đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș solidarity-federation-media-corpse.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:59:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Media Corpse Author: Solidarity Federation Date: Winter 1998 Language: en Topics: the media, United Kingdom, Direct Action Magazine Source: Retrieved on January 15, 2009 from https://web.archive.org/web/20050119074631/http://www.directa.force9.co.uk/archive/da9-features.htm Notes: Published in Direct Action #9 â Winter 1998.
Media ownership in Britain today is concentrated into the hands of a few
moguls. The implications of this have given rise to a debate around the
respective merits of complete de-regulation within the industry, or (a
return to) increased state intervention. Those who argue for regulation
to protect public service broadcasting (in the shape of the BBC), and
for stricter limits on cross-media ownership, see the current trends as
a fundamental threat to good old British democracy and free speech. On
the other hand, the media corporations and rampant free marketeers want
a free hand to expand and compete internationally for a better position
in the hyped-up, multi-media future.
Besides the BBC, the state control brigade includes a range of social
democratic organisations, from the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting
Freedom and the media unions, to the left-wing press, with Red Pepper
magazine, for instance, devoting much of its April 1998 issue to the
case for restrictions in ownership. At best, this approach harks back to
the state-run panacea of pre-Thatcherite days; at worst, it naÄvely
isolates the issue of changing the media from changing society in
general. As an anarcho-syndicalist, I would point out that in any
discussion of what type of media we should have, it would be appropriate
to ask at the same time what kind of society should that media be
reflecting. And the answer to that question is neither of the brands of
capitalism offered so far in this debate.
Before discussing issues like democracy, free speech and society, a
closer look at media corporations in Britain will set the scene. It
would certainly be wrong to think of the British media industry as one
unified bloc. Quite apart from the fact that they are all capitalist
concerns in competition with each other, there is another level on which
their interests diverge. On one side is Rupert Murdochâs News
Corporation, on the other, the rest of the industry.
The British Media Industry Group (BMIG) was formed in 1993 by Pearson,
Associated Newspapers, The Telegraph, and the Guardian Media Group, to
lobby for reform of the cross-media ownership rules in the 1990
Broadcasting Act, which was brought in under Thatcher. What these
companies had in common was to be trailing in Murdochâs wake because, as
a foreign-owned company, News Corporation wasnât covered by the Act. By
1993, Murdoch was in control of 37% of UK national dailies and 40% of
BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster.
A few months later, in January 1994, the Department of National Heritage
announced a review of the rules. ITV companies such as Carlton, Granada
and Meridian, were eager to grab more franchises and played on the
Toriesâ fears that the British independent broadcasting sector would be
gobbled up by foreign media groups if British media companies could not
expand. With growth in the satellite and cable sectors, and promised,
but as yet unproved, millions to be made in multi-media and digital
broadcasting, de-regulation of the ownership rules was seen as essential
to allow British companies to compete internationally.
Given the need to confront Murdoch in a period leading up to a general
election, however, progress was predictably non-existent. But action
could no longer be put off when an explosion of outrage greeted news
that BSkyB had a 20% stake in a bid to run the new Channel 5. The cross
media ownership proposals of May 1995, therefore, owed much to the
thinking of the BMIG, and restricted ownership to 10% of the total
British market, and to 20% of any particular sector, be it press, TV or
radio.
Not surprisingly, Murdoch condemned the new rules, accusing his rivals
of pandering to state regulation. Incidentally, in the aftermath of all
this, New Labour werenât slow to cosy up to the one-time arch-ogre. Two
months later, Tony Blair was to be found addressing Murdochâs top
management, outlining his concerns about the âimmense powerâ of the
proposed media regulator. With Blair now safely ensconced at Number 10,
talk of further changes is on the back burner.
The British media is a multi-billion pound industry, as shown by annual
spending of over Ć3 billion on newspaper ads, and over Ć2.5 billion on
TV and radio commercials. To compete for such money means that holding
on to, and improving, market share and audience ratings has become an
end in itself. This, in turn, has led to content becoming more and more
dumbed down, âAmericanisedâ, lowest common denominator trash, cleansed
of the uncomfortable and controversial. At the same time, coverage of
current affairs has become increasingly trivialised, dominated by
celebrities, and indistinguishable from the output of press agencies and
public relations bureaux.
