tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/ofcom-6492/articlesOfcom – The Conversation2024-03-20T13:59:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2260692024-03-20T13:59:04Z2024-03-20T13:59:04ZOfcom has rules on broadcaster impartiality – so why is GB News getting away with breaking them?<p>The UK’s media regulator has found GB News guilty of breaching the UK’s “due impartiality” code in <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2024/politicians-acting-as-news-presenters-on-gb-news-broke-broadcasting-rules">five separate programmes</a>. This brings the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/18/gb-news-breached-impartiality-rules-says-ofcom-but-will-face-no-sanctions#:%7E:text=This%20is%20the%2012th%20time,Eight%20other%20investigations%20are%20ongoing.">total violations</a> for the news channel to 12 in the last 18 months, with eight investigations underway. </p>
<p>Despite repeated infringements, Ofcom has not <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/18/gb-news-breached-impartiality-rules-says-ofcom-but-will-face-no-sanctions">sanctioned the channel</a> or threatened to revoke its broadcast licence. </p>
<p>GB News immediately <a href="https://pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/gb-news-ofcom-politicians-presenters-jacob-rees-mogg/">rebuked</a> Ofcom’s judgment. They argued that the regulator was limiting “alternative voices” and represented a “chilling development” in the freedom of UK broadcasting. </p>
<p>Ofcom ruled that shows presented by Conservative MPs Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey and Phillip Davies broke its <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code">code</a> about politicians presenting “news” programming. While politicians can anchor current affairs programming, once they step into the role of newsreader, news interviewer or reporter Ofcom considers this a <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2023/ofcoms-rules-on-politicians-on-tv-and-radio">breach of impartiality</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1769673247824449926"}"></div></p>
<p>Needless to say, Ofcom’s rules do not mean that we never hear directly from politicians about their views. MPs and government ministers have long been free to write partisan columns in newspapers, angrily tweet their ideological opinions or blog polemically about their perspectives. </p>
<p>But until very recently, regulators would not have tolerated politicians routinely presenting political programmes on radio and television. This now appears to be changing, without any formal changes in legislation or public debate.</p>
<h2>Changing regulations</h2>
<p>Over the last decade, Ofcom has taken a more flexible approach when interpreting “due impartiality”. Broadcasters have been given the freedom to deliver more partisan perspectives, with presenters and guests voicing their opinions more vociferously. </p>
<p>They are still required to air “alternative viewpoints”, with presenters posing critical questions, challenging or rebutting perspectives. But the prominence and robustness of these counterbalancing views are often <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-uk-broadcastings-key-principle-of-impartiality-has-been-eroded-over-the-years-202762">limited</a>. </p>
<p>This was first evident on radio, with stations such as talkRadio and LBC <a href="https://theconversation.com/news-uk-tv-and-gb-news-new-channels-stoke-fears-of-more-partisan-journalism-154514">featuring</a> more partisan presenters, including senior politicians. Television channels, such as GB News and News UK, soon followed this approach, without the media regulator intervening. </p>
<p>But, over time, GB News has allowed politicians to not just host current affairs shows, but either present, report or break news programming. This pushed the boundaries of the UK’s impartiality code, prompting Ofcom’s latest judgment that found the channel had breached its code in five programmes involving politicians.</p>
<p>Ofcom has <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/99177/broadcast-code-guidance-section-5-march-2017.pdf">stressed</a> the importance of granting broadcasters freedom of expression and responding to new audience expectations. But how far this represents public opinion is open to question, since Ofcom has not consulted audiences on their expectations.</p>
<p>In July 2023, Ofcom’s chief executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, revealed that the regulator was <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2023/the-other-side">conducting research</a> to better understand audience attitudes about current affairs programmes presented by politicians. But the remit for any study, the methodology, or findings have not surfaced yet. </p>
<p><a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021/impartiality-unpacked-study-four-countries">Academic research</a>, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-why-enhancing-the-public-broadcasters-fact-checking-would-strengthen-its-impartiality-170891">my own</a> at Cardiff University, has long found that the public values and trusts impartial journalism. </p>
<p>Rather than politicians presenting shows, audiences want them held to account more effectively, with journalists robustly challenging misleading or false claims. In other words, the public’s agenda appears at odds with Ofcom’s current, light-touch approach to impartiality.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1273184914712780802"}"></div></p>
<p>Ofcom’s approach has effectively created what some view as a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/13/ofcom-gb-news-media-regulator">double standard</a>. Citing <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/99177/broadcast-code-guidance-section-5-march-2017.pdf">“audience expectations”</a>, Ofcom now appears to hold public service broadcasters, such as the BBC, with far greater <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/media/gb-news-gets-away-more-bbc-ofcom-boss-2938731">scrutiny</a> than new partisan channels. The media regulator’s oversight of BBC impartiality has now also been <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-boost-confidence-in-the-bbcs-impartiality-and-complaints-system-set-out-in-mid-term-review">extended</a> to its online news services. But no other news websites produced by broadcasters are being regulated.</p>
<h2>Why impartiality still matters</h2>
<p>Senior figures in the industry have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/11/uk-news-channels-should-not-have-to-be-impartial">claimed</a> that the current impartiality rules aren’t suitable for the digital world. After all, the public has instant access to a wide range of opinionated online and social media sites. There are hundreds of channels and plenty of other places where people can get their news and current affairs.</p>
<p>Despite this, most people in the UK <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/264651/news-consumption-2023.pdf">still rely on television news</a> to understand what is happening in the world. This power and influence has led to successive UK governments ruling that broadcasters should remain impartial on politics and public affairs. </p>
<p>The example of the US shows us what happens when these regulations do not exist. In the 1980s, US rules on impartial broadcasting were repealed, in part because they were seen as undermining freedom of expression at a time of media expansion and choice. Since then, partisan news channels have had an increasingly <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/35132">divisive influence</a> on its political and media environment.</p>
<p>If the UK’s code on broadcast impartiality is eroded further on the grounds of freedom of expression and new audience expectations, we need to debate the merits of these arguments. But this should be driven by hard evidence about how the public want the media regulated.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226069/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>Evidence shows the public still want impartiality from broadcasters.Stephen Cushion, Chair Professor, Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2076702023-06-19T13:44:08Z2023-06-19T13:44:08ZMoveit hack: attack on BBC and BA offers glimpse into the future of cybercrime<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531739/original/file-20230613-15-41oll0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C0%2C7238%2C4803&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>British Airways (BA), the BBC, Ofcom and Boots were among a number of organisations that were reportedly <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65814104">victims of a major recent cyber-attack</a>, resulting in the breach of numerous staff details.</p>
<p>The stolen data is said to include staff names, staff ID numbers and national insurance numbers (although, importantly, not banking details). But, other than for those personally affected, the real issue is what this attack reveals about the evolution of cybercrime. </p>
<p>More cybercriminals are realising that if they can compromise a trusted supplier, this will lead to the compromise of that organisation’s customers. The hackers can then steal the data and potentially hold both individuals and companies to ransom. </p>
<p>So far, this has proven a more difficult way to make a lot of money. But it’s arguably only a matter of time.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-158a">The recent attack</a> was against a piece of software called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVEit">Moveit</a>, which is used to transfer computer files from one location to another. It involved what’s called a “<a href="https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/business/enterprise-computers/resources/what-is-a-zero-day-exploit.html">zero-day exploit</a>”, a piece of computer code that takes advantage of a previously unknown vulnerability.</p>
<p>This allowed hackers to compromise Zellis, a trusted supplier of services to BA, the BBC, Boots and others. Zellis confirmed a <a href="https://www.zellis.com/resources/press-and-media/statement-on-moveit-transfer-data-breach/">“small number” of customers had been affected</a>, adding that it had disconnected the server using Moveit as soon as it became aware of the incident.</p>
<p>Since Zellis is the main payroll service provider to these organisations, it is easy to trace how this incident started. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Russia-linked “cl0p” group, which has since issued an ultimatum to the affected organisations – asking for money unless they want the stolen data to be released on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-dark-web-and-how-does-it-work-63613">dark web</a>. </p>
<h2>Future of cybercrime</h2>
<p>Unlike many previous types of attack, particularly those that have employed <a href="https://theconversation.com/inside-a-ransomware-attack-how-dark-webs-of-cybercriminals-collaborate-to-pull-them-off-163015">ransomware</a>, in this case the criminal group launched a mass attack and waited for individual organisations to fall prey, then sought to exploit each one in turn.</p>
<p>This suggests these cybercriminals have learned from previous <a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/supply-chain-security/supply-chain-attack-examples">supply-chain attacks</a>, and are experimenting with making the strategy commercially viable. In supply-chain attacks, cybercriminals target one organisation by attacking an external provider they use.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="BBC New Broadcasting House in London." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531741/original/file-20230613-25-zss8e5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531741/original/file-20230613-25-zss8e5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531741/original/file-20230613-25-zss8e5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531741/original/file-20230613-25-zss8e5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531741/original/file-20230613-25-zss8e5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531741/original/file-20230613-25-zss8e5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531741/original/file-20230613-25-zss8e5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The BBC was among the organisations successfully hacked.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-october-10-2022-broadcasting-2217633041">Nigel J. Harris / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Groups such as cl0p appear to have watched and learned, especially from the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/04/16/985439655/a-worst-nightmare-cyberattack-the-untold-story-of-the-solarwinds-hack">SolarWinds attack of late 2020</a>, where the system for “patching” – doing quick repairs of – a near-ubiquitous software tool was compromised. </p>
<p>This software was widely used across the US government and industry, leading to tens of thousands of SolarWinds clients falling victim, including the Department of Defense, Nasa, TimeWarner and AT&T. Attributed to Russia’s military intelligence agency the GRU, SolarWinds was seen as being mainly motivated by state espionage. </p>
<p>And in the case of Moveit, the cl0p group appears to have taken the logic of supply-chain attacks – which proved so effective against SolarWinds – and wielded it against corporate targets. </p>
<h2>Evolutionary step</h2>
<p>This was arguably always going to be an evolutionary step for cybercriminals. First, sophisticated state-sponsored hackers verify an innovative method of attacking computers, as in the case of SolarWinds. Later, criminal copycats such as cl0p apply the same strategy, avoiding the pain of inventing new methods.</p>
<p>The ultimatum issued by cl0p is also revealing about the behaviour and motivation of cybercriminals. It is a strange pivot from traditional ransomware campaigns, where the victims’ payment details were stolen. </p>
<p>In the case of Moveit, it is instructive that cl0p has <a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/cyber-crime-gang-clop-issues-ultimatum-to-100-000-victims-of-hacking-threatening/">issued a public ultimatum</a>, telling victim organisations to get in touch unless they want their data to be released into the wild – allowing its exploitation by scammers, fraudsters and other criminals. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="British Airways flight." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532199/original/file-20230615-17-5fawnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532199/original/file-20230615-17-5fawnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532199/original/file-20230615-17-5fawnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532199/original/file-20230615-17-5fawnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532199/original/file-20230615-17-5fawnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532199/original/file-20230615-17-5fawnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532199/original/file-20230615-17-5fawnu.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 organisations involved, including BA, were using Zellis for payroll services.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-august-17-2018-largest-1164809374">Jarek Kilian / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Effectively, cl0p is relying on a panic tactic to get organisations to take responsibility for the stolen data and protect their staff’s identities, by volunteering themselves to the criminals for negotiation – presumably on the topic of payment. </p>
<p>This reveals a clear lack of resource – outside the technical “attack teams” – on the part of cl0p to fully exploit its apparent success in compromising Moveit. </p>
<p>This is a potential flaw in the behaviour of such criminal groups. It shows that a move from ransomware-driven campaigns to supply-chain attacks is more difficult to monetise. </p>
<p>The final step in maximising the return from the attack, by making all the victims pay, is clearly harder than with simple ransomware, where the focus is on one target organisation and one route to the pay-out from the crime. </p>
<p>In short, cybercriminal groups have copied the supply-chain attack strategy and are now experimenting with it. But they are struggling to fully exploit and monetise the successes they have with it.</p>
<p>Where ransomware has been the campaign of choice for more than half a decade, we should, however, be concerned that the Moveit attack signals a change of strategy. Supply-chain attacks are effective, and the criminals are now working to refine their methods in order to fully exploit them. As such, it’s very likely that these attacks will only become more widespread.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207670/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>Cybercriminals are attempting to monetise the hacking techniques used by state actors.Danny Steed, Lecturer in Cyber Security, Cranfield UniversityRobert Black, Lecturer in Information Activities, Cranfield UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2041732023-04-26T16:29:19Z2023-04-26T16:29:19ZKing Charles coronation: what impartial broadcast coverage of the event would look like<p>King Charles III’s coronation will be broadcast to millions of people around the world. Many of those viewers will be watching on the BBC, whose impartiality when it comes to the monarchy has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/17/bbc-accused-of-lacking-impartiality-in-royal-coverage">come under question</a>. </p>
<p>The campaign group Republic recently sent a <a href="https://twitter.com/RepublicStaff/status/1647847609258717190">letter</a> to the public broadcaster stating that the BBC “not only fails to be impartial, but makes no attempt to be impartial or balanced and, most shockingly, openly colludes with the palace in its coverage”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1647847609258717190"}"></div></p>
<p>Broadcasters have long <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884918807036">been criticised</a> about their coverage of politics and public affairs. Unlike newspapers, online news and social media, broadcasters are regulated by Ofcom and have to abide by rules on impartiality.</p>
<p>Ofcom’s <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy">code</a> asks broadcasters to follow “due impartiality” guidelines. Being impartial means not favouring one side over another. But, as my research has <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884916685909">shown</a>, the “due” gives broadcasters plenty of leeway in how they construct impartiality and select competing perspectives.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518785/original/file-20230331-28-8u26d4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518785/original/file-20230331-28-8u26d4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518785/original/file-20230331-28-8u26d4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518785/original/file-20230331-28-8u26d4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518785/original/file-20230331-28-8u26d4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518785/original/file-20230331-28-8u26d4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518785/original/file-20230331-28-8u26d4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&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>This piece is part of our coverage of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/coronation-of-king-charles-iii-134594?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Coronation2023&utm_content=InArticleTop">King Charles III’s coronation</a>. The first coronation of a British monarch since 1953 comes at a time of reckoning for the monarchy, the royal family and the Commonwealth.</em></p>
<p><em>For more royal analysis, revisit our coverage of Queen Elizabeth II’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/platinum-jubilee-116056?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Coronation2023&utm_content=InArticleTop">Platinum jubilee</a>, and her <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/death-of-queen-elizabeth-ii-126761?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Coronation2023&utm_content=InArticleTop">death in September 2022</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Ofcom’s guidance emphasises broadcasters’ rights of freedom of expression. But it <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/99177/broadcast-code-guidance-section-5-march-2017.pdf">asks</a> for news items to “take account of all relevant facts, including the nature of the coverage and whether there are varying viewpoints on a particular item”. </p>
<p>The regulator also <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/99177/broadcast-code-guidance-section-5-march-2017.pdf">points out</a> that any topic – not just political controversy or public policy – is potentially subject to impartiality.</p>
<h2>Covering the crown</h2>
<p>The BBC <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/17/bbc-accused-of-lacking-impartiality-in-royal-coverage">claims to report impartially</a> on the royal family. Over recent years, there have been times when broadcasters have reported critically on royal figures. </p>
<p>The now-infamous Newsnight interview, where Prince Andrew <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50449339">discussed</a> his alleged sexual exploits, lavish lifestyle and friendship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50451953">widely reported</a> by broadcasters, as was his subsequent <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-22/prince-andrew-forced-to-sack-most-senior-member-of-staff-after-withdrawal-from-public-duties">withdrawal</a> from public life.</p>
<p>In a Netflix series, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/09/uk/meghan-racism-uk-reaction-gbr-intl/index.html">reflected</a> on her experiences of racism inside Buckingham Palace. While Netflix is not subject to Ofcom regulation, many broadcasters followed up on the interviews. </p>
<p>Some, including the BBC, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56326807">reported</a> on Prince Harry’s suggestion that an “invisible contract” existed between the royal family and reporters. This gave <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17499755221092810">credence</a> to claims that journalists trade inside access for less serious scrutiny of the monarchy. </p>
<p>The BBC has also faced criticism from viewers who see the broadcaster as not being appropriately respectful in royal coverage. A notable example was the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/apr/08/broadcasting.queenmother">controversy</a> over newscaster Peter Sisson’s burgundy tie when he announced the queen mother’s death in 2002. When BBC news anchor, Huw Edwards, announced the passing of Queen Elizabeth II in 2022, he was <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/huw-edwards-bbc-reacted-death-queen-clive-myrie-1844319">praised</a> for his sombre and emotional demeanour – while wearing all black attire. </p>
<p>When broadcasters reported the queen’s funeral, a sombre tone of public mourning <a href="https://fortune.com/2022/09/19/queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral-media-coverage-broadcaster-huge-audience/">shaped</a> coverage. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman lays a bouquet into a pile of flowers outside of Buckingham Palace" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522676/original/file-20230424-20-xw5dl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522676/original/file-20230424-20-xw5dl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522676/original/file-20230424-20-xw5dl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522676/original/file-20230424-20-xw5dl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522676/original/file-20230424-20-xw5dl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522676/original/file-20230424-20-xw5dl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522676/original/file-20230424-20-xw5dl3.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">A national mood.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/windsor-uk-september-15-2022-womans-2204600993">Henk Vrieselaar/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62964166">“national mood”</a> was represented in interviews with <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2022-09-19/how-the-nation-mourned-the-queen-as-they-bid-her-a-final-farewell">members of the public</a> paying testament to the queen’s long reign and praising the monarchy more generally. </p>
