» SubscribeMain section
-
Top story
Summary Response to Consultation on Media Ownership Rules
126
COMMUNICATIONS BILL - CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP
As the bill to set up OFCOM reached the committee stage in the House of Commons, CPBF has been in Westminster lobbying MPs on the need for the communications regulator to be both transparent in its operations and accountable for its action. A letter was also sent to all Standing Committee members dealing with the bill. Among its arguments it made the case for an OFCOM ruling body representing wider national, cultural and social interests than those of the communications industry and for a Select Committee of MPs to have the final say on who should be appointed as Chief Executive and to the OFCOM board.
The CPBF has published its response to the government's consultation paper on media ownership rules. These are expected to form a central part of the forthcoming communications bill. In the 17-page submission, presented to Culture Minister Tessa Jowell on 23 January, the CPBF underlines what it sees as the risks for pluralism and diversity in evolving Communications systems in the UK. The Campaign argues that rules governing media concentration and cross-media ownership should be enforced more effectively and that public interest considerations should remain central in any changes being drafted in the communications bill. "The continuing significance of mass media in people's lives as well as the growing importance of new media, justify and require effective regulation of communications in the public interest."
We print here some points from the document - for the full text of the CPBF response see www.cpbf.org.uk Figures in [ ] refer to sections in the government consultation document
1. We recognise that media markets are evolving, influenced by technological changes arising from digitalisation and by convergence. However, we challenge the basis of arguments that regulation is either no longer necessary, or desirable, or feasible due to ‘convergence’. We argue that the continuing significance of mass media in people’s lives as well as the growing importance of new media, justify and require effective regulation of communications in the public interest.
2. Regulating for pluralism and diversity
We believe that the Consultation Paper does not adequately identify the purposes of regulating for plurality and diversity in the media, nor the risks to pluralism and diversity in evolving communication systems in the United Kingdom.
We think that the government should be concerned with preventing a concentration of ownership and using its legislative and economic power to promote plurality of outlets. The media should be an arena in which a diversity of perspectives and viewpoints can be encountered. This means that governments have to take action to encourage participation in the media by the range of different communities in our society and also enforce, across the media, obligations on providers of services to promote key values of accuracy, impartiality and public service principles. As we have argued in our main submission on the White Paper, we do not think that diversity is served by encouraging the spread of market-driven services and leaving public service and community media on the margins of the system.
Communications regulation needs to be based on the recognition that media contribute to pluralism, diversity and quality of information and hence require a separate regulatory structure from that which governs other parts of the national and global economy.
3. CPBF Responses to Some Detailed Options [6]
The consultation document outlined fifteen options on aspects of media ownership. We have responded to them all, but at some length in many cases, and it is not possible to summarise the points adequately. Please consult the web site or if you want the print version of the CPBF response (17 pages) contact the CPBF National Office
4. Conclusions
Once powerful media groups have established themselves it is extremely difficult for governments ever to envisage policy proposals that might weaken or limit their economic or political power. In the UK we have seen how such a powerful group, News International, was allowed, and indeed encouraged, to grow. In part this was a reward for the support Rupert Murdoch gave to successive Conservative governments under Mrs Thatcher through his newspapers (the acquisition of the Times and the Sunday Times was not the subject of a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, for example). Also the satellite service, Sky, was exempted from regulatory and other limits placed on other UK broadcasters and newspaper publishers under the 1990 Broadcasting Act and then allowed effectively to take over its rival BSB.
We mention this case to underline our concern that media ownership does have a direct and vital impact on the democratic process, and changes in media ownership laws should therefore be very carefully considered. We welcome the opportunity to respond above to the options presented in the Consultation document and wish to conclude with some general points.
Previous government documents - Regulating Communications (1998) and the White Paper A New Future for Communications (2000) - were more insistent on the relentless march towards convergence, whereas there is a recognition in the Consultation document that media policy shouldn’t be formulated on the assumption that ownership and regulation of the media become less central in a multi-channel, digital world with a plethora of news sources, entertainment and information. [3.10] and [6.0.7.]
However these statements do conflict with others [1.8] on the commitment to a deregulatory approach to media markets.
Our views on the Consultation Paper are shaped by the conviction that the defence and protection of a diverse and high quality media system requires positive regulation and controls. Those who argue that choice and diversity can flourish only through deregulation, or that to develop ‘a more significant international presence’ requires ‘further deregulation’ are, we believe, either mistaken or arguing from purely self-interested commercial perspectives. Indeed, making it easier for UK media companies to merge could simply create handy, bite-sized snacks for global conglomerates to swallow up. Furthermore, British television has proved to be at its most successful on the export market when it is most distinctive, not when it is at its most blandly international or mid-Atlantic.
Last modified: Monday, February 18, 2002
Previous government policy stories
Culture Minister Promises Wide Consultation on Bill
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES
BY DCMS and DTI (November 2001)
Wales and the Future of Mass Communications:
Cymru a Dyfodol Cyfathrebu Torfol
The State of the Media - Media Policy and the need for reform.
