Putting People First - November 1998

Posted by Tom O’Malley for the CPBF

The Campaign For Press and Broadcasting Freedom's response to Regulating Communications: Approaching Convergence in the Information Age [CM 4022, HMSO, July 1998]

 1.The CPBF The CPBF was founded in 1979 to campaign for a freer more accountable media. It has a wide membership base including Trade Unions, constituency parties, community groups and individuals. It produces regular publications ( notably Free Press) and campaigns vigorously on media ownership, public service broadcasting and press reform. During the 1980s and 1990s it backed and, or, wrote Private Members' Bills on Right of Reply for Frank Allaun, Austin Mitchell, Ann Clywd, Tony Worthington and Clive Soley.

2. In July 1998 the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department For Culture, Media and sport issued a Green Paper, Regulating Communications: Approaching Convergence in the Information Age [CM 4022, HMSO, July 1998] inviting responses by 30 November 1998. This document is our response to some of the issues raised in Regulating Communications. The Campaign considers that the nature of this consultation is inadequate. The issues are complex, affecting the political, cultural and social well being of the population and should be made subject to a longer, more searching and more open process of public inquiry. The government should signal its commitment to putting people at the heart of its policy making process by setting up:

[a] A year long public inquiry into the ownership, accountability and regulation of the press and electronic media, including a review of the 1996 Broadcasting Act. The inquiry should explore ways of encouraging diversity of ownership and of redistributing income from taxation and licence fees to promote diversity.

[b] A separate, year long public inquiry into the future of public service broadcasting

[c] Publishing in full, in print and on the departmental web sites all the submissions made to this green paper.

3. This response is in three main parts. Part one places the Green Paper in a wider policy context. Part two looks at the governments approach to a range of issues as set out in the document, and develops some alternative perspectives.

Part three summarises our recommendations.

PART I - THE CONTEXT.

4.Labour Policy By the 1997 General Election the Labour Party's leadership had signalled its intention of accepting the changes in broadcasting and telecommunications policies introduced during the period of Conservative rule from 1979 onwards. This involved reversing its opposition to effective controls on ownership and to the force imposition of an increasingly market orientated framework on public service broadcasting. Labour's retreat from its traditional focus on promoting the public interest in mass communications policy and instead prioritising the interests of commercial operators within the industry frames the Green Paper.

5.Civil Service In addition, when Labour was elected in May 1997, it inherited a civil service staffed at a senior level by people whose career development had taken place during eighteen years of Tory rule. Nigel Griffiths MP was Minister for consumer affairs a the DTI until 28 July 1998 and he has pointed to the conservatism of the civil servants in that department who had 'too many old methods and working systems' and who put barriers 'in the way of consulting colleagues on policy issues'.

The Green Paper reflects the conservatism of government departments, and seems marked by advice from people who have thoroughly accepted the market orientated approach to mass communications which came to dominate policy making under the Tories up to 1997.

6.1 Language, Consumer and Citizens The Green Paper is written in a style which echoes the language developed in the 1980s to supplant traditional ways of discussing broadcasting. Government 'should not second guess the market' [p.6], and 'will aim to draw a regulatory framework with a light touch' [1.34]. One paragraph is peppered with phrases like 'consumer interest', 'affordable cost', 'effective competition', 'competitiveness of industry', 'encouraging investment', and 'economically efficient management of scare resources' [p.2] This is the language and style of commerce. It is not so hot on other kinds of words such as rights; variety; development; freedom of information; democratic accountability; and equal opportunities. The vocabulary in the Green Paper indicates how far the government has come from its traditions of promoting democratic communications and how far it has uncritically absorbed the policies of it predecessors.

6.2 'The potential benefits to the citizen/consumer, to business and to government are significant' [p.2]. The document opens by coupling citizens with consumers, but for the rest of time prefers to use the word consumer when discussing the public [ i.e..,p.4, !.14, 1.24,1.30].

