back to when the Communications Bill was put together,
it was very much at the last knockings that the issue of ownership
arose. It was not something which was the subject of huge debate
at the time. We were concerned at that stage but the reassurance
was that the competition legislation was in place such that it
would overcome any problems which might arise. In recent times
the competition legislation has been put to the test. The BSkyB
issue is one where it is currently being put to the test, with
the 17.9% holding that BSkyB took in ITV, ostensibly... no, probably
realistically, as a blocking issue against another merger attempt
but, in practice, of course, it has implications which go way
beyond that particular issue. It gives them a level of power,
with board membership or without board membership, which is out
of proportion to that of any other member of the ITV board. It
also has implications in terms of the ability for sports rights
to be negotiated between different groups because of the conflicts
of interest which immediately arise. There are issues about advertisers.
There is the threat to the news area, because ITN is fully owned
by ITV and it is well known that BSkyB have interests in the news
area. They have already taken on the Channel 5 News. It is not
an area which is particularly profitable to them as an organisation.
Although there are no questions about their partiality today,
in terms of the way they present the news, there probably are
quite a number of questions about the agenda that they have put
in place for the news. That is where partiality comes into play
there, possibly. There is an opportunity there within their holding
for the disruption of the distribution platforms, which could
be to the advantage of BSkyB. Also, possibly opportunities of
bundling. Overall, it does not seem that the legislation which
is in place is quite able to cope with all those particular issues.
The Competition Commission is economically oriented.
Q1317 Chairman:
We will come, I think, to almost every one of the specifics you
have mentioned but let me take you up on impartiality. How important
do you regard broadcasting impartiality to be?
Ms Hay: Extremely important.
Professor Gaber: We recognise there is a debate
going on, and there are as many definitions of impartiality as
there are academics writing them, but the notion that it should
be strived for, the notion that that is a fundamental value, is
something that we think is really important. There is a debate
going on, which Rupert Murdoch started in the States, in his recent
speech—and we do not want to talk about him exclusively
but he is obviously a key player in this—about the fact
that Fox, which is not exactly impartial, is allowed to broadcast
here unhindered. I know there are debates about it, and it is
not a service that is originated in the UK, but I do think that
is a sign of the times. One only has to look at the impact that
Fox has had on, for example, CNN. Both the agenda and tone of
CNN has shifted markedly in response to Fox . What has happened
in the States, the FCC "lighter touch", which was then
followed by Ofcom, led to this, and therefore we have big worries
about it. For us, impartiality is a very, very important value,
as are the others we mentioned in the paper.
Q1318 Chairman:
Given that broadcast news is protected in this country by impartiality
rules, does ownership therefore matter? As long as you have the
rules, does it matter who does the owning?
Professor Gaber: Unfortunately, impartiality
is not a black and white issue. There are subtleties to it and
degrees to it. Just switching the attention to local radio, there
are examples of ownership of commercial radio affecting news coverage.
That is very specific. If there are breaches of the Act, they
can possibly be dealt with, but there are increasing signs that
in a fiercely competitive market—and obviously post digital
switchover the market becomes even more fierce—there are
subtle pressures which are brought to bear which are difficult
to prove in terms of bringing an action by Ofcom or under the
Communications Act in terms of the impartiality. Unquestionably
ownership does have a subtle effect on output. Whether it is just
in terms of ensuring that the people who are editing the news
really do not want to go out on a limb against major advertisers—which
does happen at the local area ... . It has not happened, to my
knowledge, at the national area, but there are straws in the wind.
So, yes, it does have a potential impact. I do not think we would
say it is a major issue at the moment but it does have the potential
to become one.
Q1319 Chairman:
Are you attracted by the argument that if you had rather more
opinionated news this would make the news more interesting; it
would attract younger listeners, younger viewers, in a way that
is not being done at the moment? Rather like newspapers.
Professor Gaber: I find it very attractive but
it is seductive. My personal view—and this is not a specific
issue we have discussed—is that it is quite attractive if
it is done alongside impartial news services which can be relied
upon. Therefore, to have alternative view programmes and alternative
news programmes, as long as they are accompanied by mainstream
impartial news, is something which is of interest to me personally,
but there are dangers. I suspect my colleagues might not agree
with me.
Ms Hay: I think there are many dangers, not
so much of overt bias, which is easier to detect, but of economies
with the truth and, again, as John was saying, agenda-setting,
where certain issues are just not covered which should be covered.
John, you have some specific commercial experience.
Mr Clark: In terms of ownership, it is not a
question of the percentage which is held: is it the clout of the
shareholder himself. If you take situations like the Cadbury Schweppes'
position: Nelson Pelz took a 3% holding in Cadbury Schweppes and
within days they had completely reversed their strategy and they
had moved to a break-up strategy from a consolidation strategy
because that is what Pelz wants. The power of particular people
is enormous in influencing events and in influencing impartiality
of operations in companies.
|
