Showing posts with label Jeremy Hunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremy Hunt. Show all posts

Friday, 18 May 2012

2012/13 Government Media policy bill?

JUNE 2014 - IN BRIEF: Analysis of what the Tory-led government might change in media policy/regulation through a new Communications Bill. This bill seems to have quietly disappeared! Its not among the final 13 announced in June 2014, before the May 2015 general election.

Analysis of the decision to delay the Communications green paper at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/communications-green-paper-delayed. With Culture Secretary Hunt preoccupied with preparing for an appearance at Leveson, and facing calls for his resignation (163 emails released by Leveson appear to show he kept News Corp briefed on gov policy even as he was supposed to be assessing the company's bid to take over the rest of BSkyB in his capacity as gov minister), the new bill on media laws has been delayed, and won't now appear until autumn 2012. Even then, it will probably be delayed further as Leveson reports in October 2012, so his recommendations will probably be worked into a revised bill which may not be released until 2013.
Indeed, (this is my analysis, not whats said in the article) given the accusations of collusion, possibly criminal, between Hunt + PM Cameron with Murdoch/News Corp, any media/communications bill from this Tory-led gov are likely to face long drawn out debates, and may struggle to get passed before the 2015 election.
What direction might a new bill take? In a word, deregulation (again, this is my analysis, not whats said in the article): slashing regulation of the terrestrial 'public service broadcasters' (allowing ITV, C4, C5 to broadcast less news/regional/children's programming, lengthen the amount of ads per hour, and allow further concentration of ownership, such as a merger between C4 + C5), and probably some form of attack on the BBC (which Tory London Lord Mayor Boris Johnson claimed this week [May 2012] was "left-wing" and must in future be headed by a Tory [he seems to ignore the fact that the BBC Chairman Lord Patten is a Tory!!!]). As far back as 1985, the Conservatives have sought to kill the idea of an independent, publicly-owned broadcaster: when Thatcher appointed Lord Peacock to report on the future of the BBC + UK TV generally, she expected him to recommend privatisation - but his 1986 Peacock Report explicitly stated that a free market in TV would simply lead to dumbed-down TV and argued that a license fee-funded independent BBC, NOT funded by advertising, should remain as a guarantee of quality UK TV). See this post for more on the Tory/right-wing hatred of the BBC.
[Whats this 'Communications green paper' I hear you ask: 'The green paper marks the start of a legislative process that will culminate in a communications bill scheduled for the 2014/15 session of parliament.' Don't forget you have access to links about the main communications acts from the past 30 years at this post, links such as these:
Future Tory Communications Act?
Jeremy Hunt to 'radically rethink' media regulation [Gdn Jan2011];
Leveson inquiry: questions for Mr Hunt [Gdn editorial Apr2012];
No Minister: Any chance for the Communications Act? [Gdn Dec2011];
Organ Grinder/Steve Hewlett (TV reg equiv to Roy Greenslade as leading UK expert) micro-site for Jeremy Hunt articles;
How Hunt got his fingers burnt (Broadcast Apr2012 - Broadcast is TV industry's leading mag);]

