Submission from IPPR to the Leveson Inquiry: Module 4

The IPPR welcomes this opportunity to contribute to Module 4 of the Leveson Inquiry’s deliberations: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards.

The main part of this submission draws upon a public attitudes survey commissioned by IPPR in late May 2012 into trust, impartiality and ownership in UK media. We hope the Inquiry will find the responses to this survey a helpful insight into how public attitudes are shaping up on some of the key issues the Inquiry is tackling as it draws together its evidence and analysis under Module 4.

Background

The IPPR’s Next Generation Media Project is focused mainly on producing a set of clear principles to shape and underpin future media policy. This is necessary both in response to the collapse of public trust following the phone hacking scandal and in the face of longer-standing challenges posed to traditional regulatory systems around the world by the disruptive effects of convergence in digital media content and platforms. The project will cover the areas of regulation and ownership and aims to bring some consistency to the rules that would apply both to traditional and new media forms as they converge.

The Next Generation Media project starts with a recognition that there are competing policy priorities in this space. We believe it is important to focus on what is do-able, as well as what is desirable, within the technological constraints of a globalised media marketplace, the economic constraints of sustaining a valuable industrial sector which is in some cases struggling to survive – never mind grow and develop – and the democratic constraints on how far Parliament can go (or will be prepared to go) in limiting freedoms of expression and action in increasingly open public forums.

As part of this project, IPPR is looking at options around:  The future structure of press regulation (in print and online)  The legal framework for balancing privacy rights, freedom of expression and the public interest, in the age of Twitter etc  The system for measuring and promoting plurality of ownership, especially in news  A coherent framework for content regulation across digital platforms, perhaps including the BBC A challenge for all contributors to the wider public policy debate is to help policymakers decide what media policy is for in this new era, particularly in terms of the outcomes that matter most to the general public. News, information and entertainment are all highly regarded by users, regardless of how they choose to consume them: radio, TV, print or online. But they are not all economically equal. News production almost invariably requires a subsidy from more profitable forms of media, mainly entertainment. So scale remains an important feature of those private companies who provide news services. This is one of the paradoxes at the heart of the debate over media plurality.

Public Attitudes to Media Regulation

In the context of this work, IPPR commissioned a survey into public attitudes on trust, impartiality, and ownership in the UK media. The survey was conducted by YouGov (online) among 1,705 adults, with fieldwork undertaken between 20–21st May 2012. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). The full results are attached and are also available online.

The YouGov survey focused on a number of areas currently being considered by the Inquiry, including:

 Whether a new press regulator should have a statutory basis  Mechanisms of redress and prominence of corrections/apologies  Scope of new regulatory arrangements, including video material on newspaper websites and online-only news services  Qualifications for media ownership  Plurality: Limits on newspaper ownership  Plurality: Limits on cross-media ownership The overall results suggest that there is a strong public mood towards a more interventionist approach to regulation of print and online media than is currently the case. This includes both content and ownership regulation and extends to regulatory structures. Particular responses in individual areas are covered below.

Should a new press regulator have a statutory basis?

YouGov asked respondents whether they thought that the press should be regulated through a “legally established body”. 62 per cent of respondents said they thought it should, with less than one in five preferring a continuation of self-regulation. Politically, Lib Dem voters were more persuaded of the case for a statutory basis for press regulation, with Conservative voters the least (though support for a legally established body was still at 60 per cent among Conservative voters).

While it might be possible to argue that the finer distinctions between self and statutory regulation would not be completely appreciated by all the respondents to a survey of this nature, the strength of feeling is clear. At the very least, the public response would suggest that they want to see a much stronger and more binding form of regulation than is currently provided by the PCC. In response to a follow-up question on how strict the regulation should be, 94 per cent of respondents said they thought regulation of the press should be “very” or “fairly” strict.

Should newspapers print apologies or corrections of equal prominence?

There was very strong support from respondents for this principle. 84 per cent supported requiring a newspaper to print a correction and/or an apology on the same page number as the original story if it reports something incorrectly, even if the original story was on the front page. This support extended across all ages, income groups and political persuasions.

Should online news outlets be regulated?

55 per cent supported and only 13 per cent opposed the introduction of “laws to regulate content on online news outlets”. One way of reading this response is that the salience of online news has steadily grown and that people are more aware of it as an alternative/competitor to traditional forms of news output, and therefore feel it should be regulated in a similar way. The response presents a challenge to policymakers which they almost certainly cannot ignore altogether, however difficult it might be to frame regulation of online news. The mood appears to have shifted since the last major piece of legislation in this area, the 2003 Communications Act, which famously made no reference to the internet. Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, then Secretary of State, was adamant during the passage of the Bill, that “...we do not intend to regulate the internet”.

Qualifications for UK media ownership

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the prominence of current concerns about the activities of a News Corp-owned newspaper, there is considerable support among the YouGov respondents for the idea that in order to own a UK newspaper, radio of TV channel, a person or company should be “a full time resident of the UK and pay full UK tax”. 74 per cent of the people surveyed supported this idea. Older people in particular were strongly attracted to it. Conservative voters favoured the proposition marginally more than supporters of the other two parties, but only by a whisker. There was some support also for the notion of stricter laws on the “fitness” of a person or company to own a media outlet. Just under half of respondents to this question thought the laws should be more strict.

Plurality of newspaper ownership

A set of questions in the YouGov survey explored attitudes towards limiting the proportion of overall UK media any one person or company should be allowed to own and whether there should be fixed limits, particularly on newspaper ownership.

