tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/uk-broadcasting-19747/articlesUK broadcasting – The Conversation2024-02-08T13:21:29Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2227972024-02-08T13:21:29Z2024-02-08T13:21:29ZSix Nations future on terrestrial TV uncertain – what are the implications for rugby and its fans?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574016/original/file-20240207-20-835kh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=38%2C0%2C4252%2C2813&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Six Nations Championship is classified as a 'category B' tournament by the UK government. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rome-italy-0502-olympic-stadium-guinness-2258290119">Marco Iacobucci Epp/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Six Nations Championship always serves plenty to excite stadium and television audiences. But the high-octane drama risks being overshadowed by off-field events that could also threaten the principles of public service broadcasting.</p>
<p>As a televisual event, rugby is thriving. <a href="https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2024/02/01/rugby-world-cup-2023-most-viewed-rugby-event-ever-with-1-33bn-viewing-hours/">Viewing figures</a> for the Rugby World Cup in 2023 were 19% higher than the 2019 tournament, and 30% higher than in 2015. Free-to-air Six Nations games <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1441433/tv-viewers-six-nations-uk/">regularly draw</a> between 3 and 4.5 million viewers in the UK. Globally, an estimated <a href="https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/en/m6n/news/get-set-for-championships-biggest-year-yet">121 million</a> people tuned in to the 2023 tournament. </p>
<p>So, it’s surprising that the Six Nations is classified by the UK government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport as a <a href="https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00802/SN00802.pdf">“category B”</a> tournament. This means it can be sold to anyone, providing that free-to-air broadcasters are given access to highlights or delayed coverage. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, for “category A” events like the FA Cup final and the Olympic and Paralympic Games, full live coverage must be offered by free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters. Recently, a bid to move the Six Nations into category A was <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-01-23/bid-to-make-six-nations-free-to-air-rejected-by-uk-government">rejected</a> by the UK government.</p>
<p>The BBC and ITV have had the rights for the Six Nations since 2003, but that could change. Rugby’s governing bodies need more money, and free-to-air channels are feeling the financial pinch. On top of that, more and more people are opting for streaming services in general. So, when the current broadcasting deal ends in 2025, the Six Nations could very well end up behind a paywall. </p>
<h2>Financial woes</h2>
<p>Money – or the lack of it – is the important factor here and Welsh rugby especially is experiencing the effects more than most. It faces a <a href="https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/raft-wales-internationals-face-huge-28239366">stark future</a> both on and off the field, with players leaving Wales for more money and salary caps being introduced for those who stay. </p>
<p>While there’s a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-68152933">consensus in the Senedd</a> (Welsh parliament) for the Six Nations to remain free-to-air, the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) has warned it would <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-68168728">“struggle to survive”</a> without a competitive bidding scenario involving Sky, Amazon Prime and others. </p>
<p>Some Scottish politicians concur with the Senedd, adding a further constitutional dimension. The <a href="https://www.thenational.scot/news/24093322.six-nations-paywall-threat-sparks-calls-broadcast-powers-scotland/">SNP’s Gavin Newlands</a> recently reiterated calls for broadcasting to be devolved so that the Six Nations remains free-to-air. </p>
<p>There are precedents for rugby moving to a subscription service too. The 2023 Autumn Internationals were only accessible on Amazon Prime, and between 1997 and 2002, England’s home games were shown exclusively on Sky Sports. </p>
<p>But that raises concerns about affordability, especially for those fans already finding attending matches too expensive. For stay-at-home supporters, even the “home comfort” option of watching on TV might become too costly.</p>
<p>According to former BBC executive and now WRU executive director of rugby, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-68168728">Nigel Walker</a>, this “tension and competition at the market” is essential for rugby’s survival. The Irish Rugby Union has also previously warned about the <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/irfu-tackles-minister-over-six-nations-on-free-to-air-tv-s3ssx5lcp">“substantial financial damage”</a> to rugby if the Six Nations was classified as free-to-air.</p>
<h2>Lessons from cricket</h2>
<p>Free market proponents point, for example, to how Sky’s long-lasting commitment to cricket has led to <a href="https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadcasting/the-tech-being-used-by-sky-sports-at-the-ashes/5183118.article">innovation and technical advances</a> such as multiple cameras and data-rich, TV-friendly statistical analysis. It results in a quality of coverage that the BBC or ITV might struggle to match with more meagre budgets. </p>
<p>But test cricket offers a cautionary tale. It found a surge of new fans during Channel 4’s captivating coverage of the epic 2005 Ashes, with the final day of the fourth test drawing <a href="https://www.isportconnect.com/the-house-view-why-cricket-needs-free-to-air-tv-to-make-the-most-of-the-ashes/#:%7E:text=The%20last%20time%20the%20England,Fourth%20Test%20at%208.4%20million.">8.4 million viewers</a>. When Sky secured the rights a year later, this fresh audience vanished. </p>
<p>The 2023 Ashes saw <a href="https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/12907082/the-ashes-2023-sky-sports-breaks-records-in-edgbaston-opener-with-highest-viewing-figures-for-a-test-match">peak viewing figures</a> of just 2.12 million. Having hauled in millions of new enthusiasts, <a href="https://theconversation.com/england-win-mens-cricket-world-cup-in-a-last-ball-thriller-now-will-the-country-see-more-matches-on-free-tv-120302">cricket</a> failed to keep them watching.</p>
<p>If rugby does succumb to the paywall, there are serious implications. Perhaps as an inevitable consequence of a captive audience, subscription prices might increase as “market forces” prevail. </p>
<p>And if televised rugby lit a fire in the belly of an emerging generation of players, there’s a chance a paywall could just as easily extinguish it. This is especially relevant in Wales, where <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1445179/six-nations-popularity-countries/">51% of the population</a> stated that they had an interest in the tournament, versus only 26% in England.</p>
<p>For Wales, where rugby players are often revered as heroes, the cultural implications are also considerable. The players are role models who help cement a common sense of nationhood and cultural identity. Will their power to inspire future generations fade if fans can’t afford to watch them? Possibly not, but making rugby less accessible may stifle the enthusiasm of emerging talent.</p>
<p>And there is a further conundrum regarding the very nature of public service broadcasting. According to legislation, one <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/264/2011-06-15">principle</a> of broadcasting in the public interest is that it should “satisfy a wide range of different sporting and other leisure interests”. </p>
<p>For many, public service broadcasting principles might seem a dispensable fragment of an increasingly complex jigsaw, but they should not be dismissed lightly. The protective standards and quality they provide, and the inclusivity they ensure, were not necessarily conceived with rugby in mind. But losing them to the pursuit of bigger paydays would be a significant blow to the cultural and social fabric that sport weaves within society.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222797/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When Six Nations’ broadcasting deal with the BBC and ITV ends in 2025, there are fears the tournament could move to a subscription service.Richard Thomas, Professor of Journalism, Swansea UniversityIwan Williams, Senior Lecturer in Media, Swansea UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1981712023-04-04T15:06:03Z2023-04-04T15:06:03ZRough Cut: Netflix’s first Welsh language series is a further boost for subtitled content<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/517858/original/file-20230328-806-otoojz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C32%2C5457%2C3837&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The drama series Rough Cut on Netflix follows a group of misfits as they try to pull off a diamond heist. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">S4C</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Netflix announced in January that it would be streaming its first ever drama series in the Welsh language, the news was met with widespread <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/29/a-real-moment-cymraegs-the-star-as-netflix-buys-welsh-language-drama">positivity</a> in the media. </p>
<p>The streaming giant <a href="https://www.s4c.cymru/en/press/post/54344/s4c-crime-drama-dal-y-mellt-sold-to-netflix/">bought the licence</a> for <em>Dal y Mellt</em>, which translates as “catch the lightning”, from the Welsh language public service broadcaster, S4C. Adapted from a novel by Iwan “Iwcs” Roberts, the gritty six-part crime thriller follows a group of misfits as they come together to pull off a diamond heist. </p>
<p>Having been available on S4C and the BBC iPlayer with its Welsh name, the series has now been given the title “Rough Cut” for Netflix and is being streamed for UK audiences with English subtitles as of April 10 2023.</p>
<p>Given <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-foreign-language-cinema-is-struggling-in-the-uk-59424">concern</a> in recent years over the decline of non-English language productions in UK cinemas, this is an important step. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The words Dal y Mellt appear in bold set against a sunset." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518414/original/file-20230330-26-f7scm4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518414/original/file-20230330-26-f7scm4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518414/original/file-20230330-26-f7scm4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518414/original/file-20230330-26-f7scm4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518414/original/file-20230330-26-f7scm4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518414/original/file-20230330-26-f7scm4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518414/original/file-20230330-26-f7scm4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Originally broadcast on S4C and the BBC iPlayer, Dal y Mellt has been given the title ‘Rough Cut’ for Netflix.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">S4C</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>“<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/books/review/nordic-noir-guide.html">Nordic Noir</a>” has paved the way for subtitled drama in recent years. The dark, Scandinavian genre has <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Nordic-noir-in-the-UK%3A-the-allure-of-accessible-Stougaard-Nielsen/2353eaeafcb2ee9a9ee00e45f132bfd048eeeec4">surged in popularity</a> globally since the mid 1990s. And crime dramas such as <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907702/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2">Wallander</a>, <a href="https://www.dr.dk/drtv/saeson/forbrydelsen_-i_351784">Forbrydelsen</a> (The Killing) and <a href="https://nimbusfilm.dk/film/broen-4/?lang=dk">Bron</a> (The Bridge) have set the tone for productions such as Rough Cut. The combination of a highly recognisable genre, coupled with a distinct sense of place, proved to be a winning formula to be exported across the world. </p>
<p>Other minoritised languages have used a similar brooding genre since 2010 too. The two Irish Gaelic series, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1749056/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"><em>Corp & Anam</em></a> and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2792326/"><em>An Bronntanas</em></a>, were produced by TG4, the Irish public service television channel. While <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06fp6cc"><em>Bannan</em></a>, a production in Scottish Gaelic, was made by BBC Alba. </p>
<p>When the dark, Welsh detective drama <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03sgfbz">Hinterland</a> was filmed, it was shot back to back in Welsh and English. The English version (with brief passages of Welsh dialogue) was broadcast on the BBC, while the Welsh language version was shown on S4C. And that somewhat controversial trend continued with more recent dramas such as the BBC’s <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p066st1w/hidden">Hidden</a> (<em>Craith</em>), <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09s7357">Keeping Faith</a> (<em>Un Bore Mercher</em>) and Channel 4’s <a href="https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-light-in-the-hall">A Light in the Hall</a> (<em>Y Golau</em>). </p>
<p>But there is something unique about Rough Cut because there is no English version, just one production in the Welsh language. This suggests a growing confidence in Welsh language productions. It’s a far cry from the early 1990s when the first Welsh language film to be nominated for an Oscar, <a href="https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-hedd-wyn-1992-online"><em>Hedd Wyn</em></a> didn’t even receive a cinematic release in Wales or the UK. </p>
<p>Recently, the mainstream success of non-English language productions such as <em>An Cailín Ciúin</em> (The Quiet Girl), All Quiet on the Western Front and Squid Game, suggest a gentle sea-change in attitudes to subtitled content. The latter was <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/10/13/squid-game-is-now-netflixs-most-popular-show-ever-and-its-not-even-close/">Netflix’s biggest hit to date</a> in 2021. </p>
<p>Parasite, the Korean mystery drama, became the first non-English language film to win the Academy Award for best picture in 2020. And when he accepted his Golden Globe for best foreign language film, Parasite’s director Bong Joon-ho <a href="https://variety.com/2020/film/awards/south-koreas-parasite-crashes-the-subtitles-barrier-1203488979/">said</a>, “once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7j-oBxViuGw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The official S4C trailer for Dal y Mellt.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All this can only be good news for any future Welsh language productions. S4C says it is <a href="https://www.s4c.cymru/en/press/post/54344/s4c-crime-drama-dal-y-mellt-sold-to-netflix/">keen to see</a> Welsh language dramas “stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the world”.</p>
<p>After all, there has been a remarkable growth in global content within a brutally competitive world of streaming. And that has been coupled with a radical transformation in viewing habits, which has resulted in public service broadcasters having to further justify their existence. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-public-or-the-state-who-calls-the-shots-at-the-bbc-198607">The public or the state: who calls the shots at the BBC?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63414736">S4C’s recent 40th birthday</a> has been an opportunity to reexamine its history and purpose. Initially on a trial period of three years, it was one of only four channels offering a limited service during peak hours. Forty years later, it is a multi platform broadcaster. It offers more than 115 hours of programming per week, with the digital revolution meaning the channel’s output now has global potential.</p>
<p>As for Rough Cut on Netflix, the statistics are pretty stark. Streamed as a box set on BBC iPlayer, it had a potential domestic reach of some 28.3 million households. Meanwhile, it is estimated that 231 million households have a Netflix subscription worldwide. Though Netflix’s ambitious claim, <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12553/html/">voiced to the House of Commons Welsh affairs committee</a>, that it hoped it can play a role in helping to “promote and preserve the Welsh language”, is yet to be tested. </p>
<p>But for its audiences, Rough Cut, or <em>Dal y Mellt</em>, represents Welsh as a rich and vibrant community language, with its narrative both mapping and showcasing different parts of Wales.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198171/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Woodward does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Welsh language heist drama, Dal y Mellt, is being streamed on Netflix with the title, Rough Cut.Kate Woodward, Lecturer in Film Studies, Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2016882023-03-17T15:54:30Z2023-03-17T15:54:30ZWales Broadcast Archive: UK’s first national archive shows importance of preserving our audiovisual history<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/516021/original/file-20230317-2393-28331k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C0%2C5000%2C3308&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hundreds of thousands of hours of broadcasting history are available for the first time. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Library of Wales</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This month’s launch of the <a href="https://www.library.wales/national-broadcast-archive">Wales Broadcast Archive</a> marks a major step forward in the curation of our collective audiovisual heritage. Housed at the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth, the archive features a cornucopia of material dating back to the early days of broadcasting in Wales, including film, radio and video. That it is the first of its kind in the UK, however, raises important questions about access to our audiovisual history. </p>
<p>As Unesco <a href="https://www.unesco.org/en/days/audiovisual-heritage?TSPD_101_R0=080713870fab2000502fe465bc04f6b27c52c9a0193e80a672ab1f5e21b1a4c85415302e3aabbd9b0810cf430e143000feeb184c026bc21a1537bc94124a8c96ed03ccb6d0f06a7ece1443260cacbf0531925b304c6ee161f47d82620e01e8ca">remarked</a> on the World Day for Audiovisual Heritage last October:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Audiovisual archives tell us stories about people’s lives and cultures from all over the world. They represent a priceless heritage which is an affirmation of our collective memory and a valuable source of knowledge, since they reflect the cultural, social and linguistic diversity of our communities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>More often than not, access to broadcast archives has been restricted to those working within the industry or academic researchers. Last year, though, the <a href="https://bbcrewind.co.uk/">BBC opened up</a> part of its digitised archive online, allowing the public to access some of its hidden gems.</p>
<p>However, the new Wales archive is unique in that it brings together the archives of its three major broadcasters - BBC, ITV and S4C. It contains material reflecting all aspects of life in both the English and Welsh languages. It is a unique source of information which will give historians and others an insight into the history of the nation.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1636005548112871427"}"></div></p>
<p>As well as preserving our broadcast heritage in its original and digitised form in Aberystwyth, people around Wales will be able to access around 500,000 hours of archive footage in dedicated “clip centres” housed across the nation. For the first time, members of the public will be able to see historical footage of their local areas and hear voices from years gone by.</p>
<p>Although the Wales Broadcast Archive is unique within the UK, there are similar institutions further afield. One such organisation is the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision, <a href="https://www.beeldengeluid.nl/en">Beeld en Geluid</a>, which opened in 1997. It provided a useful model for the establishment of the Welsh archive. As a heritage institute, it preserves the audiovisual material of the Netherlands, with material from the country’s various broadcasters under one roof.</p>
<h2>Technology and storage challenges</h2>
<p>Of course, archives are not without their problems or their gaps. Very early television programmes, for example, are now lost forever. The technology simply didn’t exist to record in the pre-war and immediate post-war period. Nothing survives from the BBC’s pre-war television service at <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/birth-of-tv/ally-pally/">Alexandra Palace</a> – apart, that is, from some fascinating film shot on a home movie camera by one of the corporation’s engineers, Desmond Campbell, which is held by the <a href="http://bufvc.ac.uk/archives/index.php/collection/857">Alexandra Palace Television Society</a>.</p>
<p>As Dick Fiddy, a consultant at the British Film Institute, <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/_/m6AMngEACAAJ?hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3q4GL5t79AhWFRkEAHY32DVMQre8FegQIDRAD">noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The early technical difficulties associated with the recording of live television programmes, and the later injudicious wiping and junking policies of the major British broadcasters, has meant that hundreds of thousands of hours of precious television material is missing from the official UK television archives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Over the years, many broadcasters have had to dispense with their audiovisual material simply for storage reasons. Film and videotape can take up a lot of floor space, let alone audio recordings. When one considers the huge amount of broadcasting hours that are chewed up every week, it is easy to see how physical material can mount up over time.</p>
<p>So, broadcasters have had to adopt selection policies, making decisions on what material or programmes might be historically important in the future. As you can imagine, this has not been an easy task. Often, entertainment programmes such as quiz shows, variety or local chat shows were deemed to have no intrinsic value and were overlooked for archival purposes. </p>
<p>Archivists are also faced with an ongoing dilemma. They need to be preserving material for future generations while also ensuring that the producers of current programmes have the necessary audiovisual archives at their disposal. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man in a wheelchair and a man standing wear sets of headphones. Both are in a large room and are looking at a screen." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The public can also access the new archive in dedicated ‘clip centres’ throughout Wales.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Library of Wales</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The question now is whether the other UK nations should follow suit. While a similar model could be adopted in Scotland, in England the issue of whether the archives should house an English or British archive would need to be overcome.</p>
<p>Our collective audiovisual heritage provides a key to understanding ourselves as a society. It provides an additional access route into our past which complements that provided by the written record. </p>
<p>After all, archives are witnesses to history. They allow us to see how we lived, how we dressed, how we talked, how we were entertained, and how and when we watched or listened together. They also allow us to reflect and to learn. The Wales Broadcast Archive will do this and I, for one, am celebrating its arrival.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201688/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamie Medhurst has received funding from the AHRC, The Leverhulme Trust, and the British Academy in the past</span></em></p>The Wales Broadcast Archive in Aberystwyth brings together the archives of the BBC, ITV and S4C under one roof.Jamie Medhurst, Professor of Media and Communication, Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1978282023-02-13T16:37:25Z2023-02-13T16:37:25Z100 years of the BBC in Wales: an uneasy start and unclear future<p>Three months after the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/timelines/">BBC’s first transmission from London</a>, public service broadcasting in Wales began at 5.00pm on February 13 1923. The small studio above a cinema in the centre of Cardiff also served audiences in the west of England. This may explain the very limited amount of Welsh language material broadcast at the outset.</p>
<p>To ensure the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/British-Broadcasting-Corporation">British Broadcasting Company</a>, as it was then known, was in no doubt about the existence of the native language and culture of Wales, <a href="https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/755550d6-e5e4-3448-a161-d220d4a48103">Cylch Dewi</a> (a group of cultural nationalists) <a href="https://academic.oup.com/manchester-scholarship-online/book/24026/chapter-abstract/185414557?redirectedFrom=fulltext">arranged</a> the first wireless broadcast of a Welsh-language religious service from Swansea on February 22 1925. By the mid-1920s, they were producing programmes of their own for the BBC, following consultations with E.R. Appleton, Cardiff’s station director. </p>