Communications green paper delayed while Jeremy Hunt deals with Leveson

Policy thinking on internet piracy, public service broadcasting and spectrum unlikely to be published until the autumn
Jeremy Hunt
Policy thoughts go on the back burner … Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt had hoped to publish the communications green paper in the spring. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA
The planned publication of a communications green paper has been put on hold until after Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, has given evidence to the Leveson inquiry and dealt with accusations that he favoured News Corporation in its negotiations to buy all of BSkyB.
Those close to Hunt's Department for Culture, Media and Sport say the communications green paper, which will set out the government's initial policy thinking in areas as diverse as internet piracy, public service broadcasting and spectrum allocation, has largely been written but is now unlikely to be published until autumn at the earliest.
Hunt and his deputy, Ed Vaizey, had hoped to publish the document in the spring but Hunt's attention has been concentrated on the need to give a full account to Lord Justice Leveson of his relationship with Rupert Murdoch's company and see off Labour calls for him to resign.
One source said Hunt and the DCMS were distracted by the Murdoch controversy and it would be impossible for the document to be published until September at the earliest, assuming the culture secretary gives a successful performance before the judge.
There are also suggestions that the green paper could be shelved completely, with ministers instead moving to publish a white paper that by then would incorporate any relevant recommendations arising from the Leveson inquiry about the future of press regulation.
Leveson is due to report in October, and if his document appears before the green paper, it may have to be redrafted to include the government's initial response to his findings.
If Hunt were to be replaced, a new culture secretary would want to review the document before agreeing to release it. The culture secretary has been under fire after 163 pages of emails written by News Corp lobbyist Frédéric Michel were released by the company to the Leveson inquiry.
Those emails, written over several months, appeared to show that Hunt's office was passing information about the minister's BSkyB bid approval process to the company during 2010 and 2011. Michel repeatedly described information he had obtained to his boss, James Murdoch, as emerging from Hunt himself.
The culture secretary denied there was an inappropriate relationship between himself and News Corp. But his special adviser Adam Smith did resign when it emerged that the bulk of Michel's contact was with Smith rather than Hunt directly.
Hunt said that the "volume and tone" of the Smith/Michel communication could not be justified, but insisted that he oversaw the Sky bid correctly in a "quasi-judicial" manner.
Ministers are still officially insisting that the green paper will emerge in the spring. But the joke understood to be circulating in at the DCMS is that spring in Whitehall can run from anywhere from February to November.
The green paper marks the start of a legislative process that will culminate in a communications bill scheduled for the 2014/15 session of parliament.
Meanwhile Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, told a meeting of the campaign group Hacked Off that there should be the "equivalent of the knife amnesty" for newspapers and politicians before regulatory reforms are introduced for the press. She said both sides needed to stop attacking each other and start with a clean slate once the Leveson inquiry made its recommendations.
"At the end of the day what I hope is that we have is no victors and no vanquished here," she said.


Tuesday, 15 May 2012

Major gov Acts on TV 1980-today

  1. Finish up on yesterday's work: get together and pull together the distinctive arguments from yesterday's work
  2. As part of this, check the list of pointers from the blog post: if there are any of these you haven't researched, keep reading until you can cover all of these points
  3. Make sure everyone in the group has the same points written down so when I ask anyone from the group, any one can deliver some or all of your findings/arguments
  4. Once that is comprehensively completed, you can move on to today's task, splitting the work up again if you wish, or working by yourself as you prefer. Using the http://mediareg.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ofcomitc-key-docs.html post, and any other resources, make notes on:
    • how the history of TV regulation shows a narrative of initially tight regulation which began loosening once the 1979 Tory government took power
    • the key differences between the 4 commercial TV regulators
    • the major acts of legislation + reports that reshaped TV regulation since 1979:
      • 1980 Broadcasting Act
      • 1985 Peacock Committee/1986 Peacock Report
      • 1990 Broadcasting Act
      • 1996 Broadcasting Act
      • 2003 Communications Act
    • info/speculation on the next major act...
You will find that 'free market' style deregulation start to take hold from 1980, leading to the 'light touch' ITC and then the explicitly deregulatory OfCom; Peacock is an unexpected exception to this, despite his free market credentials, his actual report shocking Thatcher who appointed him assuming he'd recommend privatisation of the BBC...

You can use the links below to help with this, as well as the Word docs provided, and the Curran and Seaton book, plus this OfCom link:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/uk_television_sector/overview/key_dates.asp.html
ITV Wiki also useful.
ScreenOnline (the BFI) provide a digestible guide to most of the major broadcasting legislation, plus an informative timeline with key events, not just acts, plus a good ITV history.