6.3 In one instance, when discussing the benefits of public service broadcasting it says: 'All citizens also need access to high quality material for education, entertainment and information if they are to realise their potential as individuals.'[2.5]. The Campaign agrees with this view of the needs of citizens, but disagrees with the Green Paper's continual reduction of members of the population to the status of consumer. This strategy rules out other ways of thinking about people, ways which suggest that people have a more active relationship to mass communications such as 'active citizens', 'users of public services', 'representatives of communities', or 'members of the public'. By focusing on the way regulation can promote the interests of 'consumers in mass markets' the document rules out equally detailed consideration of the other roles people can do play in relation to mass communications. By doing this the Green Paper focuses on how to promote the free flow of goods to the consumer, not on how citizens can act to influence the range, quality and accountability of the content and structures of the mass communications system.

6.4. The language also reflects the way initiatives on key areas of broadcasting policy migrated in the 1980s from the Home Office ( and latterly the Department of National Heritage) to the Department of Trade and Industry. This redefinition of communications policy as a branch of industrial policy underpins the document and, as we will indicate, manifests itself in a downgrading of the cultural, democratic and social problems posed by convergence. We consider that communications policy has been too heavily influenced by the corporate lobbying of media multinationals and are very concerned that policy on convergence and regulation will be shaped by those vested interests, interests which will seek to marginalise questions of democracy and culture. We recommend that the government reconsider the framework within which it views mass communications policy and prioritises questions of culture, democracy and social development in its policy formulation.

PART II - ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES

7.1 Technological Determinism The government presents the issues as if technological change is the main force driving policy change: 'Our system of regulation faces new challenges as delivery systems adopt a common technology and assume common capabilities' [p.2]. Linked to this technological determinism is the idea that we are in, or about to be in, something called an 'Information Age' [1.32]. 'The UK is well placed' apparently, to exploit this Age [1.4]. The idea is never given any substantial support in terms of hard facts, except for a few ambiguously phrased references to the supposed turnover and projected size of the information sector. [1.2].The supposed force of technological change coupled with the supposed importance of the 'Information Age' operate are just that, 'supposed'. Yet they operate in the Green Paper as explanations and justifications for further re-regulation in favour of the market and, in the case of the idea of the Information Age, as a reason why we should prioritise the economic as opposed to the social issues raised by convergence.

7.2 The Campaign considers that the technological changes such as digital communications can be used to promote public welfare, high quality communications and democracy. Whilst we recognise the importance of new markets in information goods we do not consider that market mechanisms are the most appropriate form to use to regulate mass communications, be they in print or electronic form. By stressing technological determinism and by asserting the existence of an 'Information Age' the government promotes the view that people and governments respond to rather than initiate changes in mass communications policy. This is deeply misleading.

8.1 Markets. The government wants its regulatory structure 'to allow markets to develop organically' by providing ' a structure which reflects market realities and will seek to provide a structure which reflects market realities and will seek to distort them as little as possible' [1.23]

8.2 The United States of America provides an example of how choice and quality and range of views are distorted if you allow a market driven approach to dominate policy development The Campaign considers that regulatory structures in mass communications should regulate the market in the interests of citizens.

9.1 Pace of Change The government acknowledges that there will not be a quick take up of new digital services: 'Traditional television and radio are likely to retain their strong and distinctive position because of their ubiquity, familiarity, low cost and ease of use' [1.1.3]. This accords with views expressed by the Independent Television Commission which, in August 1998, warned the government that it might be as long as twenty years before the conventional analogue form of transmitting TV signals would be replace by digital signals. Even amongst those involved in the promotion of digital TV, according to one journalist , 'no one knows how quickly the British public will take to multi-channel pay-TV'.

