Well, it’s been a long time coming. The House of Lords has finally woken up to what has been apparent for years, that swathes of the population have limited access to professionally produced news.
Peers on the Communications and Digital Committee have opined that a “two-tier” media environment is likely, with some people well served with a variety of outlets and subscriptions, and others not. The chair, Baroness Stowell, writes: “We have deepening concerns about the road ahead. Trust is low and news avoidance is rising. Local news deserts have grown. Generative AI will upend news publishers’ business models. We envisage a few big winners and losers.”
Having made the observation on something that has been with us for some time, she says: “We need to adapt. The public service broadcasters and the BBC in particular are an important ‘anchor’. They must properly engage audiences by understanding and reflecting different priorities and perspectives with due respect. Otherwise, broadcasters will drift into irrelevance.”
The Government, Stowell says, can “help the media survive this period of turbulence”. The copyright system should be fixed so that news outlets can “strike fair deals with tech firms”.
First, it’s more than a bit of uncomfortable travel with nobody hurt. It’s not a case of fastening seatbelts — it’s a full-on, free-fall plunge with many casualties.
Second, what’s in it for the multinational digital behemoths? They’ve got their own, growing news operations; they’ve no need to entertain lesser rivals.
There are places and folk all over Britain devoid of credible, objective news
What’s required is an understanding of the state our media is in. There are places and folk all over Britain devoid of credible, objective news.
Once it was the local paper that could be relied upon for national stories as they related to the area, details of crimes and accidents, reports of crown court trials and convictions, magistrates hearings, planning applications, city and town hall proceedings, arts, culture and sports, as well as notices of births, deaths and marriages and all manner of information regarding transport, pharmacy openings and so on.
Not any more, not these days. Today, if people want to know what is going on there is nowhere to turn, apart from social media, to their own online echo chambers and to gossip in the corner shop or pub; and perhaps a neighbourhood website. But those sites are really chatter writ large — they’re a haven for conspiracy theorists and scaremongers.
Mine recently posted a warning from someone that they had “seen two youths looking at a new Range Rover”. This provoked two types of response: those who expressed thanks and said they would keep a look out; and those, admittedly fewer, who suggested the lads might simply have been admiring an expensive car?
If there is a semblance of a paper in print or online, the chances are it is owned by a large corporation, and the newsroom and journalists are located at a far distant “hub”. Their knowledge of the locale is confined to Google Maps and Google Earth.
One newspaper in the North of England long since ceased printing and it’s now web only. The recent lead story on its site was about a grotty pub that had closed and was being turned into apartments. All the item contained was a series of gushing quotes from the developer, presumably lifted from a press release. This was deemed the top story of interest for a district of 80,000-plus souls. It was depressing.
The Lords committee does recommend regulatory action against anti-competitive practices and calls for “limited initiatives, like tax breaks for local journalism, training schemes and innovation programmes”. Stowell stresses that “much of the work, however, needs to be led by media organisations. They must rise to the challenge before it is too late.”
Baroness and your colleagues, I’ve got news for you: passing the buck is not the solution. The BBC is starved of cash. It’s been cutting back on local and regional news operations to save money. Similarly, commercial media firms are struggling to compete for content and advertising with the global tech behemoths.
Democracy itself is at risk
Yet, our appetite for news is as strong as it ever was. There is no alternative but for government to intervene and not just with a spot of legislation here and there. An urgent appraisal is required, producing transformational change. It’s not as if it isn’t serious: as we see regularly and with increasing frequency in elections here and elsewhere, democracy itself is at risk. Parliamentary activities as they affect communities, council debates and meetings — they are all going unreported. That isn’t healthy.
There is no point either in pretending profit must be the prime objective. This isn’t about making money, it’s about the provision of properly researched, well-explained, authoritative news.
What’s required is state funding of local journalism — not directly, that would be anathema, but via an independent body that would have total control and decision-making. Similar to the Arts Council, that body would make finance available to local news sites, who would be monitored and assessed. They would have to meet set criteria to qualify and would have to agree to employ a certain number of full-time editors and reporters who held qualifications from courses accredited by the National Council for the Training of Journalists. That way, too, the craft of journalism would receive a boost.
In the scheme of things it would not cost a huge amount, but the rewards from enhancing people’s lives and strengthening the democratic pillars that underpin society would be enormous. It’s radical but we have no choice.