<p>But while broadcasters understandably adopted a respectful tone about the royalty during the queen’s funeral, how accurately does this represent public opinion about the monarchy?</p>
<p>In 1994 the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey <a href="https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-monarchy">revealed</a> that two-thirds of the public – 67% on average – agreed “it is important for Britain to continue to have a monarchy”. By 2021, this slipped to 55% – the lowest score on record – with one-quarter <a href="https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-monarchy">believing</a> either the monarchy was “not at all important” or that it should be abolished. </p>
<p>Far fewer younger people considered the monarchy to be very important, but the <a href="https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-monarchy">BSA</a> survey suggests that support tends to grow as people age. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65326467">new YouGov poll</a> commissioned by the BBC has assessed public perception of the monarchy in the weeks before the coronation. While showing broad support for the monarchy, it also revealed the youngest age group favour replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state. This reinforces a <a href="https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1395677899987079169?s=20">similar poll</a> taken by YouGov in 2021. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-the-politics-of-national-mourning-left-no-space-for-dissenting-voices-190591">Queen Elizabeth II: the politics of national mourning left no space for dissenting voices</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Impartial coronation coverage</h2>
<p>In day-to-day reporting, my <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/174205/bbc-news-review-content-analysis-full-report.pdf">studies</a> of television news have shown the monarchy do not typically make up much coverage. Beyond dramatic scandals involving royal figures, it tends to be the pomp and ceremony of major events, such as the late queen’s death and funeral, that pushes the monarchy up the news agenda.</p>
<p>When focused on these events, broadcast coverage can often imply that the UK is united behind the monarchy – but the evidence suggests this is not a full picture of public opinion. Many people hold republican perspectives, and a significant minority of the public hold critical viewpoints about the monarchy. </p>
<p>But based on the special programming broadcasters have announced they intend to air during the coronation, it does not look likely that these perspectives will be prominently reflected.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-coronation-of-his-majesty-the-king-and-her-majesty-the-queen-consort">schedules</a> of the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2023/04/24/king-charles-iii-tv-channel-watch-live-bbc-uk-us/">major broadcasters</a> will largely follow royal events and ceremonies. Only Channel 4 appears to include <a href="https://www.channel4.com/press/news/channel-4-mark-coronation-altogether-different-royal-programming">programming</a> that raises <a href="https://time.com/6272423/uk-coronation-channel-4-alternative-coverage/">critical</a> questions about the UK’s constitutional arrangements. </p>
<p>The comedian Frankie Boyle will consider whether the monarchy is out of touch in modern Britain, while the journalist Emily Maitlis will reflect on that controversial 2019 interview with Prince Andrew that had devastating implications for the royal family. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1648160170676043778"}"></div></p>
<p>Should other broadcasters be following Channel 4’s lead? Ofcom’s rules on impartiality <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/99177/broadcast-code-guidance-section-5-march-2017.pdf">ask for</a> “varying viewpoints on a particular item”. Whether in routine news reporting or in one-off programming about the royalty, broadcasters could do more to reflect the public’s perspectives.</p>
<p>In practice, royal correspondents could adopt a more critical and detached standpoint by challenging rather than largely accepting perspectives they source from Buckingham Palace. Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.theweek.co.uk/royal-family/957673/pros-and-cons-of-the-monarchy">debates</a> about the pros and cons of a constitutional monarchy could be a more regular part of coverage. News bulletins, for example, could feature interviews with the public that include republican as well as royalist voices. </p>
<p>An impartial approach to covering the coronation would include broadcasters not only reporting the pomp, circumstance and bank holiday celebrations – it would also feature perspectives that question the existence and role of the monarchy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204173/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>Ofcom guidelines ask broadcasters to use ‘due impartiality’ in reporting.Stephen Cushion, Chair Professor, Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1883132022-08-09T17:17:29Z2022-08-09T17:17:29ZBig Brother is coming back – the reality TV landscape today will demand a more caring show<p>ITV2 has announced <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62389219">the return of Big Brother</a> to the UK with a promo trailer during this year’s Love Island final. Big Brother’s successful format of putting a group of housemates together in a controlled environment as an “experiment” to observe their behaviour has proved entertainment gold with international iterations, spin-offs and many imitations across the world. </p>
<p>To many, the show’s return, after its 18-year stint on Channel 4 and then Channel 5 will come as something of a surprise, given the way the viewing figures had <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/big-brother-ends-18-years-reality-tv-channel-4-start-end-best-bits-davina-video-a8537741.html">gradually fallen</a>. For others, however, it remained <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jun/25/big-brother-best-shows-ever-channel-5-years">a cult hit</a> at the centre of contemporary British popular culture.</p>
<p>But reality television is not the same as it was when Big Brother launched in 2000. The show will return to a changed set of circumstances and expectations. For instance, Big Brother’s explosive drama was roundly criticised for sometimes being fuelled by alcohol, a practice which is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jul/18/alcohol-hand-grenade-reality-tv-boozy-big-brother-nosecco-love-island">no longer condoned</a>. </p>
<h2>Reality television and social media</h2>
<p>Love Island has clearly taken inspiration from Big Brother as it also relies on observing the behaviour of participants in a house (known in Love Island as the villa) over eight weeks. The difference is they’re supposed to “couple up”. The show has developed a successful branding strategy with intricate social media tie-ins – for instance, numerous sponsorship deals with clothing and music brands, as well as gaming apps, merchandising and multiple branded social media accounts. All of this has upped the stakes of the amount of publicity and extra commercial value generated around a show – dwarfing the frenzy the tabloids made of Big Brother. </p>
<p>This year’s Love Island winner, Ekin-Su, came out of the villa with more than a million Instagram followers and poised for numerous <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/love-islands-ekin-su-make-27627992">lucrative branding deals</a>.)</p>
<p>But also since that initial “psychological experiment”, the nature of reality contestants has changed. They are now media-savvy people who’ve grown up online and in a world saturated with reality TV. They see shows such as Love Island as part of a social media landscape, in which performing and branding their personalities is a normal way of life that might just lead to a lucrative career. </p>
<p>While of course not all reality shows offer such a platform, Big Brother and Love Island have been some of the most successful for offering a springboard into other media careers – sometimes for those who might have had no other way in, given the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09548963.2016.1170943">lack of diversity in the media industry</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vSK6NBzUnW0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>There is therefore no shortage of people queuing up to get a spot, despite the escalating <a href="https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/tv/love-island-releases-message-contestants-24515209">risks of trolling and social media bile</a> that seems to be the price paid for quickly-won fame. </p>
<p>How audiences interact with a show has also changed. They can now participate in the experience, not only through voting, but in the sharing of opinions, often in real time and directly with participants, as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook extend the shows’ visibility. </p>
<p>Looking back to older series of Big Brother, I wonder what kind of death-threats “<a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/nasty-nick-evicted-by-big-brother-1.1259694">Nasty Nick</a>” would have received for breaking the rules of the show after he was caught writing down housemates names to influence the nominations for eviction. He left the house to a booing crowd and a baying press like a pantomime villain, but that would have been multiplied and magnified across social media and into his DMs (direct messages) today. </p>
<h2>Duty of care</h2>
<p>For more than 20 years, largely unpaid contestants have provided content for television without much oversight or concern for their wellbeing. Think of <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/big-brother-7-exploitation-controversy-22202099">Shahbaz Chauhdry</a> who in series seven of Big Brother showed obvious signs of worsening mental health and ended up leaving on day six after threatening to commit suicide. </p>
<p>Now producers need to think more closely about their duty of care to contestants in a landscape that is much more sensitive to the risks of taking part in reality television, particularly those associated with mental health. </p>
<p>Caring for contestants has become a growing issue as several <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/may/27/why-suicide-is-still-the-shadow-that-hangs-over-reality-tv-hana-kimura-terrace-house">reality stars have committed suicide</a> post filming. A <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/103566/committee-announces-inquiry-into-reality-tv/">2019 government public inquiry</a> and a period of <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-2/protecting-tv-radio-participants">consultation by Ofcom</a>, the UK broadcasting regulator, have led to <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-2/protecting-tv-radio-participants#:%7E:text=to%20make%20sure%20the%20welfare,might%20not%20have%20been%20protected.">changes in the broadcasting code</a>, which came into effect in April 2021. </p>
<p>Now broadcasters must protect the welfare of participants and ensure that audiences don’t watch harmful or offensive things happening on screen. However, as Ofcom is a post-broadcast regulator it cannot interfere with the direction of creative content. It can only intervene once something has already aired. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-PF0b4zcaEw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>There might be a feeling that the changes to the code and the more serious intent of the broadcasters are enough. However, before the end of Love Island 2022 Ofcom received more than <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/29/how-many-ofcom-complaints-has-love-island-2022-had-17090102/">5,000 complaints</a> about issues ranging from misogyny to bullying. It remains to be seen whether any of these complaints can be upheld under the new duty of care regulations. </p>
<p>The code also struggles to take account of the complexity of caring for such contestants. How long after a show should after-care go on and what should it look like? This is a difficult question, especially considering that many reality TV contributors sign over the rights to their performances “in perpetuity”. You may not feel the same about something you did at 19 being replayed as TV gold or re-circulating as a meme when you are 45, for instance.</p>
<p>I presume that ITV has taken this leap because of the success of Love Island and the continued audience appetite for shows that manipulate the experience of contestants in confined conditions. For a TV show that thrived on chaos and emotion, what would a caring revision of Big Brother even look like? I guess we will see when it airs next year.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188313/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Wood has previously received research council funding from the ESRC, AHRC and British Academy. </span></em></p>Reality shows now have a duty of care to their contestantsHelen Wood, Chair professor in Media and Cultural Studies, Lancaster UniversityLicensed 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/1803742022-04-01T12:04:35Z2022-04-01T12:04:35ZHow social media affects children at different ages – and how to protect them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/455781/original/file-20220401-25-q2b4sp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C16%2C5352%2C3563&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-photo/teen-girl-checking-social-media-using-2037839768">Nataliabiruk/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/234609/childrens-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2022.pdf">report</a> from the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom confirms children are avid social media users. </p>
<p>Some 99% of children aged three to 17 used the internet in 2021. YouTube was the most popular platform, with 89% of children using it. Meanwhile, half of kids used TikTok, a popular site which allows users to watch and share short videos. </p>
<p>Most social media platforms require users to be <a href="https://saferinternet.org.uk/blog/age-restrictions-on-social-media-services">aged 13 or older</a>. Nonetheless, the report found that a majority of children under 13 had their own profile on at least one social media app or site. One-third of parents of children aged five to seven said their child had a profile, which rose to 60% among children aged eight to 11.</p>
<p>Overcoming these age restrictions is clearly not a difficult task. Children simply supply a fake age when setting up their account. Meanwhile, some children have multiple accounts on the same platform – one for their friends, and another for their parents.</p>
<p>The report also found that roughly 16% of three and four-year-olds watch videos on TikTok. This could be children being shown videos by a parent or somebody else, and does not mean they have their own account. But they are still being exposed to social media content at a very young age. </p>
<p>With these findings in mind, it’s timely to take a look at what we know about how social media use can affect children across different age groups.</p>
<h2>The good and the bad</h2>
<p>Engaging with social media can have both positive and negative effects on people, especially children. My colleagues and I have shown that social media use <a href="http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/social-media-and-mental-health/written/81105.pdf">is important</a> for emotional support, community building and self-expression among adolescents, but that it can negatively impact mental health and wellbeing as well. </p>
<p>In our work at the <a href="https://www.ntu.ac.uk/research/groups-and-centres/groups/cyberpsychology-research-group">Cyberpsychology Research Group</a> at Nottingham Trent University, we have talked to young adolescents, their parents and teachers about perceived challenges and online harms from social media use. </p>
<p>We found that <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3227">the effects</a> range from spending increasing amounts of time online, behaviour change due to anticipated judgement from peers, and sensory overload, to more serious cognitive and emotional consequences such as attention problems, stress and anxiety.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/protecting-children-in-the-metaverse-its-easy-to-blame-big-tech-but-we-all-have-a-role-to-play-177789">Protecting children in the metaverse: it's easy to blame big tech, but we all have a role to play</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>New <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29296-3">research suggests</a> that there appear to be differences across age groups with regards to the effects social media use can have on life satisfaction. In a large UK sample of over 17,000 young people aged ten to 21, researchers found the detrimental effects of high levels of social media use may be especially pronounced at ages 14-15 and 19 for boys, and 11-13 and 19 for girls.</p>
<p>Former Facebook employee Frances Haugen revealed in 2021 that internal Facebook research has repeatedly shown detrimental mental health impacts of <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/09/14/facebook-internal-research-found-instagram-can-be-very-harmful-to-young-girls-report-says/?sh=4703db765a2a">Instagram use</a> for young girls.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A young boy sitting on the floor using a tablet." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/455782/original/file-20220401-27-yi4z9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/455782/original/file-20220401-27-yi4z9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455782/original/file-20220401-27-yi4z9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455782/original/file-20220401-27-yi4z9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455782/original/file-20220401-27-yi4z9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455782/original/file-20220401-27-yi4z9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455782/original/file-20220401-27-yi4z9s.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">A recent Ofcom report found some children as young as three and four watch videos on TikTok.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/african-american-little-boy-using-tactile-318236918">Samuel Borges Photography/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Separately, we know excessive screen time can be associated with symptoms of stress, anxiety, depression <a href="https://www.hogrefe.com/us/shop/internet-addiction-76323.html">and addiction</a>.</p>
<p>Recommendations from the <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/04/cover-kids-screens#:%7E:text=AAP%20calls%20for%20no%20screen,of%20screen%20time%20per%20day.">American Academy of Pediatrics</a> suggest no screen time for children under two, and a maximum of one hour per day for those aged two to five years, focused on high-quality content (for example, content which is educational). </p>
<p>While we don’t know exactly what kind of content young children are watching on social media, it’s unlikely to be high-quality, and could be harmful.</p>
<h2>What can we do?</h2>
<p>With the recently published <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137/publications">online safety bill</a>, the UK government aims to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online. Accordingly, we need to consider the potentially detrimental impacts internet use in general and excessive social media use specifically can have on young people, especially those who are vulnerable. </p>
<p>We need to see increased user protection (such as age verification measures) and harm prevention initiatives (such as school-based education about the benefits and potential harms of social media use). </p>
<p>We also need to see the involvement of community and government organisations in education and awareness campaigns, as well as a focus on increased <a href="https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/camh.12449">corporate social responsibility</a>, where the industry takes an active approach in designing products with the best interests of the user in mind.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/touchscreens-can-benefit-toddlers-but-its-worth-choosing-your-childs-apps-wisely-108567">Touchscreens can benefit toddlers – but it’s worth choosing your child’s apps wisely</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While we discourage over-pathologising everyday behaviour – for example, we shouldn’t assume everyone who spends a few hours online has a problem with their internet use – problematic behaviour needs to be acknowledged and users need to be supported. This can prevent it leading to negative mental health consequences. </p>
<p>Support for young internet users needs to come from parents, teachers, governments and the social media industry. Parents can be encouraged to start an open dialogue with their children, which will build rapport and allow children to open up about their social media use.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180374/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daria Kuss 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>A recent report from Ofcom found children as young as three are watching videos on TikTok.Daria Kuss, Associate Professor in Psychology and Lead, Cyberpsychology Research Group, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1597172021-04-26T19:59:31Z2021-04-26T19:59:31ZPublic broadcasting: does the UK’s regulator have the public interest at heart?<p>The government is <a href="https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/chair-ofcom/">finalising its choice</a> for the vacant position of chair of the UK’s broadcasting and telecoms regulator, Ofcom. It’s potentially a contentious issue as, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/31/johnson-poised-to-appoint-paul-dacre-chair-of-ofcom">well-informed government leaks</a>, former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is in pole position for the job which – while notionally subject to an “independent” appointments process – is effectively <a href="https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/paul-dacre-ofcom-chair-daily-mail-7297164">in the prime minister’s “gift”</a>.</p>
<p>There are many reasons why Dacre is arguably <a href="https://bylinetimes.com/2021/02/04/10-reasons-why-paul-dacre-is-unfit-to-be-the-new-ofcom-chair/">unsuitable</a> for the job. Not least of those is his much-vaunted visceral <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/27/charles-moore-paul-dacre-on-the-bbc-in-their-own-words">hatred of the BBC</a> (which Ofcom now regulates) and his lack of any relevant technical knowledge in the telecoms sector (he famously <a href="https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/why-the-daily-mail-hates-britain">does not use a computer</a>). But regardless of who becomes the next Ofcom chair, there is a broader issue which needs addressing: whether the regulator is still genuinely committed to promoting the interests of citizens.</p>
<p>Ofcom’s <a href="https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/ofcom/#:%7E:text=Ofcom%20was%20established%20by%20the,Radio%20Authority%2C%20and%20the%20Radiocommunications">birth in 2003</a> was preceded by a major parliamentary battle to ensure that citizens were at the heart of its regulatory obligations. In the teeth of furious opposition by Tony Blair’s Labour government, the House of Lords – led by Labour peer David Puttnam – forced through an <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2003/jun/23/communications-bill">amendment</a> that secured Ofcom’s duty “to further the interests of citizens” as well as consumers. For the past 18 years, that duty has been fundamental to Ofcom’s central role in promoting the democratic and cultural benefits of broadcasting.</p>
<h2>Who does Ofcom represent?</h2>
<p>Is Ofcom still committed to supporting the broader public interest? Recent evidence – especially since taking <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/ofcom-becomes-the-first-independent,-external-regulator-of-the-bbc-today">full regulatory powers</a> over the BBC in 2017 – is not encouraging. First, there was the long delay in allowing the BBC more flexibility in its iPlayer, to enable it to compete with increasing audience demand for box sets and longer viewing windows. Ofcom’s insistence that the BBC should conduct a <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/124392/bbc-iplayer-materiality-assessment.pdf">public interest test</a> was not the approach of a regulator prioritising the interests of citizens who are collectively paying for a universal public service trying to compete with American streaming services. </p>
