tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/evening-standard-36950/articlesEvening Standard – The Conversation2018-06-04T15:27:36Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/975702018-06-04T15:27:36Z2018-06-04T15:27:36ZGeorge Osborne under pressure over Evening Standard ‘cash-for-content’ allegations<p>Critics have been lining up to take shots at the London Evening Standard – and its editor George Osborne – since <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/james-cusick/george-osborne-s-london-evening-standard-promises-positive-news-coverage-to-uber-goo">allegations emerged recently</a> in Open Democracy that the newspaper had been selling positive news coverage to major companies including Uber and Google.</p>
<p>The Standard has strenuously denied the claims that the newspaper had struck commercial deals that go beyond the practice – common among newspapers – of publishing “branded editorial” paid for by companies and clearly marked as such. Jon O’Donnell, group commercial director at ESI Media, called the allegations “<a href="https://www.rt.com/uk/428448-evening-standard-peter-oborne/">a wildly misunderstood interpretation</a>” of their plans and stressed that commercial content in the newspaper and online would always be labelled as such.</p>
<p>The Open Democracy story, by reporter James Cusick, was accompanied by a slide, said to be from an Evening Standard sales presentation, suggesting that – on the contrary – companies opting into the promotional deal would not only be associated with clearly marked promotional material but would also be offered “money-can’t-buy” opportunities for promotion because the campaigns would be expected “to generate numerous news stories” as well as comment pieces.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221592/original/file-20180604-175434-1fqo5z4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221592/original/file-20180604-175434-1fqo5z4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221592/original/file-20180604-175434-1fqo5z4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221592/original/file-20180604-175434-1fqo5z4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221592/original/file-20180604-175434-1fqo5z4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221592/original/file-20180604-175434-1fqo5z4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221592/original/file-20180604-175434-1fqo5z4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Slide for Evening Standard’s 2020 project showing the terms of the deal the paper offered to commercial partners.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image courtesy of Open Democracy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is this bullet-pointed item on the bill of sale that sparked outrage across the mainstream press (with articles in both <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/31/george-osborne-edit-evening-standard">The Guardian</a> and <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/osborne-s-london-evening-standard-selling-news-coverage-9jgws6c5q">The Times</a>) and a ripple of shock in the twittersphere because of its implication that companies paying £500,000 for a sponsorship deal would also buy positive news coverage. Labour’s shadow culture secretary, Tom Watson, tweeted thus:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1002134254887800832"}"></div></p>
<h2>Blurred lines</h2>
<p>In a world in which the funding model of every major news organisation has been seriously damaged by the flight of advertising cash to internet platforms, promotional content (also called advertorials, native advertising or sponsored content) has become a key source of much needed funding. Indeed nearly three-quarters of online publishers were <a href="http://marketingland.com/73-of-online-publishers-offer-native-advertising-just-10-still-sitting-on-the-sidelines-emarketer-52506">using some form of native advertising</a> by the middle of 2013.</p>
<p>But while advertisers believe that the most valuable promotion is positive press coverage, they are banned from paying for editorial endorsement and any suggestion that this is happening would not only put them in breach of the <a href="https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/recognising-ads-advertisement-features.html">Advertising Standards Authority rules</a> but would also impact their credibility as a trusted news source. So promotional content is designed to offer brands something that looks like journalism without crossing the line into paid-for editorial. </p>
<p>Vice has been a <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/10/07/vice-media-why-content-marketing-so-much-more-ad-smart-media-buy">leader in the concept of native content</a> and prides itself on providing advertisers with the expertise to make promotional material with the same feel and look as their editorial. The company recently won the <a href="https://digiday.com/awards/vice-uk-weber-shandwick-lead-2017-digiday-awards-europe-finalists/">Digiday awards for a multimedia project</a> sponsored by Channel N°5 L’Eau fragrance. </p>