1980 Broadcasting Act:
Wiki;
Article excerpt (you may need to google title:Chasing the Receding Bus: The Broadcasting Act 1980 by Mike Elliott,The Modern Law Review,Vol. 44, No. 6 (Nov., 1981), pp. 683-692);


1986 Peacock Report:
Book preview: Peacock Committe and UK Broadcasting Policy (2009);
Hansard;
Wiki;

1990 Broadcasting Act:
ITC note;
ScreenOnline;
Official gov guide;
Wiki;
Guardian guide;
Blog post (Medi@chs);

1996 Broadcasting Act:
ScreenOnline;
Blog post (Medi@chs);
Official gov outline;
ITC note;

2003 Communications Act:
Wiki;
Screenonline (brief!);
Official gov guide (the full bill);
Hunt to review 2003 Act;
Guardian micro-site;

Future Tory Communications Act?
Jeremy Hunt to 'radically rethink' media regulation [Gdn Jan2011];
Leveson inquiry: questions for Mr Hunt [Gdn editorial Apr2012];
No Minister: Any chance for the Communications Act? [Gdn Dec2011];
Organ Grinder/Steve Hewlett (TV reg equiv to Roy Greenslade as leading UK expert) micro-site for Jeremy Hunt articles;
How Hunt got his fingers burnt (Broadcast Apr2012 - Broadcast is TV industry's leading mag);

Friday, 9 March 2012

OfCom gets tough on Murdoch!!!

I'm not often taken by surprise by media matters, but this one does come as a shock...
24 hours after the PCC announced its intention to dissolve itself, form an interim body (what a nonsense!), and form a new press self-regulator in time to try and pre-empt Leveson's report and recommendations, OfCom drops its own bombshell. According to R5 news this morning, it is set to formally investigate whether Murdoch meets the 'fit and proper person' test to head a broadcast media organisation.
While I think this is a laudable move (that perhaps should have happened some time ago), the surprise is that it comes now. The Tories openly spoke about scrapping OfCom and 'repatriating' (taking back) the powers of the independent regulator into the DCMS (government) during the election campaign, leading to OfCom - disgracefully I felt - abandoning the pro-active stance it had been developing and shrinking itself in advance of such Tory action.
So, two years into the Tory-led coalition government (the Culture [DCMS] Secretary is a Tory, Jeremy Hunt), this is effectively a fight-back by our 'independent' regulator (the extent to which they'd bowed to government pressure, and changes made by Hunt in office, have made the extent of the independence rather more questionable than before - though part of the Tories' hostility was that they felt OfCom chairman Ed Richards was a Labour place-man).
Lets be clear though: the Murdoch issue is not confined to one party. Tony Blair went to extraordinary lengths to win Murdoch/News International's support for Labour; in 1996 he flew to Australia to address a News Corp shareholders conference and hold private talks with Murdoch, who shortly after had his UK papers announce their support for Labour (who then trounced the Tory government in the 1997 election). Labour desperation to retain that support seemed to influence their media policy, as it had the Tory Thatcher government before them, with new media laws seemingly designed specifically to advantage Murdoch's media empire. Even after Murdoch reverted to Tory-supporting in Sept 2009, Gordon Brown's Labour tried desperately to win back that support, leading them to back off ensuring a proper investigation was held into phone hacking (Brown himself was not only hacked but allegedly blackmailed by The S*n).
Video: Sun abandons Labour for Conservatives [PressTV news report]

That doesn't mean there isn't a left/right issue though: 'New Labour' was widely seen as a basically right-wing party, and Blair the real heir to Thatcher - the party Murdoch's papers supported was no longer a left-wing party, having concluded that with such a hostile right-wing press in the UK, there was no hope of left-wing policies getting them elected.

