Westminsterresearch Media Ownership and the Exploitation Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WestminsterResearch http://www.westminster.ac.uk/westminsterresearch Media ownership and the exploitation of media power for corporate self-interest: a case study of News International's coverage of the BBC and OFcom Langworth, R. This is an electronic version of a PhD thesis awarded by the University of Westminster. © Miss Rachel Langworth, 2020. The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of Westminster aims to make the research output of the University available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the authors and/or copyright owners. MEDIA OWNERSHIP AND THE EXPLOITATION OF MEDIA POWER FOR CORPORATE SELF-INTEREST A CASE STUDY OF NEWS INTERNATIONAL’S COVERAGE OF THE BBC AND OFCOM RACHEL ELIZABETH LANGWORTH W11368894 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the reQuirements of the University of Westminster for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Abstract This work examines whether there is an agenda on the part of the newspapers owned by News International (Rupert Murdoch’s UK media company) where reporting on matters with regards to the British Broadcasting Corporation and Ofcom. The agenda, examined via the content analysis of the relevant articles published in three Murdoch owned newspapers compared with three non-Murdoch owned newspapers of eQual standing, proves an already existing theory discussed by the press and academics alike that Rupert Murdoch is particularly hostile towards both bodies; the BBC because it is a rival news provider, and a prominent, trusted voice in Britain; and Ofcom, because of its role as a regulator that has often stood between Murdoch and his commercial expansion plans. The research answers three key Questions: to what extent News International’s newspapers seek to undermine organisations and competitiors that in some way interfere with the company and/ or proprietors expansion plans; to what extent this agenda is manifested in News International’s newspapers; and to what extent these compare with eQual-standing, non-News International owned newspapers. The findings identify a clear bias in the reporting, demonstrating for the first time that Murdoch exploits his newspapers in pursuit of commercial self-interest. This work demonstrates how the news agenda can be deliberately manipulated to suit the commercial self-interest of dominant owners, and provides evidence of the way in which proprietors such as Murdoch can exploit their dominance of media markets through the distorted or biased coverage of rival institutions or regulators in a bid to influence both popular opinion and the decisions of politicians and policymakers, thus undermining the democratic process. List of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: Media and Democracy 6 Chapter Two: The New Digital Environment 23 Chapter Three: Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation 43 Chapter Four: Media Economy – The Economic Imperatives of 72 Consolidation Chapter Five: Current Framework 85 Chapter Six: Recent Policy and Regulatory Developments 109 Chapter Seven: The Research Questions 126 Chapter Eight: The Methodology 127 Chapter Nine: The Results for the BBC 145 Chapter Ten: The Results for Ofcom 163 Chapter Eleven: The Discussion and Conclusion 180 Appendices 222 References 236 List of Illustrations 3.1 Rupert Murdoch’s media holdings 45 8.1 Detail of newspapers used in study, including political 134 affiliation and average circualtion. 9.1 Total number of articles about the BBC 146 9.2 Number of articles about the BBC – timeline 147 9.3 Wordcount – BBC 148 9.4 All articles about the BBC by tone 149 9.5 Articles by tone by newspaper 150 9.6 News International articles by tone 151 9.7 Non- News International articles by tone 151 9.8 Negative coverage timeline – BBC 152 9.9 News International negative coverage timeline – BBC 153 9.10 Articles by tone, by date range for News International vs 154 non-News International 9.11 All articles about BBC by focus 155 9.12 News International negative articles by focus 156 9.13 Non-News International negative articles by focus 156 9.14 All articles about BBC by type 157 9.15 Negative articles by type 158 9.16 Non- News International negative articles by type 158 9.17 News International negative articles by type 158 9.18 Sources Quoted in all articles about the BBC 160 9.19 News International articles – sourced vs unsourced 161 9.20 Non-News International articles – sourced vs unsourced 161 9.21 News International articles by source 161 9.22 Non-News International articles by source 161 10.1 Total number of articles about Ofcom 163 10.2 Number of articles about Ofcom 164 10.3 Number of articles about Ofcom by year 164 10.4 Wordcount - Ofcom 165 10.5 All articles about Ofcom by tone 166 10.6 Tone of articles by newspaper 167 10.7 Tone of articles in News International newspapers 168 10.8 Tone of articles in non-News International newspapers 168 10.9 Negative coverage timeline – Ofcom 169 10.10 News International negative coverage timeline – Ofcom 170 10.11 All articles