<p>The Guardian has similar deals. A fashion site called “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/the-chain">The Chain</a>” is produced in association with Google – and the company has established a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/info/2016/jan/25/content-funding">commercial features desk</a>” where freelance journalists are commissioned to write paid-for content.</p>
<p>Both these companies clearly mark their sponsored content as they are obliged to, but they are also concerned about their reputation for independence. As The Guardian makes clear: “This content is produced by commercial departments and does not involve GNM staff journalists.” Nevertheless, the separation of editorial and advertising is increasingly blurred, as a <a href="https://digiday.com/media/guardian-improbably-put-way-path-profits/">Digiday story about The Guardian</a> in January 2018 made clear: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Dozens of cross-department huddles occur each month, with people from commercial, editorial, product, marketing, engineering and user experience meeting with a set problem to solve.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is this fuzziness that worries journalists. In 2015, journalist Peter Oborne <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph">resigned from his position</a> as chief political commentator of the Telegraph because he believed that a deal with the bank, HSBC, had compromised the newspaper’s independence. He said then: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Problem for democracy</h2>
<p>Osborne, the Standard’s editor is also the former chancellor of the exchequer. He is a man with a far greater understanding of commerce than of journalism – and he appears to have previously crossed the line in a similar way. Another <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/james-cusick-crina-boros/how-gm-giant-bought-control-of-what-millions-of-londoners-read">Open Democracy article</a>, published in February 2018, revealed a lucrative deal with the chemical company Syngenta over a series of articles on the future of food. The articles omitted mention of Syngenta’s lobbying of the government over post-Brexit rules on the use of genetically modified seeds and side-stepped discussion of legal challenges to Syngenta in the United States.</p>
<p>While sponsorship from perfume or sports shoes may not appear to compromise editorial integrity, the rising power of the commercial director has other, more subtle, effects. As one Evening Standard journalist told me ruefully the day the latest Open Democracy story was published: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>While sponsorship deals pay us to cover certain stories there are other stories that no one will pay us to cover and they don’t get space.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem is not merely a matter of journalistic ethics and integrity, it is about the survival of journalism as a contributor to liberal democracy. For most of the past century, news production has been almost entirely supported by money from advertising. Now the life blood of journalism has been diverted and is being pumped into the platforms at the heart of digital communications. As Google siphons off the money, there is something particularly depressing at the sight of news organisations going cap-in-hand to beg for a payment of £500,000 and promising to chuck in some favourable press coverage as part of the bargain.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fake-news-week-three-stories-that-reveal-the-extreme-pressure-journalism-is-now-under-97568">Fake news week: three stories that reveal the extreme pressure journalism is now under</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The last thing that the news industry needs is a moratorium on criticism of the digital platforms whose under-regulated, globe-striding companies have already demonstrated their ability to wriggle out of the few obligations that do apply to them. Journalism, democracy and citizens need a fourth estate that is not in hock to the very companies it needs to be holding to account. Instead of getting into bed with Google and Uber, news companies would be better advised to campaign for their regulation, in the public interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97570/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Phillips is affiliated with the Labour Party. </span></em></p>Allegations that the newspaper has been promising positive coverage in return for payments have rocked the big-selling London newspaper.Angela Phillips, Professor of Journalism, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/975682018-06-01T07:30:59Z2018-06-01T07:30:59ZFake news week: three stories that reveal the extreme pressure journalism is now under<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221331/original/file-20180601-142075-d0jj8g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alisdare Hickson</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Three news stories in as many days have betrayed how little understood – or apparently respected – are some of the core principles which underline reputable journalism. For those who believe that trustworthy news and information – and strong institutions behind them – matter in a democracy it is a worrying sign. For the growing numbers of media cynics, it is further evidence of media elitism or corruption. </p>