<p>Concerns about the effect of the wireless on life in Wales, however, were widespread in the early years of broadcasting. In 1927, a report commissioned by the Welsh Board of Education, entitled <a href="http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/wales1927/index.html#03%E2%80%8B">Welsh in Education and Life</a>, was published. It contained a damning attack on the BBC:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Wireless is achieving the complete Anglicisation of the intellectual life of the nation. We regard the present policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation as one of the most serious menaces to the life of the Welsh language.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The BBC’s regional scheme had been devised by Peter Eckersley, the BBC’s chief engineer and Sir John Reith, the corporation’s director general. It included Wales as part of the so-called “west region”. This uneasy marriage with Bristol and the west of England from 1930 onward resulted in increased pressure from many parts of Welsh society (most notably the University of Wales and local authorities) for the BBC to recognise Wales as a nation with its own cultural and linguistic needs. </p>
<p>In 1932, one correspondent writing in the Plaid Cymru newsletter, Y Ddraig Goch, <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mb2rDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT37&lpg=PT37&dq=%22The+majority+of+the+material+broadcast+is+alien+to+our+traditions,+damaging+to+our+culture,+and+is+a+grave+danger+to+everything+special+in+our+civilisation%22&source=bl&ots=t6XNYhV1im&sig=ACfU3U1Ew_mrw0xyThoW3AbtD9uKBU3SAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJnYHkx5L9AhX6QUEAHSueDlkQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=%22The%20majority%20of%20the%20material%20broadcast%20is%20alien%20to%20our%20traditions%2C%20damaging%20to%20our%20culture%2C%20and%20is%20a%20grave%20danger%20to%20everything%20special%20in%20our%20civilisation%22&f=false">stated</a>: “The majority of the material broadcast is alien to our traditions, damaging to our culture, and is a grave danger to everything special in our civilisation.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1625074882877825024"}"></div></p>
<p>With the opening of the Penmon transmitter on Anglesey in the north of Wales in February 1937, the corporation fully acknowledged Wales as a separate “region”. The <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Broadcasting_and_the_BBC_in_Wales/R7kVAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=broadcasting%20and%20the%20bbc%20in%20wales">historian John Davies argued</a> the establishment of the “Welsh region” was an important concession to nationalist sentiment. He compared it with the <a href="https://law.gov.wales/ecclesiastical-law-and-church-wales">disestablishment of the Church in Wales</a> from the Church of England in 1920. These events enhanced a sense of nationhood and a belonging to an entity called “Wales”.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="A graphic featuring the text " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509749/original/file-20230213-3390-uhtmw5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509749/original/file-20230213-3390-uhtmw5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509749/original/file-20230213-3390-uhtmw5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509749/original/file-20230213-3390-uhtmw5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509749/original/file-20230213-3390-uhtmw5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509749/original/file-20230213-3390-uhtmw5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509749/original/file-20230213-3390-uhtmw5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amgueddfa Cymru/National Museum Wales</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>John Davies <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Broadcasting_and_the_BBC_in_Wales/R7kVAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=broadcasting%20and%20the%20bbc%20in%20wales">also argued</a> the establishment of the Welsh region had wider repercussions: “In the history of BBC broadcasting in Wales, the importance of the victory won in sound radio can scarcely be exaggerated. All the subsequent recognition of Wales in the field of broadcasting (and, it could be argued, in other fields also) stemmed from that victory.” </p>
<p>From this point onward, the BBC played a major part in Welsh life. It informed, educated and entertained in Welsh and English, initially on radio and then, from 1952, on television. </p>
<p>The creation of BBC Cymru Wales came in February 1964 as a result of the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37146240_%27You_Say_A_Minority_Sir_We_Say_A_Nation%27_The_Pilkington_Committee_on_Broadcasting_1960-2_and_Wales">report of the Pilkington committee</a> on broadcasting. This was a government-appointed committee that considered the future of broadcasting in the UK. It laid the foundation for a regular television service in Wales. Ultimately, it led to the creation of national radio stations Radio Wales and Radio Cymru in the late 1970s, which continue to broadcast to this day. </p>
<h2>Future</h2>
<p>In December 2022, the <a href="https://museum.wales/cardiff/whatson/11771/BBC-100-in-Wales/">BBC 100 in Wales exhibition</a> opened at the National Museum Cardiff and will run until April. The exhibition to celebrate the corporation’s 100th anniversary was developed in conjunction with a group of young people to examine how the future may look for the corporation. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Igq8UtvqjIU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">BBC 100 in Wales opened at the National Museum Cardiff in December 2022.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-at-100-the-future-for-global-news-and-challenges-facing-the-world-service-192296">global</a> broadcasting landscape is ever-changing and the BBC is having to adapt to this. Challenges come from streaming services, other broadcasters and, not least, from a government that has called the very nature of <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-licence-fee-could-scrapping-it-be-the-end-of-public-service-broadcasting-in-the-uk-175292">public service broadcasting and the licence fee</a> into question. </p>
<p>In December 2021, the Welsh Labour government and Plaid Cymru announced a new <a href="https://www.gov.wales/co-operation-agreement-full-policy-programme-html">co-operation agreement</a>, which outlined several policy commitments over the next three years. Among them was the creation of a new shadow broadcasting and communications authority, which would draw up plans for the devolution of broadcasting and communications powers to the Senedd. A <a href="https://www.gov.wales/expert-panel-devolution-broadcasting-announced">panel</a> has been established to consider the way forward in this area. </p>
<p>How this might work in reality is, as yet, undetermined. Which aspects of broadcasting would be devolved remains unclear, as are the possible implications for the BBC and other broadcasters. There is also uncertainty over whether the Welsh government would even be able to persuade the UK government’s Department of Culture, Media and Sport to devolve such powers.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1625072297156677634"}"></div></p>
<p>There are many factors which have played a part in creating, defining and maintaining a feeling of “Welshness” in Wales, as well as a sense of belonging. There is no doubt about the part the BBC has played. </p>
<p>Penblwydd hapus, BBC Cymru.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197828/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamie Medhurst receives funding from Arts and Humanities Research Council; The Leverhulme Trust</span></em></p>The BBC is celebrating 100 years of broadcasting in Wales.Jamie Medhurst, Professor of Media and Communication, Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1930382022-10-26T13:44:12Z2022-10-26T13:44:12ZBBC at 100: scrapping the licence fee would disrupt the whole broadcasting market<p>The BBC has been celebrating its 100th birthday this year, proudly looking back on a century of striving to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission">inform, educate and entertain</a>. The next few years could be tricky though – as questions over its funding threaten to crash the party. </p>
<p>The media landscape has changed dramatically since 1922, and the UK needs to decide whether it still wants or needs a broadcaster funded through public means and answerable to the public – or whether it should be paid for by individual consumers and answerable to the market. </p>
<p>This is not a rhetorical or obscure philosophical question. It affects everyone who pays the <a href="https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-centenary-a-history-of-the-tv-licence-fee-42074416.html">BBC licence fee</a>, which currently costs £159 a year. </p>
<p>That fee was originally based on the concept that those with the technology to access BBC programmes (originally a radio, then a TV set) should pay for its content. The licence and the governance of the BBC were both deliberately designed to reduce the influence of government, consumers and businesses. </p>
<p>Today, in a world where TV screens are filled with content created by the likes of Netflix and Amazon, some believe the licence fee needs to change. Some would like to see it abolished altogether. </p>
<p>There are those, for example, who would like the licence fee to <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/new-household-tax-could-replace-22592503">become a tax</a>, connected to the taxes paid on homes (similar to council tax) or incomes. But this would give the government greater influence over the BBC’s funding in the same way that it controls other social services. </p>
<p>Some would like the BBC to rely more on <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b113f782-4756-11e5-af2f-4d6e0e5eda22">funding from advertising</a>. But the UK TV advertising market is worth around <a href="https://www.statista.com/topics/3155/television-industry-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/#dossierKeyfigures">£4 billion a year</a>, while the BBC licence fee <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/284705/the-bbc-s-licence-fee-income-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/">generates £3.8 billion</a>. If the BBC started relying on money from advertising, commercial broadcasters would take a significant hit, and the BBC would have to function with a much reduced income. </p>
<p>Others argue that the BBC should become a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/18/bbc-centenary-fewer-big-salaries-richer-rivals?amp;amp;amp">voluntary subscription service</a>, falling into line with Disney+, Netflix, or Apple TV. None of those, of course, provide the range of content of the BBC and are commercial services focused on providing content which brings optimal revenue. </p>
<p>Yet a recent <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6513/bbc-future-funding/news/172140/communications-and-digital-committee-publishes-its-report-on-bbc-future-funding/">official inquiry</a> into BBC funding concluded that a change was necessary to ensure its sustainability, arguing that at least a partial subscription for some public broadcasting services should be considered.</p>
<p>The government’s own submission to that inquiry argued that the licence fee “is a regressive tax” because it demands the same payment regardless of wealth or income. </p>
<p>A similar argument has been put forward by those who contend that taxation, subscriptions and advertising should be considered instead. Some of those would also be regressive of course, unless they were specifically means-tested – something that could also be applied to the existing licence fee.</p>
<p>Other <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Press-Broadcasting-and-the-Internet-in-Britain/Curran-Seaton/p/book/9780415710428">specialists</a> have focused on the benefits of the BBC to the UK and its citizens and the need to ensure it is universally available. A <a href="https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/future-public-service-television-uk-report-published/">2016 inquiry</a> on the future of public service broadcasting concluded that the licence fee provided the best protection of the independence of public service broadcasters. </p>
<h2>What’s on next?</h2>
<p>My <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-06/What%20if%20there%20were%20no%20BBC%20TV_0.pdf">own studies</a> make it clear that the current television funding models (licence fee for the BBC, advertising and/or subscription for commercial networks) co-exist well, and that efforts to merge them would damage all three. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323120903688">Subsequent research</a> reveals that BBC funding does not undermine commercial broadcasters, which remain highly successful and competitive. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JZxMFc1WylE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>How the government deals with the BBC’s funding will therefore have a significant impact on the UK – economically, culturally and politically. And ultimately these choices are not just about the BBC, but about the entire UK broadcasting market. </p>
<p>If subscription or advertising are favoured as future funding models for the BBC, significant resources will be taken away from the commercial sector, affecting the financial performance of broadcasting and streaming firms, as well as independent production companies in the UK. The total amount of money available to all UK TV companies will decline and their contributions to regional and national economy and employment will diminish. </p>
<p>If taxes are selected as a funding mechanism, new tax collection and management departments will need to be created and staffed, driving up public expenditure.</p>
<p>These are not simple choices that should be hastily made based on debatable political ideology. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-at-100-the-future-for-global-news-and-challenges-facing-the-world-service-192296">BBC at 100: the future for global news and challenges facing the World Service</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The BBC has long been the envy of television viewers worldwide, especially those in countries where broadcasting is either state run or else overwhelmed by a steady diet of commercially driven programming of questionable quality. Representation of regional populations, children, the elderly and minorities are usually ignored. Educational materials and programmes about nature or culture are often missing. </p>
<p>The funding changes under consideration will determine whether or not the BBC continues to serve broader social interests, provide multiple services, and maintain its desirable reputation. They will also decide whether viewers should have access to broadcasting content that remains free of government and market control.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193038/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Picard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How long does the licence fee have left?Robert Picard, Senior Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and Research Fellow, Green Templeton College, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1807442022-04-08T10:32:01Z2022-04-08T10:32:01ZChannel 4: why selling the broadcaster is a risky move for the UK government<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456932/original/file-20220407-20-pqxl58.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=80%2C107%2C5910%2C3880&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">4 sale?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-england-uk-may-16th-2020-1744484702">Shutterstock/Kevin Cole 44</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Channel 4 first flashed onto British TV screens under the watch of a Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher. Forty years later, in a move described by critics as “cultural vandalism”, the current Conservative government has decided to put it <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/government-expected-to-sell-channel-4-as-public-ownership-is-holding-it-back-12582450">up for sale</a>. </p>
<p>Currently owned by the public, Channel 4 was originally designed to cater to different tastes and interests, with a commitment to diversity and innovation. Commercially funded, it generated a record <a href="https://assets-corporate.channel4.com/_flysystem/s3/2022-04/Channel%204%20Factsheet%20-%20April_ACC.pdf">£74 million profit</a> in 2020, all of which was ploughed back into programmes. </p>
<p>Importantly, it was established as a “publisher-broadcaster”, which commissions programmes from independent production companies rather than employing its own creative staff. And it has undoubtedly been a great British success story, playing a <a href="https://assets-corporate.channel4.com/_flysystem/s3/2022-04/Channel%204%20Factsheet%20-%20April_ACC.pdf">vital role</a> in the development of the UK’s now flourishing independent programming sector. </p>
<p>Competing with streaming services and multiple channels, Channel 4 still maintains a <a href="https://assets-corporate.channel4.com/_flysystem/s3/2022-04/Channel%204%20Factsheet%20-%20April_ACC.pdf">10% audience share</a>, with its main channel reaching 75% of adults in the UK every month. In an era of clickbait and fake news, the channel’s daily evening news bulletin has over 10 million followers on social media. </p>
<p>So why sell it off? </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-a-change-of-ownership-of-channel-4-television-corporation/consultation-on-a-potential-change-of-ownership-of-channel-4-television-corporation">According to the government</a>, putting Channel 4 in private hands would enable it to “build on this success and compete more effectively with new players” like Amazon Prime and Netflix. Supporters say it would allow more access to capital, facilitate competition with the streaming services, and foster innovation. </p>
<p>But the risks are huge. Independent <a href="https://assets-corporate.channel4.com/_flysystem/s3/2021-04/EY%20Report%20for%20Channel%204%20-%20Factsheet.pdf">analysis</a> suggests that Channel 4 generates nearly £1 billion for the UK economy and supports over 10,000 jobs. </p>
<p>The industry body that represents independent producers <a href="https://www.pact.co.uk/latest-updates/news/detail.html?id=statement-from-pact-on-the-government-s-privatisation-of-channel-4">says</a> that every year, around 15 new TV production companies get their first ever commission from Channel 4. It warns that a private owner could move production in house, away from independent producers, benefiting “large profit driven corporations”. </p>
<p>There will be consequences for programmes too, which are likely to become less UK-focused. As the big streaming services have shown, programmes must now have global appeal to maximise revenues. </p>
<p>Particularly at risk would be Channel 4 News, unique for a commercial channel in its commitment to an hour a day of serious, peak-time analysis. Even if a specified news slot were required under the terms of any sale, a private owner seeking to maximise ratings is likely to push for lighter material. </p>
<p>Investigative journalism and foreign reporting are expensive, and have never been part of the streaming services’ output. As one <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/05/senior-tories-speak-out-against-channel-4-privatisation-plans">politician commented</a> in response to the notion that a privately owned Channel 4 could compete with the likes of Netflix: “How many journalists and how many camera crews has Netflix sent to Ukraine?” </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ni_uY4-iQ64?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Advocates for privatisation have suggested that all these problems could be mitigated by imposing certain conditions as part of any sale. But private broadcasters have form in seeking to change expensive obligations, such as when ITV successfully <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/itv-gets-concession-on-regional-news-with-10year-licence-deal-8729128">reduced</a> the amount of regional news it was required to broadcast. </p>
<p>And even the strictest requirements around diversity or innovation could not legislate for the change in content priorities that are bound to follow. It is not possible to demand that a private broadcaster provides comprehensive coverage of the Paralympics or anchors its evening news bulletin from a war zone. </p>
<h2>Changing channels</h2>
<p>These details will present a dilemma for both government and potential buyers, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/04/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-privatisation-of-channel-4">rumoured</a> to include Discovery and ITV. With a starting price tag of around £1 billion, a buyer will want as few strings attached to ownership as possible, and the government will want the highest possible price. The more obligations it imposes, the less attractive it becomes to commercial buyers, and the lower its value. </p>
<p>Given these downsides, there is a distinct possibility that the government has picked a fight it may not win. Labour has <a href="https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1511059632843857935?s=20&t=xaVsen7TrJitkCsm_KP9IA">described the plan</a> as “cultural vandalism”, and the Liberal Democrats have <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/4-april-2022-todays-press-releases-70279.html">accused</a> the government of “trashing this uniquely British legacy”. </p>
<p>Many of the government’s own supporters are also unimpressed. One former cabinet minister <a href="https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1511060868724887561?s=20&t=ssdLndfzh7pXcXRNYYeReg">said </a> the sale was “very unconservative”, while former culture secretary Jeremy Hunt <a href="https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1511241592165785602?s=20&t=SDW09pJqtucmyWTtMUd7qA">said</a> he never considered a sell-off when he was in post and was not in favour of it now. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1511226059370471424"}"></div></p>
<p>Perhaps most surprising of all, the powerful Conservative chair of the culture select committee, Julian Knight, <a href="https://twitter.com/julianknight15/status/1511284356047900674?s=20&t=o80x4sqDpkrOGnWIEb94xg">asked</a> whether the sell-off was motivated by “revenge for Channel 4’s biased coverage of the likes of Brexit and personal attacks on the PM”. Those attacks included Channel 4’s most senior news executive <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/channel-4-news-boss-brands-18982147">calling</a> the prime minister a “known liar” and comparing him to Vladimir Putin. </p>
<p>And while the government may feel confident in dealing with its own party dissenters and a united opposition, it faces almost certain defeat in the House of Lords, where the government does not have a majority. </p>
<p>It then has to deal with public opinion. With members of TV royalty like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/jun/22/david-attenborough-accuses-ministers-of-short-sighted-attack-on-tv-networks">David Attenborough</a> and <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/armando-iannucci-government-david-attenborough-oliver-dowden-american-b942194.html">Armando Iannucci</a> condemning the move, regular TV viewers (voters) may be asking why the government is devoting time to such a controversial policy when household bills are rising and there is a war in Europe.</p>
<p>Those voters may also not want to give up their ownership of a television channel
with such a distinctive institutional ethos and which does not have to worry about shareholders. All the evidence suggests that turning it over to private hands – even circumscribed with quotas and obligations – would inevitably result in fewer jobs, fewer programmes for UK audiences, less diversity of content, less innovation, and less new talent. </p>
<p>If revenge is not the government’s rationale for such a risky move, it’s difficult to see what is.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The broadcaster risks losing its distinctive edge in private hands.Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1545142021-02-03T12:06:36Z2021-02-03T12:06:36ZNews UK TV and GB News: new channels stoke fears of more partisan journalism<p>The imminent arrival of two new current affairs channels is fuelling heated debate about the future direction of broadcast journalism in the UK. GB News is chaired by former newspaper editor and BBC presenter Andrew Neil, and funded by a range of investors including <a href="https://corporate.discovery.com/businesses-and-brands/">Discovery, Inc</a>. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/01/rupert-murdochs-news-uk-tv-channel-given-approval-to-launch">News UK TV</a> is backed by Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News channel has long been a partisan broadcaster in US politics.</p>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/news-uk-tv-and-gb-news-new-channels-stoke-fears-of-more-partisan-journalism-154514&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p>Unlike the US, the UK has long had <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy">strict rules on accuracy and impartiality</a> in broadcast news. The broadcast code overseen by the regulator, <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/home">Ofcom</a>, prohibits the kind of blatant partisanship routinely supplied on American cable news channels such as Fox News and MSNBC.</p>
<p>But there are <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2021/01/why-foxification-british-media-must-be-resisted">concerns</a> both GB News and News UK TV will push against the boundaries of Ofcom’s impartiality code, and adopt a more opinionated brand of journalism than television news channels have typically pursued in the UK.</p>
<p>Both News UK TV and GB News have been developed to offer viewers an alternative to mainstream media coverage. According to Neil, GB News is <a href="https://variety.com/2021/tv/global/gb-news-uk-right-wing-fox-news-andrew-neil-1234890375/">“about disrupting the status quo”</a>. The channel recently announced that GB News will produce a near 24/7 rolling news service, with original news, opinion and debate programming.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1355165598456696838"}"></div></p>
