Monday, October 06, 2008

Nicholas Jones on Press Freedom & Internet Regulation

Former BBC political correspondent Nicholas Jones has started a new BLOG on the Campaign for Press & Broadcasting Freedom website. You would have thought that he might be against increased regulation on press and broadcasting journalists, but not a bit of it. I have appeared on a few platforms with Nick and he sincerely believes that the internet poses a great threat to the freedom of the press and the impartiality of broadcasters. What he really wants to do is preserve the existing status quo and the increasing provision of monopoly news coverage by the BBC. Fox News terrifies him. Here's an excerpt.
Those who argue for an unregulated free-for-all on the internet are in danger of becoming the cheer leaders for Rupert Murdoch, the Conservative Party and host of other multi-national businesses whose sole interest is to exploit the commercial potential of the web. Newspaper websites are now moving big time into internet television and the ability of media proprietors to buy up exclusive audio-visual material is already enticing viewers away from mainstream broadcasters and undermining their viability.

An even greater threat is posed by the bit-by-bit demolition of the long-established and much-admired traditions of the UK’s public service broadcasting. The hallmark of British political reporting on radio and television — on the BBC, ITV, Sky News etc — has been political impartiality...

Rupert Murdoch is keen to introduce Fox News-style broadcasting to Britain and so far he has been thwarted because Ofcom and the government have defended the need for political impartiality. But – to the great advantage of Murdoch and other media proprietors — the regulators have willingly turned a blind eye to the internet allowing a free-for-all for newspaper websites which are investing heavily in online television reporting. Their highly-partisan coverage of politics is a pointer to the future...

At this point we have to consider the law of unintended consequences. In a discussion document published in March 2008, the Conservative Party said the rules on political impartiality on radio and television should be relaxed for those organisations not in receipt of public funds or subsidies. Regulators were urged to lift regulations which stifled creativity and diversity. “Why should Telegraph TV — or for that matter Guardian TV — be prevented from following the editorial lines pursued by their newspapers if they were to become digital channels and not simply broadcast on the internet?” (The Future of Public Service Broadcasting, Conservative Research Department, March 2008)...

I am all in favour of the widest possible access to the internet but while arguing for the greatest diversity, the Conservatives should not be allowed to get away with their assertion that newspapers monopolies should be free to become unregulated broadcasters because they are “not in receipt of public funds or subsidies”. In fact Britain’s national newspapers do enjoy considerable benefits including a zero rating for value added tax. In addition they have privileged access and get preferential treatment when it comes to the distribution of state information.

In return for the status they have been afforded, they do have responsibilities and if they seek to use their websites to broadcast during election campaigns they should respect established practices. Therefore I would propose a ban on online television reporting by newspapers on polling day. What is the justification for not insisting that the audio-visual output of their websites should fall into line with television and radio services? British newspapers are highly politicised; their proprietors flaunt their political influence and patronage. Do campaigners for media freedom want to give these monopolies an even bigger platform and even greater opportunities to manipulate political coverage?

Perhaps there might even be a case for some kind of restraint on online television reporting of politics in the period running up to an election. Should there be some degree of guaranteed access for smaller minority parties? Perhaps they could get airtime along the lines of the existing arrangement for election broadcasts based on the number of candidates being fielded. Online political advertising poses another quandary. US-style attack advertisements are already appearing on political websites. Will these online tv ads be given free rein on newspaper websites?

Organisations like the CPBF can either join Ofcom and the government in turning a blind eye or start a debate. Online television reporting of politics is an ideal starting point: Will it be a Trojan horse and allow the likes of Murdoch to introduce partisan political broadcasting by the back door? As a first step I would like to propose that the audio-visual reporting of politics by newspaper websites should be monitored during the run-up and on polling day in the 2009 European Parliamentary elections. We could then assess whether we should be demanding safeguards for the long build-up to the likely 2010 general election.

So what do you all think? Is this a legitimate concern, or is he being over dramatic?

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

what do you make of this Iain?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1069603/Gay-men-forced-warning-tattoos-says-Stock-Exchange-chaplain.html

Anonymous said...

''BBC Impartiality''...At that point I stopped reading ..Martin

Catosays said...

The hallmark of British political reporting on radio and television — on the BBC, ITV, Sky News etc — has been political impartiality...


Oh really?

Anonymous said...

I agree that a 'news media' which relies entirely on advertising would be appalling - corporate interests will ALWAYS trump news impartiality.

Look at the film 'Goodnight and Good Luck' about Ed R Murrow. Read the book 'The Corporation'.

Look at how NBC in the States is owned by the Hughes corporation - part of the military-industrial complex.

Who would we get to do investigative journalism about drug company misfeasance, industrial companies' pollution, or indeed any misdeeds by global multi-nationals if we didn't have an independent news media ??

Anonymous said...

This mean is a control freak. Is the Telegraph or Guardian wishe to run biased internet news channels then it' none of his business. People can choose whether or not to watch them and will know if they're biased. This is just spitting in the face of consumer choice.

Anonymous said...

This is a legitimate concern

Bryan Dunleavy said...

The words pot kettle and black come to mind. The BBC was one of the first organizations to tip millions of taxpayer's pounds into their own web self-promotion, probably thinking they would have this little playground all to themselves.
Well, sorry, there are other perspectives and opinions - even from insignificant specks on the landscape like me - and we will not be regulated or restricted simply to maintain the complacent world view of the publc broadcasting establishment,
Get used to it!

Anonymous said...

Am I alone in finding this phrase creepy?

"...they have privileged access and get preferential treatment when it comes to the distribution of state information..."

Shaun said...