<p>First, the story from <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/james-cusick/george-osborne-s-london-evening-standard-promises-positive-news-coverage-to-uber-goo">James Cusick of openDemocracy</a> that has alleged the London Evening Standard has been selling favourable news coverage to companies including Uber, and Google for £3m. The allegation is that the sales offer goes beyond “native advertising” (which is essentially paid for features that are clearly labelled as sponsored) to – more seriously if true – providing news coverage of those companies that is deliberately skewed to be positive. </p>
<p>If true, it would mean the paper, edited by the former chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, had sold its editorial independence to corporate partners. How would any reader know if an article was independent or, effectively, paid-for public relations? </p>
<p>The newspaper has strenuously denied the allegation and said that any deal the company has signed has been for legitimate sponsored features that will be clearly marked. Newspapers are going through a hard time and have to be creative to find new sources of income. But a fundamental principle of editorial independence is a wall between the editorial and commercial operations. If that is breached, editorial credibility collapses too.</p>
<p>The alternative explanation of course, is that openDemocracy is wrong – and this story is “fake news”. As I write, it’s impossible to tell – which means I won’t be reading the latest copy of London’s evening paper.</p>
<h2>Back from the dead</h2>
<p>And while we mention “fake news”, there’s the extraordinary tale of the Russian journalist who was reported to have been murdered on May 29 only to turn up alive at a press conference in Kiev the following day. Apparently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/arkady-babchenko-fake-murder-questions-need-answering">Arkady Babchenko faked his death</a> with the help of the Ukrainian secret police. The idea – allegedly – was to trap a gang who were actually trying to kill him. But no evidence of this has been provided.</p>
<p>As a tactic, it hands a propaganda win to the Russians who can say “don’t trust the Ukrainians or Babchenko”. It is a cynical exploitation of the <a href="https://newssafety.org/casualties/2018/">hundreds of journalists who are actually killed</a> each year pursuing crime or corruption – next time a journalist is murdered, those responsible can shrug and say “fake news – remember Babchencko?”</p>
<p>In future, the public can justifiably distrust any announcement from the Ukrainian government – or from Arkady Babchenko – and trust in others will be further corroded. For many people it also reinforces a sense that some governments and journalists work hand in glove – even while others try to undermine or actually kill reporters. Further evidence, whichever way you take it, of the politicisation of the media.</p>
<h2>Amateur hour</h2>
<p>Which brings us to example three: Tommy Robinson. The former leader of the English Defence League was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44287640">jailed at Leeds Crown Court</a> on May 29 for a second offence of contempt of court. He had broadcast on his Facebook page live from outside a rape trial, confronting the Muslim defendants. His supporters say he was a “journalist” exercising his right to free speech. The court said he was endangering the trial and – after a similar incident in 2017 for which he had received a suspended sentence – had ignored the judge’s warnings, so was jailed for 13 months.</p>
<p>The social media debate demonstrated how little the <a href="https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1001451479817949184">principle of contempt of court is understood</a> by sections of the public. It also underlined how casually some lay claim to the title of “journalist” and how swiftly some lay claim to their right to free speech – all the while ignoring the legal and social responsiblities that go with it, which professional journalists are trained to understand. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1001534520095633408"}"></div></p>
<p>Of course, the more extreme of his supporters saw a conspiracy between mainstream media and the legal and government “elite” to silence his voice. In the end, even the loudest of social media protestations with the deepest sense of entitlement meets an implacable wall with the law.</p>
<h2>Downward spiral of trust</h2>
<p>What all three of these very different news stories illustrate is the loosening ties between business, government and sections of society with the principles which underlie independent, reputable journalism. Many will shrug and say the media has brought it on itself through cynical tabloid journalism, phone hacking and more. But this too misunderstands that different news organisations work to very different ends. The Financial Times is in a different business to The Sun – or the BBC to The Daily Mail. </p>
