BBC Savage book shows gov used licence fee threat over NI Troubles

The link is to a lengthy article - a great overview of what is a very useful case study to get into how media regulation works, both through formal regulators and media laws and informal power: private meetings, threats, controlling appointments and budgets.

It's a point I've made repeatedly in this blog: the notion of the BBC's independence is undermined by the government setting the license fee. Robert Savage's new book, and Greenslade's piece on this, highlights the very direct, explicit use of this threat by multiple governments to try and muzzle the Beeb's coverage of 'The Troubles'*.

(*That's a propaganda label which has achieved hegemonic status, successfully branding the violent conflict with aspects of a civil war as a mild outbreak of civil unrest.)

The wider parallel with the apparent assault on the BBC by the current incumbents is clear enough.

Greenslade's article is a great summary by the way of a complex but key case study in how media regulation works - including the informal, non-codified/statutory system of political pressure and influence.

Intriguing enough for me to order the book straight away! 

[3am but did just that ... only to see its £70, one of these cynically priced books designed to milk library budgets. What a shame, sounds like a great read.]

How the BBC's journalists fought to cover the Northern Ireland conflict.

Put me in mind of that great Day Today (Chris Morris) satire of the Broadcasting Ban an enraged Thatcher brought in when both ITV and the BBC defied her over coverage of the so-called Troubles:

LEVESON IPSO PR war as Hacked Off fail to Impress industry

A good summary by Greenslade of the binary opposite views of Hacked Off and (most of) the press on the Leveson Report: a righteous attack on and firm legal proposals to improve the press vs an anti-democratic attack on a free press.

Hacked Off support Impress, a rival to IPSO that is seeking to win a royal charter - which would effectively put the entire press under a new legal regime, even though Impress has only signed up a farcically small number of hyper-local titles.

Without any possibility of a truce, let alone a settlement, the two sides spend a lot of time hurling verbal missiles at each other. 

The latest volley is the release of an “independent report” called Leveson’s Illiberal Legacy, produced by a press freedom group known as 89Up, published by the Free Speech Network and sponsored by three publishers: DMG Media, News UK and the Telegraph Media group. 

According to an article in the Daily Mail, the report makes “a devastating attack” on the Leveson inquiry, which “became a tool for a determined group of lobbyists [Hacked Off] to use regulation to erode press freedom.”  

The report states that laws rushed through in the wake of Leveson “pose the most substantial threat to British press freedom in the modern era”. It also poses an “imminent danger” to local newspapers. 

It calls on the government to annul the royal charter and to repeal sections of the crime and courts act.

Publishers and opponents treat the Leveson report like holy scripture.

BBC In-depth 2015 analysis of its likely future

I've blogged in some depth and detail on the Beeb myself: this article is a good starting point if you're new to the debates around PSB, Reithian values, and the market imperative in broadcast media.

You can't disconnect politics from media regulation. Being from The Grauniad, the writing is slanted towards maintaining a viable BBC, where a right-wing paper might advocate banning services which 'the market' or 'commercial sector' already provide - or just straight up privatisation.

The battle for the BBC.

June 2015 Backdrop and current issues

[doing this on a tiny keyboard; apologies for typos...]
Bearing in mind that contemporary examples should be emphasised over the historic, whether as part of an Intro paragraph, or a second/penultimate paragraph, it will often be worth setting out general context. So here's some things to consider; these also tie into any (informed) speculation on the future for media regulation

WATERSHED: a staple of many Mail moral panics, this week saw OfCom receive 200 complaints about the too revealing costumes of the female presenters, allegedly unsuitable for children (they of course featured MANY pictures of this!!!)
BBC: set for downsizing by Tory gov? Really 'independent'?
PSB, C4: At least further dereg?
PRIVACY v GOVERNMENT POWER: Snooping laws to enable near-total 'snooping'? Contrast with US?
NEW BROADCASTING BAN? Theresa May to bring through a ban on showing Islamic 'extremists'?
BBFC: Another row over banning a film breaking out... Relevant in context of digitisation?
BBFC EXPANSION: Web content, mobile content and music video
IPSO: Contradictory rulings over discrimination, but showing teeth (v S*n)? Still several papers not signed up ... but Tories against stronger reg
LEBVEDEV/INDIE: The issue of private ownership and influence on editorial highlighted by the unexpected Indie backing of the Coalition - simply used to campaign against Labour tax policies?
DENIS O'BRIEN, SUPER-INJUNCTIONS: Thought to be in the past but there are applications in court now. In Ireland, the largest media owner has managed to overturn what appeared to be existing law, and actually gagged the media from reporting on statements made in the Irish parliament (about his tax policies)!

THEMES
there are themes common to many of these:

• protection of children remains the key argument for much of our media regulatory landscape
• government-defined 'extremism' will once again become another key factor?
• deregulation continues as the default stance on ownership, with higher market shares likely to be pushed through, and publicly owned BBC and C4 maybe moving towards eventual privatisations
• the impact of private ownership is clear, but is unlikely to attract new regulation
• however, alongside such economic liberalism (free market) there is also considerable social conservatism (authoritarianism?) with age ratings on videos (and more), the 'anti-extremism' measures, and the extension of government 'snooping' powers
• the role of wider laws and the courts continues to be just as important as formal media regulators
• political will is key: there was little (recently or historically) to follow through on press regulation reports, but there clearly is to undermine PSB ...
• ... which faces (as does the watershed, anti-extyremism measures, anti-privacy laws and classification/ratings) fundamental challenges from digitisation

1: TORY ELECTION VICTORY AND BBC
All parties complained about the BBC's election coverage: the DUP complained Northern Ireland was excluded from the TV debate; the Greens were unhappy at the limited coverage they got, as were the SNP; and there were accusations of bias from Labour, UKIP (even the BBC audience was biased!!) Lib Dems and Tories. The Tories, however, have long been hostile towards the BBC, with Thatcher attempting to pave the way to its privatisation by appointing Lord Peacock to report on its future ... only to be shocked when the 1985 Peacock report argued that regulation of TV (and 'PSB') was not suitable for free market consitions. He noted approvingly the (supposed: see Curran and Seaton's critique) way that deregulation had brought about a free press, with the 1851 repeal of stamp duty, but argued that for TV there would be a race to the bottom and tabloidisation would occur. He wrote this before L!ve TV offered up the News Bunny and Topless Darts on Ice, rather proving his point!

So, the organisation that Lord Tebbit famously dubbed the British Bolshevik Corporation