Who owns the British media



Media Ownership and British PoliticsA Hybrid System: the ‘free press’ and ‘public service’ broadcastersThe British media system is based on a hybrid model of ownership and control. Whereas the national, regional and local newspaper industry is managed and run by private firms, broadcasting operates on a more complex basis involving the state as well as market forces. Before the introduction of universal suffrage (votes for all), politicians appeared reluctant to challenge the increasing power of the so-called ‘free press’ and, more particularly, those high profile ‘barons’ who owned the most influential titles. Subsequently many party leaders have proved similarly reticent to act in a way that could be seen to threaten or otherwise antagonise these media owners and their successors. In contrast, by the time broadcasting in the form of radio and then television was introduced, the by now popularly elected governments felt empowered to intervene to regulate this more obviously direct and potentially powerful form of media communication. Consequently the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), originally set up as a private company, was brought under government regulation in 1927 through a periodically renewed contract called the Charter and an appointed Board of Governors.The BBC adheres to a so-called public service model that promoted the virtues of due impartiality and the need for balanced reporting, especially in electoral matters. Responsible broadcasters, it is suggested, should seek to inform, educate and entertain. The current government, through its Department of Culture, Media and Sport Culture (DCMS), continues to influence various aspects of Corporation output including, most recently, BBC3’s youth oriented programming. Public service requirements were imposed on the commercially owned Independent Television when it began broadcasting current affairs programming in the 1950s. Similarly the Sky news channel has observed the rules on impartiality since it started airing in the 1980s whereas the network’s US sister station Fox offers a notoriously biased service in a very different market. Ofcom, the UK’s media regulatory body, has hinted the existing regulatory framework may be relaxed to enable the kind of editorialising on air that has previously been restricted to the British press. Indeed the recent setting up of Ofcom by the Blair government is indicative of an ongoing shift from viewing the media as a primarily cultural form to seeing it as a source of economic revenue. To this end many of the most important decisions involving the sector are being taken by the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the DCMS.The extent of government influence over broadcasting was demonstrated in the aftermath of Lord Hutton’s inquiry into the apparent suicide of Ministry of Defence scientist David Kelly following his public exposure after a BBC Radio 4 report. The item by journalist Andrew Gilligan had accused Tony Blair’s most senior aides, including Alastair Campbell, of manipulating intelligence material in a bid to generate a more compelling justification for the government’s support for the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The subsequent controversy over the report and inquiry resulted in a major public row between the BBC and Downing Street and led to the unprecedented resignations of both the head of the Corporation, Chairman of the Governors Gavyn Davies, and its chief executive, the Director General Greg Dyke. Their prompt actions refocused media and public attention on the government, none of whose ministers left office despite serious criticism of their policy in respect of Iraq. The whole episode revived memories of the tense relationships that existed between the BBC and previous governments, notably those led by Margaret Thatcher.The Rise of the Press BaronsThe British newspaper industry rapidly changed and developed during the 19th Century. During the mid part of the Century politicians appeared willing and able to move against what they regarded as the smaller subversive publishing outlets promoting anti-establishment agendas by introducing more stringent laws on content and other measures such as newspaper taxes and duties. The media became increasingly commercialised and organised by more conventionally minded businessmen rather than radical groups of journalists. The growth of mass literacy and democracy from the late 1800s onwards provided owners of the most popular newspapers like Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere, with a formidable public profile. These press barons could and would seek to influence the political process through papers like the Daily Express and Daily Mail. The close relationship between the media and political elites was demonstrated during World War One when certain newspaper owners were appointed as propaganda ministers. In the inter-war years the press barons promoted a conservative if not Conservative agenda and were hostile towards the rising Labour party, whose only reliable mass media support came from the Daily Herald. Despite its massive circulation, the Herald was not as financially secure as its main Conservative leaning rivals because, unlike them, it never attracted many middle-class readers and the advertising revenues that came with them. Consequently the press barons’ political and commercial strategies mutually reinforced each another. By contrast the sales revenue generated by the huge but largely working-class audience was not sufficient to prevent the eventual closure of the Daily Herald during the 1960s. Advertising has continued to play a major role in ensuring the profitability of newspapers and particularly those belonging to the so-called quality press. The early 20th Century saw considerable ‘vertical’ integration within the print media sector with smaller family owned publishers closing, merging or being taken over by larger concerns firms. Relatively few press barons consolidated their dominant commercial positions and made it increasingly difficult for new entrants into the newspaper market. In recent decades there have been attempts to launch new national titles and most, like Today, News on Sunday, Sunday Correspondent and the Post, have failed. The notable exceptions are the Independent and the Sport (plus their Sunday sister papers) but both of these have struggled to survive in a highly competitive and declining industry. The fall in sales and advertising revenues has in part been explained by the growth of rival media products such as celebrity magazines, digital television and the Internet. In the longer term this may weaken the perceived political influence of major national titles. It is also a reason why the industry has witnessed so