<p>There has been <a href="https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/gb-news-poach-julia-hartley-brewer-6916260">speculation</a> that GB News will recruit right-wing talk-show hosts, Nick Ferrari and Julia Hartley-Brewer. But the channel will need to employ presenters with more diverse political perspectives – as will News UK TV – in order to meet their impartiality requirements. The sometimes provocative presenters on radio stations such as <a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/">LBC</a> and <a href="https://talkradio.co.uk/">talk RADIO</a> have been allowed to operate within the UK’s impartiality broadcasting code by counter-balancing the many polemical voices in their schedules.</p>
<p>Less is known about News UK TV’s broadcast schedule. It has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/01/rupert-murdochs-news-uk-tv-channel-given-approval-to-launch">reported</a> that the channel will produce four to five hours of evening programming, with a focus on political debates and an evening news bulletin. Unlike GB News, News UK TV has yet to confirm where the channel can be accessed beyond an online streaming service. In 2016 Murdoch bought talk RADIO, which has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/17/rupert-murdoch-talkradio-argued-it-had-very-few-listeners-to-avoid-fine">fined</a> for breaching impartiality rules, while in 2020 he launched a more <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jun/29/ruperts-radio-can-murdoch-times-radio-compete-with-the-bbc">upmarket station</a>, Times Radio. </p>
<h2>Impartiality rules</h2>
<p>According to <a href="https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1300817837074927616?s=20">one poll</a>, more people oppose than support allowing a Fox-style channel to broadcast in the UK. But a significant minority do not know whether it is a good or bad idea – suggesting there has been limited public debate about the consequences of opinionated news channels.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1300817837074927616"}"></div></p>
<p>Even if GB News and UK News attract a small audience, they can still wield influence. Fox News, which – being one of the most watched cable news networks in the US – still only reaches <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/">3.78 million primetime</a> viewers, is a textbook example of how opinionated news channels can have a significant <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/25/fox-news-watching-what-i-learned">intermedia effect</a>, setting the agenda of mainstream network news as well as its cable TV rivals. </p>
<p>Despite concerns both companies will not comply with impartiality rules, Ofcom has already granted GB News and News UK TV broadcast licences, and Neil <a href="https://pressgazette.co.uk/what-is-gb-news-everything-you-need-to-know/">has said</a> that the channel will be “committed to impartial journalism”. While News UK TV will also have to remain impartial, Murdoch’s influence on Fox News in America and newspapers in the UK, US and Australia has long revealed a preference for partisan reporting. </p>
<p>But there are limits to Murdoch’s editorial influence. Despite being in charge of Sky News for over three decades, the channel did not become “Foxified” – as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/24/bskyb.television">he had reportedly wanted</a> – but maintained a reputation for impartial journalism. In a systematic <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884908100598">study</a> of the BBC News Channel and Sky News in the early 2000s, I found neither channel adopted the kind of partisan coverage evident in US cable channels.</p>
<p>But two decades into the 21st century, the growth of online news and social media has made journalism far more opinionated. Over time, this has had a subtle but significant influence on the editorial values of broadcasters. In my book, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/News-and-Politics-The-Rise-of-Live-and-Interpretive-Journalism/Cushion/p/book/9780415744713">News and Politics</a>, I traced a rise in interpretive journalism in television news between 1991 to 2013, which has led to reporters routinely delivering their own judgements about political events and issues.</p>
<h2>Maintaining standards</h2>
<p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884916685909">My research</a> has explored how regulators no longer use a stopwatch to police impartiality in broadcast coverage of political parties. Instead, they give broadcasters considerable flexibility in how they editorially frame political events and issues. With <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/31/johnson-poised-to-appoint-paul-dacre-chair-of-ofcom">speculation that</a> former Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre – a fierce critic of BBC impartiality – could be the new head of Ofcom, more radical changes to broadcast regulation may be on the horizon.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen how GB News and News UK TV will abide by their impartiality requirements. How critical they are of the government’s handling of the pandemic will be one litmus test, as will the degree to which they balance perspectives from across the political spectrum. There are, of course, more subtle forms of bias that can bypass regulatory attention. Since news values are not politically neutral, both channels could routinely select stories – about crime, say, or Brexit – that encourage audiences to adopt a particular view of the world. </p>
<p>They will find support in some partisan newspapers, which will help legitimate their journalism and defend them from attacks about bias.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1299818351427018752"}"></div></p>
<p>Ofcom will face intense political pressure. Its regulation will police the boundaries of GB News and News UK TV coverage, and set the future direction of broadcast journalism. If standards in accuracy and impartiality are not robustly regulated, Fox-style journalism could soon become an accepted norm of the UK’s broadcast ecology.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/154514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, AHRC, BA and ESRC.</span></em></p>Research shows broadcast journalism is already becoming more partisan.Stephen Cushion, Chair Professor, Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1507872021-01-06T16:34:52Z2021-01-06T16:34:52ZLord Haw-Haw: popularity of wartime Nazi propagandist made the BBC up its game<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374455/original/file-20201211-13-6q0b8l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C954%2C636&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Capture of William Joyce ('Lord Haw-Haw') in Germany in 1945.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bert Hardy, No 5 Army Film & Photographic Unit/IWM</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>During the second world war, Nazi Germany banned all listening to foreign radio stations. Germans who overlooked their duty to ignore foreign broadcasts <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/110/1109453/auntie-s-war/9781784160791.html">faced penalties</a> ranging from imprisonment to execution. The British government imposed no comparable ban which would have been incompatible with the principles for which it had gone to war. That’s not to say, though, that it wasn’t alarmed by the popularity of German stations.</p>
<p>Most effective among the Nazis broadcasting to the UK was <a href="https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Lord-Haw-Haw-William-Joyce/">William Joyce</a>. This Irish-American fascist, known in Britain as “Lord Haw-Haw”, won a large audience during the “<a href="https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains-phoney-start-to-the-second-world-war">phoney war</a>” in 1939 and early 1940, with his trademark call sign delivered in his unmistakable accent: “Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling”. </p>
<p>During this period, when fighting felt remote from British homes, Joyce became a celebrity. He was genuinely amusing, and he emphasised the socialist aspect of National Socialism in a manner calculated to appeal to British Labour voters.</p>
<p>One topic for attack was rationing, on which Haw-Haw made such effective criticism of Neville Chamberlain’s government that <a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095939763">Harold Hobson</a>, a prominent drama critic and author, wrote to The Times in December 1939 to praise his style as a broadcaster. Haw-Haw, wrote Hobson, had increased the nation’s Christmas cheer with his jibe that rationing restricted Britons to “a quarter-pound of butter a week”. </p>
<p>Hobson deplored the BBC’s failure to rebut Haw-Haw’s arguments. He recognised that Haw-Haw made an impact because he faced no contradiction. Hobson warned that the Nazi propagandist had become “a figure of national popularity… the hero of the revue”. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265868042_Love_and_War_in_London_A_Woman's_Diary_1939-1942_review">Olivia Cockett</a>, a diarist for the <a href="http://www.massobs.org.uk/mass-observation-1937-1950s">Mass Observation project</a> that recorded the everyday thoughts of British people of the period, illustrates the popularity of such broadcasts. Her <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7510457-love-and-war-in-london">diary</a> entry for October 13 1939 records that she “took tea up to my sitting room to listen to the German news in English… They sound mostly quite as reasonable and convincing as the BBC so that I am more than ever wondering where the TRUTH lies”.</p>
<h2>‘Diabolical Peter Wimsey’</h2>
<p>The idea that Haw-Haw was a privileged member of the upper classes also gained widespread currency – and reinforced the belief that he might have access to important information. Media historian <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jean-seaton-125205">Jean Seaton</a> <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Power_Without_Responsibility.html?id=vPQGaofFvn8C&redir_esc=y">notes that</a>: “The myth of the English aristocrat with inside knowledge of the German high command – a kind of diabolical <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Peter_Wimsey">Peter Wimsey</a> – was powerful.”</p>
<p>It inspired controversy at The Times. On January 2 1940, a letter from the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rose-Macaulay">novelist Rose Macaulay</a> disputed Harold Hobson’s suggestion that Haw-Haw sounded upper class. Macaulay acknowledged that he “speaks excellent English”, but she did not believe it to be “public school” English. Indeed, she detected “a slight provincial accent” – perhaps Manchester?</p>
<p>Macaulay invited other readers to share their opinions. Six days later, The Times collated their responses in a news story. One reader was perceptively certain that Haw-Haw’s speech indicated that he had Irish origins. Another detected “the pomposity and condescension associated with privilege and class”. AS Pratt, the headmaster of King Edward VI School in Nuneaton added: “His broadcasts are a joy and he has added to the gaiety of nations.”</p>
<p>This capacity to entertain alarmed the popular, left-of-centre Daily Mirror. It supported Hobson’s suggestion that the BBC should rebut Haw-Haw’s assertions. If it was true that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>innocent folk listening to Haw-Haw have indeed begun to fall under the spell of his prestige [then] some equally bland announcer should answer him back every evening and refute the most perilous part of his propaganda, which is probably his not unskillful appeal to socialist and anti-imperialist suspicions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The conservative Daily Mail was equally aware that its readers enjoyed Haw-Haw. It deprecated his “vicious little wisecracks” and deplored his “insinuating questions”. It rejoiced when he was briefly replaced on the airwaves by another English-speaking Nazi broadcaster, a man “with the faint brogue of the cultured North Countryman” whom it christened “Soapy Sam”. But he lacked Haw-Haw’s ability to amuse. The following day, the Daily Mail recorded that “Lord Haw-Haw’s monocled voice reached out from Bremen again last night and British listeners are happy once more”.</p>
<h2>BBC gets the message</h2>
<p>Writing in the BBC’s own magazine, <a href="https://www.gale.com/intl/c/the-listener-historical-archive">The Listener</a>, in January 1940, Mr Charles of Herne Hill expressed his fear that consistent bombardment by such propaganda might lead British listeners to question the accuracy of the BBC’s own reporting. He feared that “the only solution will be to emulate Germany’s example and make it an offence to listen to foreign broadcasting”.</p>
<p>But tempting though it was, a ban on listening would make a mockery of Britain’s commitment to democratic principles. American opinion would be outraged. The solution was not censorship but a determined effort to raise the entertainment value of BBC radio. Lord Haw-Haw played a part in shifting the BBC away from its policy of ignoring popular preferences to an understanding that “<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Power_Without_Responsibility.html?id=vPQGaofFvn8C&redir_esc=y">the barometer of listeners’ preferences</a>” should help to define its output.</p>
<p>Great wartime radio shows were devised that attracted colossal audiences and made the image of a family gathered around a radio set genuinely representative of wartime Britain. Soon, radio overtook newspapers as Britain’s primary source of news.</p>
<p>Joyce, meanwhile, was captured in Germany in May 1945 and convicted of high treason. He was hanged at Wandsworth Prison in London on the morning of January 3 1946.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Luckhurst has received research funding from News UK and Ireland Ltd. He is a member of the Free Speech Union and the Society of Editors. This article is based on research for his work in progress, a book under the provisional title Reporting the Second World War: Newspapers and the Public in Wartime Britain </span></em></p>In the early days of the second world war, a Nazi propagandist broadcasting to England built up a large following.Tim Luckhurst, Principal of South College, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1517262020-12-23T18:55:31Z2020-12-23T18:55:31ZCarols, ration books and bomb shelters: how Britain celebrated Christmas in 1940<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374442/original/file-20201211-19-fjtt5e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C1%2C1196%2C916&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Still image from the 1940 propaganda film 'Christmas Under Fire' produced by the Crown Film Unit.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">BFI Archive</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At Christmas 1939, Britons had been able to maintain a semblance of normality. The blackout prevented displays of lighted Christmas trees in front windows, but there was no rationing and Britain’s key ally, France, remained unconquered behind the allegedly impregnable Maginot Line. </p>
<p>Following the fall of France, the evacuation at Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain, Christmas 1940 was much bleaker – the first real wartime Christmas. It took place in the middle of the Blitz. In December, the Luftwaffe attacked Southampton, Bristol, Sheffield and Leicester. Manchester took heavy pounding on the night of December 22/23 and again on Christmas Eve. Rationing was beginning to bite hard as the German occupation of Europe and blockade by U-boats cut off important sources of supply.</p>
<p>As Historian Angus Calder <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/103/1039375/the-myth-of-the-blitz/9780712698207.html">reminds us</a>, in a blatant but compelling propaganda film produced by the Crown Film Unit, Christmas Under Fire, the American correspondent Quentin Reynolds described the atmosphere as the Ministry of Information wished it to be depicted.</p>
<p>“This year” began his script, “England celebrates Christmas underground … The stable in Bethlehem was a shelter too.” </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aGK5EsGzKIg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But the nation was determined that its children should enjoy the festive season and Reynold’s sonorous tones insisted that Britain remained “unbeaten, unconquered, unafraid”. The use of carols from King’s College Choir reminded Britain – and the world – that precious traditions endured. </p>
<h2>Scrooges and Santas</h2>
<p>Contemporary newspapers give a fuller flavour of the public mood. In the mass circulation Daily Mirror on December 16, columnist Kathleen Pearcey worried that women readers might feel guilty about enjoying the festive season. “The idea that giving or going to a party in war time puts you in the Fifth Column Class is fast dying out”, she explained. “To have fun, to dress up, to laugh and play games is sense. It’s Christmas and the only man who matters is coming home on leave.”</p>
<p>The popular left-wing daily did not ignore the hardships imposed by strict rationing. Three days before Christmas, “Voice of the People” columnist Stuart Campbell demanded that the minister for food, Lord Woolton “start a clean-up drive on the people who are making us pay for the war through our stomachs”. Campbell warned that food racketeers were “The Scrooges of 1940.” He accused them of treating Christmas as “a good time to make money” by ratcheting up prices so that only the wealthy could afford festive treats.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="1940 photo of a soldier dressed as Santa Claus giving presents to a group of children." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374428/original/file-20201211-22-95cgfm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374428/original/file-20201211-22-95cgfm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374428/original/file-20201211-22-95cgfm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374428/original/file-20201211-22-95cgfm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374428/original/file-20201211-22-95cgfm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374428/original/file-20201211-22-95cgfm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374428/original/file-20201211-22-95cgfm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Soldiers give a Christmas party for children, 1940.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">War Office official photographers/Imperial War Museum</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But hardship was a reality. Practical gifts such as gardening tools and fertiliser were popular Christmas gifts. In a modest gesture of official generosity, the tea ration was doubled for one week. Imported luxuries such as wine were available only to the wealthy. Nevertheless, the Mirror’s editorial on Christmas Eve insisted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nothing except the trump of Doomsday will ever prevent the English people from determining to be “merrie” at Christmas… In this second Christmas of the second war to end war, we hope they will succeed.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Stille nacht</h2>
<p>The Conservative establishment Daily Telegraph insisted that life was difficult in Hitler’s Germany too. It republished dispatches sent from Berlin by American correspondents. A story originally filed for the New York Times and reprinted in the Daily Telegraph on Christmas Eve 1940 revealed that Christmas shopping was difficult in the capital of the Reich: “Many articles that in normal times are bought as gifts are not available under the totalitarian war economy.”</p>
<p>The popular Conservative paper Daily Mail took a candid approach. Its Christmas Eve editorial lamented: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We shall not hear the once familiar church bells tomorrow … They are muted, waiting for a sterner call, the summons (please God that it may never come) to defend our homes against the invader.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was a potent reminder that, despite a morale-boosting recent victory for outnumbered British forces against the Italian Tenth Army at the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1124759.shtml">Battle of Sidi Barrani</a> in early December, the UK was fighting for survival. The Soviet Union remained linked to Nazi Germany by the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/german-soviet-non-aggression-pact-1939-upset-balance-of-power/">non-aggression pact</a> of August 1939. The continued presence of American correspondents in Berlin confirmed the reluctance of the US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, to lead his country into war.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A group of sailors in uniform stirring a large cooking pot with a chef." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374419/original/file-20201211-13-1ctjo29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C28%2C799%2C574&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374419/original/file-20201211-13-1ctjo29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374419/original/file-20201211-13-1ctjo29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374419/original/file-20201211-13-1ctjo29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374419/original/file-20201211-13-1ctjo29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374419/original/file-20201211-13-1ctjo29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374419/original/file-20201211-13-1ctjo29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stirring the pud: sailors at the Royal Navy barracks at Devonport, England, November 1940.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Imperial War Museum archive</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On Christmas Eve, the Daily Mail advised its readers that their “first thought” must be for those “to whom no respite of any kind from duty is possible at Christmas or any other time until peace is won”. It identified them as “The RAF, the Royal Navy, men of the Merchant Service, troops under arms, anti-aircraft men at their guns, the Home Guard, ARP Services, wardens and firemen, doctors and nurses.” </p>
<p>The Times, meanwhile, offered a sincere call to Christian piety and reminded its influential readership that while “Christmas makes us realise keenly that war takes away many of life’s pleasant accessories”, our more serious nature should compel us to understand “how trivial these deprivations should seem when the destiny of the world is at stake, how willingly our small sacrifices should be made and how unworthy are grumbles about them.” </p>
<p>From bombed Manchester, the liberal Manchester Guardian offered a glimpse of how the still-new technology of radio could overcome the challenges of distance. It estimated that more than 300 million listeners throughout the British Empire and USA would hear a special BBC broadcast on Christmas Day. Broadcast as “Christmas Under Fire”, this innovative programme united British servicemen around the world. </p>
<p>The Guardian noted that soldiers in Palestine would be heard singing the carol O Come All Ye Faithful “from among the olive trees and vineyards near Bethlehem”.</p>
<p>The Guardian’s report also drew attention to the continuing consequences of mass evacuation. Listeners to Christmas Under Fire would also hear “bombed out London mothers, their children and friends” thanking “their hosts at the end of their first war time Christmas dinner in the country”. </p>
<p>Back in Britain’s battered cities, many families would spend Christmas Eve in air raid shelters.</p>
<p><em>This article was updated post-publication to amend an error. It originally referred to Theodore Roosevelt where it now correctly mentions Franklin D Roosevelt</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151726/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Luckhurst has received research funding from News UK and Ireland Ltd. He is a member of the Society of Editors and the Free Speech Union </span></em></p>Despite rationing and the Blitz, Christmas on the domestic front in 1940 was cheerful and optimistic.Tim Luckhurst, Principal of South College, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1403832020-06-12T10:31:36Z2020-06-12T10:31:36ZCoronavirus: fake news less of a problem than confusing government messages – new study<p>Studies have suggested social media <a href="https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/social-media-companies-failing-to-act-on-90-of-covid-19-misinformation/">is rife with disinformation</a>, with <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2020/half-of-uk-adults-exposed-to-false-claims-about-coronavirus">surveys</a> showing a high proportion of people have been exposed to false or misleading claims about COVID-19, fuelling dramatic headlines.</p>
<p>But our <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/04/28/research-suggests-uk-public-can-spot-fake-news-about-covid-19-but-dont-realise-the-uks-death-toll-is-far-higher-than-in-many-other-countries/">six-week diary study</a> of news audiences between April 16 and May 27 found that the vast majority of our panel of 200 participants could easily spot fake news. They found stories such as the conspiracy theory that 5G is responsible for the spread of COVID-19 or the quack remedy that gargling with saltwater cures coronavirus immediately suspect.</p>
<p>So it wasn’t fake news being peddled on social media or conspiracy websites that was of most concern. When we asked them about what false or misleading information about COVID-19 they had encountered, many instead <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/05/07/government-and-media-misinformation-about-covid-19-is-confusing-the-public/">referenced</a> examples of what they saw as government or media misinformation.</p>
<p>Our panel of news audiences was made up from a representative mix of the UK population. We mainly asked them questions aimed at finding out about their knowledge of the pandemic and the way it was reported by news media.</p>
<h2>Rethinking COVID-19 misinformation</h2>
<p>When <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/194377/covid-19-news-consumption-weeks-one-to-three-findings.pdf">representative surveys reveal</a> that many people have seen disinformation about COVID-19, it is not always clear what the false or misleading information they have seen was – or where it came from. What’s more, even when people are exposed to disinformation, we often assume rather than question whether it will affect their understanding of the pandemic.</p>