<p>Nor was it helpful that the process, from Ofcom’s intervention in November 2018 until its <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/159725/statement-bbc-iplayer-final-determination.pdf">final determination</a> in August 2019, took nine months in a world of rapidly changing audience consumption habits. In the words of then BBC chairman, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speeches/2019/clementi-omc">Sir David Clementi</a>, it was an approach that ran the risk of “tying ourselves up in red tape and regulation at a time when media organisations need to be fast and agile”. </p>
<p>Then there was the strange case of how Ofcom chose to report viewer responses to its questions on impartiality. A two-page section in its most recent <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/207228/third-bbc-annual-report.pdf">annual report</a> on the BBC was headed: “Audiences continue to rate the BBC lower on impartiality.” This conclusion predictably featured prominently in negative coverage by a highly partisan anti-BBC press.</p>
<p>But the figures on which Ofcom based this high-profile conclusion were highly dubious. They were taken from Ofcom’s 2020 <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/201316/news-consumption-2020-report.pdf">News Consumption report</a> which looked at how audiences rated seven TV providers on nine separate news attributes, including impartiality. Ofcom calculated these figures only on the basis of “regular users” of each service, which effectively distorted the data.</p>
<p>On every single attribute, CNN (222 regular viewers in the Ofcom sample) emerged as top. Meanwhile, on impartiality, al-Jazeera (153 regular viewers) was second only to CNN, with 69%. The equivalent BBC figure was 58% – but on a sample size of 2,754 because BBC news is the default choice for most TV viewers and commands huge audiences. At the very least, such figures have to be treated with caution. We can be pretty sure that even regular viewers of, say, Fox News would rate it very highly for impartiality.</p>
<p>Ofcom did not acknowledge the vast differences in base sizes for their data, nor did it make any mention of either CNN or al-Jazeera as the highest rated channels for impartiality. A rather more nuanced – and citizen-based – approach might have reported on a 2020 <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-05/trust-accuracy-impartiality-2020.pdf">Ipsos-Mori survey</a> which was carried out at almost exactly the same time. When a representative sample of all adults was asked, “Which ONE source are you most likely to turn to if you want impartial news coverage?”, 51% responded BBC. The next highest, with just 7%, was Sky News. </p>
<h2>Shifting priorities</h2>
<p>Finally, Ofcom’s <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-05/trust-accuracy-impartiality-2020.pdf">consultation</a> on the future of public service broadcasting proposes shifting to the concept of <a href="https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/">public service media</a> (PSM) to reflect <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55230161">the internet age</a> and the emergence of a plethora of new platforms and subscription services. While the sector needs to embrace new technologies, Ofcom’s approach raises awkward questions about whether it still believes in public service broadcasting institutions. </p>
<p>A focus on content inevitably leads to debates about subsidising less popular programming such as arts, documentaries and minority sports rather than focusing on the values that institutions like the BBC, Channel 4 and even ITV and Channel Five bring to original UK content across the board. </p>
<p>Ofcom’s consultation document refers variously to “how PSM is made” and “PSM content”, both of which are rooted in consumerist arguments about filling in “market gaps” that the private sector cannot fulfil. Public service broadcasting is founded on <a href="https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/policies/pdf/bpv.pdf">citizen-based values</a> of range, quality, universality, impartiality, innovation and wide geographic appeal, that are rooted in institutions not content. It is not at all clear that Ofcom understands or accepts that distinction. </p>
<p>Since its inauguration in 2003, Ofcom has played a central role in promoting the UK’s democratic and cultural welfare. But this appears to be changing. These are disturbing signs that its decision-making and internal culture are becoming increasingly dominated by an economics-driven and consumerist philosophy at odds with its duty to citizens. This is why the choice of a new chair is vitally important.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159717/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This is an edited version of a chapter in the book What is the point of Ofcom? edited by John Mair and published on April 20, 2021 by Bite-Sized Public Affairs Books.</span></em></p>Ofcom’s duty is to regulate broadcasting on behalf of UK citizens. That appears to be under threat, both from internal forces and potentially from its next chair.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/1471332020-10-01T11:50:25Z2020-10-01T11:50:25ZBBC chair: leak of No 10’s choice attempts to destroy independence of appointments<p>“Leaks” from No 10 to the Sunday Times published on September 27 about the <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/arch-critics-of-bbc-dacre-and-moore-tipped-for-top-jobs-in-tv-lzn0lvxbs">anointing of Charles Moore and Paul Dacre</a> as the next chairs of the BBC and Ofcom may have been intended to distract the British public from the government’s performance on COVID-19. Getting people into a lather about the BBC is a good tactic. I have, however, no doubt that this is a serious proposition: these candidates are not merely being “floated”, they are the Downing Street choices.</p>
<p>Irrespective of the suitability of the putative candidates, the leaks have blown a hole in the carefully crafted process that has been designed to safeguard all public appointments from nepotism, improper commercial advantage and naked political pressure. Such processes protect all our important institutions, but because of its relationship to public information, the BBC has always been an especially delicate appointment. As an attempt to bully the BBC and, through the attack on Ofcom, all broadcasters, it is perturbing.</p>
<p>More widely, the leak implies a new politicisation of public life, where it is taken for granted that the currently vacant public roles will need to be filled by people who are not merely Conservative but only from that narrow fraction that is sympathetic to the particular strand of conservatism now in power, or members of the court around the prime minister, Boris Johnson. This narrows the pool of talent to a microscopic puddle.</p>
<h2>Impartiality at stake</h2>
<p>The BBC is a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. It certainly has a relationship with the state, but for nearly 100 years it has developed rules, habits, and values of creativity and impartiality that have protected it from interference. It is not perfect, but it is peerless. It is an institution that is relied upon by <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-53517025">438 million users globally</a> and is the foundation of one of our most successful industries, the creative media. It belongs to everyone in Britain, and this universality means that it is obliged to serve all audiences. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Headshot of middle-aged man in a suit." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360747/original/file-20200930-22-z7xwru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360747/original/file-20200930-22-z7xwru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360747/original/file-20200930-22-z7xwru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360747/original/file-20200930-22-z7xwru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360747/original/file-20200930-22-z7xwru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360747/original/file-20200930-22-z7xwru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360747/original/file-20200930-22-z7xwru.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">Charles Moore, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and harsh critic of the BBC.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">SE7</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/bbc-most-trusted-news-source-2020">Trust</a> in the integrity of its output depends on it being seen as independent from government or politicians. Its authority and reputation require the idea that it has editorial independence – if you like, the right to make mistakes. Consequently, its content is regulated, not by politicians, but by Ofcom. By the way, it is the regulatory overseeing of Ofcom in the public interest that has made Sky a great news channel (owned by the same company that owns Fox News, but vastly different in approach).</p>
<h2>Chairs matter</h2>
<p>While researching for my volume of the official history of the BBC, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/01/pinkoes-and-traitors-bbc-and-nation-1974-1987-jean-seaton-review">Pinkoes and Traitors: the BBC and the Nation 1970-1987</a>, I delved a lot into the importance of the role of BBC chair. They hold the BBC to account and are responsible for the broadcaster delivering its services. They help ward off wrong and partisan political pressure, but also make sure the BBC responds to legitimate criticism. They are legally obliged to maintain the BBC’s impartiality. The chair cautions, advises, restrains, and adds insight. They must manage the creation of a board with the right skills to help continually reshape the BBC internally to meet contemporary challenges. A well-run board and a strong chair working with the BBC in the national interest is the cornerstone of an effective BBC. </p>
<p>In the past, the BBC has flourished when the chair and the director general have formed a powerful, cooperative but challenging team. Sir Hugh Greene and Arthur fforde, John Birt and Christopher Bland. Mark Thompson and Sir Michael Lyons and then Chris Patton. While they may have disagreed about editorial decisions or fought about commerce or remit or had to make tough decisions they have to be both working for the same values: to keep the BBC impartial, fearless, decent, independent and alive in the nation and the world’s imagination. They must share a belief in the BBC’s mission to “<a href="https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111027112808-20090324PublicServicesToInformEducateAndEntertain.pdf">educate, inform and entertain</a>”. </p>
<p>Anybody alarmed by the flood of misinformation during COVID-19 ought to want a confident BBC. Anybody watching the BBC coverage of the VJ day celebrations this year – thrown together in the middle of a pandemic – saw just that creativity for a national moment at its most warm and grand.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-to-counter-misinformation-journalists-need-to-embrace-a-public-service-mission-133829">COVID-19: to counter misinformation, journalists need to embrace a public service mission</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/research/chairmen-of-the-bbc">chairs</a> can also be the nemesis for director generals. The great <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/directors-general/hugh-carleton-greene">Hugh Carleton-Greene</a> was seen off by Charles Hill, the chair that Harold Wilson brought over from ITV. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/dec/27/pressandpublishing.broadcasting1">Marmaduke Hussey</a> saw off both <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20964772">Alasdair Milne</a>, who had lost his capacity to deal with a hostile Thatcher government, but also the efficient, reforming <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/directors-general/michael-checkland">Michael Checkland</a>. As the BBC has become more exposed to political pressure, so the job has become more exposed. Although not all these “trojan horses” have been bad for the corporation, this is because they believed in the very idea of the BBC.</p>
<p>Tony Hall <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/tony-hall-resignation-bbc-boss-existential-crisis">resigned earlier this year</a> to ensure that David Clementi, the current chair, would have oversight of the appointment (by an independent panel) of a new director general before he was replaced as chair. In such niceties, propriety lives.</p>
<h2>Public interest: the right way?</h2>
<p>Norman Fowler, a cabinet minister in both Thatcher and Major governments, chaired the committee that produced the <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2007-11-21/debates/07112194000001/BBCChairmanship(CommunicationsCommitteeReport)">House of Lords report</a> on the chairmanship of the BBC in 2007. It’s proposals for “greater separation of ministers from the appointments process to ensure public confidence” given the unique nature of the BBC were accepted. The secretary of state is required to appoint a selection panel including the chairman and the independent assessor. There should be a majority of non-political members and it has to be chaired by a non-political member. </p>
<p>It presciently added that if “ministers add or subtract any names from the shortlist this should immediately be made public through a written ministerial statement to Parliament. The names and details of the candidate should not be made public but the fact of ministerial involvement should be.” The name of only one candidate should then be passed to ministers “specifically to avoid the appointment of a candidate who might share their political priorities. The appointment should be vetted by Parliament.” </p>
<p>The <a href="https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/ofcom-chair/">appointment of a chair to Ofcom</a> is similarly supposed to be open and transparent.</p>
<p>But, despite the opportunities the process offers for both the BBC and the government to discuss likely candidates, significant horse-trading can only take place before the formal process opens. You do not want to end up in public complaining about a candidate who then the government might push on through. </p>
<p>So the Sunday Times leaks, the crowning and the drinks, compromise everything – as they were meant to. They turn it into a political battleground and potentially open up any other candidates to contest and opposition. It is another classic manoeuvre: it is a “make any opponent an enemy of the people and then destroy them” tactic.</p>
<h2>Process is vital</h2>
<p>The process is finally overseen by the Public Appointments Committee. <a href="https://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/about-us/">Peter Riddell</a>, the public appointments commissioner, has to approve that the final outcome of the process is fair and above board. No one doubts Riddell’s decency, or indeed capacity: he is a public servant of great integrity who was the founding director of the Institute of Government. But the procedures over which he presides have been leapfrogged by the leak. He is robust – and he may need to be. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Moore, a man of reputation and scholarship, has been seriously embarrassed by the leak that apparently crowned him BBC chair. He was, until November 2019, a member of that same Public Appointments Committee. His job was to be a guardian of the very process that has now been undermined. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/paul-bew">Lord Paul Bew</a> – the chair of that committee must be seriously concerned about the reputation of the Public Appointments Committee. Lord Bew is a bruiser from Northern Irish politics (but also a wily and proper man). So the system may well fight back. But it is staggering that this is necessary. </p>
<p>The BBC is well placed to solve some of the epic problems that face broadcasting under its able and focused new director general <a href="https://theconversation.com/tim-davie-appointed-to-run-the-bbc-he-faces-some-tough-challenges-140198">Tim Davie</a>. One American observer said to me that the BBC was “the only media organisation in the West that has the heft, expertise and power to take the defence of western values out onto a world stage”. We are, after all, in the middle of a cyberwar.</p>
<p>As I noted in a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/56c1e4c3-8ed4-4f6a-a7c3-a22e65dd5f70?sharetype=blocked">letter to the Financial Times dated September 30</a>, co-authored with Timothy Garton Ash, Will Hutton and Damian Tambini, it matters to us all – and our safety – that such appointments are not made by leak, but by estimating fitting and proper talent in a decent process. Watch this space.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tim-davie-appointed-to-run-the-bbc-he-faces-some-tough-challenges-140198">Tim Davie appointed to run the BBC: he faces some tough challenges</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147133/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jean Seaton is the Official Historian of the BBC. Her volume of the official history of the BBC, Pinkoes and Traitors: the BBC and the Nation 1970-1987, was published by Profile Books in February 2015.</span></em></p>Leaks in the press about the prime minister’s preferred candidates for two of the most senior roles in British broadcasting are a deliberate and dangerous tactic.Jean Seaton, Professor of Media History, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1322192020-02-26T12:04:33Z2020-02-26T12:04:33ZFree speech in the UK: it’s the business of parliament, not Ofcom, to judge what is ok to publish<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317062/original/file-20200225-24701-9hga4z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C10634%2C5659&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How will free speech and freedom from harm work out online?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lightspring via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK government recently announced <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/12/ofcom-to-be-put-in-charge-of-regulating-internet-in-uk">a new plan</a> to regulate social media companies such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. The proposals give the government’s media regulator, Ofcom, extensive powers to tell tech giants what speech they must suppress – and to punish them if they don’t.</p>
<p>These proposals seem long overdue. Just consider the case of YouTube. Once celebrated for its videos of wedding engagements, graduation speeches and cute cats, its darker corners <a href="https://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/eGLYPH_web_crawler_white_paper_July_2018.pdf">have been used</a> to display televised beheadings, white supremacist rallies and terrorist incitement. Facebook and Twitter have been similarly abused for nefarious ends. </p>
<p>Surely, the argument goes, it is fitting and proper to hold profiteering social media firms partly accountable for the harms caused by the content they platform. Simply relying on these firms to self-regulate <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-02/youtube-executives-ignored-warnings-letting-toxic-videos-run-rampant">is not enough</a>.</p>
<p>But unless the government’s proposals are dramatically revised, they pose a significant risk to two fundamental political values: freedom of speech and democracy.</p>
<p>Start with the risks to free speech. The current proposal stems from an Online Harms White Paper <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper">published in April 2019</a>, which unhelpfully outlines two kinds of speech to be regulated: “harms with a clear definition” and “harms with a less clear definition”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317065/original/file-20200225-24701-v5a5cq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317065/original/file-20200225-24701-v5a5cq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317065/original/file-20200225-24701-v5a5cq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317065/original/file-20200225-24701-v5a5cq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317065/original/file-20200225-24701-v5a5cq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317065/original/file-20200225-24701-v5a5cq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317065/original/file-20200225-24701-v5a5cq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317065/original/file-20200225-24701-v5a5cq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ofcom: ten biggest online harms in UK.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ofcom</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The former category focuses on speech that is mostly already illegal – offline and online. So, for example, <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/63">extreme pornography</a> (for example, videos depicting rape) and <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/part/1/crossheading/encouragement-etc-of-terrorism">speech which incites terrorism</a> fall into this category. Yet the second category is nebulous precisely because it concerns speech that is mostly already legal – such as so-called “trolling”, “disinformation” and other “extremist content” (though the white paper offers few examples). </p>
<p>Under the proposal, social media companies will be tasked with a “duty of care” requiring it to restrict the distribution of both kinds of content – with Ofcom to serve as judge, jury and executioner.</p>
<h2>Rule of law</h2>
<p>It is the second, more nebulous category that should trouble the defenders of free speech. If it is perfectly legal to post certain speech online – if there is good reason to permit citizens to engage in, and access, certain expression without fear of penalty – why should such speech then be subject to suppression (whether in the form of outright censorship or reduced dissemination)?</p>
<p>There may be rare cases in which an asymmetry can be justified – for example, we wouldn’t want to punish troubled teenagers posting videos of their own self-harm, even though we would want to limit the circulation of these videos. But with respect to content propounded by accountable adults – the majority of the speech at issue here – symmetry should be the norm. </p>
<p>If certain speech is rightly protected by the law – if we have decided that adults should be free to express and access it – we cannot then demand that social media companies suppress it. Otherwise we are simply restricting free speech through the backdoor.</p>
<p>For example, take the category of “extremist content” – content judged to be harmful despite it being legal. Suppose Ofcom were to follow the definition used in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance/revised-prevent-duty-guidance-for-england-and-wales">the government’s Prevent strategy</a>, whereby speech critical of “British values” – such as democracy – counts as extremist. Would social media companies be violating their duty of care, then, if they failed to limit distribution of <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178493/against-democracy">philosophical arguments</a> challenging the wisdom of democratic rule? We would hope not. But based on what we know now, it’s simply up to Ofcom to decide.</p>
<p>Recent reporting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/12/what-powers-ofcom-have-regulate-internet-uk">suggests that</a>, with regard to legal speech, the final proposal may simply insist that social media companies enforce their own terms and conditions. But this passes the hard choices to the private companies, and indeed simply incentivises them to write extremely lax terms. </p>
<h2>A job for democracy</h2>
<p>This leads to my final concern, with democracy. As a society, we have hard choices to make about the limits of freedom of expression. There is reasonable disagreement about this issue, with different democracies taking different stands. <a href="https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/should-we-ban-dangerous-speech">Hate speech</a>, for example, is illegal in Britain but broadly legal in the US. Likewise, speech advocating terrorism is a crime in Britain, but is legal in the US so long as it doesn’t pose a high risk of causing imminent violence. </p>
<p>It is instructive that these decisions have been made in the US by its <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/">Supreme Court</a>, which gets the final say on what counts as protected speech. But in Britain, the rules are different: the legislature, not the judiciary, decides.</p>