The online world is a completely level playing field, especially on things like politics which don't benefit from whizz-bang production values. Peter Snow's swingometers aside!

A crank with a webcam, microphone and youtube account can have just as much screen-estate as a Larry King interview.

The bar to entry is low and so my freemarketish hunch is that achieving any kind of monopoly would be nigh on impossible. Under those circumstances, I'm struggling to see the problem (unless people are afraid of a free market in ideas!)...

Lola said...

Iain, when you met him did the men in white coats bring him to the platform and take him away again? Was there evidence of staright waiscoat marks on his wrists? Or had he been smoking an illegal substance?

Tony said...

When Nicholas Jones says "...they have privileged access and get preferential treatment when it comes to the distribution of state information..." it is hard not to think of the image of Andrew Marr briefing the Downing St press corps after doing his infamous interview with Gordon Brown, and feeling Jones is being somewhat ironic.

This is just the latest salvo in the BBC war to preserve and retain exclusive use of the licence fee, hence the reference to the Conservatives. Jones' comments should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Anonymous said...

Written 20 years ago when the BBC was supine but not overtly biased this might just creep into respectability.

We are now in the situation that we are reliant on Murdoch's Sky to get any broadcast access to the facts. All the BBC broadcast is speculation about what the government "might" do, or favourable comment on what they want to pretend they have done.

In such a word the only hope is citizens being able to share what they know, draw their own conculsions, and share their ideas.

The better solution would be to give the BBC the role of publishing in full all government statements and publications in full and without commentary, and be banned from any role in interpretation of evaluation.

Anonymous said...

If proper journalists don't want bloggers to steal their thunder perhaps they should stop blogging themselves, and do some proper journalism rather than regurgitate press releases and scaremonger.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

MSM journalist in cheese-moving shocker! Details at eleven!

Anonymous said...

Jones is clearly a very confused man. He's written a number of books - some quite entertaining - writing about the spin culture of politics, and how it has infested journalism. Now he wants the BBC - you know, the BBC that has been manipulated hither and yon by government spin doctors - to have a privileged base from which to dispense their - presumably tainted - news.

Public Service broadcasting was always a busted flush. An institution that is publicly funded will always lean towards a statist outlook, as the BBC demonstrates time and again, when it should have a duty to be impartial as a consequence of being publicly funded. Essentially, until the BBC imposes quotas on political ideology (to add to it's de facto quotas on gender, race and regional accent) it will continue to be the propaganda arm of bureaucracy.

marksany said...

What's better: news organisations that pretend to be impartial, but aren't, or ones that are biased and say so?

ANy way it's irrelevent - non MSM blogs are where the latest news and wildest opinions are.

Anonymous said...

I insist on MY right AND the right of OTHERS to free speech.

My opinion of the BBC & the other MSM is that they can go hang themselves if this is their considered view on blogging.


John of Enfield

Anonymous said...

'BBC impartiality'...mans a twat.

Anonymous said...

Appalling drivel from someone who should know better.

We have had BBC Newsspeak force-fed to us for years with the most blatent party bias imaginable at our own unavoidable expense if we wished to own a television.

Now that technology threatens the BBC's monopoly,they are starting to panic over their possible loss of influence and media control.Never forget that Orwell based 1984 on his wartime experiences working for the BBC.

Anonymous said...

How on earth does he propose to regulate that?? Free speech bashing idiot.

Anonymous said...

The internet should not be regulated and the Press should be left to get on with it. Couple of points:

It is odd how the Right always sees the BBC as being biased to the Left and the Left sees it as biased to the Right.
Objectivity is impossible; fairness isn't.

Which said, media ownership should be much more tightly controlled and cross media ownership should be outlawed.

Otherwise it's a jungle and should be so.

strapworld said...

"""Rupert Murdoch is keen to introduce Fox News-style broadcasting to Britain and so far he has been thwarted because Ofcom and the government have defended the need for political impartiality."""

Iain, would you please advise me where I can find the political impartiality Ofcom and the government allegedly require?

Anonymous said...

BBC impatiality?

Did anyone hear Sarah Montague sucking up to the chairman of the Black Police Association this morning on the Today programme?
Then she aggressively interrogates a police spokesman who doesn't agree that the Met is instituionally racist.
Later, an American is brought on to tell us that Blair was unfairly dismissed after reducing crime in London. No suggestion of the possibility of phoney statistics.

Anonymous said...

Marr, Robinson, Mason, Crick, Sopel, Naughtie, Wark etc etc etc and Jones talks of 'political impartiality' from the BBC. I didn't bother reading beyond that.

Anonymous said...

Yes when will the Evening Standard be fully investigated

for trying to back one candidate so it can win a contract

Anonymous said...

Yes when will the Evening Standard be fully investigated

for trying to back one candidate so it can win a contract

Anonymous said...

Yes the Tories have no support amongst the quality newspapers

its a disgrace

lets abolish the Guardian

hang on they are starting to support us

nil papers for the others
excellent

Thats democracy

Anonymous said...

Nicholas Jones says: 'Those who argue for an unregulated free-for-all on the internet are in danger of becoming the cheer leaders for Rupert Murdoch, the Conservative Party ...[etc., etc.]'

He means: Give people unregulated access to the internet and they might say things I disagree with.

Anonymous said...

No-one has ever called for newspapers to be unbiased, so why should we care whether broadcasters favour one side or the other, as long as they declare their slant.

william said...

Newspaper websites are now moving big time into internet television and the ability of media proprietors to buy up exclusive audio-visual material is already enticing viewers away from mainstream broadcasters and undermining their viability.
------------------
williamgeorge
Search Engine Optimization