<p>But when we asked respondents about some of the most prominent false claims associated with COVID-19 disinformation they were easily detected. For example, the vast majority of participants rightly said 5G was not responsible for spreading the pandemic, that drinking more water does not kill the coronavirus and that gargling with saltwater is not a cure for COVID-19.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1248186390048882690"}"></div></p>
<p>But while our panel could easily spot fake news, they were less aware of issues that may help them understand how the pandemic is being handled. Three in ten respondents did not know the government had failed to regularly meet its testing targets, for example. </p>
<p>Almost a third did not realise living in more deprived areas of England and Wales increased the likelihood of catching the coronavirus. And many participants <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/04/28/research-suggests-uk-public-can-spot-fake-news-about-covid-19-but-dont-realise-the-uks-death-toll-is-far-higher-than-in-many-other-countries/">underestimated</a> the UK’s death toll compared to other countries and were <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-public-confused-and-suspicious-over-governments-death-toll-information-138966">suspicious</a> of the UK government’s figures.</p>
<p>After new lockdown measures were announced in England on May 10, we also found many people did not realise they did not necessarily <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/05/22/different-lockdown-rules-in-the-four-nations-are-confusing-the-public/">apply to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland</a>. Half of all respondents wrongly believed the UK government was in charge of the lockdown measures across all four nations.</p>
<h2>Government and media misinformation</h2>
<p>When we asked participants what counted as misinformation, some respondents mentioned discredited medical claims, such as Donald Trump believing that injecting disinfectant protects against the coronavirus. But many more told us that either government claims or the media were responsible for spreading false or misleading information. As one respondent told us:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Misinformation to me would be reading an article saying schools to go back on June 1 without many details and then finding out it’s just a phased reintroduction for certain age groups. It’s panicking many parents when that didn’t need to happen, headlines should still be brief but not misleading.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another participant believed misinformation “related to things the government have said that have later turned out to be false, such as the PPE shortage, number of tests done, care home deaths. I think misinformation in this case relates to the media rereporting facts that haven’t been clear by the government in statements.”</p>
<p>Broadcasters have long been <a href="https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/can-fact-checking-help-save-politics-bbc-channel-four-journalism">caught up in debates</a> about how far they fact-check government statements while ensuring that the public believe they are being impartial. When we asked respondents about this difficult balancing act, many believed a greater emphasis on fact-checking would enhance rather than undermine public trust in journalism. </p>
<p>As one respondent put it: “I think fact checking is more relevant than ever before because unfortunately people in power make false claims that, sadly, are believed by many people.”</p>
<h2>Addressing public confusion</h2>
<p>Public faith in the government’s handling of the pandemic has <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/trust-uk-government-and-news-media-covid-19-information-down-concerns-over-misinformation">fallen dramatically</a> since mid-April. We watched this develop during our six-week study from April 16 to May 27. </p>
<p>Over this period, participants told us they wanted <a href="https://theconversation.com/people-trust-tv-journalists-and-want-them-to-scrutinise-government-coronavirus-policy-new-research-137620">more media scrutiny of government decision-making</a>, including fact-checking dubious claims. They also wanted more experts informing media coverage rather than politicians.</p>
<p>If it becomes routine for government ministers to appear at the daily Downing Street press briefing <a href="https://twitter.com/nmsonline/status/1269278567424286721?s=20">without any scientific or health experts</a> – as happened on June 6 – it may limit how far journalists can quiz them about their advice to ministers. As Sky News’ political correspondent, Sam Coates, has pointed out, with no scientific advisers present, it allows the government to select the most politically convenient evidence when responding to questions.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1268948608465936390"}"></div></p>
<p>With public confidence in the UK government plummeting, broadcasters have an increasingly important role to play in the pandemic. Over the six-week study, our respondents have consistently said they want accurate and impartial information, with journalists regularly fact-checking political statements and challenging any dubious claims. </p>
<p>Our research suggests broadcasters may have helped people become fairly confident in spotting egregious examples of fake news. But many participants were confused by more routine political decisions, most strikingly the lockdown measures that can affect people in England differently to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.</p>
<p>For broadcasters to more effectively counter misinformation, our research tells us it is not only about boldly questioning what politicians say and holding the government to account. It is about identifying what people are most confused about and finding ways to raise their level of understanding about complex and contentious issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140383/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, AHRC, BA and ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Kyriakidou receives funding from the AHRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marina Morani receives funding from AHRC</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nikki Soo receives funding from AHRC. </span></em></p>Cardiff University’s news diary study during the pandemic found the public were confused about a number of issues and became more critical of the UK government.Stephen Cushion, Chair professor, Cardiff UniversityMaria Kyriakidou, Lecturer, School of Journalism, Cardiff UniversityMarina Morani, Postdoctoral research associate, Cardiff UniversityNikki Soo, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1376202020-04-30T13:37:19Z2020-04-30T13:37:19ZPeople trust TV journalists and want them to scrutinise government coronavirus policy — new research<p>Over recent weeks, debates about how reporters should cover the pandemic have intensified, after <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-britons-still-support-lockdown-despite-being-sadder-and-more-anxious-poll-11977655">a YouGov poll</a> on April 24 showed nearly two-thirds of people did not trust television journalists. Many <a href="https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1253702832655675393">politicians</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1253457206512619520?s=20">commentators</a> were quick to seize on the survey, blaming aggressive journalistic questioning at the government’s daily press conferences. More generally, it has been claimed the public want health information not adversarial journalism at a time of national crisis.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1254866098136035329"}"></div></p>
<p>But <a href="https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FS012508%2F1">our new in-depth study</a> with almost 200 participants during the pandemic showed news journalists are trusted – particularly those working for broadcasters. Moreover, we found they wanted more – not less – critical coverage of the government’s response to the pandemic.</p>
<p>As part of an <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/04/28/research-suggests-uk-public-can-spot-fake-news-about-covid-19-but-dont-realise-the-uks-death-toll-is-far-higher-than-in-many-other-countries/">ongoing diary study</a> of news audiences between April 16 and 29, we questioned people in detail about the level of trust they have in journalists and how the government’s handling of the coronavirus should be reported. </p>
<p>We recruited a representative mix of the population – in terms of age, gender, class, education and political preferences – not to measure public opinion, but to explore people’s opinions and knowledge. Our aim was to not only ask people what they think about journalists and news reporting of the pandemic, but to understand why they think that way.</p>
<h2>Is television news trusted?</h2>
<p>Since representative polls have consistently <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/articles-reports/2020/04/29/no-trust-media-has-not-collapsed-because-coronavir">showed</a> public trust in television news is high, a possible explanation for YouGov’s <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/articles-reports/2020/04/29/no-trust-media-has-not-collapsed-because-coronavir">alarming survey</a> was the wording of the question, which asked people if they trust journalists rather than specific broadcasters or news organisations. </p>
<p>To explore how the public perceive different types of journalism, we first asked if they trusted journalists on the coronavirus, and then more specifically asked if they trusted journalists working in TV news, radio news, newspapers, online news or social media.</p>
<p>Whereas 49% people trust journalists either a great deal or a fair amount, we found 72% did when they worked in television news. Levels of trust were greater for journalists working on radio than journalists generally, but not for those working for newspapers or online media. </p>
<p>When respondents provided a judgement, the BBC achieved a trust rating of 85%, ITV and Channel 4 73%, Sky News 69%, and Channel 5 54%. Overall, more people trusted the TV news bulletins than did not.</p>
<p>We also asked why people trusted some journalists over others. Overall, television news was viewed as being more authoritative than other platforms, with more accurate than speculative reporting. This was well summed up by one respondent:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I trust journalists on TV news the most because they seem to sound quite factual whereas journalists in online news don’t usually seem to come from credible sources. Newspapers are very hit and miss, depending on newspaper they will try and sell you different story or change the original in a way that suits them the most</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>More or less criticism of government?</h2>
<p>In order to explore people’s opinions about the reporting of the pandemic, we wanted to go beyond just examining what they generally thought about how well journalists had performed.</p>
<p>After showing respondents the headlines of the BBC’s and ITV’s late evening TV bulletins on the day that the UK recorded its highest number of deaths so far in the pandemic – April 8 – we asked them to assess the way in which broadcasters had reported the government’s handling of the pandemic. Broadly speaking, people characterised the BBC as having a factual and neutral approach, whereas ITV’s reporting was often seen as being more dramatic which – for some – conveyed the severity of the UK’s death rate. Clearly, not all respondents agreed on how broadcasters should – or should not – cover the pandemic. </p>
<p>Some participants, for example, echoed those politicians asking for a “rally-round-the-flag” approach to reporting, saying that it’s not appropriate to criticise the government at a time of national crisis. But most people called for more – not less – scrutiny of political decision making. While the BBC and ITV were singled out for not being critical enough, many respondents wanted both broadcasters to hold the government to account more robustly.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1255614165089214466"}"></div></p>
<p>For instance, one respondent commented: “ITV didn’t actually mention the government’s handling of the pandemic. I think the BBC was – as always – neutral of the government’s handling, although it did mention it slightly more. I think ITV should have been more factually based in the headlines.” </p>
<p>Another focused more generally on coverage, saying that: “Updates on what the government are doing I believe are not critical enough, they are stating facts such as the government aims to test 100,000 people per day, however they have not criticised the government themselves.”</p>
<p>Other respondents were blunter: “I don’t believe either of the broadcasters, here, were critical of the government at all. I genuinely feel we cover up, hold back and don’t get all the truths.”</p>
<p>Far from the public losing faith in journalists or asking them to rally round the flag, our research shows most people trust broadcast media, but want more critical scrutiny of the government. This suggests broadcasters should not be cowed by politicians or commentators, but emboldened by the public who want them to challenge the government about how well they are handling the pandemic.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137620/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, AHRC, BA and ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Kyriakidou receives funding from the AHRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marina Morani receives funding from AHCR </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nikki Soo receives funding from AHRC. </span></em></p>Calls for journalists to rally round the UK government’s efforts to fight the pandemic are out of touch with public opinion, an in-depth study of news audiences has found.Stephen Cushion, Chair professor, Cardiff UniversityMaria Kyriakidou, Cardiff UniversityMarina Morani, Research Associate, Cardiff UniversityNikki Soo, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1362792020-04-15T13:18:18Z2020-04-15T13:18:18ZCoronavirus: calls from journalists for an end to the lockdown are out of step with public opinion<p>In times of crisis and widespread concern about decision-making, the public are extremely reliant on journalists to put their questions to those in power. If there was ever a time for the media to act as the fourth estate, holding power to account in the public interest, the coronavirus pandemic is it. Now, more than ever, their role is crucial in ensuring that the public mood is communicated and acted upon. </p>
<p>If prime ministers have traditionally started the working day <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/communicating-mps-power-media">by reading the press</a> to get a sense of the public mood, now government ministers face (virtually) daily scrutiny from journalists at briefings who are communicating it directly to them.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327702/original/file-20200414-117562-1ktponj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327702/original/file-20200414-117562-1ktponj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=783&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327702/original/file-20200414-117562-1ktponj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=783&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327702/original/file-20200414-117562-1ktponj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=783&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327702/original/file-20200414-117562-1ktponj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=984&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327702/original/file-20200414-117562-1ktponj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=984&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327702/original/file-20200414-117562-1ktponj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=984&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The pressure is on.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Daily Express</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the context of daily death tolls and concerns around strategy, there is one issue that is omnipresent across the press, news broadcasts and the briefings. That pressing question is: <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/when-coronavirus-lockdown-uk-end-exit-strategy/">when will the lockdown end</a>? Newspaper headlines in the run-up to the Easter weekend, which marked three weeks of lockdown in the UK, showed this pattern intensifying: “Ministers delay lockdown” (Telegraph, April 9, following this headline the previous day: “Who will make the call on lockdown?”). On April 9, the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror led with: “Lockdown: no end in sight”, while the Independent bemoaned a “lack of lockdown answers”.</p>
<p>At the daily briefings, there have been similar repeated calls for answers: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-XVkvloWQY">on April 6</a>, the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, set out the public’s demands, and on April 8 again referred to the “trade-off between protecting people’s health and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I68yO8d3YI">protecting people’s jobs”</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-I68yO8d3YI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In response to a fairly nuanced first question on the staggered and safe easing of restrictions, Fiona Bruce, presenter of the BBC’s Question Time, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000h497/question-time-2020-09042020">summarised</a>: “This is the question everyone wants answering: when might we begin to get out of this?”</p>
<h2>Public sphere</h2>
<p>Following the briefing on April 8, the presenters of <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000h13f">BBC Radio 5 Live’s Drive programme</a> announced they had received “a stack of texts” objecting to the main line of questioning: “Asking for an exit date is like asking Winston Churchill for an exit date in 1939.” Another read: “I don’t want the government to feel they need to end the lockdown prematurely due to the media going on and on about it.” Somebody else texted: “If I have to stay at home for the next six months I’m honestly not bothered as long as people stop contracting it and dying.” </p>
<p>In other words, the public is overwhelmingly on the side of ensuring safety and listening to the scientists. Drive presenter Tony Livesley defended the journalists: “I think they think they are asking on behalf of the general public.” But, he admitted, there was not a single audience text demanding an exit date.</p>
<p>Before the advent of social media, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270902182_The_Commercial_and_the_Public_''Public_Spheres''_Two_Types_of_Political_Talk-Radio_and_Their_Constructed_Publics">it was often argued</a> that radio phone-ins were among the few places where the UK had anything resembling a genuine public sphere – a democratic space for dialogue and deliberation. As 5 Live is driven by listener participation, and has a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2020/2019-q4">weekly audience of five million</a>, this can be viewed as a not insignificant poll. On March 24 – the day after the lockdown was called, YouGov reported that <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-lockdown-boris-johnson-poll-yougov-latest-a9420526.html">93% of the public supported</a> the measures.</p>
<h2>Perception gap</h2>
<p>As a researcher who investigates public openness to policy measures on climate change, this all sounds familiar. We collected focus group data from across the UK to assess the public’s response to a proposed meat tax aimed at reducing UK consumption to drive down greenhouse gas emissions. A key finding of our <a href="https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/changing-climate-changing-diets">qualitative research</a> was that the majority of the public is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/24/meat-tax-far-less-unpalatable-than-government-thinks-research-finds">willing to accept restrictions</a> as long as the science is communicated clearly and rooted in questions of the public good.</p>
<p>Media reports often frame measures such as the meat tax as representative of a <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7674434/meat-tax-increase-price-of-bacon-pork/">“nanny state”</a> – which implies an overly authoritarian government approach to a particular issue. But our research found that policymakers – many of whom are influenced by this kind of reporting – tended to overestimate public resistance to restrictive policies. </p>
<p>The degree to which the government’s message on coronavirus has been communicated effectively and its policy informed by expert advice is open to debate. But, however <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-as-the-uk-faces-more-restrictions-the-public-needs-clearer-government-information-134471">chaotic Whitehall’s communications have been</a>, the simple message of “stay at home and save lives” is one which the vast majority of the public recognises and is responding to.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-as-the-uk-faces-more-restrictions-the-public-needs-clearer-government-information-134471">Coronavirus: as the UK faces more restrictions, the public needs clearer government information</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Neoliberal attitudes</h2>
<p>If we’re left wondering why the journalists are so out of step with the public mood, the answer lies in a media which has moved ideologically and materially to a <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/bbc-is-and-always-has-been-part-of-problem/">neoliberal model</a>, rooted in the values of free markets and financial growth. Similarly, the indication here is that journalists are prioritising the health of the economy over that of the public. </p>
<p>This is not to claim that the public don’t care about the economic (and other) impacts of the lockdown. But the most recent <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8215851/Britons-harsh-lockdown-rules-despite-fearing-damage-UK-economy-years-poll.html">polling shows</a> that even when most people believe there will be lasting damage to the economy, less than a third of respondents want an easing of the measures. Instead, the public seems to be looking not for the economy to open up prematurely but to be protected by the state (and not punished when it’s all over).</p>
<p>The relentless focus on the duration of the lockdown could place extra pressure on the government to act before it is completely safe to do so. Cabinet ministers – with their prime minister still partly out of action – are reviewing the measures on April 16. I’m staying home.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136279/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Happer receives funding from UKERC, the EPSRC and the Avatar Alliance Foundation for her research.</span></em></p>The government is under relentless pressure from the UK media to relax the strict lockdown rules. That could be a dangerous mistake.Catherine Happer, Lecturer, Sociology, Glasgow University, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1338292020-03-17T15:35:20Z2020-03-17T15:35:20ZCOVID-19: to counter misinformation, journalists need to embrace a public service mission<p>As COVID-19 spreads globally, so has misinformation about how to counter it. From <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/five-times-the-trump-administration-downplayed-the-coronavirus-2020-3?r=US&IR=T#their-new-hoax-1">politicians</a> downplaying the risk it poses to public health to journalists <a href="https://twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1234627349569851393">tweeting</a> false claims about who can be infected, reporting the coronavirus reminds us of the importance of accurate and impartial journalism.</p>
<p>In the UK, broadcasters have generally been cautious in their coverage of the global pandemic. We have seen more health experts appear on breakfast sofas and news bulletins, explaining the science behind the COVID-19 and offering practical advice about how to minimise catching the virus and avoiding ways of spreading it.</p>
<p>The “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000c3ps">your questions answered</a>” feature of broadcast news has become a more prominent part of coverage, with journalists directly responding to their audiences fears and anxieties, rather than the traditional top-down approach. Fact checking has also come to the fore, with the BBC’s Reality Check and Channel 4’s Fact Check almost exclusively focused on challenging the many dubious claims circulating online.</p>
<p>TV news audiences have spiked as people turn to trusted sources of information. According to Channel 4’s news editor, Ben de Pear, its audience size doubled over the last week.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1239293993688670210"}"></div></p>
<p>Similarly, according to the BBC news press office, its audiences for broadcast and online output has significantly increased.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1239568724723630080"}"></div></p>
<p>For UK broadcasters, reporting the government’s comparative approach to combating the spread of COVID-19 is a difficult balancing act. The government’s response, while developing on an almost daily basis, remains less stringent than many other countries which have imposed strict lockdowns and closed pubs, restaurants and places of public gathering. </p>
<p>To what extent should broadcasters be questioning this strategy? How far should they be accepting what the government’s medical and scientific advisers are saying, while challenging them and presenting alternative expert voices – for example representatives of the World Health Organization – who may be recommending a different response? </p>
<p>When it comes to questioning the government’s strategy, editors will need to make difficult judgements about which expert voices they include – and exclude – given how closely people are following the news to find out what advice to follow. </p>
<h2>Anonymous sources</h2>
