• Accessibility
• Email alerts
• RSS feeds
• Contact us

The future of news Contents

---

Chapter 2: The case for action and its limits

The value of news

Domestic

10.We noted six persuasive arguments about why the fate of news deserves policy attention. First, news journalism holds power to account, and deters improper conduct through the risk of public exposure. Second, news outlets enable two-way conversations between leaders and the public. This is particularly important in times of political tension, crisis or war. 9

11.Third, news reporting supports democracy. The decline in numbers of local journalists is associated with subsequent declines in reporting on local institutions, falling civic engagement and lower voter turnout.10 We note this is particularly pertinent given successive governments’ interest in devolving power locally. Fourth, a vibrant press which maintains a shared understanding of facts is a key defence against foreign states seeking to undermine public trust or influence opinion.11

12.Fifth, news investigations benefit public policy and expenditure. One US study found that each dollar spent on investigative journalism generated hundreds of times that in societal benefits from the resulting policy, personnel, industrial and legal changes.12 Other studies have found a causal relationship between the closure of a local newspaper and higher public sector borrowing costs, wage bills and contracting expenses.13 Sixth, high quality news outlets boost UK soft power.14 The BBC, The Mail and The Guardian are among the top US news sites, for example.15

Global

13.The international context also matters. The World Press Freedom Index suggests that press freedoms are now partly or completely blocked in over 70 per cent of its ranked countries.16

14.As the global balance of power shifts eastwards, talk is growing of an alternative to the US-led international order underpinned by liberal democracy and the free flow of information.17 China’s rise poses an “epoch-defining challenge” to our values and security.18 TikTok’s disruption of US social media dominance has already generated unease. Similar trends may emerge in the AI race, handing more influence to states seeking to shape opinion and stifle criticism.19 Media organisations will have a vital role to play in defending freedom of expression, holding Government to account for addressing global challenges, and ensuring that all sectors of society have a voice in these debates.

A balanced outlook

15.Following the evidence we took, our hope for the news sector is relatively straightforward: an independent, commercially sustainable, competitive, trusted, relevant and dynamic ecosystem that delivers the outcomes summarised above.

16.Some contributors had limited optimism about this direction of travel. Others were more circumspect. Andrew Neil, (then) Chairman of The Spectator, urged us to avoid overly gloomy evaluations.20 Many of the changes we examined had both positives and negatives. John Quinlan, Chief Executive Officer of Joe Media Group, noted that social media had disrupted many businesses but also enabled his organisation to reach 7 billion views.21 David Dinsmore, Chief Operating Officer at News UK, gave another example about the acceleration of online information flows. On the one hand this creates an overabundance and overload. Equally, it underscores the enduring value of good journalism: “everyone has hold of the facts at any time, but people want to know what it means for them”.22 In short, we heard that a changing news landscape should not be conflated with its imminent demise.

The role of Government: don’t be evil

17.We heard contrasting views about the appropriate role of Government. Mr Neil offered a concise analysis: [Government] “should stay the hell out of it. You do not know anything about it. You are only trouble”.23 James Harding, Co-founder and Editor of Tortoise Media, was more sceptical of the “laissez-faire argument … I do not want to see another 25 years where we do not do anything”.24

18.The Media Act 2024, Online Safety Act 2023 and Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 will likely make some difference.25 Smaller changes like tax reliefs on digital publications and office space for local newspapers have also helped.26 Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, (then) Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, thought that wider media policy had however been “more characterised by inaction than by action”.27

19.Stephanie Peacock MP, Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, said that the new Government’s approach would provide the “correct framework” to support the sector—recognising its societal and financial value while respecting the “fine line” between over- and under-engagement.28

20.We believe three principles should inform this approach. First is balance: too much government engagement risks market distortions and cronyism, while too little risks accepting inexorable decline.29 Second, and relatedly, is independence. Robert Colvile, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, argued that the media’s responsibility for holding Government to account meant that the threshold for support should be “extremely high”.30

21.Third is the importance of objective market-orientated measures. As Professor Nielsen emphasised, policy interventions can be “effective when they work with public demand and/or market forces, and they can be expensive failures when they work against”.31

22.These principles indicate substantial scope for well-meaning interventions to go wrong.32 Professor Singer, Professor Emerita of Journalism Innovation at City, University of London, argued that Government must allow news organisations to fail, and resist “propping up something for which there is no demand”.33 Fraser Nelson, then editor of The Spectator, stressed that Government must not take views on what is “good quality, or worth paying for”.34 Professor Nielsen cautioned against schemes aimed at improving the “plurality of viewpoints” as they might generate “all sorts of unfortunate levers … to pressure independent media”.35

23.Supporting trust in news is another minefield. We found little consensus on the drivers and consequences of trust, or the best remedies.36 Some of our contributors highlighted the contested roles of the press oversight bodies (the Independent Press Standards Organisation, and Impress).37 Jonathan Levy, Managing Director and Executive Editor of Sky News, argued that it was not “the Government’s job to confer trust on journalism”.38 Even seeking industry insight may be tricky: as we explored ideas for a policy forum (comparable to the Creative Industries Council), Professor Nielsen believed this risked giving the impression of a “cartel”,39 while Mr Colvile thought it might generate a “class of privileged insiders”.40

24.This all suggests that industry itself must address issues around quality, trust, business models and consumer engagement. We heard more consistent support for Government action on structural and systemic issues, such as anti-competitive practices by tech firms, barriers to innovation, and distortions in the legal framework which are exploited to stifle critical reporting.41

25.There are powerful economic, democratic and foreign policy arguments for supporting the future of honest, accurate and informative news. Although the value of news is clear, its prospects are not. The Government’s task is to establish the conditions that enable UK media to stand on its own feet and ensure that public service broadcasters are able to thrive. The Government should focus on sector-wide structural changes which drive innovation while maintaining media independence. Any interventions must also work with market trends, not create artificial demand.

---

• A-Z index
• Glossary
• Contact us
• Freedom of Information
• Jobs
• Using this website
• Copyright
• Privacy notice
• Cookie policy
• Cookie Manager