Peston, Murdoch and Marr sounds like a firm of dodgy solicitors, but they are, of course, the names of important prognosticators of our media future.
- Robert Peston, Business Editor for the BBC, delivered the Richard Dunn Memorial Lecture at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival today (Saturday 29 August 2009), looking at the future of news journalism.
- James Murdoch, son of Rupert and Chairman & Chief Executive of News Corporation in Europe and Asia, attacked the BBC in a question and answer session following Peston’s lecture, pleading for deregulation in the industry and removal of the BBC’s ‘dominance’.
- Andrew Marr, BBC journo and author of the excellent My Trade, makes some pertinent and prescient comments in defence of the BBC in his book (published in 2004).
Peston describes the current global recession in unromantic terms (several times) and explains the impact on news media in particular. His executive summary looks like this:
1. This is no ordinary recession – the traditional business model of traditional news providers is being wrecked and needs to be overhauled.
2. In a globalised, 24/7 digital world, individual news organisation may be less powerful than they were, but stories – and to an extent the journalists who own them – shout louder than ever.
3. The traditional distinctions between television journalists, radio journalists and print journalists are quite close to being obsolete. This has huge operational implications for all media companies and also for regulation of the industry.
4. The financial crisis we’re living through – and the end of an era of what I call financial paternalism – shows that more than ever we need a choice of high-quality news providers which are confident in their ability to explain complex important issues in a clear and accessible way. [Can we] be certain that the commercial news sector’s imminent revolution – in launching subscription or paid-for online news services – will meet that important need of any thriving democracy[?]
He then goes on to “raise the question of whether the BBC is the invaluable defender of impartial, public-service journalism, at a time of a massive squeeze on the resources of commercial news providers, or the monstrous squisher of private sector rivals.” But, as he developed his argument, he also recognised the pivotal role of journalists in reporting and making news. Referring to his own involvement in the Northern Rock saga and the subsequent earthquake in the banking world, he acknowledges that “the incident shows how loud a voice a journalist and a media organisation can have and what a heavy responsibility there is to get the facts and context right.” He then adds (rightly, in my view):
It was plainly in the public interest to disclose the weakness of our banks. And the primary justification – for me – of this kind of story is to democratise information that matters to all our livelihoods, which would otherwise be available simply to a few bankers, hedge funds and government officials. That said, no responsible journalist would fail to acknowledge that it would be wrong to weaken such important financial institutions through an exaggerated account of their vulnerability.
He then goes on to admit that “the media did too little to challenge the consensus that the world had entered an era of continuous low-inflation growth – or at least not until it was too late.” Recalling the need to challenge orthodoxies, he states: “But although individual news organisations are probably in general weaker, facing both greater financial pressures and more competition than ever, the power of individual stories – and I suppose of journalists, from time to time – has increased.”
I quote at length because Peston, addressing the changing and increasingly complex world of news communication, sees the tension between the need for ”providers of high quality, authoritative news … enough competing groups with the resources to invest in news – because it is far from cheap to supply people with the information they need to take control of their lives and hold big institutions to account” and the dangers of losing quality (and accuracy?) in the heat of that same competition. In a damning indictment of the return to the status quo in the banking system, he says:
And what worries me is that we are trusting these unelected officials from regulators and the central banks – like the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England – to take these decisions on our behalf all over again, without any serious popular debate about what kind of banking system we want. Unless media organisations are prepared to tackle these unsexy complicated issues, how on earth are we going to foment a national debate, how are people going to have a voice on issues that probably affect their prosperity more than whether the tax rate rises or falls by a few percentage points.
Peston then turns his attention to the demands of public service journalism, which he describes as “about informing and educating the public so that there is democratic participation in big decisions about the future of capitalism.” Whilst understanding the complaints of private sector operators like James Murdoch who are driving towards charging for online access, Peston puts his finger on why the BBC must be protected:
Will the new paid-for online model inform and educate on hard issues – financial matters, but also medicine, the environment, education and so on – that matter to us, or will it concentrate on the more sensationalist and titillating bangs for the buck? And even if paid-for online services do endeavour to fill the gap created by the death of financial paternalism, will millions on low incomes be excluded from access to this information? Should we be relaxed if ‘can’t pay’ means ‘can’t know’?