<p>In order to maintain the public trust’s in official health guidance and information, broadcasters could stop the use of “anonymous government sources”. So, for example, on March 14 ITV’s political editor, Robert Peston, <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-14/elderly-to-be-quarantined-for-four-months-in-wartime-style-mobilisation-to-combat-coronavirus/">broke a story</a> via his blog about people over 70 being quarantined for four months in “wartime-style mobilisation to combat coronavirus”. It was leaked just in time to make the Sunday newspapers, but was not announced by the prime minister or one of his scientific experts but an anonymous “senior government source”.</p>
<p>Given the significant alarm this caused for millions of people, Peston should have sacrificed his “scoop” for the greater good of asking the government to accurately put this key development on the public record. The political practice of using “sources” to deliver briefings to key journalists is nothing new – it’s been going on for many years and is known in the industry as “<a href="https://blog.oup.com/2017/06/flying-kites-politics-uk-elections/">kite-flying</a>”. </p>
<p>By briefing journalists anonymously, it opens up a space for the policy to be debated while also allowing government ministers to distance themselves from it under journalistic questioning or public pressure. But during a major health emergency of this kind, where public trust is so important, it looks deeply irresponsible.</p>
<p>Now more than ever, journalists and broadcasters could take a stand and resist these private briefings for the sake of clearer and more accurate government information.</p>
<p>It didn’t help that when the UK’s health secretary, Matthew Hancock, wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph about the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/14/must-do-everything-power-protect-lives/">government’s response to COVID-19</a>, the newspaper published it behind a paywall where only subscribers could see it. By contrast, the Washington Post – which usually adheres to a strict paywall – made its analysis of the spread of the virus freely available. To be fair to the Telegraph, it later made Hancock’s article generally available – but only after criticism on <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fjimwaterson%2Fstatus%2F1238961952107499520&widget=Tweet">social media</a>. </p>
<p>This matters because if only people motivated enough to subscribe to a newspaper access vital health information, it risks alienating huge swaths of the population who also need to understand what government decisions are made and the reasoning behind them. The government’s media strategists need to be aware of that and prioritise media platforms available to the whole country. </p>
<h2>Press briefings</h2>
<p>The government’s <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-boris-johnson-press-conference-covid19-chief-medical-officer-advisor-over-70s-a9403396.html">decision to hold daily press conferences</a> represents a more transparent way of keeping the public informed of the latest developments and its decision making. The press conferences will feature the prime minister or his senior ministers. Chief medical adviser Chris Whitty, and Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, will also “routinely” attend the briefings. </p>
<p>It remains to be seen how far the UK population will trust and follow the government’s guidance. While <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/only-36-of-britons-trust-boris-johnson-on-coronavirus-poll-finds">one poll</a> found the majority of people trusted the advice and guidance about COVID-19 from the goverment’s chief medical officer and the director general of the World Health Organization, just over a third of people extended the same level of trust to the prime minister and health secretary. Of course, faith in the goverment’s advisers may change as the nation compares the UK’s response to other countries. </p>
<p>As the public’s <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/news-media/news-consumption">most trusted source of news in the UK</a>, broadcasters will play a critical role in both conveying and questioning the government’s strategy of dealing with the coronavirus. This is a major test of broadcasting’s public service role – to impartially report the facts, while robustly holding the government to account.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133829/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, AHRC, BA and ESRC. </span></em></p>Broadcasters have a duty to inform the public and hold politicians to account. This mission is more important now than ever before.Stephen Cushion, Chair professor, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1290872019-12-19T13:28:10Z2019-12-19T13:28:10ZWhat Boris Johnson’s election win means for British broadcasting<p>No sooner had the ballots closed than Boris Johnson’s new government was advancing and accelerating its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/15/boris-johnson-threatens-bbc-with-two-pronged-attack">attack on public service broadcasting</a>, threatening to decriminalise nonpayment of the licence fee, boycott the BBC’s flagship Today programme and review the remit of Channel 4.</p>
<p>Labour, meanwhile, has <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-general-election-bias-labour-corbyn-andy-mcdonald-boris-johnson-a9248226.html">accused the BBC of “conscious” bias</a>, arguing that the corporation’s conduct during the election campaign contributed to Labour’s loss. </p>
<p>While the BBC warned that decriminalisation <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50800128">could reduce funding for programming</a> by up to £200 million, it’s feasible that a much larger proportion of its <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/2018-19.pdf">£3.6 billion licence fee income</a> could be at risk. </p>
<p>One of the key concerns is journalism. Of all the BBC’s output, news and current affairs is the most time-consuming and expensive. The fleeting shelf life of news content – coupled with the costs of maintaining a global network of producers, reporters and researchers – meant that last year the corporation spent <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/2018-19.pdf">£355 million on television news and current affairs programming</a>, more than any other genre of programming. </p>
<p>If the Conservative threats are realised, the capacity of journalists to scrutinise and hold to account MPs, councillors and other elected officials around the country could be severely diminished.</p>
<p>The BBC is already struggling to fund the £5 million annual costs of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/04/bbc-asks-private-sector-to-subsidise-local-reporters-scheme">Local Democracy Reporter scheme</a>, which pays for around 150 local journalists in local news media to scrutinise local politics.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1204324957225963520"}"></div></p>
<p>Before introducing the local democracy scheme, the coalition government of 2010 to 2015 ringfenced £40 million of BBC funding to establish a network of local television news services. <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/72921/Local-TV-Framework_July2011.doc">It argued</a> the network would play an important role in “the wider localism agenda, holding institutions to account and increasing civic engagement at a local level”. But of the 34 local services established since 2012, at least 12 have failed to launch, collapsed or been merged. The largest local broadcaster, That’s TV, recently <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48939451">closed 13 of its 20 studios</a>. </p>
<h2>Reduced scrutiny</h2>
<p>Weakened accountability of local politicians chimes with Johnson’s unprecedented avoidance of public scrutiny during the election campaign. This was most notably seen in his refusal <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrew-neil-boris-johnson-interview-video-questions-nhs-social-care-austerity-a9234956.html">to agree to an interview</a> with the BBC’s Andrew Neil, his <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ofcom-channel-4-climate-debate-tory-complaint-boris-johnson-empty-chair-ice-sculpture-1331399">empty-chairing at the Channel 4 Leader’s Climate Debate</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/11/boris-johnson-hides-in-fridge-to-avoid-piers-morgan-interview">his hiding in a fridge</a> to avoid an ITV interview on Good Morning Britain.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lZATuljaRxs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Sidestepping broadcast journalism enables Johnson to weaken the appeal of public service broadcasting and drive audiences on to social media, where they can be reached directly without interference from journalistic mediators. Johnson’s disdain for the media during the campaign may not be quite on a par with Trump’s tweet of August 5 2018, in which he labelled the media “dangerous and sick” and an “enemy of the people”, but there are clear parallels between the Johnson and Trump strategies.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1026069857589227520"}"></div></p>
<h2>Plight of local journalism</h2>
<p>Local and regional news is particularly vulnerable because, while no less expensive to gather and produce than international news, it attracts small regional audiences and has little export value. Earlier in 2019, the BBC cut regional nightly news bulletins <a href="https://pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-to-reduce-length-of-news-at-ten-by-10-minutes/">from 11 minutes to seven</a> and the number of <a href="https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/broadcasting/2019/01/bbc-cuts-three-senior-posts-part-england-restructure">staff supporting regional news</a>.</p>
<p>The local newspaper industry is collapsing as readers demand free online news and advertisers find greater reach and targeting on social media. Between 2005 and 2018, there was a net <a href="https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/more-than-40-local-news-titles-closed-in-2018-with-loss-of-some-editorial-275-jobs-new-figures-show/">loss of 245 local news titles</a> in the UK. Today, an estimated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/29/local-newspapers-closing-down-communities-withering">58% of the country</a> is not served by a regional newspaper.</p>
<p>When establishing the local television network, then culture minister Jeremy Hunt <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7895994/Jeremy-Hunt-Ministry-of-Fun-is-about-to-get-very-horrible.html">cited the success of local TV in the US</a>, claiming:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Birmingham Alabama has eight local TV stations, despite being a quarter of the size of our Birmingham. New York has six … It’s crazy that a city like Sheffield doesn’t have local TV.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But <a href="https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/06/30143308/state-of-the-news-media-report-2016-final.pdf">a study by the Pew Research Center</a> showed how US local television is only kept afloat by “huge influxes of campaign cash” for political advertising during election and midterm years. In the UK, party political broadcasts are transmitted for free, and strictly controlled.</p>
<p>In other parts of Europe and elsewhere in North America, local journalism is heavily subsidised by the state and through levies on major telecoms companies. </p>
<p>Most Canadian towns have <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78549/Local-TV-Report-Dec10_FullReport.pdf">at least one community television service</a> and legislation requires commercial cable broadcasters to support community channels. </p>
<p>In Germany, most cities have a local channel subsidised by the regional government. There, local programming is particularly strong because national broadcasters are <a href="https://rm.coe.int/regional-and-local-broadcasting-in-europe/1680789635">not allowed to provide detailed coverage of local issues</a>, so competition is limited for local channels. </p>
<p>In Spain, around <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78549/Local-TV-Report-Dec10_FullReport.pdf">800 local television services have been licensed</a> since the digital switch-over in 2005, with around half funded by local governments and the rest supported by larger media groups. </p>
<h2>Post-Brexit broadcasting</h2>
<p>Now that a January 2020 Brexit seems certain, one of the most pressing media concerns is whether the UK will continue to align with <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/audiovisual-media-services-directive-avmsd">EU broadcasting standards</a>. Departure from EU alignment could mean more adverts per hour on UK channels, more product placement and a relaxation of the bans on advertising junk food to children.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307916/original/file-20191219-11951-1vlkvj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307916/original/file-20191219-11951-1vlkvj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307916/original/file-20191219-11951-1vlkvj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307916/original/file-20191219-11951-1vlkvj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307916/original/file-20191219-11951-1vlkvj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307916/original/file-20191219-11951-1vlkvj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307916/original/file-20191219-11951-1vlkvj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307916/original/file-20191219-11951-1vlkvj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The most trusted news brands in the UK.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the UK adopts the more commercial US approach to broadcasting, the BBC could be forced to accept advertising or shift to a subscription model. Relaxation of the rules on political advertising is a further possibility. Such a move would probably benefit parties with greater spending power, while further damaging – rather than addressing – concerns around the integrity of political communications.</p>
<p>But Johnson might do well to remember that the BBC remains <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/DNR_2019_FINAL_0.pdf">the most popular and the most trusted</a> news source in the UK, across platforms, across generations and across political perspectives, and is well respected worldwide.</p>
<p>Dismantling the nation’s favourite broadcaster is unlikely to be as easy as he might imagine.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129087/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kerry Traynor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There were some ominous sounds coming out of the election campaign about what the Conservatives might have planned for the UK’s public broadcaster.Kerry Traynor, Lecturer in Professional and Media Writing, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1280672019-11-29T14:01:10Z2019-11-29T14:01:10ZWomen have been a lot less visible in this UK general election campaign – why?<p>Every general election is haunted by the ghosts of campaigns past. The most significant spectre in 2019 has to be Nancy Astor, who on December 1 1919 was the first woman to take her seat in the House of Commons as an elected member of the UK parliament – and to whom <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-50577118">a statue was unveiled</a> in Plymouth on November 28, the anniversary of her election. One wonders what she would make of the gender politics of this campaign.</p>
<p>The omens were not good from the outset. The prime minister was criticised for his sexist phraseology, separately describing <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/08/insights-big-girls-blouse-girly-swot-prime-minister-should-choose-insults-more-carefully">Jeremy Corbyn as “a big girl’s blouse” and David Cameron as “a girly swot”</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Alun Cairns resigned as Welsh secretary after allegations emerged that he knew of an aide’s role in <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-50302173">sabotaging a rape trial</a>. He has vowed to “clear his name”. Alarm has also grown about the horrific abuse women MPs, particularly those of colour, <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/09/we-tracked-25688-abusive-tweets-sent-women-mps-half-were-directed-diane-abbott">suffer online</a> and in the streets. </p>
<p><a href="https://news.sky.com/story/nancy-astor-theresa-may-unveils-statue-of-first-female-mp-to-sit-in-commons-11872765">In a speech </a>this week at the unveiling of Astor’s statue, Theresa May, the former prime minister, voiced concern that the decisions by several influential female parliamentarians not to seek re-election were linked to the growing toxicity of public life.</p>
<p>The media play <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2UZZV3xU6Q">a vital role in promoting gender equality</a> in politics and challenging discriminatory practices and discourses. This was a cornerstone of Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson’s failed legal challenge against ITV for excluding her from the televised Leaders’ Debate on 19 November. Party considerations aside, she argued the broadcaster’s decision reduced significantly the visibility of a female political leader as a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-tv-debate-jo-swinson-lib-dems-itv-corbyn-johnson-a9184736.html">role model</a> for young girls and women. As <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marian_Wright_Edelman">Marian Wright Edelman</a> once said about the need for positive and diverse female representation: ‘You can’t be what you can’t see’.</p>
<h2>Invisible women</h2>
<p>Loughborough University has been monitoring the gendered aspects of the reporting of the 2019 campaign as part of its <a href="https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-3/">wider “real time” audit of mainstream news coverage</a>. The most basic but significant aspect of this has been to quantify how often women are reported and quoted in election reporting.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-election-2019-is-brexit-dominating-the-media-campaign-127629">UK election 2019: is Brexit dominating the media campaign?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As we show in our latest <a href="https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-3/">report</a>, in the 2015 general election, women political candidates and campaigners accounted for only 15% of all appearances in the media. This rose to 39% in 2017. In the 2019 campaign so far, and with a record number of women standing for parliament, female appearances have nearly halved to 20%.</p>
<p>This is a direct consequence of the replacement of Theresa May as prime minister by Boris Johnson in the interim period. UK general election news is renowned for being highly “presidentialised” and dominated by the two main parties. Boris Johnson accounts for 56% of all Conservative party appearances in the media we have analysed so far. </p>
<p>In this respect, you could argue that news organisations are prisoners of the decisions of the main parties. Gender divisions are inescapable if leading parties fail to promote women internally and promote their views publicly. </p>
<h2>Media mansplaining</h2>
<p>But what about the instances where news organisations have a more active role in deciding who speaks? Election coverage isn’t just about politicians – citizens are consulted frequently and a myriad of commercial, political and public bodies pursue media access to intervene in the public conversation. Journalists also seek out expert and professional opinion to appraise the validity of candidates’ promises and propositions.</p>
<p>Figure 1 compares the frequency with which people outside the party-political realm have either featured in coverage as citizens or in a professional capacity. There is only one category where women were reported more than men - in their personal capacity as “citizens”. In all but one professional category, men dominate the show, with the gender disparity most acute in the reporting of “unions/ charities/ NGOs”, “think tanks”, “pollsters” and (ahem) “academics”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304429/original/file-20191129-95242-1gh6741.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304429/original/file-20191129-95242-1gh6741.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304429/original/file-20191129-95242-1gh6741.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304429/original/file-20191129-95242-1gh6741.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304429/original/file-20191129-95242-1gh6741.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304429/original/file-20191129-95242-1gh6741.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304429/original/file-20191129-95242-1gh6741.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 1: representation in the media by gender.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Loughborough University</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what of the difference between media sectors? Are the broadcasters performing better on these measures than the press? Figure 2 assesses the gender distribution of quotation within the four most prominent non-party political categories, differentiating between TV and newspaper coverage.</p>
<p>The results show that imbalances are evident across TV and the press. Women were quoted more than men in only two categories – TV vox pops of citizens and newspaper articles quoting representatives of business. The main reason for the female majority in the latter was a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/7b3ac822-0221-11ea-be59-e49b2a136b8d">lengthy interview</a> published in the Financial Times with Carolyn Fairbairn, the director-general of the Confederation of British Industries – a notable exception to a consistent pattern of “mansplaining”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304428/original/file-20191129-95236-xcnrbk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304428/original/file-20191129-95236-xcnrbk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304428/original/file-20191129-95236-xcnrbk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304428/original/file-20191129-95236-xcnrbk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304428/original/file-20191129-95236-xcnrbk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304428/original/file-20191129-95236-xcnrbk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304428/original/file-20191129-95236-xcnrbk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 2: how gender imbalance differs between print and broadcast media.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Loughborough University</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The professional is political too</h2>
<p>There is plenty that is depressing about these findings, but nothing surprising. Loughborough University’s research on media coverage of UK elections <a href="https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Reporting_the_2005_U_K_General_Election/9470708">over 27 years</a> has demonstrated how recurrent and enduring these patterns are.</p>
<p><audio preload="metadata" controls="controls" data-duration="714" data-image="" data-title="" data-size="8673221" data-source="" data-source-url="" data-license="" data-license-url="">
<source src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/audio/1786/e3-2019-election-media-analysis-7-27-november.mp3" type="audio/mpeg">
</audio>
<div class="audio-player-caption">
</div></p>
<p>Is change possible or likely? This week, the prime minister marked the Astor centenary <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50581208">by promising</a> to “support women to reach their full potential” in the event of a Conservative election victory and commit the Conservatives to fielding as many women as men in future elections. Elsewhere, the BBC has recently launched a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2019/5050-project-results">50/50 project</a> aimed at securing 50% female contributions in BBC programmes.</p>
<p>There is no question that joint action is needed by politicians and news organisations. If editors and journalists have no control over who the parties put at the forefront of the campaign, they have undeniable gatekeeping power over the non-party voices they select. Women’s voices deserve recognition beyond the personal sphere. To adapt a familiar feminist maxim: the professional is political too.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKGE2019&utm_content=GEBannerA">Click here to subscribe to our newsletter if you believe this election should be all about the facts.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128067/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Deacon receives funding from the ESRC, Leverhulme, British Academy, BBC Trust and Electoral Commission </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jackie Goode does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It isn’t just politicians: experts, business representatives, even academics quoted in the media are more likely to be male.Jackie Goode, Visiting Fellow in Qualitative Research, Loughborough UniversityDavid Deacon, Professor of Communication and Media Analysis, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1276292019-11-22T15:44:32Z2019-11-22T15:44:32ZUK election 2019: is Brexit dominating the media campaign?<p>Is the UK’s 2019 election a single-issue campaign centered on Brexit? Some newspapers clearly think so, with the Daily Mail and the Sun having already branded it the “<a href="https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20191119/281509343021015">Brexmas Election</a>”. These declarations reflect a strong desire to see the Conservatives triumph and for Boris Johnson to enact his core promise to “Get Brexit Done”. </p>
<p>And – for very different reasons – Jo Swinson and the Liberal Democrats have been similarly enthusiastic about ensuring that Brexit <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50486538">is a major campaign issue</a>. But Labour appears keen for the election to be about a whole range of subjects – most notably the state of the economy, the future of the National Health Service (NHS) and the increasingly urgent issue of the environment and climate change. </p>
<p>A simple way to measure this is to analyse the tweets produced by the main party leaders and parties in the first two weeks of formal campaigning. Of tweets originating from the Conservative party over this period, 38% contain the word “Brexit”. This figure was only slightly lower – 37% – for the Lib Dems. The two parties even beat the Brexit Party at 28%. Meanwhile – and tellingly – barely 1% of Labour tweets mentioned “Brexit” during the same period. </p>