The Danger in a Reasonable Approach
ITN to Embrace Madonna
Wales, OFCOM and the democratic deficit
Roadshows raise awareness
Trade unionists take up the gauntlet
CPBF to give oral evidence on bill
Media Ownership Consultation
Diverse and Public - Public Service Broadcasting and the Communications White Paper
Consultation on Media Ownership Rules
5 December: CPBF Policy Seminar on Media Ownership
CYMRU RESERVATION:
HEALTH DEVOLVED BUT NOT CASUALTY!
CPBF COMMENTS ON THE COMMUNICATIONS WHITE PAPER
WHITE PAPER OR WHITE FLAG?
DTI DCMS Communications White Paper - A new future for communications
Corporate Media Trends in Europe
CPBF/Public Voice seminar on media ownership
JOWELL ANNOUNCES CONSULTATION PAPER ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP
12 November - Communications revolution: who benefits? Nottingham.
30 October - Communications revolution: who benefits? Bath.
30 October - Communications revolution: who benefits? Preston
Public service broadcasting on the brink
The Communications Revolution : Who Benefits? (CPBF Pamphlet)
Response to the Communications White Paper - February 2001
Additional Submission to the Communications White Paper Reform Team - November 2000
Comments for the Communications Reform White Paper - 22 June 2000
-
Notices
Events & Announcements
World Press Freedom Day
More reporters are currently imprisoned in Turkey than in any other country in the world. Only a matter of weeks ago lawyers failed to persuade a Turkish court to release a 76-year-old journalist from a Turkish internet news station.
World Press Freedom Day on Friday May 3, 2013 is being marked in Britain by a rally to highlight the dangers facing journalists in Turkey and in this podcast, Nicholas Jones speaks to Barry White, Organiser at the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, and Sam Bamford, the TUC's policy officer for Eastern Europe and Africa about the importance of a campaign to highlight international press freedom.
The World Press Freedom Day rally is being staged by the National Union of Journalists at the NUJ head office, Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1 on Thursday May 2, 6pm-8pm.
DATELINE: 27/4/13
UK launch of EU media campaign
DATELINE: 13/3/13
The UK launch of a 'European Citizens' Initiative' calling for EU rules against concentration of media power will take place on Thursday March 21 from 11:00am – 12:30pm in Committee Room 4A at the House of Lords, London. Guest speakers will include actor and activist Hugh Grant (pictured), media consultant Claire Enders, Professor Steven Barnett, Barry McCall (President of the NUJ) and Marc Gruber (Director of the European Federation of Journalists).
A European Citizens' Initiative is an official petition, like a Downing Street petition. If it succeeds in gathering a million signatures across the EU, the Commission is obliged to respond.
This petition calls for the EU to act to protect media pluralism and press freedom.
CPBF Annual General Meeting
DATELINE: 1/3/13
Make a note in your diary
Saturday 13 July 2013 from 10.00am
NUJ HQ, 308/312 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1.
Leveson, media ownership, CPBF future work.
DOWNLOAD FREEPRESS NOW
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Download Freepress in PDF, ePub or mobi format. Issue 194 now available.
MEDIA FOR ALL CONFERENCE
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Papers from the Media for All Conference
MEDIA MANIFESTO
DATELINE: 26/3/10
The media’s job is to inform and entertain us but we rely on them too to tell us what our rulers and representatives are up to. In the run-up to the Iraq war the government used spin and disinformation in the media to create panic and mislead people. The truth is coming out now, but we need stronger, more independent media to be able to scrutinise governments and make informed choices.
-
Previous stories
Government Policy
Culture Minister Promises Wide Consultation on Bill
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES
BY DCMS and DTI (November 2001)
Wales and the Future of Mass Communications:
Cymru a Dyfodol Cyfathrebu Torfol
The State of the Media - Media Policy and the need for reform.
The Danger in a Reasonable Approach
ITN to Embrace Madonna
Wales, OFCOM and the democratic deficit
Roadshows raise awareness
Trade unionists take up the gauntlet
CPBF to give oral evidence on bill
Media Ownership Consultation
Diverse and Public - Public Service Broadcasting and the Communications White Paper
Consultation on Media Ownership Rules
5 December: CPBF Policy Seminar on Media Ownership
CYMRU RESERVATION:
HEALTH DEVOLVED BUT NOT CASUALTY!
CPBF COMMENTS ON THE COMMUNICATIONS WHITE PAPER
WHITE PAPER OR WHITE FLAG?
DTI DCMS Communications White Paper - A new future for communications
Corporate Media Trends in Europe
CPBF/Public Voice seminar on media ownership
JOWELL ANNOUNCES CONSULTATION PAPER ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP
12 November - Communications revolution: who benefits? Nottingham.
30 October - Communications revolution: who benefits? Bath.
30 October - Communications revolution: who benefits? Preston
Public service broadcasting on the brink
The Communications Revolution : Who Benefits? (CPBF Pamphlet)
Response to the Communications White Paper - February 2001
Additional Submission to the Communications White Paper Reform Team - November 2000
Comments for the Communications Reform White Paper - 22 June 2000