<p>The answer to the corrosion of trust and weakening institutional ties is complex. Greater transparency and accountability by the media is key – so the public can understand why some newsrooms deserve their trust; greater media literacy is important in an ever more complex information age where algorithms decide what we know and political agendas are rife. And politicians, activists and business need to recognise that undermining media standards is not, in the end, going to serve them well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97568/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Sambrook 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>Journalism needs to rebuild public trust, but it won’t be easy.Richard Sambrook, Professor of Journalism, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/782222017-05-25T12:40:48Z2017-05-25T12:40:48ZHow George Osborne is still making his political voice heard<p>The appointment of the former Conservative chancellor as the editor of a major British newspaper was <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4323582/George-Osborne-appointed-EDITOR-Evening-Standard.html">big news</a>. And even after George Osborne decided to give up his job as an MP, his new role at the helm of London’s Evening Standard was still controversial. As the latest politician to land a job through the <a href="https://theconversation.com/george-osborne-at-the-evening-standard-the-latest-through-a-long-revolving-door-74783">revolving door</a> of British elite employment, there were questions over how he would direct the paper’s political coverage. </p>
<p>With the announcement of the 2017 general election just days after his appointment, this interest only increased. Would Osborne’s debut election campaign – an editorial baptism of fire – show him up as a true blue Tory conformist?</p>
<p>Surprisingly, his paper’s electoral coverage so far has been anything but. The editorial on his first day in charge immediately criticised Theresa May and the Conservative’s approach to Brexit as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/02/george-osborne-first-evening-standard-edition-shows-resolve-to-take-on-may">offering nothing more than a slogan</a>. The whole idea of Brexit, it added, was “an historic mistake”. It did not pay Labour any favours either, saying that the party’s “desperately weak” leadership was doing nothing for democracy. It was a debut which made it difficult to argue that Osborne was exhibiting any pro-party bias.</p>
<p>And this punchy start was not an exception. A glance across Osborne’s subsequent pages as Standard editor show that his paper has no problem taking issue with significant Conservative election moves. One leading <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-it-s-time-to-scrap-the-tory-migration-cap-a3541346.html">comment piece</a> heavily criticised the prime ministers’s intentions to impose a migration cap. </p>
<p>Labelling it simply a “bad policy”, the Standard urged May to abandon her position due to its economic and ideological lack of sense. Which sections of the migrant workforce, the paper wondered, would be forced to leave to hit the supposed immigration targets? How could we call ourselves a “global Britain’” if EU students are turned away? Far from conforming, Osborne was blatantly ruffling Tory feathers.</p>
<p>Those feathers were ruffled further with the paper’s recent <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-uturn-on-social-care-is-neither-strong-nor-stable-a3545186.html">response</a> to May’s reversal of the proposed “dementia tax” outlined in her party’s manifesto. Deriding a “weekend of wobbles”, the U-turn was proclaimed “neither strong nor stable” in the headline, alongside accusations that the party was having to already flounder and rewrite its manifesto, with several MPs shown up as struggling under press questioning. It is hard to counter such editorial content with ideas of a complicit party stooge being in charge. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"866646406555193345"}"></div></p>
<p>Historically however, the Evening Standard is a Conservative-leaning paper, including right up to the <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/vote-for-london-ahead-of-knife-edge-election-the-standard-urges-readers-to-think-of-whats-best-for-10225590.html">last general election</a>. It is not surprising then, that amid this sometimes fiery critique of the Tories, Labour is also given a rough ride. While praising their manifesto’s honesty regarding <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-at-least-labour-is-being-honest-about-taxation-a3540346.html">tax increases</a>, it dismisses them as potential evidence of Britain being “an enemy of aspiration and opportunity” and that they would, if implemented, ultimately leave millions of people poorer. </p>
<p>Even less complimentary is the paper’s take on the overall Labour manifesto, which it negatively labels “<a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-this-socialist-manifesto-leaves-labour-no-excuse-a3536381.html">socialist</a>” and “likely to produce a rise in poverty, inequality and insecurity”. It also almost sadistically welcomes the likelihood of Labour’s defeat, saying that a loss for hard-left politics at the polls will bring on a welcome move to the centre by Labour, akin to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-wannabe-to-president-how-emmanuel-macron-beat-marine-le-pen-to-win-the-french-election-77302">rise of Emmanuel Macron</a> in France.</p>
