Archive for January, 2011
Jeremy Hunt has persisted with his local TV idea despite the copious slings and arrows flung at it. Why has he kept with it? Is it because he believes it will promote local democracy and the Big Society? If so, he is – unfortunately – horribly misguided.
Jeremy’s Big Idea
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport this week launched his big idea for local TV. He proposed to launch a new national channel – effectively Channel 6 (or should we just call it ‘Six’) – within which there will be ‘opt-outs’ for local TV. In other words, local companies (or charities, or community groups) will be able to pitch for an hour or more on Channel 6, in which to broadcast locally relevant TV content.
Same house with a new roof
This is a slight adaptation of an idea Hunt has been talking about for months now. Previously it was simply for a network of about 80 local TV services. Now the Local Media Action Plan sees these services as part of a national network. This way – the government hopes – the national channel can make national advertising deals and co-ordinate these with the local provider, thereby making both more financially viable.
Why has Hunt persisted with it?
Hunt is clearly a smart man. He got a first in PPE from Magdelen College, Oxford. He founded a very successful company providing information on education courses. He is also politically astute and cool under fire. Last week, during a Q&A he was doing with Ray Snoddy at the LSE, a few dozen students stormed the event chanting ‘Minister of Culture, Tory Vulture!’. They yelled at the Minister through loud hailers for about 15 minutes before leaving. Throughout the protest Hunt sat very calmly, answering questions when there was an appropriate pause.
So it is worth trying to work out why he has persisted with this rather strange idea.
Is it because of industry demand?
One could understand why a minister for media might want to help out an industry in dire difficulty, and local news certainly is in dire difficulty. Trinity Mirror’s share price has declined by 85% since 2007. Johnston Press has fared even worse.
But those within the industry have not reacted warmly to the Local Media Action Plan. Sly Bailey, CEO of Trinity Mirror, called it ‘an idea that doesn’t add up and doesn’t make sense’.
Trinity Mirror has, she said on Wednesday, already assessed the local TV idea after buying Guardian Media Group’s local papers. Based on this assessment – and particularly the experience of Channel M – they could not see how it could be profitable.
ITV, which already provides regional news services across the country, has in the past been quite clear that regional news is not profitable and that it will not continue to provide it indefinitely. Something Hunt said he is quite relaxed about.
So the Minister isn’t doing this to satisfy industry demand.
Is it because of consumer demand?
Consumers say they like the idea of local news. Regular surveys show that people value local news as an ideal (e.g. see Ofcom’s 2009 ‘Local and reginonal media’ report pp.53-54). Hunt referenced one of these surveys in his announcement this week, saying that ‘8 out of 10 people in this country consider local news important’.
But such ‘demand’ should be taken with a big pinch of salt. People have significantly different ideas of what ‘local’ means. If I live in Swansea, Cardiff news is not local. The Local Media Action Plan will, at best, cover a few dozen urban areas, leaving many people uncovered or only able to access a service that is not, in their view, local.
Demand for low budget TV is also untested. When people think of local TV news they think of the production values of BBC and ITV. This is not what DCMS is proposing. In its plan people would be making an hour of TV for about £2,000. This would look very different from what the BBC and ITV currently provide. Think Alan Partridge broadcasting from his bedroom rather than Look East.
Where we can assess demand very clearly is for paid-for local newspapers, and demand for these is spiralling ever downwards.
So the Minister isn’t doing this to satisfy any obvious local demand.
Is it because he thinks it will promote local democracy?
Since it is not for industry and it is not for the consumer then perhaps we should assume the best intentions – that the main driver behind Hunt’s persistence is a genuine commitment to local democracy and the Big Society. In his speech launching the Local Media Action Plan, Hunt said that ‘Our vision of a connected, big society is one in which we really do value the local as much as the national or international.’
He lamented – as he has done on many previous occasions – that cities like Sheffield, Bristol and Birmingham do not have local TV stations when Dublin, Galway, Lyon, Marseille, Catalonia, and Calgary do.
And he said it was ‘painful’ that the UK had “one of the most centralised media ecologies of any developed country”, arguing that much greater localism was a good thing.
If this is his aim then it is a laudable one.
That’s a shame because it won’t
Unfortunately if this is Hunt’s aim it is misplaced. The plan will not restore or replenish local democracy, and could well have the opposite effect to the one Hunt intends.
This is mainly because his plan is focused on the media – TV – and not the underlying problem.
DCMS plans for local media seem to have become fixated with TV (and specifically with digital terrestrial TV). Yet the problem that needs addressing is not TV (nor is it print). The problem is not that ITV is unlikely to continue with regional TV news after 2014. Nor is the problem that local newspapers are in terminal decline, sad though this may be.
The problem we need to address is how we keep people informed about local news and events so they participate fully in democratic society. The problem is how we keep public and private bodies honest and accountable.
Focusing on TV (and on digital terrestrial TV – DTT) is highly unlikely to do this because:
- Few of those people actively engaged in trying to jumpstart local community engagement, provide local information or keep local bodies accountable are using TV to do it. TV is expensive to produce, cumbersome, and ill-suited to serving many of the information needs of the local community.