<p>Subsequently, when Sky News branded its campaign coverage “The Brexit Election”, it was Labour that felt strongly enough <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/108013/labour-complain-ofcom-over-sky-news">to challenge the channel’s right</a> to make this claim on the grounds that it frames the election narrowly and on Johnson’s terms. </p>
<p>Significantly, the broadcast regulator Ofcom <a href="https://pressgazette.co.uk/ofcom-backs-sky-news-brexit-election-strapline-in-campaign-coverage-after-labour-complaint/">ruled against</a> the party, claiming Sky’s decision did not infringe rules governing impartiality because, <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/180113/letter-ofcom-labour-party-election-strapline.pdf">as it said in its decision</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Brexit is an important background contextual factor (and) what happens next in terms of the UK’s relationship with the EU will be determined by the election result. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Regardless of the merits of the case, the related controversy underscores the centrality of the question over the extent to which this is and will be the Brexit campaign.</p>
<h2>What a difference two years makes</h2>
<p>Loughborough University has been monitoring the issues and personalities who have gained most prominence <a href="https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-2/">during the 2019 General Election</a>. The team did the same during the previous campaign two and a half years ago after the then prime minister Theresa May called a snap election to resolve the impasse over Europe. </p>
<p>Her calculation that her lead in the polls would guarantee her a comfortable victory <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/uk-elections-2017-37907">proved misplaced</a>, as did her belief that Brexit would dominate news coverage of the campaign. </p>
<p>So how different has this election campaign been to 2017 – at least to date? Figure 1, below, compares the weekly prominence of Brexit in national media coverage across the entire 2017 campaign and the first two weeks of this election. The 2017 results reveal how quickly and significantly media attention shifted away from Brexit. This was due, variously, to the Conservative Party’s backtracking over its social care proposals (widely denounced as a “dementia tax”), as well as an effective Labour manifesto launch and the traumatic disruption caused by <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40013040">major terrorist attacks</a> in Manchester and London. </p>
<p>The 2019 results show that Brexit was marginally more prominent at the start of the campaign than in 2017, but its newsworthiness has also diminished into the second week, albeit not as dramatically as in the previous election.</p>
<p>What explains this change? High-profile stories relating to <a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-andrew-claims-he-didnt-sweat-heres-the-science-127280">Prince Andrew</a>, the potential <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-johnson-are-leading-the-attack-against-the-rule-of-law-124339">impeachment of Donald Trump</a> and the launch of the new series of ITV’s I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here have cumulatively colonised news space and ensured the campaign has not attracted the same amount of news coverage it received in the previous week. Our results show a 6% reduction in TV news coverage of the election in week two and a 16% fall in press coverage. </p>
<p>Within this reduced output, other issues have pushed their way to the fore (see Table 1 below). Interest in the general dynamics and uncertainty of the campaign (represented in the table as electoral process) remained prominent, but less so than in the first week. Meanwhile, attention to the economy and trade increased and coverage of healthcare and taxation issues both increased markedly.</p>
<h2>Shaping the agenda</h2>
<p>Will Brexit recover its news value in the coming weeks of the campaign? From the opening moments of the televised leadership debate on Tuesday, the prime minister focused on extolling the virtue of his “<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10389805/boris-johnsons-oven-ready-tripe-minimises-brexit-he-must-ditch-it-to-win-election/">oven-ready Brexit deal</a>” and challenging Corbyn on his policy and personal stance on withdrawal from the EU. The Labour leader, in contrast, seemed equally determined to widen the range of issues under discussion.</p>
<p>This kind of media event has long been recognised as a stimulus for further coverage, and on this occasion 53% of all election items produced in the day after the debate made some reference to it. It will be interesting to see which leader proves most effective in shaping the developing news agenda. </p>
<p>What is clear from our analysis is that it is Johnson’s withdrawal agreement that is dominating the media discussion of Brexit alternatives (see Figure 2). </p>
<p>The Conservatives’ policy has so far received twice as much coverage as Remain, the next most prominent Brexit alternative and the one advanced by the Liberal Democrats. Labour’s primary policy of a second referendum is only the third most prominent option – slightly ahead of Hard/No Deal Brexit discussion (the Brexit Party’s stance), while Labour’s preferred softer Brexit strategy is the least discussed of all options. </p>
<p>In this respect, at least, Boris Johnson and the Conservatives are setting the electoral agenda.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Our thanks to Professor Cristian Vaccari of Loughborough University for the twitter analysis.</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKGE2019&utm_content=GEBannerC">Click here to subscribe to our newsletter if you believe this election should be all about the facts.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127629/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Deacon has received funding from the ESRC, Leverhulme Trust, British Academy, BBC Trust and the Electoral Commission.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominic Wring has received funding from the ESRC, Leverhulme Trust, British Academy, BBC Trust and the Electoral Commission.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In 2017 Labour did better than expected because it moved debate away from Brexit. It will need to do the same in 2019.David Deacon, Professor of Communication and Media Analysis, Loughborough UniversityDavid Smith, Lecturer in Media and Communication, University of LeicesterDominic Wring, Professor of Political Communication, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/946732018-06-18T09:56:58Z2018-06-18T09:56:58ZWales is losing its voice on Britain’s radio stations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221377/original/file-20180601-142066-1a07u8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-illustration-headset-on-microphone-air-537336985?src=0qQ62lVlfknFwC63eGrq1g-1-4">ktsdesign/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Video killed the radio star – or so the Buggles claimed. Try telling that to the Welsh, who are so passionate about radio that they listen to more of it than <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/105006/wales-radio-audio.pdf">any other part of the UK</a>. And yet hardly any of the programmes they hear are made in Wales, or focus on Welsh issues.</p>
<p>In a country suffering under a cultural and political deficit – where <a href="http://www.iwa.wales/click/wp-content/uploads/Section-2-radio.pdf">BBC Radio 2 is dominant</a>, and two London-based stations (Heart and Capital, which are run by Global and Communicorp in different regions of the UK) hold a virtual monopoly of the commercial airwaves – it seems only right that the devolved government would be concerned. </p>
<p>Broadcasting is not a devolved issue, yet a <a href="http://senedd.assembly.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=20969">Welsh Assembly committee</a>, keen to solve what is just one part of <a href="https://theconversation.com/welsh-language-media-could-hold-the-solution-to-waless-democratic-deficit-82228">Wales’s media problem</a>, will be reporting on the matter later this year, having recently finished hearing evidence from the industry.</p>
<h2>Tuning in</h2>
<p>Various UK governments over the past two decades have deregulated the <a href="https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/ofcom-deregulate-local-radio/997121">commercial radio sector</a> allowing multiple licences to be held by one company, and removing the requirement for the local station to be located in the very town it broadcasts to. This led to a homogenisation of radio under brands such as Capital, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/sep/16/globalradio.commercialradio">Heart</a>. But while a competitive market still exists in most parts of the UK, Wales is a virtual monopoly, with Global and Communicorp using the Capital and Heart brands to reach a combined 1m Welsh adults a week. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222607/original/file-20180611-191981-1b770n0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222607/original/file-20180611-191981-1b770n0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=923&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222607/original/file-20180611-191981-1b770n0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=923&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222607/original/file-20180611-191981-1b770n0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=923&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222607/original/file-20180611-191981-1b770n0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1160&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222607/original/file-20180611-191981-1b770n0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1160&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222607/original/file-20180611-191981-1b770n0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1160&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Broadcasting to the nation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/wireless-technology-radio-tower-224238265?src=mDafS3JMyRf5FzRXd__k6Q-2-34">Tommaco/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both Capital and Heart syndicate shows from London for 18 hours on weekdays, with locally produced shows at breakfast and drivetime, plus local news bulletins for half of the day. The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-31136252">most listened-to station</a> in Wales, however, is BBC Radio 2, a UK-wide station which has a level of Welsh talent, content and news much lower than the pro-rata proportion of listeners it garners from the nation. Over the last decade matters have got worse – listeners in Wales are less likely to hear people talking about things happening in their communities, because the number of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_(radio_network)">Wales-focused hours has fallen</a>. </p>
<p>But has that been caused by stations choosing to create less content about Wales, or is it actually audience led? In other words – and more controversially – are Welsh listeners turned off by Welsh accents, Welsh news and Welsh stories? Would they rather hear music and stories from outside Wales? </p>
<p>Global and Communicorp believe they do represent the Welsh communities they serve and provide a “local focus through a national brand”. <a href="http://record.assembly.wales/Committee/4729#A43000">Speaking to the Assembly committee</a>, Communicorp’s head of UK programming, Neil Sloan, said, “Capital in south Wales in particular is embedded in the area. If there is a major event happening, we’re a part of it”. </p>
<p>But with only a quarter of the company’s live output now being made locally, job opportunities for presenters, producers, journalists and sales staff have shrunk in the past decade. Previously there would have been around five local daytime shows on each of the five FM and AM outputs – there are now around two shows on three stations. </p>
<h2>Local listeners</h2>
<p>It is easy to hark back to the good old days – though no media ever should in a dynamic industry – when commercial radio in Wales was local, and the audience loved it. Capital South Wales’s predecessor, Red Dragon Radio, was a consistent market leader in the 1990s and 2000s, bringing in a third of the listeners in the area that it covered. And even later than that, when Real Radio went live in the mid 2000s, its mix of Welsh live sport, live talk and a near 24-hour newsroom in Cardiff saw it becoming the market leader.</p>
<p>Today, one station that continues to fly the local flag and win listeners is Swansea-based The Wave. It has held on to a quarter of its potential audience in the past year, despite <a href="http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php">increasing competition</a> from nationals and other local stations. Meanwhile, BBC Radio Wales has reached 14-16% of its potential audience for the past two years. Both make a significant investment in local presenters and broadcast from studios in their broadcast area, as well as producing live sport commentaries. </p>
<p>I do not blame the commerical stations for the decisions they took in taking a commanding presence in Wales. After all, they are businesses, and in an era when people are bypassing FM radio for podcasts and streaming services, perhaps the bigger challenge is getting Welsh life onto those portals.</p>
<p>However, while Wales has suffered, hardly any local content has been cut in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the same <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/manage-your-licence/radio-broadcast-licensing/radio-licence-awards-process">Ofcom radio rules</a> apply. Even in Cornwall, Ofcom told Global they could not syndicate so many hours over concerns about <a href="https://www.businesscornwall.co.uk/news-by-location/truro-business-news/2012/10/ofcom-denies-heart-request/">loss of local choice</a>.</p>
<p>Maybe pointing the finger at the big guys is an easy way to avoid the question no one wants to ask: do people in Wales even want radio from Wales any more?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94673/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Webber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lots of people are listening to radio in Wales, but very little of it has a Welsh voice.Marc Webber, Senior Lecturer in Journalism and Media, University of NorthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/867982017-11-02T15:32:50Z2017-11-02T15:32:50ZScrap Thought for the Day – for the sake of all that is holy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193036/original/file-20171102-26448-1scbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Videologia via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Today programme’s Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4 is a deep-rooted broadcasting tradition. But criticising Thought for the Day for unjustly privileging religious voices is also a venerable tradition of its own. The most recent appearance of the latter emerged from inside the Today programme itself, with presenter <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/radio/2017-10-30/today-radio-4-thought-for-the-day/">John Humphrys complaining</a> that Thought for the Day is: “Deeply, deeply boring” – adding that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is inappropriate that Today should broadcast nearly three minutes of uninterrupted religion, given that rather more than half our population have no religion at all.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Both of these traditions – Thought for the Day and its criticism by secular thinkers – need to be challenged. As an academic who writes about religion I am frustrated by both Thought for the Day’s obvious shortcomings, but also the ways in which periodic debate about its value slips into tired and predictable arguments about religion’s place in society.</p>
<h2>We’ve been here before</h2>
<p>Attacks on Thought for the Day are a recurring event. In 2002, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2193321.stm">a joint letter</a> from various secularist organisations complained that the BBC is “discriminating against the non-religious” by not allowing non-belief to be represented in its content. And in 2013, renewed debate was caused when the atheist Andy Pakula was controversially invited onto the programme <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/radio-4-today-programme-and-now-it-s-time-for-thought-for-the-day-there-is-no-such-thing-as-god-9026037.html">only to be blocked from contributing by BBC management</a>.</p>
<p>The conspicuously strange nature of Thought for the Day only helps to make it an appealing target. Set in the midst of three hours of famously fierce (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/mar/31/bbc-radio-4-today-female-presenters">albeit not unproblematic</a>) debate, this three-minute interruption consisting of slow, tranquil and – crucially – unchallenged musing sticks out like a sore thumb. Contributors set their tone of voice firmly to “profound” and patient listeners are then confronted with a mixture of gentle reflection on current events and resolutely unobjectionable reference to religious tradition. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"925313080321626112"}"></div></p>
<p>Humphrys’ characterisation of the slot as: “Jesus was really nice, and the world could be a better place if we all … You know …” is perhaps mean-spirited, but essentially accurate.</p>
<h2>Ringfencing religion</h2>
<p>Of course not everyone appreciated Humphrys’ assessment. Regular Thought for the Day contributor and Guardian columnist Reverend Dr Giles Fraser <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/31/thought-for-the-day-faith-bbc-religion-radio-4-today">complained that</a> “I don’t see the problem with having a slot ringfenced for a particular subject such as religion” and saw this attack as evidence of the BBC’s secularising bias.</p>
<p>But Fraser was playing into a recurring religion vs secularism debate and ignored Humphrys’ conflation of two distinct things: first, that Thought for the Day is boring and, second, that growing self-identification as “non-religious” in Britain means that “it is inappropriate that Today should broadcast nearly three minutes of uninterrupted religion.” Only one of these is true.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"925416892067696641"}"></div></p>
<p>Thought for the Day is boring, particularly when positioned in such glaring contrast to the rest of the Today programme. But the idea that religion no longer deserves to be addressed in mainstream media is much more problematic.</p>
<h2>Religion’s continuing relevance</h2>
<p>Viewed globally, the “secularisation thesis” that once dominated the sociology of religion is <a href="https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/4691/the-desecularization-of-the-world.aspx">now largely considered dead</a>. The world is not becoming less religious and, for better or worse, major developments continue to be driven by the views and actions of faith communities. Even in Britain, there is ample evidence that a reduction in the number of people formally adhering to religious tradition <a href="http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405135964.html">has not remotely led to a decline</a> in its importance as a key dynamic shaping discourse in the public sphere. </p>
<p>If anything, the reverse may be the case, with there being <a href="http://www.religionandsociety.org.uk/uploads/docs/2011_03/1301305944_Knott_Phase_1_Large_Grant_Block.pdf">more media discussion of religion than in the past</a>. Religion, put simply, is important and needs to be addressed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193039/original/file-20171102-26483-6gvvee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193039/original/file-20171102-26483-6gvvee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193039/original/file-20171102-26483-6gvvee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193039/original/file-20171102-26483-6gvvee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193039/original/file-20171102-26483-6gvvee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193039/original/file-20171102-26483-6gvvee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193039/original/file-20171102-26483-6gvvee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Why is religious broadcasting so boring? Religion isn’t.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NikomMaelao Production</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is this that makes Thought for the Day so exasperating. It should be abolished, not because it panders to faith communities, but because it treats a vitally important subject area in a manner that is artificially safe, condescending and dull. It places religion into a strangely uncritical bubble right in the middle of a high-profile news programme – and locks a subject area that I know to be immensely influential, controversial, and challenging into a beige padded cell.</p>
<p>Considered as a whole, its sheer oddness is such that it actually ends up looking like a short-term asset to some secularists. The highly visible unfairness of its selection policy regarding contributors may be an annoyance, but its ongoing existence offers an easy and habitually appealing target.</p>
<h2>Religion lite</h2>
<p>Academic scholars of religion of all hues should be at the forefront of those calling for the abolition of Thought of the Day. From my own perspective – as someone both fascinated by religion and concerned to communicate this fascination to others – listening to Thought for the Day is genuinely painful. It is the spectacle of seeing a Marmite-like, love-it-or-hate-it dimension of humanity first transformed into something resolutely bland and then solemnly paraded out as the midway course during a frenetic multi-course banquet.</p>
<p>But opposition should also come from a range of other directions. This includes faith communities who don’t want to see their traditions reduced to segregated, woolly curiosities and secularists who want to confront religious worldviews in a manner that moves beyond pyrrhic victories in which their opponents are reduced to watered-down imitations of themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86798/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Tollerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three minutes of bland and uncontroversial radio which doesn’t reflect the passion and complexity of religion.David Tollerton, Lecturer in Jewish Studies and Contemporary Biblical Cultures, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/863322017-10-25T13:38:57Z2017-10-25T13:38:57ZThe BBC’s Today programme is 60 years old – and the listening figures show it’s still fighting fit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191835/original/file-20171025-25497-lxaei9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Theresa May accepted the role of British prime minister in July 2016, she faced innumerable immediate challenges and tasks. One of them was to write four letters, one to each of the commanders of Britain’s nuclear submarines. Those letters contain her handwritten instructions on what to do should the UK be hit by a surprise nuclear attack that kills both her and a designated colleague who would become the decision maker in her absence. </p>
<p>They’re known as the “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36824917/trident-what-are-the-letters-of-last-resort">letters of last resort</a>” and detail a series of checks that the submarine commander must make to establish exactly what has happened. Understandably, the precise nature of these checks is secret, but one of them is believed to require establishing whether Radio 4’s Today programme is still being broadcast. </p>
<p>Could a radio show be any more representative of “the establishment” than that? As its former star presenter, the late Brian Redhead, remarked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you want to drop a word in the ear of the nation, then this is the programme in which to do it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet Today’s beginnings were much humbler. It may now be the nation’s most influential news and current affairs programme, but in 1957 it sounded rather different. The original proposal for the programme described it as a “morning miscellany” and as a result the variety of content was much wider than is heard now. Recipes and keep fit exercises were still a part of the show until the 1970s.</p>
<p>From the infamous gaffes of the late Jack de Manio, through the dulcet tones of James Naughtie (who also had his <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8183456/James-Naughtie-veteran-Radio-4-Today-presenter-in-Jeremy-Hunt-on-air-gaffe.html">slips of the tongue</a>), the furore and subsequent departure of Andrew Gilligan, and the welcome chortle of Sarah Montague, Today has been regarded as the breakfast companion of the political and business class for six decades. In reality, its listenership is far wider.</p>
<p>As the show marks its 60th birthday (50 years on Radio 4 and ten before that on the Home Service) it’s worth noting that it recorded the highest listening figures in its history this year. Over 7m people regularly tune in for their daily dose of Humphrys, Hussain and high-brow haranguing. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xnkZoAiucKQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption"></movie
That figure is all the more impressive in an age of desiccated media consumption where, for many, habitual tuning in has been replaced by the more passive consumption of streaming, swiping, search engines and social media. The director of BBC Radio and Music, Bob Shennan, has commented:
In an era of fake news, echo chambers and significant shifts in global politics, the role of Radio 4’s Today as the trusted guide to the world around us is more important than ever. As Today celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, Radio 4 listeners continue to wake up to world class journalism which scrutinises the headlines, holds those in power to account and enlightens them with stories that shape our society.