<p>The end result of this glance across Osborne’s early days at the helm is that, in the eyes of those on both the left and right, he is doing something wrong. Some see his attacks against May and the Conservatives not as editorial duty, but a chance at personal revenge against a prime minister who both ousted him from the cabinet, and has promised a positive approach to the Brexit he was so against. </p>
<p>Others, typically more to the left of the political spectrum, cannot see past Osborne’s political past and the potential of collusion between him and his former party. For all his stances against May, he is still seen by some as a party loyalist, and the paper’s critiques of Labour so far – and the likelihood this traditional Tory paper will side with the government come polling day – will not change their minds.</p>
<p>So far then, Osborne as editor has struck a middle ground between being a party conformist and a vocal press critic. His approach has been reviled by people on both sides. He is critical of both leading parties, and is yet accused of bias by one side towards the other.</p>
<p>He is annoying, questioning and provoking everyone.</p>
<p>In short, he is behaving like something many people thought he couldn’t properly be, something I myself doubted he could be. He is behaving, despite a lack of experience, like a decent journalist.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78222/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Shoop-Worrall 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 former chancellor is walking a path between critic and conformist.Christopher Shoop-Worrall, PhD Researcher in Journalism History, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747962017-03-17T17:45:19Z2017-03-17T17:45:19ZGeorge Osborne, the Evening Standard and the Conservative media establishment<p>The appointment of George Osborne, a Conservative MP and former chancellor of the exchequer, as editor of the Evening Standard was, to put it mildly, a surprise to many. But the move only makes more explicit the newspaper’s close ties to the <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/bias-objectivity-evening-standard-not-neutral-mayoral-race-editor-claimed">Conservative Party</a></p>
<p>I carried out research on the Standard when it was edited by Sarah Sands, who had vowed to be “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/03/sarah-sands-evening-standard-evgeny-lebedev">scrupulous</a>” in providing equal coverage in the run-up to the 2015 mayoral election. I found that the Standard gave Conservative Zac Goldsmith more favourable coverage than his opponent, Labour candidate Sadiq Khan. The same dog-whistle politics that were coming out of Goldsmith’s campaign could also been seen on the pages of the London <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html">daily.</a></p>
<p>The fact that the Evening Standard has a monopoly position in left-leaning London, where it is distributed, free, on London transport, should alone be reason to steer clear of such nakedly political decision-making as appointing a sitting Tory MP as editor. But its owner, Evgeny Lebedev has form. The Independent newspaper, admittedly in its death throes at the time, came out for the Conservatives at the 2015 election, a move that directly contradicted both its <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/05/why-have-the-independent-endorsed-the-coalition">editorial line</a> and the expectations of its young Liberal readership.</p>
<p>According to Adam Bienkov, deputy editor of <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/information/about-politics-co-uk">politics.co.uk</a>, that was a decision “<a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/05/why-have-the-independent-endorsed-the-coalition">dictated by Lebedev</a>” who, he maintains, is very close to the Conservative foreign secretary, Boris Johnson (then Mayor of London).</p>
<p>Now Osborne, a beneficiary of the Conservative <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1171163">bias</a> in the British news media in print and online, will be at the helm of a Lebedev newspaper that is the only provider of London-wide news in print.</p>
<p>With Osborne running his own newspaper will we see the Evening Standard focusing on the continuing row within the Conservatives about the handling of Brexit? How will the paper, under his stewardship, report efforts to correct the impact of damaging housing policies that have seen the disappearance of genuinely affordable housing in the capital? Those are policies which he not only backed but, in some cases, initiated.</p>
<p>Khan was quick to tweet his congratulations, despite his treatment by the paper in the past. It doesn’t do for the Mayor of London to step out of line. He knows he is totally at the mercy of the London news ecosystem – which the Evening Standard dominates – for any reporting of his work at County Hall.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"842699604596576256"}"></div></p>