<p>The decision to restrict harmful expression requires us to judge what speech is of sufficiently “<a href="https://conlaw.jotwell.com/how-do-we-know-when-speech-is-of-low-value/">low value</a>” to society that its suppression is acceptable. It requires a moral judgement that must carry legitimacy for all over whom it is enforced. This is a job for democracy. It is not a job for Ofcom. If the UK decides that some speech that is presently legal is sufficiently harmful that the power of the state should be used to suppress it, parliament must specify with precision what exactly this comprises, rather than leaving it to be worked out later by Ofcom regulators. </p>
<p>Parliament could do this, most obviously, by enacting criminal statutes banning whatever speech it desires Ofcom to suppress (incorporating the relevant loopholes to protect children and other vulnerable speakers from prosecution). On this model, social media companies would be tasked with suppressing precisely specified speech that is independently illegal, and no more. If the government is not prepared to criminalise certain speech, then it should not be prepared to punish social media companies for giving it a platform. </p>
<p>The government is right to hold social media firms accountable. A duty of care model could still work. But to protect free speech, and ensure that decisions of the greatest consequence have legitimacy, the fundamental rules – about what speech may be suppressed – must be clearly specified, and authorised, by the people. That’s what parliament is for.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132219/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeffrey Howard has received funding from the British Academy.</span></em></p>Free speech is too important to leave it to a government regulator to decide what should be banned.Jeffrey Howard, Associate Professor of Political Theory, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1266972019-11-08T16:06:07Z2019-11-08T16:06:07ZTV election debates: excluding some party leaders may be legal, but adds to toxic political climate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300891/original/file-20191108-194641-8ea9o1.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-photo/glasgow-uk-october-9-2018-scottish-1202333743">Terry Murden/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Outrageous and unacceptable – the decision defies democracy,” said Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, as she railed against <a href="https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election-2019-nicola-sturgeon-in-sky-news-legal-threat-over-leaders-debate-exclusion-1-5040110">Sky’s decision not to include her</a> as Scottish National Party leader in its general election debate with the leaders of the UK’s three other main political parties.</p>
<p>Just a few days before, on November 2, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/02/lib-dem-women-demand-jo-swinsons-inclusion-in-tv-debate">experienced a similar snub</a> from ITV which had opted to host a head-to-head debate between the prime minister, Conservative Party leader Boris Johnson, and the opposition leader, the Labour Party’s Jeremy Corbyn on November 19. “It’s sexist, or they are scared or maybe it’s a bit of both,” said Swinson, barely disguising her fury. The general election campaign has just begun and already various grievances are stoking political tensions.</p>
<p>Now the BBC has <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50347661">announced</a> that it also plans to host a live one-to-one debate with Corbyn and Johnson on December 6, six days before the election. Keen to demonstrate balance, a “seven-way podium debate” on November 29 will also take place between “senior figures from the UK’s major political parties”. So far there has been no reaction from Swinson or Sturgeon.</p>
<p>After the furore over ITV’s decision, Sky appeared to take note and <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/04/jo-swinson-invited-sky-news-election-debate-snubbed-itv-11041173/">added Swinson to the roster</a> for its big debate on November 28. But it seemed to overlook the fact that Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of the third-largest party represented at Westminster with 35 MPs, outstripping Swinson’s Lib Dems by 14.</p>
<p>Both snubs are now the target of legal action by the excluded leaders on the basis that they breach <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-six-elections-referendums">broadcasting rules</a> which must be scrupulously followed during an election period. But what exactly is the law surrounding this issue? Do broadcasters have any sort of obligation to the leaders of the SNP or Lib Dems?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300902/original/file-20191108-194650-4352wf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300902/original/file-20191108-194650-4352wf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300902/original/file-20191108-194650-4352wf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300902/original/file-20191108-194650-4352wf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300902/original/file-20191108-194650-4352wf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300902/original/file-20191108-194650-4352wf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300902/original/file-20191108-194650-4352wf.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">Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson is threatening legal action against ITV for excluding her from a TV debate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-november-5-2019-liberal-1550700695">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Roots of the leader debate</h2>
<p>In this fast-moving digital age and at a time of Brexit-inspired political crisis it is often forgotten that there was no such thing as leader debates until the 2010 election – less than a decade ago. For many, introducing the format felt like a concession too far to <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-election-debates-lib-dem-surge-and-americanisation-of-our-politics/">the “Americanisation” of UK politics</a>. </p>
<p>In the US it made sense to have presidential debates where people vote directly for the individual. But in the British parliamentary system people vote for their local individual candidate, not for a leader – although it is likely that voters are endorsing the leader of the party they are voting for as their choice for prime minister.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300906/original/file-20191108-194641-1t6gudl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300906/original/file-20191108-194641-1t6gudl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300906/original/file-20191108-194641-1t6gudl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300906/original/file-20191108-194641-1t6gudl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300906/original/file-20191108-194641-1t6gudl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300906/original/file-20191108-194641-1t6gudl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300906/original/file-20191108-194641-1t6gudl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn is assured of a place in all TV debates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-united-kingdom-march-4-2017-59286723">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But by 2010 the momentum was too great – and broadcasters, including the BBC, gave in to the trend of personality and organised a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8621119.stm">debate</a> between the leaders of the three biggest political parties at the time. This gave particular profile to Nick Clegg as the then leader of the Lib Dems (although the party actually lost five seats in the subsequent election).</p>
<p>This pioneering UK format was itself subject to a legal challenge in 2010 in the Scottish courts by the then leader of the SNP and Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, who had been omitted from a BBC party leader debate. The court case focused on the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bbc-charter-and-framework-agreement">BBC Charter</a> – a legal document which outlines the broadcaster’s responsibilities, including “due accuracy and impartiality” during elections. The action was lost as the judge, <a href="https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/too-late-alex-salmond-loses-battle-with-the-bbc-over-debate-1-801918">Lady Smith, argued that the case had not been made</a> that BBC had acted in a “disproportionate” way by excluding the leader of the SNP.</p>
<p>The broadcaster argued that its coverage had to be viewed in the round and that it planned to have televised debates in Scotland which would include the SNP. The three-party structure debate was only part of its election coverage and there would be full reporting of the SNP’s campaign and programme. So the debate went ahead.</p>
<p>Now it could realistically be argued that things have changed: the SNP is now the third party in Westminster with 35 seats – in 2010 it only had six. Broadcasters have also varied the format of election debates considerably. In 2015 and 2017 all leader debates contained multiple political parties including Plaid Cymru, UKIP and the Greens. </p>
<h2>Strong legal argument?</h2>
<p>The SNP would appear to have a point when it comes to including the Lib Dem leader but not Sturgeon, given its current position as the third largest party at Westminster. It might be on slightly weaker ground if the debate just focused on the two biggest parties – Labour and Conservative – as broadcasters could argue one of those would produce the next prime minister.</p>
<p>The Lib Dems’ potential legal challenge focuses on this very format – ITV’s head-to-head encounter. This type of debate has never happened before as David Cameron refused to take part in one in 2015 as did <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/18/theresa-may-rules-out-participating-in-tv-debates-before-election">Theresa May</a> in 2017. Swinson argues that the commercial broadcaster is breaking the <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code">Ofcom Code of Conduct</a> by not giving “due weight” to her party’s participation.</p>
<p>Amongst other things, the Lib Dems will argue their party has a unique position on Brexit and it has a realistic prospect of being in government. However these are very subjective arguments and it would seem unlikely that a court would accept them, particularly as Jo Swinson is unlikely to be the next prime minister.</p>
<p>The current legal position looks very much as if it is up to the broadcaster’s discretion on how many parties are involved in a leaders’ debate. In the potential SNP case there is a stronger argument to challenge the Sky format as it is unclear why Swinson merits being singled out alongside the two bigger parties rather than an SNP representative. </p>
<p>The BBC’s decision to follow ITV’s lead, but with a multi-party debate the week before, seems more considered and mindful of its charter that demands that overall election coverage must be balanced and include all parties. </p>
<p>The decision to have a leaders’ debate back in 2010 has had far-reaching consequences in the current splintered political environment. This may become yet another political issue to be discussed and decided in our courts. </p>
<hr>
<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/126697/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick McKerrell 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>Broadcasters snubbing the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and Jo Swinson in favour of head-to-head debates with the two big party leaders just serves to stoke political tensions.Nick McKerrell, Lecturer in Law, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/908692018-01-30T12:20:05Z2018-01-30T12:20:05ZCritical infrastructure firms face crackdown over poor cybersecurity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203846/original/file-20180129-89564-v12mtt.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-photo/didcot-power-station-647783968?src=Zse7CFfEYf2wRUecrfRh3A-1-10">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>An EU-wide cybersecurity law is due to come into force in May to ensure that organisations providing critical national infrastructure services have robust systems in place to withstand cyber attacks.</p>
<p>The legislation will insist on a set of cybersecurity standards that adequately address events such as last year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/wannacry-report-shows-nhs-chiefs-knew-of-security-danger-but-management-took-no-action-86501">WannaCry ransomware attack</a>, which <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investigation-wannacry-cyber-attack-and-the-nhs/">crippled some ill-prepared NHS services across England</a>.</p>
<p>But, after a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-security-of-network-and-information-systems-directive">consultation process</a> in the UK ended last autumn, the government had been silent until now on its implementation plans for the forthcoming law. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/network-and-information-security-nis-directive">NIS Directive</a> (Security of Network and Information Systems) was adopted by the European parliament in July 2016. Member states, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/brexit-9976">which for now includes the UK</a>, were given “21 months to transpose the directive into their national laws and six months more to identify operators of essential services.”</p>
<p>The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) finally slipped out its <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-acts-to-protect-essential-services-from-cyber-attack">plans</a> on a Sunday, but – given its spin on fines – it doesn’t seem as though the government was attempting to bury the story.</p>
<h2>Interesting spin</h2>
<p>The DCMS warned – in rather alarmist language – that “organisations risk fines of up to £17m if they do not have effective cybersecurity measures” in place. There are echoes of the EU’s <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5419-2016-INIT/en/pdf">General Data Protection Regulation</a> (GDPR), by matching its €20m (£17m) maximum penalty level – though the option to charge 4% of turnover for NIS as well was dropped after consultation. </p>
<p>However, exorbitant penalties have been used as a scare tactic by <a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450426779/NetApp-privacy-chief-warns-enterprises-off-investing-in-GDPR-snake-oil-tech">GDPR snake oil salesmen</a>, despite clear statements from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) <a href="https://iconewsblog.org.uk/2017/08/09/gdpr-sorting-the-fact-from-the-fiction/">indicating a cautious regime</a>. Did the DCMS mean to invite <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/29/uk-security-fine-nis-directive/">overblown headlines</a> about the NIS directive, too?</p>
<p>Another peculiarity is that the government announcement doesn’t once mention the EU. Instead, the NIS directive is presented as an important part of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-cyber-security-strategy-2016-to-2021">UK Cyber Security Strategy</a>, even though it is an EU initiative. A pattern is emerging here: the <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/european-union-mobile-roaming-charges">removal of mobile roaming fees</a>, a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/card-surcharge-ban-means-no-more-nasty-surprises-for-shoppers">ban on hidden credit card charges</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-stealth-microplastics-to-avoid-if-you-want-to-save-the-oceans-90063">environmental initiatives</a> have all been claimed as UK policies by Theresa May’s government without any adequate attribution to the EU. Digital minister Margot James said:</p>
<blockquote>We are setting out new and robust cybersecurity measures to help ensure the UK is the safest place in the world to live and be online. We want our essential services and infrastructure to be primed and ready to tackle cyber-attacks and be resilient against major disruption to services.</blockquote>
<h2>Who needs to be aware of the NIS directive?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/677065/NIS_Consultation_Response_-_Government_Policy_Response.pdf">government consultation response</a> clarifies which operators of essential services and digital service providers the directive will apply to, once transposed into UK law. It uses a narrow definition of “essential”, excluding sectors such as government and food. Small firms are mostly excused from compliance; nuclear power generation has been left out, presumably to cover it exclusively under national security; and electricity generators are excluded from compliance if they don’t have smart metering in place. Digital service providers expected to comply with the NIS directive include cloud services (such as those providing data storage or email), online marketplaces and search engines.</p>
<p>The law requires one or more “competent authorities”, which the UK plans to organise by sector. It means communications regulator Ofcom will oversee digital infrastructure businesses and data watchdog the ICO will regulate digital service providers. They will receive reports on incidents, give directions to operators and set appropriate fines. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that the ICO, in its multiple roles, could fine a service provider twice for different aspects of the same incident – once due to non-compliance with NIS and once due to non-compliance with GDPR. But incidents need to be considered significant in order to be on the radar for this directive. It will be judged on the number of affected users, the duration and geographical spread of any disruption and the severity of the impact. </p>
<p>Clearly, once this legislation is in place, the next WannaCry-style incident will be closely scrutinised by regulators to see how well prepared organisations are to deal with such a major event.</p>
<h2>National and international coordination</h2>
<p>The coordination of many NIS activities falls to the UK’s <a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/">National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)</a>, part of the government’s surveillance agency, <a href="https://www.gchq.gov.uk/news-article/national-cyber-security-centre-2017-annual-review">GCHQ</a>. It will provide the centralised computer security incident response team (CSIRT), and act as the “single point of contact” to collaborate with international peers as a major cyber attack unfolds. The NCSC will play a central role in reporting and analysing incidents, but remains out of the loop on enforcing the law and fines.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NMMO9OgX9KE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Sharing cyber incident information within an industry sector or internationally is important for larger scale analysis and better overall resilience. However, there are risks due to the inclusion of cyber vulnerability implications, business critical information and personal data in such sensitive reports. Two EU research projects (<a href="http://www.necs-project.eu/">NeCS</a> and <a href="http://c3isp.eu/">C3ISP</a>) aim to address these risks through the use of privacy preserving methods and security policies. The C3ISP project says its “mission is to define a collaborative and confidential information sharing, analysis and protection framework as a service for cybersecurity management.”</p>
<h2>More security standards?</h2>
<p>The idea of having prescriptive rules per sector was considered and rejected during the UK’s consultation process on the NIS directive. It’s in line with how the GDPR imposes cybersecurity requirements for personal data: it consistently refers to “appropriate technical and organisational measures” to achieve security, without pinning it down to specifics. Such an approach should help with obtaining organisational involvement that goes beyond a compliance culture.</p>
<p>A set of 14 guiding principles were drawn up, with the NCSC providing <a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/table-view-principles-and-related-guidance">detailed advice</a> including helpful links to existing cybersecurity standards. However, the <a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/cyber-assessment-framework-caf">cyber assessment framework</a>, originally promised for release in January this year, won’t be published by the NCSC until late April – a matter of days before the NIS comes into force.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the NIS directive presents a good drive to improve standards for cybersecurity in essential services, and it is supported by sensible <a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/nis-guidance-collection">advice</a> from the NCSC with more to come. It would be a shame if the positive aspects of this ended up obscured by hype and panic over fines.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90869/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eerke Boiten receives funding from EPSRC EP/P011772/1 EMPHASIS (EconoMical, PsycHologicAl and Societal Impact of RanSomware). He is a visiting professor at the University of Kent and through that involved with the EU H2020 project NeCS (Network of Excellence in Cyber Security) for which he was previously the principal investigator at Kent.</span></em></p>But despite the UK’s alarmist tone on the incoming NIS directive, it’s not just about the hefty £17m fines.Eerke Boiten, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/899402018-01-11T14:55:05Z2018-01-11T14:55:05ZGood luck banning fake news – here’s why it’s unlikely to happen<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201634/original/file-20180111-60744-dbtkb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pants on fire. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/stop-corruption-concept-spreading-lies-symbol-528138850?src=G2jnaTaVzGcpQZm26So8EQ-1-13">Lightspring</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>French president Emmanuel Macron’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/03/emmanuel-macron-ban-fake-news-french-president">recent pledge</a> to make a new law to tackle perceived fake news has <a href="https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/macron-faces-criticism-after-proposal-to-combat-fake-news-1.693883">touched nerves</a> in some corners with its potential impact on freedom of expression. </p>
<p>Fake news is nothing new – there have probably always been news reports that were deliberately inaccurate. But it was arguably rarer in the days before the internet because it tended to be prevented by media regulators, defamation law and newsroom editorial controls. </p>
<p>To some extent, that’s still true; in the UK, for example, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/?page=1&perPage=20">has handled</a> 28,645 complaints regarding inaccuracy since being set up four years ago, ruling that its accuracy provision has been breached in 174 cases.</p>
<p>Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites have been largely free from this regulation, however, due to concerns about individual freedom of expression. Web-only publishers have managed to avoid most traditional media regulation, too. Since social media in particular has grown rapidly, fake news has become less controllable and more sensational. </p>
<p>This has been particularly noticeable in politics, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-voters-deluge-fake-news-stories-facebook-twitter-russian-influence-days-before-election-a7696506.html">such as</a> in the recent French and American presidential elections, even if the impact of fake news <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/%7Egentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf">is difficult</a> to ascertain. When you talk about clamping down on fake news, you are basically therefore talking about regulating online press and social media – the question is how far regulation should extend, and how. </p>
<h2>The current set-up</h2>
<p>Traditional media regulation is rather complex and fragmented. In the UK, the press sector is mainly voluntarily self-governed by IPSO, which uses the <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/">Editors’ Code of Practice</a> to adjudicate on complaints by victims.</p>