- TV is pretty poor at fulfilling the democratic functions that need addressing. Take, as an example, the poster boy for local TV – Witney TV (which has just announced it is going county wide and might bid for space on Channel 6). Witney TV is quite clear that it is about good news stories. It broadcasts the equivalent of the ‘and finally’ on the news. It does not, in other words, keep the public authorities honest and accountable – nor does it aim to.
- TV is not a route to creating a sustainable, long term solution to the decline of public interest local news. It is not inherently collaborative, it requires initial and ongoing investment, and it does not have a history of pro-am partnership, which is crucial to the future of local media services.
- Nor is TV flexible in what it defines as ‘local’. It relies heavily on technology like transmitters. As Rick Waghorn has eloquently written, if you want to provide local TV on DTT ‘then you better find an army of fellas to get up every roof-top on Birkenhead and re-align every aerial to ensure that you’re getting the right ‘local’ TV station off your ‘local’ transmitter’.
This is not to say that TV should be ignored, far from it. Rather that TV is only one of the ways in which to engage people in local issues, provide local information, and perform the role of the ‘Fourth Estate’.
What the Minister ought to do instead
If the government wants to address issues like the growing local democratic deficit, or how to keep public bodies honest and accountable, then rather than focus on imposing a top down ‘solution’ it should concentrate on nurturing bottom-up innovation, collaboration and entrepreneurship.
DCMS should think about how the government can provide a framework in which new forms of local information provision can flourish.
This could include some seed funding like the £25m taken from the BBC’s license fee, but doesn’t have to. In reality it is about nurturing new uses of media, and new types of engagement. It means encouraging non-profits, local community organisations and businesses to get more involved in information production and distribution. It means making communities aware of the (mostly free) tools that enable anyone to participate in the creation of media, and that provide a great stepping stone to community engagement.
The most depressing thing about the Local Media Action Plan is that it may, rather than encouraging new forms of local democratic media, dampen and suppress them.
But the plan has not gone through yet. There is still time to change course. But, given how many slings and arrows Hunt has already endured without shifting direction it is hard to see things changing his mind now.
This post was first published on the Media Standards Trust website on Tuesday 11th January
Tonight we have partnered with INFORRM to organise a debate, hosted by Gray’s Inn, about the implications of libel reform for the public.
‘Libel reform: in the public’s interest?’ approaches the question of reform rather differently than most. Rather than pit publisher vs published against, or claimant vs defendant, this is more about the little guy vs the big guy. The scientist vs the libel threat from Big Corp (e.g. Peter Wilmshurst vs NMT). The falsely accused member of the public vs the barons of mainstream media (such as Robert Murat, or Tom Stephens).
As such the questions the debate will be asking include things like:
- If libel reform goes through as proposed, will that spell the end of Conditional Fee Agreements (No Win No Fee) and, as a consequence, significantly reduce access to justice for people like Robert Murat and Christopher Jefferies (both of whom had access to CFAs)? In which case, will there be any way to seek fair redress in the courts if you’re not rich?
- Will a reformed libel law actually help to protect bloggers, scientists and NGOs from the threat of expensive libel suits?
- Should reform aim to provide affordable remedies to members of the public who have been damaged by the publication of false statements (something which the current proposals do not address)?
- Will reform actually lead to faster and fairer resolution of libel claims?
- If there is much less chance of being sued, will this lead to more defamatory reporting in the popular press?
- Could a reformed libel law distinguish between the defamatory claims against a blogger with half-a-dozen readers and the claims against a newspaper with two million readers (and should it)? Perhaps non-commercial publishers (e.g. bloggers & NGOs) should be exempt from libel or have special defences?
The case of Tamil hunger striker, Parameswaran Subramanyam, illuminates some of the questions this debate is trying to address.
Following Parameswaran’s 23 day hunger strike in Parliament Square in 2009, two national newspapers – the Daily Mail and The Sun – alleged that he had broken his hunger strike to eat burgers. This was not true. The papers said they had CCTV evidence to prove it. They did not.
But as a result of the allegations Parameswaran was cut off by the Tamil community and shunned by his family. He considered suicide.
Parameswaran could not afford to go to court to clear his name, but he was able to get legal help using a Conditional Fee Agreement.
In statement following the court ruling Parameswaran said:
I am relieved that this matter is now resolved and I can start to rebuild my life again. The past 8 months have been an unbearable strain on my life, to the extent that at times I have even contemplated taking my own life. As a result of the lies that the newspapers published about me, and through no fault of my own, I have lost friends, been shunned by family members and completely ostracised from the Tamil community.
Would Parameswaran been able to fight his case and clear his name under the proposed new libel laws?
Taking part in tonight’s debate are: Sir Christopher Gray (a barrister and former High Court Judge), Kevin Marsh (executive editor of the BBC’s College of Journalism), Evan Harris (former LibDem MP and key campaigner for libel reform), Zoe Margolis (blogger – ‘Girl with a One Track Mind’ – who won a libel action vs Independent on Sunday), Razi Mireskandari (managing partner of Simons Muirhead & Burton). The debate will be chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy.