The National Consumer Council's director, Ruth Evans, has been quoted as arguing that, where digital TV is concerned 'Not only are there doubts about cost and accessibility there is also no guarantee that the new services will deliver quality programmes. Digital television will certainly change things, but only time will tell if the changes are what consumers want'. The National Consumer Council has urged the government not to downgrade analogue signals to promote digital or switch off analogue before 99% of the population can be reached by digital transmission of existing terrestrially transmitted stations (BBC1, BBC2, ITV, C4, S4C and C5).

9.2 The pace of change in this one area, digital TV, is uncertain. Similar considerations might be applied to the spread of internet connections and the development of satellite and cable services. This being so, there is a strong case for the government to consult for a longer period than it has chosen to on the regulatory implications of convergence and of switching off analogue signals prematurely, a move which will force the public to invest in expensive new equipment.

10.1 Low level regulation 'Regulation should be the minimum necessary to achieve clearly defined policy objectives. The presumption that broadcasting and communications should be regulated should therefore in general be reversed'[3.2.6].

10.2 The success of UK broadcasters in providing high quality content and of the telecommunications system in providing an almost universal telephone service was based upon 'the presumption that broadcasting and communications should be regulated'. To withdraw from this position will, over time, intensify pressure for broadcasters to commission programmes which, because of the commercial imperatives under which they are made, will be bland, unchallenging and of limited quality. Government has a role, in our view, in intervening to actively promote the welfare of the public, and this includes taking steps to enhance their access to a wide range of high quality programming and services.

In rejecting the 'presumption' of regulation the government also rejects its responsibility to the public. We recommend that the government reject the view that 'Regulation should be the minimum necessary to achieve clearly defined policy objectives. The presumption that broadcasting and communications should be regulated should therefore in general be reversed'[3.2.6].

11.1 Ownership We welcome the government's recognition of the importance of maintaining controls on media ownership.[2.17]. Nonetheless we reject the view that the provisions in the 1996 Broadcasting Act are adequate and should remain intact.[4.36]

11.2. The failure of the Green paper to consider the economic and cultural dimension of media concentration is staggering. In addition we believe that the Green Paper has missed a real opportunity to outline government thinking on the implications of convergence for cross media ownership and of the impact of cross media ownership on diversity, accountability and choice in communications.

The absence of a detailed discussion of media cross ownership is therefore a major omission in the Green Paper. It complacently asserts that 'Some concentration...has been regarded as inevitable, and possibly desirable', but does not say who considers concentration desirable, and why, nor does it reflect upon the effects of concentration on the flow of information in society.[2.17] Similarly it asserts that 'Concentration of market power or even dominance in providing the intermediate technology is not necessarily against the public interest, but abusing such dominance would be' [2.7].

11.3. The Campaign considers that the government needs to justify its position on ownership. It should publish research which investigates the arguments for and against this position. It has not done so to date.

11.4. The Campaign considers that the whole question of media ownership raises fundamental questions about who controls the range, type and presentation of information to the public. This topic needs the detailed public scrutiny that can be provided by a public inquiry.

12.1 Public Service Broadcasting Whilst the document does discuss public service broadcasting, the omission of a more sustained consideration of the implications of convergence and regulatory change for the BBC, ITV and the Independent Television Commission is remarkable. This omission means that a good deal of the discussion on PSB in the document lacks depth.

On the question of the maintenance of public service broadcasting the Green paper recognises the importance of public service broadcasting whilst, simultaneously downgrading its future role with the development of communications: 'The limited availability of spectrum for terrestrial broadcasting and the need to secure quality and variety of service on the generally available channels means the licences carry more detailed programming obligations. As new services develop, it is necessary to consider what, if any, programming requirements should apply to them, and whether the constraints which the existing provisions place on the competitive position of terrestrial broadcasters remain necessary to achieve the public interest objectives'[3.19].