… having just lived through the greatest failure in history to distribute financial resources in an efficient and equitable way, we certainly shouldn’t assume that a commercial digital market in news will distribute information in a way that would support a healthy democracy. Walter Bagehot – as luck would have it the greatest ever writer on banking – defined democracy as government by discussion. But you can’t have a decent chinwag without having the facts. And the big question … is whether the incipient structure of our new digital news industry will promote or undermine the healthy discussion that is necessary for democracy to thrive.
James Murdoch is not a happy man and wants the BBC to have its licence fee cut in order to reduce its dominanceover independent media providers. But, Murdoch is arguing with the first element of Peston’s ‘fairnesses’ (“ensuring a level playing field for players in a commercial market”) and ignoring what Peston calls ”the fairness of the distribution of information and knowledge to all who need it, irrespective of their material circumstances. These are two different kinds of fairness.”
Look at Murdoch’s tabloid empire and the dogma, methodologies and output of his Fox News in the USA and you begin to realise why commercial arguments cannot be allowed to be the dominant ones in the current media debates. Content, truth, accuracy and a recognition of the democratic importance of honest media are quickly sacrificed on the altar of business empires run on amoral lines. And this is where Andrew Marr’s observations come in. Concluding a long descriptive argument about the history and nature of the BBC, he asks:
Would a Britain without the BBC have been bound together in the way we have been bound together? And if the BBC goes, won’t a whole way of feeling British vanish too?
This is not mere sentimentalism. The BBC is able to attend to more than winning commercial advantage by giving people what they want. The Corporation – particularly in its news coverage – is both driven and tormented by the need to inform and help people understand what is driving and influencing their lives. This exercise might never be popular, but it is essential to a mature or maturing democracy. God forbid that Murdoch’s bleatings should ever lead to us being fed by media channels such as the embarrassingly perverse Fox News.
August 29, 2009 at 7:17 pm
For myself I believe that one need only look at Glenn Beck employed by Murdoch on Fox News, and compare him with Andrew Marr, Paxo,Humphreys, the Dimblebys to know that just as I love the NHS, I love the BBC. i’m also quite fond of ITV, and have been known to have the odd consensual fling with channel 4, but they would have less quality programming without the BBC as their benchmark.
August 29, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I read Mr Murdochs speech with some astonishment. The Murdoch Dynasty owns and controls media outlets ranging from TV to Satellite to newprint. They have the potential to dominate with quality and quantity, but fail miserably.
Sky news is a poor substitute for the BBC News or even ITN, which has sadly declined in recent years.
I would agree that the BBC has a market advantage as it is sure of its funding to an extent, but reliant on the will of the Government for it, who set the level of the licence fee. But even the BBC has felt the pressure of the current crisis and I am aware has had to reduce staffing levels in some areas and cut resources for programme making.
I wish to be kept informed via a variaty of news and commentary to help me to make up my mind about any issue which arises, that I know little about or find it difficult to access information on. I switch on the BBC for this. I switch to Sky News as its Sports Coverage is better. I read the Times on Line, but also look at the tabloids to get a different perspective.
At least we continue to have a free press and media, despite attempts to contain them in recent years by successive governments.
But it has to be a responsible press and media as its information gathering and imparting role is so influential and can do so much harm if misused.
August 29, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Thanks, Nick for these really helpful references. I find Mr Murdoch Jr’s attitude to competition in the media industry very interesting. I don’t remember News International having much compunction for diversity and competition, for example, in the Times v. the Indie newspaper wars. Murdoch used all his corporate resource to undercut prices, quite ruthlessly. So we take it what Mr Murdoch Jr objects to is not so much dominant media players, but other people being dominant media players in markets where he can’t compete on quality.
The only obvious result of weakening the BBC as a journalistic player, in the UK, would be to strengthen NI’s own dominance — compulsory right wing pap for all, and no alternative. O brave new world!
August 30, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I agree that the BBC does a vital (if not always unbiassed) job of Public service broadcasting in the UK. I wonder if one of the reasons that the EU is allowed so much freedom to ignore the opinions of the electors and to avoid having standards for its MEPs is because there is no pan European BBC and prerss to hold them to account.