The fate of Granadaâs World In Action seems typical. After losing a
libel case to Marks and Spencer, Granada, intent on expansion, and
turning its back on investigative journalism, has now overhauled World
In Action, which looks set to join First Tuesday and This Week on the
current affairs scrapheap. This decline in investigative journalism, due
to commercial âconstraintsâ, is mirrored in the press where total
staffing is estimated to have fallen by at least 40% between 1977 and
1993, while the total number of newspaper pages has risen by 72%. Costs
get cut; staff get down-sized; but profits just carry on rising.
Nor are the so-called quality broadsheets or the BBC untouched by such
economic pressures. Just as much as The Sun or The Mirror, the likes of
The Guardian have to attract advertising revenue and if moving
âdown-marketâ is the only way to do it, then so be it. Even the BBC,
which doesnât compete for advertising, still has to defend its TV
ratings, otherwise to defend the continuing tax on TV (the TV licence),
would begin to become untenable if audience figures, already on the
wrong side of the 50% mark, drop much further. And indeed, recent
history at the Beeb has not only involved chasing ratings, but also
cutting costs, selling off assets, and expanding export sales.
In fact, while British TV productions earned Ć234 million in foreign
sales in 1996, over Ć500 million worth of programmes were imported at
the same time. In order to attract foreign viewers, then, British TV
productions are becoming more like the American programmes that account
for 81% of Europeâs total TV imports.
On the face of it, there would seem to be a pretty good case for rolling
back the de-regulation process. The argument goes something like this.
There is increasing concentration of the media among fewer and more
powerful owners, caused by unregulated competition for advertising
revenue and sponsorship. This couples with âtabloidisationâ â in other
words, decreasing diversity, less variety of expression, and fewer
demands on audiences and readers, caused by the commercial pressure to
appeal to as wide an audience as possible. The net result is these few
big media owners will be able to exert an undue influence in shaping
public opinion. In support of this view, the left use examples like the
effects of the Tory press on British general elections in the past two
decades and Silvio Berlusconiâs rise to power in Italy through the use
of his media interests. Curiously, The Sunâs role in the Toriesâ
downfall is usually not mentioned.
Your stance depends on your point of view on whether choosing one bunch
of dodgy politicians over another every five years is the sanest way of
running society. As long as some media tycoon, or group of them, doesnât
appear to be affecting the outcome, then thereâs no problem.
Anarcho-syndicalists have always put forward the point of view that
democracy and free speech is about a lot more than choosing our rulers
every few years.
In any case, much of this âundue influenceâ argument is merely a
reaction to the perception that the right wing press kept the Tories in
power for nearly two decades. Will the point be as strongly argued if
the Tories now appear to be kept out of government? Would it have even
been put forward at all, if media support for the main political parties
had appeared more evenly split? I think not.
The main point is that true democracy involves the participation of
everybody in the decisions which affect their lives; and true free
speech involves people having equal access to the means, educational as
well as physical, to enable them to put forward their own point of view.
The society we live in, on the other hand, restricts such opportunities
to a chosen few. The public service sector is just as guilty as any
other part of the media in defending this unequal system, making the
claims that it defends democracy and free speech somewhat laughable.
Being the propaganda arm of the capitalist state it would be surprising
to find otherwise. Biased views, twisted reporting, and slavish
regurgitation of state propaganda are as true of the BBC as of the
tabloids. We donât have to cast our minds back too far for a few
examples â the minersâ strike, northern Ireland, even coverage of the
Labour Party of the 1980âs and early â90âs. There are plenty more.
I do not wish to promote or protect the interests of private
multinational media corporations. Far from it. I do question, however,
the basis on which one section of the capitalist media is deemed worthy
of support against another. An analogy might be appropriate.
Anarcho-syndicalist transport workers opposed privatisation of the
railways, not on the grounds of defending state control, but to raise
the idea of workersâ control within the debate on the best way forward
for rail workers. This went alongside the strategy of encouraging
workers to take action. The fact that only a small amount of action took
place and it did not lead to more widespread action, or to the scrapping
of privatisation plans â never mind workersâ control â makes it no less
valid to put this alternative forward.
Likewise in the current media debate. When workers in the media industry
have taken action in the past there has never been any question of
anarchosyndicalists supporting them. This would still be the case if
media workers were to begin a campaign against any privatisation moves
in the BBC. We would still feel free to point out the many failings of
the state broadcasting system, and to put forward alternative, radical
ideas for bringing about real democracy and free speech.
But to ultimately change the media fundamentally will take much more
than merely fiddling around with media ownership and market quotas.