about Ofcom by focus 171 10.12 News International newspapers – focus of article 171 10.13 Non-News International newspapers – focus of article 171 10.14 Negative articles by focus – News International newspapers 172 10.15 Negative articles by focus – non-News International 172 newspapers 10.16 Negative articles where Ofcom is primary focus 173 10.17 Negative articles where Ofcom was mentioned in passing 173 10.18 Articles about Ofcom by type 174 10.19 Negative articles about Ofcom by type 175 10.20 News International negative articles by type 175 10.21 Non-News International negative articles by type 175 10.22 Sources Quoted in articles about Ofcom 177 10.23 News International articles about Ofcom - sourced vs 178 unsourced 10.24 Non-News International articles about Ofcom - sourced vs 178 unsourced 10.25 News International – negative articles by source 178 10.26 Non-News International – negative articles by source 179 Acknowledgements Throughout the writing of this thesis I have received a great deal of support and assistance. I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Steven Barnett, for his time, effort and support, without which I could not have completed this work. I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to Steve for not letting me Quit, despite numerous threats to do so. I would like to say a heartfelt thanks to my parents, David and Lee Langworth, for their wise counsel and unwavering support. I would like to dedicate this thesis to my Grandfather, William Joseph Langworth. Author’s Declaration I declare that all the material contained in this thesis is my own work. Definitions Rupert Murdoch’s corporate entities: over the course of time, Rupert Murdoch’s media companies have changed names. Throughout this thesis, where discussing his UK company, it is referred to as ‘News International’. Only where appropriate and explicitly referenced by others has it been referred to as ‘News UK’. References to ‘News Corporation’ or ‘News Corp’ are in relation to his US holdings. Introduction A free press is the cornerstone of any democracy. Even with the advent of digital and social media and powerful technology companies, traditional news publishers still retain the power to carry out investigative reporting that holds power to account and asks difficult Questions, while providing a flow of uncompromised and unbiased information to reach the public and promote an informed electorate. For broadcasters, certainly in the UK and across Europe, impartiality rules and a long-standing non- partisan reporting culture ensure that these journalistic norms broadly remain intact. But for newspapers and online publishers, free to write what they want within the law, the selection of stories, how they are reported and the overall editorial stance are generally dependent on the newspaper owner’s political, ideological and commercial agenda. A single publisher with an editorial standpoint decided by the owner taking a strong line on any particular issue is not in itself a problem or a threat to democracy. However, if the proprietor also owns several other types of media platform, such as television networks, radio stations or internet sites, the opportunity to set the news agenda and the potential to influence both the public and politicians becomes a likely and potentially dangerous possibility. The more media outlets owned by a single proprietor, the more power they command, and the more dangerous it can be for a healthy democracy that relies on a plurality of viewpoints. Issues around concentration of media ownership and the threat to democracy have freQuently been raised by scholars in the UK, Australia and the US in respect of Rupert Murdoch’s ownership of multiple media outlets and platforms. He owns media businesses that operate across a number of countries and is still considered to be one of the most powerful media proprietors in the English-speaking world. He is known for having conservative views, a strong disdain for elitism and the ‘establishment’, and a strong desire to operate in free, commercially driven markets. Most scholarly work has focused, rightly, on how Murdoch has exploited his media properties to promote this conservative worldview, whether it be through supporting (mostly) right-wing political parties and leaders such as Thatcher, Reagan and Trump or right-wing policies in areas such as taxation and criminal justice. Less work, however, has 1 focused on whether and how he exploits his media outlets to promote his own corporate interests and denigrate his competitors. This thesis aims to fill that gap with systematic empirical evidence from the UK. Murdoch is known to liken the ‘elite establishment’ with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which he described during his 1989 MacTaggart Lecture speech as having “debilitating effects on British society, by producing a TV output which is so often obsessed with class, dominated by anti-commercial attitudes” (Murdoch, 1989) The BBC was a direct competitor to Murdoch’s Sky TV, in a uniQue position as the UK’s public service broadcaster with guaranteed public funding via the licence fee.