<p>As far as fake news is concerned, Article 1 of the Code requires that the press must not publish “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text”. The remedies are limited, however; offenders are <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/">normally asked</a> to make corrections or publish apologies. The decisions are also not legally enforceable, though in practice publishers almost always observe them. </p>
<p>In UK broadcasting, the regulator is <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk">Ofcom</a>. Here, fake news is <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code">covered by</a> section five of the Broadcasting Code. This requires broadcasters to report the news with “due accuracy and due impartiality”, breach of which will result in legal actions against them, financial penalties, or, in the most serious cases, a suspension or revocation of their broadcasting licence. </p>
<p>Social media has been exempt from these regulations. Web publishers are in theory regulated by IPSO, but in practice the regulator has few web-only members. All online statements are still subject to defamation law, however – as well as <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/contents">criminal law</a> if the inaccurate information contains racial or religious hatred or other offensive elements. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201636/original/file-20180111-101489-p7gjsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201636/original/file-20180111-101489-p7gjsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201636/original/file-20180111-101489-p7gjsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201636/original/file-20180111-101489-p7gjsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201636/original/file-20180111-101489-p7gjsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201636/original/file-20180111-101489-p7gjsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201636/original/file-20180111-101489-p7gjsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201636/original/file-20180111-101489-p7gjsn.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tweet tweet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/alushta-russia-november-21-2014-man-232484764?src=nGs1XrJFD-D2kp-D0Pl9qg-1-35">Denys Prykhodov</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition, there is regulation at EU level in the form of the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/revision-audiovisual-media-services-directive-avmsd">Audio-Visual Media Services Directive 2007</a>. It has harmonised member states’ laws in this area, establishing a regime that distinguishes between scheduled “audio-visual services” like the BBC, “on-demand services” like Netflix, and “user-generated social media” like Twitter. </p>
<p>In particular, audio-visual services – also known as “linear services” – are obliged to take editorial responsibility, while social media is excluded from this obligation. The press, whether newspapers or online publications, and private blogs are not even covered by the directive, except for their audio-visual elements. </p>
<p>In view of the increasing influence of online content, the European Commission <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/revision-audiovisual-media-services-directive-avmsd">recently amended</a> the directive. This slightly enhances the obligations for online media by encouraging self-regulation or co-regulation of online platforms. As far as accuracy is concerned, the amended directive requires online platforms to behave responsibly, but this is a rather principled provision without too much specific content. </p>
<p>In short, as far as fake news is concerned, the EU regulations still leave social media and web publishing relatively unregulated. Again, the best resorts are general defamation law or criminal law. </p>
<h2>What to do</h2>
<p>President Macron’s proposal sets a goal of regulating fake news no matter where it is published. He has provided little detail about how he would do this. </p>
<p>One option would be to introduce content regulation to the online sphere, but that would raise a number of questions. For one, from a legal point of view, it’s not easy to define what fake news is. The very term suggests intent, but how to separate this from the fact that the media has <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd991028/rey01.htm">long been allowed</a> to make mistakes to perform its democratic functions – so long as it has made responsible attempts to investigate the facts of the reports?</p>
<p>Second, the freedom of expression question refuses to go away. You expect a higher degree of free speech on social media because these sites are an essential alternative source of news free from the control of corporate powers. Enhance the regulation of this sphere and you are in danger of stifling lively online debate. </p>
<p>Indeed, <a href="http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf">article 10</a> of the European Convention on Human Rights protects free expression, only allowing restrictions on public interest grounds. Any attempt to restrict political speech may lead to the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights – to which the UK might well remain a party after Brexit. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201637/original/file-20180111-101483-a6x00i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201637/original/file-20180111-101483-a6x00i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201637/original/file-20180111-101483-a6x00i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201637/original/file-20180111-101483-a6x00i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201637/original/file-20180111-101483-a6x00i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201637/original/file-20180111-101483-a6x00i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=947&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201637/original/file-20180111-101483-a6x00i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=947&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201637/original/file-20180111-101483-a6x00i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=947&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Milling about.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#/media/File:John_Stuart_Mill_by_London_Stereoscopic_Company,_c1870.jpg">Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Along with a feeling that social media is less influential than traditional media, the importance of free speech on social media appears to have so far persuaded the UK against trying to introduce regulation. </p>
<p>One of the underlying justifications for free speech was put forward by the great liberal thinker John Stuart Mill. He <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/130/">argued convincingly</a> more than 150 years ago that unrestricted discussion helps the discovery of truth. Accept this and you’re back to the status quo: so long as fake news does not cause any other apparent harms to individuals, as opposed to the political climate, perhaps no more regulation of social media is needed beyond general defamation law and criminal law. </p>
<p>Perhaps all we should or even can do is to take heart from Mill that the truth will eventually surface from the debate – and that a robust online environment will therefore self-correct.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89940/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zhongdong Niu 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>Emmanuel Macron is the latest to talk about reining in fake news. It can’t be done.Zhongdong Niu, Lecturer in Law, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/809712017-07-13T10:10:24Z2017-07-13T10:10:24ZMurdoch bid for Sky is not just about news<p>When Ofcom published its report to the media and culture secretary, Karen Bradley, on its public interest test for the proposed acquisition of Sky plc by 21st Century Fox, it <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/103620/public-interest-test-report.pdf">rightly found</a> that a takeover would raise public interest concerns. But these were only raised in relation to the potential influence of members of the Murdoch Family Trust over the UK’s news agenda. </p>
<p>Ofcom wrongly seems to have decided to ignore plurality concerns that are not related to news. Bradley is due to make a final decision on whether to refer the case to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) after July 14, the deadline for final representations on the issue. Several other concerns do have public interest consequences and justify a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/jun/29/rupert-murdoch-sky-bid-is-now-very-likely-to-succeed">second-phase review</a>. They should be thoroughly considered by the CMA in that review.</p>
<p>News is crucial for keeping citizens informed and enabling public debate, but it is not the only content that can shape people’s worldview or engagement with political issues or processes. A <a href="http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471-e-30">review of research on the effects</a> of entertainment content provides convincing evidence that it can influence people’s levels of social trust, fear of crime, views on law enforcement and civil liberties, stances on gender and equality issues, all of which can be important shapers of political preferences. </p>
<p>For example, one <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07481187.2016.1186761">recent study</a> of Austrian viewers found a clear correlation between the amount of American content watched and misconceptions about the norms and facts of the very different justice system in their own country.</p>
<p>There is also evidence that entertainment content can introduce political issues to audiences that are not usually interested in news and politics, even encouraging them to seek out information on issues. A <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Schneider/publication/262418422_Entertainment_and_Politics_Revisited_How_Non-Escapist_Forms_of_Entertainment_Can_Stimulate_Political_Interest_and_Information_Seeking/links/5729b55708ae2efbfdb8bccc/Entertainment-and-Politics-Revisited-How-Non-Escapist-Forms-of-Entertainment-Can-Stimulate-Political-Interest-and-Information-Seeking.pdf">recent experimental study</a> found that some kinds of entertainment content encouraged viewers’ awareness of and engagement with political issues. </p>
<p>Celebrities, who appear not just as actors or musicians but also on talk shows and other formats, can influence political positions and levels of engagement. There is also <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120918121320.htm">increasing evidence</a> of the nuanced influence of satire and political comedy shows. Therefore, while an emphasis on news content may be justified, Ofcom’s exclusion of other content from its considerations of the deal’s potential consequences for UK politics is not.</p>
<h2>Public interest in sport</h2>
<p>Live sport transmission and sports coverage is big business, but it is also important for social cohesion. Live sports remains a significant force in bringing communities and even the nation together in a collective experience that can engender unity and pride. This includes more that just the World Cup or the Olympics, for which viewer’s access is somewhat protected from their being listed as “important events”. </p>
<p>The participation of clubs from places such as Tottenham, Liverpool and Glasgow in international tournaments can be valuable vehicles for social cohesion in some of the country’s more deprived areas.</p>
<p>Sports rights, however, are increasingly the subject of fierce and very <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/06/12/fifa-mega-sporting-events-and-sports-rights/">expensive bidding wars</a>. By 2016 the two biggest football rights holders in the UK were both internet service providers, BT and, of course, Sky. The movement of sports content to subscription and online-only platforms can seriously affect the ability of those from poorer communities, the elderly and those in rural areas to access sports. While this may not be as important a public interest as that of having a well-informed public engaged in political processes, it is still a legitimate public interest concern.</p>
<h2>Multi-platform dominance</h2>
<p>Despite raising serious and well-evidenced concerns over the potential consequences of the deal on the UK’s news provision and political process, Ofcom decided that the behavioural undertakings offered by Fox to set up an independent board for Sky News and take other measures to safeguard against members of the Murdoch Family Trust influencing Sky News would acceptably mitigate these concerns.</p>
<p>Des Freedman has <a href="http://theconversation.com/decision-to-refer-sky-bid-to-regulator-a-blow-to-murdochs-but-will-it-be-short-lived-80285">already pointed out on this site</a> that the Murdochs do not have a good record of sticking to promised undertakings. But, in any case, such behavioural remedies would not address the company’s position as an internet service provider (ISP) and the potential consequences in terms of access to content and viewers, the premium content markets, or to the advertising market upon which UK content production depends. Structural undertakings would be necessary.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.isba.org.uk/">Incorporated Society of British Advertisers</a>, in its submission to Ofcom – which has yet to be published online – rightly raised the potential negative consequences for the UK advertising market of having a dominant owner across multiple media platforms. Advertising still funds a vast amount of the UK-produced content of all types, so the health of that market – and the extent of competition for advertising and audience “eyes” faced by UK content providers face is important. </p>
<p>Perhaps a more serious issue, though, is the fact that the deal will give the Murdoch Family Trust a combination of cross-platform media ownership and ownership of an ISP. The potential for bundled services and cross-platform promotion are great. Jonathan Hardy, national secretary of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting
Freedom, <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Hardy.pdf">correctly warned</a> that this combination could lead to the “lock-in” of consumers and could even affect editorial independence. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"885386602511552513"}"></div></p>
<p>As my UEA colleague <a href="https://www.uea.ac.uk/norwich-business-school/people/profile/d-reader">David Reader</a> and I argued in <a href="http://competitionpolicy.ac.uk/documents/8158338/16525214/1+CCP+response+to+Ofcom+Fox-Sky+consultation+-+March+2017.pdf/3252251b-e37a-4557-b09f-5658af09ce33">our submission</a> to Ofcom, Sky’s position as an ISP in an environment in which “reasonable” traffic management is allowed can have damaging consequences for viewers’ access to content, not to mention its dominance in the market for premium content rights, such as for high-quality drama and sports.</p>
<p>These concerns cannot be solved by behavioural undertakings alone. With Bradley “minded to refer” the case to the CMA, one can only hope that they will not relegate these to a mere mention in an appendix.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80971/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sally Broughton Micova is affiliated with the UEA Centre for Competition Policy, the Centre on Regulation in Europe and the LSE Media Policy Project. </span></em></p>This deal needs to be seen for what it is: a massive step towards dominance of the UK media which could influence public opinion and squeeze out competition.Sally Broughton Micova, Lecturer in Communications Policy and Politics, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/773922017-05-12T00:57:05Z2017-05-12T00:57:05ZWhy media reform in Australia has been so hard to achieve<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168827/original/file-20170510-21610-yoybhq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitch Fifield recently announced the Turnbull government would once again attempt to tackle media reform.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>From the mid-20th century, there has been substantial international support for plurality of media ownership. Policies designed to limit the number of media outlets owned or controlled by one proprietor have been seen as a precondition for achieving a diverse range of viewpoints.</p>
<p>The assumption has been that concentrated ownership confers undemocratic power on “influential” owners to sway governments and advance their own private interests. </p>
<p>But while the power of major media groups has long been recognised – <a href="https://theconversation.com/murdoch-and-his-influence-on-australian-political-life-16752">particularly during elections</a> – ruling political parties increasingly only make significant policy changes with an eye to the impacts on their media allies. </p>
<p>Consistent with other Western nations, Australia’s media ownership rules have become more deregulated since the 1980s. This has meant media ownership in Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-ownership-concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437">has become increasingly concentrated</a>.</p>
<p>The Australian media policy omelette cannot simply be unscrambled, but forward-thinking diversity rules could help prevent further concentration of ownership. Communications Minister Mitch Fifield recently announced the Turnbull government would once again <a href="http://www.mitchfifield.com/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1352/Major-reforms-to-support-Australian-broadcasters.aspx">attempt to tackle media reform</a>. However, the proposed changes are neither future-looking nor future-proofing.</p>
<h2>Removing restrictions</h2>
<p>Serious attempts at systemic reform to tackle a changing media landscape were last seen in the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1339_convergence.pdf">Convergence Review</a> in 2012. </p>
<p>But its proposed changes, including the idea of a Content Service Enterprise (where regulation of content was to be applied equally regardless of the platform it was delivered on), were too threatening to incumbent players. The review was binned.</p>
<p>Prior to the cross-media laws being introduced in 1987, limits had applied to the numbers of media-specific outlets within a single sector. This meant media groups such as John Fairfax Holdings and the Herald and Weekly Times had previously been able to accumulate media outlets across platforms like newspapers, TV and radio. But it was considered not to be in the public interest to allow this kind of concentration of influence.</p>
<p>Later, in the deregulatory spirit of the times, successive Coalition governments from 1996 attempted to repeal laws aimed at tackling media concentration. Yet it took until 2006 for this goal to <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2006A00129">be achieved</a>. </p>
<p>These changes removed the main cross-media ownership restrictions. They allowed TV/newspaper/radio mergers with a “two out of three” media sector limit, and introduced metropolitan and rural/regional voice limits under the so-called “5/4 voices” test. The latter refers to the minimum number of media groups (or “voices”) allowed in metropolitan and regional markets respectively.</p>
<p>In spite of ongoing attempts, and largely due to a lack of industry consensus, conservative governments have been unable to remove the final ownership restrictions. But the Turnbull government says a consensus <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/influential-senators-warm-to-media-reform-package/news-story/99bfac339f9d493144294e45faf37af6">has now been reached</a>.</p>
<p>The proposed changes to media ownership – axing the two-out-of-three rule and the 75% “reach” rule – are buried under more headline-grabbing measures. These include the removal of licence fees for commercial TV networks, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-odds-ban-debate-exposes-sport-and-gamblings-uncomfortable-mutual-dependency-76514">introduction of gambling ad restrictions</a> on free-to-air licensees, and granting pay TV expanded access to sporting events previously on the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">anti-siphoning list</a>.</p>
<p>Restricting gambling ads during daytime viewing has a clear community benefit. But the wider voice benefits of diversity that flow from retaining restrictions on the further concentration of ownership are far more consequential for all Australians.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=2370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=2370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=2370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=2979&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=2979&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168840/original/file-20170511-21603-rzyi2o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=2979&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"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>A different approach</h2>
<p>Australia’s media landscape is an outlier as one of the most <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-ownership-concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437">highly concentrated in the world</a> – behind Egypt and China, according to <a href="http://internationalmedia.pbworks.com/w/page/20075656/FrontPage">one international assessment</a>. The proposed changes will only make that worse.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/a-government-without-newspapers-why-everyone-should-care-about-the-cuts-at-fairfax-77163">Radical changes</a> in the news media sector urgently demand new policy responses to accommodate an industry in transition. Simply removing the last major remaining bulwark against the concentration of media voices is not the solution.</p>
<p>Repealing the two-out-of-three rule will not lessen the impact of internet hegemons Facebook and Google on news business models – they control around 90% of the growth in the <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/01/04/google-facebook-ad-industry/">online advertising market</a>. That horse has long since bolted. But the rule continues to prevent further media concentration. </p>
<p>In addition to industry strategies, Australia needs to have a comprehensive review of how news is now consumed across online and traditional media. This would serve as a precursor to media diversity policies that tackle the changing news environment.</p>
<p>The UK’s Ofcom and the European Commission have made significant inroads into monitoring, researching and updating voice pluralism policies. Australia needs to take similar decisive action. This is even more urgent for Australia given the parlous state of our media diversity.</p>
<p>Ofcom, at the request of Culture Secretary Karen Bradley, <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/update-on-the-proposed-merger-of-sky-with-21st-century-fox">will shortly decide</a> whether a full takeover by 21st Century Fox of BSkyB is in the public interest. It will base its decision on broadcasting standards and media pluralism. </p>
<p>If media pluralism and the dominant influence of Rupert Murdoch’s companies on the news is a big concern in the UK, then the same issue is front and centre in Australia’s highly concentrated news sector. This is even more the case with a potential TPG buyout and likely asset-stripping <a href="https://theconversation.com/tpg-bid-for-fairfax-what-usually-happens-when-private-equity-meets-media-77313">of Fairfax Media</a>.</p>
<p>The proposed removal of the two-out-of-three rule will only make Australia’s media more concentrated in Murdoch’s hands – for example, if News Corp bought the ailing Ten Network. </p>
<p>The media reform package smacks of the government doing deals with the incumbent commercial TV networks and News Corp’s Foxtel. It is a short-sighted political play, and not a serious attempt to tackle structural change in the media industries by looking at ways to maximise diversity for audiences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77392/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Dwyer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>The Australian media policy omelette cannot simply be unscrambled. But forward-thinking diversity rules could help prevent further concentration of media ownership.Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/744752017-03-16T12:29:14Z2017-03-16T12:29:14ZBT has made a huge gamble on sport – but will it win?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160939/original/image-20170315-5324-17453un.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Game time.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/watching-smart-tv-translation-football-game-410515714?src=bII6r3MbbmgenOotgfWUuA-1-23">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For the top football clubs in Europe, it was another great result. The telephone company BT was so determined to keep broadcasting Champions’ League and Europa League football, that <a href="http://sport.bt.com/football/bt-retains-exclusive-rights-to-uefa-champions-league-and-uefa-europa-league-S11364161627708">it forked out £1.18 billion</a> for the privilege.</p>