Everybody in authority (bishops, accountants, MPs) needs to be held to account. It seems to me that the structures for doling that are being weakened by globalisation and ironically we the people now have much less power. This enables the poor in spirit etc to be even more downtrodden by those in power.
August 30, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Thanks for these posts. Murdoch Junior’s lecture is worth reading closely and completely before coming to Peston’s conclusion that he is out to wreck the BBC.
‘Headlining’ is a difficult art; the Edinburgh address has been covered in a diversity of ways by journalists who were rushing to file.
Both Murdoch and Peston have important points to make which need to be read widely in more than blogs. A financial journalist tells me that no-one has yet got to the bottom of the present chaos, we need a considered book on the last 5 years of globalism and economics
Where will we get that; the equivalent of Maynard Keynes in the 1930′s? Publishing is now so market-driven that print editors are helpless
Two factors weigh heavily on us.
1 The inattention to history. When I first worked for the BBC in 1964,broadcasting was thought to be in terminal decline. I was threatened with redundancy at the end of my first week of what was to be more than 30 years. Almost every innovation was marked by dire prophecy of attempts to take the BBC apart. C4 and cable being examples. Then the ITV Franchises. Our view of the recent past seems muddled and partial if you were there.
2 A heavy consumer of news, I listen carefully for key words in ‘headlines’. The BBC is no better than anyone in words (eg ‘panic’) casually used and ‘tone’ (Peston’s left one gasping last autumn).
Why is this? Although I trust Peston’s reporting, no-one has time to think and to explain rather than just report. Having worked in BBC and ITV news,it was always the case. ITN has often had the edge on the BBC in reporting calmly and factually.
This weekend in Edinburgh points to the urgent need for a public debate and first we need to find a meeting place.
Most of my older working neighbours are struggling with digital at all even the mobile telephone. Where to go?
August 31, 2009 at 9:50 am
Alan Wilson: the “war” between the Times and rival newspapers IS competition! What Murdoch – and I – object to is “competition” in which one entity receives billions of pounds every year in public subsidy to undercut would-be competitors at every turn. The way their other enterprises are subsidised with exclusive use of advertising and product placement on BBC channels is also unfair and should be stopped.
I’m surprised to find Ernest describing Sky News as a “poor substitute”, too; aside from not being government dependent for funding, I have always found it to do a far better job, both in terms of covering both sides of any controversy and in breaking news promptly. Which “news” outfit was it that had a correspondent phoning in a confident denial of the presence of coalition troops at Baghdad airport, saying he was there and they definitely weren’t – while the proper channels had their embedded reporters standing there, live on camera in the terminal building, forcing the odd news service out to make a rather embarrassed admission that their phone-in report had been misleading them about his location? Not Sky. Even the BBC itself admitted internally to looking enviously at Sky News.
A quick Google will reveal plenty of complaints about the BBC’s bias, but my real objection is to the coercive funding. If they earned their income fair and square by charging those who want to receive their services, that would be different, but being forced to fund their left-wing output in order to be allowed to access the services I actually want is morally repugnant to me.
Christine: in the spirit of “walk a mile in the shoes of the other party”, can you imagine being forced to pay £10 a month to Fox News in order to be allowed to watch your BBC channels, whether you watch or want Fox News or not?
August 31, 2009 at 5:09 pm
James! You nearly had me there! I thought you were making a serious point and then you mentioned being ‘forced to fund their left-wing output’ – which explained everything.
Would you care to comment on Robert Peston’s ‘two fairnesses’? Or do you agree with James Murdoch (by extrapolation) that the only thing that matters in this world is ‘profit’? And could you comment further on the effects of charging on those who cannot pay and would, therfore, be deprived of the sort of information about the world that enables them to participate in democratic choice?
What I find ‘morally repugnant’ is the sort of selfish individualism that demands everything for oneself in isolation from anyone else. If ever there was a need for regulation and public service journalism, I think you have demonstrated it.
But I still look forward to your response to my earlier questions.
August 31, 2009 at 6:42 pm
[...] on a hot London day – by visiting the Richard Long exhibition at Tate Britain - I thought my questioning the worldview and values of James Murdoch might have lost some of its heat. (I have a theory that [...]