12.2 The Green Paper does not consider that positive programming requirements to 'secure quality and variety of service' should be extended to other services. On the contrary, instead of seeing these as positive measures it sees them as potential 'constraints'. Elsewhere the Green Paper mimics Conservative thinking on these issues by seeing the 'market' in broadcasting as the key mechanism which should not be distorted by positive programming requirements; 'In so far as positive programming requirements remain necessary, they should be set at a level delivered in a way which minimises market distortion and allows providers, as far as possible, to compete on equal terms.'[4.40] 12.3 An underlying assumption here is that positive programming requirements can distort the market by forcing commercial broadcasters with some public service obligations like Channel 3(ITV) to spend money on programming thus making them uncompetitive with providers of satellite and cable services. In this way public service broadcasting becomes seen as a negative factor, constraining competitiveness.

12.4 Another assumption is that as channels proliferate public service requirements are likely to diminish, even though they remain an 'element' in the diversity [2.19].

12.5 The overall effect is to conceive of public service broadcasting as being on the margins of the future system of broadcasting with technological change and the need to promote competitiveness as the main forces behind this development. Government is conceived as responding to these changes, rather than promoting them.

12.6 The recent history of public service broadcasting in the UK shows, however, that governments can act to influence the role of the market in broadcasting, and have done so to promote sectional commercial interests over the public interest. During the 1980s and 1990s the Conservative governments failed to adequately support public service broadcasters in their efforts to build public service satellite system and gave direct encouragement to commercial satellite services run by multinationals.

The 1990 Broadcasting Act placed positive programming obligations on public service broadcasters, but hardly any on satellite services. This gave Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB service an economic advantage and it was able to divert huge amounts of resources into buying up key sporting events, such as Premier League football, instead of into a wide range of programming. This not only deprived public service broadcasters of key audience pullers, but also escalated the costs of providing sports and films for public service broadcasters. In the case of the BBC the competition provided by the new, under regulated, satellite and digital services has put pressure on its budget with a consequent threat to jobs.Competition from under regulated satellite and cable services has led the ITV system to move to downgrade its commitment to news by cancelling its long running and influential News at Ten programme.

12.7. The Campaign considers that the failure to impose proper positive programming requirements on major new entrants into the electronic media, is unfair. By giving commercial operators less obligations it lowers their costs, allows them to outbid public service broadcasters for key programming resources, and puts pressure on them to lower the quality of their programming. We recommend that the government review the 1996 Broadcasting Act with a view to extending public service broadcasting positive programming requirements to all major operators. To do otherwise would be to sanction the slow erosion of the economic foundations upon which public service broadcasting rests.

13.1 Accountability: “There should also be provision for consumers to be involved in the regulatory process, and clear points of complaint should consumers seek redress' [3.22] The government does not specify how 'consumers' may be involved in this process, but it does, later, assert that regulators have to operate transparently and be 'accountable for their actions' [3.28].

13.2 The question of who appoints regulators, how they operate and how citizens -not just consumers - can have a positive role in this process is barely discussed in the Green Paper. The government seems bent on retaining control over the regulatory process in the interests of centralisation. The failure of the government to honour its manifesto commitment to wide ranging Freedom of Information legislation is a further illustration of this problem.

13.3 The Campaign recommends that the government should establish the principle of appointing regulatory bodies by democratic means, either through nomination from appropriate bodies, including trade unions, or by using elections. All senior appointments, such as the Director General of OFTEL, or of the BBC, or the Chair of the ITC Board of Governors, should be made by the regulatory bodies and, where appropriate, scrutinised by the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.

13.4 The Campaign considers that all major media should be subject to independent, democratically constituted methods of regulation, established by statute, to promote freedom, independence, high quality and the rights of workers and users of those media. We reject the government's preference for self regulation.

13.5 . The Campaign recommends that there should be democratic reform of existing regulatory bodies and the establishment of strong public service obligations across all major media. Subject to these changes, we recommend that a democratically constituted body be established to co-ordinate regulation across the different agencies and that all matters relating to the media and communications industry be made the prime responsibility of the Department For Culture, Media and Sport.