<p>The eye-watering contract between British Telecommunications PLC and UEFA for exclusively live rights to the UK market, will last for three seasons from 2018 to 2021. The deal, which means not even highlights programmes are shown on terrestrial television stations, represents a massive 32% per cent price rise on the current deal in place from 2015. </p>
<p>So was it a winning move? Or an own goal? How can BT possibly make an economic return on such a large outlay?</p>
<p>The company already has a commanding industry position as the largest telecommunications company in the UK. <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/facts">According to Ofcom</a>, in 2016 BT had a 32% market share of internet broadband services, 37% of landline provision, and 33% of the mobile market. Its closest rivals that year were Sky in broadband (23%), Virgin Media in landline services (13%), and O2 in mobile phone networks (21%). </p>
<p>The ongoing and major challenge for BT is to sustain these high levels of market share (and profit) across its range of services. And this is no easy task. <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/bt-agrees-to-legal-separation-of-openreach">Ofcom ruled</a> in early 2017 that BT’s Openreach cable and landline provision should be separated from the rest of BT. This followed <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38141510">complaints about the charges</a> to telecommunications partners, combined with <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bt-openreach-draws-flak-poor-broadband-service-new-homes-1540786">poor service </a>. Openreach <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/11819236/BT-should-be-stripped-of-Openreach-says-Chris-Bryant.html">was accused</a> by Labour MP Chris Bryant of behaving like a “natural monopoly”, restricting competition and charging high prices. </p>
<p>The company’s relatively recent (2013) entry into the UK sports broadcasting market is best seen as a strategy to fend off competition in the broadband market from Sky, its nearest rival. The initial foray was into Premier League TV rights, facilitated by European Union pressure to allow a second broadcaster into the UK sports TV market following <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/nov/18/sportsrights.sport">concerns</a> over Sky’s previous monopoly position. </p>
<p>BT had the advantage of established telecommunications networks with considerable management and technical expertise that could be applied to its move into sports broadcasting. Consumers were then enticed with free subscriptions to those signed up for BT broadband contracts. </p>
<p>BT paid £620m a year for these rights from 2015 to 2017, split roughly equally between Premier League and UEFA competitions. Again, huge amounts of money – but once the fixed costs of rights acquisition are paid for, the remaining variable costs are actually rather low (equipment, production crew and pundits), at least compared to creating drama or documentary programmes. </p>
<p>BT makes money from sports broadcasts through viewer subscriptions and selling advertising. But <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/02/12/uefa-concerned-by-bt-sports-dismal-champions-league-viewing-figu/">figures from the 2015-16 season</a> do not point to substantial returns. Manchester United versus Brugge in a playoff match prior to the Champions League group stage drew a total of 988,000 viewers to BT’s new channels. A Champions League group match between Manchester City and Borussia Moenchengladbach generated 651,000.</p>
<p>In the world of TV ratings, these numbers compare unfavourably with the 5m viewers who tuned in to the previous ITV terrestrial provision for a typical Champions League group stage match featuring a British club. Not an appealing prospect for advertisers who want a substantial audience reach. </p>
<p>Since 2015, BT has repackaged its channels and raised its marketing efforts. It has <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/07/11/bts-first-major-content-tie-ee-will-offer-mobile-customers-free-bt-sport">moved into smartphones</a> and apps as media for its Champions League and Premier League coverage. Certainly, UEFA was not disturbed by the threat of low audience reach for advertisers when awarding its latest UK contract to BT rather than Sky or ITV. It even removed the popular late night Champions League highlights show from ITV.</p>
<h2>Turn on, tune in, pay up</h2>
<p>But BT will find itself constrained in raising subscription fees. Around 80% per cent of UK homes already have broadband so the scope for market growth is small. The company then has to appeal to consumers’ sense of value and their willingness to pay. Both BT and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/mar/19/sky-raises-sports-and-entertainment-package-prices">Sky have raised subscription fees</a> across the whole range of services substantially over the last two years. </p>
<p>When Sky bid aggressively to retain Premier League TV rights from 2016 it raised subscription fees by around 10% and claimed that costs would be cut by rationalising call centre operations. </p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/phones/2016/04/bt-announces-steep-price-rises-for-home-phone-and-broadband--how-to-beat-the-hikes">BT raised</a> landline telephone and broadband rates by around 15% in 2016. But the scope for price increases is limited by consumer willingness to pay. After all, watching sports on TV is hardly a necessity. Further price increases will lead to households cancelling TV contracts from both BT and Sky, regardless of what is on offer in the TV bundle. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WEroekNww8k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>For BT, making an economic return out of sports broadcasting is difficult but not impossible. They will certainly be hoping that the quality of the football it broadcasts remains high, with more games like Barcelona’s <a href="https://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/news/2016-2017/the-world-s-press-reacts-to-fc-barcelona-s-historic-comeback-psg">recent remarkable comeback</a> against Paris St Germain. It also helps if British teams do well and progress in the competition. The telecoms giant has placed a big bet on an exciting European future – with as few footballing Brexits as possible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74475/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Simmons 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 to get the best result from a £1.1 billion bet on football.Robert Simmons, Professor of Economics, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/650312016-09-14T20:16:53Z2016-09-14T20:16:53ZMedia owners steer government away from reform in the public interest<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136987/original/image-20160908-25279-1ktnfum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitch Fifield argues media diversity is under threat unless the government's bill is passed.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Turnbull government’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5674">media bill</a> has been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/new-senate-media-reform-inquiry-frustrates-tv-chiefs/news-story/4a53759c60337bf74812b0f199971386">sent off to</a> another Senate inquiry, despite protestations from the government and the industry over the need to pass it urgently.</p>
<p>Communications Minister Mitch Fifield’s <a href="http://www.mitchfifield.com/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1253/Media-law-reform-package-reintroduced.aspx">assessment</a> is that if the government does not remove <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-changes-to-australias-media-ownership-laws-are-being-proposed-55509">two media rules</a> – one limiting national audience reach and the other limiting cross-media ownership – media diversity is under threat. But this inverts the reality. Mergers and acquisitions will generally mean <a href="https://theconversation.com/diversity-and-local-voices-at-risk-as-media-owners-aim-to-become-emperors-of-everything-55298">less voice diversity</a> – not more. A wave of these is <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwigsouY2v7OAhUEn5QKHfksAEAQFggrMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Fnew-wave-of-media-mergers-under-sweeping-reforms%2Fnews-story%2F1c476ff4fff65ca75869abcb5cd526a0&usg=AFQjCNE7bW7JfE-O3zL35SF98E24GaADfg&bvm=bv.131783435,d.dGo">likely to be triggered</a> by removing these rules.</p>
<p>Fifield’s deregulatory bluster aligns quite closely with standard News Corp messaging. He may <a href="http://www.mitchfifield.com/Media/Speeches/tabid/71/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1121/SPEECH--National-Press-Club-Address.aspx">claim to be</a> “ownership agnostic”, but the obvious outcome of removing restrictions on who can own what will inevitably mean industry consolidation. And Australia already has one of the <a href="http://www.uow.edu.au/%7Esharonb/STS218/media/ownership/concentration.html">most-concentrated media markets</a> in the democratic world.</p>
<p>The takeaway from this sideshow is a profound sense that Australia is a media policy backwater. The time-honoured political and media-owner manoeuvrings are a substitute for smart, citizen-focused policymaking.</p>
<p>The nations that have most influenced Australia’s media policymaking in the past – the US and the UK – have embraced the future of media diversity far more constructively.</p>
<h2>US rule-making for media diversity</h2>
<p>The US has had a process of <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fccs-review-broadcast-ownership-rules">structured media ownership reviews</a> in place since 1996, known as the quadrennial media ownership reviews.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/20102014-media-ownership-rules-review">two previous US reviews</a> (2010 and 2014) have just concluded. Key ownership restrictions, including on cross-media ownership, are being left in place.</p>
<p>In its <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-107A1.doc">most recent “Report and Order”</a>, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recognised the continuing importance of traditional media in local communities for viewpoint diversity, particularly for local news and public interest programming, and the rapidly changing ways content is accessed. It argued:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the public interest is best served by retaining our existing rules, with some minor modifications. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those modifications relate to measures to enhance innovation and viewpoint diversity, and public disclosure of agreements between media outlets about how content is shared. </p>
<p>Although the US media rules for diversity have been to some extent mired in judicial proceedings, they nonetheless have been relatively systematic and underpinned by generally sound public interest objectives. </p>
<p>This has all taken place in a media context of far greater ownership diversity than Australia’s.</p>
<h2>The UK’s Ofcom</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, and in a more innovative way that responds to changing media access and consumption, the main regulatory authority in the UK, <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">Ofcom</a>, has <a href="http://www.epra.org/news_items/ofcom-concludes-its-work-on-the-measurement-framework-for-media-plurality">recently renovated its processes</a> for assessing media pluralism. </p>
<p>Ofcom has been required to review the UK’s ownership rules <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/morr/summary">at least every three years</a> since 2003. The restrictions in place include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a rule limiting cross-media ownership of newspapers and TV at a national level; </p></li>
<li><p>requirements for the appointment of a regional TV news (Channel 3) provider; and </p></li>
<li><p>a rule for administering a public interest test in relation to mergers.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In its <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/cross-media/media-ownership-research/rulesreport2015/">most recent statutory review</a>, Ofcom concluded the rules needed to be retained to protect pluralism. But, it recognised that this would require ongoing reassessment if the importance of TV news and newspapers continues to decline.</p>
<p>In its new framework for assessing plurality in news and current affairs content, Ofcom has developed a range of quantitative and qualitative indicators. These are designed to assess the availability of news sources, their consumption and their impact on users. It includes metrics for assessing the number of providers, reach, share of consumption, sources and the personal importance of a source.</p>
<p>The UK government, through Ofcom, has sensibly recognised that online news is increasingly important. A large proportion of people <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/digital-news-audience-fact-sheet/">now access</a> news only via Facebook. This pattern can be seen around the world, including in the US and Australia. </p>
<p>Taking this changing consumption into account in policy is even more important when we know these platforms are not neutral: their <a href="http://wallaroomedia.com/facebook-newsfeed-algorithm-change-history/">algorithms manipulate</a> what news content people see.</p>
<p>Ofcom has <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/media-plurality-framework/">also recommended</a> new assessment mechanisms to take into account qualitative contextual factors. The proxies for impact include impartiality, trust, reliability and the final ability of a news sources to sway an opinion.</p>
<p>Ofcom has developed an innovative <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2013/12/04/media-plurality-series-is-ofcoms-share-of-references-scheme-fit-for-measuring-media-power/">“share of references”</a> to compare consumption of news across different platforms with different consumption measures. It is, in effect, a cross-media metric that looks at consumption in terms of who owns the news source. </p>
<p>Under this approach, online intermediaries – like search engines or social networks – are considered a separate category of growing importance when looking at media consumption metrics, where they may not necessarily be a producer of a news title or a separate brand.</p>
<h2>Changing news consumption and sources</h2>
<p>These kinds of aggregated metrics are necessary to allow regulatory agencies working in the public interest to track changes in patterns of news consumption and the diversity of available news sources. </p>
<p>Responsible public policymaking obliges governments and their agencies to monitor these developments to gather the information to evaluate whether or not the current policy intent remains – and, if so, how to develop regulatory tools (including web traffic analysis software and news data analytics) to secure it.</p>
<p>The Turnbull government, however, is engaged in a process that is all about the sideshow – not forward-thinking media policy with the public interest in mind.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=3175&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113345/original/image-20160301-4063-1lzv1m3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=3990&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"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65031/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Dwyer receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project about sharing news online. </span></em></p>The Turnbull government is engaged in a media reform process that is all about the sideshow – not forward-thinking policy with the public interest in mind.Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/557982016-03-08T10:26:01Z2016-03-08T10:26:01ZEverything you ever wanted to know about nuisance phone calls<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113887/original/image-20160304-17726-trviyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How not to deal with sales calls</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">wavebreakmedia/Shuuterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We’ve all experienced it. Your phone rings, you pick it up, say hello and it’s someone you don’t know trying to sell you something – or a recorded message. Nuisance calls can be irritating, time-wasting and for some people, highly distressing. But can anything be done about them?</p>
<p>In July 2013, the <a href="https://ico.org.uk/">Information Commissioners Office</a> (ICO) and telecommunications regulator, <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">Ofcom</a>, announced they were <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/silent-calls/joint-action-plan/">joining forces</a> to tackle nuisance calls. Then, from last April, the <a href="https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/nuisance-calls-and-messages/">ICO was given new powers to crack down</a> on nuisance calls through an amendment to the <a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/">Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations</a>. The results of which are now starting to be seen. </p>
<p>Only last month the ICO issued its <a href="https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2016/02/record-fine-for-company-behind-staggering-46-million-nuisance-calls/">largest ever fine of £350,000 to Prodial</a>, a company that had made more than 46m nuisance calls. </p>
<p>Manchester based <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/marketing-cold-calls-firm-fined-10904916">MyIML</a>, a telemarking company selling solar panels was also recently fined £80,000 by the ICO for contacting people who had opted out of receiving marketing calls. </p>
<h2>Why are nuisance calls such an issue?</h2>
<p>One of the main reasons nuisance calls are such a big problem these days is that it has never been so easy or cheap to setup a call centre. Today’s telephone network is one large computer and with business connection charges falling, all a telesales company needs is their own computer loaded with software – which is <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=call%20centre%20software">readily available from the web</a>. </p>
<p>With <a href="http://www.voipfone.co.uk/What_Is_Voip.php">modern Voice over IP systems</a>, call centres don’t even need their own direct link to the telephone network, so long as they are connected to the internet. The telesales organisation’s computer can then automatically dial telephone numbers, connecting those that answer through to telesales operators or a recorded message. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113889/original/image-20160304-17714-gy9gyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113889/original/image-20160304-17714-gy9gyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113889/original/image-20160304-17714-gy9gyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113889/original/image-20160304-17714-gy9gyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113889/original/image-20160304-17714-gy9gyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113889/original/image-20160304-17714-gy9gyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113889/original/image-20160304-17714-gy9gyt.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">Don’t call us, we’ll call you!</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tyler Olson/shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is generally considered to be <a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/?a=0">three types</a> of nuisance call. <a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/live-marketing-calls/">Live calls</a> are unwanted calls from a real person, normally from a telesales company. <a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/recorded-message-marketing-calls/">Automated calls</a> result in you hearing a pre-recorded marketing message when you answer the phone. And <a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/abandoned-and-silent-calls/">silent or abandoned calls</a> are just that – when you answer the phone no-one’s there. Then there’s also the issue of unwanted <a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/marketing-texts/">SMS text messages</a>. </p>
<p>In January 2016, <a href="https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/nuisance-calls-and-messages/">the ICO received 9,633</a> reports of nuisance calls to be investigated: 45% of these related to automated calls, 42.5% live calls and 12.5% SMS text messages. </p>
<h2>How can you stop nuisance calls?</h2>
<p>With nuisance calls becoming such a, well, nuisance, the telephone providers are now moving to tackle the problem at source. <a href="http://help2.talktalk.co.uk/how-do-i-manage-nuisance-calls">Talk Talk</a> has expanded their HomeSafe system to monitor the frequency of calls and to automatically block those that exceed a threshold from even reaching a customer’s phone. And in February this year, <a href="http://home.bt.com/news/bt-life/bt-offers-breakthrough-service-to-divert-huge-numbers-of-nuisance-calls-11364039280071">BT announced a similar service</a> is to be rolled out across their network. </p>
<p>But on top of this, there is also a lot you can do yourself to help reduce the number of calls. First off, you should always report nuisance calls to either the ICO or Ofcom – so they can be investigated. It’s all too easy to get annoyed and slam the phone down, but if you take a minute to gather as much information as possible and pass it on to the relevant organisation, at least then you might be saving someone else from the nuisance of nuisance calls in the future.</p>
<p>You should also register with the <a href="http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/index.html">Telephone Preference Service</a>. While this alone won’t stop nuisance calls, because it relies on the compliance of organisations, it does act as a deterrent, and is well worth doing if you haven’t done so already. </p>
<p>Another way of managing nuisance calls, is by using <a href="https://www.nfon.com/gb/solutions/resources/glossary/clip/">caller line identification</a> – which allows you to see the number of the person calling you. If you don’t recognise it, you simply have the option of not answering. You can also use call blocking either on your phone or through your telephone provider to stop calls from specific numbers. </p>
<p>Another tip, don’t immediately speak but listen when answering the phone because if it remains silent, there’s a good chance it’s a telesales call. </p>
<p>And of course, you’ve probably heard if before, but do be very careful of the small print on any paper or online form you complete, as you may inadvertently be allowing that organisation to contact you for marketing purposes - effectively saying yes to cold calling. </p>
<h2>Will they ever go away?</h2>
<p>Over the years, telecommunications firms have benefited from connecting companies to their networks and through the sale of services such as call blocking, so it is good to see some of that now being re-invested into tackling nuisance calls. </p>
<p>However, the next challenges are already emerging with a growing number of nuisance calls now being directed towards mobile phones. “<a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/phone-spoof-scam/">Spoofing</a>” has also become a big issue, with telesales companies now able to deceive us, and the network providers, by faking their own telephone number to get you to take the call. </p>
<p>So while it is good to see the regulators have begun the fightback with a renewed determination, sadly, so long as it remains profitable for telesales companies to operate, nuisance calls will continue to plague us. Even if overall volumes are reduced, each one we receive is still a nuisance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55798/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Linge is a Fellow of the IET, ITP and BCS Professional Institutions.