<p>The UK already has a Conservative-dominated news media so it could be said that Osborne’s appointment will make little difference. But it goes hand in hand with two other changes.</p>
<p>The first is the slightly more subtle politicisation of the BBC. The post that Osborne takes up, only became free because Sands, who is widely seen as <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f5fcbf5c-e6e5-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539">supporting the Conservatives</a>, has been recruited to run the BBC’s flagship radio show, the Today Programme. The BBC’s head of news, James Harding, is an ex-editor of the Conservative-supporting newspaper the Times (which is part of the Murdoch empire). He is also a close personal friend of George Osborne. </p>
<h2>Music to Murdoch’s ears</h2>
<p>While all this could be mere coincidence, there is a third issue of concern. Twentieth Century Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch, is in the process of trying to take over Sky TV. This is <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/author/infomediareform-org-uk">controversial</a> because of the dominant position, online, in print and on social media, of Murdoch-owned (and Conservative supporting) news outlets: the Sun and the Times. The takeover is being referred to the Competition Commissioner.</p>
<p>Sky is one of the only three organisations currently producing TV news in the UK. Currently, it lags well behind ITN and the BBC in terms of audience but a merger could change all that. Cross-platform promotion across The Times and The Sun could bring in considerably more viewers.</p>
<p>Sky, like all broadcasters, is required to be balanced in its news coverage, thanks to regulations. However that was also the situation in the US, until a relentless campaign by right-wing Republicans to repeal the “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/echo-chamber-9780195398601?cc=gb&lang=en&">Fairness Directive</a>” in the late 1980s. Since then, American radio and TV has become more and more polarised. Fox TV (owned by Murdoch) cheerleads for the Republicans and dismisses all other mainstream American media as “liberal” and untrustworthy. </p>
<p>If Sky becomes a wholly owned part of Twentieth Century Fox and the BBC is dominated by Conservative supporters and ex-employees of Murdoch, where will any opposition to further changes to the laws governing plurality come from?</p>
<p>That might sound like conspiracy theory but, had those who watched the rise of the <a href="https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/kathleen-hall-jamieson-joseph-n-cappella-echo-chamber-rush-limbaugh-and">conservative media establishment</a> in the US predicted that it would lead to the presidency of Donald Trump, they would have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74796/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Phillips is a member of the Media Reform Coalition and the Labour Party.</span></em></p>The former chancellor has no experience of journalism, but that hasn’t prevented him from taking over London’s most important newspaper.Angela Phillips, Professor, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747832017-03-17T16:27:02Z2017-03-17T16:27:02ZGeorge Osborne at the Evening Standard: the latest through a long-revolving door<p>In <a href="https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/media/email-sent-evening-standard-staff-george-osborne-appointed-editor-full/">announcing</a> the former chancellor, George Osborne, as its new editor, the London Evening Standard continues a strong tradition of political elites having easy access to employment within the media elite. They sometimes nab these jobs after their political careers have ended and, sometimes, they just do them on the side.</p>
<p>In Osborne’s case, it’s hard to believe that his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/nov/28/real-george-osborne">unremarkable year</a> as an aspiring journalist in the early 1990s was what attracted the Standard. He, like others, has been given a job many professional journalists dream of, not because of his experience in the field but because of his career in politics.</p>
<p>Others who have recently trodden the path between political and media elite can at least be said to have some professional merit to warrant the roles they received. Most notably, former education minister and sitting MP Michael Gove has worked for and is once again in the employment of The Times. Boris Johnson did a stint as Spectator editor, too, before becoming foreign secretary. Johnson also notably served as the Brussels correspondent for The Telegraph, a stint which likely prepared him well for his later frontline role campaigning for Brexit.</p>
<p>Osborne however, in terms of professional merit for such a prestigious media job, has more in common with LBC’s Nigel Farage than his Conservative Party colleagues. Farage – famously a commodities trader before turning his hand to politics – cannot be rationally explained as having deserved influential job in broadcasting without considering the appeal of his political reputation. Yet he finds himself at the helm of a <a href="http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/">hour-long nightly radio show</a> on LBC.</p>