14.1 Access The Green Paper asserts that 'all people should have access to basic telecommunications services' [2.24] and 'Access to advanced digital services at affordable cost implies widespread availability of competing services and of networks to deliver them.' [4.49].

14.2 We agree with these principles, but we recommend that the government consider much more carefully the economic devices it will need to ensure that all people can access and afford key services. Public ownership of main networks would enable the government to cross subsidise connections and services for those people least able to use them. This option needs much more detailed consideration than is given to it in the Green Paper.

14.3 Access to the resources needed by communities, pressure and special interest groups to make and distribute programmes, websites and publications is not dealt with in the Green Paper. This is a major omission. Press subsidies have existed in other countries and have acted to help maintain diversity.

The government does not seem to think that citizens should be encouraged to make use of existing and newer technologies to enhance the quality of their lives. We recommend that resources from a tax on subscription, sponsorship, pay-per view, commercial on-line fees and advertising revenue be levied and used to promote national and local forms of new and community based media initiatives.

15.1 A major omission: the Multilateral Agreement on Investment [MAI]. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment is not raised in the Green Paper. Negotiations on this agreement have been going on in relative secrecy for some time. The object is, ostensibly, to standardise global investment practices, but is, in practice about liberalising global trade and granting multi-national companies rights over nation states to prevent the latter interfering with the former's profit making activities.

As Noam Chomsky has argued, under proposals made in the MAI negotiations, corporations: 'would have the right, for example, to sue governments- local and national. The suits don't go to courts, they go to private panels with no appeal, no rules of evidence...There is no reciprocity: states don't have the right to sue corporations.' To date, these negotiations have not been completed and in some quarters, notably Canada, France and amongst the European Commission and European Parliament have encountered critical opposition. As Carole Tongue MEP has written the MAI has implications for the media and communications industries: 'The “national treatment" and “most favoured nation" principle of the MAI state that foreign investors must be treated the same as national investors, and that government cannot impose different investment conditions on investors depending on the country of origin.

Applied to the audio-visual sector, this would be devastating. France, for example, would no longer be able to implement its very successful policies to promote French film, unless it opened its funds up to anyone who asked. Similarly, in the UK, major Hollywood studios would become eligible for the National Lottery Film fund. And at the European level, systems of aid for the audio-visual industry , like MEDIA II, would be disallowed unless they, too, were opened up to all comers. This would, of course, negate the very aims of the programme to support European media, helping it to compete with the US and therefore enhance cultural diversity. 'What are the implications of the MAI for the continuance of public service broadcasting ? Would liberalisation of investment rules make it impossible for a future government to [a] allocate the licence fee to the BBC [b] impose public service requirements on satellite operators [c] restrict media cross ownership? We recommend that the government make public its role in the MAI negotiations and spell out their consequences for media regulation thereby allowing a full public debate on the issues before any agreement is entered into.

16.1 The regulation of advertising The document displays a complacent and insufficiently critical approach to the question of advertising and its implications. In Annex A it asserts: ‘Advertising revenues are likely to be enhanced by the potential for content to be delivered across different platforms, each providing different levels of mass or targeted coverage. this implies that more consumers can be reached, so advertising can command greater revenues for little extra cost. Advertising revenue is therefore likely to be a major driver for cross-media integration. Scottish Television adopted a strategy of acquiring regional titles, giving them a full rage of advertising vehicles, from the local newspaper an specialist magazine, to prime-time advertising on the ITV network. this can be adapted to suit a wide range of client needs.’[A.32]

16.2 This displays a lack of consideration of the influence of this kind of cross media integration on content; on the diversity and variety of content across outlets bought for promoting advertising to different segments. This exemplifies why there needs to be a much fuller discussion of the implications of cross media ownership than the document contains.