He has also received funding for research projects from the EPSRC and EU.</span></em></p>Is hanging-up the only way of getting rid of cold callers?Nigel Linge, Professor, Computer Networking and Telecommunications, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/516062015-12-01T13:30:44Z2015-12-01T13:30:44ZCan Christmas tree lights really play havoc with your Wi-Fi?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103866/original/image-20151201-26591-1wz3w4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Very pretty, but could they be ruining your connection?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisjones/2067241832/in/photolist-49F9Yy-7qinsb-e4SLTk-hhgU6-9c4YhX-3gMWUD-iZA173-rRw7k-5UBiXg-jWPgx-dDLBVX-fPWAAq-btXTor-nbbVi2-5JaUQX-pgFkhG-cvAknq-jfi6Wm-vvQ13i-iDMEXg-b7wAFR-5FHwg9-5D4BZW-PzwdN-aPEp5P-AJrJ9w-4iDhfY-5NFeka-cWiYM-9hzGJP-49F9zo-2HpA3-zPQKxH-A8LFra-kakR7-FPpB5-A8N7Rh-Ab5iEZ-AJt6LC-5VdThx-4GfFMm-944B4D-5VEnr5-8edA8b-bxyHzd-5VEmJ7-5VdTmD-9itcHx-7rZ1A-uuiQck">Chris_J/flickr</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">Ofcom</a>, the UK’s independent telephony regulator, has just released a <a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/news/ofcom-launches-wifi-checker/">Wi-Fi checker</a> app for your smart phone. At the same time, it warned in its press release that your Christmas tree fairy lights could affect the quality of your <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/guides/about-wifi">Wi-Fi</a> connection.</p>
<p>Before the terrible jokes start and we all declare that this is a fit of “Bah Humbug!” from the telephone regulator, the warning <em>is</em> correct – your fairy lights could indeed be a Wi-Fi downer. But then so could many other devices. Ultimately, it is a matter of how much of a problem they actually cause.</p>
<h2>The science behind the warning</h2>
<p>The whole press release describes how microwave ovens, fluorescent lights and other devices could also play havoc with your wireless connection. </p>
<p>Casting your minds back to science at school, you may recall your teacher describing the electromagnetic spectrum. The <a href="http://www.darvill.clara.net/emag/">electromagnetic spectrum</a> covers radio waves, microwaves, visible light and radiation. It is around us all the time. Our phones, radios, televisions and desk lights all depend on this principle from physical science.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103872/original/image-20151201-18818-1fj7q5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103872/original/image-20151201-18818-1fj7q5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103872/original/image-20151201-18818-1fj7q5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103872/original/image-20151201-18818-1fj7q5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103872/original/image-20151201-18818-1fj7q5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103872/original/image-20151201-18818-1fj7q5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103872/original/image-20151201-18818-1fj7q5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=372&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"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Electromagnetic_spectrum_illustrations#/media/File:Cont_emspec2.jpg">http://son.nasa.gov/tass/content/electrospectrum.htm</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Wireless networks typically work on the <a href="http://computer.howstuffworks.com/wireless-network1.htm">2.4 Gigahertz microwave radio spectrum</a>. The term Hertz means the number of waves per second, so 1 Hertz is one wavelength per second. Your FM radio station may use 100 Megahertz, or 100,000,000 waves per second, while 2.4 Gigahertz, used by wireless, is 2,400,000,000 waves per second, <a href="https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/networking/learn-wireless-basics/">making the radio waves used by Wi-Fi considerably shorter</a>. Essentially, this means that they are “weaker” than FM radio waves – as they require greater power to cover the same distance.</p>
<p>Your wireless router also uses considerably less power than a public FM transmitter. We expect the maximum reach of a domestic Wi-Fi signal to be 100 metres, while FM in the right conditions can easily be obtained at up to 10km and beyond. (There are also public forms of <a href="http://computer.howstuffworks.com/wimax.htm">Wi-Fi called WiMAX</a>, which can work in larger areas, but it is important to note that this is unrelated to the Ofcom press release.)</p>
<p>Because your wireless network is much less powerful than a big FM transmitter and its waves are weaker, where you place the router and what you have in your house will have an impact. Home electrics, microwaves, steel girders, concrete cladding and foil insulation all can have an effect. Older properties with their <a href="https://support.zen.co.uk/kb/Knowledgebase/Broadband-What-affects-your-WiFi-signal">thicker walls</a> make a difference, too, as the lower-powered, high frequency Wi-Fi radio waves struggle to penetrate them.</p>
<p>But while many different factors can dull your Wi-Fi signal, I can’t recall anyone yet getting miffed about their festive laptop watching of Dr Who being affected as soon as the Christmas lights go on.</p>
<h2>What should you do?</h2>
<p>But it is possible. Most fairy lights have unshielded wires, which means there’s no radio frequency insulation to protect radio-based devices from the electromagnetic effects of the power cables trailing around your tree. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, it would take a considerable volume of lights to create enough interference to seriously degrade your Wi-Fi network. In fact, you would have to be lighting up your tree like a small sun – which perhaps some of you are planning. </p>
<p>Do consider downloading the Wi-Fi checker app offered by Ofcom, however – it may help you discover that it’s the service provided by your phone company, rather than the fairy lights, that’s to blame for all that endless buffering. </p>
<p>You should also think about where you place your wireless router in your home. Hiding it under a tin can inside a cupboard insulated with tin foil will ruin your Facebook fun. As will decorating your wireless device with holly and fairy lights.</p>
<p>There are domestic devices that will degrade the wireless signal – although it’s not often you’ll be running your microwave 24 hours a day – but don’t rush to throw away your fairy lights just yet. Christmas is coming, after all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51606/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew 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>A telephone regulator has warned that festive decorations can spoil your Facebook fun. Here’s the science.Andrew Smith, Senior Lecturer in Networking, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/391992015-03-24T16:52:07Z2015-03-24T16:52:07ZBreaking up is never easy – and splitting BT won’t give us better broadband<p>There have frequently been calls for BT, the former telecoms monopoly, to be broken up. Now, with the company having emerged as the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/11394117/BTs-EE-cuts-plan-gets-investor-backing.html">buyer of mobile phone network EE</a>, complaints about BT’s power – which have never gone away – <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05eab92c-cc9f-11e4-b94f-00144feab7de.html">have grown louder</a>. </p>
<p>But other than competitors’ chagrin, is there any evidence that breaking up BT would deliver better a phone and internet service for customers?</p>
<p>By virtue of its history, BT owns and manages almost all the telephone and broadband cables and exchanges in the country (which other service providers must pay to access) while also offering its own competing home and business packages to customers. Operating from an advantageous position, competitors such as Sky and TalkTalk might say.</p>
<p>These concerns were previously tackled by telecoms regulator Ofcom in 2005, when it required BT to separate its broadband and phone network access services by creating <a href="https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/home.do">Openreach</a>, an arms-length division of BT that handles the national broadband network. Openreach is required by Ofcom to offer the same terms to competing firms as it does to BT in order to provide a level playing field – a process generally known as <a href="http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2004/ofcom-publishes-final-local-loop-unbundling-charges/">Local Loop Unbundling</a>.</p>
<p>Consequently, even though Sky and TalkTalk have <a href="http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/">respectively 20% and 15% of the UK broadband market</a>, this is only made possible because they can use the Openreach network to connect their customers. This is because, unless anyone else embarks on a hugely ambitious (and unneccessary) cable-laying project, it’s essentially the only telephone network there is. In contrast, BT has a 31% market share. </p>
<p>Mobile phone operator Vodafone is soon to enter the market as it gears up <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30000481">to offer domestic broadband services</a> using Openreach’s network, and also its own national infrastructure acquired <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17810568">through the purchase of Cable & Wireless Worldwide</a> in 2012.</p>
<p>The concern expressed by Sky and Talk Talk is that by being part of the BT Group, Openreach is too influenced by the strategic decisions of its parent. This in turn, they argue, can result in an under-investment in the UK’s broadband infrastructure – to the detriment of their own business as they are totally reliant on Openreach to deliver services. Such under-investment could worsen, they claim, as BT has to find £12.5 billion to pay for its acquisition of EE. But these ignore the strict regulatory framework imposed by Ofcom and under which Openreach must operate.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75842/original/image-20150324-17680-10is4jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75842/original/image-20150324-17680-10is4jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75842/original/image-20150324-17680-10is4jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75842/original/image-20150324-17680-10is4jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75842/original/image-20150324-17680-10is4jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75842/original/image-20150324-17680-10is4jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75842/original/image-20150324-17680-10is4jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Towering over the competition?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BT Tower by Sue Robinson/www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>More than one set of wires to consider</h2>
<p>So, should the UK’s broadband network be managed by a totally separate and independent company, along the lines of <a href="http://www.networkrail.co.uk/">Network Rail</a> (railways) or <a href="http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/">National Grid</a> (electricity and gas), by taking Openreach off BT? </p>
<p>Before we consider that question we must recognise another important player in the mix: Virgin Media has <a href="http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts">a 20% share of the UK broadband market</a> but delivers services over its own cable TV network built during the 1990s – a market to which BT was denied access in order to stimulate competition. Virgin Media’s new owner, US firm Liberty Global, has recently sanctioned a <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/virgin-liberty-global-invest-3-billion-in-uk-broadband/">£3 billion investment</a> to expand its network reach by a third. But there is no obligation from Ofcom for Virgin Media to offer access to its network for other providers: if Openreach becomes independent, what should happen to the 20% marketshare based on infrastructure owned by Virgin Media? </p>
<p>Equally, what do you do about the growth in mobile broadband? With 4G connectivity speeds now rivalling those available on some domestic broadband connections, it’s clear there’s going to be significant growth in this area and new competition. So should mobile broadband access also be brought under the wing of a National Grid-style company?</p>
<h2>Keeping the consumer’s interest at heart</h2>
<p>Sky and TalkTalk clearly have a vested interest, hoping that an independent Openreach will mean lower prices for them – but not necessarily for us. On the other hand BT is unlikely to want to divest itself of Openreach, which currently generates almost 30% of its revenue. Complicating any potential break up would be the question of how a much smaller BT would then be able to support its pension scheme – already a cool <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/11378773/BT-pension-deficit-nearly-doubles-to-7bn.html">£7b billion in the red</a>. </p>
<p>In the ten years since Ofcom’s first strategic review of digital communications, the telecoms landscape and our internet use have changed enormously. While the UK may well have lagged behind Europe in broadband access speed for much of that time, there is clear evidence that things are improving for it. Competition, regulation, investment and government initiatives to tackle <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-promised-right-to-fast-internet-rings-hollow-for-millions-stuck-with-20th-century-speeds-39153">difficult areas such as rural connectivity</a> are helping to broadly improve performance. </p>
<p>So extricating Openreach from BT won’t necessarily change anything. It’s already heavily regulated by Ofcom, and that would continue. If service providers believe an independent Openreach will drive down prices, then where will the investment required to further expand the high-speed fibre and future G.Fast networks come from? And how should we compare the domestic broadband services from Openreach with cable and mobile operators’ services? </p>
<p>Limiting our consideration to BT is to see only part of the overall picture. Hopefully Ofcom’s new strategic review will take a much wider view.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39199/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Linge has received funding from the UK Research Councils.</span></em></p>Ever since BT was privatised there have been calls to break it up. But with the steps Ofcom has already taken, it’s not clear there’s any benefit for consumers.Nigel Linge, Professor, Computer Networking and Telecommunications, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/388092015-03-16T11:21:28Z2015-03-16T11:21:28ZPhilip Schofield scolds Ofcom but there’s more to this than bondage<p><em><strong>Editor’s note: Philip Schofield has responded to this article on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ConversationUK/posts/415114391990240">our Facebook page</a>.</strong></em></p>
<p>Philip Schofield is wrong, but bondage is only part of the problem. The This Morning presenter has hit back after broadcast regulator <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31695866">Ofcom said it would investigate</a> the 119 complaints it received about an item broadcast on February 3 featuring bondage clothing and paraphernalia. </p>
<p>“Sex expert” Annabelle Knight talked the sometimes giggling presenters through a series of bondage aids from “beginners” to “advanced”, accompanied by what the Daily Mail described as a “scantily clad couple” who “<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2975599/ITV-s-Morning-faces-investigation-bondage-beginners-lesson-inspired-Fifty-Shades-Grey-draws-120-complaints.html#ixzz3UHNT9NN8">were seen on a bed playing kinky games</a>”. The feature was prompted by the newly released film adaption of E L James’s Fifty Shades of Grey, and timed for Valentine’s Day.</p>
<p>With the announcement of Ofcom’s investigation, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/phillip-schofield-criticises-outraged-middle-england-after-this-morning-fifty-shades-of-grey-bondage-complaints-10097778.html">Schofield hit out</a>, telling the Press Association the complaints were “minor” and expressed “middle-England outrage”. Schofield defended This Morning as having always “pushed the boundaries”, citing the show’s coverage of Viagra, testicular cancer and other important subjects deemed shocking by some viewers. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EfvnJ4d7bLU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Let’s deal with the bondage issue first. No doubt most of the complaints were that the discussion of adult sex aids was inappropriate for an early morning broadcast. Ofcom said it was investigating whether the item was suitable for broadcast before the 9pm watershed. </p>
<p>For <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2937812/Steamy-scenes-50-Shades-sex-toys-tested-LIVE-Morning.html#ixzz3QsdYIW6j%20">Vivienne Pattison</a>, the director of pressure group Mediawatch-UK, the show set a dangerous example: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Quite apart from issues of taste and the fact that people might not want to speak to their children about this, I think it is dangerous to normalise this kind of behaviour. [50 Shades Of Grey] is putting across ideas that humiliation is pleasurable and torture is gratifying and I don’t think those are healthy for anybody at all. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Broadcast after 10.30am, and with advance warnings by Schofield, the feature was likely to be seen by adults overwhelmingly, with most school-age children in classrooms, and included content that was unlikely to disturb pre-school children. </p>
<p>Certainly there is a case against the broadcast, since it would be seen in both broadcast form and then online by children – and the material <a href="http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/our-ladies-of-leather-dominate-in-the-bedroom">remains available on ITV’s website</a>. Showing the feature on daytime ITV can certainly be critiqued as the normalisation of porn, within a deeply sexist mainstream media culture whose articulations of sexuality are contradictory and compromised. </p>
<p>But the objection I would make was not that that any discussion or even depiction of sexual stimulants should be verboten on daytime TV. My criticism is that this was a shopping channel masquerading as an independent television show. </p>
<p>Annabelle Knight, who has appeared previously on This Morning and other media, breathlessly promoted a series of products giving repeated brand mentions accompanied by still images of the items. The entire feature was organised around the promotion of products, tied to the lucrative Valentine’s Day market.</p>
<p>What Schofield and ITV are defending under the hazy claim of public interest journalism is the shift to a more lucrative commercial space on television. We are seeing the return of the so-called “ad mags” created in the early years of ITV, in the 1950s, as experimental ways to show advertised products and draw in revenue, where characters in settings like pubs would discuss the latest brands. The ad mags were banned after the Pilkington committee in 1962 reaffirmed the principle established for ITV, that programmes and adverts should be kept separate. </p>
<p>That was largely sustained until <a href="http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio/television/product-placement-on-tv/">product placement was permitted</a> in the final weeks of the last Labour government. ITV’s This Morning was the first programmes to embrace product placement when ITV reached a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8350382/Nescafe-coffee-machine-on-This-Morning-is-first-product-placement-on-TV.html">£100,000 deal</a> with Nestlé to feature a Dolce Gusto coffee machine for 13 weeks. </p>
<p>Section nine of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code covers commercial communications and while product placement is permitted in some genres, broadcasters must ensure editorial content is distinct from advertising and that there is no “undue prominence”. Unfortunately Ofcom has confirmed to me that none of the complainants made the argument that the broadcast breached section nine, so this issue will not be part of the formal investigation. </p>
<p>The longer-term importance of this incident may well be the way ITV is advancing the integration of commercial communication into programmes. That is why Schofield is wrong and why we need robust complaints mechanisms that allow people to challenge powerful companies. Schofield is also wrong to disparage the complaints process. I am sure many readers will share some of Schofield’s concerns that broadcast output should not be set by the taste range of “middle England”. But that is to misrepresent the process. Complaints are investigated, not relayed, by Ofcom. </p>
<p>As a media reformer I want to see ways to strengthen how complaints are dealt with, and encourage the challenge to commercial integration that was missed on this occasion, so we should not join powerful media figures in dismissing the process. Complaints mechanisms are a vital component of a responsive system of democratic regulation of communications.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38809/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Hardy is affiliated with The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom <a href="http://www.cpbf.org.uk">www.cpbf.org.uk</a></span></em></p>Sex isn’t the issue – we should object when TV programmes try to sell us anything.Jonathan Hardy, Reader in Media Studies, University of East LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/360352015-01-09T11:45:37Z2015-01-09T11:45:37ZOfcom got it wrong: it’s time to listen and learn from fringe parties<p>The UK’s broadcast regulator Ofcom <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/08/ofcom-blow-green-party-election-debate-boost-ukips">recently released a draft ruling</a> that the Green party lacks sufficient support to qualify as a major party. This could give mainstream media the excuse they were searching for to overlook the Greens in much of their coverage of the 2015 UK election. Yet given that the contest is likely to yield another coalition government, it is now more important than ever to create a space for fringe parties in our nation’s political discourse. </p>
<p>Though Westminster is not in the habit of looking outside of its own closed networks – and that is part of the problem – there are two main sources of hope close to home. The first is the Celtic fringe – in particular, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales – and the second is the European model, as represented in the Nordic and Baltic states. </p>
<p>Both the Welsh and Scottish parliaments were <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/18663.aspx">specifically designed</a> to ensure that no single political party could easily hold a majority: they positively encouraged the formation of coalition governments. In 2007, the SNP became the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/may/08/scotland.devolution2">first party</a> to form a single-party, minority government in the Scottish parliament, after a series of coalitions from 1999. </p>
<h2>Building bridges, not burning them</h2>
<p>The key thing that distinguishes policy making in coalition governments is the need to reach consensus across different political parties, in order to develop and enact legislation. In the Celtic and European models, this usually extends to involving key civic partners around specific policy issues. </p>
<p>For example, German energy policies have been developed by key partnerships involving political parties like the Greens, and environmental NGOs; childcare policies in the Nordic states were developed by achieving cross-party consensus with strong support from civic feminist organisations and trade unions; long-term care policies in the Baltic states were developed by political parties working in conjunction with NGOs representing carers and care agencies.</p>
<p>This consensus-led approach to policy making has several effects. Including a wide range of them ensures that coalition governments draw on different types of evidence to create policy. It also means that the key players, whose co-operation is needed to implement the policy, are much more likely to be co-operative, because the design of the policy will reflect their values and goals. </p>
<p>Coalition leadership tends to form around issues that are important to civic society, instead of exclusively around government policies. This leads to a mix of top-down and bottom-up policy making. Another feature of coalition-led governments is that it is never advisable to alienate any group completely, as they may be possible future policy partners. So, arguably, coalitions lead to better, more inclusive governance. </p>
<h2>Let’s get visible</h2>