much ‘horizontal’ integration with newspaper owners seeking to expand their businesses into other areas including the new media sector.From ‘Tory Press’ to ‘Tony Press’.For over two decades the firm with the largest market and political presence in Britain has been News International, a global US corporation headed by Rupert Murdoch. The company owns The Times, Sunday Times, The Sun and its best selling sister paper the News of the World. Murdoch is an ambitious, some would say ruthless businessman who traded his Australian citizenship for an American passport in order to satisfy legal requirements that would enable him to further expand his corporate interests. He is a famously hands on proprietor who takes a close interests in his newspapers’ editorial stance and the domestic political affairs of the various countries in which they operate. In the 1980s News International titles were fervent supporters of the Conservatives under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and routinely launched ferocious attacks on the opposition. During the 1990s Murdoch and some of his editors switched their support to Labour or, more precisely, Tony Blair. Critics have suggested Murdoch’s conversion was less about politics and more about defending his business interests from government scrutiny. Furthermore the relevant titles’ coverage may have changed in terms of the party they support but the underlying journalistic ideology has not if these papers’ coverage of moral and social issues, Europe and other controversial topics is analysed.The Labour government’s cultivation of Rupert Murdoch through its granting of favourable access and exclusives to some of his leading journalists has alienated rival editors and staff working for quality and popular newspapers alike. The criticism of Blair’s approach and of his and his fellow ministers’ perceived obsession with media management transcends the political divide and unites newspapers traditionally on the left (Mirror, Independent and Guardian) with those from the right (Mail, Express and Telegraph). During the 1980s the latter group together with Murdoch’s papers formed what was commonly referred to as the ‘Tory press’ and routinely demonstrated their loyalty, even servility, to the then Conservative government agenda. Now things are more complex and allegiances less stable or predictable. It is possible to talk of a ‘Tony press’ whose sympathy is largely for the leader rather than his party and is far more conditional with its support. This was demonstrated by the way in which many national newspapers including those supportive of his Iraq policy united to denounce the Blair appointed Hutton inquiry’s vindication of the government and its criticism of the BBC as a ‘whitewash’ devoid of balance or credibility. The editorial line of individual papers has been similarly unpredictable. The Daily Express, for instance, abandoned and rediscovered its support for the Conservatives having endorsed Blair in the 2001 general election. Similarly the late Lord Rothermere briefly sat on the Labour government benches despite owning the right-wing Daily Mail. Likewise though Mail editor Paul Dacre is known to dislike Blair and his former Director of Communications Alastair Campbell, he is well disposed towards Chancellor Gordon Brown and a personal friend of Home Secretary David Blunkett. Twenty years ago Labour politicians would have neither sought nor wanted such relationships. The fact that they now do, combined with the intensity of the modern 24 hour news cycle, are key reasons why, compared with their predecessors, the current generation of politicians employs many more public relations advisers or ‘spin doctors’. Does it Matter who Runs the Media?Pluralist accounts suggest that the liberal democratic system safeguards and encourages the proliferation of debate and with it the representation of many differing opinions. This perspective tends to reinforce the popular and enduring limited effects thesis first established by pioneering studies into the political role of the mass media. The scholars responsible argued coverage tended to reinforce rather than change voter allegiances. A modern variation on this theme is the ‘postmodern’ theorising that suggests increasingly ‘active’ audiences are more sophisticated, discerning and promiscuous in terms of their media usage. As such they are less open to being influenced by anything they see or read. Pluralist perspectives have been challenged by more critical accounts that take a more structurally based look at the way the organisation of the media influences outputs. Those on the left have tended to focus on the economics of advertising and shareholder pressure as a means of explaining how and why the journalism of mainstream media organisations tends to be cautious and invariably supportive of the dominant politicians and/or their ideological narrative. Some critics on the right share this disdain for most news reportage but characterise it as a product of a supposed liberal left culture that pervades the media and, more specifically, public service broadcasting.Leaving aside what have been broadly defined as the pluralist and critical perspectives it is clear the relationship between mainstream media and the political process is in flux and subject to ongoing changes. Both journalists and politicians have suffered from the apparent rise in public dissatisfaction with their performance and this has manifested itself in the declining size of audiences, readerships and electorates. It is often and not inaccurately suggested that politicians have lost some of their authority through journalist scrutiny and exposure in recent years. But at least their problem is more obvious and cannot, at least in the short to medium term, erode their constitutional powers. The news media, however, faces a threat to its commercial as well as democratic role from a variety of factors relating to industrial change, the proliferation of alternative media, peoples’ changing social lives, habits and time pressures and a host of other developments that have helped to increasingly fragment the audience.Further reading:Curran, J. & Seaton, J. (1997) Power without Responsibility: the press and broadcasting in Britain. London: Routledge.Deacon, D. & Wring, D. (2002) 'Partisan Dealignment and the British Press ', Bartle, J., Crewe, I. & Gosschalk, B. (eds.) Political Communications: the British General Election of 2001. London: Frank Cass. Seymour-Ure, C. (1996) The British Press and Broadcasting since 1945. Oxford: Blackwell.Wring, D. (2002) 'The "Tony" press: media coverage of the election campaign', in Geddes, A. & Tonge, J. (eds.) Labour's Second Landslide, Manchester: Manchester University Press. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download