All radio bosses would speak this bullishly from atop record figures, but can a programme so linear, so rigid and so traditional continue to survive and thrive in a more competitive digital age?
Against a backdrop of BBC charter renewal and an increasingly tribal and centrifugal political environment, recent months have seen the programme subjected to as much scrutiny as at any point in its illustrious history. And rightly so.
Just recently, the BBC’s executive complaints unit issued an apology for Today allowing climate change denials from the former chancellor, Lord Lawson, to go unchallenged during a programme in August 2017. July saw controversy and complaints concerning Humphrys’ questioning of tennis player Johanna Konta’s nationality. And Roger Mosey, the former BBC editorial director (and now Master of Selwyn College at the University of Cambridge) questioned whether the programme has “gone soft”.
He went on:
All of this matters because Today matters. What the nation needs now is a predominantly serious and analytical programme that illuminates Britain and the wider world, and we should expect the BBC to deliver it.
Thought for tomorrow
Former newspaper boss Sarah Sands was appointed as the programme’s latest editor back in January and faced suggestions that she’d like to see Today become more of a traditional magazine show with a move away from the hard news programme that sets the Westminster agenda.
Today currently accounts for nearly 900 of the 2,500 hours of news and current affairs that Radio 4 is obliged to provide each year. As such, its news content isn’t going anywhere, though its definition of news probably is. In the wake of research that has called the BBC’s impartiality into question, it probably has to.
After 60 years it seems more than likely that Today will have many more tomorrows. In turn, it is brilliant, blighted, benign and belligerent – but always a bastion of British broadcasting.
Happy Birthday.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86332/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Collins holds a freelance contract with the BBC</span></em></p>The British Breakfast Companion.John Collins, Senior Lecturer in Broadcast Journalism, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/847412017-09-28T12:50:04Z2017-09-28T12:50:04ZWhy BBC Radio 1 is forever young at 50 years old<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187822/original/file-20170927-24173-1ei4746.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Whose turn it it?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>BBC Radio 1 is celebrating its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/29/radio-1-at-50-golden-oldies-to-return-for-celebration">50th birthday</a> – and the party is set to last all weekend, with fans treated to 50 themed “golden hours” of archive material. </p>
<p>The special broadcast promises to be a nostalgic treat for those who grew up with the station. But you won’t hear it on Radio 1. The BBC is shunting the 50 hours of birthday coverage off to a special pop-up digital station, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40428295">Radio 1 Vintage</a>. </p>
<p>The thinking, presumably, is that a 50th birthday party is the last place Radio 1’s target audience would choose to spend their weekend. If forced to attend such an event, they would be found standing in the corner, nursing a Red Bull, checking their phones for something more interesting and relevant. </p>
<p>Admittedly, I’m guessing that Red Bull is the drink of choice for today’s 15-29 year olds. But if I wanted to know for sure, I’d ask someone who works at Radio 1. </p>
<p>Having been lucky enough to work there from 1998 to 2002, I believe that no station knows its audience better. Radio 1 is relentlessly, ruthlessly focused on people aged 15 to 29. Back then, if you fell outside its target demographic, as much of its audience did, Radio 1 genuinely had no interest in your listening needs. </p>
<p>Returning to the station now as a listener, it is clear that focus remains. It has to. Without it, Radio 1 has little chance of surviving. For much of its life, the sharks have been circling. Commercial rivals and free market zealots argue that £50m of licence fee payers’ money could be saved every year, with little discernible impact on its listeners, if Radio 1 was sold off. </p>
<p>Strangely, the calls for privatisation have become louder during the past 20 years as Radio 1 has evolved into a service the private sector would be unable – and probably unwilling – to replicate. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ax63UnOflRI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Its supporters would certainly struggle to make that case for the first half of its existence. Bold, brash and very big, Radio 1 was credited with increasing record sales by 10% in the year after its launch on September 30 1967. </p>
<p>By the 1970s, it was the most listened-to radio station in the world, with audiences of more than 10m for some shows. The DJs, known as “the turns”, became huge celebrities – as famous as the pop stars whose music they played. They were given weekly television exposure as presenters of Top Of The Pops on BBC1 (peak audience 19m in 1979) and their antics on tour with the Radio 1 Roadshow filled tabloid gossip columns. </p>
<p>The Roadshow became an institution and was emblematic of the station’s 70s and 80s peak. The invention of producer (and later controller) Jonny Beerling, it was an annual tour of mostly seaside locations around the UK, at which DJs played music and subjected audience members to humiliating “contests”, broadcast live to the nation on summer weekdays. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.waterstones.com/author/john-peel/1309562">his memoirs, John Peel</a> described a 1978 road show in Leicestershire when frogmen rescued hysterical Bay City Rollers fans from a lake, while Tony Blackburn waved to adoring crowds from a speedboat piloted by a Womble. “Look on this and marvel,” Peel remarked to his colleague Johnnie Walker. “You will never see anything like this again.”</p>
<p>In 2000 the Roadshow was replaced by weekend music festivals for the young people Radio 1 had decided it was there to serve. </p>
<h2>Radio revolution</h2>
<p>The station’s transformation into today’s incarnation as the BBC’s youth brand began with the appointment of former newsreader Matthew Bannister as controller in 1993. He took over a station that had become a laughing stock, with dinosaur DJs lampooned by comedians, playing music loved by the parents of the people it was trying to attract. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IaQCr4PIsHE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The likes of Simon Bates, Dave Lee Travis and Steve Wright were shown the door in a <a href="http://www.simongarfield.com/pages/books/the_nations_favourite.htm">bloody revolution</a>. Listening figures initially nosedived, but the signing of Chris Evans as Breakfast Show host in April 1995 won over the tabloids. When Status Quo announced in 1997 that they were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/07/radio-1-robbie-williams-snub">suing Radio 1</a> for refusing to play their records, Bannister knew the battle to re-position the station had been won. </p>
<p>The change under his successors, Andy Parfitt and Ben Cooper, has been more evolutionary. But its effect has been to make the case against privatisation unanswerable. Radio 1 has become the gateway through which the BBC reaches tomorrow’s licence-fee payers. Unlike just about every other content provider encountered by these young consumers, Radio 1 is not trying to sell them anything.</p>
<p>It has constantly led the BBC in the way it reaches audiences. Alongside the station’s 9.5m listeners, its <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/bbcradio1">YouTube channel</a> has nearly 4m subscribers. Its reporters are now video journalists, making documentaries to accompany their radio reports. </p>
<h2>The nation’s noticeboard</h2>
<p>None of Radio 1’s commercial rivals can match the ambition and depth of its news coverage. In the 50th anniversary week, there have been special Newsbeat reports on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/40888659/the-suicide-note-that-told-megans-diabulimia-story">the eating disorder diabulimia</a>, and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41348207/were-not-lazy-were-innovative---generation-z-hits-back-in-live-debate">inter-generational attitudes</a>. </p>
<p>Nor does any other radio station do as much to discover new music. Controller Ben Cooper <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/03/ben-cooper-radio-1-up-against-minecraft-young-audiences">claims the total</a> of 4,000 different tracks played every month is ten times that of most commercial stations. </p>
<p>When I worked at Radio 1’s Newsbeat, we were particularly pleased by one comment emerging from the endless audience focus groups. “They’re like mates” someone said of the Newsbeat team, “but mates who know a lot.” </p>
<p>The same can be said of today’s Radio 1 team. Broadcasters including Annie Mac, Greg James and Chris Smith combine the intimacy that only radio can achieve, with a passion to share new music and information with their listeners. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187804/original/file-20170927-24173-1w2qzbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187804/original/file-20170927-24173-1w2qzbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187804/original/file-20170927-24173-1w2qzbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187804/original/file-20170927-24173-1w2qzbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187804/original/file-20170927-24173-1w2qzbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187804/original/file-20170927-24173-1w2qzbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187804/original/file-20170927-24173-1w2qzbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Station staff photo, 2001, with author in the back row.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Radio 1’s first female DJ Annie Nightingale <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/radio-presenters/radio-1-turns-50-annie-nightingale-pirates-sexism-sound-underground/">describes the station</a> as the “national noticeboard” for young people. In troubled times it enables them to express and share their feelings in a way that an algorithm never could. </p>
<p>This is perhaps the key to remaining relevant in the age of Snapchat and Spotify. And it is why those of us enjoying a nostalgic blast of Radio 1 Vintage this weekend should be thankful the station’s future depends not on its considerable legacy – but with the current generation of “mates who know a lot”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84741/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Fletcher was employed by the BBC between 1994 and 2014 and now does occasional work for the BBC on a freelance basis. He worked at BBC Radio One from 1998 to 2002.</span></em></p>But how does it stay relevant in the world of Spotify and iTunes?Andrew Fletcher, Lecturer in Broadcast Journalism, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/789492017-06-06T15:14:01Z2017-06-06T15:14:01ZBroadcast impartiality rule has helped Labour to achieve biggest poll shift since 1945<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172454/original/file-20170606-3668-1czyi2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">may corbyn</span> </figcaption></figure><p>At the beginning of the UK general election campaign it looked as if it might be the most lop-sided contest since 1945. Polls showed the Labour party lagging behind the Conservatives by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354">between 16 and 22 points</a>, a level of Tory supremacy that – even according to those pollsters that showed the narrowest margin – surpassed their landslide victory in 1983, when the Conservatives won by 15 points (42.4% of the popular vote to Labour’s 27.6%).</p>
<p>After the second week of the campaign all the polling companies – ComRes, ICM, Kantar, Opinium, ORB, Survation and Yougov – reported numbers that added up to what the renowned psephologist David Butler has called the <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/06/01/the-polls-are-all-over-the-place-but-expect-a-tory-win">biggest poll shift</a> in any election campaign since 1945. The Conservative lead was cut dramatically to between 5 and 14 points. This has since <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354">narrowed further</a> to a lead of between one and 12 points.</p>
<p>While this range could still give the Conservatives a comfortable majority, it opened up a possibility that was unthinkable at the beginning of the campaign – the idea that the government could lose its overall majority.</p>
<p>We have also seen a dramatic shift in the perception of the party leaders. Before the campaign, polls showed strong approval ratings for Theresa May’s party leadership and very negative ratings for Jeremy Corbyn. By May 25-26 <a href="http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/f3ruqo8k0q/SundayTimesResults_170602_VI_W.pdf">YouGov reported</a> a narrowing of the gap between them, but May still had a positive rating of +9 while Corbyn’s was -28 (a 37 point gap in favour of May). But <a href="http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/f3ruqo8k0q/SundayTimesResults_170602_VI_W.pdf">by June 1-2</a>, Corbyn’s rating had actually moved slightly ahead of May’s (Corbyn -2 to May’s -5).</p>
<p>Anyone familiar with research about the complex relationship between media coverage and public opinion will know that significant changes in public perceptions generally take place over a much longer period. So whatever the result on Friday morning, how do we explain this remarkably rapid shift?</p>
<h2>Shifting focus</h2>
<p>Part of the explanation is that Corbyn’s team have run a better campaign than May’s. But it is underpinned by broadcast news coverage that is bound by a public service ethos. As Loughborough’s research shows, press coverage in this campaign has been <a href="https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/media-coverage-2017-general-election-campaign-report-2/">overwhelmingly anti-Labour</a> and broadcasters have by no means given Labour an easy ride. But their <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality">statutory obligation to impartiality</a> means that they have done what news providers are supposed to do in a democracy, and given both sides roughly equal time to make their case.</p>
<p>The teams monitoring the campaign at both Cardiff and Loughborough found Labour receiving roughly equal coverage from week two – the week that precipitated Labour’s biggest poll surge. While some of this was negative – based on judgements about the leaking of Labour’s manifesto, for example – <a href="http://elections.newstatesman.com/author/stephen-cushion/">it also became more policy oriented</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172458/original/file-20170606-3662-dionr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172458/original/file-20170606-3662-dionr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172458/original/file-20170606-3662-dionr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172458/original/file-20170606-3662-dionr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172458/original/file-20170606-3662-dionr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172458/original/file-20170606-3662-dionr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172458/original/file-20170606-3662-dionr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172458/original/file-20170606-3662-dionr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How the debate has shifted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">JOMEC, Cardiff University</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This has given a number of policies in Labour’s manifesto – policies polls suggest are popular with a majority of the electorate – significant airtime. This was arguably the first time since Corbyn became leader that Labour had received as much coverage as the Conservatives on policy issues – in a way that allowed both sides to set out their stalls.</p>
<p>And there’s the rub – whatever the merits of the two campaigns, what was striking was the contrast with a year’s worth of negative coverage of Corbyn and relatively positive coverage of May. In this context, Labour has outperformed expectations, while the Conservative leader struggled to live up to a campaign premised on her much-heralded leadership qualities.</p>
<h2>History of bias</h2>
<p>This does raise questions about the impartiality of media coverage over the preceding year. Veteran broadcaster David Dimbleby is the <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-05-30/david-dimbleby-jeremy-corbyn-has-not-had-a-fair-deal-at-the-hands-of-the-press">latest to criticise media coverage of Labour</a> under Jeremy Corbyn – both for its right-wing bias and its “lazy pessimism” about Corbyn’s viability as a potential prime minister.</p>
<p>Press bias against Corbyn has been both <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx">predictable and overt</a>. But the BBC has also been criticised for lapses in impartiality. In January, for example, the BBC Trust <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour">reprimanded the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg</a> for editing an interview with Corbyn on the six o’clock news in ways that gave a false and negative impression of Labour’s leader.</p>
<p>This is not a matter of wilful bias by the broadcasters, who are genuinely committed to impartiality – but it does show how news judgements are not politically neutral. For the past two years, politics has been dominated by the ability of the two main party leaders to control their parties. By this measure, May clearly beats Corbyn. While this is an important and legitimate issue, its primacy in political reporting meant that insufficient attention has been paid – until now – to the very real policy choices that impact peoples’ lives.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"870230778843729920"}"></div></p>
<p>It has also meant that the Conservative party’s economic record has received remarkably little serious scrutiny. In a series of articles, Oxford University economist Simon Wren-Lewis <a href="https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/">describes how</a> Conservative claims about their “strong and stable” management of the economy have been replicated rather than questioned. This is in spite of a wealth of data suggesting that the government’s austerity policy has, by many measures, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion">hindered economic growth</a>. It has produced the <a href="https://ig.ft.com/sites/numbers/economies/uk">slowest economic recovery on record</a> – a worse record on GDP per capita growth than any previous Labour government and a stagnation on earnings that puts the UK <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-wages-drop-10-tuc-greece-recession-financial-crisis-brexit-a7157681.html">behind every wealthy country</a> other than Greece.</p>
<p>At the beginning of the campaign, both the Cardiff and Loughborough studies showed the <a href="https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/ge2017-the-media-campaign-report-1/">Conservative party dominated coverage</a>, with a focus on “leadership” rather than policy. This suited a Conservative party campaign based on promoting May’s leadership qualities and denigrating Corbyn’s. The polls only began to move when broadcasters became more balanced and policy-focused.</p>
<p>This exposure may have changed some public perceptions, but the residual impact of a year’s worth of coverage – that gave us “strong and stable” versus “coalition of chaos” – is likely to remain. While this narrative looks decidedly less secure than it did, it will probably be enough to secure the Conservative party victory.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78949/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Lewis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As soon as broadcasters began to focus on policy the gap between the two parties began to close.Justin Lewis, Professor of Communication, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/784132017-06-05T13:58:45Z2017-06-05T13:58:45ZBroadcasting rules are killing political satire – thank heavens for the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172254/original/file-20170605-31050-1p8uvz3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jonathan Pie/YouTube</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Political journalists, especially during elections, should provide balanced news coverage of parties and scrutinise each parties’ political agendas to help properly inform the public. Sadly this is an ideal that is all-too-rarely realised. The 2015 election was <a href="http://www.electionanalysis.uk/uk-election-analysis-2015/section-1-media-reporting/the-horse-race-contest-dominated-tv-news-election-coverage/">reported as a horse race</a>, the EU referendum <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-analysis-shows-extent-of-press-bias-towards-brexit-61106">starved voters of the facts</a> about Brexit and coverage of this year’s election campaign has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2017/jun/04/theresa-may-u-turn-rightwing-press-change-tack-roy-greenslade?CMP=share_btn_fb">more about demonising Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn</a> than in taking a close look at the rival parties’ policy platforms. </p>
<p>And, as ever, major parties are making it as hard as possible for the public to make an informed choice by adopting tightly controlled campaign strategies where they refrain from answering direct questions from journalists and engaging with voters. </p>
<p>These trends are problematic, because they can unfairly influence our understanding of political parties and their policies. Nevertheless, they are key ingredients for an atmosphere that is ripe for political satire. Satire, after all, attempts to focus on the unanswered questions and clarify the underlying morality of the political landscape. It’s a practice that American TV satire has capitalised on over the past 17 years thanks to the rise of professionalised politics and a highly partisan media. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, for example, left a legacy of engaging political critique now adopted by shows such as Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Sam Bee’s Full Frontal. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZL7iRIn2pKI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Satire is no replacement for hard political news programming, but the US model of late night TV comedy has demonstrated a sophisticated level of analysis often missed by mainstream news. Take Stephen Colbert’s <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/2012/01/super-pacs-heat-up-2012-elections/">Super-Pac campaign</a> that exposed the legal loopholes of America’s campaign finance system and was later picked up by the New York Times.</p>