<h2>A fine line</h2>
<p>So Osborne is by no means the first (or likely the last) member of the political elite to slide effortlessly across the line into the media elite. Indeed, even a cursory glance across British history sees that line being frequently crossed. Politicians used to have much more access to media than isolated jobs as columnists or editors. As the historian JA Thomas once <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_House_of_Commons_1906_1911.html?id=bDJAjwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y">noted</a>, the newly elected parliament in 1906 was home to dozens of MPs who also owned their own newspapers.</p>
<p>Just over a decade later, David Lloyd George – Britain’s last Liberal prime-minister – would actually buy a daily newspaper, <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/175660?seq=1#fndtn-page_scan_tab_contents">the Chronicle</a>, to try to ensure a favourable press outlet for his politics. Going further back, the British press of the early 19th century was only classed as legal if it had government approval in the form of paying certain taxes and stamp duties. Anyone wishing to work on or launch a newspaper had to quite literally get the government stamp of approval.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161346/original/image-20170317-6094-49xezn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161346/original/image-20170317-6094-49xezn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161346/original/image-20170317-6094-49xezn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161346/original/image-20170317-6094-49xezn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161346/original/image-20170317-6094-49xezn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161346/original/image-20170317-6094-49xezn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161346/original/image-20170317-6094-49xezn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beaverbrook and Churchill.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ninian_reid/27588373763/in/photolist-5p4cLW-BYX2Q-5p4c3L-5sD38b-qGaMuc-c8Wvj7-HGKfi-8Hjr2Z-HGEtG-4Z1227-q5aM72-6At6rW-q5aLNM-BA9sP-6Ab9vj-c6bseJ-6LcgHS-2otbg-AN6q6d-Cb6Qco-PkR5qN-9A3sg2-HGKht-5FnU3-fhFkmr-HGELm-Db6X5-Db6TY-fh">Ninian Reid</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Into more recent history, it is often forgotten that a newspaper owner was part of Winston Churchill’s wartime government. First as minister of aircraft production and later as lord privy seal, Baron Beaverbrook (<a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/max-aitken-lord-beaverbrook/">then owner of the Daily Express</a>) served alongside the likes of Clement Attlee to help Britain win World War II. For everyone who bemoans the political influence of Rupert Murdoch, at least they could be thankful he does not have a seat in cabinet.</p>
<h2>Will it backfire?</h2>
<p>In the wider historical context of political actors landing powerful roles in the media, Osborne’s appointment to the Standard sits uncomfortably in the middle. Thankfully, his hiring does not mark a return to a time when politicians were often to be found buying, selling and controlling media outlets for personal political gain. However, his <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Osborne">glaring lack of journalistic training</a> and experience is a heavy indication that, like Farage, he has been given this job based solely on past political rank and reputation. </p>
<p>Besides the obviously dour message this may send to aspiring journalists – all those shorthand exams and hard freelancing hours can’t match up to having experience and chums in Whitehall – Osborne’s appointment may prove to be a double-edged sword for the Standard.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"842713111484383233"}"></div></p>
<p>The justifications for hiring him – because he is such a big personality – may make sense to some, and he may well prove to be a fine editor of one of Britain’s <a href="https://www.abc.org.uk/product/5341">most-read print publications</a>. Indeed, he may well have delivered the best job interview performance of all time, and dissuaded any doubts over his lack of experience in journalism. But it sends out a powerful public message that a newspaper (one that often claims to represent all Londoners) would rather have a high-profile politician than an experienced journalist as its next chief.</p>
<p>This may not be a return to an age of direct political patronage of the British press, but come the next major political event, it will be hard to ignore Osborne’s long shadow over his new newspaper’s political content.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74783/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Shoop-Worrall has received funding from the Royal Historical Society. </span></em></p>The former Chancellor is by no means the first to walk the line between media and political elite.Christopher Shoop-Worrall, PhD Researcher in Journalism History, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.