<p>Another distinguishing feature of the Celtic and European approaches to political campaigning is that all parties are visible in the run up to an election. Each party is invited to take part in debates, and given fairly even-handed coverage by traditional media, since there is no way of guaranteeing that those parties will not be working with other key interest groups or parties in the future.</p>
<p>All this appears in stark contrast to the current approach taken in the run up to the UK’s 2015 general election. At present, the main parties – the Conservatives, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats – appear regularly in traditional media, alongside the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Other parties and leaders are conspicuous by their absence. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/260000-people-sign-petition-to-include-green-party-in-election-debates-9856948.html">Social media campaigns</a> are currently running to protest the mainstream media’s failure to include the leaders or policies of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party in their coverage. The Ofcom decision is likely to choke the momentum of such movements. </p>
<h2>Female leadership in fringe parties</h2>
<p>The major parties are all led by men, drawn from a small circle of elite politicians, who are well versed in adversarial, majority-led politics. The fringe party leaders are all women, drawn from a much wider range of backgrounds, used to consensus building, coalitions, and working with a wide range of non-elite stakeholders. </p>
<p>This pattern is echoed internationally: the Nordic and Baltic coalitions are all filled with strong female leaders – many of them openly feminist – used to working towards consensus around issues and policies. The visible presence of women and other non-elites in democratic and civic politics leads to different styles of policy making. </p>
<p>For example, it is currently only the fringe parties who are offering credible policy alternatives to austerity-led welfare and economic policies. Denying them a voice in the debate is denying voters access to anything other the centrist consensus on austerity-based approaches to economic and social policy. </p>
<p>Voters should arguably be given a wider choice of policies and values, beyond the debate around how severe spending cuts should be. In particular, the Celtic fringe and Green parties are offering a different vision of policy around universalism, social solidarity and a different style of leadership.</p>
<p>The UK’s fringe parties could potentially hold the balance of power in a future coalition more effectively than our three larger parties. Letting them into the debate and into government could improve governance and transform politics and policy making in the UK. But to vote for them, the electorate first has to see and hear them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36035/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirstein Rummery receives funding from the ESRC and this article presents preliminary findings from the 'Fairer Caring Nations' project, carried out as part of the programme of work at the Centre on Constitutional Change</span></em></p>The UK’s broadcast regulator Ofcom recently released a draft ruling that the Green party lacks sufficient support to qualify as a major party. This could give mainstream media the excuse they were searching…Kirstein Rummery, Professor of Social Policy, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/349512014-12-03T11:57:23Z2014-12-03T11:57:23ZTo avoid confusion and rising anger, let’s abolish line rental<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66105/original/image-20141202-20576-18phtan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">However hi-tech the world has become, it still rests on copper cable.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">zhangyang13576997233/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Telephone companies have yet again announced <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30251029">inflation-busting increases in telephone line rental charges</a>. Why, in a world that is increasingly mobile-first – or even mobile-only – are we still paying so much for landlines?</p>
<p>The <a href="http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/">latest figures</a> from UK telecoms regulator Ofcom show that around 16% of households no longer have a landline telephone, relying instead on mobile phones. For those that do still have a landline connection, call volumes fell by 12.7% in the last 12 months. </p>
<p>So we’re paying more and more for something that we use less and less – surely the old fashioned landline must be shuffling toward extinction? </p>
<p>Actually, the exact opposite is true; we need our landlines more than ever before. Calls on landlines may be in steep decline, but the same lines are needed to provide broadband internet access, and our thirst for online services is rapidly growing. </p>
<h2>A problem wired into the system</h2>
<p>Within the UK more than three-quarters of households have broadband internet connections running over telephone lines, the overwhelming majority of which are owned and managed by BT. This is irrespective of which ISP or telecoms company you pay to provide the services that run on top of these wires. It stems from BT’s history as a government department (part of the <a href="http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/History_of_BT.pdf">General Post Office</a>), then a public company (British Telecom), before its eventual privatisation in the 1980s. Having existed as a monopoly for decades, the vast majority of the UK’s telecoms infrastructure is still owned by the current form of the organisation that originally installed it – BT.</p>
<p>The telephone line runs from your house via a street cabinet to the local telephone exchange, which is in turn connected to the national telephone network, and ultimately the internet. This length of wire from your house to the exchange is a copper cable known as the local loop. Recently, customers offered superfast broadband have seen the copper cable at least partly replaced by fibre-optic cable, which offers far higher internet connection speeds. </p>
<p>Alternatives exist – Virgin Media, which uses cable TV circuits rather than the public telephone network to provide high-speed broadband internet – and those living in Hull, which due to a historic quirk is served by the local monopoly <a href="http://www.kcomplc.com/about-us/our-history">Kingston Communications</a>. But for everyone else, it is BT’s wires that matter.</p>
<h2>Unbundling the loop</h2>
<p>Back in December 2000 (in response to <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0033:EN:HTML">EU Directive 97/33/EC</a>, concerned with ensuring competition among Europe’s telecoms providers) BT was forced to allow other companies to install equipment in its exchanges so they could offer competing broadband services over BT’s network. This was known as <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/broadband/dsl_facts/LLUbackground.htm">Local Loop Unbundling</a> (LLU). It also led to the creation of <a href="http://www.openreach.co.uk/">BT Openreach</a> as a separate division to manage the unbundling of local loop infrastructure.</p>
<p>Although Openreach is a BT Group business, it must offer the same level of service to any firm, including BT, that wishes to use its wires. Openreach is responsible for maintaining and upgrading the local loop between the exchange and customer – known as the “last mile” – and its revenues come from telecoms firms, not us end-users. The problem here is that Openreach is still part of BT and therefore has a virtual monopoly on the provision of landlines. This is why the regulator, Ofcom, approves limits on the wholesale prices that Openreach can charge competing telecoms firms for the use of its lines, and sets the performance targets it must meet.</p>
<h2>Costs which have to be paid</h2>
<p>However the local loop – your landline – is only part of the connection to the internet. Your chosen ISP, whoever it is, has to pay Openreach for access to the local loop, to maintain its own equipment in BT’s local exchanges and for a connection from the local loop further up the network to the internet, known as the <a href="http://www.beyondbroadband.coop/kb/tackling-backhaul-question">backhaul connection</a>. Including telephone services, rather than just ADSL internet data, means covering the cost of connecting to the national telephone network too. </p>
<p>All these costs are reflected in the bundle you pay for, appearing on your bill as charges labelled “line rental” and “broadband”. But it makes no sense to separate them like this. Firms such as Virgin Media, who use their own network independent of BT’s, don’t tend to use the phrase line rental but nevertheless have a similar set of costs to meet. </p>
<p>For the growing number of customers who choose internet-only deals, “line rental” now seems irrelevant – yet in reality the line is a fundamental part of the service and will likely always be – so its costs still have to be met.</p>
<p>It’s time we accepted that the world has moved forward. To avoid confusion, let’s drop the old-fashioned term “line rental” and its associated charge, and instead present the real costs in a transparent manner that shows what they truly represent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34951/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Linge has received funding the UK Research Councils.</span></em></p>Telephone companies have yet again announced inflation-busting increases in telephone line rental charges. Why, in a world that is increasingly mobile-first – or even mobile-only – are we still paying…Nigel Linge, Professor, Computer Networking and Telecommunications, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/274692014-06-02T13:12:29Z2014-06-02T13:12:29ZIf local TV fails in Glasgow, it’s unlikely to succeed anywhere<p>At 6.30pm tonight, Scotland will lay down a milestone in one of the key debates in television: will local television become a successful and profitable part of the UK’s media scene or remain one politician’s unproven dream?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27657514">STV Glasgow</a>, which starts broadcasting this evening to two million potential viewers, is the first of a <a href="http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a450204/stv-wins-edinburgh-and-glasgow-local-tv-licences.html#%7EoG1GbXDSygGFrv">new generation</a> of local TV launches in Scotland. Across the UK it is the fourth such launch, but unlike <a href="http://www.estuary.tv/">Estuary TV</a> on Humberside, which is run by a community-based group; and <a href="http://www.londonlive.co.uk/">London Live</a> and Norwich’s <a href="http://www.mustardtv.co.uk/">Mustard TV</a>, which are both partly or wholly owned by local newspaper groups; STV Glasgow is the first such service to be based on an existing mainstream TV operation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Launch programme: daily magazine The Riverside Show starts tonight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">STV</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This gives it an important point of difference from previous local TV failures such as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/loony-tv-the-first-local-channel--faces-closedown-724414.html">Lanarkshire TV</a>, <a href="http://www.meccsa.org.uk/news/three-d-issue-18-local-public-service-television-new-idea-for-masters-level-course/">Edinburgh Television</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Six_Dundee">Channel Six Dundee</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/16/manchester-channel-m-closes">Channel M in Manchester</a>. It is also the only place where this version of the concept will be tested, since STV <a href="http://www.itvplc.com/">sister company ITV</a> chose to ignore the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12220187">invitation by then culture secretary Jeremy Hunt</a> to apply to join his local TV revolution further south. For the coalition government’s only media initiative of the past four years, not to mention the shareholders of STV, this makes the stakes particularly high.</p>
<h2>Brand recognition</h2>
<p>While the three English local TV launches are all newish brands, STV Glasgow will seem so familiar to viewers in the west of Scotland that they may wonder exactly what’s new about it. At the same time, local TV already exists in these parts. STV’s flagship news programme, STV News at Six, already has regional editions, one of which is for Glasgow and the west of Scotland. So for half an hour each weekday, viewers in the area have already been watching TV made just for them. </p>
<p>There may be some brand confusion between STV’s Glasgow news and the STV Glasgow channel. There is also the potentially significant issue that unlike the English stations, STV Glasgow <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27657514">will not use Freeview channel 8</a> because the slot is taken up by Gaelic service <a href="http://www.locatetv.com/uk/listings/bbc-alba">BBC Alba</a>. Instead it will have to find an audience from Channel 23. </p>
<p>On the other hand the advantages of this model over the other local TV launches are obvious: STV Glasgow will be cheaper to run because of shared production facilities, premises and airtime sales with the existing STV. On top of that is access to an archive of network-quality shows such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088621/">Taggart</a> and the opportunity to cross-promote between channels. Other fare will include new daily magazine programme <a href="http://shows.stv.tv/talk-tv/274531-storm-huntley-and-colin-stone-announced-for-riverside-show-on-stv-glasgow/">The Riverside Show</a> and other archive shows like longstanding soap <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt0163499%2F&ei=oVqMU5a7LPSI7Aa6yYDwAg&usg=AFQjCNHHeIrdXYNk0qY32IXk2A0L36u15Q&bvm=bv.67720277,d.ZGU">Take The High Road</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iYMVejPWfoM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Will Take The High Road repeats have them turning on in droves?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the result of the 2010 general election had been a few seats in the other direction and Labour had hung on to power, the opportunity for STV would potentially have looked very different. The chances were that STV wouldn’t still have its own news-gathering operation, thanks to the government’s decision in 2009 to choose Scotland as one of the three areas in the UK in which to pilot the <a href="independently%20funded%20news%20consortia">independently funded news consortia (IFNC) initiative</a>. </p>
<p>The IFNCs were the suggested solution to ITV/STV’s difficulties with continuing to pay for local content. The plan was that these companies would keep showing regional news but would neither have to make nor pay for it. Instead some spare cash from the licence fee would pay the winners of a competitive process in each pilot area. </p>
<p>In Scotland a consortium including newspaper publishers Johnston Press, the Herald and Times Group and DC Thomson <a href="http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/article/992816/regional-publishers-win-local-tv-news-contracts">won that process</a>. But before this became a reality the incoming government scrapped the scheme. The status quo prevailed, and indeed a new regime at ITV decided it liked regional news after all. Anyway Jeremy Hunt preferred local TV.</p>
<h2>University assistance</h2>
<p>One thing that has survived from the IFNC process is that some of the news consortia were put together between media owners and universities with media departments. So when STV applied for the Glasgow licence, it included a partnership with <a href="http://www.gcu.ac.uk/">Glasgow Caledonian University</a>. When STV Edinburgh comes on the air later this year, the partner will be <a href="http://www.napier.ac.uk/Pages/home.aspx">Napier University</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">Broadcast regulator Ofcom</a> highlighted these partnerships in its rationale for awarding the Glasgow and Edinburgh licences to STV. Students at these universities will get experience of working in live TV that both partners hope will eventually convert into full-time jobs. </p>
<p>Another political twist is that if Scotland votes yes to independence in September, having its own Scottish channel would put STV in a stronger negotiating position with the SNP about post-referendum broadcasting in Scotland than simply being the junior partner in a UK channel. With so much uncertainty about the future of the BBC post-independence, this could very useful to STV.</p>
<h2>London a bad marker</h2>
<p>But the more immediate test is for local TV itself. It has become something of a cliché to say that if the concept is to work anywhere it will be in London because of the sheer size of the market. </p>
<p>I have never shared that view. London has always been a problematic “local” market. The regional TV news bulletins on BBC and ITV get much lower shares of audiences than other regions of the UK. So does the BBC local radio station. So I’m not surprised that London Live <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/25/local-tv-london-live-bbc-funding-stefano-hatfield">has seen low ratings</a> so far. </p>
<p>My own experience running a TV station in, of all places, Kiev, is that the capital city of a country is not necessarily the best place for local TV. Other top-five cities, with none of the distractions of being a national centre of government, often have a more defined and cohesive sense of community. A bit of chippiness often helps. </p>
<p>So STV Glasgow seems to have a lot going for it. The right kind of city, a strong partnership with an existing player, on-air cross-promotions, a university partnership that produces potentially talented and initially lower-paid staff. The management is committed to the extent that the <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/business/media-tech-leisure/rob-woodward-on-the-launch-of-stv-s-local-channels-1-3407176">chief executive has even</a> done an in-depth interview with Glasgow businessman Willie Haughey as part of the inaugural programme. But put another way, if Glasgow doesn’t work, then local TV really has got problems. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stewart Purvis is a former senior executive at Ofcom where he helped develop policy on regional TV news and local TV. He has played no role in the licensing or development of local TV stations.
The chief executive of STV, Rob Woodward, is pro-chancellor of City University London, where The Conversation has offices.
</span></em></p>At 6.30pm tonight, Scotland will lay down a milestone in one of the key debates in television: will local television become a successful and profitable part of the UK’s media scene or remain one politician’s…Stewart Purvis, Professor of Television Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/162862013-07-25T05:07:04Z2013-07-25T05:07:04ZAre broadcasters being pressured over Choudary?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27835/original/bxd9dpv3-1374496080.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Giving offence: Theresa May questioned whether BBC, ITV or Channel 4 should have interviewed Anjem Choudary.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Darkroom Productions via Creative Commons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The news that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/15/bbc-itv-channel-4-anjem-choudary">Ofcom is investigating</a> whether three interviews with the radical Islamic cleric Anjem Choudary after the Woolwich murder broke the Broadcasting Code has highlighted again the debate about regulation and free speech.</p>
<p>Section 2.3 of <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/">the Code</a> says: “In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.”</p>
<p>Ofcom has always accepted that what appears on television and radio may offend viewers or listeners. Such offence is not a breach of the code in itself. The issue is whether the offence is justified by the context.</p>
<p>BBC Newsnight, ITV Daybreak and Channel Four News all interviewed Choudary on the peg that he knew one of the two men arrested after the murder. They all sought to get him to condemn the murder, which he refused to do. His response would undoubtedly have offended some viewers.</p>
<p>In a series of robust, even repetitive, challenges the interviewers sought to confront this equivocal position on violence. They got nowhere partly because Choudary has perfected the art – undoubtedly learned from some politicians - of only answering the question he asks himself rather than what interviewers ask.</p>
<p>But their right to ask such questions and seek a proper answer will - I suspect - be the broadcaster’s response when they get their chance to respond to Ofcom’s inquiries.</p>
<p>There is, almost inevitably, a political background to all this.</p>
<h2>Political pressure</h2>
<p>After the murder the culture secretary, Maria Miller, was asked about the interviews on the BBC’s Any Questions radio programme. She said: “Broadcasters are always making tough decisions about how they present the news to us , that’s sort of their job… There is a real balance to be had between fuelling and adding weight to these alleged terrorist incidents and making sure that we know what’s going on and that’s a balance that is always going to have to be struck.”</p>
<p>But a few days later the home secretary, Theresa May, struck a different tone when she said there were “many people who did indeed say: ‘What is the BBC doing interviewing Anjem Choudary?’” After what looked like a briefing from her department, the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331361/Hate-preachers-facing-TV-ban-And-Google-forced-law-block-extremist-websites.html">Daily Mail reported</a> that: “Under plans to be drawn up by a new task force on extremism, Ofcom is expected to win powers to stop hate preachers appearing on television. At the moment the quango has the power to intervene only after an inappropriate broadcast has been made.”</p>
<p>Parallels were drawn with the Thatcher Government’s <a href="http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/media/moloney.htm#chap1">ban on interviews</a> with supporters of the IRA.</p>
<p>So is the Ofcom investigation into the Choudary interviews a knee-jerk follow-up to this political initiative. I suspect not.</p>
<h2>Ofcom’s track record</h2>
<p>First of all it is worth noting that when Ofcom publishes its list of current investigations it always includes the sentence: “It is important to note than an investigation by Ofcom does not necessarily mean the broadcaster has done anything wrong.” In fact in some cases Ofcom has concluded its investigation by coming out in support of what the broadcaster has done.</p>
<p>The best example is the Channel Four programme <a href="http://vimeo.com/19598947">Dispatches; Undercover Mosque</a> transmitted in January 2007 which discovered “an ideology of bigotry and intolerance spreading through Britain with its roots in Saudi Arabia”.</p>
<p>The West Midlands Police followed up and, supported by the Crown Prosecution Service which claimed the editing process had “completely distorted” what speakers were saying, referred the matter to Ofcom as an official complaint.</p>
<p>When Ofcom <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/19/channel4.ofcom">announced an investigation</a> that might have been interpreted as Ofcom jumping on a bandwagon. But in fact Ofcom found no breach of Section 2.3 of the code saying “any potential offence was justified by the context”. It went further, saying: “Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest.”</p>
<p>On the issue of whether Ofcom may “win powers to stop hate preachers”, the broadcasting regulator has a track record of finding against religious channels who give open airtime to extremist preachers to cause offence without justification. A case in point is <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb225/obb225.pdf">their adjudication in March</a> against a Sikh channel where “a speaker made comments warmly praising a former leader of a proscribed terrorist organisation, which might be regarded as offensive”.</p>
<p>What Ofcom has not done is to argue for new pre-transmission powers to pre-empt such programmes. It has also not told news organisations that they cannot challenge those who condone politically or religiously inspired violence. </p>
<p>I would be surprised if Ofcom changed its position on either issue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16286/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stewart Purvis 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 news that Ofcom is investigating whether three interviews with the radical Islamic cleric Anjem Choudary after the Woolwich murder broke the Broadcasting Code has highlighted again the debate about…Stewart Purvis, Professor of Television Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.