Some further reading:
'Snouts in the trough: 'Independent' media regulator costs taxpayer millions and holds Middle England in contempt' - classic right-wing pov from Daily Mail in 2011
Talk to anyone in the insular, self-regarding, oh-so-liberal London media world about Ofcom chief executive Ed Richards and they will say he’s brainy, self-assured and carries a vast amount of information around in his head.
 ...
But more than anything, Ed Richards is a leading member of the New Labour political establishment, an interconnected, back-scratching mafia that, while bankrupting Britain, made its own members seriously rich.
For Richards has done extremely well for himself — the total amount of his salary and pension benefits since he took the helm of Ofcom in 2006 is heading towards the £2 million mark. [...]
www.politics.co.uk/reference/ofcom - Brief but solid outline
'Jeremy Hunt's links with Rupert Murdoch empire under scrutiny' - D.Telegraph report, Dec 23rd 2010
'MPs attack Sky News spin-off to clear way for BSkyB bid: Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, came under fire from MPs for his decision to clear the way for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to takeover BSkyB.' - D.Tele report 3rd March 2011 (with a video report on the page):
In a statement in the House of Commons Mr Hunt said he was minded to wave through the proposed deal after News Corp undertook to spin off Sky News into a new independent company.
Labour's Dennis Skinner called the decision a "disastrous day for democracy", while Green Party leader Caroline Lucas said Mr Murdoch had an "unhealthy influence" over Britain's media landscape. [...]
There were signs of the fightback from OfCom in January 2012: 'Ofcom chief: new regulatory regime could cover all media: Arguing for common standards across TV, web video and digital publishing is not call for 'super regulator', says Ed Richards' - Media Guardian report (and the proposal surely would merit the descriptor super regulator'?!)
Wiki
Indie reports on the story I heard on R5: 'Ofcom looks at stripping Murdoch of BSkyB: Mogul under scrutiny in 'fit and proper' test' (9th March 2012) Details 'Project Apple', under which OfCom is investigating whether Murdoch has failed the 'fit and proper persons' criteria required under the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts for anyone holding a broadcast license. 
'Dancing around the inevitable: The Oxford Media Convention by David Elstein, 27 January 2012 Regulatory reform of Britain's media is coming: the question is how, and when. This year's annual Oxford event brought the big players together to wrangle over the future of the press.'
Interesting + useful site, not just the article; from the SpinWatch blog: 'Ofcom and BSkyB bid: We should have looked at News Corporation’s political influence' [1st Feb 2012]
Ed Richards, Ofcom’s chief executive, told Lord Justice Leveson that if given another chance to look again at News Corporation’s aborted bid for total control of BSkyB it would have placed more emphasis on the “risk to the democratic process.”
...
on reflection, Ofcom now felt the proposed BSkyB takeover did raise the need for a wider review of plurality because the conventional analysis of the concentration of media ownership was based on the proportion of readers and viewers and that was deficient because it did not measure the influence on the political process which a company might exercise.
Lord Justice Leveson said Ofcom’s admission that its regulatory regime “did not do the job properly” with regard to the democratic process was highly significant to the work of his inquiry. The judge is taking evidence from politicians and media proprietors in May and he said he would like to know before the end of June the scope of any recommendations which Ofcom intended to make to the government; he and his team of assessors intended discussing possible options by early July.
Earlier in his evidence Richards explained that companies could acquire “a very substantial share of the media market” not solely by mergers or similar transactions but also by the sudden closure of other media outlets.
“You could find because of organic growth that a media company could have too much political power...the current legislation has no means of assessing that...that is a very serious deficiency in a highly dynamic market.”
After Lord Justice Leveson said Ofcom’s investigation into the scope of its own regulatory role “plays absolutely full square” into the work of  his own inquiry, Colette Bowe, Ofcom’s chairman, said the regulator would do its utmost to ensure that the judge was supplied with details of any proposals Ofcom intended to make to the government.
She agreed with Ed Richards about the deficiencies in Ofcom’s power to look into the impact of significant power in the media market; Ofcom already had such powers in relation to the telecoms sector but did not have the same powers with regard to media plurality and the impact on the democratic process.
During their oral evidence neither the judge nor the inquiry’s counsel Corine Parry Hoskins asked either Richards or Bowe about the pre-election pledge given by David Cameron in June 2009 that a future Conservative government would remove Ofcom’s policy-making functions and return them to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
Cameron said that in future Ofcom’s remit would be “restricted to narrow technical and enforcement roles” because the regulator had become an “unaccountable bureaucracy” which was taking decisions which should be the responsibility of ministers “accountable to Parliament.”
The Sun hailed Cameron’s announcement as the first sign that a new Conservative-led government would curb the activities of the “Ofcom busybodies.”
But Cameron’s promises to curtail Ofcom seem to have been dropped in their entirety, along with News Corporation’s bid to take total control of BSkyB – all part of the fallout from the revelations about the hacking of the mobile phone of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler which resulted in the closure of the News of the World in July 2010.