It will be held at Gray’s Inn in London from 18.30 to 20.00. The hashtag for the event is #libelpublic.
This post was first published on the INFORRM blog on Friday 7th January
Christopher Jefferies, arrested last week and questioned about the murder of Bristol landscape architect Jo Yeates, expects to be cleared of any involvement in her murder within days, it has been reported. The police can find no evidence or motive connecting him to her murder.
Yet only a week ago, as soon as he was arrested, Jefferies was presumed guilty by many media outlets. ‘Weird, posh, lewd, creepy’, The Sun called him, before quoting various unnamed sources who made him out to be just the type who might commit murder. “You didn’t want him to come near you” one was quoted as saying, “He was very unkempt and had dirty fingernails. He was weird”. Another quoted unnamed source said that “He was fascinated by making lewd sexual remarks. It was really disturbing.”
Despite the lack of evidence the press sought to use any facts known about Jefferies as proof of his guilt. An incriminating Mirror headline read ‘Chris Jefferies’ “favourite” poem was about killing wife’. Quite a leap given the paper was referring to the Ballad of Reading Gaol by Oscar Wilde, not such a surprising choice of poem for an ex-English teacher. It was a little like saying a historian who writes about Hitler must be a Nazi. In The Times a headline read, ‘Strange Mr Jefferies knew boyfriend was away’, implying that this information implicated him in the murder. This despite the fact that Yeates had reportedly announced on her Facebook profile that she would be alone that weekend.
But what is to stop the press acting in the same way – or worse – towards the next suspect in the Yeates case? Let’s not forget that Jefferies is hardly the first to have been presented in this way. Robert Murat’s life will never be the same after the press went for him after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Previous to Murat there was Tom Stephens (falsely suspected of being involved in the Ipswich murders), and there have been others – not necessarily accused of murder – whose lives have been blighted by false accusations (such as the Tamil hunger striker in Parliament Square accused by The Sun and The Daily Mail of secretly breaking his fast).
The law intended to prevent, or at least dampen, this sort of trial by media – the Contempt of Court Act 1981 – is no longer effective. This is partly due to its limited use since 1981, but mainly to developments in technology and publishing; such that the law is now extremely difficult to police and almost impossible to prosecute.
It is certainly clear the tabloids now set little store by the Act. Kelvin McKenzie, columnist and ex-editor of The Sun, speaking on Radio 4’s The Media Show this week, said Contempt of Court is an ‘inconsequential piece of law now… and if it wasn’t inconsequential before, the online world makes it ridiculous’. ‘Allow newspapers to continue with their excess’, McKenzie continued, ‘because excess is part of free speech’ (The Media Show, 5-1-11).
If the Contempt of Court Act will not dampen this sort of reporting will media culture? Will those within the press look at the treatment of Jefferies, Murat, Stephens and others and be more reticent before assuming the next person’s guilt? There is no doubting the material effect the reporting can have on people’s lives. Robert Murat said his ‘life will be scarred forever’ by the coverage. The Tamil hunger striker was ostracised by his community and said he considered suicide.
But it is unlikely our media culture will prevent this. Indeed some of the journalists reporting on Christopher Jefferies previously reported on the McCanns and Robert Murat, so they must have been well aware of the dangers of jumping to ill-founded conclusions and the damage it can do (notably Gary O’Shea, The Sun and Ryan Parry, The Mirror).
Not only is our media culture unlikely to prevent this, there is a good chance it could get worse. Some of those publishing online and on social networks certainly did not feel constrained even by the ghost of the Contempt Act, accepting the newspapers’ headlines and assuming Jefferies’ guilt. The sense of a growing consensus of someone’s guilt cannot but help encourage mainstream media to go further – buoyed by the public’s apparent acceptance.
Perhaps self-regulation of the press could slow or reverse this? Since the law is such a blunt instrument for dealing with the media it is, in general, much better that the press deal – and are seen to be dealing – with things themselves.
Unfortunately, the way self-regulation is currently structured, this is unlikely to happen. The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) does work behind the scenes when there are media feeding frenzies (such as contacting the local police and offering its services). But, as we saw in the case of the McCanns and Robert Murat, its effect is often very limited. Moreover, its powers are highly constrained. It is loath to intervene while a case is live, and after the event, the most redress it can offer is the publication of a correction or apology (which does not have legal backing).
What about libel law? As currently constituted libel law is complex, anachronistic, time consuming and eye-wateringly expensive. It has been used by powerful organisations and individuals as a tool to shut down debate about science and to prevent publication of reports of significant public interest by NGOs. It is in need of reform and, going by what Nick Clegg said at the Institute of Government this week, it will be.
Yet it is also one of the only means people like Christopher Jefferies have of seeking some form of redress after being ‘monstered’. Robert Murat pursued his case in the court, on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, and received a settlement of £600,000.
Plus, ‘will we get sued?’ is one of the few things the press still worry about before they publish. Remove this risk and there is very little to stop them publishing more of these kind of stories.
Reform of libel law is necessary and overdue. But, in the process of reform we need to make sure that people like Jefferies, Murat and others do not lose any form of redress against monstering by the press.