16.3 Overall the Green Paper lacks a sustained consideration of the role of advertising and of the need to strengthen the regulation of advertising across different sectors. Cross media promotion raises questions about the extent to which the content of programmes can remain insulated from commercial considerations and the effect of such a development on the information and entertainment available to citizens. Whilst current regulations in broadcasting provide a framework for regulating the impartiality and quality of content, there is a real need to review the way in which commercial content in the media is regulated to minimise its influence on scheduling and the content of programming.

The Campaign considers that there should be a fuller public debate about the regulation of advertising within mass communications with a view to strengthening the system of regulation.

PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS

We have chosen to list our recommendations as they appear in the response, rather than in direct reply to the questions in the Green Paper. Our stress on diversity, plurality, accountability, and the extension and maintenance of public service principles across all media is at the heart of our response, challenges the core assumptions of the Green Paper, and need, in our view to be addressees seriously by the government.

Consultation.

1.The government should signal its commitment to putting people at the heart of its policy making process by setting up:

[a] A year long public inquiry into the ownership, accountability and regulation of the press and electronic media, including a review of the 1996 Broadcasting Act. The inquiry should explore ways of encouraging diversity of ownership and of redistributing income from taxation and licence fees to promote diversity.

[b] A separate, year long public inquiry into the future of public service broadcasting

[c] Publishing in full, in print and on the departmental web sites all the submissions made to this green paper.

Framework and Priorities

2. We recommend that the government reconsider the framework within which it views mass communications policy and prioritises questions of culture, democracy and social development in its policy formulation.

Markets.

3.The Campaign considers that regulatory structures in mass communications should regulate the market in the interests of citizens.

Pace of Change

4.The pace of change in this one area, digital TV, is uncertain. Similar considerations might be applied to the spread of internet connections and the development of satellite and cable services. This being so, there is a strong case for the government to consult for a longer period than it has chosen to on the regulatory implications of convergence and of switching off analogue signals prematurely, a move which will force the public to invest in expensive new equipment.

Low level regulation

5.We recommend that the government reject the view that 'Regulation should be the minimum necessary to achieve clearly defined policy objectives. The presumption that broadcasting and communications should be regulated should therefore in general be reversed'[3.2.6].

Ownership

6.The Campaign considers that the government needs to justify its position on ownership. It should publish research which investigates the arguments for and against this position.

Public Service Broadcasting

7.We recommend that the government review the 1996 Broadcasting Act with a view to extending public service broadcasting positive programming requirements to all major operators.

Accountability

8.The Campaign recommends that the government should establish the principle of appointing regulatory bodies by democratic means, either through nomination from appropriate bodies, including trade unions, or by using elections. All senior appointments, such as the Director General of OFTEL, or of the BBC, or the Chair of the ITC Board of Governors, should be made by the regulatory bodies and, where appropriate, scrutinised by the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.

9. The Campaign considers that all major media should be subject to independent, democratically constituted methods of regulation, established by statute, to promote freedom, independence, high quality and the rights of workers and users of those media.

10. The Campaign recommends that there should be democratic reform of existing regulatory bodies and the establishment of strong public service obligations across all major media. Subject to these changes, we recommend that a democratically constituted body be established to co-ordinate regulation across the different agencies and that all matters relating to the media and communications industry be made the prime responsibility of the Department For Culture, Media and Sport.

Access

11. We recommend that the government consider much more carefully the economic devices it will need to ensure that all people can access and afford key services. Public ownership of main networks would enable the government to cross subsidise connections and services for those people least able to use them. This option needs much more detailed consideration than is given to it in the Green Paper.

12. We recommend that resources from a tax on subscription, sponsorship, pay-per view, commercial on-line fees and advertising revenue be levied and used to promote national and local forms of new and community based media initiatives.

Multilateral Agreement on Investment [MAI].

13. We recommend that the government make public its role in the MAI negotiations and spell out their consequences for media regulation thereby allowing a full public debate on the issues before any agreement is entered into.

The Regulation of Advertising.

14. The Campaign considers that there should be a fuller public debate about the regulation of advertising within mass communications with a view to strengthening the system of regulation.