<p>Or <a href="http://thecomicscomic.com/2017/04/06/samantha-bee-reminds-us-she-was-on-the-case-of-russian-hacking-and-fake-news-trolling-before-the-election/">Sam Bee’s investigative piece</a> on the Russian “thinkfluencers” paid by the Kremlin to post pro-Trump messages on US media websites. In October 2016, this story went unmentioned by Western journalists, yet it eventually became part of a wider investigation into Russia’s interference in the US election.</p>
<h2>Establishment satire</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, long-form critical and investigative satire is largely absent from television in the UK. Instead the genre sticks with the trusted TV panel show format found in Have I Got News for You and Mock the Week. These shows have become a staple of UK television satire – but they lack the critical and investigative flair of their American counterparts.</p>
<p>There are many reasons why the UK is unable to replicate the US model. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRz9RPlsDQ">Frankie Boyle argues</a> that Britain is crying out for its own Daily Show equivalent but TV executives are afraid to take risks. They want satire with “an establishment voice” rather than a format that thinks for itself and challenges the British media and political system . </p>
<p>The UK TV satire model also faces other obstacles, such as the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/parliamentary-broadcasting/annex2">1989 broadcast rule</a> which prevents footage from the House of Commons being used in “in any light entertainment programme or in a programme of political satire” . This issue <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/parliament-satire-ban-house-of-commons-charlie-brooker-tories-a6909391.html">was raised</a> by the writer and presenter of Newswipe, Charlie Brooker who was prevented from airing footage of the phone hacking select committee on Newswipe – while US satire shows could. </p>
<h2>Fair and balanced</h2>
<p>There is also the issue of <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy">due impartiality</a> – a broadcast rule to ensure news is reported fairly and in an appropriately balanced manner. Satire may not be considered “news” in a traditional sense – but the rules of due impartiality still hold, as programme content often deals with “matters of political or industrial controversy” or “matters relating to current public policy”. </p>
<p>This puts UK broadcast satire in a precarious position where it has to ensure balance in satirical skewering. The comedy writer Pete Sinclair, who has worked on shows like Have I Got News for You, Power Monkeys, and Spitting Image, told me that during election time comedy and satire writers are “obliged to be impartial”. He recalls working on the Radio 4 satirical sketch show, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/entries/8fb0a92d-349d-365f-a02e-b5d2edffe291">Week Ending</a>, during the 1983 election and how producers “had to make sure that the overall number of jokes about each party was suitably balanced in each show”. </p>
<p>Despite a wealth of material available to satirists in this current election cycle, the restrictions of due impartiality may act as a form of censorship where writers and programme producers exclude comedic critiques to adhere to the rules of balance. This is perhaps why UK television satire has been unable to replicate the success of The Daily Show, as US satirists and comedians are not restricted by the same broadcasting rules. </p>
<h2>What’s the alternative?</h2>
<p>There are of course other platforms of comedy/satirical critique that are unrestricted by rules of due impartiality. Take the beacon of rebel journalism, Private Eye, and its commitment to investigative journalism that has uncovered many cases of political corruption and newspaper hypocrisy. </p>
<p>The internet is also the perfect environment for satire to flourish, given its lack of restrictions and a ready-made audience of young people who use social media as their main source of news. Two sources that young people are gravitating towards are Jonathan Pie and Russell Brand’s The Trews.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZCWpoPg2n7U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Both offer very different forms of satire and comedic social commentary but simultaneously tap into a wider argument about the apathy that young people in particular feel towards mainstream journalism and politics. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4qJpO-qILQ4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Whether their motivation is online shareability or Facebook “likes” they both provide a platform that helps unpack the highly constructed nature of contemporary journalism and politics. Both also address the declining participation of young people in politics by directly encouraging their audiences to register and vote in the election. </p>
<p>Pie and Brand may not have the cultural capital or sophistication of figures like Stewart or Oliver. Nevertheless, the internet offers them the freedom to tackle subjects that are often missing or toned down in broadcast satire.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78413/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allaina Kilby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UK needs more US-style political news satire. Sadly broadcast rules are making that difficult.Allaina Kilby, Lecture and Research at UNNC: School of International Communication, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/603882016-06-03T09:48:34Z2016-06-03T09:48:34ZWhat a Brexit would mean for Europe’s television channels<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124978/original/image-20160602-23293-16gnzi5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Time to change the channel?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">marcociannarel/www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK is an attractive base for broadcasting channels targeting other European countries. The domestic market is large, creative skills sets are high, and there is good availability of post-production facilities and satellite uplinks for broadcasters. </p>
<p>Yet, without Europe’s single market, these channels would not be able to operate across Europe. The European Union’s television regulation has consolidated the UK as a major hub for television services. A UK exit from the EU could pose problems for cross-border broadcasters who are based in Britain. </p>
<p>European television regulation began back in the 1980s when signals began to cross borders. Back in 1989, the European Community agreed on the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al24101">Television Without Frontiers</a> (TWF) Directive under its single market programme. This EU law was strongly supported by the UK under the Thatcher government. It enabled channels to broadcast to other European countries without being subject to local licensing rules. For example, Disney broadcasts to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria with licenses from the UK regulator, OFCOM.</p>
<h2>The UK as a springboard</h2>
<p>Many companies relocated or set up headquarters in the UK because the directive enabled them to take advantage of a British base and, at the same time, broadcast abroad. Sky relocated to the UK from Luxembourg in 1990. In 2003, the company launched Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland in 2009. Today, Sky broadcasts to the UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy and Austria with over 20m customers across Europe and employs 25,000 people in the UK and Ireland. It feeds the downstream sector in content production and hardware supply: the company <a href="http://www.pace.com/global/">Pace</a>, which operates out of Salts Mill in Bradford, provides set-top boxes for Sky across Europe.</p>
<p>Sky’s move was followed by the establishment of other companies in the UK in the 1990s including a number of large operators with multi-channel packages such as AMC networks, Disney, Discovery, Turner, Viacom and Viasat. The <a href="https://mtg.com/">Modern Times Group</a> (MTG) currently broadcasts 60 channels in 36 countries from the UK. It is the largest commercial operator broadcasting in Scandinavia and the Baltics, and has broadcasting operations in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia and the Ukraine. </p>
<p>Former domestic providers such as the BBC and ITV now broadcast and provide programming across Europe. Today, the <a href="http://www.obs.coe.int/documents/205595/264625/OBS+-+REFIT+-+Note+A.1+Linear+audiovisual+services.pdf/c7939762-1cee-48b4-ae7a-91685147e9a9">UK is a base</a> for 1,523 out of 5,141 television channels operating in the EU, 65% of which target other EU countries. Many companies operate channels in different languages simultaneously such as AXN Europe (Sony), Disney, Discovery, National Geographic, Turner (Boomerang, Cartoon Network, TCN, TNT) and Viasat (Modern Times Group). Recent increases in the number of pan-European channels can be seen in entertainment, culture, child, sport and high definition services. </p>
<p>In 2010, Europe’s television directive was updated with the<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32010L0013"> Audiovisual Media Services Directive</a> to include other services, such as video-on-demand and catch-up services over digital terrestrial television, cable, satellite, internet protocol television channels or online. By 2014, <a href="http://www.europacreativamedia.cat/rcs_auth/convocatories/FINALREPORT-ThedevelopmentoftheEuropeanmarketforon-demandaudiovisualservices-PUBLICVERSION-March2015.pdf">515 of the 2,563 such services</a> on offer in Europe were operating out of the UK representing a 20% share of the market.</p>
<h2>Controls on advertising</h2>
<p>European broadcast rules mainly focus on advertising. Films, news and children’s programmes are limited to advertising breaks every 30 minutes and no advertising is permitted during religious services. Advertising is limited to 20% of programming time per clock hour and to not more than 12 minutes. European rules also permit teleshopping and product placement in films which <a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/news/new-rules-to-govern-tv-product-placement/">used to be banned</a> in the UK. </p>
<p>The UK also applies British rules to programming on top of EU regulation. For example, in the UK, there are strict rules on watersheds for children – <a href="http://ask.ofcom.org.uk/help/television/watershed">meaning</a> violent content can’t be shown before 9pm and alcohol advertising <a href="https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Hot-Topics/Alcohol.aspx?gclid=CLrz0ND2ic0CFUa4GwodAI0GXg#.VLd8lyusVKI">cannot be shown</a> to audiences under the age of 18.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124980/original/image-20160602-23276-agduq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124980/original/image-20160602-23276-agduq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124980/original/image-20160602-23276-agduq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124980/original/image-20160602-23276-agduq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124980/original/image-20160602-23276-agduq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124980/original/image-20160602-23276-agduq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124980/original/image-20160602-23276-agduq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don’t tempt the kids.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">urbanbuzz / Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The UK also bans product placement of tobacco, alcohol, gambling, escort services or weapons. Foods high in fat, salt and sugar and medicines and baby milk are <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/e-cigarettes/e-cigarettes-May16.pdf">also not permitted</a> in product placement. For example, an advert for McDonald’s would not be shown on a UK-based channel showing children’s cartoons.</p>
<h2>Change on the horizon</h2>
<p>The television directive is expected to be revised within the next two years. If the UK does vote to leave the EU, negotiations are likely to take two years, so the revision of the directive might possibly be decided during the UK presidency of the Council of the EU in 2017.</p>
<p>But the revisions might not be favourable to UK interests. For example, some European states want to introduce exemptions for channels broadcasting “hate speech”. This could be interpreted differently by member states particularly in central and eastern Europe which have historically had stricter interpretations than the UK. There could also be a change in location of regulation based upon editorial control which could affect operators such as MTG or AMC networks which take editorial decisions on programming in other European states. </p>
<p>Another exemption <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=11279">proposed</a> by the Nordic states could introduce local licensing for children’s programming. UK based channels aimed at children could lose their UK licenses as a result which could make the UK less attractive as a base for companies’ operation. Another <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=11266">suggested change</a> could introduce local licensing for children’s programming, making the UK less attractive as a base.</p>
<p>A UK vote to leave the EU might have negative effects on investment and capital flight with the departure of some broadcasters to other EU countries. At the same time, it could shift the forum for Europe-wide agreement on certain aspects of broadcasting policy, perhaps returning them to the Council of Europe, which used to be a key forum for agreement for common rules prior to 1989.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is co-published with the <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/">UK in a Changing Europe initiative</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60388/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alison Harcourt receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) project Reference: ES/N015460/1. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils. </span></em></p>Broadcasters who use the UK as a base for European channels could face upheaval.Alison Harcourt, Professor of politics, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/452672015-08-25T05:34:29Z2015-08-25T05:34:29ZWhy the BBC Trust must not be abolished<p>Most BBC supporters feared the general election result would be bad news for the broadcaster. But even the most seasoned pessimists (and there are plenty of us) did not foresee the speed or scale of a comprehensive assault which had no mandate and no democratic legitimacy.</p>
<p>Close on the heels of longtime BBC sceptic John Whittingdale’s appointment as culture secretary came George Osborne’s raid on BBC funding (described by former director-general John Birt in the House of Lords as “<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-07-14a.521.1&s=speaker%3A13502#g525.1">opportunistic, expedient and unprincipled</a>”), followed swiftly by appointment of an “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33496925">independent advisory group</a>” stuffed to the gills with commercial rivals. </p>
<p>This was all capped by a green paper whose <a href="https://theconversation.com/inside-the-bizarre-logic-of-the-bbc-review-44814">miserable, visionless, pedestrian and market-driven rhetoric</a> was every bit as bad as the pessimists had feared.</p>
<h2>Government vision: a smaller BBC…</h2>
<p>When Whittingdale’s select committee report was published, I <a href="https://theconversation.com/future-of-bbc-should-not-be-left-to-this-committee-of-mps-38072">wrote for this site</a> that: “the ultimate aim of this report appears to be a smaller, poorer, less publicly attuned BBC filling in the market gaps, rather than a thriving and dynamic institution which serves its audiences and operates in the public interest.” His green paper is written in precisely the same philosophical spirit.</p>
<p>It is worth extracting a couple of quotes to illustrate quite how one-directional and one-dimensional this document is, at one point the question is raised as to whether “the BBC [should] continue to deliver everything that it currently does, or traditionally has done, or whether audience needs are better served by a more narrowly-focused BBC”. </p>
<p>Perhaps, it suggests: “the BBC might become more focused on a narrower, core set of services … A smaller BBC could see the public pay less for their TV licence and would also be likely to have a reduced market impact.” </p>
<p>This impact on the market is a recurring theme: “concerns have been raised that the BBC behaves in an overly commercial way, encroaching on TV genres and formats that could be served well by its commercial competitor”.</p>
<p>The notion of a smaller BBC runs through the green paper like letters through a stick of Blackpool rock. It is hard to see this emphasis on reduction as anything other than a sop to the BBC’s increasingly vocal competitors who fear both subscription (which would potentially compromise the revenues of Sky, Virgin and BT) and advertising (equally opposed by ITV, Channel Five and other ad-funded channels).</p>
<h2>… and how to achieve it</h2>
<p>There are a number of ways in which this desiccated vision might be achieved (not least of which is the starvation of funds which has already started) but two in particular are floated by the green paper.</p>
<p>First there is “contestable funding” or <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/26/bbc-diana-coyle-licence-fee">top-slicing of the licence fee</a> for distribution to other broadcasters. A <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445704/BBC_Charter_Review_Consultation_WEB.pdf">whole page is devoted to it</a>, with the argument that “a small amount of contestable funding could introduce greater diversity of providers and greater plurality in public services provision”. </p>
<p>Of course, once the principle is established that licence fee revenues no longer “belong” to the BBC, the floodgates will open and the proportion diverted elsewhere will inexorably increase.</p>
<p>Second is a proposed strategy for imposing more stringent controls on the BBC’s freedom to manoeuvre. Under the terms of the current charter, each BBC service operates within a clearly defined set of guidelines established through service licences. Any new service or “significant change” to an existing service is subjected, quite properly, to a public value test (PVT – which includes an assessment of market impact), which was implemented as an entirely proportionate response to competitor concerns. </p>
<p>The green paper asks whether the PVT operation might miss some changes because they don’t meet the “threshold of significance” - in other words, should the test be triggered at a lower level of editorial decision-making? It also questions whether service licences “may not hold the BBC to a high enough standard or contain enough specific details about output”. The further restrictions which are implicit in these questions would strike at the heart of the BBC’s editorial discretion and its ability to provide a wide-ranging service of size and scale reaching out to the whole nation. </p>
<p>By indulging the BBC’s competitors so comprehensively, there is a real risk of constraining the BBC to the point where it would barely be able to function.</p>
<h2>Retaining the BBC Trust</h2>
<p>At the heart of any changes to how the BBC functions is its system of governance. It has become a conventional wisdom that the BBC Trust is not fit for purpose, a conclusion which is premature for an organisation which is less than ten years old.</p>
<p>Ironically, one of the best defences of the trust model comes from a passage in the green paper which rehearses the advantages of strengthening the existing system rather than replacing it: that all organisational change “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445704/BBC_Charter_Review_Consultation_WEB.pdf">takes time, costs money and introduces disruption, risk and uncertainty</a>”.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, the paper proposes two alternatives, both with major disadvantages for a healthy BBC: first, a new standalone regulator that would “not risk being distracted by wider responsibilities” (which means, essentially, defending the BBC’s independence). It would be a natural consequence to allow this new regulator to distribute BBC funding elsewhere. And second, to hand regulation to Ofcom – which would then be overseeing both private and public sectors, conferring enormous monopolistic power over a single regulatory body.</p>
<p>There is no mention of perhaps the most persuasive argument of all for retaining the trust, which relates to its original provenance and rationale: that it should be, in the words of the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, who established it in 2006: “the eyes and ears of the licence payer”, representing their interests in guaranteeing the BBC’s independence, efficiency, quality and integrity. </p>
<p>In its response to the green paper, the trust firmly established the case for universality as well as a legitimate entertainment role for the BBC, based on its own research among licence payers – thus demonstrating that it was willing and able to stand up for a strong and independent BBC. No wonder it is consistently pilloried by a press which has much to gain from a smaller BBC.</p>
<p>Those who seek a perfect solution for BBC governance will be forever disappointed; there is no counsel of perfection for an institution which is by definition intimately intertwined with both market and state. With a clearer demarcation of responsibilities between the Trust and executive, given time and support, it could develop into a perfectly adequate mechanism of governance which would preserve both regulatory plurality (keeping Ofcom at a distance from the BBC) and avoid the perils of yet more structural inventions and organisational instability. </p>
<p>My fear is that the mantra of “abolish the trust” is becoming a convenient pretext for a new governance structure which will willingly engineer the significantly smaller BBC that the culture secretary appears intent on achieving.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is based on a chapter which will appear in _The BBC Today: Future Uncertain</em> (eds John Mair, Richard Tait and Richard Lance Keeble), to be published by Abramis in September. _</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45267/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Calls for the BBC to be regulated by an external body are part of a plan to shackle the public broadcaster.Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.