Responses to the general questions were emphatic. 73 per cent of respondents said there should be a specific limit on the overall proportion of the UK media (print, television, radio and online) that a single person or company can own. This proportion was high among all ages, income groups and political persuasions. 76 per cent supported fixed limits on the number of newspapers any one person or company could own, which was again consistent across all categories of respondents.

On the specific point about what the limit on the number of national newspapers should be, 62 per cent thought the limit of what any one person or company could own should be no more than one or two. There was surprisingly little political divergence on this point with Conservative voters being as enthusiastic about fixing tight limits on national newspaper ownership as Labour or Lib Dem voters.

Again the public response presents a challenge to policymakers given how economic pressures might be moving the industry towards greater consolidation. It may be that the broader point that respondents were expressing through their answers was that they strongly value the diversity of media that the UK has traditionally enjoyed and do not want to see that threatened.

Cross-media ownership

YouGov posed the question that if someone owned one or more national newspapers, should they be allowed to own a national radio station or national television broadcaster or cable or satellite broadcaster. Responses on these points were much more evenly spread.

On whether newspaper/radio cross-ownership should be allowed, the split was 41 per cent (“should”) to 35 per cent (“should not”). On newspaper/national television broadcaster cross-ownership, it was 34 per cent to 42 per cent. And on newspaper/cable or satellite broadcaster cross-ownership the split was 39 per cent to 37 per cent. Generally the figures skewed towards tighter restrictions among older people and Lib Dem voters.

Questioned further on setting limits on the overall level of media ownership secured by any one person or company, respondents marginally favoured leaving this to be judged by Ofcom or the Competition Commission on a case by case basis. But there was also a considerable body of opinion in favour of fixed overall limits.

Impartiality in news

Generally respondents to the YouGov survey supported the impartiality rules that apply to broadcast news and, if anything, thought they should be stricter. Interestingly support for stricter rules on impartiality in broadcast news was highest among Conservative voters. Respondents also wanted to see impartiality rules extended to cover other forms of media, perhaps as a result of a decline in trust in the wake of the phone hacking scandal (see below). There was, for example, majority support for the extension of impartiality rules to newspapers. This would clearly be a historic break with the tradition of a free and opinionated press in the UK.

A more complex challenge is inherent in the support expressed in the survey for the extension of impartiality rules to video-based news content posted on newspaper websites. 55 per cent of respondents supported such an extension. In a convergent media market, where digital content is available on multiple platforms, the idea that video news produced by broadcasters and video news produced by organisations that are primarily newspaper publishers should in some way be regulated differently is coming under considerable pressure. The majority public view would appear to be that if it looks like TV it should be regulated like traditional TV is and should be impartial in the same way.

Trust in news

The YouGov survey included a question which asked: “Which newspapers or news organisations do you trust?” Respondents were invited to list as many organisations as they wished or to select ‘none’.

It is not surprising perhaps, given the air of scandal which has engulfed the media, that by far the biggest number of respondents said they didn’t trust any news organisation – 1,084 respondents, well over half the total (with another 230 saying ‘don’t know’). This suggests that there has been a serious breakdown of trust in the news media. The BBC continues to be the most trusted organisation, with 273 respondents citing it. The other main broadcasters – Sky and ITN – attracted lower levels of support with 44 and 41 mentions, respectively.

The response from the survey suggests that trust in the broadsheets is considerably higher than among the tabloids (hardly surprising given the phone hacking context) - the Guardian (121) Independent (76) and Telegraph (64) were the top three trusted newspapers.

The BBC

As well as the BBC being the most trusted news organisation, support for the maintenance of a publicly-funded broadcast service, such as the BBC remains high. Support is highest among Lib Dem voters and older people but there is also significant support (greater than 50 per cent) among voters for all political parties and all age groups. Lower income groups are less likely to support a publicly funded broadcast service on the basis of this survey.

Overall, the survey would suggest that this is a worrying time for all involved in the media and especially in news delivery. The BBC is the most trusted, but it too risks being caught in the current wave of public scepticism.

Conclusion

It is possible that a general survey of public opinion on the media at any point in the last 10 years would have produced some ‘negative’ results. However, the events of last year have brought the issues of poor ethical standards, inadequate regulation, and concern over ownership and plurality into sharp relief. It is IPPR’s view that there is a clear public demand for definitive action on these issues now and that ‘doing nothing’ or relying on the industry to ‘clean up its own act’ is not a viable option.

However, while understanding something of the public mood is clearly relevant to policymakers’ deliberations, the challenge will be to avoid a knee-jerk reaction that does not take account of the trend developments in technology and convergence that could easily render any proposals that look at only one form of media in isolation redundant before they even get off the ground. Worse still could be moves that impact negatively on one part of the industry (i.e. the printed press, which is already economically challenged) in favour of another.

Submissions from Ofcom and others have looked in some detail at these trend developments and we would urge the Inquiry to consider them carefully within its deliberations. The public and the political mood clearly favours tighter regulation and measures to control over-concentrations of ownership and to maintain plurality. The Inquiry needs to make concrete proposals on these areas which guide policymakers. But the critical test should be whether these proposals are effective, as well as responding to the popular mood, and also whether they are sufficiently flexible and forward looking to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing media marketplace and help ensure the economic viability of the industry.

Nigel Warner, Associate Fellow, IPPR

Tim Finch, Director of Communications, IPPR

July 2012